‘Israel to Give Obama 12 Hours Notice on Attacking Iran’

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why should Israel give us any warning they'd be attacking Iran?

So that they don't "accidentally" scuttle another US warship.

Netanyahu wants to blame Obama for stopping the attack.

[slim 1,525]

So that they don't "accidentally" scuttle another US warship.

The US will probably never stop being everywhere.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Obama is not going to give up the Jewish vote:

The "Jewish vote" is not so much the issue as the PAC money - there are some Israeli government supporters with extremely deep pockets. Gingrich picked up $10 million from Sheldon Adelson & his wife just for reciting the "Palestinians are an invented people" line.

[slim 1,525]

And they think the Arab/Israeli conflict can be solved in our lifetime. HA!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

thread closed for review

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After review I have removed a number of posts from a variety of posters discussing an issue unrelated to the posted topic and derailing the thread. One member has also been threadbanned for TOS violations:

Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.

and

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

We were 'light' on available moderation team members today thus the delay in responding to the many reports on this thread. It happens, sometimes.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Kathryn41

[luckytxn 2,264]

thread closed for review

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After review I have removed a number of posts from a variety of posters discussing an issue unrelated to the posted topic and derailing the thread. One member has also been threadbanned for TOS violations:

and

We were 'light' on available moderation team members today thus the delay in responding to the many reports on this thread. It happens, sometimes.

Thanks Kathyrn for this and all you do here.

[AMP 54]

The Lincoln is definitely there to send a message - to Israel.

doesn't it say something differently in the article. us is just protecting its oil intreats and it's friends.

and by friends I mean israel

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

doesn't it say something differently in the article. us is just protecting its oil intreats and it's friends.

and by friends I mean israel

Can you quote the passage and article to which you are referring ?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

U.S. to grant three-year extension of loan guarantees to Israel

The U.S. government has informed Israel that it will recommend that Congress approve a three-year extension of loan guarantees to Israel, worth $3.8 billion. The announcement came after several months of worry in Israel that the loan guarantees would not be extended, despite Israel's request.

Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Nides and Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin announced the American decision at a meeting with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Monday. According to a senior U.S. official, the two emphasized to Ayalon that the recommendation to extend the guarantees through September 2015 would receive wide support from both parties in Congress and would be approved without any problems in the near future.

"The U.S. is a true friend and ally of Israel," Ayalon said. "The partnership between the two countries is a natural one. Extending the loan guarantees strengthens the international position of the Israeli economy and will allow the government to continue to raise funds at lower costs."

A senior Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem said that Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren filed the official request for the extension of the loan guarantees with the State Department in September 2011. However, the Israel request was not included in the U.S. budget that was approved at the end of last year.

The deadline for the implementation of the agreement is September 30, 2012. This created serious concern in Israel that the U.S. government was not interested in extending the loan guarantees past that date. The Foreign Ministry also feared that the need for separate legislation on Israel's loan guarantees would be met with technical and political difficulties that would not allow for the passage of the law.

Before the arrival of the two American officials in Israel, the Foreign Ministry prepared for a tough conversation and a crisis. However, the two American officials were surprised and quickly clarified that the U.S. government completely supported the extension of the loan guarantees and planned to recommend the extension to Congress.

The loan guarantees agreement between the U.S. and Israel began in 2003, when Benjamin Netanyahu was Finance Minister. At the time, Israel found itself in an economic recession and U.S. loan guarantees were needed in order to raise funds abroad at low interest rates. The scope of the original agreement was $9 billion and Israel last raised money through it in 2004.

The agreement included a clause that the U.S. would deduct the amount of Israel's expenses and investments in settlements over the Green Line. Today, the balance of loan guarantees Israel can take, before offsets, is $3.8 billion.

According to a senior Foreign Ministry official, since 2005 Israel has raised needed funds in the capital market without using the loan guarantees, but the loan guarantees have importance to global credit agencies, who view the loan guarantees as a "safety net" for the Israeli economy.

"We consider the loan guarantees as preparation for a rainy day," the senior official said. "This is a safety net for war, natural disaster and economic crisis, which allows Israel to maintain economic stability in unstable surroundings."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-to-grant-three-year-extension-of-loan-guarantees-to-israel-1.409037

Sunday: USS Lincoln rolls into the Strait of Hormuz (essentially a sitting duck for Iranian retaliation if Israel launched an attack): Iran is being reassured there will be no imminent attack from Israel

Monday: US foreign policy & money reps happen to stop by in Israel to drop off a gift (much-needed extension of loan guarantees): Israel is being reassured that the U.S. government is still its best friend forever, and is being reminded of still more generosity to come if it doesn't stir up any trouble

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

More water being poured on the fire:

ISIS report: Iran won't pursue a nuclear weapon program in 2012

Iran is unlikely to move toward building a nuclear weapon this year because it does not yet have the capability to produce enough weapon-grade uranium, a draft report by the Institute for Science and International Security said on Wednesday.

The report by the institute founded by nuclear expert David Albright offered a more temperate view of Iran's nuclear program than some of the heated rhetoric that has surfaced since the United States and its allies stepped up sanctions on Tehran.

"Iran is unlikely to decide to dash toward making nuclear weapons as long as its uranium enrichment capability remains as limited as it is today," the report said.

The United States and Iran are engaged in a war of words over sanctions, with Iran threatening to retaliate by blocking oil shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The United States said it would not allow that to happen.

The escalating rhetoric and tensions have led to concerns about the potential for missteps between the adversaries that might spiral into a military confrontation that neither wants.

But the report, financed by a grant from the United States Institute of Peace, said Iran had not made a decision to build a nuclear bomb. The USIP is an independent, non-partisan center created by the U.S. Congress in 1984 that receives federal government funding.

"Iran is unlikely to break out in 2012, in great part because it is deterred from doing so," said the ISIS report, which has not yet been publicly released.

The report turns down the temperature, saying that sanctions and the fear of a military strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities have worked as a deterrent.

The institute has advised U.S. and foreign governments about Iran's nuclear capabilities and Albright is considered a respected expert on the issue. The report tracks closely with what is known of official U.S. government assessments.

U.S. officials say Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon and that Iranian leaders haven't made the decision because they have to weigh the cost and benefits of building a nuclear weapon.

...

Some conservative and Israeli analysts in the past have challenged these types of assessments, asserting that Iranian nuclear efforts are sufficiently advanced that they could build a bomb in a year or less.

But according to the institute's report: "Although Iran is engaged in nuclear hedging, no evidence has emerged that the regime has decided to build nuclear weapons."

...

Among possible policy options for halting Iran's nuclear program, one of the least likely to be successful is a military attack on its nuclear program, according to the institute's report.

Limited military options, such as airstrikes against nuclear facilities, are "oversold as to their ability to end or even significantly delay Iran's nuclear program," the report said.

Limited bombing campaigns would be "unlikely to destroy Iran's main capability" to produce weapon-grade uranium, it said.

Iran has taken precautions by dispersing the centrifuges it uses for enrichment to multiple locations, has mastered the construction of centrifuges, and has probably stockpiled extra centrifuges, the institute said.

A bombing campaign that did not totally eliminate these capabilities would leave Iran "able to quickly rebuild" its nuclear program and even motivate it to set up a Manhattan Project-style crash program to build a bomb, which would only make the region more dangerous and unstable, according to the institute.

...

Other more violent covert operations strategies, particularly the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers, have "serious downsides and implications," such as high risks of Iranian retaliation through militant attacks which could be directed against civilian targets. The United States has emphatically denied any involvement in the assassinations.

The report said that since thousands of specialists are involved in the Iranian nuclear program, assassinations were unlikely to be effective in slowing it down. It also warned that Iran could construe assassinations as acts of war and use them to justify retaliation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/isis-report-iran-won-t-pursue-a-nuclear-weapon-program-in-2012-1.409264

[luckytxn 2,264]

More water being poured on the fire:

Just till the elections.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Just till the elections.

Only if a "right-minded" Republican is elected. Evidently Obama is not inclined to invade Iran, or he would have done it already. And if re-elected, he will no longer need to worry about what AIPAC and their big donors want.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Only if a "right-minded" Republican is elected. Evidently Obama is not inclined to invade Iran, or he would have done it already. And if re-elected, he will no longer need to worry about what AIPAC and their big donors want.

Even if Obama is reelected and he should be he will not let Iran have a nuke. It is possible he may pull a Clinton and pay them off to hold off but Iran wants nukes they will get nukes.

Edited January 27, 2012 by luckytxn

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Even if Obama is reelected and he should be he will not let Iran have a nuke. It is possible he may pull a Clinton and pay them off to hold off but Iran wants nukes they will get nukes.

Actually, paying them off would be a lot cheaper than a war.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Actually, paying them off would be a lot cheaper than a war.

But only temporary. Be cheapest to just bring all troops home and no money or aid of any kind to any country. Why is it the U.S. has to care if Iran gets the bomb?