MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts  (Read 9649 times)

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 24/06/2008

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.

The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in%2C-John-Bolton-predicts.html

Source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2182070/Israel-%27will-attack-Iran%27-before-new-US-president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html

Offline Gripen

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1390
  • Country: au
  • WHATEVER YOUR PAST, THE FUTURE IS GRIPEN!
Does Israel really have the balls and accessory's to attack Iran?

Offline alyster

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Country: ee
Israel has quite an air force. I mean the strike will  be most likely from the air. They've taken out Itaq'i nuclear sites before with an air strike. Then they had to go into dive with a F-16, some F-15s were covering them, now they can use smart bombs and bunker busters.
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
I agree Israel's AF is very powerful and can carry out a strike but am concern that Iran spread out it's nuclear program making it harder to take out in a single blow.  My stance on this is I don't want a terrorist supporting country to have such weapons period.  I never want to read or hear on the news Iran's President saying "Iran Government did not support the attack" while some type of weapon was used.  It will be too late at that point and hope it doesn't get to that point.   

Iran's means to strike back?
Air force wise not much but some Su-24s which might be there best platform.  The rest old Mig-29As, F-5 paste on's, and a handful of F-14s.  I am not a believer in Iran's F-14s as some are the maintenance needed to keep them operational by skilled USN personnel with a real part chain was intense, thus cannot believe those fighters can go afterburners and pull high Gs.  Flying straight and slow so pictures can be taken doesn't make them combat operational.     

I assume their rocket's maybe be there best strike back type weapon.   It seems Iran's over the last five years released info on many types of rockets always increasing in range and claiming they cannot be stopped.  Iran's command and control is no better then Iraq's was and rockets or missiles batteries need targets and orders still, which maybe difficult if unplug in a sense.   I think Iran's military means is overrated they may have more heart to fight, they may have more people then Iraq, but still couldn't put away Iraq in a eight year war.  There air defenses are similar to Syria's so even a small NATO trained and equipped AF can do damage.  I don't say this in haste you can't not buy new fighters or other key and important weapons in ten plus years and think you can fight a modern war.  The layers of weapons and military assets around Iran are on a scope that there's or most countries in the would couldn't stand up to.  I don't feel Israel will act totally on their own because Iran will most likely lash back which means firing on some US Forces, thus drawing the US in.  I do feel US Forces will sit back and let Iran strike them and think some of Iran's weapons or assets that could hurt forces in the region would become targets and taken out.  This is a complex subject but keep in mind years of weapons bans and poor military training & leadership. 

Offline Cobra2

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 794
  • Country: us
Does Israel really have the balls and accessory's to attack Iran?

Of course they do! Israel has an amazing air force, plus a very good military period.
Plus I think that Iran is pushing it big time. They bit off way too much for them to chew, they simply cannot back up all of these claims. The only thing would be IF they got their hands on nuclear weapons.
They do need to be delt with in my opinion, and to be quite honest, I do not believe that speaking with their president will do any good at all. That makes no sense in this case, most likely they'll go back on what they say. Thats how the world works.  ::)

With US and British backing also, and maybe France and Germany, and possibly Australia.

Then maybe Russia will get more involved, terrorist-infested countries like Syria might take action just for the heck of it, and possibly China will make a move for Taiwan ??

Thats kind of speaking more on the epic side, however.

Maybe World War III. I sure hope not. We're messing with a big one now, not a country that has almost no allies you know.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 02:53:57 AM by Cobra2 »

Offline alyster

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Country: ee
Not that I'd like to get into politics here, but I don't think Russia will actually do anything to save Iran, more than sell weapons. They've suggested to take iran a part of their collective defence alliance, but that's just one politician. They'll probably just move against Georgia if anything. Rip of Abhasia and Southern Ossetia.
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
alyster I agree I don't feel Russia will do anything at all to help Iran nor do they want them to have nuclear weapons.

Cobra2
I agree with you 100% that trying to talk with Iran's President is a waste of time, it's useless.  Syria to me is and always has been a terrorist hub and should have been dealt with a long time ago.  You would have to look long and high for a country that has more direct terrorist involvement then Syria period.  Just think about all the jet hijacking, US Marines killing, ship attacks, terrorist that use their airports to carry out more attacks, spy network, Iran access to the Gulf, their current support to the fighting in Iraq, pick any country around Syria and not just Israel and you'll see a Syrian connection, etc.   Not to forget there current support to the Iranian group killing right now in that area. 

China will protest but there economy makes their money off the US and won't rock the boat too much.  China's government isn't stupid thus the reason over the last ten years China has began buying oil and natural gas from many other sources then Iran and or the Middle East.  I think Iran slip to only to only 16% of China's oil imports depending on which site you Google.   Africa makes up the largest percentage of their oil imports and soon the Venezuela refineries both one in Venezuela and other in China will be operational, and begin to kick in.  The United States imports more oil from South America then it does from the Middle East but Iran's oil and oil from the Gulf is still important to the worlds oil economy don't get me wrong. 

My concerns with Iran is how they split up their nuclear program, can enough be found and destroyed and the rockets/missile?   Most or I shall say a large portion of the worlds oil economy pastes through the Gulf region.  Iran's government is dooming itself to even a worse position then it's in now. 


Offline Gripen

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1390
  • Country: au
  • WHATEVER YOUR PAST, THE FUTURE IS GRIPEN!
If Israel did slam Iran, what would be the repocussions for Israel, would the rest of the Muslim/Arab world hit Israel? We all know that Israel isnt exactly popular in the Middle East, and attacking a country like Iran wouldnt help much would it??

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Iran isn't loved in the Middle East and some Muslim/Arab wouldn't openly support such a attack but secretly wouldn't be against it.  For example the Saudi's who are 100% against Israel don't like Iran at all not one bit.  Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, etc all near Iran don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons in any shape or form it would give Iran power over them and because of the crazies in the country who may have access or control over them.  It's the crazies in Iran the types who kill themselves or others and give the orders to kill other that are the problem it's for that reason alone why I don't want them to have it.  The President in Iran isn't the highest person or the controlling factor in the country that's the problem.  It's the groups and the splinter groups that worry me there not controlled now, hurting/attacking the US or a western target wouldn't be looked down at. 

Offline alyster

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Country: ee
I agree Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuweit will stay out of it, Iraq aswell. Lebanon is too weak. Hezbullah perhaps could strike again. I dont think Egypt would want to go to war with israel again either, specially over someone else's nukes. Besides their tourist sector would collapse in a war and they'd lose US support. Syria could possibly strike in a war. They have very cold relations with Israel.

Muslime world isn't so united as it seems. Some are pro US, one wants to join EU and others argue about religous differences for ages now (sunnis, shias etc.)
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2843
  • Country: nl
Right, the Arab world will just condemn the attack and go back to selling oil and entertaining tourists. Turkey, not sure why it's even mentioned here, they'll stay silent and order some more Israeli tech.

I think Iran would not respond with a "devastating" attack, but just build new facilities according to newly learned lessons, and accellerate the program, and maybe launch some dirty attacks.

But before we all go into 'doom scenario' mode, I don't think the Israelis will attack any time soon. If/when they do, they'll do it when they feel is right and neccessary (provided that they still feel 'abandoned' by the US), not when it's convenient for US elections. I think they would give the new president actually more time, to see if he is willing to do anything about Iran so Israel does not need to take action on its own. Especially with McCain, Israel will probably stand down. Israel does have a lot of internal problems to deal with, which certainly only get worse when it becomes the 'aggressor' toward Iran. Capability wise, yes they are ready and prepared, of course. 2008 was estimated to be the year the attack was neccessary, so the Israeli air force should be all but ready now. I think progress on the Iranian side has not been that great... but I haven't had a tour of the new facilities yet?  so what do I know... ;)

By the way, how was this guy ever US ambassador to the UN? Sure sounds as if he'd like Israel to take matter into their own hands on this. Why is he making such statements? Does he have stocks in LM or the likes?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 03:07:54 AM by Webmaster »
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline johnlenny

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: us
If their is war going to happen between these countries then the condition will get worse. Either country going to start the war will not get any benefit of it. I read an article about all such news on an Israeli News Website that's why I’m pretty convinced that Israel is in a real bad condition.

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA