Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 20th, 2012, 09:31 AM   #1
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 34,409
Keeping in mind the the advice of generals was ignored in the run-up to the Iraq invasion....



Quote:
US military officials urge caution on attacking Iran



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be beyond the reach of the Israeli military, in what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey calls a “zone of immunity.”



Senior Pentagon officials are making no secret of the fact that despite the apparent stepped-up drumbeat to war with Iran, they believe a strike on the country is “not prudent” right now.



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, put this view – held by many in the Department of Defense – in perhaps the strongest terms yet this week.



True, Israel could bomb Iran and delay the country’s ability to create nuclear weapons “probably for a couple of years,” General Dempsey told CNN Sunday.



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be “beyond the reach” of the Israeli military, in what Dempsey called a “zone of immunity.”



What’s more, Iran would likely retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz using mines and swarming boats. It might also activate proxy cells to attack not just Israel, but possibly US interests in Iraq or US troops in Afghanistan.



Precisely how Iran would chose to respond to a strike is “the question with which we all wrestle,” Dempsey said, “and the reason we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.”



Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology.



This was the finding of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’s recent assessment on security threats facing the United States. Right now, Iran is “more than capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon if it’s political leaders – specifically the supreme leader himself – chooses to do so,” DNI head James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services CommitteeFebruary 16.



Yet so far they do not appear to have made that choice, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers in the same hearing.



“The agency assesses Iran as unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict,” he said, concluding that though the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon is “technically feasible,” it is “practically not likely.”



If attacked, however, Iran could “attempt to employ terrorist surrogates worldwide,” close the Straits of Hormuz “at least temporarily,” and “may launch missiles against US forces [in Iraq or Afghanistan] and our allies in the region,” General Burgess said.



For these reasons, both Mr. Clapper and Burgess told lawmakers that it is their opinion that Israel has not yet decided to strike Iran, either.



The urging of the United States to hold off on strikes may also have something to do with this decision, Dempsey conceded.



“I’m confident that they understand our concerns that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.



Indeed, the hype surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions belies a considerable degree of rationality, Dempsey said, adding that Iran does not appear to be a highly irrational or unpredictable actor on the world stage. “We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.”



At the same time, while international pressure in the form of sanctions has continued to increase,Tehran is “not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program,” Burgess added.



Dempsey for his part urged continued international sanctions, but said the Pentagon would continue its planning, making “options available should the nation decide to do something in Iran.”



Whether or not that will come to pass, Dempsey declined to hazard a guess. “Fortunately,” he said, “I’m not a betting man.”


http://www.csmonitor...-attacking-Iran
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 20th, 2012, 09:40 AM   #2
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,906
I don't think Israel would win if they attack Iran. But you know, Iran is either begging or daring Israel to attack them.
highway80west is offline  
Old February 20th, 2012, 03:13 PM   #3
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 34,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by H80W View Post
I don't think Israel would win if they attack Iran. But you know, Iran is either begging or daring Israel to attack them.


I disagree.



Israel is militarily incapable of anything but stirring up a nest of hornets. Israel's been daring us to attack Iran.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 20th, 2012, 03:26 PM   #4
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by H80W' timestamp='1329759651' post='384747

I don't think Israel would win if they attack Iran. But you know, Iran is either begging or daring Israel to attack them.


I disagree.



Israel is militarily incapable of anything but stirring up a nest of hornets. Israel's been daring us to attack Iran.


I guess one thing for sure: it would be a messy thing to see. Of course, Iran is probably laughing at Israel.
highway80west is offline  
Old February 20th, 2012, 04:09 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Keeping in mind the the advice of generals was ignored in the run-up to the Iraq invasion....



Quote:
US military officials urge caution on attacking Iran



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be beyond the reach of the Israeli military, in what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey calls a “zone of immunity.”



Senior Pentagon officials are making no secret of the fact that despite the apparent stepped-up drumbeat to war with Iran, they believe a strike on the country is “not prudent” right now.



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, put this view – held by many in the Department of Defense – in perhaps the strongest terms yet this week.



True, Israel could bomb Iran and delay the country’s ability to create nuclear weapons “probably for a couple of years,” General Dempsey told CNN Sunday.



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be “beyond the reach” of the Israeli military, in what Dempsey called a “zone of immunity.”



What’s more, Iran would likely retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz using mines and swarming boats. It might also activate proxy cells to attack not just Israel, but possibly US interests in Iraq or US troops in Afghanistan.



Precisely how Iran would chose to respond to a strike is “the question with which we all wrestle,” Dempsey said, “and the reason we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.”



Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology.



This was the finding of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’s recent assessment on security threats facing the United States. Right now, Iran is “more than capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon if it’s political leaders – specifically the supreme leader himself – chooses to do so,” DNI head James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services CommitteeFebruary 16.



Yet so far they do not appear to have made that choice, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers in the same hearing.



“The agency assesses Iran as unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict,” he said, concluding that though the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon is “technically feasible,” it is “practically not likely.”



If attacked, however, Iran could “attempt to employ terrorist surrogates worldwide,” close the Straits of Hormuz “at least temporarily,” and “may launch missiles against US forces [in Iraq or Afghanistan] and our allies in the region,” General Burgess said.



For these reasons, both Mr. Clapper and Burgess told lawmakers that it is their opinion that Israel has not yet decided to strike Iran, either.



The urging of the United States to hold off on strikes may also have something to do with this decision, Dempsey conceded.



“I’m confident that they understand our concerns that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.



Indeed, the hype surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions belies a considerable degree of rationality, Dempsey said, adding that Iran does not appear to be a highly irrational or unpredictable actor on the world stage. “We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.”



At the same time, while international pressure in the form of sanctions has continued to increase,Tehran is “not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program,” Burgess added.



Dempsey for his part urged continued international sanctions, but said the Pentagon would continue its planning, making “options available should the nation decide to do something in Iran.”



Whether or not that will come to pass, Dempsey declined to hazard a guess. “Fortunately,” he said, “I’m not a betting man.”


http://www.csmonitor...-attacking-Iran






But, on the other hand, and if history is any guide, concessions and consideration towards Iran, or simple maintaining the status quo, won’t make Iran's regime more moderate.



Instead, concessions and consideration towards Iran, or simple maintaining the status quo, tell the Iranian regime that the West fears it, tell it that its tactics of pressure and threats work, and encourage it to raise its demands.



So, in my opinion, be ready for those increased Iranian demands...if the West essentially backs down, or even if the West maintains the status quo.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old February 20th, 2012, 04:14 PM   #6
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 34,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1329759104' post='384743

Keeping in mind the the advice of generals was ignored in the run-up to the Iraq invasion....



Quote:
US military officials urge caution on attacking Iran



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be beyond the reach of the Israeli military, in what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey calls a “zone of immunity.”



Senior Pentagon officials are making no secret of the fact that despite the apparent stepped-up drumbeat to war with Iran, they believe a strike on the country is “not prudent” right now.



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, put this view – held by many in the Department of Defense – in perhaps the strongest terms yet this week.



True, Israel could bomb Iran and delay the country’s ability to create nuclear weapons “probably for a couple of years,” General Dempsey told CNN Sunday.



The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be “beyond the reach” of the Israeli military, in what Dempsey called a “zone of immunity.”



What’s more, Iran would likely retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz using mines and swarming boats. It might also activate proxy cells to attack not just Israel, but possibly US interests in Iraq or US troops in Afghanistan.



Precisely how Iran would chose to respond to a strike is “the question with which we all wrestle,” Dempsey said, “and the reason we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.”



Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology.



This was the finding of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’s recent assessment on security threats facing the United States. Right now, Iran is “more than capable of producing enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon if it’s political leaders – specifically the supreme leader himself – chooses to do so,” DNI head James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services CommitteeFebruary 16.



Yet so far they do not appear to have made that choice, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers in the same hearing.



“The agency assesses Iran as unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict,” he said, concluding that though the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon is “technically feasible,” it is “practically not likely.”



If attacked, however, Iran could “attempt to employ terrorist surrogates worldwide,” close the Straits of Hormuz “at least temporarily,” and “may launch missiles against US forces [in Iraq or Afghanistan] and our allies in the region,” General Burgess said.



For these reasons, both Mr. Clapper and Burgess told lawmakers that it is their opinion that Israel has not yet decided to strike Iran, either.



The urging of the United States to hold off on strikes may also have something to do with this decision, Dempsey conceded.



“I’m confident that they understand our concerns that a strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.



Indeed, the hype surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions belies a considerable degree of rationality, Dempsey said, adding that Iran does not appear to be a highly irrational or unpredictable actor on the world stage. “We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.”



At the same time, while international pressure in the form of sanctions has continued to increase,Tehran is “not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program,” Burgess added.



Dempsey for his part urged continued international sanctions, but said the Pentagon would continue its planning, making “options available should the nation decide to do something in Iran.”



Whether or not that will come to pass, Dempsey declined to hazard a guess. “Fortunately,” he said, “I’m not a betting man.”


http://www.csmonitor...-attacking-Iran






But, on the other hand, and if history is any guide, concessions and consideration towards Iran, or simple maintaining the status quo, won’t make Iran's regime more moderate.



Instead, concessions and consideration towards Iran, or simple maintaining the status quo, tell the Iranian regime that the West fears it, tell it that its tactics of pressure and threats work, and encourage it to raise its demands.



So, in my opinion, be ready for those increased Iranian demands...if the West essentially backs down, or even if the West maintains the status quo.


If recent history is any guide, military interventionism doesn't increase security.



If recent events are any guide, the West, and the US in particular, are not paying any attention to Iran's bluster.



imaginethat is offline  
Old February 21st, 2012, 09:49 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Matt Taibbi has a good article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...o-war-20120217



Also, here's a sane news source:

http://www.al-monitor.com
skrekk is offline  
Old February 21st, 2012, 01:35 PM   #8
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 34,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Matt Taibbi has a good article:

http://www.rollingst...to-war-20120217



Also, here's a sane news source:

http://www.al-monitor.com


Great links skrekk. Thanks.



Hopefully, Americans can resist being hypnotized into war as we were in 2002-2003.



The stakes are higher this time around.
imaginethat is offline  
Old February 21st, 2012, 01:38 PM   #9
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1329846543' post='384940

Matt Taibbi has a good article:

http://www.rollingst...to-war-20120217



Also, here's a sane news source:

http://www.al-monitor.com


Great links skrekk. Thanks.



Hopefully, Americans can resist being hypnotized into war as we were in 2002-2003.



The stakes are higher this time around.


Stakes are higher like the price and availability of oil in the western countries?



The US advised Israel during the Gulf War and certainly they are doing the same in this situation with Iran.
highway80west is offline  
Old February 21st, 2012, 01:41 PM   #10
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 34,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by H80W View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1329860128' post='384972

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1329846543' post='384940']

Matt Taibbi has a good article:

http://www.rollingst...to-war-20120217



Also, here's a sane news source:

http://www.al-monitor.com


Great links skrekk. Thanks.



Hopefully, Americans can resist being hypnotized into war as we were in 2002-2003.



The stakes are higher this time around.


Stakes are higher like the price and availability of oil in the western countries?



The US advised Israel during the Gulf War and certainly they are doing the same in this situation with Iran.

[/quote]



The best advice to Israel would be: If you decide to be stupid, you'll be stupid on your own.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
attacking, caution, iran, military, officials, urge

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Israeli Pm: Must Be Military Option Against Iran rumpelstiltskin Warfare 0 January 11th, 2011 12:12 PM
U.S. officials: Taliban fighters training in Iran CNN Current Events 8 March 24th, 2010 11:36 AM
Clinton: Iran heads toward military dictatorship CNN Current Events 1 February 15th, 2010 01:45 PM
Putin warns US of attacking Iran. highway80west Current Events 3 October 17th, 2007 01:41 PM
UK Military Briefing re. Iran's Actions baloney_detector Warfare 8 April 8th, 2007 06:47 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.