News Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran

[AhmedEzz]

Iran doesn't have what I would call a "navy". No, it can't block oil traffic from the Gulf either with missiles or with its little force of PT boats. Remember, it has tried before! You too are arguing against historical precident.

"Historical precident" is not relevant because the circumstances are not the same Russ. You are calling for some previous similar attack, thing is , there wasn't any. The Iraqi attack was different and had different circumstances. The political setting is very different now. For example arguing that Egypt was not going to launch a war against Israel and reclaim Sinai just because of the previous "historical" encounter is not very clever.

And that is relevant how?

Well as you should know, Iran has sheer numbers of militia fighters. Moreover, those people being as hardliners as they are, are not simply going to lay down while their national pride is being spit at.

No obvious benefit, high probability of annihilation (see: Hussein).

Annihilation ?? I thought you were smarter than that !...the "Hussein" example couldn't come in a worse time. Imagine the Iraq nightmare the US went through and multiply that by 3, that is if US will use all its might (excluding WMD). Which brings us back to Iran being the second most populous country in the ME AND to the fact that the US military is already stretched , this provides a very good encouragement that Iran retaliates.

The thing here is that its the US not Israel that will take the major hit. US does not want an all-out-war ME , its against its interests. The US has a policy of feeding low-intensity conflicts to its own benefit but all-out-wars especially near the oil supplies is to be avoided.
Israel on the other hand cares about one thing only, maintaining strategic advantage of being the only state with WMD. I think there is a STRONG opposition in the US to any chance of waging a war against Iran, thus the US CAN and probably WILL bind Israel not to attack. But this is where things get interesting, if Israel did launch an attack on Iran, then boy, I want to see 1) the Iranian response 2) International response 3)US response.

As a side note, Israel has no right to launch attacks against countries that did not wage a war against it. Anyone disagrees?


Last but not least, this is my understanding and analysis of the situation. Feel free to disagree and discuss it with me but don't be disrespectful.

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran very probably doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and somewhat probably doesn't have enough HEU to make a weapon, yet. The IAEA doesn't know for certain, as Iran blocks inspections of certain facilities.
Para C.9. here e.g.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-8.pdf

Thing is that Iran is asked to not enrich uranium which no other NPT member states are asked to do, and they are asked to allow more inspections than other NPT member states.

An analogy would be this: Initially you are suspected of planning a murder. The police wants you to be put on house arrest pending investigations by an investigating judge. But there are procedures for this, which are not met. The judge agrees with the police despite the legal restrictions. But unfortunately for you, there is no appeals process here.

Then later it is clear that you are not planning any murder, at least the original line of evidence is debunked (this is the analogue of the IAEA finding that Iran did not divert nuclear materials and that the traces of highly enriched uranium came from Pakistan and later that an US intelligence report contradicts initial suspicions).

However, this does not mean that your house arrest will be lifted. The poice now comes up with another reason: "We canot be sure that you will never commit a murder in the future. That's why you always have to be under house arrest." Also, they say that in addition to the house arrest they want to to have intrusive inspections in your home. If you don't agree to that, you'll go to prison.

The fact that you are not cooporating well is then interpreted as evidence that you are hiding something. That "something" must, of course, be your secret murder plans, what else could it be?

Meanwhile, your neighbor (North Korea) actually did commit a crime and he is out of jail convicted to probation only.

 

[mheslep]

Thing is that Iran is asked to not enrich uranium which no other NPT member states are asked to do, and they are asked to allow more inspections than other NPT member states.

Because they were found in violation of the NPT! The IAEA reported its findings up to the Security Council and there we are.

An analogy would be this: Initially you are suspected of planning a murder. The police wants you to be put on house arrest pending investigations by an investigating judge. But there are procedures for this, which are not met. The judge agrees with the police despite the legal restrictions. But unfortunately for you, there is no appeals process here.

Then later it is clear that you are not planning any murder, at least the original line of evidence is debunked (this is the analogue of the IAEA finding that Iran did not divert nuclear materials and that the traces of highly enriched uranium came from Pakistan and later that an US intelligence report contradicts initial suspicions).

However, this does not mean that your house arrest will be lifted. The poice now comes up with another reason: "We canot be sure that you will never commit a murder in the future. That's why you always have to be under house arrest." Also, they say that in addition to the house arrest they want to to have intrusive inspections in your home. If you don't agree to that, you'll go to prison.

The fact that you are not cooporating well is then interpreted as evidence that you are hiding something. That "something" must, of course, be your secret murder plans, what else could it be?

That's not an apt analogy, which uses criminal law and places the burden of proof on the accuser. The NPT is not that, its all about cooperation and transparency which one agrees to all the time, not just when under suspicion of some violation. Failure to be cooperative and to provide transparency is by itself a violation - an effective nuclear treaty can not work any other way. If a nation doesn't want to do that then it should have never signed the NPT, and it needs to get out of the nuclear game altogether.

Meanwhile, your neighbor (North Korea) actually did commit a crime and he is out of jail convicted to probation only.

NK never signed the NTP

 

[Count Iblis]

North Korea did sign the NPT but it withdrew from it.

The NPT has nothing to do with banning countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is merely a way to allow countries to get nuclear technology in exchange for inspections to make sure they aren't diverting what they get to make nuclear weapons.

If a country wishes to withdraw from the NPT, then it has to give a 6 months notice. So, it is basically like: If you want to make nuclear weapons then not with our help.

The problem with Iran is that they could not acquire nuclear technology because of US sanctions, despite them being part of the NPT. They then acquired nuclear technology outside of the NPT, which is a procedural violation, but it isn't like Iran diverting something they got by virtue of being part of the NPT.

Subsequent inspections verified that Iran had not used what they acquired on the black market for a weapons program. At least, no evidence of that was ever found.

Since Iran's enrichment program is completely indiginous, i.e. Iran is not asking e.g. the US to provide for the centrifuges and the uranium, this program could operate completely outside of the NPT. Therefore saying that Iran is violating the NPT in an effort to make nuclear weapons, is a bit of a red herring.

The analogy with the criminal justice system simply explains why Iran is not inclined to fully cooperate with all the inspections given the attitude of the West.

 

[russ_watters]

Since Iran's enrichment program is completely indiginous, i.e. Iran is not asking e.g. the US to provide for the centrifuges and the uranium, this program could operate completely outside of the NPT.

That is also not how the NPT works. You're just making this stuff up as you go along!

You should read the text of the treaty to see what it actually says, rather than just saying what you think it should say! http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

 

[Count Iblis]

That is also not how the NPT works. You're just making this stuff up as you go along!

You should read the text of the treaty to see what it actually says, rather than just saying what you think it should say! http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

So, you don't have to split hairs over the small details in the treaty to see that what the bottom line is. Countries have not given up any rights at all by signing this treaty. The details in the treaty regulate the transfer of nuclear technology in such a way that it cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

The whole idea that Iran has somehow "forfeited" the right to enrich uranium (under the usual IEAE inspections regime) because of procedural violations, is thus nonsense. At least, even if one could somehow argue that, trying to use that to ban Iran from enriching its own uranium doesn't make any sense, given Article X.

Iran could simply (legally) withdraw from the NPT and enrich its own uranium in its own centrifuges for use in its own nuclear powerplants. After withdrawing from the NPT they would not even be required to let the whole process be monitored.

When Dr. Rice was arguing: "Iran cannot be trusted to enrich uranium", I was thinking, "what the hell is she talking about"? The NPT never gave the US sovereignity over Iran.

 

[russ_watters]

It is exactly how it works. Article X from the treaty says it all:

Oh, I see - you are combining the two issues. Well if that was the intent, then the NPT wouldn't have much of a point, since non-signatories could just get together and develop nukes as a group (which they kinda do anyway). Obviously, we'd never share our technology with a country unless we could be sure of how they would use it anyway. The purpose is not about control over the technology or economics of selling materials, it is about trying to entice and guilt countries into not developing weapons.

 

[WhoWee]

One last thing, to do anything Israel HAS to take permission from the US. To me the US is the vassal of Israel, it gave it everything it needs. Now how can such country NOT follow orders from big daddy? (already there is a discussion of lowering aids to Israel)

The Obama administration already told Israel not to attack.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-biden-israel-iran8-2009apr08,0,2388127.story

If you're right, there's nothing else to discuss...correct?

 

[AhmedEzz]

If it is a big and mouthful NO , then yes, there is nothing else to discuss indeed.

 

[Count Iblis]

Well, the problem with Iran isn't anything like: "Hmmmm, we the West want to honour our commitment to the NPT and sell Iran 10,000 centrifuges, but we don't trust that Iran is not going to use with what we have to offer for a weapons program."

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

 

[Count Iblis]

About the original issue under discussion: A possible Israeli attrack and the US opposition to that, you can see why, from the perspective of the West, an Israeli attack would be the worst possible move.


An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.


Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them. The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.


On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.


Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.


ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

 

[Count Iblis]

You are taking the Iranian military to be too strong and the US + Israeli military being very weak. The US has strong bases in the Gulf states, let alone a strong naval force ready to intercept at any time to secure strategic sites such as oil fields. Moreover, long and medium range strategic missiles could be rained on Iranian soil. This would actually be a 40/60 war with Iran being the underdog. The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

So, if Israel performs a surprise attack, then the US won't have brought in extra forces. Of course, if the US were planning something, it would take then necesary measures to deny such oportunities for Iran.

Of course, it would still be a risky strategy for Iran to do anything with its conventional army or navy. The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

 

[russ_watters]

The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichement facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

 

[russ_watters]

An Israeli attack must be, sort of, a surprise attack. So, there can be no huge buildup of US military forces in advance. Israel can only do a limited number of bombings, by far not enough to do significant damage to the Iranian military. Also the amount of destruction to the nuclear installation won't be very large. Even if it were, Iran could simply rebuild it over time as most of the equipment was made in Iran, albeit from blueprints obtained from Dr. Khan.

Again, we should use the Osirak attack as a model: Iraq's nuclear program never really recovered from it. Iran's is more decentralized, but there are still some key locations that if attacked would be major setbacks. This isn't about "the Iranian military", it is about a limited, precision strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel is not going to start a war with Iran (it didn't happen with Iraq and it wouldn't happen with Iran either).

Then, after such an Israeli attack, you have an Iran that will leave the NPT for sure. They'll change their attitude toward nuclear weapons and will go ahead with producing them.

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

The number of centrifuges they need for a weapons program is a small fraction of what they need for keeping a few 1000 megawatt nuclear plants running. They can then easily keep such a program hidden.

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

On the military side, after an Israeli attack, Iran has the West checkmate. Iran can declare war on the West, saying that the West allowed Israel to atack. It doesn't matter if that's really true or not. Iran can claim it and then declare war, just like the US claimed Saddam was not disarming its WMDs and declared war on Iraq.

I guess they could, but since they don't have the capacity to launch a real attack, much less win, and they know it, they wouldn't. Again: see the Osirak attack and its aftermath.

Then Iran will demand that the Gulf States stop supplying the aggressor (= the West) with oil or have their oil installations destroyed. Since they are unlikely to comply, Iran will start military actions. Because the US has not had time to mobilize its army, Iran could actually simply go into Iraq, take thousands of US POWs and move them to Teheran.

It takes Iran time to mobilize too and we could stop them with a relatively small force if we have good air power in the region (and we will). See Iraq, 1991 for another example. Iraq was intending to take over much of the Arabian peninsula, but it wasn't as easy as you are making it sound.

Again, you are laying out a scenario for a gulf war that is very unrealistic. There is historical precedent here that you are ignorning.

ALso, instead of destroying the oil installations, Iran could take control of the Iraqi oil fields and invade Kuwayt and Saudi Arabia and take control of oil installations there too.


Then the negotations with the West will start.

That is exactly what Saddam tried in 1990, and with a better military than Iran has. How'd that work out for him?

 

[russ_watters]

The thing that will hurt for the US is not being hurt militarily but it is being dragged into another war with a populous country. The US already suffered ALOT from Iraq, it would be overwhelming to fight Iran as well. Bottom line.

Well we had two wars with Iraq and the key to an easy exit strategy is obvious from the historical precedent: destroy their military and push them out of the country they invaded, then stop. That's what made the 1991 war so easy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure that Iran could not take control of, say, Basra in a surprise attack. It is just over the Iranian border and the US would have to get their forces from further away. The US forces in Iraq are in no position to take on an offensive army.

If the US Army were still in Iraq when it happened, Iran would not even get a mile across the border. But even if the US Army were in Texas when it happened, what you are describing is simply the scenario from 1991.

Tom Clancy actually wrote a book in 1996 (Executive Orders) that has a reasonable scenario for an Iranian attampe to do what Iraq failed to do (take over Saudia Arabia). Part of it is that they would go for a more blitzkreig like attack and they'd have a better chance of taking over more of the peninsula before substantial American forces arrived, but the end result would be the same: annihilation of their military.

The missiles strikes are less risky. In the Lebanon war, Israel could not stop Hezbollah from firing missiles. This despite the fact that since the mid 1990s, Israel has invested many billions in anti-missile defense systems. The problem with anti-missile defense systems is that they work best for long range missiles. Many of the oil installations are just over the border with Iran, well in the range of the Iranian short range missiles.

Even if you would try to defend oil installations using the Partriot system, that defense wouldn't last long. Iran has far more short range missiles than the number of patriot missiles the US could deploy, so you would run out of the Patriot missiles very soon.

You can't hit an oil well with an unguided missile - we would not bother trying to defend them.

 

[Count Iblis]

You have that backwards. Weapons require more enrichment and therefore more centrifuges.

Suppose Iran wants to make a few 15 kiloton nuclear weapons. They don't really have a strict time limit, so they can continue to run their centrifuges for a few years to get the highly enriched uranium they need for that.


Suppose, on the other hand, that Iran has a few 1000 megawatt powerplants running. Then, they would need to be able to enrich uranium at a faster rate than is used by the powerplants. This means that the amount of uranium in a 15 kiloton device would have to be enriched (to low level) in just half a day or so.


So, you need to have a far greater number of centrifuges to supply powerplants than if you just want to make a few nuclear bombs.

 

[Count Iblis]

Actually, I'd say if their progress has gone far enough that the attack is deemed necessary, then they are so far outside the treaty already that to formally withdraw would just be a confirmation of reality, not a change in it.

But El Baradei, not Israel, is the boss of the IAEA and he never suggested that military attacks are a good way to deal with Iran.

 

[Count Iblis]

As was already pointed out, this came after violatoins, but even if it hadn't, Iran has shown itself in the past to be a non-trustworty country. The NPT talks about "good faith" negotiations - since the west knows that Iran does not undertake "good faith" negotiations, the west needs a burden of proof from Iran that may exceed the burden of proof they require of others. There is nothing wrong with that - it is just prudent and necessarily to ensure complaince with the NPT.

Iran did not violate any agreements since negotiations started in 2003. The West wanted Iran to stop enriching pending negotiations, and Iran did exactly that. Then, when the negotiations ended, Iran continued with enrichment activities (under IAEA inspections), and the West said that that was a breach of the agreement.


That is nonsense as that would suggest that Iran had already agreed to permanently stop enriching (or only do so if the West would approve of it), but that would mean that the problem had already been solved, which clearly was not the case.


So, it is the West who was dealing with Iran in bad faith by misrepresenting signed agreements.

 

[Count Iblis]

Again, we should use the Osirak attack as a model: Iraq's nuclear program never really recovered from it. Iran's is more decentralized, but there are still some key locations that if attacked would be major setbacks. This isn't about "the Iranian military", it is about a limited, precision strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel is not going to start a war with Iran (it didn't happen with Iraq and it wouldn't happen with Iran either).

I think that this is why Biden is so worried. I think he understands that Iran will hit back. Iran has publically said so many times. If Israel thinks they can just do some precision strikes, then they will have attacked Iran while leaving their military more or less intact (Israel coiuld not do very serious damage anyway).

So, that's like sneaking up to a lion and biting in his tail. Sure, some damage to the tail will be done, but what will happen next?

 

[Count Iblis]

You can't hit an oil well with an unguided missile - we would not bother trying to defend them.

That would be a mistake. See the Lebanon war of 2006. Iran has far better quality missiles than Hezbollah has.

 

[mheslep]

...The West should have acknowledged the simple fact that Iran is staying in the NPT and agreeing to inspections including of its enrichment facility as a good sign. Instead, the West started to dictate to Iran that it has to stop its enrichment activities, agree to more intrusive inspections. This is where it became an issue of sovereign rights for Iran and the West lost out because they overplayed their hand.

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

 

[Count Iblis]

Iran violated the NPT, while being a signatory to the NPT. Iran had not withdrawn the NPT before hand. In response, the UN security council imposed sanctions, demanding Iran stop _all_ enrichment. This is not an issue of sovereignty.

Of course it is. Iran may have violated the NPT, but on a purely procedural point. It wasn't like that Iran obtained nuclear materials from, say, the US and had diverted that to secretly produce nuclear weapons. To the contrary, Iran could not obtain nuclear technology because the US was blocking that, which is in fact a violation of the NPT by the US. Then Iran obtained the nuclear technology to the black market.


When all this was uncovered and the IAEA checked out what Iran had obtained and what Iran had done, no evidence of a weapons program was found, which is very strong evidence against Iran having the intention to produce nuclear weapons.


Anyway, since Iran is enriching its own uranium using materials not obtained via the NPT mechanisms, Iran can continue to do that after leaving the NPT. So, the NPT violation of Iran is a red herring when used to argue that Iran must stop enriching uranium because they violated the NPT.


What is really going on here is that the West is trying to force Iran to stop enriching uranium for reasons that have nothing to do with any violations of the NPT on Iran's part. The West simply is not comfortable with Iran having the technology to make nuclear weapons, period. To make sure Iran doesn't get this technology, the West is going to use whatever it can.


To justify this, the West makes propaganda, it exaggerates the intelligence against Iran in a similar way as was done to exaggerate the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Procedural violations are misrepresented, just like in case of Iraq.


The West knew in 2003 when they found out about the enrichment facility in Natanz that Iran was not obliged to notify the IAEA about it, because that only has to be done a certain time before it is supposed to go online.


The West misrepresented Iran's non-tranparancy as being a violation of the NPT. It clearly isn't, so there you have it: a lie told by the West to win points against Iran.


The reason why the West found it necessary to act in this way is, of courrse, that they did not expect to find any real evidence of an Iranian weapons program. Indeed, if they had expected that Iran would not notify the IAEA ever about the existence of the enrichment facility at Natanz and that Iran would produce highly enriched uranium there, then the smart thing to do for the West was not to notify the IAEA at all and wait until Iran had made some highly enriched uranium. Then they would have informed El Baradei and Iran would have been caught.

So, the fact that this did not happen is again evidence for the weakness of the case the West is making. It is all based on what in the opinion of the West Iran will do.


Anyway, Iran being barred from putting its own uranium in its own centrifuges to produce fuel for its own nuclear powerplants, just because Israel doesn't like this idea, surely is a violation of Iran's sovereign rights. The NPT only gives the West leverage about what Iran is allowed to do using nuclear materials and technology it got by virtue of being part of the NPT.

And if Iran's NPT membership is judged to be incompatible with Iran's enrichment activities, then Iran should be kicked out of the NPT and thus barred from getting any assistance on nuclear matters. However, that is precisely not what the West would want. The West wants Iran to stay in the NPT and then on the basis of the alleged incompatibility of Iran's NPT membership and its enrichment activities, they want to ban Iran from enriching uranium.

So, this is, sort of, the West holding Iran hostage.

 

[mheslep]

... The Israeli planes need to be refueled. This has to be done somewhere near Iran and then the issue of US control of airspace of the region again comes up.

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

 

[Count Iblis]

Israel has some aerial refuelling capability. Boeing 707s. So does Iran for that matter.

Israel would not want to do the refueling over Iranian air space, or for that matter any other airspace of unfriendly countries. That severely constrains how Israel can deploy its air force.

 

[WhoWee]

If it is a big and mouthful NO , then yes, there is nothing else to discuss indeed.

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

 

[Count Iblis]

James Baker told in an interview by Wolf Blitzer last week on CNN that Bush had refused to give Israel the codes it needs to safely overfly Iraq.

The US air defense system in Iraq will automatically shoot down Israeli planes with deadly efficiency. It is in fact quite a tour de force to make sure the Patriot system does not accidentally target friendly planes.

 

[Count Iblis]

And it looks like Iran's response to any attack will be automatically triggered.:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHu-qXce9oBU3TnywR1HYt5LiEZw

 

[AhmedEzz]

No means no and besides...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nobody-messes-with-joe-ob_n_169685.html

This thread was started to discuss Bidens comments.

The real question might be what would Obama do if Israel ignored warnings...flew through US controlled airspace and attacked.

http://money.aol.com/article/cautious-response-is-quintessential/420108?flv=1

It's doubtful Iran would first retaliate against US forces...they'll focus on Israel.

As for Obama, I don't think scolding rhetoric in a press conference or a stern letter will do much. Then, after the fact (of an attact) he can attempt to make peace offerings (or throw money at the problem)?

Talk won't stop a war between Iran and Israel, if an attack plays out, Obama/Biden will need to make some very difficult decisions...support Israel or turn their back...

Iran is not Iraq. That's all I could further say.