US Concerned Israel May Attack Iran "at Any Moment"

[Hexen]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/11-6

Is this a serious concern or is it more sabre rattling? Of course if Israel does strike Iran, what will actually happen?

[Raúl Duke]

The US is concerned. I even heard a former US official (Brzezinki) say that the US should consider shooting down Israeli planes over Iraq if they go attack without consulting the US. At least, it seems they don't want any attacks until after the US elections.

Now whether on Israel's part, I don't know if it's something they might actually go ahead and do or if it's just sabre rattling on their part.

If Israel strikes Iran, it could mean war. A war that the US might be dragged into (thus why they don't want anything like that to happen until after the elections, if at all; the US has grown war-weary).

[Bostana]

If Israel does attack Iran then of course the U.S. will get involved. It's called being Imperialists Partners. And then of course NATO will get involved and then the U.N. then all hell will break loose. And just another war story

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Genuine concern on the part of the US. Not only political reasons, but, economic, and a shortage of troops, as-well. They have troops in Afghanistan fighting on a small budget; Not enough enlistees causing soldiers to be deployed 8 or 9 times. The psych of the military personnel is horrid. The US can't afford another war.

Israel, I believe, will strike Iran; It's just a matter of time.

[Hexen]

I guess a war with Iran will lead into a global economic collapse in the west especially a possible collapse of the US?

[RebelDog]

I'm sceptical. I have my doubts that Israel would attack Iran without US approval. There is so much at stake for Israel in doing so. Without the US Israeli expansionism is finished. I think the US planners are happy with the idea that the rational US is somehow trying to calm down an Israel bear sporting for a fight.

[Raúl Duke]

Not enough enlistees causing soldiers to be deployed 8 or 9 times.

Perhaps...

But I heard conflicting anecdotal info from people in the US military saying they're turning down enlistees and/or trying to discharge as many as they can due to demands to shrink the military. Many people are still considering the military due to unemployment ("economic draft").


And then of course NATO will get involved and then the U.N.

I think it's a stretch to say this. NATO, perhaps some members and not others (i.e. in the case of an Israeli attack and the US joining, perhaps none. In the case of an Iranian attack, perhaps some. Either way, NATO isn't really obligated to defend Israel since I don't think Israel is a member of NATO. If Iran attacks the US first, which is perhaps highly unlikely, that's a different story). Also, about the UN I'm very skeptical. Intervention on the side of Israel-US would be perhaps vetoed by Russia and intervention against Israel would certainly be vetoed by the US.

[Dunk]

It's a matter of time before Israel attempts to destroy Iranian nuclear program sites. They won't tolerate a breakout capable, much less a nuclear armed Iran. The questions which remain are this.

Will Israel be able to destroy them? (Although it doesn't matter if they do, it only matters in the sense of US involvement)
Will this lead Iran to abandon breakout capability as a target to pursue the development of nuclear weapons?
What will be the full extent of the Iranian response?
What will the regional response be?
To what extent will the US involve itself? (Because it will be)

It doesn't matter if Israel even succeeds in destroying the sites. The absolute best they can hope for is a delay in the program by a year or two. They may be incapable of destroying hardened targets and stand to lose a certain percentage of any aircraft used in the attack. Apparently only the US has the conventional means to destroy Iranian hardened targets.

I take the apparent pressure the US gov't is putting on Israel to delay action until after elections as particularly sinister. This can only be to avoid a referendum on another conflict or US involvement in such a conflict. Americans are war weary. I doubt many will not react on grand scale in opposition to the opening of a war larger and costlier in lives and money than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

We should discuss how we might organize, or what old anti-war movement organizers and organizations can do to link up with the newer social movement crowds and organizations of today.

[corolla]

Its more of the same old sabre rattling. There is no way Israel will attack Iran any time in the immediate future. politically, it would be suicide.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I read somewhere that Iran would be capable of launching something like 11,000 surface-to-surface missiles in the first salvo as a response an Israeli strike. The Israelis have to be batshit crazy to try something like this. I don't care what kind of a missile defense shield you have you aren't stopping a response of that magnitude. Even if Iran launches 200 missiles, some of them are getting through.

This would be suicidal, the Russians have supposedly already amassed a large amount of troops on Iran's northern border, apparently waiting for a western led attack.

An attack on Iran would be INSANE. Iran isn't some nation that has been starved by sanctions for a decade, Iran has a capable military and they aren't going to take a strike on their nuclear facilities lying down.


Fuck it, if it is going to happen then lets just get this over with, we haven't had a good ole fashioned World War in a while.

[wsg1991]

i have been hearing this years now , Isreal want to ensure it's supremacy on the middle , they did it before twice with Egyptian president Gamal abdel Nasser ( 1946 , 1967 ) who was not a military threat , just an economic power and a very charismatic and alive ideology ( arab Nationalist \ left Nationalism ) , and then With saddam Hussain , back in the early eighties when Iraq was a major economic power int the region , since unlike the other Sheikhs ruling the golf he did intend to develop his country and not keeping the oil revenue in USA banks . Now Iran poses the same kind of ''threat'' , another country who is rising and becoming a economic power and has a respectable military deterrence capability ( not real might just a lot of missiles that can kill many civilian target ) .

[Bostana]

I think it's a stretch to say this. NATO, perhaps some members and not others (i.e. in the case of an Israeli attack and the US joining, perhaps none. In the case of an Iranian attack, perhaps some. Either way, NATO isn't really obligated to defend Israel since I don't think Israel is a member of NATO. If Iran attacks the US first, which is perhaps highly unlikely, that's a different story). Also, about the UN I'm very skeptical. Intervention on the side of Israel-US would be perhaps vetoed by Russia and intervention against Israel would certainly be vetoed by the US.

NATO has proven time and time again that they're willing to get into any imperialist conflict that the U.S. get into. i.e. The Iraq War. However to say NATO will provide full military support. That would be pretty skeptical. But I am sure they will receive some small military support from England, Australia, Poland, South Korea, Italy, etc. The U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran might be a 'second Iraq' per se. NATO was involved in Iraq and they will be involved in Iran. As for the U.N. military support; No.

[Rafiq]

The US is concerned. I even heard a former US official (Brzezinki) say that the US should consider shooting down Israeli planes over Iraq if they go attack without consulting the US. At least, it seems they don't want any attacks until after the US elections.

Now whether on Israel's part, I don't know if it's something they might actually go ahead and do or if it's just sabre rattling on their part.

If Israel strikes Iran, it could mean war. A war that the US might be dragged into (thus why they don't want anything like that to happen until after the elections, if at all; the US has grown war-weary).


Implying the U.S. has nothing to gain from such a war...

I don't think that such a war would involve them being "dragged" in.

[Rafiq]

I read somewhere that Iran would be capable of launching something like 11,000 surface-to-surface missiles in the first salvo as a response an Israeli strike. The Israelis have to be batshit crazy to try something like this. I don't care what kind of a missile defense shield you have you aren't stopping a response of that magnitude. Even if Iran launches 200 missiles, some of them are getting through.

This would be suicidal, the Russians have supposedly already amassed a large amount of troops on Iran's northern border, apparently waiting for a western led attack.

An attack on Iran would be INSANE. Iran isn't some nation that has been starved by sanctions for a decade, Iran has a capable military and they aren't going to take a strike on their nuclear facilities lying down.


Fuck it, if it is going to happen then lets just get this over with, we haven't had a good ole fashioned World War in a while.


It's 2012. One hundred years ago, it was 1912. In two years....

First as tragedy, second as farce :lol:

[Sasha]

Seems it was mostly sableratling, or Obama finally got nethanhayu to heel. Even though likud was far ahead in the polls thanks in part to the war rhetoric he retracted a planned early ellection and formed a coalition government with kadima who just elected an Iranian born general as leader who strongly opposes war escalation..

[ВАЛТЕР]

It's 2012. One hundred years ago, it was 1912. In two years....

First as tragedy, second as farce :lol:

Well, the Serbs better get to shooting some archduke somewhere...;):laugh:

[svenne]

I'm pretty sure that not even the US military is stupid enough to try occupying Iran: a country both bigger and more populous than Iraq, and a tad better armed. If Israel and the US attacked Iran, it propably would be via aerial bombings, rather than an old school ground war - where western casualties would be in the thousands, rather than the hundreds. It's just too stupid and improbable (as in: don't underestimate your capitalist enemies, nor overestimate their capitalist enemies...) The iranians also got a bit of modern russian weaponry, which with some luck would elude the early missile rain, and shoot down a couple of western aircrafts (and that would be a pretty big thing, since the Iraq pretty much managed to shoot down zero aircrafts in the latest war).

[wsg1991]

I'm pretty sure that not even the US military is stupid enough to try occupying Iran: a country both bigger and more populous than Iraq, and a tad better armed. If Israel and the US attacked Iran, it propably would be via aerial bombings, rather than an old school ground war - where western casualties would be in the thousands, rather than the hundreds. It's just too stupid and improbable (as in: don't underestimate your capitalist enemies, nor overestimate their capitalist enemies...) The iranians also got a bit of modern russian weaponry, which with some luck would elude the early missile rain, and shoot down a couple of western aircrafts (and that would be a pretty big thing, since the Iraq pretty much managed to shoot down zero aircrafts in the latest war).

the USA military involvement in Iran is not likely to happen , since USA military didn't do any air strike against SYria , unlike Iraq , Iran got Russia and China on it's side , and this countries has stopped the bad habit of selling their allies ( they did even use veto for Syria ) , it would be a proxy war between 2 major powers , although the USA might go far enough to even sent military equipment our of their army , they did it before in 1973 ,

[ckaihatsu]

I'm sceptical. I have my doubts that Israel would attack Iran without US approval. There is so much at stake for Israel in doing so. Without the US Israeli expansionism is finished. I think the US planners are happy with the idea that the rational US is somehow trying to calm down an Israel bear sporting for a fight.


"Good-cop, bad-cop."

[ckaihatsu]

the USA military involvement in Iran is not likely to happen , since USA military didn't do any air strike against SYria , unlike Iraq , Iran got Russia and China on it's side , and this countries has stopped the bad habit of selling their allies ( they did even use veto for Syria ) , it would be a proxy war between 2 major powers , although the USA might go far enough to even sent military equipment our of their army , they did it before in 1973 ,


It looks like the 2011 revolutionary offensive ended with the economic opportunistic armed uprising in Libya, quickly co-opted by the Western powers, kicking off their *counter*-revolutionary offensive that's now depleted of popular support around the Syria thing.

Things are kind of at a standstill now.

[wsg1991]

It looks like the 2011 revolutionary offensive ended with the economic opportunistic armed uprising in Libya, quickly co-opted by the Western powers, kicking off their *counter*-revolutionary offensive that's now depleted of popular support around the Syria thing.

Things are kind of at a standstill now.
i am sure they managed to do a counter revolution in Tunisia since the guys who got elected are some opportunistic politicians + Right wing islamists , so much for the revolution slogan ( bread , freedom , national dignity )

[Sasha]

i am sure they managed to do a counter revolution in Tunisia since the guys who got elected are some opportunistic politicians + Right wing islamists , so much for the revolution slogan ( bread , freedom , national dignity )

you need an february revolution before you can have an october one (and as this russian example shows even then you have to have november, december, januari, new ferbuari etc etc revolutions too)

[NoPasaran1936]

Israel know they need the U.S military support, if the U.S military is anxious, they will not attack. Iran would roll over them, turn them into a cigarette paper then get high of them. It would be that easy for them.

[pluckedflowers]

Israel know they need the U.S military support, if the U.S military is anxious, they will not attack. Iran would roll over them, turn them into a cigarette paper then get high of them. It would be that easy for them.

I think you may be exagerating Iran's abilities and/or its willingness to risk catastrophic war in the event that Israel does attack. Remember, Israel bombed Syria just a few years ago and Syria did nothing but try to pretend like it didn't happen.

[wsg1991]

it was not a socialist revolution , both left nationalist and communist were shattered and weak . btw they aren't any major difference between the two here and have friendly terms , left nationalism are just more conservative ( not even close to Islamist though ) , some of them even religiously devout , which make them able to take down islamist in any argument , even religious ones , and attract ex islamists which no communist can ( the atheist evil communists ) , they both advocated national capitalist system with strong workers position since no real socialist alternative is possible here

[piet11111]

Iran would also have to deal with hostile pro-american Arab nations like Saudi Arabia that see Iran as a regional rival.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It looks like the 2011 revolutionary offensive ended with the economic opportunistic armed uprising in Libya, quickly co-opted by the Western powers, kicking off their *counter*-revolutionary offensive that's now depleted of popular support around the Syria thing.

Things are kind of at a standstill now.

I'm not exactly sure why you think this. The downfall of the former Libyan regime was important in the timeline of 2011 events, yes, but the end of a supposed revolutionary offensive? Lets say that NATO never got involved with Libya, and the February 17 crowd eventually just kind of withered away and vanished due to the military pressure put against them. Would that have really been more beneficial for the "revolutionary offensive"?

[Ocean Seal]

It would seem that what the United States believed would be its attack dog has developed very strong interests of its own.

[ckaihatsu]

i am sure they managed to do a counter revolution in Tunisia since the guys who got elected are some opportunistic politicians + Right wing islamists , so much for the revolution slogan ( bread , freedom , national dignity )





you need an february revolution before you can have an october one (and as this russian example shows even then you have to have november, december, januari, new ferbuari etc etc revolutions too)





it was not a socialist revolution ,


Note that I said 'revolutionary offensive' and not 'revolution' or 'successful socialist revolution'.

If people want to quibble over terminology, that's fine, but I'll maintain that I'm *not overstating* the series of events in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere last year by calling it a 'revolutionary offensive'.





both left nationalist and communist were shattered and weak . btw they aren't any major difference between the two here and have friendly terms , left nationalism are just more conservative ( not even close to Islamist though ) , some of them even religiously devout , which make them able to take down islamist in any argument , even religious ones , and attract ex islamists which no communist can ( the atheist evil communists ) , they both advocated national capitalist system with strong workers position since no real socialist alternative is possible here





It looks like the 2011 revolutionary offensive ended with the economic opportunistic armed uprising in Libya, quickly co-opted by the Western powers, kicking off their *counter*-revolutionary offensive that's now depleted of popular support around the Syria thing.

Things are kind of at a standstill now.





I'm not exactly sure why you think this. The downfall of the former Libyan regime was important in the timeline of 2011 events, yes, but the end of a supposed revolutionary offensive?


Okay, if you're going to be dismissive of my characterization then how *would* you characterize that momentum, and where and when was its endpoint?





Lets say that NATO never got involved with Libya, and the February 17 crowd eventually just kind of withered away and vanished due to the military pressure put against them.




Would that have really been more beneficial for the "revolutionary offensive"?


I don't really know what point you're trying to make with this historical 'what-if' -- are you trying to say that the momentum was declining anyway, in Egypt, and that how things played out in Libya is irrelevant to that momentum -- ?

I prefer to think that all eyes turned to Libya as the next populist flashpoint in the progression, but things were not right from the very beginning -- there was an over-militarization of the opposition forces and this wound up playing right into greater-militarized forces, namely NATO.

Syria is perhaps a better next-focal-point, anyway, since it's more populous and politicized already. Unfortunately the *revolutionary* tempo advantage is gone and imperialism has been leading events since Libya. This means Syria as a focal point is now more of a shitstorm rather than a revolutionary development.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm sceptical. I have my doubts that Israel would attack Iran without US approval. There is so much at stake for Israel in doing so. Without the US Israeli expansionism is finished. I think the US planners are happy with the idea that the rational US is somehow trying to calm down an Israel bear sporting for a fight.





"Good-cop, bad-cop."





It would seem that what the United States believed would be its attack dog has developed very strong interests of its own.


Why are you buying into their bullshit -- ??!