Sgt Joch Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 maybe he was not as much a cowboy as we thought... Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands. In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel’s arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq. Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off, but “we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights,” one of his top aides said. At the White House and the Pentagon, there was widespread concern that a political uproar in Iraq about the use of its American-controlled airspace could result in the expulsion of American forces from the country. (...) Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site. “This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it? from the grey lady...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?pagewanted=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 One moment of clear thinking and sanity in eight years? Sort of underwhelming, if you ask me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 The fascinating part of the article is the strong evidence that Israel was planning or at least seriously thinking about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in 2008. It is nice to see that the Bush administration was smart enough to realize that this could easily lead to a wider war. Of course, by 2008, most of the hard-line neo-cons had left and Cheney's influence was much diminished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You're just catching up to January 10th? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This makes me think back to the Israeli raid on PLO headquarters in Tunis a couple of decades back. It took a long flight over the Med to get there and back and it always struck me as odd if the USN at least wasn't aware of it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I thought this bit was interesting: Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off, but “we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights,” one of his top aides said. At the White House and the Pentagon, there was widespread concern that a political uproar in Iraq about the use of its American-controlled airspace could result in the expulsion of American forces from the country. "could result in the expulsion of American forces from [iraq]" Kiboshed not because it was a fux0ringly stupid idea, but because the Americans might get shown the door. Ultimately a good call but then a broken clock, as they say ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Didn't this all come out months ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Maybe. In other news, I just found out that WWs I and II finished months ago too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 You're just catching up to January 10th? I missed it when it came out and only found out about it because the article was referred to in another article I read this morning about Iran's response to the Obama's press conference. That is another strange thing. It looks like a solid piece of reporting, but it was released on a saturday. I presume since the Bush administration was ending, it was not deemed newsworthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Didn't this all come out months ago? There has been a lot of speculation. There have also been many threads on the forum debating whether Israel was seriously planning to attack Iran, (although they all seem to have been erased by the forum migration last summer), but as far as I know, this is the first solid evidence which has come out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 There has been a lot of speculation. There have also been many threads on the forum debating whether Israel was seriously planning to attack Iran, (although they all seem to have been erased by the forum migration last summer), but as far as I know, this is the first solid evidence which has come out. The good old Guardian was on the case in September. A wealth of other media outlets also reported it at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 The good old Guardian was on the case in September. A wealth of other media outlets also reported it at the time. damn, blindsided by the Guardian.....Of course, it does not have the same amount of details as the report in the Times... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I thought this bit was interesting: "could result in the expulsion of American forces from [iraq]" Kiboshed not because it was a fux0ringly stupid idea, but because the Americans might get shown the door. Ultimately a good call but then a broken clock, as they say ... It would be in line with their other stupid ideas lately, though in an order of magnitude stupider. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Think of it as "accidentally making the right decision." That's about the only way they might have stumbled into making a correct choice in the past 8 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Think of it as "accidentally making the right decision." That's about the only way they might have stumbled into making a correct choice in the past 8 years. They were probably desperate to avoid an even better choice and just kind of backed into this one. "Oops! Was that a good thing to do? Sorry, I didn't mean to." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 They knew they'd really screwed up when they heard the collective sigh of relief from about 110 nations... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Bush wasn't so much a cowboy as he was a puppet for the war profiteers, Cheney, and the religious right. The sheer incompetence of his administration on various levels illustrates this. Yes, he did aggressively push for the invasion of Iraq; with avenging the attempt on his father's life by Saddam Hussein as his primary motive. Preventing an Israeli airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities was a prudent course of action. However, given that the conflict of interest between the aims of the Israelis and George Bush's own constituents were unambiguously transparent at the time, it wasn't by any means a tough decision. In any event, as was mentioned earlier, it certainly doesn't atone for the last eight years of horrendous leadership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Don't the Israeli's already have aerial refueling capabilities, what more did they need? It's not that far to Iran. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Flying strike fighters across the airspace of Syria, Jordan or Saudi-Arabia while dodging SAMs is one thing, but doing the same with a tanker is quite different. Not to mention that the tanker would likely be slower than the fighters and would need to be sent ahead. Flying the tanker around the Arabian peninsula to Persian Gulf without fighter cover would be too risky, as there is a fair chance that Iranian F-15's intercepted it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Of course you meant F-14s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 No, F-15 is what Iranians call them these days. (or maybe not) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Is everybody here so sure that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they won't actually use them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Are you sure that China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or UK won't use them? So far they haven't. We know only one that did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 That's bound to change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Is that a threat..? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.