President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
No. He hasn’t FULLY approved of their plan-just backed it. However, the lack of complete and full support, the prospects for future support, and other factors might make this the tipping point for Israel to say, “Gotta do it now or never.”
Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.
See author page
well even if there is no attack we DO have a new record for oil prices of 147 dollars per barrel up from the mid 20s when Bush became President Everytime the sabres come out oil takes another jump
And the DDD’s (don’t drill democraps) have nothing to do with this? I only hope that Bush does more than approve of the plan. He should guarantee American participation at the very least. Saber rattling my aunt hanna, this should be a promise.
Bush has done everything he can to bring down the price of oil. Seven years ago he warned that this high cost would happen and tried to get a comprehensive energy bill through. The DEMOCRATS obstructed. He’s tried all along to get congress to allow drilling. He even went hat in hand and begged the Saudis to lower the cost of oil. They refused. It is the DEMOCRAT CONGRESS who are responsible for the public having to pay high prices for gas. If they had allowed drilling ten years ago or even 30 years ago we wouldn’t be dependent on foreign oil and in this mess now. Don’t blame Bush for this. He is the only one in Washington who tried to alleviate this problem. THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS have been the obstructionists in this matter and no one else. What’s more, they are still being obstructionist. After all, their solution to this problem is for us all to take the bus. And don’t be so disengeneous about the price rising due to Bush’s actions. The price has risen during the DEMOCRAT HELD CONGRESS. Where is their solution to this problem that they touted so vigorously before the 2006 elections? Nowhere, that’s where. The democrats have no solution to anything except acquiring power and milking the government for money disguised as pork.
NEED A LAUGH?
what better way to relieve tension than to get some insight into the perverse mental state of our enemy. Not only are they malicious, but they are stupid as well. True, actual footage of our enemies wouldn’t be very humorous, but actors can sometimes distill their essence down to a Purim Shpiel that is.
This puts “work accident” into a whole new perspective.
Just think of what they could do to themselves with atomic weapons. Why, it’s enough to send you ROFLYAO!
(Thanks to a link at DougRoss Journal)
If some are actually naive enough to assume US politicians or the WH has any control over the control of the price of a barrel of oil, then they may on look to see that the largest hike in the barrel prices occurred under the DNC led Congress in the past year and a half. In which case, blame the DNC.
Fact is, Congress cannot control the price of a barrel directly. But they can affect the considerations used when pricing a barrel – all by the simple act of bolstering the future supply of oil with opening added areas of production… just like other countries are doing. The psychology of sky high futures is based on increasing demand and lessening supply. If the US joined in with increasing supply, as well holding demand down as much as economically feasible, the price would fall.
But nooooo….. for decades the US Congress has put us in the position of being dependent elsewhere, kept our refining capabilities limited, and refusing to contribute to the world’s supply. And that is the failing of Congress…. and Congress alone…. BOTH parties. Because it didn’t happen when the GOP had control either.
Sorry, John Ryan. Your “blame Bush” crap don’t fit here.
Experts have been predicting that Bush would authorize a strike on Iran for years:
“I believe President Bush is going to order air strikes (on Iran) before he leaves office”
-Norman Podhoretz (Lyons, 2007).
Bush and his cronies say they want peace and diplomacy, but the problem with the members of Bush administration is that you can’t trust them. You can’t take what they at face value.
As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate.”
The administration secretly planned and prepared for war with Iraq without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities.
By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.”
The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement.
In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world.
The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times.
In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients.
Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq.
The question remains: Why would we expect the Bush administration to start being honest and up front about its intentions now?
A better approach to Iran would be negotiations. We need to give Iran an honorable path of retreat. While Fareed Zakaria agrees that there is no reason not to use sanctions and embargoes against states such as Iran, he suggests that we also need to “allow a viable way out.” That is to say, we need to negotiate and not merely mandate.
I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran’s foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.
Actually John, the article said specifically that Pres Bush had not given a “green light” for an attack by Israel, and is specifically said the US would not strike during the Bush Admin.
Did you read the article you’re commenting on?
Also, what’d you mean by, “I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran’s foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.”
Iran’s making nuclear bombs
Iran’s threatened Israel
Israel might as well attack now rather than wait to be attacked
Iran’s promised to attack the US if it’s attacked by Israel
Iran has more terrorists than conventional forces so…
any attack from Iran is more likely to be by terrorists than conventional forces.
British diplomacy failed
French diplomacy failed
Russian diplomacy failed
EU diplomacy failed
UN diplomacy failed
US diplomacy has failed since Carter cut off ties in 1979
What realities are you thinking of?
John M,
Good to see your post. I’m waiting for the response. I’m not sure how we went from bombing Iran to drilling in ANWR, but hopefully this thread will get back on track.
Ready for Armaggedon, folks? I’m not. God help us.
Yeah that John Dean is such a reliable source. You mean the guy who actually ordered Water Gate, and then threw every one under the bus. frankly I don’t give a damn what John Dean has to say, it’s all bull shiite anyway.
deleted by author
no futher comments till stupid pills wear off
Scott,
It must be wonderful to be able to decide so simply what needs to be done. Any idea what will happen to the price of oil if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz? Any idea what will happen to our troops in Iraq if Israel goes to war with Iran? This isn’t the Jets and the Sharks in West Side Story.
Dave,
“Any idea what will happen to the price of oil if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz?”
I expect oil will go up, the strategic reserves will be released, but Israel’s gonna do what Israel’s gonna do-amber light or green light or even red light (as was the case prior to Osirik)
“Any idea what will happen to our troops in Iraq if Israel goes to war with Iran?”
Yep, Iran will send arms to attack them, back militias in Iraq, and directly attack them, but American troops are of vastly superior quality and veterans, and they’re backed by the Iraqis now who (in Basra, Fallujah, and Sadr City) have succeeded in quelching terror on their own or w minimal help.
“This isn’t the Jets and the Sharks in West Side Story.”
I know. I agree. Recall that I’m not calling you a loonbat or anything. I’m asking you to further elaborate on your comment, “I think we should more concerned about acquainting ourselves with the realities of Iran’s foreign policy initiatives, and intelligently determining our most reasonable course of action.”
Personally, I think that everything’s been tried and failed. Sen Obama and others like to tel us we should personally sit down w Iran and talk to them directly (as if somehow they haven’t gotten the message when presented in public, presented at the UN, presented in talks in Baghdad, and presented by our allies for us). Me, I don’t quite understand how that works. I mean, if I WERE PRESIDENT, I’d fly to Tehran and talk to them, and if they refused to end their nuclear bomb program, I’d leave, and help out Israel. However, the only thing to be gained (imo) by talking directly talking to Iran is that it would present a faux image that the US had tried everything. Even Bayh was on tv this week, and he said it right….it probably won’t work, but it’s a check on the checklist of things to do before bombing. What’s checking off that little box do? It’s supposed to convince anti-war folks, appeasers, pacifists, etc that war’s the last option. Since we all know Ahmadinejad’s not just gonna cave in or agree to any deal already presented, then I see it as a moot effort, and since those people I just mentioned will NEVER be convinced that attacking before being nuked is a rational idea…welp, again…why bother?
Dave Noble, I believe the point of Scott’s article is that it would be Israel who attacked Iran, not the US. Also, a paragraph from the linked article that’s important for you:
The US can not tell Israel what to do INRE their own defense decisions. But what the US can do is reiterate our support for Israel, constantly under attack both verbally and with rockets, from the leadership of Iran and it’s funded puppets.
The fact that the US would stand behind Israel may be enough to deter Iran, who no doubt feels quite confident they could battle Israel one on one and walk away a victor. Add the US to the mix, and I doubt that confidence remains.
While I agree there are repercussions of anyone tackling Iran militarily, we can only deal with the results if Israel chooses that route. Certainly with the possibility of a negotiating fool/Obama presidency, they may feel that time is not on their side.
But again, I believe that with Israel’s negotiations with both Hamas and Syria, and under the unpopular Olmert, I’m just not getting the gut feeling that Israel will launch anything, anytime soon. Could be wrong, tho.
BTW, INRE your “drilling in ANWR” side tact…. as Yonason said, John Ryan brought up the price of oil in response to this post. However it was less a “drill” issue than merely another “hate/blame Bush” issue.
And the oil supply side issue was never limited to ANWR in any comment. So technically, it hijacked to a hate Bush because of oil prices, and never to anything about drilling in ANWR.
a Any idea what will happen to our troops in Iraq if Israel goes to war with Iran? Dave N.
Any Idea what will happen to the Middle East if Iran gets the bomb?
I mean it’s not like they are poor misunderstood innocents.
UPDATE:
This is, for them, a religious war, and even to the point of suicide, that is how much they hate us. If they get an nuke, they will search and search until they find a way to use it. They must be stopped.
And with Israel barely a stone’s throw away, Jews cannot afford to wait. The Muslim leaders are all raving anti-Semites, and are constantly proving they cannot be trusted to keep any agreement they make, except the agreement among themselves to perpetually attack Americans and Jews. Wake up, before it’s too late.
John M… considering that it’s been everyone *but* Bush talking of striking Iran, what the heck makes you think believe all the fear propaganda being spread by everyone BUT the WH? Even this article makes it quite clear that any Israeli strike will not be backed up with US troops and availablility of US bases in Iraq.
DOH… that must mess up the DNC election fear campaign….
It’s all a political game play… make everyone fear Bush, and JSM as a possible GWB 3rd term. Yet the only ones I hear beating the drums for war with Iran are those that hate Bush, and the media (who also hate Bush).
You cannot equate Iraq with Iran. Different history in negotiations on the int’l front. Different threats from Saddam directly to the US. You had a nicely packed set of DNC talking points there, neatly packaged … but very little action and prep didn’t grow out of intelligence the WH and DOD had, that you and the media did not. Intelligence that has been confirmed by the Harmony and ISG documents.
Building up presence in the Persian Gulf was, and has always been, a wise move considering the situation post 911. And deployments in Dec 2002 was merely a few months in advance of the OIF. Your protests of Iraq, and your ardent belief that Bush will attack Iran in time to hand the reins to someone else, truly make no sense whatsoever.