U.S. Won't Join Israel With War On Iran

[domdabears Profile Website]

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dempsey Told Israelis US Won't Join Their War on Iran


Washington - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Israeli leaders Jan. 20 that the United States would not participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel without prior agreement from Washington, according to accounts from well-placed senior military officers.

Dempsey's warning, conveyed to both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, represents the strongest move yet by President Barack Obama to deter an Israeli attack and ensure that the United States is not caught up in a regional conflagration with Iran.

But the Israeli government remains defiant about maintaining its freedom of action to make war on Iran, and it is counting on the influence of right-wing extremist views in U.S. politics to bring pressure to bear on Obama to fall into line with a possible Israeli attack during the election campaign this fall.

Obama still appears reluctant to break publicly and explicitly with Israel over its threat of military aggression against Iran, even in the absence of evidence Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Dempsey's trip was highly unusual, in that there was neither a press conference by the chairman nor any public statement by either side about the substance of his meetings with Israeli leaders. Even more remarkable, no leak about what he said to the Israelis has appeared in either U.S. or Israeli news media, indicating that both sides have regarded what Dempsey said as extremely sensitive.

The substance of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis has become known, however, to active and retired senior flag officers with connections to the JCS, according to a military source who got it from those officers.

A spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commander Patrick McNally, offered no comment Wednesday when IPS asked him about the above account of Dempsey's warning to the Israelis.

The message carried by Dempsey was the first explicit statement to the Netanyahu government that the United States would not defend Israel if it attacked Iran unilaterally. But Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had given a clear hint in an interview on "Face the Nation" Jan. 8 that the Obama administration would not help defend Israel in a war against Iran that Israel had initiated.

Asked how the United States would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral attack on Iran, Panetta first emphasised the need for a coordinated policy toward Iran with Israel. But when host Bob Schieffer repeated the question, Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about."

Defence Minister Barak had sought to dampen media speculation before Dempsey's arrival that the chairman was coming to put pressure on Israel over its threat to attack Iran, but then proceeded to reiterate the Netanyahu-Barak position that they cannot give up their responsibility for the security of Israel "for anyone, including our American friends".

There has been no evidence since the Dempsey visit of any change in the Netanyahu government's insistence on maintaining its freedom of action to attack Iran.

Dempsey's meetings with Netanyahu and Barak also failed to resolve the issue of the joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise geared to a missile attack, "Austere Challenge '12", which had been scheduled for April 2012 but had been postponed abruptly a few days before his arrival in Israel.

More than two weeks after Dempsey's meeting with Barak, the spokesman for the Pentagon, John Kirby, told IPS, "All I can say is that the exercise will be held later this year." That indicated that there has been no major change in the status of U.S.-Israeli discussions of the issue since the postponement of the exercise was leaked Jan. 15.

The postponement has been the subject of conflicting and unconvincing explanations from the Israeli side, suggesting disarray in the Netanyahu government over how to handle the issue.

To add to the confusion, Israeli and U.S. statements left it unclear whether the decision had been unilateral or joint as well as the reasons for the decision.

Panetta asserted in a news conference Jan. 18 that Barak himself had asked him to postpone the exercise.

It now clear that both sides had an interest in postponing the exercise and very possibly letting it expire by failing to reach a decision on it.

The Israelis appear to have two distinct reasons for putting the exercise off, which reflect differences between the interests of Netanyahu and his defence minister.

Netanyahu's primary interest in relation to the exercise was evidently to give the Republican candidate ammunition to fire at Obama during the fall campaign by insinuating that the postponement was decided at the behest of Obama to reduce tensions with Iran.

Thus Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman, explained it as a "joint" decision with the United States, adding, "The thinking was it was not the right timing now to conduct such an exercise."

Barak, however, had an entirely different concern, which was related to the Israeli Defence Forces' readiness to carry out an operation that would involve both attacking Iran's nuclear facilities and minimising the Iranian retaliatory response.

A former U.S. intelligence analyst who followed the Israeli military closely told IPS he strongly suspects that the IDF has pressed Barak to insist that the Israeli force be at the peak of readiness if and when they are asked to attack Iran.

The analyst, who insisted on anonymity because of his continuing contacts with U.S. military and intelligence personnel, said the 2006 Lebanon War debacle continues to haunt the thinking of IDF leaders. In that war, it became clear that the IDF had not been ready to handle Hezbollah rocket attacks adequately, and the prestige of the Israeli military suffered a serious blow.

The insistence of IDF leaders that they never go to war before being fully prepared is a primary consideration for Barak, according to the analyst. "Austere Challenge '12" would inevitably involve a major consumption of military resources, he observes, which would reduce Israeli readiness for war in the short run.

The concern about a major military exercise actually reducing the IDF's readiness for war against Iran would explain why senior Israeli military officials were reported to have suggested that the reasons for the postponement were mostly "technical and logistical".

The Israeli military concern about expending scarce resources on the exercise would apply, of course, regardless of whether the exercise was planned for April or late 2012. That fact would help explain why the exercise has not been rescheduled, despite statements from the U.S. side that it will be.

The U.S. military, however, has its own reasons for being unenthusiastic about the exercise. IPS has learned from a knowledgeable source that, well before the Obama administration began distancing itself from Israel's Iran policy, U.S. Central Command chief James N. Mattis had expressed concern about the implications of an exercise so obviously based on a scenario involving Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack.

U.S. officials have been quoted as suspecting that the Israeli request for a postponement of the exercise indicated that Israel wanted to leave its options open for conducting a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities in the spring. But a postponement to the fall would not change that problem.

For that reason, the former U.S. intelligence analyst told IPS he doubts that "Austere Challenge '12" will ever be carried out.

But the White House has an obvious political interest in using the military exercise to demonstrate that the Obama administration has increased military cooperation with Israel to an unprecedented level.

The Defence Department wants the exercise to be held in October, according to the military source in touch with senior flag officers connected to the Joint Chiefs.

http://www.truthout.org/joint-chiefs-st ... 1328209116

[Lifexp Profile]

without prior agreement from Washington LOL

[domdabears Profile Website]

without prior agreement from Washington LOL

Do you know what those agreements were?

[Cia212 Profile]

I suspect Israel will try again after the election, but will we go along then? A new president might if he's trying to send a hard line message early in his administration.

[Noentry Profile]

There will be no war on Iran until the Chinese and the Russians are on board.
China and Russia have both said they will not support a war on Iran.

The fear is if China and Russia start openly backing Iran this will lead to WW3 and this is something they want to avoid for the time being.


Israel will do nothing with out the backing of America.
And that includes a war with Iran.

This is one of the main reasons why Ron Paul has had such a hard time in the press, because of his stance on Iran, and his "lets stay out of foreign affairs that do not affect us "
If you noticed the leading republican front runner in the presidential elections is for a war with Iran,
This is bad news for us all.
And why he gets good press

[Domeika Profile]

Nope, we won't be a party to it. However, when WW3 erupts we'll be balls deep in that. An attack on Iran is not an isolated event like invading Iraq or (place conqurer name here) Afganistan. Iran is a large economic player, and has big business deals with Russia and China, and a myriad of smaller nations. Starting a war with Iran is lighting the fuse of WW3. Not starting a war with Iran is letting Iran light the fuse for WW3 itself. Either way, WW3. The only thing that could fix things is an Iranian coup with a non-sectarian governing body as the outcome. This should have been orchestrated by Carter, but he lacked the balls. Now the wound is festering. Thank you, liberals of 1976 for this disaster waiting to happen due to electing an idiot that served from 1977-1981.

As an aside, Carter also thought that the Ayatollah Khomeni would go down in history as one of the greatest holy men ever.

In case someone NEEDS me to say it......... Jimmy Carter was AND IS a TOOL. Complete effin moron that effed up the world to such an extent we still see it today.

[Shemagh Profile]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152393

They're all gearing up for WHEN not IF Israel attacks Iran. US Defense secretary Penatta say's strong likelihood this spring. America doesn't intend to hit until intelligence that Iran is ACTUALY building a bomb, and Israel does not want to leave their fate dependent on American actions.
Whatever way you look at it, none of it looks good. If Israel does attack Iran, then Iran will see no difference between Israel and the USA and will blame both equally, and declare war on both, what does America do then?


British Deputy PM Concerned About Israeli Attack on Iran
Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, expresses concerns there could be a military conflict with Iran.
By Elad Benari
First Publish: 2/3/2012, 6:16 AM



Nick Clegg
Israel news photo: Office of Nick CleggBritain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said on Thursday he has concerns there could be a military conflict with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

The Associated Press quoted Clegg as having told The House Magazine, a weekly British political journal, that he feared Israel could carry out a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Asked if he feared Israel could launch an attack against Iran, Clegg said, “Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands.”

AP added that Clegg said Britain had been attempting to demonstrate “that there are very tough things we can do which are not military steps in order to place pressure on Iran.”

He would not speculate on whether “Britain would participate” if the standoff eventually led to a military response.

“I think of course you don’t in a situation like this take any options off the table,” Clegg was quoted as having said. “When you are in a major standoff with a country which appears to have a sort of hostile intent on these issues, of course you don’t do that. But equally we have been very very clear that we are straining every single sinew to resolve this through a combination of pressure and engagement.”

Clegg’s remarks come on the heels of a report on Thursday, according to which U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is "a strong likelihood" that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius reported about Panetta’s concerns in his column in the paper, saying Israel believes that after this time, Iran will have entered a “zone of immunity” that will enable it to build a nuclear bomb at its leisure, Ignatius wrote.

"Very soon,the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily," explained Ignatius. The U.S., however, does not intend to hit Iran until it has intelligence that Iran is actually building a bomb, and "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action..."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak used the same words in his speech at the Herzliya Conference on Thursday.

"Today, unlike the past, the world has no doubt that the military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the 'immunity zone,'” Barak said. “From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it."

[Domeika Profile]

Who's the brokest? Blame it on them.

"Today, in an un-provoked and heinous act, the government of Zimbabwe has attacked Iran."

Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe, a man in a ditch trying to eat a tire is confused as to why airplanes from all kinds of countries are bothering to attack a country that can't even collectively afford a biscuit.

[Zegtelzegtel Profile]

wanted to add this:


Israel: Iran's nuclear arms program is complete, its missiles can reach US

Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and awaits nothing more than a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb, said Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi on Thursday, February 2. Assembling a bomb would take up to a year, Kochavi estimated. With 100 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent grade and another 4 tons of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent already in stock, Iran would need another two years to make four nuclear bombs.
Therefore, by the end of 2012 or early 2013 Iran may have a single nuclear bomb, but by 2015 the figure would jump to four or five.
The officer was essentially amplifying the words of his predecessor, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, who said on Jan. 26 that as long ago as 2007 or 2008, Iran had already passed the point of no return in developing nuclear weapons. Kochavi agreed with him that none of the sanctions imposed thus far had persuaded Iran to slow down, least of all shut down, its drive for a nuclear weapon.
His comments coincided with the findings published Thursday by the Enterprise Institute, an American think tank, that Iran would be able to manufacture a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb as soon as August of this year, just seven months from now.
Also Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon disclosed that the big blast at the Iranian missile base near Tehran last November blew up a new missile system with a range of 10,000 kilometers, capable of targeting the United States.
Commenting on Iran's underground bunkers for nuclear facilities, the minister stressed that any facility built by man can be destroyed by man. "Speaking as a former chief of staff, I say none of Iran's installations are immune to attack," he said.
Major General Kochavi went on to say that if Iran had attained a nuclear capability, this meant that the US and Israel had failed to pre-empt this outcome.
Turning to another threat, the military intelligence chief painted a grim picture of 200,000 rockets and missiles of assorted types pointing at Israel.
Wednesday, February 1, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz stressed that there is no longer any point on the Israeli map that is outside the range of enemy missiles.
According to Gen. Kochavi, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas are dispersing their missiles and rockets to sites deep inland and integrated in urban environments to minimize their vulnerability to IDF attack. He warned "the enemy" had prepared increasing numbers of its missiles for "depth strikes against Israeli population centers, their warheads more lethal than ever."
"Every tenth residential house in Lebanon," he said, "harbors a missile arsenal or launching position. Their sheer volume has reached a strategic dimension with which Israel will have to deal."
Tuesday, Jan. 31, the IDF practiced mobilizing an armored division under war conditions, DEBKAfile's military sources report. The drill simulated moving the troops to conscription bases, arming them with equipment and weapons and getting them to battle lines – all under the heavy missile bombardment of military facilities, national highways and railway lines.
The various assessments of Iran's nuclear capabilities have faced serious credibility problems over the years, DEBKAfile's intelligence sources note.
Today, thanks to Kochavi and Yadlin, we know that the US National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 accepted by the Bush administration was wrong. Its main finding was that Iran had discontinued its military nuclear program in 2003. For five years, Western intelligence officials have given out misleading estimates to save their governments having to pursue direct action for preempting a nuclear Iran.
One school of thought claimed that Iran would not build a bomb until it had the resources to create an arsenal; another, that Tehran lacked the technology for weaponizing enriched uranium. Does the latest evaluation that the manufacture of a bomb awaits the decision of one man, the Iranian Supreme Ruler, fall into the same category as the others? Or is it another gambit to fend off a military strike against Iran for five more years?
How do the US and Israel know for sure that Khamenei has not given the order and that Iranian teams are not already busy assembling a bomb in some bunker?
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has maintained more than once that America has the resources for finding out about a decision by the Supreme Leader, but no American or Israeli intelligence officer can endorse this certainty.
It should be remembered, DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources note, that when Western intelligence announced the discovery of the Fordo underground facility near Qom in mid-2009, construction had begun undiscovered at least eighteen months earlier.

http://www.debka.com/article/21700/