waterworldeden4

Icon

When I respond, or seek responses, I think of the Internet Republic and the people [[whump]] and the places who have made our water world Eden brave and free and fair. Permitted, required, and impossible. Stand alone or stand with, whose choice to what degree [[Thn/]] O[[thn/]]ne water world Eden under "We the people" – created by whom?

When your decision tree has only one fork – U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes

#458 of 458: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:31 PM)

U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes
By THOM SHANKER, HELENE COOPER and ETHAN BRONNER
WASHINGTON — American officials assessed that Iran would retaliate to
an Israeli strike by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style
attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas.

============NH:
What nation wouldn’t?
Why hasn’t anyone offered a plan for self insurance of peaceful and
defensive use of uranium only? Is brute force the only language of US
Articles I and II?
=========NH//

When your decision tree has only one fork – U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , ,

3 Responses

  1. #463 of 463: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:56 PM)

    U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes
    Published: February 29, 2012
    RECOMMEND
    TWITTER
    LINKEDIN
    E-MAIL
    PRINT
    SINGLE PAGE
    REPRINTS
    SHARE

    (Page 2 of 2)

    “If Iran is struck surgically, it will react — no doubt,” said the
    former Israeli official, echoing Mr. Barak’s comments last year. “But
    that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities.
    Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.”
    Related

    Iran Calls Nuclear Arms Production a ‘Great Sin’ (February 29, 2012)
    Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets (February 20, 2012)
    Times Topics: Iran | Israel

    Connect With Us on Twitter
    Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
    “Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice?” the official asked, summing up the
    Israeli calculus. “No. But it’s better than a nuclear Iran.”

    By contrast, administration, military and intelligence officials say
    Iran would most likely choose anonymous, indirect attacks against
    nations it views as supporting Israeli policy, in the hope of offering
    Tehran at least public deniability. Iran also might try to block, even
    temporarily, the Strait of Hormuz to further unsettle oil markets.

    An increase in car bombs set off against civilian targets in world
    capitals would also be possible. And Iran would almost certainly
    smuggle high-powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan,
    where they could be planted along roadways and set off by surrogate
    forces to kill and maim American and NATO troops — much as it did in
    Iraq during the peak of violence there. But Iran’s primary goal would
    be quickly rebuilding — and probably accelerating — its nuclear
    program, and thus, according to these assessments, it would be likely
    to try to avoid inviting a punishing second wave of attacks by the
    United States.

    Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher
    School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said Iran would “have
    to retaliate visibly against Israel to protect its image at home and in
    the region.” Along a second line of reprisals, Iran also “would try
    and keep the United States busy by escalating tensions in Lebanon,
    Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.

    In 2009, the Brookings Institution held a simulation to assess Day 2
    of an Israeli attack on Iran, casting former government officials,
    diplomats and regional experts in the roles of American, Israeli and
    Iranian officials. Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for
    International Peace, played Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
    Khamenei. The faux Iranian leadership had to “calibrate their response
    with great precision,” he said. “If they respond too little, they could
    lose face, and if they respond too much, they could lose their heads.”

    During the simulation, Iran also fired missiles at Israeli military
    and nuclear targets, and unleashed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad
    militants to fire rockets at population centers in Israel, with a goal
    to create an atmosphere of terror among Israelis. In the simulation,
    Iran also activated terrorist cells in Europe, which bombed public
    transportation and killed civilians.

    Mr. Sadjadpour said that one thing the exercise demonstrated was how
    quickly things would deteriorate, adding that “as for long-term
    consequences, it’s way too murky to say anything but this: It will be
    ugly.”

    « PREVIOUS PAGE 1 2
    Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Ethan
    Bronner from Jerusalem. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from
    Washington.

    ==========NH:
    vs. “Put your money where your mouth is” – self insurance of peaceful
    and defensive use only of uranium.
    ==========NH//

    =========NH:
    xref: the traditional argument: “I don’t agree with what you say, but
    I will defend to the death your right to say it,”

    vs. these childish games by “tough guys” in the “protection racket”
    who have failed to offer any kind of self-insurance of peaceful and
    defensive use only of uranium – on EITHER side.

    And who all so in debt trying to woo their ‘sheep’ who has not moved
    close enough to God to comprehend sovereign assets and appreciation
    through homogeneous assessment, eminent domain, and the right of
    repurchase, lease, or rental…

    Lord of the Flies, gangs of bullies – judge not that ye be not judged,
    diagnose and heal so that your self might be [thnk/]

    May whose self insurance proposal get heard widely enough soon enough
    to make one and all ask the question, “Why hash’ it been offered?”
    ===========NH//

  2. #459 of 463: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:45 PM)

    U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes

    Ali Mohammadi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
    An Iranian soldier participated in naval exercises in the Strait of
    Hormuz last year. Iran could try to block, even temporarily, the strait
    to further unsettle oil markets.
    By THOM SHANKER, HELENE COOPER and ETHAN BRONNER
    Published: February 29, 2012
    RECOMMEND
    TWITTER
    LINKEDIN
    E-MAIL
    PRINT
    SINGLE PAGE
    REPRINTS
    SHARE

    WASHINGTON — American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian
    responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that
    Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and
    terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military
    personnel overseas.
    Related

    Iran Calls Nuclear Arms Production a ‘Great Sin’ (February 29, 2012)
    Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets (February 20, 2012)
    Times Topics: Iran | Israel

    Connect With Us on Twitter
    Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
    Enlarge This Image

    Reuters
    Iranian cadets at graduation. American and Israeli officials believe
    that the last thing Iran would want is a war on its territory.
    While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain,
    according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to
    calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the
    United States a rationale for taking military action that could
    permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been
    pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E.
    Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command
    and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war
    games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential
    adversaries like Iran.

    The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts
    believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf,
    and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of
    shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

    Both American and Israeli officials who discussed current thinking on
    the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last
    thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Their
    analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible
    to know the internal thinking of the senior leadership in Tehran, and
    is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games
    cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of
    conflict. Yet such assessments are not just intellectual exercises. Any
    conclusions on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help
    determine whether the Israelis launch a strike — and what the American
    position will be if they do.

    While evidence suggests that Iran continues to make progress toward a
    nuclear weapons program, American intelligence officials believe that
    there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear
    bomb. But the possibility that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike
    has become a focus of American policy makers and is expected to be a
    primary topic when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel meets
    with President Obama at the White House on Monday.

    In November, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said any Iranian
    retaliation for an Israeli attack would be “bearable,” and his
    government’s estimate that Iran is engaging in a bluff has been a key
    element in the heightened expectations that Israel is considering a
    strike. But Iran’s highly compartmentalized security services, analysts
    caution, may operate in semi-rogue fashion, following goals that seem
    irrational to planners in Washington. American experts, for example,
    are still puzzled by a suspected Iranian plot last year to assassinate
    the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

    “Once military strikes and counterstrikes begin, you are on the
    tiger’s back,” said Ray Takeyh, a former Obama administration national
    security official who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And
    when on the tiger’s back, you cannot always pick the place to
    dismount.”

    If Israel did attack, officials said, Iran would be foolhardy, even
    suicidal, to invite an overpowering retaliation by directly attacking
    United States military targets — by, for example, unleashing its
    missiles at American bases on the territory of Persian Gulf allies.
    “The balance the Iranians will try to strike is doing damage that is
    sufficiently significant, but just short of what it would take for
    America to invade,” said General Cartwright, now at the Center for
    Strategic and International Studies.

    A former Israeli official said the best way to think about retaliation
    against Israel was through a formula he called “1991 plus 2006 plus
    Buenos Aires times 3 or 5.” The reference was to three instances in the
    last two decades when Israel came under attack: the Scud missiles sent
    by Saddam Hussein into Israel in 1991 during the first gulf war; the
    3,000 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah during their 2006 war; and
    the attacks on the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina in
    the early 1990s. Those attacks each killed 100 to 200 people, wounded
    scores more and caused several billion dollars of property damage.
    Hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the north had to be evacuated from
    their homes to bomb shelters or further south during the 2006 war.

    But there is a broad Israeli assessment that Iran’s response to an
    attack would be limited.

    1 2 NEXT PAGE »
    Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Ethan
    Bronner from Jerusalem. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from
    Washington.

    ===========NH:
    But as to loss of Israeli moral high ground in the continuing living
    word of God…

    Especially when no self insurance for peaceful use policy has been
    offered first…
    =========NH//

    volley2.ind 173: ?>*:\ …//2012:02:18:12:16:210*
    #460 of 463: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:46 PM)

    U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes
    Published: February 29, 2012
    RECOMMEND
    TWITTER
    LINKEDIN
    E-MAIL
    PRINT
    SINGLE PAGE
    REPRINTS
    SHARE

    (Page 2 of 2)

    “If Iran is struck surgically, it will react — no doubt,” said the
    former Israeli official, echoing Mr. Barak’s comments last year. “But
    that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities.
    Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.”
    Related

    Iran Calls Nuclear Arms Production a ‘Great Sin’ (February 29, 2012)
    Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets (February 20, 2012)
    Times Topics: Iran | Israel

    Connect With Us on Twitter
    Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
    Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
    “Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice?” the official asked, summing up the
    Israeli calculus. “No. But it’s better than a nuclear Iran.”

    =========NH:
    and just enough to keep the extortionists playing the protection
    racket game in charge of their sheep without having to covertly
    intimidate them yourselves?
    =========NH//

    volley2.ind 173: ?>*:\ …//2012:02:18:12:16:210*
    #461 of 463: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:48 PM)

    By contrast, administration, military and intelligence officials say
    Iran would most likely choose anonymous, indirect attacks against
    nations it views as supporting Israeli policy, in the hope of offering
    Tehran at least public deniability. Iran also might try to block, even
    temporarily, the Strait of Hormuz to further unsettle oil markets.

    An increase in car bombs set off against civilian targets in world
    capitals would also be possible. And Iran would almost certainly
    smuggle high-powered explosives across its border into Afghanistan,
    where they could be planted along roadways and set off by surrogate
    forces to kill and maim American and NATO troops — much as it did in
    Iraq during the peak of violence there. But Iran’s primary goal would
    be quickly rebuilding — and probably accelerating — its nuclear
    program, and thus, according to these assessments, it would be likely
    to try to avoid inviting a punishing second wave of attacks by the
    United States.

    ==========NH:
    [thn/]
    ==========NH//

    volley2.ind 173: ?>*:\ …//2012:02:18:12:16:210*
    #462 of 463: William Hale (hinging0) Tue 28 Feb 2012 (11:49 PM)

    Vali Nasr, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher
    School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University,

    ==========NH:
    xref: Great circles, d-LSD-25 mafias, artists, Hollywood, and what
    else? Independence. And what else?
    ==========NH//
    =======NH:
    Vale? Vassar?
    =========NH//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: