Ok... there seems to be war clouds going on and waiting for a spark...
Iran is defying the world with it's chest thumping and the west is getting annoyed...... a war seems to be likely in this situation unless Iran takes some measures by making sure that it's nukes are not a danger to the world peace.But war-mongering statements like "Wiping off Israel" is a extremely poor diplomatic tactic.
Israel seems to be successfull to be able to push US/EU against Iran and then might initiate an attack at the right moment.And this time Saudis might provide secret help as well since they want to "cut the head of the snake".
it will be a devastating war and iran will obviously attack soudi arab and neighbouring gulf countries to broden up the war front and allso to israel and global crude supply will be in ruined and world economy in peril
Yes. February 29, 2012, at 1040 p.m. by sending 5 F16s South of Iran and 6 F16s from the North, hence confusing the Iranian army who are expecting them to cross Iran from East and the West. Shhhhhhhhh.:
....Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear program....
....Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S....
....Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees -- as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said, there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive"....
....Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. ....I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing" ....
....Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused problems for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting was designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me was a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the United States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and anxiety that I think doesn't serve the world well and doesn't serve peace well."
Rogers spoke, as well, about the Iranian nuclear timeline: "So the big question is the dash. And the dash is, we know they have an enrichment program, it's highly likely they have a weaponization program. You have to have both of those parts for a nuclear weapon program. And the dash is when does weaponization mean you can put it on a missile and fire it off?
The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks, which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly marching down this road."
Israel aims at mounting pressure on Iran so that in a state of tension Tehran may take some reactionary step against adversaries. The plans of Capitalists, Imperialists and Zionists to invade economy of third word countries, especially through notorious concepts of ‘Globalization’ and “New World Order,’ would die its own death. Western diplomats have openly offered Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state in case they support for an Israeli strike on Iran. However, in Palestine, Lebanon and other Islamic countries there are only a handful of people who would accept Israeli cum western linking neutralizing Iranian nuclear threat with Palestinian settlements. Such cunning moves would only lead to political wiping out Jewish and Christian influence in Islamic countries and nothing else. Had the western reaction on North Korean nuclear programme the same as they are exhibiting for Iran, many of the Islamic countries would have abstained in Iranian nuclear controversy. However, Iranian peaceful nuclear programme is not feared by any of the Islamic government except the western installed puppets. The present Naval buildup in Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean is one of the blackmailing tactics to put Iran on a defensive.
No war -> we have exclusive relations with iran
small battle -> iranians will support there regime, even the ones that dont like the regime. Iran will get more isolated thus insuring we get greater stakes in iran.
war -> iran will be weakened but the west will be weakened more due to costs thus helping India in the long run because west is no friend of India.
May be it is true about Indo-Iran relations but what about Indo-US and Indo-Israeli relations? You cannot live without joining some pole, at least for political purposes. In case of attack, Indian Navy along with the other Navies will police the international waters. New Delhi will ensure UN sanctions as Washington would be wise enough to work this aspect as soon as possible. More so, the Afghan population in India will never allow New Delhi to give refuge to Iranian leadership in case situation worsens. India has signed agreements with US' DIA and CIA and providing them sensitive data against Iran. It also depends on the public opinion against Iran in India. Washington will be asking New Delhi for furnishing tactical and strategic facilities including availability of aircraft Career INS Viraat. Thus Indian moves by Indian Armed Forces and intelligence services, which so far are being concealed from Indian public, will be exposed.
The chatter of inevitable attack on Iran has been happening for a good decade now, and nothing has happened overtly, though the war continues covertly.
Will the attack happen? Yes, most definitely.
By when? Let Iran get close enough to making a bomb, till then, the rhetoric will continue. Not in the near future, so it seems.
More interesting to see will be, how the Mitt Romney administration will react to the evolving situation. The republicans have definitely been quite high on rhetoric. Will the high voltage talk translate into action, or will they play around with sanctions and some crippling sanctions, my guess remains, first, the tried and tested method of sanctions will be used.
During the 1960s Israel concentrated on conventional military superiority to defend lands confiscated in the 1948 and 1967 wars - and to convince Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories that they could not break free of it. However, in 1973's Yom Kippur War Israel was almost overwhelmed by Arab forces. Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert, ordering 13 atomic bombs be prepared for missiles and aircraft. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Simha Dinitz threatened “very serious conclusions" if there was not an immediate airlift of supplies. This forced U.S. President Richard Nixon to make emergency airlifts of state of the art military supplies to Israel.
Fearing intervention by the Soviet Union, U.S. forces went on Defense Condition (DEFCON) III alert status, something which could have led to full scale nuclear war in case of misinterpretation of signals or hardware or software failures. Additionally, as Seymour Hersh documents in detail in his book The Samson Option, from 1973 these weapons have been used to discourage the Soviet Union - now Russia - from intervening militarily on behalf of Arab nations. Obviously an Israeli nuclear attack on Russia by the United States’ great ally Israel would result in Russia sending thousands of nuclear weapons towards the U.S. and the U.S. responding in kind.
Not surprisingly, no nation state has attempted to attack Israel since 1973. A former Israeli official justified Israel’s threats. “You Americans screwed us” in not supporting Israel in its 1956 war with Egypt. “We can still remember the smell of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Next time we’ll take all of you with us.” General Moshe Dayan, a leading promoter of Israel’s nuclear program, has been quoted as saying “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” Amos Rubin, an economic adviser to former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, said "If left to its own Israel will have no choice but to fall back on a riskier defense which will endanger itself and the world at large...
I wonder how much of the fallout India would end up with if there was a middle east nuclear war.
In 1977, after a right-wing coalition under Menachen Begin took power, the Israelis began to use the Samson Option not just to deter attack but to allow Israel to “redraw the political map of the Middle East” by expanding hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers into the West Bank and Gaza. Then-Minister of Defense Ariel Sharon said things like "We are much more important than (Americans) think. We can take the middle east with us whenever we go" and "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."
In 2002 the Los Angeles Times, published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"
Here is a good analysis of the U.S.. role in a conflict with Iran made by Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington's best defense Analysts. http://csis.org/files/publication/12...ve_Strikes.pdf
Not that I agree with his political views, but give a good insight.
It is probably popular reading in Tehran these days......