Mideast Mess

[TheScotsman]

So, now that Iran is claiming to have taken delivery of S-300 (improved) AA batteries the timeline for something to happen in the mid east appears to have been stepped forward.

That was the same missile system our president made the deal with Russia over. You remember, we stop construction of an ABM system out of Poland (shafting one of the better allies of the USA in the process) and Russia would not sell the S-300 to Iran. Right from the start, I thought it was a hollow deal. The S-300 was developed with Iranian money-How could Russia not let them have something they paid for, and still maintain any form of diplomatic legitimacy? Well, it would appear we had a straw-man deal through Belarus at this point.

Israel seems to be in a position where they would have a few months in which to react, and fly their sorties against the nuke sites in Iran, or forever loose that option. This is, assuming they have not developed any stealth technology of their own. (Hmmm.... where did we put those decommissioned F-117's anyway??? How about the multiple prototypes of the seahawk variant.) Obviously the USA is planning on sharing the technology, we have accepted a deal for 25 F-35's, and an option for another 50. 2006-ish I remember reading a bunch of articles about the IDF getting a deal for 50 F-22's, then all the talk stopped. Could they already be in the mid east? That would be a game-changer. The 22 is likely safe from the likes of the S-300. Maybe Israel would feel safer, and not forced to do something soon. (we can hope.)

Saudi Arabia has ok'd the use of it's airspace in a strike against Iranian nuke facilities. (big step toward a strike) Obviously SA thinks ak-ma-dinner-jacket doesn't need an atomic warhead. Saudi Arabia would not last long with an atomic-Iran, and they know it. The IDF would avoid a strike over Iraq, trying to leave the USA out of the whole decision, and knowing they are dealing with an unfriendly white house.

Jordanian skirmishes have long been something I thought Israel would use as a diversion for an air-strike against Iran. It would be a logical reason for IDF aircraft in the air over Jordan, and prune about 600km off the mission. That seems to be warming-up over a seemingly small matter of a tree. The type of thing Israel has ignored in the past. Why worry about it now if not for a need to have something going on that border?



Am I the only one that is frightened to see something that seemed so far from possible, become not only possible, but likely in the near future.


Let's try not to turn the thread into a bash-Iran, Israel, Jordan, or even our own President (ya, that part is hard for me, but would be of little benefit- More I think Mr. Obama inherited a giant mess in the mid east that has been brewing since) . Their policies are fair game; but it would be counterproductive to flame any of them over past decisions, or policies except in a factual content, and historical results context. That is all little more than the proverbial water under the bridge at this point. It seems the definition of insanity to argue about how did what 20 years ago when you are thinking of one nation dropping a high-penetration bomb into the middle of a functioning nuclear reactor in another, doesn't it?

[Dr. B]

I assume you're working under a "have-nuke-must-use" premise?

[antouwan]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='05 August 2010 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1281025447' post='477818']
So, now that Iran is claiming to have taken delivery of S-300 (improved) AA batteries the timeline for something to happen in the mid east appears to have been stepped forward.

That was the same missile system our president made the deal with Russia over. You remember, we stop construction of an ABM system out of Poland (shafting one of the better allies of the USA in the process) and Russia would not sell the S-300 to Iran. Right from the start, I thought it was a hollow deal. The S-300 was developed with Iranian money-How could Russia not let them have something they paid for, and still maintain any form of diplomatic legitimacy? Well, it would appear we had a straw-man deal through Belarus at this point.

Israel seems to be in a position where they would have a few months in which to react, and fly their sorties against the nuke sites in Iran, or forever loose that option. This is, assuming they have not developed any stealth technology of their own. (Hmmm.... where did we put those decommissioned F-117's anyway??? How about the multiple prototypes of the seahawk variant.) Obviously the USA is planning on sharing the technology, we have accepted a deal for 25 F-35's, and an option for another 50. 2006-ish I remember reading a bunch of articles about the IDF getting a deal for 50 F-22's, then all the talk stopped. Could they already be in the mid east? That would be a game-changer. The 22 is likely safe from the likes of the S-300. Maybe Israel would feel safer, and not forced to do something soon. (we can hope.)

Saudi Arabia has ok'd the use of it's airspace in a strike against Iranian nuke facilities. (big step toward a strike) Obviously SA thinks ak-ma-dinner-jacket doesn't need an atomic warhead. Saudi Arabia would not last long with an atomic-Iran, and they know it. [b]The IDF would avoid a strike over Iraq, trying to leave the USA out of the whole decision, and knowing they are dealing with an unfriendly white house.[/b]

Jordanian skirmishes have long been something I thought Israel would use as a diversion for an air-strike against Iran. It would be a logical reason for IDF aircraft in the air over Jordan, and prune about 600km off the mission. That seems to be warming-up over a seemingly small matter of a tree. The type of thing Israel has ignored in the past. Why worry about it now if not for a need to have something going on that border?



Am I the only one that is frightened to see something that seemed so far from possible, become not only possible, but likely in the near future.


Let's try not to turn the thread into a bash-Iran, Israel, Jordan, or even our own President (ya, that part is hard for me, but would be of little benefit- More I think Mr. Obama inherited a giant mess in the mid east that has been brewing since) . Their policies are fair game; but it would be counterproductive to flame any of them over past decisions, or policies except in a factual content, and historical results context. That is all little more than the proverbial water under the bridge at this point. It seems the definition of insanity to argue about how did what 20 years ago when you are thinking of one nation dropping a high-penetration bomb into the middle of a functioning nuclear reactor in another, doesn't it?
[/quote]

bahahah joke of the century. well maybe the 2nd best joke of the century; after israel blaming the US and france for 'arming' lebanon.

unfriendly white house? we can call it unfriendly when AIPAC and the rest of the zionist lobby removes its death-hold on american politics. we can call it unfriendly when the US stops giving military aid to the israelis by billions - annually. we can call it unfriendly when the tiny country/empire of israel no longer receives over 20% of the US foreign aid budget.

no you're not the only one that's frightened. israel attacking iran probably also means shit is going down in the south of lebanon as hezbollah presents a big threat (being an iranian proxy) to israel.

the whole situation is fucked. that's the story of the life of the whole region.

[mustafabey]

Why shouldn't Iran have illegal nukes? Israel does with no consequences. I don't support much of what Iran does these day or Israel for that matter. But take yourself out of it. Iran percieves America as an enemy. America is in Iraq militarily, in the Persian gulf from Kuwait to Oman, in Afghanistan and in the north is Russia, who has wanted to occupy Iran since the days of the great game.That makes Iran surrounded, who wouldn't want a nuke,Even India and Pakistan have them. Iran is country with an imperial past, a history of greatness. It see itself as a regional power and expects to be treated as one, but as of yet hasn't learned how to act as one. Nixon diffused the mess in southeast Asia in the 70's by opening dialogue with (Red) China. Obama, or any other American leader would do well to do the same with Iran. Robert Baer, former CIA agent and model for George Clooney's character in Syriana has written a few good books on the subject. Also the former CIA station chief at Islamabad, who now writes for al Jazeera has the same idea. If Iran gets a nuke, it sure won't use against Israel. Even Mr Ahmedinejad isn't that stupid.

[indian_villager]

Looks like its going to be a Nuclear Winter boys......i fucking hate the cold.

[mushrat]

keep it civil here guys. only warning.

[David J]

One rule for some and another rule for others!