

But we want Iranian nukes as this will provide us stragedic dept in the region.
Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to
- Thread starter arsenal_gooner
- Start date
i think the wording used is remarkable.
zbig is not someone to be ignored, i am not 100% sure of this, but did zbig not teach obama during his days at columbia?
was zbig not regarded by obama as his mentor?
i know his words are not regarded as official policy but they hold alot of sway imo.
anyway....
1. this was not just politely asking israel to not attack, it was making it clear there would be a military reaction should israel to do so, a complete 180 shift.
2. as such the us is not in a round about way acting as irans guarantor, that is if one is to believe zbigs words as accurate.
3. a further (somewhat hypothetical) corollary is that IRAN IS NOT THE GREATEST THREAT ACCORDING TO THE US.
so much so that it would view an attack on iran as going against its interests.
therefore, it begs the question, what are the US thinking as their main strategic goals...to me something regarding pakistan is at the very forefront, above iran, thats quite a serious situation.
zbig is not someone to be ignored, i am not 100% sure of this, but did zbig not teach obama during his days at columbia?
was zbig not regarded by obama as his mentor?
i know his words are not regarded as official policy but they hold alot of sway imo.
anyway....
1. this was not just politely asking israel to not attack, it was making it clear there would be a military reaction should israel to do so, a complete 180 shift.
2. as such the us is not in a round about way acting as irans guarantor, that is if one is to believe zbigs words as accurate.
3. a further (somewhat hypothetical) corollary is that IRAN IS NOT THE GREATEST THREAT ACCORDING TO THE US.
so much so that it would view an attack on iran as going against its interests.
therefore, it begs the question, what are the US thinking as their main strategic goals...to me something regarding pakistan is at the very forefront, above iran, thats quite a serious situation.
All-Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
What strategic depth?
Please elaborate...i want to learn of this strategic depth and its implications...
Last edited:
SecularHumanist
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 0
Everyone keeps talking about an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites and it sounds simple, fly in, drop a few bombs and poof no more nuclear Iran. Reality is much more complicated. If Israel did actually attack Iran they have to take into account several things.
The Iranian nuclear program is either deep underground or set up so that it can be easily dispersed in case of an attack. With the easily dispersed elements, surprise is critical so a number of things have to happen nearly simultaneously.
Israel would have to take out iranian SAM and Radar sites, iranian airfields and attack with both ground penetrating bombs to hit any "mobile" nuclear assets, all at essentially the same time. Of course once Iran is attacked they would do everything within their power to close the Persian Gulf to any shipping. So if Israel wants to avoid the entire world coming down on them because the gulf is closed, they also need to hit any anti-ship missile sites on the coast and the iranian ports to prevent attack boats and subs from putting to sea.
So here is a list of things the Israelis would need to bomb in nearly simultaneous attacks.
1. Sam Sites
2. Radar Sites
3. Underground nuclear sites
4. "mobile" nuclear facilities
5. Airfields
6. Sub bases
7. Ports
8. Anti-ship missile sites
The US could do this, with a major effort, Israel can't. With the capabilities Israel has and if they got lucky, they might set the Iranian nuclear program back 6 months, no more than that. The US with a major effort could set it back about 3 years.
The Iranian nuclear program is either deep underground or set up so that it can be easily dispersed in case of an attack. With the easily dispersed elements, surprise is critical so a number of things have to happen nearly simultaneously.
Israel would have to take out iranian SAM and Radar sites, iranian airfields and attack with both ground penetrating bombs to hit any "mobile" nuclear assets, all at essentially the same time. Of course once Iran is attacked they would do everything within their power to close the Persian Gulf to any shipping. So if Israel wants to avoid the entire world coming down on them because the gulf is closed, they also need to hit any anti-ship missile sites on the coast and the iranian ports to prevent attack boats and subs from putting to sea.
So here is a list of things the Israelis would need to bomb in nearly simultaneous attacks.
1. Sam Sites
2. Radar Sites
3. Underground nuclear sites
4. "mobile" nuclear facilities
5. Airfields
6. Sub bases
7. Ports
8. Anti-ship missile sites
The US could do this, with a major effort, Israel can't. With the capabilities Israel has and if they got lucky, they might set the Iranian nuclear program back 6 months, no more than that. The US with a major effort could set it back about 3 years.


iRanian nukes has already diverted attentions of US and Israel for some extent from pakistan.This stragedic depth will come in to effect in future when muslim ummah will unite.Why americans gave their nukes to Israel and european countries bcoz they wanted to have stragedic depth in those regions then why not muslims should help each other?????
R.A.W.
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the bold part gives you the answer. With view to the current geo-political situation it is not going to happen soon with so many differences in the Islamic world.
Iran and India had many terms between them in the past and this can indirectly hamper the interests of Pakistan....
All-Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
So you are suggesting that had it not been for Iran we would have been targeted by Israel?
Its not that easy...to target Pakistan.
At present Pakistan and Iran are on a different level in terms of military capability...No matter what the propaganda says and our weak leadership projects, Pakistan Armed forces pack a much more deadly punch and any such attack against Pakistan will be extremely costly for the aggressor...
If and when Pakistan is threatened Iran will most likely look after its own interests first...it may not even give us any assistance whatsoever...leave alone firing its precious few nukes (hypothetically speaking) for the sake of another country...that is impossible!
Iran having Nuclear weapons in no way makes us strong, we have more than enough Nuclear weapons to deter an attack on our land...
There is not strategic depth to be gained here since Pakistan and Iran do not have a common command and control, even our past relationship for 2 decades has been less than pleasant...
As opposed to this the Western countries as part of NATO had common command structure against the Soviets and the missile grid was thus established throughout these countries...
Last edited:
PAFAce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction score
- 0
And make him the only American president to ever have a spine and a clear conscience, not to mention eternal fame and goodwill and a special place in the History books of the future.
But really, it is the job of defense analysts to come up with insane scenarios, and this is just one of them. Not. Going. To. Happen.
And yes, a nuclear Iran is not in Pakistani interests. But it might just be worth it so see the Red-White-and-Blue men turn completely Red in the face.
And I pray to God everyone in India believes that, forever. The Pakistani military can't hope for anything better than a delusional Indian military.
R.A.W.
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- 0
After the nuclear tests we can have Iran under Indian camp with she being threat to Pakistan....
Muradk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,403
- Reaction score
- 2
All this is just another political game, Look at it from another direction.
For a vast majority in Pakistan, as in most of the Arab world, the
stranglehold of the Zionist over USA’s foreign and domestic policies is accepted as an article of faith. For them, every foreign initiative by USA in the Middle East is conducted at the behest of Israel and Israeli interest take precedence over USA’s own national interests. Even the present invasion of Iraq by the Coalition Forces led by USA in their opinion, had enhancement of the security of Israel as its
primary objective. On the surface, there are some very compelling arguments in support of this point of view. To begin with, the Jewish lobby in America is very strong, much stronger than their numbers can justify. They use their considerable financial clout and their monopoly over the media to project and protect the interest of Israel at every level. They also skilfully manipulate the historical anti-Semitic treatment of the Jews by the Christian world, especially during the Holocaust, to emotionally blackmail the predominantly Christian Americans into making concessions to Israel which cannot otherwise be sustained on moral or legal grounds. The actions of the US Government have lent further credibility to
this theory. Since 1967, USA’s support to Israel in military, economic and political fields has been unprecedented. The political support has invariably been at the cost of Israel’s Arab neighbours. The shameful treatment being meted out to the Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 has been condemned by the whole world,including many in USA, yet Israel continues to flout the world
opinion with active support and connivance of USA. Many US Government officials themselves through their public statements give credence to the theory. Conservative political leader Patrick Buchanan, former Congressman Paul Findley and retired State Department official Richard Curtiss claim that the US- Israeli
relationship is a case of the “tail wagging the dog”. They argue that tiny Israel – through its agents in the American Jewish community – is manipulating US foreign policy.1 Members of Congress and their aides will claim – always off the record – that they or their boss has to take pro-militarist and anti-Palestinian and anti-human rights position towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of the need for Jewish campaign contribution.2 Similarly, to divert Arab criticism of US policy makers, American diplomats routinely tell representatives of Arab government that wealthy Jews essentially dictate US Middle East policy.Does Israel, through the Jews in America have such a stranglehold over the US policy makers? Are the Jews really ten feet tall? To answer these questions, we should examine a little more closely who is the real beneficiary of this great love affair between mighty USA and tiny Israel. It would be wrong to assume that US commitment to Israel has primarily a moral base. Were it so, American aid to Israel would have been the highest in the formative years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most vulnerable – and would have declined as its military power grew dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied territories increased. 4 Instead, the reverse is true. 99 percent of all US military assistance to Israel since its establishment came post-1967, only after Israel proved itself far
stronger than the combined Arab armies and after Israeli occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population. One of the fundamental principles of international relations is that stable military relationship between adversaries leads to strategic parity, as it provides an effective deterrence to both sides against the launching of a pre-emptive attack. If USA’s sole concern was
ensuring Israel’s security, strengthening Israeli defence forces to a level where they would be equal to the combined Arab armed forces should have been the goal. Instead, USA has insisted that rather than military parity, USA must ensure qualitative Israeli military superiority in the region. The continued high levels of US aid to Israel does not come out of concern for Israel’s survival but more from a desire for Israel to continue its political domination over Palestinians and its military dominance in the region.
Why then this extraordinary military support for Israel by USA and
who is the bigger beneficiary of this arrangement?
To answer this question, a brief look at state of the American economy is necessary. After WW II, besides being the most powerful nation militarily, USA also was the sole economic power house of the world. Within three decades largely with the help of USA’s Marshal Plan, Europe and Japan emerged as strong economic blocks. After 1980, China and South East Asian (including South Korea) economies also improved dramatically. To maintain its status as the world’s dominant superpower, USA has maintained a very high level of defence expenditure. USA’s defence budget for the current year of over US $ 400 billion is equal to the combined defence budgets of the next twenty five nations. This investment in defence has come at a price. Today, USA is a heavily indebted nation with a staggering adverse balance of payment. However, in one area where it dominates the rest of the world is in the sphere of arms production. Thanks to its military adventurism (USA has bombed twenty six different countries
since WW II)7 and its vast investments in defence related research and development, USA is the predominant arms manufacturer and exporter in the world. In terms of value addition, arms exports exceed any other item by a very wide margin; the profit margin in this field is scandalously exorbitant. US economy, to a large extent is being kept afloat by the arms exports by US Companies. Is it surprising then that the US Defence Industrial Complex has become a key player in formulation of US foreign policies? A tension free world will reduce the demand for weapons and to continue selling high-tech expensive hardware to other countries, tension must continue. A look at US brokered peace deals would bring out some strange (but satisfactory from US point of view) conclusions.
Peace agreements between antagonists have historically promoted
varying degree of demilitarization. However, in case of US-brokered
agreements between Israel and neighbours, it has resulted in just the
opposite. Consider the following:
1978 Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel, heralded as a breakthrough peace treaty, turned out to be more of a tri-partite
military pact. Since then Egypt and Israel have annually received US
1.2 and 1.8 billion respectively.
1996 peace agreement between Jordan and Israel resulted in additional US $ 200 million aid to Israel of US $ 75 million to Jordan.
1998 Wye River redeployment agreement between Palestinian Authority and Israel resulted in a further US $ 1.2 billion military aid to Israel.
Today, Israel’s security position has markedly improved. It has a longstanding peace treaty with Egypt where a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone keeps the Egyptian Army at an arms length. Jordan has signed a peace treaty with fully normalized relations and Syria has gradually demilitarized, weakened by the collapse of USSR, its Chief patron. Iraq’s armed forces were
devastated during Gulf War I and remained crippled under strict international sanctions. It never threatened Israel in a conventional war and Gulf War II has decimated any remnants of the conventional threat. Yet US military aid to Israel is much higher during the 1970s, either remaining steady or actually increasing each year since. Even more surprising, US essentially sent no military aid to Israel prior to 1967 when the country was most vulnerable strategically. Virtually all US military aid to Israel came only after its quick and decisive victory in the Six Day War that June when it proved itself to be more powerful than any combination of Arab armies. Most of the foreign aid the US sends to Israel returns to US arms
manufacturers to produce weapon of the Israeli military and to American banks in the form of interest payments on the previous loans for weapons. In Israel, as in all other arms importing nations, US arms transfer cost the Israelis two to three times their value in maintenance, spare parts, training of personnel and other related expenses, which are generally not a part of the aid package. Israel had announced in 1991 its acceptance of a proposal by arms control advocates that would freeze arms exports to the Middle East. For Israel, this made sense from the viewpoint of defence needs, given its significant qualitative superiority in weapons and having the only major domestic arms production capability in the region that could expand its dominance still further. The proposal was to its
advantage. United States, the very country most adamantly claiming its concern
for Israel’s defence, effectively blocked the proposal. The strengthening of Israeli defence beyond its legitimate defence needs has resulted in an arms race in the region which has been a bonanza for US arms manufacturers, which may be a major explanation for the inordinate amount of US military aid to Israel – Israel, on an average receives US $ 3 billion per annum
For a vast majority in Pakistan, as in most of the Arab world, the
stranglehold of the Zionist over USA’s foreign and domestic policies is accepted as an article of faith. For them, every foreign initiative by USA in the Middle East is conducted at the behest of Israel and Israeli interest take precedence over USA’s own national interests. Even the present invasion of Iraq by the Coalition Forces led by USA in their opinion, had enhancement of the security of Israel as its
primary objective. On the surface, there are some very compelling arguments in support of this point of view. To begin with, the Jewish lobby in America is very strong, much stronger than their numbers can justify. They use their considerable financial clout and their monopoly over the media to project and protect the interest of Israel at every level. They also skilfully manipulate the historical anti-Semitic treatment of the Jews by the Christian world, especially during the Holocaust, to emotionally blackmail the predominantly Christian Americans into making concessions to Israel which cannot otherwise be sustained on moral or legal grounds. The actions of the US Government have lent further credibility to
this theory. Since 1967, USA’s support to Israel in military, economic and political fields has been unprecedented. The political support has invariably been at the cost of Israel’s Arab neighbours. The shameful treatment being meted out to the Palestinians in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 has been condemned by the whole world,including many in USA, yet Israel continues to flout the world
opinion with active support and connivance of USA. Many US Government officials themselves through their public statements give credence to the theory. Conservative political leader Patrick Buchanan, former Congressman Paul Findley and retired State Department official Richard Curtiss claim that the US- Israeli
relationship is a case of the “tail wagging the dog”. They argue that tiny Israel – through its agents in the American Jewish community – is manipulating US foreign policy.1 Members of Congress and their aides will claim – always off the record – that they or their boss has to take pro-militarist and anti-Palestinian and anti-human rights position towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of the need for Jewish campaign contribution.2 Similarly, to divert Arab criticism of US policy makers, American diplomats routinely tell representatives of Arab government that wealthy Jews essentially dictate US Middle East policy.Does Israel, through the Jews in America have such a stranglehold over the US policy makers? Are the Jews really ten feet tall? To answer these questions, we should examine a little more closely who is the real beneficiary of this great love affair between mighty USA and tiny Israel. It would be wrong to assume that US commitment to Israel has primarily a moral base. Were it so, American aid to Israel would have been the highest in the formative years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most vulnerable – and would have declined as its military power grew dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied territories increased. 4 Instead, the reverse is true. 99 percent of all US military assistance to Israel since its establishment came post-1967, only after Israel proved itself far
stronger than the combined Arab armies and after Israeli occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population. One of the fundamental principles of international relations is that stable military relationship between adversaries leads to strategic parity, as it provides an effective deterrence to both sides against the launching of a pre-emptive attack. If USA’s sole concern was
ensuring Israel’s security, strengthening Israeli defence forces to a level where they would be equal to the combined Arab armed forces should have been the goal. Instead, USA has insisted that rather than military parity, USA must ensure qualitative Israeli military superiority in the region. The continued high levels of US aid to Israel does not come out of concern for Israel’s survival but more from a desire for Israel to continue its political domination over Palestinians and its military dominance in the region.
Why then this extraordinary military support for Israel by USA and
who is the bigger beneficiary of this arrangement?
To answer this question, a brief look at state of the American economy is necessary. After WW II, besides being the most powerful nation militarily, USA also was the sole economic power house of the world. Within three decades largely with the help of USA’s Marshal Plan, Europe and Japan emerged as strong economic blocks. After 1980, China and South East Asian (including South Korea) economies also improved dramatically. To maintain its status as the world’s dominant superpower, USA has maintained a very high level of defence expenditure. USA’s defence budget for the current year of over US $ 400 billion is equal to the combined defence budgets of the next twenty five nations. This investment in defence has come at a price. Today, USA is a heavily indebted nation with a staggering adverse balance of payment. However, in one area where it dominates the rest of the world is in the sphere of arms production. Thanks to its military adventurism (USA has bombed twenty six different countries
since WW II)7 and its vast investments in defence related research and development, USA is the predominant arms manufacturer and exporter in the world. In terms of value addition, arms exports exceed any other item by a very wide margin; the profit margin in this field is scandalously exorbitant. US economy, to a large extent is being kept afloat by the arms exports by US Companies. Is it surprising then that the US Defence Industrial Complex has become a key player in formulation of US foreign policies? A tension free world will reduce the demand for weapons and to continue selling high-tech expensive hardware to other countries, tension must continue. A look at US brokered peace deals would bring out some strange (but satisfactory from US point of view) conclusions.
Peace agreements between antagonists have historically promoted
varying degree of demilitarization. However, in case of US-brokered
agreements between Israel and neighbours, it has resulted in just the
opposite. Consider the following:
1978 Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel, heralded as a breakthrough peace treaty, turned out to be more of a tri-partite
military pact. Since then Egypt and Israel have annually received US
1.2 and 1.8 billion respectively.
1996 peace agreement between Jordan and Israel resulted in additional US $ 200 million aid to Israel of US $ 75 million to Jordan.
1998 Wye River redeployment agreement between Palestinian Authority and Israel resulted in a further US $ 1.2 billion military aid to Israel.
Today, Israel’s security position has markedly improved. It has a longstanding peace treaty with Egypt where a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone keeps the Egyptian Army at an arms length. Jordan has signed a peace treaty with fully normalized relations and Syria has gradually demilitarized, weakened by the collapse of USSR, its Chief patron. Iraq’s armed forces were
devastated during Gulf War I and remained crippled under strict international sanctions. It never threatened Israel in a conventional war and Gulf War II has decimated any remnants of the conventional threat. Yet US military aid to Israel is much higher during the 1970s, either remaining steady or actually increasing each year since. Even more surprising, US essentially sent no military aid to Israel prior to 1967 when the country was most vulnerable strategically. Virtually all US military aid to Israel came only after its quick and decisive victory in the Six Day War that June when it proved itself to be more powerful than any combination of Arab armies. Most of the foreign aid the US sends to Israel returns to US arms
manufacturers to produce weapon of the Israeli military and to American banks in the form of interest payments on the previous loans for weapons. In Israel, as in all other arms importing nations, US arms transfer cost the Israelis two to three times their value in maintenance, spare parts, training of personnel and other related expenses, which are generally not a part of the aid package. Israel had announced in 1991 its acceptance of a proposal by arms control advocates that would freeze arms exports to the Middle East. For Israel, this made sense from the viewpoint of defence needs, given its significant qualitative superiority in weapons and having the only major domestic arms production capability in the region that could expand its dominance still further. The proposal was to its
advantage. United States, the very country most adamantly claiming its concern
for Israel’s defence, effectively blocked the proposal. The strengthening of Israeli defence beyond its legitimate defence needs has resulted in an arms race in the region which has been a bonanza for US arms manufacturers, which may be a major explanation for the inordinate amount of US military aid to Israel – Israel, on an average receives US $ 3 billion per annum
Last edited:
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
Ding, ding ding!
That is the correct answer.
Any attack by Israel will be perceived as a joint US/Israeli attack. In that case, better send LOTS more body bags to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also, the Saudis may well give flyover rights to Israeli jets but they will have to deny/condemn it vehemently in public. Israel may enjoy the support of spineless, sycophantic Arab governments, but Arab/Muslim public opinion favors Iran standing firm against Western bullying.
Finally, as for the Iran/Pakistan relationship, yes it is bad right now because of ayatollahs in Iran and Saudi influence in Pakistan, but the relatonship can be recovered, and a Israel attack on Iran would be just the ticket.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Israel does not need to attack all of the above simultaneously. Those nuclear facilities are not independent, they support each other in order for Iran to have a successful nuclear weapons program. Israel can have an initial strike against items 1, 2 and 5, for example, that would seriously degrade Iranian air defenses. Then strike the nuclear facilities later.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum