The Iran War

OG_slinger wrote:

Remember Stuxnet? Turns out we did it. And we did it, in part, to prevent the Israelis from launching preemptive airstrikes.

Now imagine what hell we'd be raising if the Iranians managed to infect computers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and destroy some equipment. We'd consider it an act of war.

Well, holy crap. Does this guy have any evidence besides anonymous sources? Not that I doubt it. But all we really have is a smoking gun and some researchers saying that only a handful of state actors are sophisticated enough to pull this off. When does Michael Bay secure the movie rights? Or Disney for Tron 3?

OG_slinger wrote:

Remember Stuxnet? Turns out we did it. And we did it, in part, to prevent the Israelis from launching preemptive airstrikes.

So...deja vu, then?

Depending on who you ask, either we were developing Stuxnet as a weapon and never intended to use it until Israel slipped it a bit of code that let it escape, or Obama directly ordered it as an attack on Iran. Or it got out "somehow" and after the initial damage Obama decided to keep quiet about it.

Either way, yeah, it was us.

As far as hilarious stupidity goes, I'd rather this than just bombing the sh*t out of them. I mean, I'm overly optimistic, but at least blowing people up isn't the first response to everything.

(It still never should have happened, we're being actively counterproductive here, but hey, bright side!)

One theory I've heard is that the US agreed to participate in this specifically to keep Israel from bombing the sh*t out of Iran.

Probably, that's what I do when me anemic hemophiliac dwarf friend asks for permission to murder puppies, I tell him no, just let me slap them around a bit. Sometimes a little voice in my head tells me that I shouldn't be helping my friend torture puppies, but I'm only a seven foot tall sumo wrestler, what could I possibly do to stop him?

Yeah...I wonder how world and US opinion would go if Israel just nuked Iran out of the blue.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yeah...I wonder how world and US opinion would go if Israel just nuked Iran out of the blue.

They're dumb, but I don't know if they're dumb enough to nuke another country. Too much of their power comes from constantly playing the victim card and victims don't go around vaporizing a couple ten thousand people.

They'd have the victim card again soon enough, after the Russians hit them in retaliation.

Robear wrote:

They'd have the victim card again soon enough, after the Russians hit them in retaliation.

Why would the Russians bother to get involved? It's not like they're blood brothers with Iran.

That and I doubt Putin would do anything that might mess with the money train that is selling energy to the West and nuking Israel would certainly merit a trade embargo at the very least.

They've been backing the Iranians in this, haven't they? That's my impression.

Sorry to bump this old thread.

I found an interesting article on Debka (a conspiracy theory site) that claims there is US-Israel is working on an agreement that will force the US to attack in Iran in spring 2013 and in exchange Israel won't attack this Fall. They are claiming to pull the military option rabbit out of the hat might scare Iran to stop their nuclear program. Debka is claiming Israel will not attack Iran this Fall if this agreement get signed.

They claim that document has 4 points. The first is that Obama will send letters to congress and the senate to get approval to use the military on Iran. The second is that Obama would visit Israel , give a speech in front of parliament and say the US will use military force on Iran if they don't stop the nuclear program. The third is to arm Israel with military capability that will enable it to bomb Iran's nuclear program in case the next president doesn't use the military option. This means that if the US doesn't attack Iran in spring 2013, Israel will. The 4th and last point claims that Israel won't attack Iran in the Fall if the US does its part (the top 3 conditions).

Not sure if it's true. I'm guessing most people here don't want the government to attack because wars are definitely not fun. The Iranian missiles aren't a big deal because they take a few minutes to get here and by that time everyone would be relatively safe in a bomb shelter. The real problem is if Syria and/or Hezbollah join in . The shorter range rockets might not carry a lot of explosive but the warning time can be very short .

Niseg wrote:

The Iranian missiles aren't a big deal because they take a few minutes to get here and by that time everyone would be relatively safe in a bomb shelter. The real problem is if Syria and/or Hezbollah join in . The shorter range rockets might not carry a lot of explosive but the warning time can be very short .

Yes, I'm sure the Syrian government will take some time out from desperately trying to suppress a rebellion to point missiles at Israel, because they need the additional stress. I'm also sure that once Iran has nukes, they will be perfectly willing to hand them over to Hezbollah, operating in Lebanon, and the other factions in Lebanon will simply sit idle while Hezbollah exposes them to the risk of a nuclear war.

The agreement to attack Iran I might believe ... except that President Obama has already established that he has the power to start a war without even consulting Congress, so there's no reason for him to do so.

IMAGE(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/406016_10151945563860026_1441218201_n.jpg)

The sad thing is that that conspiracy theory doesn't sound crazy to me. And it wouldn't be unprecedented. It wouldn't be the first time a candidate for president did some international horse-trading that involved war (see Nixon and Vietnam).

Aetius wrote:
Niseg wrote:

The Iranian missiles aren't a big deal because they take a few minutes to get here and by that time everyone would be relatively safe in a bomb shelter. The real problem is if Syria and/or Hezbollah join in . The shorter range rockets might not carry a lot of explosive but the warning time can be very short .

Yes, I'm sure the Syrian government will take some time out from desperately trying to suppress a rebellion to point missiles at Israel, because they need the additional stress.

What Syria also needs is continued support by Iran. So the real question is whether Iran wants missiles pointed at Israel from Syria and Lebanon.

CheezePavilion wrote:

What Syria also needs is continued support by Iran. So the real question is whether Iran wants missiles pointed at Israel from Syria and Lebanon.

They might need support, but they really don't need to be involved in a nuclear stand-off or a war with Israel. Support is only worth so much, and adding additional forces, support, and public opinion to the other side is not really what most embattled regimes think is a good idea.

Aetius wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

What Syria also needs is continued support by Iran. So the real question is whether Iran wants missiles pointed at Israel from Syria and Lebanon.

They might need support, but they really don't need to be involved in a nuclear stand-off or a war with Israel. Support is only worth so much, and adding additional forces, support, and public opinion to the other side is not really what most embattled regimes think is a good idea.

I don't think so. Look at the big picture here: Iran benefits from that pressure on Israel. Russia and China have an interest in Iran. Russia and China are the ones preventing this from going the way of Libya as far as intervention.

Become less useful to Iran, you become less useful to the people protecting you from on high. Not to mention embattled regimes need to think about what happens if they lose. Keeping your allies happy in case you have to flee the country is a good idea, too.

A good point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what they do.

Niseg wrote:

Sorry to bump this old thread.

I found an interesting article on Debka (a conspiracy theory site) that claims there is US-Israel is working on an agreement that will force the US to attack in Iran in spring 2013 and in exchange Israel won't attack this Fall. They are claiming to pull the military option rabbit out of the hat might scare Iran to stop their nuclear program. Debka is claiming Israel will not attack Iran this Fall if this agreement get signed.

They claim that document has 4 points. The first is that Obama will send letters to congress and the senate to get approval to use the military on Iran. The second is that Obama would visit Israel , give a speech in front of parliament and say the US will use military force on Iran if they don't stop the nuclear program. The third is to arm Israel with military capability that will enable it to bomb Iran's nuclear program in case the next president doesn't use the military option. This means that if the US doesn't attack Iran in spring 2013, Israel will. The 4th and last point claims that Israel won't attack Iran in the Fall if the US does its part (the top 3 conditions).

Not sure if it's true. I'm guessing most people here don't want the government to attack because wars are definitely not fun. The Iranian missiles aren't a big deal because they take a few minutes to get here and by that time everyone would be relatively safe in a bomb shelter. The real problem is if Syria and/or Hezbollah join in . The shorter range rockets might not carry a lot of explosive but the warning time can be very short .

I don't think Obama makes that deal. Israel has been particularly hostile to his administration, and I don't think he would trust the Israeli government with that kind of deal. In fact, if news of the deal is leaked by a more mainstream source, it blows up in his face, and Israel gets a more preferable administration and their war with Iran. Moreover, I'm not so sure that a Middle Eastern war in the fall is something Obama would avoid at all costs. The sitting president tends to get a boost when these sorts of things happen, and unless it's some sort of long, drawn-out, disaster, I don't think Romney gets any kind of bump from it.

kazooka wrote:

Israel has been particularly hostile to his administration.

Do you have examples of that?

This may be of interest. And this. And this.

From The Guardian, second article above.

But the American president and the Israeli prime minister are not pals, far from it. That much was obvious when they were photographed sitting together in the White House on Monday, the body language still chilly between the two – even if it lacked the barely-concealed hostility of their encounter in May 2011, when Netanyahu presumed to lecture Obama in his own office. But there is no hiding it. As Aluf Benn, editor in chief of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote at the weekend, "the contacts between Netanyahu and Obama are devoid of warmth, mutual esteem and credibility."

The president sees the Israeli PM "as a liar who uses subversive tactics, shamelessly meddles in American politics and is encouraging the Republican campaign to topple him," wrote Benn, while "Netanyahu sees Obama as a spineless leftwinger whose fantasies about world peace are threatening Israel with the prospect of a second Holocaust." So, not exactly chums, then.

Thanks, I had kind of been under the impression that the "Israel doesn't like Obama" thing was mostly Republican propaganda.

If you take away the crazy Netanyahu is their still tension between Obama and Israel?

I just think Obama doesn't pander to them so they get upset being treated in such a manner.

I heard someone on NPR the other day that was speaking about politics from the Israeli point of view, and his hatred for Obama was palpable. Really powerful. Scary to listen to.

Malor wrote:

I heard someone on NPR the other day that was speaking about politics from the Israeli point of view, and his hatred for Obama was palpable. Really powerful. Scary to listen to.

There's a newish scare-movie making the rounds of the Jewish right wing, that's basically painting Obama as a virulent anti-semite, whose goal is to obliterate Israel.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...

Robear wrote:

This may be of interest. And this. And this.

From The Guardian, second article above.

But the American president and the Israeli prime minister are not pals, far from it. That much was obvious when they were photographed sitting together in the White House on Monday, the body language still chilly between the two – even if it lacked the barely-concealed hostility of their encounter in May 2011, when Netanyahu presumed to lecture Obama in his own office. But there is no hiding it. As Aluf Benn, editor in chief of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote at the weekend, "the contacts between Netanyahu and Obama are devoid of warmth, mutual esteem and credibility."

The president sees the Israeli PM "as a liar who uses subversive tactics, shamelessly meddles in American politics and is encouraging the Republican campaign to topple him," wrote Benn, while "Netanyahu sees Obama as a spineless leftwinger whose fantasies about world peace are threatening Israel with the prospect of a second Holocaust." So, not exactly chums, then.

Obama's sizing up of Netanyahu sounds about right. That's been my impression of him based purely on his politics for the better part of 2 decades.

Folks I talk to in State and Defense of all political stripes (aside from the radical zionists and neoconservatives) all pretty much agree that the nature of the relationship with Israel began to change under GHWB and is now in a place where the understanding in Washington policy circles is that Tel Aviv doesn't have the Cold War leverage that it once had. Most also agree that the Netanyahu phenomenon is a desperate expression of a need for international attention. A last beating of the drum to announce their significance.

The fact, however, is that they are not nearly as important to our interests as they once were and just about everyone knows it.

Paleocon wrote:

Folks I talk to in State and Defense of all political stripes (aside from the radical zionists and neoconservatives) all pretty much agree that the nature of the relationship with Israel began to change under GHWB and is now in a place where the understanding in Washington policy circles is that Tel Aviv doesn't have the Cold War leverage that it once had. Most also agree that the Netanyahu phenomenon is a desperate expression of a need for international attention. A last beating of the drum to announce their significance.

The fact, however, is that they are not nearly as important to our interests as they once were and just about everyone knows it.

Then why all the recent political rheoteric from the GOP about how important Israel is to our interests?

Nevin73 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Folks I talk to in State and Defense of all political stripes (aside from the radical zionists and neoconservatives) all pretty much agree that the nature of the relationship with Israel began to change under GHWB and is now in a place where the understanding in Washington policy circles is that Tel Aviv doesn't have the Cold War leverage that it once had. Most also agree that the Netanyahu phenomenon is a desperate expression of a need for international attention. A last beating of the drum to announce their significance.

The fact, however, is that they are not nearly as important to our interests as they once were and just about everyone knows it.

Then why all the recent political rheoteric from the GOP about how important Israel is to our interests?

It appeals to end-times evangelicals & far-right AIPAC jews.