Even Israeli Experts don't think they can pull it off though.... looks like it falls to us.

Jan. 15, 2006 12:59 | Updated Jan. 15, 2006 17:15

Report: IAF trained for Iran attack
By JPOST.COM STAFF

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361083662&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

IAF pilots have completed their mission training and fighter jets have been prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran, the British Sunday Times reported.

The article reported that "the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron" had been equipped with weapons that will be tested in combat for the first time, and that two missile submarines were on standby: one in the Persian Gulf and the second in Haifa Bay.

The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike.

Iran's nuclear facilities, according to the newspaper report, are widely dispersed at some 40 underground sites throughout Iran, which would make any attack by Israel - or any other nation - exponentially more difficult that Israel's successful attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

Col. [res] Ze'ev Raz, the former IAF pilot who led the Osirak mission, was quoted by the Times as saying, "What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult."

Raz believes an aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities is possible. There are many things that the IAF has done over the past few years that the public is not aware of, and it has made many important advances in mid-air refueling. Israel can strike the Iranian nuclear program, Raz said on Israel's Channel 1 TV's Politika program last week.

Former IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Uzi Dayan said last week that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, then so would terror organizations, like Hizbullah. "Israel needs to be ready to act on a military option," Dayan said. "Without getting into details, Israel is capable of doing these things."

When Dayan was head of the National Security Agency, he advised the government not to allow a situation in which Israel, and the world now finds itself, with a radical regime in Tehran on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons. Dayan laid much of the blame on the United States, which allowed this to happen. "The military option does exist, but only if the international community works together. The government that arises in Israel after the elections will have to deal with this issue," he said.

Shabtai Shoval, a former operative in the Israeli intelligence community, who wrote a book that Iran will reach nuclear weapons capability by 2009, says that covert action, for example by the Mossad, is the most interesting option, but would still not stop Tehran's push for nuclear weapons.

Dr. Reuven Pedatzur, a senior lecturer at the Strategic Studies Program at Tel Aviv University, believes Israel would be making a "disastrous strategic error" if it embarked on a full-scale attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "The military option is not relevant, we simply don't have the right amount of intelligence and information; many of the targets are buried deep under ground.

Only if the Americans decide to do it, then that option is possible," Pedatzur said last week. Pedatzur added that the day Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Israel will have no choice but to abandon its policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Amir Mizroch contributed to this report.

According to the following article, even though they have no idea if they will be successful, they still might strike though.

Jan. 12, 2006 14:54 | Updated Jan. 15, 2006 14:58

IAF: Osirak attack shows partial feasibility enough for Iran strike

By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361084399&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A recent research project by the IAF has determined that in the summer of 1981 Israel did not have a clear picture of the impact a strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor would have, but chose to attack anyway.

Prime minister Menachem Begin ordered the bombing, condemned by the world at the time, thus inaugurating what became known as the 'Begin Doctrine,' Israel's policy of launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent any of its enemies acquiring nuclear weapons.

It is the Begin Doctrine which repeatedly has been invoked lately regarding Iran and Israel's response to its suspected efforts to produce nuclear weapons. The internal IAF research paper shows that the feasibility of a successful military operation need not be total in order for Israeli leaders to order such a strike. This appears to abate a recently published US army report that claims Israel has no viable military option against Iranian nukes.

According to a senior Air Force officer who was privy to the IAF paper, the intelligence available at the time of the June 1981 strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was only partial and it was unclear whether the planned air raid would be effective.

"At the time, there was no firm information on either the extent of the damage that the strike could cause or whether it would have a fatal impact on the Iraqi nuclear program. The information he had was very partial, even to the extent of the physical damage we could do to the target and how much it would delay the Iraqi program," said the senior officer.

But that was history and today it is Iran and its nuclear program that weighs heavy on their minds. The IAF officer said that Iran is increasingly fearful of attack. "But they are limited in their ability to create an effective air defense," he said.

According to intelligence, Iran has beefed up its air defenses around various nuclear sites as a precaution against a possible pre-emptive strike by US or Israeli forces. The source described the present Iranian air defenses as 'good.' It is known that Iran has deployed Soviet-origin anti-aircraft systems around the 1000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Iran's air defense contains Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles, according to The Military Balance published by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. They also have aged US-made Hawk missiles and have been seeking to purchase the sophisticated S-300P from Russia.

One war game scenario played out by the IAF was an American attack on Iranian nuclear sites. In this case, it was believed the US would give Israel a prior warning of 'perhaps a day, nothing significant.'

"There is no way the Iranians would believe that it was the Americans and [they] will seek to retaliate against Israel," a senior officer said.

The officer declined to say whether there were key targets in Iran that, if destroyed, would seriously set back their nuclear program.

"I will have to provide targets to the generals so that they can offer various options to the government,' the senior officer said. 'We have to be able to provide answers all of the time for potential targets."

Ironically, the Israeli F-16s that bombed Osirak were actually built for the Iranians. Israel received them instead after the Islamic revolution toppled the shah and the US imposed an arms embargo on Teheran. Today, the IAF has a new generation of F-16s custom built for striking Iran.

Just out of curiousity, could a B2 at max altitude perform a strike and retreat to Iraq (and fighter cover)before the Iranian AF could intercept it with fighters?

Quoted: Quoted: Just out of curiousity, could a B2 at max altitude perform a strike and retreat to Iraq (and fighter cover)before the Iranian AF could intercept it with fighters? No problem for a B-2 to strike at any target in Iran. ANdy

Could it do so safely?   I dont think the AF would be very happy about losing one in hostile territory.  

I kind of doubt that the Iranians couild detect a B2. What I want to whatr kind of Missle subs does Israel have? Also if Iran tries to close the Strits of Hormuz again can you imagine what the gas price is going to be like?

Do any Iranian planes have IRST?

The problem is, we probably don't know where everything is. Iran is a fairly large and fairly rugged country. Lotsa places to hide stuff.

Quoted: If the Israelis are stupid enough to attack Iran, Ahmadinejad wins big time.  He is playing the Israelis and the US like a very skilful puppet master and praying for an attack. An attack on Iran by Israel would need the tacit agreement and support of the US. Iran would then be able to say to the muslim world...."See! The Crusaders attacked Iraq so they can allow their Zionist allies to attack Iran"... and the Muslim world will erupt. How to deal with Iran?  Easy enough, drop all the rhetoric, open up all and every trade route to Iran, bombard them with the Western consumer dream.Iranians are not arabs, they are as a whole very pro western and quite pro US. The current sanctions and rhetoric play into the Mullahs hands. Like all people when threatened they rally round the flag. The sanctions already in force hurt Iran's population far more than the elite Clerics and provide something for the Mullahs to rally the population around. Exposure to Western Consumerism is something the Mullahs fear like a vampire fears Garlic. The current theocracy in Iran is just a blip in their history, they are not a particulary religious people. Iran is always one step away from a populist revolt against the Mullahs, prosperity, Western prosperity, will make the Mullahs vanish like morning dew. This is why Ahmadinejad is trying to whip up a war hysteria, the Mullahs can only stay in power by having a state of emergency to distract the population from internal problems. ANdy

Think you're spot on, with that there   Keep feeding the average iranian citizen with tastes of the outside world, and all it has to offer, and it's JUST a matter of time, before they get tired of their shit.

It's actually quite suprising to see how PRO western lifestyle most young Iranians are.  Especially college aged students.  They are SO not like the camel riding, towel wearing, nomadic hayseeds people think Iranians are.  A HUGE amount of them actually LIKE Americans and would love to come here and live the western dream.

Whatever happens over there, it'll be very interesting to see how it develops.........

If Iran threatened US and foreign shipping there wouldnt that be a good time to let a carrier or the aforementioned B2 to flex it's muscle?   I would think the little islands would be easy targets for JDAMs.    I would think that containment would be politically acceptable if we were directly threatened.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Think you're spot on, with that there   Keep feeding the average iranian citizen with tastes of the outside world, and all it has to offer, and it's JUST a matter of time, before they get tired of their shit. It's actually quite suprising to see how PRO western lifestyle most young Iranians are.  Especially college aged students.  They are SO not like the camel riding, towel wearing, nomadic hayseeds people think Iranians are.  A HUGE amount of them actually LIKE Americans and would love to come here and live the western dream. Whatever happens over there, it'll be very interesting to see how it develops......... That's so true. Iranians are ethnically Indo-Europeans not Arabs. Iranians are hugely proud of their country and history. They were living in real houses with proper sanitation when the Europeans were still living in mud huts. There history as a civilisation goes back thousands of years and they had their own highly developed and civilised religion, Zoroastrianism, before Islam was introduced. It's still part of their lives. One of the surest ways to get a smack in the mouth is to call an Iranian an Arab!  And that's part of the problem with the Mullahs. The population are not Arabs, they are also Shiite muslims and not particularly pious so the Mullahs have to be seen to be Islamic Billy Bad Ass's  to try and win respect from the rest of the Muslim world. ANdy

I htink your theory is spot on, except it is too late for it to work.... western consumerism takes years to make its impact felt and bring the needed changes on, and it may be too slow to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon.

I just hope they leave the Zam-Zam bottling plant intact,,,,,,,,,

Quoted: Do any Iranian planes have IRST? The problem is, we probably don't know where everything is. Iran is a fairly large and fairly rugged country. Lotsa places to hide stuff.

Not sure. It's a good point though. I havent heard much about the nighfighting capability.

What about an Ahmadinejad assassination followed by a military coup ??

Quoted: Quoted: Do any Iranian planes have IRST? The problem is, we probably don't know where everything is. Iran is a fairly large and fairly rugged country. Lotsa places to hide stuff. Not sure. It's a good point though. I havent heard much about the nighfighting capability.

Even if we dont know where all the facilities are, we can find enough to set them back years.

Quoted: If the Israelis are stupid enough to attack Iran, Ahmadinejad wins big time.  He is playing the Israelis and the US like a very skilful puppet master and praying for an attack. An attack on Iran by Israel would need the tacit agreement and support of the US. Iran would then be able to say to the muslim world...."See! The Crusaders attacked Iraq so they can allow their Zionist allies to attack Iran"... and the Muslim world will erupt. How to deal with Iran?  Easy enough, drop all the rhetoric, open up all and every trade route to Iran, bombard them with the Western consumer dream. Iranians are not arabs, they are as a whole very pro western and quite pro US. The current sanctions and rhetoric play into the Mullahs hands. Like all people when threatened they rally round the flag. The sanctions already in force hurt Iran's population far more than the elite Clerics and provide something for the Mullahs to rally the population around. Exposure to Western Consumerism is something the Mullahs fear like a vampire fears Garlic. The current theocracy in Iran is just a blip in their history, they are not a particulary religious people. Iran is always one step away from a populist revolt against the Mullahs, prosperity, Western prosperity, will make the Mullahs vanish like morning dew. This is why Ahmadinejad is trying to whip up a war hysteria, the Mullahs can only stay in power by having a state of emergency to distract the population from internal problems. ANdy

This makes quite a bit of sense...

I wish I shared the sanguine views of some here.  I fear that the apocolyptic Shi'ites will prevent any logical, peaceful outcome to this problem.   The Mullahs are in total control.  The current president of Iran is a hard core religious nutcase, with a mind poisoned by hatred, and a belief that the Mahdi is coming [again]...and that He will be the instrument of His return to wipe the planet of the infidels and restore the Kaliphate to power.

I fear, as I believe do many of our more prescient leaders, that Iran is on an unstoppable collision course with the United States and Israel.

Sadly, we are in this alone.  The Euroweenies will never sanction violence of any sort against Iran.  They recognize the when the Iranians get a bomb, it is certain to end up in Tel Aviv, New York or Washington, DC and not Berlin, Paris or Brussels.

If we allow them to gain a nuclear weapon, the outcome will be foretold the minute that weapon becomes operational.  If we attack and stop their weapons program we merely prolong the inevitable.

Unless the rulers and hard followers of radical Islam recognize the danger to themselves, their faith and their culture...unless they learn how to live alongside their non-believing neighbors without trying to kill or enslave them, we are headed for a terrible apocolypse.  We will be hurt...but they may be exterminated.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This makes quite a bit of sense... Although I am no expert on international affairs I did live and work with Iranians up to and after the Iranian Revolution.  Unlike the Arabs, Iranians are well educated, understand Democracy and are used to it, don't particularly like Arabs, (they regard them as uncivilised savages), and are basically 'western' in their outlook. ANdy

Which is why they took and held 70+ Americans hostage for 444 days.    That's quite an expression of their 'Western' outlook.

You neglect to mention that they support a range of terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, and that they are an Islamic theocracy with all the goodness that goes with it.   The Iranian people may be fine and dandy, but the Iranian government is teh ghey and cannot be allowed nuclear weapons.  If they won't open up for the world to see that they don't have them, then they should be taken by force.

Quoted: How to deal with Iran?  Easy enough, drop all the rhetoric, open up all and every trade route to Iran, bombard them with the Western consumer dream. ANdy

That is, of course, assuming the Mullahs would allow it, which they won't. Which is why there is so much smuggling into Iran, and one of the reasons they bought .50cal rifles from Styer. Because there is a demand for western goods in Iraq, but the Mullahs won't allow it. So no matter what we do trade wise, it will have little effect.

Quoted: Until Russian the EU stop trading with Iran, nothing is going to change. The problem isn't Israel or the US.  Its Russia and France and Germany.  they could stop it.

You forgot China as well. As long as there are nations willing to trade with Iran, they have no motivation to stop. They think we are too "bogged down" in Iraq, and they know the Russians won't do anything, hell they're helping. They know China loves the fact that they are another thorn in our side, and they know the Euros are too pacifist to do anything without being lead by the nose by the US. So what motivation do they have to stop?

Does anyone honestly believe the Mullahs will allow "evil western influences" into their theocracy? If they would, why all the smuggling?

We need people to nut-up and favor regime change here.

Quoted: Trouble is LWilde what do we do? Try and defuse it by going for a populist revolution, (Aminjadnutter has already had at least assinnation attempt made on him) or go for a war which everyone loses? I don't buy the 'Iran is just months from a bomb' claims. Israel is like a friggin broken record! They having been saying it for years and 'Look Ma! No bomb!'....  Even the CIA reckons it will be 10 years before they have enough material. The Iranians have made a number of conciliatory overtures towards the US since 9/11 and everytime they do the same old record kicks in..'They are only months from a bomb!'..... Iran is a unique case in the region, western by orientation and western by instinct,

Yet anti-western in their government's actions.

yet the US is locked on a military collision course with the one muslim country that really is crying out for Western Democracy....

It's not the only Muslim country calling for democracy.

It's the logic of the madhouse. A former staunch allie of the US that could be again, yet because of a constant wailing from Tel Aviv the US refuses to engage in realpolitik.

Here's the part where we are lectured on how naive we are, and how we are puppets of the Zionists. Realpolitiks are the polictics of Chamberlin.

Attacking Iran, (who's nuclear research has broken no international laws)

Yeah that's why they're facing sanctions because they've broken no laws. I guess technically that's correct since they didn't sign the NPF treaty.

will result in a general uprising in the Middle East.

Yeah because Iran's neighbors want them with a bomb. No.

It's exactly what Aminijadnutter wants and Israel is backing the US into attacking Iran with constant warnings that if they, the US, don't deal with Iran, they will. ANdy

How's the view of the sand your head is in?

Quoted: You need to put that 444 days at the feet of the stupid fuckwit that let it happen!   They were also going to grab the Russian Embassy when the Russian invaded Afghanistan. Do you know why they called off the mobs and didn't? Simple enough. The Russian Ambassador got on the horn to Moscow and told them they were going to be stormed. The Russian Foreign Minster then got on the Horn to Khomeini and told him that if the embassy was stormed they would flatten  Tehran 20 minutes later... he wasn't fucking about and the Mullahs knew it. Carter reacted like a Rabbit caught in the headlights. Just one agressive comment would have defused things, after all it was only meant to be a symbolic storming of the Embassy. Instead he showed utter weakness and things spiraled out of control. ANdy

So now it's Carter's fault the Ayatollah held hostages. Wow, rationalization at its best. The simple fact is civilized nations do not hold diplomats hostage. They might detain them and then return them, but not hold them hostage.

Quoted: You need to put that 444 days at the feet of the stupid fuckwit that let it happen!

And I suppose if a store in the U.K. gets robbed, it's the shopkeepers fault for not being big enough or scary enough?

Regardless of who was president, the Mullahs grabbed and held 444 American hostages.    Giving them a free pass because the US president at the time wasn't a ...strong president... makes no sense.  

Carter reacted like a Rabbit caught in the headlights. Just one agressive comment would have defused things, after all it was only meant to be a symbolic storming of the Embassy. Instead he showed utter weakness and things spiraled out of control.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean that the Iranians acted appropriately.   Arab or  Iranian, it makes no difference - they are both crazy ROP'ers.

On a different note,  WTF is it with the U.K. and a "the victim is the criminal" mentality?

An article out not long ago suggested the Iraninans were doing this hopefully to bring back their "Promised Messiah", so I am wondering if the Isreali's matter in this as much as we think (from the Iranian's point of view).  Maybe they are part of Iran's plan to bring about the chaos and war they say is necessary for their Messiah's return along with Jesus (not joking here).  The scary part of this is these folks actually believe this stuff and are currently in power with the possibility of a nuke weapon.


Waiting for the rapture in Iran

Iran leader's messianic end-times mission

Quoted: Quoted: Just out of curiousity, could a B2 at max altitude perform a strike and retreat to Iraq (and fighter cover)before the Iranian AF could intercept it with fighters? No problem for a B-2 to strike at any target in Iran. ANdy

I've got some concerns after seeing some of those pics that you sent me.

The idea of a revolution from w/i is all well and good, the problem is that it will never happen fast enough, if at all.
Someone is going to have to attack the Iranian weapons program, better us than Israel in the great scheme of Middle-Eastern politics, at least imo.

Quoted: If the Israelis are stupid enough to attack Iran, Ahmadinejad wins big time.  He is playing the Israelis and the US like a very skilful puppet master and praying for an attack. An attack on Iran by Israel would need the tacit agreement and support of the US. Iran would then be able to say to the muslim world...."See! The Crusaders attacked Iraq so they can allow their Zionist allies to attack Iran"... and the Muslim world will erupt. How to deal with Iran?  Easy enough, drop all the rhetoric, open up all and every trade route to Iran, bombard them with the Western consumer dream. Iranians are not arabs, they are as a whole very pro western and quite pro US. The current sanctions and rhetoric play into the Mullahs hands. Like all people when threatened they rally round the flag. The sanctions already in force hurt Iran's population far more than the elite Clerics and provide something for the Mullahs to rally the population around. Exposure to Western Consumerism is something the Mullahs fear like a vampire fears Garlic. The current theocracy in Iran is just a blip in their history, they are not a particulary religious people. Iran is always one step away from a populist revolt against the Mullahs, prosperity, Western prosperity, will make the Mullahs vanish like morning dew. This is why Ahmadinejad is trying to whip up a war hysteria, the Mullahs can only stay in power by having a state of emergency to distract the population from internal problems. ANdy

That would be a very smart way of confronting Iran, they have too many young people who just don't see things the same way as the fundamentalist regime.

Quoted: What about an Ahmadinejad assassination followed by a military coup ??

Ahmadinejad is not incharge of Iran... he is only the president. Iran is a theocracy... it is not governed by civilian rule. In Iran, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khemenei is the ruler of the country and the Iranian armed forces. So to assassinate Ahmadinejad would change nothing in Iran; Ahmadinejad has no power in Iran. Secondly, do you really want the Iranian Revolutionary Guards incharge of the Country??? Ahmadinejad is a former Revolutionary Guard Commander.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What about an Ahmadinejad assassination followed by a military coup ?? Ahmadinejad is not incharge of Iran... he is only the president. Iran is a theocracy... it is not governed by civilian rule. In Iran, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khemenei is the ruler of the country. So to assassinate Ahmadinejad would change nothing in Iran. Secondly, do you really want the Iranian Revolutionary Guards incharge of the Country??? Ahmadinejad is a former Revolutionary Guard Commander. Correct, and if Khemenei tires of Ahmadinejad he can make him go away. He has already shown signs of not being 100% happy with Ahmadinejad and blocked some of his political appointees. A breakdown for our US readers of how Iran is run and who has which powers. Ultimately the President can't even fart without the approval of the Clerics. Interactive chart of how Iran is run

Actually, the Iranian Parliament blocked his nominees, but you are correct about Khomenei and his disapproval of Ahmadinejad. See below:

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-zahedi8jan08,0,3205914.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
From the Los Angeles Times
Iran's top mullah may be on our side
By Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar

January 8, 2006

Dariush Zahedi teaches international political economy and political science at UC Berkeley. In 2003, he was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage and later acquitted. Ali Ezzatyar is a doctoral candidate at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.

THE UNITED STATES has a surprising ally in its impatience with the new Iranian president. Since his inauguration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pugnacious demeanor has not only roiled the international community but also a significant portion of Iran's ruling elite. A coalition of traditional conservatives, pragmatists and reformists is emerging within the government to oppose Ahmadinejad's brand of governance. With Iran saying it will resume nuclear fuel research, the U.S. should do all in its power to boost the bargaining power of these more moderate Iranian leaders.

The rise of the anti-Ahmadinejad faction defies the expectations of Iran analysts, who believed that the post-Khatami era would produce a monolithic conservative bloc in control of most major levers of power. Instead, the coalition is strengthening and attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities, perhaps even the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Evidence of the latter is Khamenei's recent decree giving the Expediency Council, a non-elected body headed by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.

Ahmadinejad's primary supporters have always been the rank and file of the country's paramilitary forces. Renowned for their fearlessness and passionate commitment to the populist ideals of the Islamic revolution, they had not dominated government before or since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death in 1989.

The political struggle of Iran's security establishment has come full circle with Ahmadinejad's rise, which makes dealing with Tehran more difficult. The paramilitaries are the ultimate guarantors of the regime's survival. Their leaders wield enormous influence in the Islamic Republic's coercive security establishment, particularly those associated with the Revolutionary Guards. The militants also dominate the volunteer, or Basiji, militia force, believed to have more than 1 million members.

The paramilitaries are not fully tied to any one of the groups vying for power in Iran. Rather, they seek to influence domestic and foreign policy through their numbers and martial strength. They know international tensions that heighten security threats to Iran enhance their status in the power struggle. Although Ahmadinejad owes his presidency to allies in the guards and the Basiji forces, they are not totally beholden to him.

The unlikely counterbalance to Ahmadinejad could be Khamenei. He has frequently cultivated the paramilitaries since his elevation and relied on them to consolidate his power. But should the radicals attempt to direct policy without his explicit consent, Khamenei could move toward pragmatists allied with Rafsanjani and reformist supporters of former President Mohammad Khatami. The two former presidents don't want one of their few achievements in the last 16 years — Iran's moderately improved relations with the outside world — to disappear.

Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran's dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The value of Tehran's stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation's vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.

Khamenei has intimated his readiness to distance himself from the radicals. Apart from authorizing nonpresidential bodies to supervise the three branches of government, he has instructed the Supreme Council for National Security to more fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in the development of Iran's nuclear program. These moves have strengthened his institutional power and helped prevent Ahmadinejad's administration from undermining the regime's credibility.

Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq. This is so true and exactly what Israel fears most, a friendly(ish) Iran US detente.  And I have been saying for a long time now, every time the moderates make even the slightest overture towards the US the Israelis promptly put on their favorite stuck record "Iran is only months from a bomb!". However, Ahmadinejad has no control over the Nuclear Program, the Clerics do,  but the 'Instapundits' in the West seem convinced he personally controls it. Ahmadinejad knows he must stir up outside trouble to stay in power and sure enough, people are responding when he pushes their buttons. ANdy

[Patiently waits for someone to throw up the "anti-semite card" in support of Israel]

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq. This is so true and exactly what Israel fears most, a friendly(ish) Iran US detente.

I'm sorry, but that is 100% wrong.  What the Israelis fear most is a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran is months from a bomb. The CIA has their head up their ass with the 10 year estimate, as usual. Bomb designs are already common in the black market (thanks a lot, Khan) and all they need is the material, which they are in the process of generating now.

The "beam them Baywatch and wait them out" option is a bunch of happy talk that isn't viable. It would take decades, and the timeline for a bomb is a lot shorter than that. Yes, the younger generation isn't happy with the mullahs, but the mullahs are calling the shots, and the mullahs will be the ones with their fingers on the button.

I believe that Iran has it's labs spread out over the country. This isn't like Osirak plant, where it's in one central location. You're talking strikes at over 20 different places. And deep bunkers where convential weapons wouldn't work. And special ops teams to come in behind the strikes to confirm the kill.

Israel won't do that. If they tried a strike even approaching it, Europe would be demanding sanctions. They'd have to in order to keep their Muslim populations from burning them down. You saw what happened in Paris and that wasn't near the issue. The scream from the EU would be so deafening that even the US wouldn't be able to stand with Israel. Not to mention the reactions from the Arab street. In fact, the US might even side (at least in some respects) with the anti-attack crowd to try and keep a lid on Iraq.

Israel just stands too much to loose. Besides, I believe the Arabs know what would happen if they tried to nuke Israel. Israel wouldn't bother with a limited response. They wouldn't stop until the whole Middle East glowed. Because any weakness in their response would just encourage more hostility from their Arab neighbors.

So that leaves the US. The US is far too spread out to try anything of major actions. Not unless they pull the troops from Europe and Korea first. There just aren't enough troops for an invasion or major offensive. I believe the US would be limited to a massive air assault/special ops operation. An attempt to take all the sites out in one swoop.

The problem with that is I bet they don't know where all that stuff is. Unless they are in close contact with some type of anti-government groups inside Iran, they have no human intel. More than likely a strike like that would just piss them off. And leave enough material to keep the production going.

Which would then lead to Iran overtly trying to distabilize Iraq further. And a huge escalation. One no one wants.

Which leaves the UN. As I mentioned above, the EU is too scared of their Muslim minorities. Neither France nor Germany would lead an attempt to disarm Iran's nuclear program. After that I don't think anyone except the UK has an army large enough to lead such an assault.

All of which brings us back to waving our fingers at Iran while they keep on keeping on. Soon they will have thier bomb and there's not much we can do about it. Much like N. Korea. No one likes it but no one has the desire to fix the problem. Or to spend the blood it would take to fix.

Quoted: Quoted: what Israel fears most, a friendly(ish) Iran US detente. ANdy [Patiently waits for someone to throw up the "anti-semite card" in support of Israel]

Andy is a wacko on Israel. I don't know if he's an anti-Semite, but he seems to have a Euro-style attitude towards the Jews.

The shah was friendly with the US, and in fact Israel and Iran were quite close with each other in that era, precisely because they saw the Iranians as non-Arab and possibly a counterbalance to Arab hostility. There would be hossanas in Tel Aviv if someone like the Shah returned.

Deterence won't work, either.

www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

The bastards in charge of Iran are a death cult, and death cult + nukes = Trouble with a capital T.

BTW, Andy, don't think you'll get off easy:

And Jack Straw's mullah-coddling is particularly unworthy in that, insofar as Iran has a strategy, the president's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, has based it on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils" - the evils being America, Australia, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada and New Zealand, all of which are the malign progeny of the British Empire. "We have established a department that will take care of England," said Mr Abbassi last May. "England's demise is on our agenda." Apropos the ayatollahs, England could at least return the compliment.

The situation is hosed. Make no mistake about it, whacking Iran would be a mess. They'd stir up trouble in Basra, instruct their terror groups to attack us all, and maybe try to close down the Staits of Hormuz. But the alternative--mullahs with canned sunshine--ain't too hot either.

UHHH GlockGuy40!?! I said a while ago that in order to attack Iran Anyone would have to go in with troops and not just use long range missles. To which you replied i was "full of shit and did'nt know what i was talking about" but now you post this article where the IDF specifically states:

The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike.

So what's your answer to that?????? I know my shit.

Also to ANdy, sorry pal but you are wrong on this one. Under ANY circumstances Iran cannot get the bomb EVER. Do you really belive they are doing "nuclear research" for anything other than to get the bomb? They are Swimming in oil but they need nuclear plants? They refused to allow Russia to make the Rods for them. Why? If it's just power they want they can get it. Also I do'nt
  care how friendly the Kids in Iran are!!! Look at pakistan our so called friend. even though they claim to be our allies they protect the terrorists with their nuclear shield!! Because we are not allowed to send troops into Pakistan because they have the bomb and we have to lick their heels, Osama and all his butt buddies get to hide with impunity in Wahziristan! The same thing could happen in IRAN!! I can see it now! Taliban hiding in Iran's eastern provinces making cross border runs into Afghanistan!!!! Killing our soldiers!!! Or worse yet They allow insurgents to hide in western Iran and attack our troops in Iraq! all apologists seem to have a real Chamberlin defeatest attitude like they could kick our ass or something. So we attack them and it only prolongs the inevitable?? BS. Every time they get close to making a bomb we'll bitch slap them again. simple. I don't not take out the garbage because i say "what's the point? I'll only have to do it again tomorrow." Now is it fair that we act this way? NO. foreign policy is about unfairness and hypocracy. we were real hypocrytes in denying Hitler the Bomb but keep it for ourselves. thank G-d.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what Israel fears most, a friendly(ish) Iran US detente. ANdy [Patiently waits for someone to throw up the "anti-semite card" in support of Israel] Andy is a wacko on Israel. I don't know if he's an anti-Semite, but he seems to have a Euro-style attitude towards the Jews. The shah was friendly with the US, and in fact Israel and Iran were quite close with each other in that era, precisely because they saw the Iranians as non-Arab and possibly a counterbalance to Arab hostility. There would be hossanas in Tel Aviv if someone like the Shah returned. A wacko on Israel?  Nope, just highly suspicious of their motives. We are constantly being warned by Israel of impending doom at the hands of the Arabs, warnings and 'intelligence' that has a rather funny habit of turning out to be bogus.  Look at how accurate Israels 'intelligence' on Iraqs nuclear program turnd out to be! Israel is like a broken record, thy have been warning the US on an almost monthly basis for at least the last two years that 'Iran is only months away from a bomb'... look Ma! no Bomb! If Israel ws so keen on adetente with Iran it would be constantly encouraging the US to mke up and be friends with Iran, instead it feeds the US with a constant stream of 'Horror Stories' of what Iran intends to do to the US (and Israel). Yet 28 years later, Israel and the US are still there. Israel just doesn't like the idea of being the biggest swinging dick on the block and their arguments that a muslim country getting nuclear weapons will mean an automatic attack is BS.  Pakistan is if anything FAR more unstable than Iran and is the source of most of the Islamic fundamentalists idealogical 'Shock Troops'. AQ and the Taliban still hold writ in Pakistan and Mushareff is only a heart beat away from assasintion and a hard line Islamic State following.  Yet, everyone conveniently forgets that Pakistan has a significant nuclear rsenal and the missiles to deliver them. Same with North Korea, eveyone was saying as soon as they got a bomb they would nuke the US, the hae bombs now but is SF glowing in the dark yet? ANdy

Agreed.  Well put.