US General: We Can Successfully Attack Iran

[gilliam]

I don’t think anyone is attacking soon. What is happening is the diplo-speak is getting harsher.

“The change of emphasis … is a very important development, because it makes clear a fact that was already known to us from closed-door (discussions),” Barak told Israel Radio. “It makes clear to Iran that it faces a real dilemma.”

Panetta said on Monday the secretive Iranian nuclear program – which the Islamic Republic says is purely peaceful – could potentially yield a bomb within a year, a move that would be a “red line for us and … obviously, for the Israelis.”

“If we have to do it, we will deal with it,” Panetta said on CBS television. Asked whether he meant military steps, he replied: “There are no options off the table.” [nL1E7NKCVS]

The hazy diplomatic code leaving open the possibility of preemptive air strikes, and often echoed by Israel, was honed on Tuesday by Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We are examining a range of options,” he told CNN. “I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary.”

chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-iran-nuclear-israel-usatre7bl0li-20111222,0,6215356.story

Bottom line though is that time is running out and all sides know it.

 

[Ghosty]

Please keep in mind who made the comments. It is always the U.S. diplomatic position that “all options are on the table.” As it must be.

The Chairman was asked if the U.S. is capable of conducting effective combat operations in Iran, if necessary. His answer, which is of course true, is “Yes.”

That doesn’t mean we’re going to war. Recall that in 1993 it was the U.S. policy that North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

North Korea apparently didn’t get that memo.

Pax,
OA

Right, and once North Korea got nukes the field changed considerably for them. Iraq, on the other hand, didn’t have such capability when the U.S. made such statements and look where it got them. The lesson, it seems, is hurry up the nukes like North Korea did.

Israel would take out Iran’s capability without U.S. blessing anyway, if its intelligence stays ahead of developments. Our talk is superfluous but dangerous, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gilliam]

Right, and once North Korea got nukes the field changed considerably for them.

Which is what Iran is hoping for and what the Gulf States are dredding.

 

[Holly3278]

I hope and pray that we do not attack Iran. All we need is yet another to plunge our economy into the abyss even further. And besides, it would be an unjust war and therefore it would be immoral.

 

[Leegal]

Do you think we’ve been underestimating Obama and the plan all along was to leave Iraq to lure Iran to attack so that we would have an excuse to bomb their nuclear facilities?

No. I think Obama underestimated the serious instability of Iraq; the inability to form a stable government by the Iraquis; the fact that the Shi’ites can’t wait to get their hands on the Sunnis (and vice-versa) and both can’t wait to get their hands on the Kurds.

Seems I was right, the bloodbath is only just beginning and we are only out of Iraq for about 5 minutes.

The reality is that Obama promised to be out much earlier, until he took office and reality set in. In order not to be “called” on his ill-thought out promise, he had to pull out from Iraq – do or die in the next election. Seems like this will be a lose-lose situation for Obama and the Iraquis.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We’re hearing the drum beat ramp up just in time for elections and pulling out of Iraq. Do the war contractors miss the cash cow of Iraq already?

A nuclear Iran can’t seriously threaten the U.S., so I’m not buying it. This seems like nothing but 2003 WMD talk all over again, this time coming from a Nobel Peace prize recipient’s administration. I don’t know what’s sadder: that our government is talking this way so soon after the Iraq disaster ends, or that people seem to be buying it.

Peace and God bless!

An EMP strike would be really easy … and send the United States back to the mid-1800’s in an instant. [Everything that works on electricity would be fried.] Except that we had coal fired steam railroads back then; and all those coal fired locomotives were melted down 50 years ago.

 

[gilliam]

An EMP strike would be really easy … and send the United States back to the mid-1800’s in an instant. [Everything that works on electricity would be fried.] Except that we had coal fired steam railroads back then; and all those coal fired locomotives were melted down 50 years ago.

An EMP on the US from Iran would not be easy. It would require sophisticated nautical launching facilities. It would be far easier for them to launch such a strike over Israel, but Israeli subs would retaliate and Iran would find itself in the dark ages. So it is unlikely to happen.

What is more feasible is for Iran to do nothing with a nuke except use it as a deterrent against other countries attacking them as they move against other nations (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq) using their 3rd party millitias and with allies such as Turkey.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Do you think we’ve been underestimating Obama and the plan all along was to leave Iraq to lure Iran to attack so that we would have an excuse to bomb their nuclear facilities?

Not quite. I’d say it’s a plan that discreetly gives the green light to ISRAEL to attack Iranian nuclear sites. To use nukes, even—after all, with no America troops nearby, the fallout from said attacks won’t be hitting any Americans—at least not in the short term.

 

[Leegal]

A nuclear Iran can’t seriously threaten the U.S., so I’m not buying it.

A nuclear Iran is a serious threat to Israel – that’s the problem.

On Nov. 28, there was an explosion at a nuclear facility in Iran. Iran denies it. We have satelite photos. Buildings there; buildings gone.

A month before a missle site in Iran exploded, killing 20 people including a very important missle scientist who was killed.

Kind of like one of those everyone “knows” and no one is talking. I like this quote:

“Something is going on. It’s not clear what it is.”

 

[SamH]

If Obama mindlessly follows Bushian “logic” and sleepwalks into this thing, a lot of Americans will face some unpleasant choices after the Strait of Hormuz closes.

“What do I spend my money on? Gasoline? Or things like house rent, food, medicine, and clothing?”

A lot of Americans already make that choice every day. A lot more since 2008.

 

[Darryl1958]

Tell Obama to allow drilling here in the Gulf of Mexico, and to OK the pipleline from Canada, and it won’t be as big a problem

Canada is already looking to China to be a big market. While diversified markets are a good thing for a seller like Canada, America really needs to wake up to what is at stake here.

 

[Ghosty]

An EMP strike would be really easy … and send the United States back to the mid-1800’s in an instant. [Everything that works on electricity would be fried.] Except that we had coal fired steam railroads back then; and all those coal fired locomotives were melted down 50 years ago.

There is no way Iran is capable of launching an EMP strike on the U.S. No way. Even if by some miracle they could, it wouldn’t be big enough to shut us down; I’m not buying EMP strikes as the new “yellow cake”.

Iran will continue to pursue nukes because it’s a smart strategy. Only two things could stop it: an immoral, bankrupting invasion by the U.S., or surgical strikes by Israel. Israel is a big boy, and more than capable of acting if needed. Let Israel watch out for its interests and put the war drums away.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gilliam]

Not quite. I’d say it’s a plan that discreetly gives the green light to ISRAEL to attack Iranian nuclear sites. To use nukes, even—after all, with no America troops nearby, the fallout from said attacks won’t be hitting any Americans—at least not in the short term.

There are troops in Kuwait. That is near by. And the Navy 5th fleet is in Dubai

 

[Seamus_L]

An attack on Iran will no doubt lead to war in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel for starters, and it would probably lead to riots in the US when prices went through ceiling.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

A lot of Americans already make that choice every day. A lot more since 2008.

Yes, you have a point. That is when the economic meltdown triggered by Republican policies began.

My point was, $10 a gallon for gas is going to affect the situation the way that trying to put out a housefire with kerosene would affect the house’s condition…

 

[SamH]

An EMP on the US from Iran would not be easy. It would require sophisticated nautical launching facilities. It would be far easier for them to launch such a strike over Israel, but Iraeli subs would retaliate and Iran would find itself in the dark ages. So it is unlikely to happen.

What is more feasible is for Iran to do nothing with a nuke except use it as a deterrent against other countries attacking them as they move against other nations (e.g., Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq) using their 3rd party millitias and with allies such as Turkey.

Hardly.

Load a nuke in a shipping container and set it off in NY Harbor, or Los Angeles, or Seattle. Or put it in one of the old Soviet diesel subs they have and do the same.

 

[SamH]

Yes, you have a point. That is when the economic meltdown triggered by Republican policies began.

My point was, $10 a gallon for gas is going to affect the situation the way that trying to put out a housefire with kerosene would affect the house’s condition…

Gas prices only leaped AFTER the democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006. Nancy Pelosi said now they would do something about gas costing $2.00 a gallon. Apparently they did because it immediately went up to to $4.00 a gallon.

 

[Darryl1958]

Do you think we’ve been underestimating Obama and the plan all along was to leave Iraq to lure Iran to attack so that we would have an excuse to bomb their nuclear facilities?

This is something that could have the consequence of buying Obama another four years, but I don’t think that Obama was in any way responsible for orchestrating such a thing.

I think he has been a follower more than a leader when it comes to any foreign policy decision. His big foreign affairs play was to bow to the dictators, cozy up to Iranian theocrrats, and to generally work off the assumption that once the world understands that he was a much nicer guy than Bush, the world would become nicer too.

If this ‘nice guy facade’ was really just a guise, he fooled me too.

I don’t think that he is really in control of America’s foreign policy now. The policy itself seems to be more reactive, jumping from crisis to crisis, rather than proactive and coherent to any sort of a plan.

But if that in itself is is the plan, the old Columbo routine is the policy, Obama is doing one brilliant job of it.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

There are troops in Kuwait. That is near by. And the Navy 5th fleet is in Dubai

But far enough away for them to get under cover in time, should the winds shift the “wrong” way.

Now, wouldn’t that be a pretty picture? Americans and upper-class Arabs huddling safely in reinforced concrete buildings and taking preventive drugs while ordinary people in those countries come down with radiation sickness.

I’ve got a feeling it would endear neither Americans nor their client regimes in those countries to the rank-and-file citizenry.

 

[SamH]

I don’t think that he is really in control of America’s foreign policy now. The policy itself seems to be more reactive, jumping from crisis to crisis, rather than proactive and coherent to any sort of a plan.
.

This.

There is no foreign policy, only reaction to “surprise” world events - and many times the wrong reaction. Egypt overthrows its government and Obama gives billions to the military dictatorship that seizes power that now has a much worse human rights policy than Muburak ever did.

Kind of like Carter in the 1970s.