Iranian Nuclear Facilities bombing being considered in High Places!
October 7, 2007
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT, I AM REPEATING OUR LEAD-IN FROM THE PREVIOUS BLOG AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS BLOG, WHICH IS FOLLOWED BY THE NEW BLOG.
Begin Repeat of Last Blog Lead-In
If Syria and Iran attack Israel before three major impediments are out of the way, they will suffer a terrible defeat, and I believe they are well aware of it. I am hoping their acute awareness of it will cause them to agree to a time of relative false peace, some sort of a hudna. They have a lot of work to do before they will be able to defeat Israel in a Middle East War.
Considering the results of Syria’s wars with Israel in 48, 67, and 73, plus last month’s failure to detect and destroy Israeli aircraft by their great pig-in-a-poke Russian high tech system, coupled with the existence of a long eastern border with Iraq, where some 140,000 American military forces are at war, I would have to surmise that the statement made by Syrian President Bashar stating: ‘Syria won’t hesitate to start a war with Israel to regain Golan,” is empty rhetoric from a deflated hot air balloon.
Syria is not about to start a war with Israel until these serious obstacles are changed or removed, and it is unlikely it will do so until Iran has a deterrent consisting of several deliverable nuclear warheads.
It is difficult for me to image an attack against Israel by Syria or Iran until:
1. American troops are out of Iraq in sufficient numbers.
2. Iran and Syria have dependable detect and destroy systems.
3. Iran has several deliverable nuclear deterrent warheads.
Considering these three factors, I would guess the earliest possible date for Syria and Iran to be ready to attack Israel would be 2010, and it might be as late as the end of 2014.
However, Israel is more than prepared to attack them both at any given moment, and knowing Israel, it is certainly a possibility.
End of Last Blog Lead-In
It is interesting that just before Israeli Defense officials finally admitted the IAF made the air raid on northern Syria, John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz were advising President Bush to order a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. This is discussed in two articles which follow the next paragraph.
If the November Invitational Peace Conference does not accomplish any tangible results, this would be the optimum time for air strikes against nuclear facilities in Iran, primarily because of ineffective intercept and destroy mechanism capabilities against American and Israeli aircraft or missiles at the present time.
Begin Article 1
Aviation Week Article
Why Syria’s Air Defenses Failed to Detect Israelis
Posted by David A Fulghum
October 3, 2007
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said the Israelis struck a construction site at Tall al-Abyad just south of the Turkish border on Sept. 6. Press reports from the region say witnesses saw the Israeli aircraft approach from the Mediterranean Sea while others found unmarked drop tanks in Turkey near the border with Syria. Israeli defense officials admitted Oct.
2 that the Israeli Air Force made the raid.
The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.
U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.
The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.
A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that “Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions.”
The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system. Iran bought 29 of the Tor launchers from Russia for $750 million to guard its nuclear sites, and they were delivered in Jan., according to Agency France-Press and ITAR-TASS.
Syrian press reports they were tested in February. They also are expected to form a formidable system when used with the longer-range S-300/SA-10 which Iran has been trying to buy from Russia. Syria has operated SA-6s for years and more recently has been negotiating with Russians for the Tor-M1.
What systems were actually guarding the Syrian site are not known.
Credit: US Navy
Begin Article 2
Begin Arutz Sheva Article
Bolton, Podhoretz Say: Bomb Iranian Nuclear Plants
19 Tishrei 5768, 01 October 07 07:05
by Gil Ronen
(IsraelNN.com) Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Conservative Party delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UN to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Influential conservative thinker Norman Podhoretz told a British paper that he has advised President George W.
Bush to do just that.
“This is not an attractive option, but after four-plus frustrating years watching European diplomacy fail time and time again and watching our options more and more constrained, I do not know what the alternative is,” Bolton told delegates at the Conservative Party’s annual conference in the nor
thern British holiday town of Blackpool. “Because life is about choices,” he said, “I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities.”
Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “pushing out” and “is not receiving adequate push-back” from the West. He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove “the source of the problem,” President Ahmadinejad.
“If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change as well, because I think that really sends the signal that we are not attacking the people, we are attacking the nuclear weapons program,” he said. “The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back,” he said, and received applause and c
heers.
Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran’s nuclear activity existed is not an excuse for inaction. “Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction,” he explained. He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. “‘It’s only Manchester?’… Responding after [nuclear devices] are used is unacceptable.”
Bolton also said the UN’s involvement with Iran was “fundamentally irrelevant.”
Podhoretz: I told Bush ‘Strike Iran’
Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual leader of the neoconservative movement in the US who has joined Republican Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy advisor, told London’s Sunday Times he urged US President George W. Bush to bomb Iran during an unpublicized meeting with him late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.
“I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative,” said Podhoretz. “I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.”
He also told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another Holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.” The president looked very solemn, Podhoretz said.
For the most part Bush simply listened, although he and then-advisor Karl Rove both laughed when Podhoretz mentioned giving “futility its chance”, a phrase used by another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, regarding pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran.
“He gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed with me, but he listened very intently,” Podhoretz said.
‘No need for using nuclear weapons’
Podhoretz is convinced, however, that “George Bush will not leave office with Iran having acquired a nuclear weapon or having passed the point of no return” – a reference to the Iranians’ acquisition of sufficient technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.
“The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we’ll have waited too long – something I agree with 100%,” Podhoretz said
Podhoretz told Bush that he thought America could strike Iran militarily without nuclear weaponry.
“I’m against using nuclear weapons and I don’t think they are necessary,” he said. He believes the tepid British response to Iran’s seizure of Royal Navy hostages last spring strengthened Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
John Bolton, too, mentioned the naval incident: “They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US,” he said. “If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.