Если у Ирана будет ЯО и он применит его против Израиля то ответ будет очень сильным. Если несколько ракет прорвут израильскую защиту то Израиль потеряет сотни тысяч людей но от ответа Иран потеряет десятки миллионов.Сержант wrote:Или вы убеждены, что создания ЯО Ираном это не проблема ?
А в чем, собственно, тогда проблема?Сержант wrote:Я вам больше скажу, руководство Израиля уверено , что Иран не применит против них ЯО даже если создаст его . И Изриль не скрыват эту позицию.
Только это ничего не меняет. Проблему это не снимает.
Есть несколько аспектов.Килькин wrote:А в чем, собственно, тогда проблема?Сержант wrote:Я вам больше скажу, руководство Израиля уверено , что Иран не применит против них ЯО даже если создаст его . И Изриль не скрыват эту позицию.
Только это ничего не меняет. Проблему это не снимает.
ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public...
У Вашего соседа есть арабы?yocto wrote:Вот уже и соседские арабы толсто намекают, что пора бомбить.
Нет, у моего соседа арабов нету. Зато есть маленька брехливая собачонка, которая пугается даже моего кота.Polar Cossack wrote:У Вашего соседа есть арабы?yocto wrote:Вот уже и соседские арабы толсто намекают, что пора бомбить.
Президент России wrote:...Отдельно остановлюсь ещё на одной сложной теме – это ядерная программа Ирана. Надо отойти от упрощённых подходов к этой проблеме. Очевидно, что Иран приближается к обладанию потенциалом, который, в принципе, может быть использован для создания ядерного оружия.
Обладание само по себе таким потенциалом не запрещено Договором о нераспространении ядерного оружия, и в этом одна из проблем. Но эта проблема носит системный характер, и она касается несовершенства современных международных правил о нераспространении. Соответственно, подход и к отдельным странам, и к решению этой проблемы должен быть не избирательным, а общим.
Я неоднократно говорил в беседах со своими партнёрами (и с Соединёнными Штатами, и с европейцами, с другими партнёрами) о том, что санкции, как правило, не приводят к желаемым результатам, но в них есть определённый смысл. Этот смысл в сигнале, который подан международным сообществом и должен простимулировать переговорный процесс. Сейчас требуется терпение и скорейшее возобновление переговорного процесса, диалога с Тегераном. Именно в этом мы и видим основной смысл, основную цель новой резолюции Совета Безопасности ООН. И если сегодня дипломатия упустит этот шанс, то это станет нашим коллективным провалом.
При этом, разумеется, не следует забывать о том, что сама иранская сторона ведёт себя далеко не лучшим образом. Мы последовательно призывали и призываем Тегеран проявить и должную степень открытости, и необходимую степень кооперабельности с МАГАТЭ, внести ясность во все остающиеся вопросы, и это бы на самом деле отвечало интересам самой иранской стороны.
Но очень серьёзная ответственность лежит на всех, кто действует в интересах поиска взаимоприемлемой развязки. Здесь все должны действовать энергично и солидарно, а не ограничиваться односторонними действиями...
В целом, 56% американцев одобрили военный удар по Ирану, в то время как 30% - выразили протест.
Why Hasn't Israel Bombed Iran (Yet)?
The military risks are large; the political risks could be even bigger.
By BRET STEPHENS
Why hasn't Israel bombed Iran yet? It's a question I often get from people who suppose I have a telepathic hotline to Benjamin Netanyahu's brain. I don't, but for a long time I was confident that an attack would happen in the first six months of this year. Since it didn't, it's worth thinking through why.
First, though, let me explain my previous thinking. In the spring of 2008, there was intense speculation that then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, fresh from ordering an attack on a covert Syrian reactor, was giving serious thought to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Bush—who Israelis believed would give them the diplomatic cover and logistical support they would need for such a strike, especially if things went amiss—had only a few months left to go. The release of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate claiming (erroneously, as we now know) that Iran had halted its nuclear weaponization effort meant it was highly unlikely that the U.S. would attack.
Finally, Israeli planners understood that the longer they delayed a strike, the harder it would be to achieve meaningful effects. Iran would have more time to harden its facilities, improve its defenses, and disperse its nuclear materials.
So why didn't Israel act then? A variety of reasons, the most plausible of which was that Mr. Olmert believed an Israeli strike on Iran was a huge gamble, and that it would be rash to attack before every diplomatic, political or covert means to stop Iran's nuclear bid had been explored. Then came Barack Obama with his time-limited offer to negotiate with Tehran, followed by Iran's post-election unrest, which briefly aroused hopes that the regime might be toppled from within.
By the end of last year, it was clear that both hopes were misplaced. It was clear that the limited sanctions being contemplated by the Obama administration were not of a kind to deter Iran from its nuclear bids. It was clear that those bids were moving steadily closer to fruition. And it was clear that the administration was ill-inclined to take military action of its own.
All of which persuaded me that, having duly given Mr. Obama's diplomacy the benefit of the doubt, Israel—under the more hawkish leadership of Mr. Netanyahu—would strike, sooner rather than later. Plainly I was wrong.
What gives? Here are four theories in ascending order of significance and plausibility.
The first is that Israeli military planners have concluded that any attack would be unlikely to succeed (or succeed at a reasonable price). Maybe. But this analysis fails to appreciate the depth of Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran, and the lengths they are prepared to go to stop it. A successful strike on Iran may be at the outer periphery of Israel's capabilities, but senior Israeli military and political leaders insist it is not completely beyond it.
A second theory is that Israel is biding its time as it improves its military capabilities on both its offensive and defensive ends. Yesterday Israel completed tests of its "Iron Dome" missile defense shield, designed to guard against the kind of short-range rockets that Hamas and Hezbollah might use in retaliation against an Israeli strike on Iran. The system will begin coming on line in November. Israel is also mulling the purchase of a semi-stealthy variant of the F-15 as an alternative to the much more expensive F-35, delivery of which has been delayed till 2015. What Israel decides could be a telling indicator of what it intends.
The third theory concerns the internal dynamics of Israeli politics. Mr. Netanyahu may favor a strike, but he will not order one without the consent of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President Shimon Peres, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and perhaps also Mossad chief Meir Dagan. This inner cabinet is said to be uniformly against a strike, with the wavering exception of Mr. Barak. But Mr. Ashkenazi and Mr. Dagan are due to step down within a few months, and who Mr. Netanyahu chooses to replace them will have a material bearing on the government's attitude toward a strike.
Finally, Israeli leaders are mindful of history. Put aside the routine comparisons between a prospective military strike on Iran with Israel's quick and effective destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. As I'm reminded by Michael Doran, a Middle East scholar at NYU, Israel's leaders are probably no less alert to the lessons of the Suez War in 1956. Back then, a successful military operation by Britain, France and Israel to humiliate Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser (in many ways the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of his day) fell afoul of the determined political opposition of the Eisenhower administration, which mistakenly thought that it could curry favor with the Arabs by visibly distancing itself from Israel and its traditional European allies. Sound familiar?
There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let's hope so. Israel may ultimately be willing to attack Iran once it reckons that it has run out of other options, as it did prior to the Six Day War. But its tactical margin for error will be slim, particularly since an effective strike will require days not hours. And the political risks it runs will be monumental. As Mr. Doran notes, in 1956 it could at least count on the diplomatic support of two members of the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.S. is its last significant friend.
This is an unenviable position, and Israel's friends abroad would do well to spare it easy lectures. Iran is not Israel's problem alone. It should not be Israel's problem alone to solve, to its own frightful peril.
Президент Ирана Махмуд Ахмади Нежад заявил, что Россия включилась в антииранскую кампанию, которую вдохновляют США, и даже назвал президента России Дмитрия Медведева – постановщиком этой кампании, сообщает NEWSru Israel со ссылкой на иранское агентство ISNA.
Заявления иранский лидер сделал на церемонии закрытия молодежного фестиваля в Тегеране. Медведев сказал, что Иран идет к созданию атомной бомбы, напомнил президент исламской республики. И добавил: "Мы сожалеем, что Медведев стал выразителем идей врагов Ирана".
Ахмади Нежад сказал, что участие Медведева в американской пьесе вредит национальным интересам России. Он отметил, что Россия и Иран являются друзьями, и выразил надежду на продолжение дружбы.
Ахмади Нежад сказал, что народ Ирана преодолеет происки врагов. Иранский лидер заявил также, что Израиль в ближайшее время собирается напасть на две дружественных Ирану страны.
Кроме того, Ахмади Нежад заявил, что Запад планирует масштабный заговор против Исламской республики. Не обнародовав никаких фактов, он сказал, что Ирану все давно известно, и уличил местную оппозицию в пособничестве врагам иранского народа.
Отметим, что Россия поддержала последнюю резолюцию Совета Безопасности ООН, по которой против Ирана вводятся новые санкции. Дмитрий Медведев после этого дважды заявил, что Исламская республика близка к созданию ядерного оружия. Официальной реакции Кремля на заявление иранского президента пока не последовало...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ahmadinejad ... inent.htmlAhmadinejad: US Expansion Of War In Middle East Imminent
Tensions rise with saber rattling rhetoric
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, Jul 27th, 2010
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that he believes the US, backed by Israel, is preparing to attack two countries in the middle East within months as part of an expansion of the ‘war on terror’.
Ahmadinejad also stated that the attacks would function as a psychological war on Iran, without specifying whether he believed Iran would be physically attacked or how he had reached his conclusions.
“We have precise information that the Americans have devised a plot, according to which they seek to launch a psychological war on Iran,” Ahmadinejad told Iranian state media Press TV.
“They plan to attack at least two countries in the region within the next three months,” he added.
Though Ahmadinejad did not elaborate on which two countries were in US crosshairs, it must be assumed he is referring to Syria and Lebanon – both Iranian allies and both previous targets of US backed Israeli aggression in recent years.
He added that the US has two main objectives:
“First of all, they want to hamper Iran’s progress and development since they are opposed to our growth, and secondly they want to save the Zionist regime because it has reached a dead-end and the Zionists believe they can be saved through a military confrontation,”.
Ahmadinejad’s statements come in the wake of the announcement of new economic sanctions against Iran by the EU, the US and the UN.
“The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure,” Ahmadinejad said, adding that Iran would “retaliate” against the measures.
Ahmadinejad: US Expansion Of War In Middle East Imminent 140410banner4
Ahmadinejad’s comments also dovetail with a recent build up in saber rattling rhetoric from leading globalist players.
At the weekend, former CIA head General Michael Hayden described a possible attack on Iran as “inexorable”, noting that airstrikes on the country by Israel and/or the US would “not be the worst of all possible outcomes,”.
“Over recent days, warnings about imminent war and direct calls for war have been proliferating in the world media,”Webster G. Tarpley wrote last week, citing warnings issued by former communist leader Fidel Castro and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
Tarpley also cited an editorial penned by former Senator Chuck Robb and former NATO deputy commander General Charles Wald calling for the U.S. to begin preparing an attack. “We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort,” Robb and Wald wrote.
Just last week, a report in Time magazine stated that Israel has managed to convince Washington to put the option of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities back on the table.
Two months ago insiders at the annual Trilateral Commission unwittingly leaked the information that globalist interests are planning a war with Iran, citing the country’s fierce nationalist outlook as hampering to an embryonic structure of global governance. Less than a month later, in June, Bilderberg delegates also voiced their support for airstrikes for the first time.
Он много чего считает.VGV wrote:Иранский президент считает, что расширение Соединенными Штатами ближневосточного тетра боевых действий на территории других стран неизбежно.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, says Paul the Octopus, the sea creature that correctly predicted the outcome of World Cup games, is a symbol of all that is wrong with the western world.
He claims that the octopus is a symbol of decadence and decay among "his enemies".
A Pentagon strike against Iran would rely heavily on the B-2 bomber and cruise missiles to try to destroy the regime's ability to make nuclear weapons, analysts say, after the top U.S. military officer said a war plan is in place.
The missiles, fired from surface ships, submarines and B-52 bombers, would take out air defenses and nuclear-related facilities.
The B-2s would drop tons of bombs, including ground penetrators, onto fortified and buried sites where Tehran is suspected of enriching uranium to fuel the weapons and working on warheads.
"It will be primarily an air attack with covert work to start a 'velvet' revolution so [the] Iranian people can take back their country," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a former fighter pilot.
Gen. McInerney said B-2s would fly over Iran while cruise missiles would be fired off shore. The operation would last several days, he said.
John Pike, a military analyst who runs Global Security.org, said that although Iran has many potential targets, only about a half-dozen facilities are so critical that, if destroyed, would set back the program significantly.
"Almost all are in isolated areas where civilian casualties would not be much of a problem," Mr. Pike said. "Most of them have co-located staff housing. Bomb the housing, kill the staff, set back the program by a generation."
His website's scenario states: "American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States … two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted."
The Obama administration this summer won the backing of the United Nations for another round of economic sanctions against Tehran, but there are doubts that limits on banking and trade would ever persuade the hard-line Islamic regime to give up plans to become a nuclear power.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, threw public attention back to the military option on Sunday when asked on "Meet the Press" whether the military had a plan for attacking Iran.
"We do," Adm. Mullen said, adding that striking Iran "is an important option, and it's one that's well understood."
Adm. Mullen's answer indicates that Pentagon strategists have updated and finalized a war plan for Iran...
В сухом остатке:klsk548 wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... kes/print/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/intel-exper ... month.htmlPaul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former intelligence and military officials, warns President Obama in a memo that Israel is preparing to attack Iran this month, and that Obama needs to publicly denounce such an attack in order to prevent a wider war and the ultimate destruction of Israel.
“We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war,” states the VIPS memo, which is addressed to the President.
The letter is signed by Phil Giraldi, former CIA (20 years), Larry Johnson, former CIA; DoS, (24 years), W. Patrick Lang, Col., USA, Special Forces (ret.); Director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years), Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, CIA (30 years), Coleen Rowley, FBI (24 years), and Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service Officer, Department of State (16 years).
The intelligence experts explain that Israel’s tactic is to launch the war suddenly and then make it politically untenable for Obama to do anything other than offer the United States’ full military support for the campaign.
Pointing out that Israel has habitually employed surprise and deception in furthering its geopolitical aims, VIPS warns Obama that misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s assurances that Israel would not launch a surprise attack would be foolhardy.
The memo highlights Netanyahu’s attitude to how pliable he believes the American government is to satisfying Israel’s demands, making reference to comments he made nine years ago on Israeli television.
“America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd,” said Netanyahu.
“As we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel’s primary concern,” states the memo, adding, “A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran would most probably head off such an Israeli move.”
The VIPS members appeal to Obama that only he can now head off an attack on Iran that could take place as soon as this month. But the group’s call on Obama to denounce a planned military assault on Iran is likely to fall on deaf ears, because Washington has been almost as active as Israel in planning an attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.
A report in Time Magazine last month confirmed that Israel had convinced Washington to put the idea of a military strike firmly at the forefront of strategic planning. The report stated that US Central Command had been finalizing a plan of targeted air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and that Israel had been brought into that process.
On Sunday August 1st during an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reiterated that the military option remained on the table.
Any such attack would come from the air and would utilize B-2 bombers and cruise missiles as part of a knockout blow against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would be followed by a velvet revolution in which opposition groups, which are largely controlled by the CIA and its allies, would overthrow the Ahmadinejad government.
Destabilization efforts in pursuit of this overthrow have been ongoing for years, the latest of which appears to be a claim that Ahmadinejad himself was the target of an assassination attempt today, a story the Iranian state media has strongly denied.
The U.S. government has been funding and training the Sunni terrorist group Jundullah, formerly headed by the accused mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to carry out bombings and other destabilization campaigns in Iran as part of a “campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs”.
As we have documented, political pressure is clearly being brought to bear on Obama in an effort to get the green light for the attack on Iran. Voices from both sides of the political spectrum are repeating the mantra that the only way to rescue Obama’s plummeting approval ratings is to rally the country behind another war in the Middle East.
Given this backdrop, it seems unlikely that the Obama administration would do anything other than vehemently support an Israeli-led attack on Iran. Perhaps the best way to try and stop such an outcome would be to appeal to current intelligence and military insiders who experienced the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction debacle at first hand and, as the November National Intelligence Estimate proved, are loathe to be hoodwinked into another staged war based on false pretenses.
Это те, которые 9/11 организовали?VGV wrote:Разведчики в отставке предупреждают Обаму о том, что Израиле может атаковать Иран уже в этом месяце.
Нечего даже и смотреть - время совершенно не подходит.ARARAT. wrote:Время вообщемто похоже подходит, посмотрим...
Да, английский подучить не мешало бы, только, похоже, не мне, а Вам.klsk548 wrote:PavelM, у вас как с английским? Вам нужно перевести "Pentagon strategists have updated and finalized a war plan for Iran"?
это вы, поместивший здесь недавно ссылку на статью годичной давности, советуете мне быть более внимательным?PavelM wrote:...Внимательнее будьте...
