Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
It's not "ANY" remark, Michael, it's your continued "Anti-Zionist" remarks, really.
But whatever. You don't get it.
And Peterle... I quote from Wikipedia myself on occasion, but only if I have read other material to substantiate what it says. Wikipedia as anyone on this can tell you is about as inaccurate as it gets when it comes to politics and foreign information.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peterle Matteo
Let see...
I am not Anti , i am not pro.
There is a difference.
I am living among Arabs,there was a time when they went agressive.
They said : "You must give me your...,you have to do this,do not do that."
More than once i went outside with my Mauser (ironically it is a made in Germany rifle),
I said to them : Drop the "You must give me your...,you have to do this,do not do that." thing or i'll put a bullet in your head right now.
The effect was amazing, they become friendly.
I could go around tonite killing Arabs,but this make me a criminal.
This to say : Preventive attacks are the same.
You have just made both my point and Eversman's points.
Don't let bullies get away with what they are doing.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michael2
Peterle, we're not dealing with rational debate here, they want war and they'll get what they want.
All I can say to them is that history will prove who is right, just as it always has.
If the "they" you're referring to is me and Eversman, I've already warned you about putting words in other people's mouths.
None of us WANTS war. We want to STOP a war from coming to our shores - just so you're clear on the subject. Keeping it in the Middle East is actually to our benefit. And it is certainly a National Security Interest of the US to do so.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I think the majority of us here on this site agree on a lot more than we disagree with.
Michael and I don't agree on Israel. But the two of us agree on several other subjects and we're arguing nuance on occasion.
But simply put none of have all the answers, and obviously none of us are willing to compromise his principles either.
I'd say we all win all the way around.
The fact we're debating this at all shows it's obvious that we believe something is going to happen. Each of us has our own beliefs as to what that is - or SHOULD be.
Basically though, it's out of our hands. While I know several folks here are involved in one way or the other with the military, with intelligence collection and assisting the administration "make policy" most policy decisions are WAY out of our hands, well above our pay grades and while we all argue fervently for our points to be hear, ultimately it is simply out of our hands.
As you can tell (Micheal specifically I address you now) my job is not, never has been and never will be that of a diplomat. My job is a warrior. Regardless of your work place, or mine - we're on the same side.
The rest of the folks here are as well are all on the same side.
I can't imagine ONE of you thinking "America is less than any other country" or "America is a mediocre place to live". Not one of you.
This thread, Iran the Next Battlefield is simply about Iran becoming the next place in the Middle East to "watch" and "watch closely".
That's all it is about, we're not here to solve the world's problems because quite frankly, even if we DO have the right answers and solutions, we're not in positions to make it happen. I'm not. I'm only in a position of providing information, intelligence and a learned opinion. Whatever the guys higher up decide is what is decided and I have no say afterward.
With the noted exception of Peterle and a couple others who visit here less frequently, we're all Americans on this site.
So.... we need to get back on topic. Providing information about what Iran is doing here and now, not what the Founding Fathers might have done, or thought, or how wrong we are in one aspect or another by not adhering precisely to some vague tenants that we perceive they might have had about the rest of the world.
After doing some quick research this morning I found that not ALL of the Founding Fathers were so absolute in their desires to keep "hands off" and those who acted as President's in fact did NOT keep "hands off" certain situations.
That has been my point all along.
Because someone did things a certain way in the 18th Century does not mean we have to follow precisely those concepts today. Of course on the bill of rights, I draw the line. Inalienable rights are not the same as the beliefs we should leave well enough alone when the situation clearly dictates that something OUGHT to be done.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.... simple as that.
If America does NOTHING at all to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapons - and all out nuclear arms race will begin which will place America squarely in the middle of the sights of the kooks that live in Arab countries, those who follow radical Islam and the Russians will have ultimately won what they set out to do... take down America without firing a shot.
I guess if that's what Americans want, then they will get it eventually.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michael2
You and Eversman don't want war, but you clearly want intervention on Israel's behalf.....
NO! For the thousandth time, NO!
I want IRAN stopped from making a bomb. GET IT? For the US, NOT FOR ISRAEL. I've stated this several times. I've also stated several times that the BYPRODUCT of stopping Iran from getting the bomb will in the long run HELP Israel, but for the last fucking time, PAY ATTENTION.
Helping Israel is one thing. Helping us is another. Standing BY and watching IRAN get a nuke ENSURES the destruction of Israel and eventually the US.
Don't you get this? Apparently not.
Quote:
Stopping a war by starting one, truly Orwellian. And as long as it stays 'over there' and fought by jihadis and our volunteer military, who cares? I certainly don't care if the Mohammadans get trounced.
Starting a war? Michael, we're AT war with those fucks. Islam declared war on us a LONG time ago.
Quote:
I say we reimpose the draft, though. No partying while others do the fighting for other nation's interests...Then we'll see how much of a minority i'm in.
Well, if there was ever a more sophomoric argument (lathered in sarcasm) I don't think I've heard one.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
michael2
Well I agree that it's out of our hands. And my position is more nuanced than I might've suggested. If it were clearly our own nation's national interest (energy usage from the Middle East) to see that one nation or other not become Regional Hegemon and therefore derive unfair advantage or even control over us through our energy needs, that nation should be stopped, but not in such a way that defeats the principle of our national self-interest to begin with.
I believe if you look hard enough, you will see I was on the "Drill here, Drill Now" band wagon.
We don't need the Middle East's oil. It's a load of bullshit coming out of people that says we do, and stop our own people from drilling the oil up under our own feet.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Bloomberg News
U.S. Officials Escalate Warnings to Iran
By John Walcott on March 01, 2012
Obama administration officials are escalating warnings that the U.S. could join Israel in attacking Iran if the Islamic republic doesn’t dispel concerns that its nuclear-research program is aimed at producing weapons.
Four days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to arrive in Washington, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz told reporters the Joint Chiefs of Staff have prepared military options to strike Iranian nuclear sites in the event of a conflict.
“What we can do, you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” Schwartz told reporters in Washington yesterday.
Pentagon officials said military options being prepared start with providing aerial refueling for Israeli planes and include attacking the pillars of the clerical regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its elite Qods Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Pentagon plans are classified.
“There’s no group in America more determined to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon than the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Army General Martin Dempsey told the House Budget Committee yesterday. “I can assure you of that.”
Separately, unnamed U.S. officials told the Washington Post that U.S. military planners are increasingly confident that sustained attacks with the Air Force’s 30,000-pound (13,608 kilograms) “bunker-buster” bombs could put Iran’s deeply buried uranium-enrichment plant at Fordo out of commission.
Meetings Failing
The latest American warnings of possible military action against Iran come after meetings between top Israeli and Obama administration officials failed to resolve differences over when an attack would become necessary, according to officials of both countries who have participated in the discussions.
Most Israelis oppose a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if it doesn’t have U.S. support, the Globes financial daily said, citing a survey conducted by the Washington-based Brookings Institute. Only 19 percent of Israelis support their country striking Iran without U.S. backing, Globes said.
Will to Act
“Because there is uncertainty about the administration’s will to act in the Israelis’ minds, and more importantly in the Iranians’ minds, it’s very important that we don’t just say that all options are on the table, but also show that they are, by some overt means,” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee and was one of the recent visitors to Israel, said in a phone interview.
Other U.S. officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because the discussions have been private and because the administration is trying to reassure Israel and its American supporters of its determination while also tamping down fears that are helping drive up oil prices.
Iranian leaders are using the bellicose talk to draw voters for tomorrow’s parliamentary elections, the first since a disputed vote in 2009 that sparked mass riots.
The ballot “will be a slap in the face of enemies of the nation,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on his website yesterday, urging voters to “stand tall and show your determination” by taking part. Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani last week called the election “a big step to preserve the dignity of the Iranian nation.” Israel declined to comment.
Drawing the Line
About 48 million Iranians are eligible to vote and more than 3,400 candidates have been cleared to compete for the 290 seats in the assembly, known as the Majlis.
The most significant difference between the U.S. and Israel, said American officials, is where to draw the line on Iran’s atomic program. Parliament doesn’t have power over the country’s foreign policy and the outcome of the race is unlikely to affect Iran’s foreign policy.
Obama administration officials have suggested that the trigger for military action should be a decision by Khamenei to enrich uranium beyond a current level of 20 percent that supports nuclear-power generation to a weapons-grade level 85 or 90 percent.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials said they agree that such a decision would be hard to detect until sometime after it had been made.
Israel is more concerned about Iran’s missile and nuclear- weapon technology programs while the U.S. is focused on the Persian Gulf nation’s uranium-enrichment activities, the Israeli officials said.
Targets Measured
Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordo would be difficult to destroy because they were built to withstand air attacks. Israel, which has the 5,000 pound GBU-28 bomb, said its ability to strike is underestimated, according to the officials.
Iran’s warhead and weaponization facilities at the military complexes at Parchin and Bidganeh and elsewhere are more vulnerable, at least for now, the Israeli officials said, according to Americans who met with them.
Iran barred International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Parchin site in February, and a still-unexplained Nov. 14 explosion at the Bidganeh missile base killed an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general.
The Israelis said what worries them is that Iran could complete work on warheads, triggers, neutron reflectors and the other ingredients of a nuclear weapon or move that work to harder-to-hit facilities.
Intelligence Report
A recent U.S. intelligence analysis concluded that if Iran can get its centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium and assemble in different locations the 33-44 pounds of material needed for a weapon, a delivery system and other necessary components, it could build an atomic weapon in two months, said two U.S. officials who have read the analysis.
Further underscoring the timing issue, U.S. and Israeli officials have concluded that Iran may be content with a computer test of a new weapon rather than detonating one in the desert, thanks in part to confidence inspired by what they said is significant North Korean assistance. These officials also spoke only on the basis of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified.
The American officials said their Israeli counterparts are less inclined than the Obama administration is to give the toughening economic sanctions on Iran more time to work for a second reason: They are skeptical that sanctions can ever persuade Iran to abandon its pursuit of an atomic weapon.
Israel’s Role
In different meetings with American counterparts in Washington, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Tamir Pardo, the head of Israel’s foreign- intelligence service Mossad, argued that only Israeli military action prevented Iraq and Syria from going nuclear.
They also said witnessing the dictators of non-nuclear Iraq and Libya toppled by or with Western assistance, coupled with a deep sense that Shiite Muslim Iran is entitled to a weapon that Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Hindus, Russia and China all possess, may reinforce Iran’s intentions of continuing to develop a weapon.
High-level visitors have included Barak, Pardo, Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director David Petraeus, Dempsey, U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, White House adviser Dennis Ross, Rogers and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.
U.S. Resolve Questioned
These talks have failed to dispel Israeli doubts that President Barack Obama is willing to do whatever is necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands, the American officials said. Barak described a meeting with Panetta yesterday only as “important and useful.”
Netanyahu isn’t convinced Obama will alter his emphasis on sanctions as a mean to change Iranian behavior, U.S. officials said.
Responding to a question during a House Appropriations subcommittee budget hearing yesterday about concerns Israel may attack Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded: “Let’s focus on economic sanctions that we have the world behind right now. We believe we’re making progress on the sanctions front.”
U.S. Policies
Iran doesn’t believe the U.S. has the resolution to intervene again in the region, according to the Israeli officials, who cited Washington’s abandonment of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the limited support given Muammar Qaddafi’s overthrow in Libya. They said Washington succumbed to domestic political pressure in exits from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, the Israelis told some U.S. officials that the administration’s failure to retaliate against Iran for plotting to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S. and its inability to get Egypt to free the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who is one of 16 American pro-democracy activists charged with operating without government permission, has reinforced an image of American weakness.
Some Republicans share those doubts. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Obama administration should be “more clear” in its determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
“The intelligence community is uncertain about Iranian intentions,” Graham told reporters at a news conference yesterday. “You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.”
To contact the reporter on this story: John Walcott in Washington at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Obama Says Military Option on Iran Not a ‘Bluff’
By MARK LANDLER
Published: March 2, 2012
WASHINGTON — President Obama, speaking days before a crucial meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, rejected suggestions that the West could contain a nuclear-armed Iran, and warned that the United States could take military action to prevent it from acquiring a bomb.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...icleInline.jpg
Jim Young/Reuters
President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 6, 2010.
But the president also said he would try to persuade Mr. Netanyahu, whom he is meeting here on Monday, that a pre-emptive Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could help Tehran by allowing it to portray itself as a victim. And he said such military action would only delay, not prevent, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Obama’s remarks, in a 45-minute interview with The Atlantic magazine earlier this week, were intended to reassure Jerusalem of Washington’s resolve to protect its ally against an Iranian threat, while making the case that Israel should not take matters into its own hands.
“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff,” Mr. Obama said in the interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent with The Atlantic. “I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.
“But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” the president said.
Mr. Obama’s remarks built on his vow in the State of the Union address that the United States would “take no options off the table” in preventing Iran from acquiring a weapon. But he was more explicit in saying that those options include a “military component,” albeit after a list of other steps, including diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions.
While administration officials have signaled that the United States is not contemplating a “containment” strategy toward Iran, Mr. Obama had not been as unequivocal in rejecting it. Such a strategy, he said, would run “completely contrary” to his nuclear nonproliferation policies and raise a host of dangers the United States could do little to control.
The president spoke at length about how he believed Iran’s acquisition of a weapon would trigger an arms race in the Middle East, offering his most robust case for why the West could not successfully contain Iran the way it did the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
There is a “profound” danger that an Iranian nuclear weapon could end up in the hands of a terrorist organization, Mr. Obama said, and several other nations in the region would feel compelled to push for nuclear weapons to shield themselves from a nuclear Iran.
While the president noted that Israel understandably felt more vulnerable to an Iranian threat because of its geography and history, he said, “This is something in the national security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community.”
Israeli officials have said that they may feel compelled to strike Iran before its nuclear program becomes effectively impregnable by sheltering its key uranium-enrichment facilities in a fortified complex under hundreds of feet of granite in a mountainside.
Mr. Obama, who made diplomatic outreach to Iran a hallmark of his first year in office, said he still believed that Iran’s leaders could make a rational calculation, under the pressure of international isolation and harsh sanctions, to give up their nuclear ambitions.
“They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now,” the president said. “It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel’s security.”
Pointing to Libya and South Africa, Mr. Obama noted that countries tend to relinquish nuclear weapons on their own, rather than as a consequence of military action. The United States, he said, was seeking a permanent, not a temporary, solution to the problem.
Taking note of the violent uprising in Syria, Mr. Obama also said an Israeli military strike could deflect attention from other forces in the region that were eroding Iran’s power and influence.
“At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes,” he said, “do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons?”
Still, with Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington and supporters of Israel gathering for a conference of the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Obama sought to project solidarity between the United States and Israel. He also said that the two were largely in sync in their appraisal of Iran’s nuclear program.
“Our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt,” he said.
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iranians Go To Polls In National Elections
March 02, 2012
State media have reported that voting in Iran's parliamentary election has been extended by one more hour because of high turnout.
The deadline had already been extended by two hours earlier, as state television broadcast pictures from polling stations in Tehran and the provinces showing long lines outside polling stations.
Earlier, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose supporters are expected to do well in the vote, called for a high voter turnout as he cast his ballot.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, said it was a "duty and a right" for every eligible Iranian to vote. (RD: This does not include women, of course)
He said a large turnout in the elections on March 2 would send a strong message to Iran's enemies amid the nuclear standoff with the West.
"My advice is the usual advice," he said. "I believe that this [voting] is a responsibility for us, whilst it is also a right that belongs to us. We should make use of this right and undertake this responsibility."
The election is the first major Iranian vote since the disputed reelection of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2009, which sparked mass protests and a government crackdown on the reformist Green Movement.
Meanwhile, Iranian media say the authorities have detained 10 people described as "saboteurs." The Fars news agency quoted Mohammad Naqi Baqeri, head of the election security department, as saying the alleged saboteurs had "come from abroad to Tehran."
More than 3,400 candidates are competing for the 290 seats in the Majlis.
Some 48 million people are eligible to vote.
With the elections being boycotted by Iran's main opposition and reformist groups, the leaders of which have been under house arrest, the vote is seen as a contest between allies of President Ahmadinejad and loyalists backing Khamenei.
Analysts have predicted that candidates aligned with Khamenei will emerge in the dominant position -- dealing a blow to supporters of Ahmadinejad, whose administration has been criticized for failing to revive Iran's sluggish economy, which is suffering from high inflation and unemployment.
The outcome of the election is not expected to result in any change to Iran's foreign policy, as parliament has traditionally played a bigger role in economic policy.
But the result is expected to help set the political stage for the 2013 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad will step down after reaching the end of his two-term limit.
The U.S.-based rights group Human Rights Watch has called the elections "grossly unfair" because most of the approved candidates for the election were conservative regime supporters.
No independent election monitors have been allowed into the country.
Final official results for the elections, which will be counted manually, are expected to be announced late on March 4.
Authorities have urged voters to go to the polls, with state TV, radio, and other media carrying appeals describing voting as a religious duty and warning that low turnout could embolden Western enemies set on attacking Iran.
The June 2009 presidential election and subsequent massive street protests prompted a brutal response from authorities that has included televised mass trials, roundups of dissenters and critics, and allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings.
With AP, Reuters, dpa, and AFP reporting
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
U.S. anxiety grows over possible Israeli plans on Iran
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/C...e_Reuters3.gif
updated 2/3/2012 2:32:58 PM ET
LONDON — The Obama administration is increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program but does not have hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said.
The U.S. uncertainty and lack of information about Israel's plans on Iran were behind an alarming assessment of the situation reportedly voiced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the officials said.
David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who specializes in intelligence matters, reported that Panetta believed there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear program within the next six months -- as early as April, Ignatius wrote.
Three U.S. officials who follow the issue said their understanding was that the United States did not have concrete intelligence suggesting an attack by Israel on Iran in that time frame was likely or actively being prepared.
The current U.S. assessment is that for months Israel had been making contingency plans and tentative preparations both for such an operation and for possible Iranian retaliation, two of the officials said.
Nonetheless, said the officials, indications were that Israel's leadership had not made a final decision to attack Iran.
Ken Pollack, a former White House and CIA official with expertise on the Gulf, said the sudden rise in public discussion of an Israeli strike on Iran's known nuclear sites -- including increasingly dire warnings from Israel's leaders -- were misleading.
Advertise | AdChoices
"If Israel has a good military option, they just take it, they don't talk about it, they don't give warnings," said Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "So the fact that they are talking about it, to me, is one tip-off that they don't have a good military option.
"We should never rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike and the odds have probably increased in recent months as a result of a number of different factors. But ... there are a lot of disincentives that have prevented Israel from launching a strike for 10 years," Pollack said.
VAGUE PANETTA RESPONSE
Panetta was vague when asked by journalists to confirm what the Washington Post had reported.
"Frankly, I'm not going to comment on that," he told reporters travelling with him in Europe. "David Ignatius, you know, can write what he will but, you know, with regards to what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."
When pressed further, Panetta said: "There really isn't that much to add except that, you know, that they're considering this and, you know, we have indicated our concerns."
Asked about the background to Panetta's reported views, one of the U.S. officials noted that Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, had been "increasingly vocal" in expressing concern that Israel might be "running out of time" to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The official said that some Israelis have indicated their view that in the next three or four months the need for Israeli action could become critical.
But the view of many career experts inside the U.S. government is that Iran's nuclear development program, which Tehran insists is for civilian nuclear purposes, is unlikely to pass the point of no return in that time frame.
Earlier this week, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress and publicly re-stated the long-standing view of U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran's leaders have not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon.
Many, if not most, Western experts believe it would take Iran at least a year to build a weapon once leaders decided to go ahead.
But some Israel leaders and experts believe that an attack would have to be launched earlier if Iran's nuclear effort is to be set back seriously. Barak has warned that Iran's nuclear research could soon pass into what he called a "zone of immunity," protected from outside disruption.
Barak recently was quoted telling a security conference in Israel, "Later is too late," one of the U.S. officials noted. The official said that U.S. policymakers had to be concerned about the possibility of an early Israeli attack "given that Barak and Netanyahu seem so determined to do it."
Advertise | AdChoices
In January an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by man who attached a bomb to his car -- the fifth such attack in two years. Israel's military chief said Iran could expect more such incidents.
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IN U.S.
One of the U.S. officials said that while Israel may have the military capability to delay Iran's nuclear effort for a period of time, to deal the Iranian program a serious and long-term setback would require additional military power, presumably from the United States.
But Panetta's alleged remarks and other Obama administration's statements indicate the White House is focused on dissuading Israel from taking action - and distancing itself from an Israel strike if persuasion fails.
A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, could seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances for re-election. Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure to back Israel's actions.
"The U.S. is not too excited about engaging with Israel or being part of anything at this point," one official said.
A European defense analyst, who has access to classified all-source intelligence, said that while Iran's behavior was relatively predictable, the greatest uncertainties facing the U.S. and its allies stemmed from Israel's stance.
Despite internal power squabbles, the analyst said, Iran has been "quite restrained and limited in its responses." Recent inflammatory comments by Iranian leaders, such as threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, were relatively low-intensity compared to other threats and physical confrontations in the Gulf of past years.
"Israel is, practically speaking, the wild card in the pack," the analyst said. "We have no specific information on when or if they will attack but based on their past history and current stance, it is something we do expect at some point."
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Iran media report big turnout in elections
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/NR8...go/afp/afp.gifAFP – 17 mins ago
Iran's media reported a huge turnout on Friday in parliamentary elections described as a "blow" to the West, while voters said they were mostly preoccupied with their sanctions-hit economy -- and non-voters spoke of a "sham" poll.
The elections to fill the 290 seats in parliament, known as the Majlis, were the first since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned to office in a disputed 2009 vote that prompted opposition cries of fraud.
While that re-election sparked widespread protests brutally put down by security forces, there was no disturbance this time, according to police.
Officials several times extended voting hours because of what media including the Fars news agency called a "massive turnout" -- a common occurrence in past elections too.
Polling stations finally closed at 11:00 pm (1930 GMT), officials said.
Authorities were keen to present a high turnout to show they enjoyed broad public support and legitimacy, especially at a time when they are confronting the United States and its European allies over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said as he cast his ballot that vigorous voter participation bolstered "the future, prestige, security and immunity of the country."
State media and many voters echoed his assertion that Iran's voters had dealt "a blow to the face of the enemies" in the West.
The official Islamic Republic News Agency praised the "passionate participation" of voters.
Some others, though, questioned the turnout claims.
They underlined that the main opposition groups, whose leaders are under house arrest, had boycotted the polls and that the 3,400 candidates approved to run were overwhelmingly conservatives.
Several university students who had favoured reformists in the 2009 presidential election told AFP they had seen no point in voting in "sham" elections.
"The outcome is predetermined. It's of no difference if I vote or not. I learned this from the previous election, when our votes were stolen," said Reyhane, 25, sitting in a cafe with friends.
Mahmoud, 22, piped up: "I feel like the regime sees us, and our votes, as a plaything. I voted in the presidential election -- that taught me that I should never vote again."
He added that state media appealing for a big turnout was "just so they could say the regime has popular support, that it is legitimate."
The US-based rights group Human Rights Watch called the elections "grossly unfair," saying in a statement that "Iranian authorities have stacked the deck by disqualifying candidates and arbitrarily jailing key members of the reform movement."
Voters were essentially being asked to choose between two conservative camps: those backing Ahmadinejad, and those despising him for perceived nationalist intentions challenging their Islamic vision.
The poll outcome will help set the political scene for 2013, when Ahmadinejad has to step down, having reached his term limit.
Khamenei last year put a lid on the president's expanding ambitions by publicly overriding Ahmadinejad's attempt to sack the intelligence minister.
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who has taken his distance from Khamenei, was reported by the ISNA news agency as saying Iran would have a "good" next parliament -- "should the election result be what the people want and be how they cast their votes in the ballot boxes."
Most voters AFP spoke to said the main issue on their minds was the difficulties they face in Iran's economy, which is struggling with high inflation and unemployment, and Western sanctions imposed over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons in the guise of a peaceful atomic programme, a charge denied by Tehran.
Samad, a 51-year-old pastry cook who did not give his last name, stood in line for 45 minutes in his uniform to fill out his ballot paper.
"I vote because it is my national duty," he said. "But there are many problems in our country. We did not stage a revolution to have it become worse."
Vahid Lavasani, a 34-year-old shopkeeper voting with his elderly mother, said: "I want the Majlis to resolve the economic issues and improve our relationship with the West. I also want them to rein in the president, so the country is united."
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
I predict a landslide for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.....
Re: Iran the Next Battlefield - Thread Renamed
Israeli leader to US to talk about Iran tensions
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Feb 29 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel's prime minister sets off this week on a U.S. visit clouded by a deepening rift with Washington, which is pressing Israel to hold off on any attack against Iran's suspect nuclear program. Although Israel says it hasn't decided whether to strike, it has signaled readiness to do so—a move that would have deep worldwide implications.
Senior Israeli officials say Israel would have to act by summer in order to be effective. U.S. officials, wary that an Israeli strike could drive up oil prices and entangle the U.S. in a new Mideast military confrontation during the presidential election season, want to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work.
These differences have created tension ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu's arrival at the White House next Monday. Aides to the Israeli leader would not say what he plans to tell President Barack Obama.
"The meeting will be a good opportunity to clarify both sides' stands on ... how to act against the Iranian nuclear threat, which both sides agree is grave," Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon told Israel Radio.
Israel's Haaretz and Israel Hayom newspapers reported Wednesday that Netanyahu wants Obama to deliver an explicit military threat to Iran in a joint statement to be issued after the meeting.
Differing assessments of urgency underlie the disagreements on Iran.
Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be a threat to the existence of the Jewish state. It cites Iranian leaders' repeated calls for Israel's destruction, support for anti-Israel militant groups and its arsenal of ballistic missiles that are already capable of striking Israel. It also fears a nuclear Iran would touch off an atomic weapons race in a region hostile to Israel's existence.
Israel itself is thought to have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons, though it does not admit that as a matter of policy.
Israel takes little comfort in the U.S. assessment, reiterated Tuesday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, that Tehran has not decided whether to build a nuclear bomb. Iran denies it is making nuclear weapons.
Israeli officials note that the U.N. nuclear agency said recently that Tehran is rapidly moving ahead with a key elements associated with bomb making, and Iran is moving its nuclear operations deeper underground. They believe these developments are strong signs of Iranian intentions.
Experts say work on a bomb could begin within a year, if not earlier, but Israeli officials who favor a strike do not want Iran to reach that point. Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently fueled speculation about an Israeli strike by warning the window of opportunity was closing.
Israeli officials have told the U.S. it will not give any warning of an impending attack—a development confirmed by a U.S. intelligence official this week.
In Washington Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney brushed off reports that Netanyahu would press Obama to spell out terms for a military strike.
"Iran has not broken out and started to pursue a weapon," Carney said, "so there is time and space to continue to pursue the policy that we have been pursuing since the president took office.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week he has not counseled Israel against attacking Iran. Instead, he said, "we've had a conversation with them about time" and added he would "absolutely not" take military force against Iran off the table.
Dempsey, U.S. national security adviser Tom Donilon and director of national intelligence James Clapper have all been sent by Obama recently to pressure Israel to hold off.
The U.S. and Europe have approved tough sanctions on Iran's central bank and its key oil sector that are to go into effect this summer. They believe these measures must be given time to work.
Israel has welcomed the sanctions, but it is skeptical they will persuade Iran to back down. Israeli officials believe that by the time the toughest sanctions go into effect this summer, it may be too late to strike.
U.S. officials and others think an Israeli attack could set back the Iranian program a few years at most.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has expressed reservations about the effectiveness of an attack on Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities and Dempsey has publicly questioned whether it would be worth risking the cascade of consequences liable to follow.
Barak met in Washington Wednesday with Dempsey and Panetta to discuss the Iran issue. No details were made public.
The Iranian nuclear threat is a world problem and not Israel's alone, said Danny Yatom, a former head of Israel's Mossad spy agency. Even a temporary setback to the nuclear program would be useful, Yatom said, because it would buy the world time to try to knock it out entirely.
Iran has warned it would pummel Israel with missiles if attacked, and it could also recruit its allies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, to attack Israel with rockets and missiles from closer range.
Tehran could also block the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit route for the world's oil tankers, or strike Gulf targets such as Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Either move could send global oil prices skyrocketing and draw the U.S. military into the conflict.
The disagreements over Iran have stoked the tensions that have characterized relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments, primarily over frozen Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which pointedly seems to be a non-issue in the upcoming visit.