U.S. fears Israeli strike against Iran.
By on Nov 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
U.S. fears Israeli strike against Iran.
The U.K. Times reports that military sources in Washington fear that Iran’s nuclear development may precipitate an Israeli attack. “The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a ‘different matter.’ … Concern about Israel’s intentions has been heightened by its recent air strike on a suspected nuclear plant in Syria.” Meanwhile, “U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran’s nuclear aims.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s ok for India (not a signer of the Non-proliferatin treaty) to have nukes, but Iran…..
I guess the difference is that the USA gets to supply India that little treat, while Iran didn’t put enough American Corporate dollars into their energy plan.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pmHmm.
Wouldn’t the U.S., if it were ruled by reasonable people, simply build and oversee Iran’s nuclear program? Heck, then we could sell them the fuel, at a profit, while being “in the loop” regarding who’s enriching what and where it’s going.
It’s so effing logical that it won’t ever occur to Bushco. Besides which, Presidents who start wars get lots of shiny pictures in history books. Assuming their are history books in our future.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:46 pmU.S. fears Israeli strike against Iran.
…
Meanwhile, “U.S. defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran’s nuclear aims.â€
Doesn’t sound like they exactly “fear” it…
November 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmThis was just discussed recently as a first step that would allow us to strike at Iran if they were to retaliate.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmGetcha up to date attack plans right here folks!
Can’t tell the bombers from the strafers without an uptodate attackplan, Attack Plans, right here folks, don’t make war without one!
Attack Plans! Special discount if your zip code is in Tel Aviv!
Attack Plans, getcha attackplans, uptodate attackplans!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pmSo if Israel strikes Iran and “The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a ‘different matter.’ … does that mean the US will strike Israel?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pmIf Israel attacks Iran, I say stay out of it and let Israel deal with the consequences. If they attack first, the hell with them.
I don’t see Iraeli soldiers dying next to ours in Iraq or Afghanistan, do you?
November 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pmWayne: “I don’t see Iraeli soldiers dying next to ours in Iraq or Afghanistan, do you?”
Damn good point, Wayne!
November 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pmWon’t be long now….
November 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pmOf course, the danger is that, Bush has stated that he would respond to “Any attack on Israel”. Presumably this would include retaliatory action. I would say the wingnuts are creaming their jeans over the prospect of a couple “scuds” striking Tel Aviv.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pmDo US officials truly fear an Israeli strike at Iran
-OR-
Behind the scenes are the Neocons pushing Israel to make a strike and just saying this so that they appear innocent of any wrongdoing.
If I sound tinfoil hat on this, remember the questions of whether we at least told Saddam we woudn’t interfere if he invaded Kuwait (that is, if we didn’t outright encourage him)
November 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pmMaybe Israel should tell Bush no to this. It would be nice if they could focus on the creation of the Palestinian state. I would rather have my tax dollars go to helping them create an infrastructure than on destroying Iran’s. This is crazy. Iran would not nuke anoyone even if the had the ability.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pmI’ll bet the little green men are Jewish. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Comment by TCDon
Millions of your fellow Americans are Jewish. I would take care in my words, sir…
November 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pmDidn’t Kucinich say that he saw something unidentified in the sky? I missed the green men part. I wonder what color the women are? Any ideas there TCDon or are you just trying to disparage someone again by making a strained nonconnection?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pmFears it? L O L BushCo would do somersaults if Israel attacked Iran. This is part & parcel of the buildup to attacking Iran.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pmmore of Bush’s plausible deniability.
wink wink nudge nudge
November 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pmConspiracy theories aboud.
Comment by TCDon
Yeah… because nothing ever happens behind the scenes. Why try to read between the lines and figure out what’s going on? You should all just be like TCDon. What the goverment tells him is all he needs to know. Life is much, much simpler that way.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pmI don’t believe the headline “U.S. fears Israeli strike against Iran. ”
November 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pmMethinks the US is encouraging the attack so as to take pressure off their own warmongering efforts.
From Scott Ritter’s article “Iraq will have to wait”
Regarding Iran…
November 8th, 2007 at 5:35 pmThe administration always heeded the justifications for aborting an attack, primarily because there was time still left on the clock, so to speak. But time is running out. Israel has drawn a red line across the calendar, indicating that if Iran has not pulled back from its nuclear ambitions by the end of 2007, military action in early spring 2008 will be inevitable.
Scott Ritter was right about WMD’s in Iraq….he said publically that there WERE NONE prior to America’s invasion. I sure hope he is wrong about Iran….but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Wouldn’t the U.S., if it were ruled by reasonable people, simply build and oversee Iran’s nuclear program? Heck, then we could sell them the fuel, at a profit, while being “in the loop†regarding who’s enriching what and where it’s going.
Comment by pete — November 8, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
If I am not mistaken, we tried to swing that very deal but with Russia as the overseer/provider of fuel and the Iranians said no dice. The fact that they want to be in charge of the enrichment when fuel was being offered them is one of the things that caused suspicion of their motives.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm#19 i agree – why would the us fear an attatck on iran? – i would think they would be encouraging it ,especially if someone else does it……so now i guess we can expect leiberman,john bolten and bill kristol and the likes to be all over the fixed noise tv during the next couple of days egging israel on?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pmMaybe Ronald Reagan’s little green men are behind it.
Who knows, just as long as you continue being a dip sh!t, that’s all that matters to you. Way to go dip sh!t.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pmTheir whole plan depends on Iran making a strike on Israel in reply. If it does’nt happen they’ll just try something else. Look at the spike in gasoline futures, they think something is up.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pmNever fear, Joe, the traitor, Lieberman will be at the forefront, leading the Israelis and dragging the US with him.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pmWayne makes an excellent point above
November 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmIf Israel strikes in Iran, leave them to their own fate, and we should stay out (well, maybe we could send Lieberman to help).
What have the Israelis done for us? I see only a one-way road with them.
Israel has drawn a red line across the calendar, indicating that if Iran has not pulled back from its nuclear ambitions by the end of 2007, military action in early spring 2008 will be inevitable.Comment by Badger — November 8, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
I was thinking that if no attack came by April or May that Bush had decided not to do it because the aftermath would still be a total mess for the 08 elections and if he launches any later he won’t have time to carry out a full air campaign.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmMaybe the UFO was hovering over Dennis Kucinich, because they were interested in Intelligent life forms.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIf I am not mistaken, we tried to swing that very deal but with Russia as the overseer/provider of fuel and the Iranians said no dice. The fact that they want to be in charge of the enrichment when fuel was being offered them is one of the things that caused suspicion of their motives.
Comment by Keltoi — November 8, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
We, however, haven’t made the offer ourselves. Furthermore, the Iranians state (though I readily admit they could be lying) that they are pursuing a program of Uranium enrichment to utilize their own reserves of Uranium.
(Kind of like our, alleged, desire to reduce dependence on foreign oil.) Also, the Russians refused to guarantee supplies of fuel past ten years. I don’t think it makes much sense to build hideously expensive reactors that won’t have fuel in ten years.
And, the point remains, wouldn’t it make sense to offer to participate in their nuclear program rather than threaten them with acts of war?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:48 pmComment by Keltoi — November 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Those are Scott Ritter’s thoughts, not mine…. but It sounds like Israel, and not Bush, will be in the driver’s seat with respect to attacking Iran’s Nuke sites.
and unfortunately the US can drop a whole lot of Bombs from May to November. Like I said… I hope Scott Ritter is wrong about this. Attacking Iran is madness.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pmAnd, the point remains, wouldn’t it make sense to offer to participate in their nuclear program rather than threaten them with acts of war?
Comment by pete — November 8, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Welll….considering we have no official relations at all with them and haven’t for a generation, going from 0 to 60 like this doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
I read an article by Christopher Hitchens a year or so ago where he suggested Bush should make a hugely dramatic gesture, fly to Tehran, reopen our embassy and put everything on the table and make a “Grand Bargain Plus” where enrichment, Iraq, Iranian frozen assets, everything was on the table. He said his plan likely wouldn’t work but it was as good as anything else available.
The intractability of this Iran situation continues to confound. The clock is ticking, time is not our friend, but the happy ending via the military route is hard to see.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm“The Pentagon is reluctant to take military action against Iran, but officials say that Israel is a ‘different matter.’ …
Give me a break. The Bush Administration is salivating at the prospect of Israel attacking Iran. Because if they do, and Iran retaliates, then we will have to get involved to protect our masters, Israel.
I would like to know how and when Israel gained so much control over the government of the United States of America. We give them shitpots of money and we will do practically anything to defend them, even when they are doing the indefensible like annihilating the Palestinians.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pmAny ideas there TCDon or are you just trying to disparage someone again by making a strained nonconnection?
Comment by dbadass
Donnie is just mouthing off. That’s all he knows how to do. BTW, Kucinich is in good company. I just read that 75% of the people in a recent poll say that they have seen a UFO. I know that I have. At least I saw something that certainly could not be explained in any other way.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pmIf I am not mistaken, we tried to swing that very deal but with Russia as the overseer/provider of fuel and the Iranians said no dice. Keltoi
Link to proof of this please. You may very well be mistaken. If you are going to make this assertion, then prove it.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pmIronic coming from you.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pmI was thinking that if no attack came by April or May that Bush had decided not to do it because the aftermath would still be a total mess for the 08 elections and if he launches any later he won’t have time to carry out a full air campaign.
Comment by Keltoi — November 8, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Give it another thought. If the U.S. attacked later in 2008 it would not be prudent to hold an election. I don’t believe there will be an election next year. A couple of guys like GWB/Cheney don’t grant themselves all of these wonderful powers only to put them up for grabs to the next Democratic President. Mind you I also don’t believe your votes are being counted so I guess they can elect whoever they choose, like in the last two elections. Watch for the election to be postponed due to an ongoing war with Iran.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pmLink to proof of this please. You may very well be mistaken. If you are going to make this assertion, then prove it.
Comment by bilbobaggins — November 8, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Here you go, Bilbo. It was almost 2 years ago….back when we were just warming up banging our diplomatic heads on this particular wall.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/01/iran.nuclear/index.html
November 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#36. Well, there you go again. Another lib with another “poll.â€
Comment by TCDon — November 8, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
There you go, another Rep, dumb as a pole.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pmpete: Do you really think they’d let us?
Comment by TCDon — November 8, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Probably not. Yet, how can we know without making an effort? It is possible that we could work out a deal to our mutual benefit. Don’t we owe it, to ourselves, to try?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:17 pmWatch for the election to be postponed due to an ongoing war with Iran.
Comment by Dave C — November 8, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
I know that is the pet theory, but there is just no way they’d get away with it. If we didn’t suspend elections during the Civil War or WW II, we couldn’t do it for war with Iran. I think this is paranoia, but I also know that if you believe it you believe it and only Bush flying away to Crawford in Jan 2009 will prove it.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:17 pmSo the fools in Washington are worried about the nuclear arms that Iran doesn’t possess and don’t seem at all concerned that al Qaeda is just a heartbeat away from obtaining nuclear arms that Pakistan does possess.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:23 pmI know that is the pet theory, but there is just no way they’d get away with it. If we didn’t suspend elections during the Civil War or WW II, we couldn’t do it for war with Iran. I think this is paranoia, but I also know that if you believe it you believe it and only Bush flying away to Crawford in Jan 2009 will prove it.
Comment by Keltoi — November 8, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Distrust of a government that has proven untrustworthy is not paranoia. It’s patriotism.
I don’t think it’s likely the election will be canceled/postponed, however, Bushco is the first administration to enact measures that make it possible. I won’t rest until they’re gone.
I might add that I would welcome, very much, international oversight of our elections. Doubting the legitimacy of elections is a cancer in any society.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pmHere’s another happy thought. If we, or Israel, or anyone attacked Iran; what would China and Russia do? Do you think they would quietly sit by and shake their, collective, heads? I think not.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWelll….considering we have no official relations at all with them and haven’t for a generation, going from 0 to 60 like this doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
You have forgotten traitor Ollie North’s Iran Contra scam which put the old fart “gipper” Reagon in the White House. Damn, those Republicans are scum. The party of torture, death and deficits.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pmpete – I agree. And China will increase the amount of poisonous products that they ship over to Americans obsessed with purchasing “things”.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pmpete: Do you really think they’d let us?
Comment by TCDon — November 8, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Probably not. Yet, how can we know without making an effort? It is possible that we could work out a deal to our mutual benefit. Don’t we owe it, to ourselves, to try?
Comment by pete
It worked with N. Korea. Or at least something similar did. The main point though, is that war should be a last resort. And something can not be called a last resort unless EVERYTHING ELSE has ACTAULLY BEEN TRIED. Not just talked about, or considered, but actually tried.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pmAnd then we must consider, if our worst fear comes true, and Iran acquires nukes; would their leaders pursue the suicidal act of using them or supplying them to those who would?
Try as I might, I can’t find historical references to suicidal rulers. Generally, they cling to life, power, and prestige to an embarrassing extent.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm“I am mentally ill.”
Comment by TCDon
Yes, you are, and by the way while in the Service (airforce) the whole freaking flightline at Fairchild saw UFOs, it was amazing.
But you are an idiot, as we all know, so STFU fool.
Buck Fush
November 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pmSo the fools in Washington are worried about the nuclear arms that Iran doesn’t possess and don’t seem at all concerned that al Qaeda is just a heartbeat away from obtaining nuclear arms that Pakistan does possess.
Comment by Coffins Draped with a Flag — November 8, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
HELLO ?
November 8th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOh and about that can’t happen here stuff concerning our 08 elections , remember we now have a presidency which has ,through the use of signing statements , usurped the role of our elected representitives in a way that is very reminicent of the loss of democracy in the weimar republic . Who would have ever believed 6 years ago that a US president could ever go unchallanged in ignoring laws he deemed undesirable .
November 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pmWe are no longer in America and all the democrats seem capable of is political posturing !
It can happen here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 8th, 2007 at 7:01 pmTC Don: “No, he didn’t say “little green men,†but he might as well have.”
Is that the kind of reasoned argument you would make in court, counselor?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:20 pmfreeman – obviously you don’t understand… if Musharif dies and the radicals in Pakistan take over, they will then possess nuclear weapons. I’m assuming that you never heard the phrase “heartbeat away”. Cheney the dick is a heartbeat away from becoming president.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pmBush Regime wants Israel to bomb Iran first, so then Dubya has an excuse to attack Iran after they retaliate back at Israel.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pmCoffins ,Iquess your missing my sarcasm . It’s a no brainer ,Pakistans falling apart is a potential disaster ,I ABSOLUTEly agree .
November 9th, 2007 at 2:32 pmIf it was possible to recommend a comment more than once ,I’d sit here all day recommending yours about pakistan !
November 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmlet me get this right, if Israel attacks Iran, we should stay out of it! what has Israel done for America? let me gess? o that’s right Israel attacked the USS liberty and left her crew to die!
November 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm