|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Former top USAF Commander:The US will "likely join" if Israel strikes Iran first|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
over 1,200 posts as Enssantor |
The question now is whether the current US administration echoes these sentiments:
|
||
|
-------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans' Group -------------------  |
Not until he takes 1 - 1 1/2 years to create a strategy.
 Todays politics remind me of an old saying. - "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
a few more joints and he won't necessarily give a sht! |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Even if they do, no one in the Admin. will ever say it for the record. We would never tip our hand in that way. |
|||
|
Member |
I doubt it really even so we might even try to go against and stop Israel. Not because we want to but because we have too. A strike right now will just make it hard for us in the middle east and put us in a 3 wars in three countries side by side.
Even so What would keep the Russians from helping Iran since they are more likely to benefit from it. Even so we would have to build up in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Mostly because Iran will use its people in Iraq to cause a uproar. Even so the more likely it will be to see weapons and training go to the Taliban. Plus trade in the region will go down the crapper. While everyone is building up and to scared to move. |
|||
|
New Member |
I think that the US would find it difficult to to join the IDF in a preemptive strike, given the political atmosphere and our current leadership. Bush (43) rolled the dice with Iraq, and paid dearly for it. Convincing the American people, IMHO, that Iran holds nukes would be extremely difficult. If the Mullahs were to brandish these weapons, things might change quickly; but I wouldn't count on that. Israel has successfully maintained a policy of "nuclear opacity;" and it has never been shown that the IDF tested a nuclear device, the Vela Incident notwithstanding. Iran could possibly be just as opaque in this regard. TT |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
or 7 Like "W" and still come up empty handed. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Russia benefits from a war in the middle east that prevents Iranian oil from flowing. It makes their oil more marketable. I can't see them actually supporting them. Making anti-American noises at the UN is par for the course, but physical involvement in the conflict, no way. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
It would be incredibly stupid for the US to join in with Israel on an airstrike into Iran. We should provide covert support. However, to provide active support or a joint strike with Israel will do nothing but undo decades of US diplomacy with the moderate Gulf states. Do you honestly think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Kuwait will allow us to stage out of their countries if we do a joint strike with Israel??
|
|||
|
|
over 1,200 posts as Enssantor |
You might just be wrong about one of the nations mentioned above. You should look at this older thread: "Saudi Arabia may allow Israeli Air Strike into Iran- airspace passage permission" thread of the "Middle East" forum of military.com A Shia/Shiite Islamic nation (Iran) is still a mortal enemy of Wahabbist Arabs/Sunnis whom Saudi Arabia claims to be the leader of, IIRC. Btw, since your name is "Aggie"- I 'm guessing you went to Texas A&M University? hehehehe. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
The reaction, or actually the lack of it, by Arab states (Saudi Arabia etc.) to "Operation Orchard" on Sept. 6, 2007 was an eye opener for me. The Israeli airstrike on a target in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria did not create the firestorm I expected in the Arab world. There might actually be less objection amongst Arabs, than Americans, to some sort of strike at Iranian targets. We live in interesting times. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
but it is still a Muslim nation. as such, the muslims will stick together when it comes to Israel. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
True, but that was Israel going by themselves. What do you think the firestorm would have been if it came out that an American oa-10 pinpointed the targets for the Israelis? |
|||
|
|
over 1,200 posts as Enssantor |
Did you even look at that other thread? Also, you afraid to admit you studied at Aggieland? |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Good point. I haven't researched the matter; perhaps the US did provide some sort of support for the IDF strike. At any rate, I sense that the US and Israel receive about the same level of contempt from the Arabs. So, I think the reaction might well have been the same- except in the US- if it were to be widely known that we had been heavily involved. In that event, I don't think Bush (43) could have avoided a US political firestorm. TT |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Most important of all, what makes everyone so sure that should the Israelis strike, that it would come by air?...
Respectfully, SUNLINERER81 |
|||
|
|
over 1,200 posts as Enssantor |
Very true. Those Israeli Dolphin class diesel subs were said to have the capability to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. OR.... Mossad Agent ZOHAN will parachute into Tehran on the back of a camel!  |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
Those poor bazt@rds, they won't stand a chance!... LOL Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
New Member |
One never knows, does one? I think this is a reasonable facsimile of General Wald, back in the day. He looks like the "no BS" type to me:  TT |
|||
|
|
Super Member |
O.K. but, what does a picture of General Wald have to do with it?... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Former top USAF Commander:The US will "likely join" if Israel strikes Iran first
