Will Israelis Strike Iran’s Nuke Site
s?
If so when will Iranian sites be Struck
?
Yes, Israel will eventually strike the Sites
When
? When Iran Ha
s a deliverable Bomb
When will it have a deliverable nuclear Bomb
At a future point in time between 2010 & 2015
The key word in all this is the word DELIVERABLE
July 8, 2008
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
I have long contended that Iran’s motive in developing a deliverable nuclear warhead is primarily for deterrent purposes, so they can carry out a conventional war against Israel, without fear of Israel launching its fantastic nuclear armada of nuclear warheads against them. Iran is very much aware it cannot win a nuclear war against Israel, as is Syria and the other fanatical Islamic nations. The ten toes and 10 horns of Daniel and Revelation want a conventional war because it is much more to their advantage numerically and logistically.
I expect Iran to have developed a nuclear bomb before 2010, but it will take time to size it to mount on the missile warhead they are currently building to house it.
And they would never launch one against Israel unless it had been tested, nor would they launch without a sufficient backup arsenal of missiles ready to launch. All these things take time, so I am persuaded Israel will wait until after Iran has developed their first nuclear bomb before they launch any kind of a preemptive strike against its nuclear facilities.
Once Iran actually has a nuclear weapon, the nations of the world would breathe a sign of relief if Israel destroyed their facilities.
For whatever it is worth, I agree with the following article found in the Jerusalem Post. I believe the doves in the Bush administration will win, and the U.S. will not give Israel the green light for a facilities attack.
If Obama wins in November, forget about a green light until Hell freezes over. We will never go to war with Obama in office, unless someone lets a nuke go from afar and it lands on our shores. However, we will no doubt achieve international fame as advocates of a newly created group likely identified as the Little Lord Fauntleroy Debating Society.
Begin Jerusalem Post Excerpt
Israel: Leaks about Iran strike plans reflect internal US debate
July 7, 2008
Herb keinon, Yaakov Katz and Etgar Lefkovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST
The recent spate of leaks and reports from Washington about whether Israel will, or should, take military action against Iran, and what that would mean for the US, is a reflection of deep divisions on the matter inside the Bush administration, Israeli diplomatic and defense officials said Sunday.
The officials said that the two sides of the argument, the “hawkish camp,” led by US Vice President Dick Cheney, and the “dovish camp,” led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, are leaking assessments about Israeli intent to further their own agendas, and in this regard using Israel as a “pawn” in their own political battles.
For instance, one official said, the recent remarks made by US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen to the effect that an attack on Iran and a “third front” would be bad for US interests were aimed not merely at deterring Israel from action, but also at “handcuffing” those inside the administration who are supportive of military action.
One Israeli diplomatic official said that as the debate rages in Washington, it was clear that Israel would be unable to take military action without a green light from the US.
“Everyone understands that we could not take action without US approval,” the official said, “both because we would need to fly through airspace controlled by the US, and we would need their help in dealing with repercussions from any attack.” The most direct air route to Iran is through Iraqi airspace, which is controlled by the US.
“We would need their help in carrying out the attack, and also afterward,” the official said.
“We would have to deal with possible military action from Hizbullah and Syria, and also diplomatic fallout.
Don’t expect the world to clap if we attack Iran, and as a result oil prices spiral from $140 a barrel to $300 a barrel.”
The official said Israel would need US diplomatic cover to deal with the world’s condemnation, and possibly even sanctions, in the aftermath of a raid.
Although Israeli officials said they were not surprised by the various different assessments coming out of Washington, because they have long been aware of the internal divisions on this matter, they said they were slightly surprised by remarks made by Mullen about the “third front” because he had not issued these warnings in his meetings with top Israeli military brass during his visit to Tel Aviv last week.
At a press conference in Washington last week, Mullen said that “Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” adding that while he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons the efforts needed to focus on diplomatic, financial and economic actions.
The Israeli officials said that the talks with Mullen had focused primarily on Iran but had also dealt with other regional issues such as Hamas’s military buildup in Gaza and Hizbullah’s in Lebanon. They added, however, that the concern voiced by Mullen was real and reflected fears in Washington that a strike against Iran would destabilize the region and undermine America’s recent success in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Anthony H.
Cordesman, an American national security analyst who served as a former national security assistant to presumptive Republic Party presidential nominee John McCain said Sunday that the US is trying to pursue the diplomatic option with Iran over its nuclear program since it does not view the nuclear threat by the Islamic Republic as an “urgent” crisis.
“I think we are contemplating to do exactly what we said we are doing – which is to try to pursue diplomatic options, and the reasons are very simple: We do not see this as an urgent crisis in terms of Iran rapidly acquiring weapons or effective delivery systems,” said Cordesman in an address at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Cordesman, who also served as a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, conceded that the US assessment on Iran’s nuclear program is at odds with Israeli intelligence estimates, and said that the whole issue is likely to be left to the next US President.
“If that assessment changes, it does differ from some Israeli experts, then our timing might change. But I suspect that is going to be an issue for President Obama or President McCain,” he said.
“In terms of US strikes on Iran, we have a contingency plan for virtually anything. And in this case, are we going to constantly have the ability to execute some kind of strike plan against Iran’s missiles and weapons of mass destruction, including its nuclear facilities? Yes. Are we about to execute it
? No! The president of the United States has said that, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state [and] the chairman of Joint Chiefs.”
A US intelligence report issued last year stated that Iran had frozen its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but continued to enrich uranium, which, nuclear experts say, is the hardest part of building a bomb.
Israeli intelligence believes that the American report is incorrect, and that the Islamic Republic has continued to work on its nuclear weapons program.
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.