Yuku free message boards

Interesting article. It does not have to be correct and it does still argue that Israel wants war with Iran.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/why-israel-really-advocates-war-on-iran/

Fred, at the start of this thread, I believe that I wrote that Israel will not attack Iran this year all things being equal. Some reading and some contributions have me thinking it is more possible than I originally thought. Israel will attack Iran because they have been actively preparing for just such an event for over ten years and some in Israel think that there is a possibility of the USA being drawn into the conflict. Israel would like the active assistance of the USA in attacking Iran.

On balance I think that that an Israeli attack on Iran has too many downside risks. Netanyahu himself has stated the goal of such a mission would be to forever remove the ability of Iran achieving a nuclear weapon. Forever is just not going to happen. Delay the Iranian nuclear program by months or years is achievable but it does not make Israel safe. Regime change might. An Israeli attack on Iran is, by the accounts of Iran's opposition themselves likely to entrench support for the current regime as well as convince Iranians that they need a nuclear weapon system.

Whereas Obama says that a military option is still available to the USA if Iran pursues a nuclear weapons program, I do not think that the USA will even consider attacking Iran unless and until there is good evidence that Iran is close to achieving a viable weapon. A war with Iran would not be popular and would not help achieve some of the short to medium goals like economic recovery in the USA. Obama's sanctions are hurting Iran like none before.

Sergeante says that Israel will not be able to suck, push, force the USA into a war with Iran and I agree with him. But what he and I think does not matter as much as what people in Israel think. If they think that the USA will come into a conflict started by Israel, then an Israeli strike is much more likely.

The only thing on which I would take issue with him is that if Iran retaliates against an Israeli strike by hitting US assets in the Gulf, I do not think that US retaliation will be limited or small. The size and type of provocation by Iran does matter but having said that serious provocation will result in much more serious retaliation. There will not be equivalence.

Now Sergeante is suggesting that the situation is comparable to 1988 and that I cannot remember Praying Mantis and Nimble Archer and he has challenged me to write a 500 word report on it.

The good thing about wait and see is that a number of contributors feel that a strike by Israel against Iran is imminent. They have good reason to feel that way because the Prime Minister of Israel has said so. The wait and see is weeks or months, not years.

But, Fred, if you had read the contributions, you would know all this.

Truth be told Sergeante, I do forget the details of Nimble Archer but yet again I think you are plain wrong. The operations Nimble Archer and Praying Mantis were in a totally different context and time

1) In 1988, Iran and Iraq were at war. The USA was in the middle trying to keep oil coming out of the Gulf. Israel is not Iraq and Saddam Hussein is not Benjamin Netanyahu. The USA has picked sides even more decisively than she did in 1987.

2) Ronald Reagan was President of the United States of America. There are many large differences between Reagan and Obama. One is that Barack Obama is standing for re-election and Ronald Reagan was in the last year of his last term. President Obama is a poll driven political animal ruthlessly fighting for re-election. The retaliation may in part be driven by domestic US politics. My expectation is that Obama will avoid being called "soft" by hammering Iran.

3) Praying Mantis was at least in part, retaliation for a mine hitting a USN frigate. The attack was not directly aimed at the USA but at ships using the Gulf. The Samuel B Roberts was not lost and no lives were lost. This would be an attack aimed directly at the USA intending to harm Americans directly and indirectly. I can't see America ignoring an attack like they did the Iraqi attack on another vessel. It is the directly intended malice that will not be forgiven.

4) Your assertion that the US will "use carefully controlled and clearly announced punitive strikes that do not threaten the Iranian regime or its military power centers, and act defensively otherwise" is most unlikely because the US positively does want regime change. Regime change was not an issue in 1988.

5) How you can suggest that Praying Mantis did not threaten Iran's military power centres, I do not know. You Americans tried to sink every Iranian navy ship you could. I am suggesting that the USN will be told to do something like that again, just more successfully.

6) Where you get the idea of "carefully controlled and clearly announced punitive strikes" from I still do not know. As if that happened in Praying Mantis? Some of the contributors to this forum were close to the action in Praying Mantis and I would give weight to their opinions. My recollection is that there was a general brawl with some limits. It is those limits that I would expect to be removed. There will be no Iranian aircraft warned away. I would expect them to be blown up.

7) Praying Mantis was illegal. A direct attack on US vessels [in the Gulf] is an act of war. That changes the legal situation somewhat. I can't know how the USA will respond to that but I do not think you are on the money with your suggestions either. The US has chosen to ignore attacks on her vessels if it suited her. USS Liberty and the USS Stark being a couple that come to mind. I can't see the US response to an act of war by Iran in an election year being small. But neither was Praying Mantis.

Please let me say again Sergeante, we actually agree, as the article did too, that Israel attacking Iran will not automatically get the US involved. The US does not want to be involved or there would be USAF aircraft with the Israeli Air Force. We also agree that the US would try to be somewhat measured in her response to an Iranian provocation. Where we disagree is that if an attack by Israel on Iran results in Iran retaliating directly and seriously, against the USA, then Israel will have gotten America involved in the conflict. But I say again, I do not think that the USA wants to be involved in the conflict and Iran does not want the USA involved in the conflict either.

Nightwatch2, you are correct about the 1988 destruction of the Iranian Navy. My  limited understanding has the Republican Guard playing a more nautical role these days. Reducing the population of Republican Guards absolutely will change things.

Nightwatch2, you really think that the Iraqis were truthful? Sorry, I do not. Whether I would have ordered reprisals, fortuitously we will never know.

Nightwatch2, I might get old and responsible any time soon, but I am into retaliation still. The International Court found that the US response to the mines was illegal. It does not mean that I would have done things anyway differently. But a direct and undeniable act of war against the USA? I have consistently maintained that the USA will come after the perpetrators with a big hammer. In this case, History is on my side.

I expect that the United States would do something similar to Praying Mantis if their forces were successfully attacked. They would just do it better.