The points made by Halevi and Oren are very similar to that made by Philip Stephens in the Financial Times on Friday.

I am puzzled by your view. If you accept the Halevi and Oren's analysis which includes using Hamas and Hezbollah as their surrogates doesn't it call into question most of the rest of your policy prescriptions?

When have sanctions worked, except perhaps agaainst South Africa? If Israel or the West negotiates with Iran as Iran continues to work on their weapons how long before Israel cannot take out the nuclear program?

Is there an acceptable number of dead Israelis that you are willing to accept rather than alienate the American Left?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

And then there's Lieberman, the great Patriot. Only problem is that his patriotism is for Israel and not for the US.

Jan Knaus

"Your future is our future"

Fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. I thought you had to petition for statehood and pay federal taxes to get that kind of unconditional guarantee!

I'll bet Edwards isn't saying that in Iowa.

Do these idiots THINK about what they are saying and the kind of over the top commitments they are making?

We've got a population that's more than 95% not Jewish. What delusional fool in Israel would believe that our commitment is unconditional?

Iran Images not usually seen

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

IF:

We are absolutely committed to Israel, and therefore must assume Iran is an implacable enemy intent on using nukes, someday in the indefinite future, we are shackled to a heartbreaking and hopeless task.

That would be ensuring control of the Middle East, which has not gone well to date, and there is not much reason to suppose we or Israel can do better.

The wisdom of the conservative position is that governments can't really control things intelligently. While I disagree with that as an absolute position, especially within our borders, it has resonance in the wider world. Given that we know ourselves best, and other cultures to varying degree less, and considerably less when we get to the Middle East, what kind of hubris says we can take on this Herculean task?

Here I repeat my stance; make friends, not enemies. We and Israel can use more friends. Enemies we don't need. The USSR had a position that we were the losers and they would bury us, economically and militarily. Even so we talked and managed to get along, keeping our contests controlled and small.

Trying to control Afghanistan and Iraq is using us up. Add Iran and we're headed down the tubes. Simply whacking Iran is a prescription for more terrorism, which is supposedly an existential threat. While I would not call it that, it is terrible and to be avoided. Why invite it?

Why not simply announce a nuclear guarantee for Israel? If we assume Iran's leaders are nutso and intent on sending their citizens to Heaven prematurely we'd better get started on Armageddon. But I would assume they are not that different than us underneath. They want their country to prosper, which will reflect well on them and their legacy.

What Irans's leaders will want, at such time in the future if or when they develop nuclear weapons, is unknown now. But certainly it will be different than the current circumstances, and we just have to wait and see.

thanks so much

Hillary Clinton's anti-escalation stance is a joke. Once we bomb Iran (and we all know its going to happen), we have to maintain or increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Is there anyone who can get Clinton to render an opinion about the number of troops in Iraq if Iran is bombed? I just can hear the campaign rhetoric - first, she was for the war, then she was against it and now she's for it. Mrs. CiC, my ass.

Start telling people in this country that more and not less troops will be needed in Iraq if we bomb Iran and just see how much public support for bombing Iran there is.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

The West has been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program for years now.  In this, the Bush Administration followed exactly the prescription laid down by the international community, letting the Europeans take the lead. 

It is a clarion call for war with Iran.

It is no such thing.  It is in fact quite a balanced piece, giving plenty of space to those who favor strong sanctions instead of war.  Here's the key passage, for those without TNR access:

Given these nightmarish scenarios, one would expect to find a mood of near-despair within the Israeli defense establishment. Yet senior officials believe that events are actually working in Israel's favor and that, one way or another, Iran's nuclear program can still be stopped. Partly, that is because Israel's assessments of Iran's intention to acquire nuclear weapons have finally been accepted not only by Washington but even by the Europeans. After years of isolation on the Iranian issue, Israelis are basking in a rare moment of international credibility. 

As a result, some in the defense establishment are convinced that the military option can still be forestalled, even at this late date, by aggressive economic sanctions, forcing the Iranian regime to choose between its nuclear program and domestic stability.

[snip]

But sanctions advocates do believe that, by formally placing Iran in the category of "threat to international peace," the United Nations has tacitly empowered the United States and its allies to pursue more aggressive sanctions that could trigger Iranian instability--such as the Bush administration's quiet efforts over the last year to force foreign banks out of Tehran. Combined with Iran's preexisting social and economic problems--massive hidden unemployment, widespread corruption, and growing drug addiction and prostitution--and hatred for the regime among students and the middle class, aggressive sanctions could, some Israelis believe, hasten regime change in Tehran by forcing the Iranian people to pay the price for their leaders' provocations. And, with regime change, of course, the threat posed by an Iranian bomb would ease: After all, the problem isn't the nuclearization of Iran but the nuclearization of this Iran.

The piece does not argue for war or sanctions or something else.  It argues that the problem must be taken seriously, which so many refuse to do, and that we are rapidly approaching a crisis point.

Edwards the fool doesn't know what the f he's talking about.

So who gave him (and lord knows how many other American politicians) a chopper ride into Lebanon's SOVEREIGN airspace during the summer war to show him Hezbollah's rockets? What rockets? Oh, maybe he means THESE rockets that Thomas Ricks noted to Howie Kurtz (and later much regreted opening his yap about):

"Tom Ricks, you've covered a number of military conflicts, including Iraq, as I just mentioned. Is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue? In conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?

THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some U.S. military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.

KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?

RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.

KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.

RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/06/rs.01.html

It also must help to provide a boo-scary show-and-tell to ignorant and compromised American politicians. How very generous of the IDF and the Foreign Ministry Dept. of Hasbera to arrange such exciting and educational field trips.

What's interesting is that if the Israel Lobby in the USA had not been so arrogant, then a nuclear -armed Ahmedinejhad would currently be Saddam Hussein's problem --not ours.

And Iraq would be Ahmedinejhad's problem --not ours.

Ah, but everything has to be done solely from the viewpoint of Israel.

Sharon envisioned importing 1 million new Jewish immigrants to offset the Arab's greater birth rate. But Israel does not have the water to expand.

So it has to take the water out of the Turkish headwaters of the Euphrates. Which Saddam objects to so Saddam has to go.

But how to get the Americans to do the dying? Ah, have Kenneth Pollack, "Director of Research" for Israeli billionaire Haim Saban, tell America that Saddam is on the verge of acquiring nukes.

You would think Kenneth would go in hiding. But this morning I turn on Meet the Press and who do I see? Ta Da. Kenneth Pollack.

Presumably, in the words of John Edwards, "So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."

So tell me. Back in 2002, How did John Edwards vote re the attack on IRAQ?

I am usually reluctant to cite Robert Novak, but he had a very interesting column back in 2002 in the Chicago Sun Times.

The column described a private talk between Ariel Sharon and US Senators
in which Sharon urged that Saddam Hussein be removed.

The column is here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/% 20is_20020617/ai_n12466410

A few excerpts:
******************
"We need many more Jews to come to Israel, a million more Jews," Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee behind closed doors last week. Here was something entirely new even for well-informed senators, and their facial expressions conveyed surprise. Massive immigration to a country of 6 million signified no interest by Sharon in negotiating a settlement with the Palestinians.

Indeed, speaking off the record to mostly uncritical American politicians, the old soldier-statesman was even more blunt than he is in public. Sharon pointed to no Israeli-Palestinian deal for at least 10 years and talked of a hundred years' struggle with Arabs. Warning of Egyptian and Saudi duplicity, he informed the senators that removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq would be the best way to deal with Palestinians."
*********
"Sharon claimed the ancient boundaries of the "Land of Israel" are guaranteed to the Jewish people by Holy Scripture. "The pope told me so," Sharon added. That sent freshman Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island home to search the Bible for justification. Sharon added he was prepared to compromise anyway, but was not specific, and he emphasized he never would compromise Israel's security."
*********
"Committing himself to a hundred years' war against Arabs, Sharon warned the senators not to trust his adversaries--including moderate states closely aligned with the United States. He expressed nothing but contempt for Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. The royal rulers of Saudi Arabia, he said, are liars. The only Arab leader he spoke of favorably was Jordan's King Abdullah. Sophisticated senators perceived Sharon pointing to the Kingdom of Jordan as the only Palestinian state, take it or leave it.

Voices of Arab caution should be disregarded, said the former Israeli general, when it comes to ousting Saddam. Sharon contended U.S. military action against Iraq, instead of exacerbating the Palestinian problem, would end it. No senator disputed this judgment.

A few Foreign Relations Committee members left this remarkable session deeply disturbed about the outlook for peace in the Middle East. They include Biden, Kerry, Chafee and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. However, the current political climate precludes overt criticism of Israel or even so controversial a figure as Sharon."
*******

The Democrats race for AIPACish money, the Republicans race for the fundamentalists and their crazy, Israel-centered apocalyptic vision, and the rest of us lose no matter which of them wins. MJ, I don't even know why you bother. The whole topic is a waste of time.

J. McCutchen

Been There Done That

It has not helped that even as the administration is making its case against Iran, the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, was opening just a few blocks away. Where There's Smoke.... Bush, IraN, IraQ (NyT)

Bush Is About to Attack Iran
Why Can't Americans See it?
by Paul Craig Roberts

I actually would like to have Israel safe.

The idea to weld the safety of Israel to an increasing unpopular war, and THEN to triple the scale of this war is so stupendously moronic that it actually requires some IQ.

On the other hand, this is dream come true to abicyclist (I do not mind 6 dollars for gallon of gas) and a classical history buff --- and empire overextends itself over the sands of Mesopotamia to be subsequently wacked by Persians.

For those who are into detailed military strategy, the following is a link to a "working paper" titled "Osirak Redux?" produced at MIT that helpfully gives the Israelis some scenarios they can pursue in their attack on Iran.

(I ran across it because of my interest in Incirlik and due to some very curious goings on there of late, followed some promising threads. Oren and Halevi (briefly) and this working paper discuss the northern route and IMO it's more a viable option than either source admits)

This is the html version of the file;
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/Publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf.

From the intro:
.....
"More than twenty years later, some in Israel are again mulling the possibility of preventive action against an unfriendly state’s attempts to gain nuclear weapons, this time Iran. In a report given to Prime Minister Sharon in 2003, a group of Israeli and American scholars and analysts present a grand strategy that calls for Israel to develop and maintain a “Long Arm” capability for long-range precision strike. This report, known as Project Daniel, further argues that this “Long Arm” be used for preventive action against attempts by unfriendly states to gain weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

5 Theproject’s chair, Louis Rene Beres, reiterated this view in a recent op-ed, calling on Israe to maintain strong preventive capability against adversaries’ attempts to develop WMD even as it develops anti-ballistic missile systems.

6 As Iran’s nuclear program moves forward, the argument of the Project Daniel group may seem increasingly compelling to the government of Israel (as well as outside observers in the U.S. and elsewhere). Yet no unclassified net assessment of Israel’s
current capability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities exists.

7 The capabilities of the IAF have grown dramatically in the past two decades, yet the Iranian facilities are a significantly more challenging target than Osirak. This paper will attempt to fill this gap in the existing literature by providing a rough net assessment of an Israeli strike on known Iranian nuclear facilities. It will do so by taking the strike on Osirak as a generic template for the strike and then
attempting to update the scenario to account for both the improved IAF capabilities and the much tougher Iranian defenses. "

Have fun.

10. Oren and Halevi are not afraid negotiations with Iran will fail. They are afraid that negotiations will succeed, and that by pursuing them the US will sccessfully advance the interests of the American people in a way which works contrary to the interests of Oren and Halevi.

Exactly! And this precisely parallels the Bush-Cheney attitude toward U.N. inspections in the pre-Iraq day: their efforts (including illicit surveillance and such) focused entirely on making sure the inspectors would be seen as failing.

I have a confession to make, because I'm finding myself posting on subjects more on emotion than logic. In general, I feel I have a neutral attitude, leaning in the friendly direction, to Israel. I certainly have respected colleagues there.

It just struck me that my emotional responses to Mr. Greenbaum has gotten my postings to be more hostile toward Israel. That isn't quite right. My responses make me more and more suspicious of Israeli exceptionalism, and more and more in favor of the US distancing itself.

Are these reactions, on my part, unique? Or might they be indicative of the reaction of an increasing number of American voters -- yes, and decisionmakers -- to what seem increasingly shrill demands for American blood and treasure?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It is apparently already in the last stages of preperation.

At 6PM CST today Minnesota Public Radio carried a news brief regarding the departure of ground crews and flight crews for places unknown attached to the B-1 Bombers based at Ellingworth AFB in South Dakota. The B-1's have already left. The crews left on Sunday.

You can hear it yourself by going to Minnesota Public Radio, and look on the News and Information service for the Commonwealth Club speech by William Perry about the Iraq Study Group, and if you listen to his speech the news bulletin immediately preceeds his speech.

B-1's gone -- it may be too late to think.

Several technical points are relevant. If B-1's have been committed to attack Iran, that attack is not going to be nuclear. Under arms limitation agreements with the Russians, B-1's are not nuclear delivery vehicles and are subject to inspection that they have not been so equipped.

AFAIK, the B-1 also is not certified to carry the large "bunker buster" bombs. It is more likely to be used for a mission requiring many smaller conventional bombs, perhaps precision guided. Might there be such a mission in Iraq, or could this be diversionary?

If there were to be an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, I'd think the likeliest platform would be the B-2 stealth bomber, which has a better chance of penetrating air defenses, and also is certified for B-61/B-83 nuclear weapons and for the GBU-34 conventional "bunker buster". The B-61-11 is the only US nuclear weapon with any ground penetrating capability; that might make it more survivable if it had to go through a hole opened by something else, with debris still flying.

The home base for the 509th Bomb Wing, the only unit flying combat-ready B-2's, is Whiteman AFB in Missouri. There may be some forward-deployed at Diego Garcia or Guam. A few aircraft are assigned to other bases, but for R&D.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Why have we done so little to control Musharraf, who implicitly threatens 1 BILLION Indians, and then we get bent out of shape about Iran not even threatening 6 million Israelis?  It is obvious that our stated policies are a farce.

I haven't formulated an opinion on all this except to say that talking about using force before negotiating seems utterly wrongheaded.

Wrongheaded does not begin to describe the idea of using force without exhausting every negotiating option.

I am a Jew. I have family in Isreal. My parents were adamant Zionists. I have a deep abiding fondness and connecton to Israel, a land I have visited. Israel, and the Israeli right wing which has unfortunately controlled Israeli politics far too much for the last decade are promoting diasastrous policies, both for Isreal, and the US. If you need proof, pick up a paper and read abut Iraq. Look at the results of the recent dust-up with Lebanon. Far from securing us, or Israel, attacking Iran will weaken and perhaps destroy us.

As Atrios says, "The stupid, it burns!"

One of the few useful things I've learned about this topic is that when people say, "I haven't formed an opinion on this," they really mean either "I have formed an opinion, but my ethics and common sense are balanced by my nationalistic allegiance to side X," or else, "I don't have the courage to say what I believe/think/feel." If you read real closely between the lines of the person's future comments, you can usually figure out which one it was.

I still wonder why anyone bothers. The whole topic is a pilotless plane, on its way to some crashlanding somewhere. We're just spectators, arguing over which patch of ground will be unlucky.

We have a pilot, Darth Vader is using his "mind" to direct the Chimp's hands.  Darth is drunk and the Chimp has no thumbs.

If you do not listen and respond to friends
and will never talk to adversaries,
you lock your country into military action.

When these actions are not producing your goals
and you spread new conflicts,
your actions are seditious to your country
and called war crimes by other countries.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Mr. Rosenberg seems to be itching for fights about Israel and is looking for any excuse he can find. Now it’s an article in a newspaper, tomorrow it will be Olmert and after that it will be yet another excuse.

Most experts believe that Iran is developing the bomb. There is nothing the US or anybody else can do about it. You can damage the program, you can kill many Iranians, but you cannot demolish the program or stop it. The solution now, and in the past, is to make the Iranian less eager to use bomb or share it. If the Saudis can be respected company, what cannot the Iranians be?

There is nothing one can do about the past. You cannot unkidnap the American hostages. The question is: are you itching for a fight with Iran, e.g. Mr. Rosenberg, or are you trying to avoid some fringe terror group from dropping the bomb in Tel Aviv and New York?

Howard, all things considered, are 2000# JDAMS considered large bombs?

From the following article, the B-1B seems to be pretty versatile. From "Phoenix Risen: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE BOEING B-1B":

"This sentiment was reinforced by the conflict in Afghanistan, where the B-IBs had another success. Although they flew only five percent of the missions, they dropped 40 percent of the weapons and 70 percent of the joint direct-attack munitions (JDAMs). The keys to the B-1B's triumph are its long range and loiter time-attributes that proved even more valuable during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The Bone in Iraq

Flying combat missions in Operations Southern Watch and Northern Watch, the USAF has confronted Iraq for more than a dozen years. An important element of this confrontation was the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, commanded by then Col. James M. Kowalski. A composite Wing, the 405th operated 10 B-1Bs, 10 KC-135s and two to four E-3 AWACS aircraft. In a recent interview, Brig. Gen. Kowalski said, "I had few concerns about either the aircraft or my crews. I knew we had a solid weapon with the Joint Direct Attack Munitions combination of precision and punch; our defensive systems ranked among the best in the Air Force, and our speed and maneuverability inspired confidence. Most important, we had a secret weapon-the best munitions and maintenance folks in the world." His ground crews kept the B-1Bs at an extraordinary 80-percent-in-commission rate despite their flying eight 11-hour missions a day. The 10 Bones dropped 2,159 JDAMs-43 percent of the total used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 22 percent of all the guided weapons used in the campaign. The 213 sorties flown by the 405th AEW B-1Bs were only one percent of the total flown by coalition forces, but they took out 10 percent of the targets.

Success on this scale was possible because the B-1B was able to change its mission planning from the traditional scripted approach to a far more flexible one that operated under special instructions (SPINS) that made the best use of its long loiter time. Crews could launch with the latest intelligence and communications information, be assigned specific targets in the air and then organize ad hoc aircraft force packages as required."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200504/ai_n13498079/print

I agree about the friendship thing but I am not sure how realistic it is or to what extent it could be taken advantage of.

But I've always thought a quick way to "perastroika" would be to invite such cold neighbors who could be realistically turned warm to be a member of NATO.

I thought it would have made sense to do this with the soviet union to end the cold war.

Just because a nation becomes a member of NATO doesn't mean you provide them with sensitive information or technology. It justt means they are under the protective and collaborative umbrella of NATO.

Ideally all nations would be members and the only enemy would be roque terrorist organizations (or aliens - although I don't believe in aliens, that is just to make a point.)

Of course I'm a dunce when it comes to politics. Although I'm not short on ideas on the other hand.

Lets not forget that supposedly anyways george bush is a fundamentalist christian. and let us assume the stereotype of fundamentalists to be people who believe NATO is evil and that a world government would be akin to the anti christ. I'm not sure why they think this since we have separation of church and state in the US. But I think it must be rooted in the same old root problem of "we are the chosen ones according to God and you are not."

At any rate, it isn't a coicindence I don't think that NATO isn't involved in the Iraq war. That only the Dubya Administration is plus the UK. "We don't need a permission slip from the united nations." And loo what this lack of permission slip has done for us.

If anyone more educated and with a higher IQ than I would like to expand on these thoughts that would probably be a good idea. : )

The 2000# JDAM is certainly a large blast-fragmentation bomb. It doesn't have much ground-penetrating capability, so the explosive payload is reduced and the case made much stronger to form the GBU-34/B. This is a JDAM with a BLU-116/B penetrating warhead.

Thinking about it, the B-1 can probably carry this even though my first reference didn't say so. GBU-34's, which are an interim weapon, have aerodynamics similar to the 2000#. IIRC, the penetrating bombs have about half the explosive of a regular bomb.

Larger bombs are dropped from transports. The largest (although an even larger one is supposed to be in development) GBU-43 MOAB. MOAB is officially Massive Ordnance Air Blast, but, in a nod to Saddam, it is generally called the Mother Of All Bomns.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

J. McCutchen

Guardian UK

Nuclear plans in chaos as Iran leader flounders -Boasts of a nuclear programme are just propaganda, say insiders, but the PR could be enough to provoke Israel into war

Actually, I should say that the current version of the game started in the early 1990s.

Actually, I seem to recall that a Jew named Sidney Reilly started the game back around 1904.

Then CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt continued the game in the 1950s when he overthrew the elected government of Mossadagh and installed the Shah on Iran's Peacock Throne.

In his memoir, Countercoup, Kermit indicates that the idea for the coup came
from the British Anglo-Iranian oil company -- nowdays know as BP. Of course, US oil companies got their cut and Iranians got --well, short rations and a visit with the Shah's SAVAK torturers if they complained.

We're not known as "The Great Satan" for nothing. That, our nuclear bombs, and Israel's nuclear bombs go some way to explaining why the Iranians don't want to sit down and sing Kumbaya.

Once a member of NATO, you no longer need to possess weapons of mass destruction, there is an economic benefit as well as a security benefit.

You just setup an economic alliance for NATO members. Lower barriers to trade (lower tarriffs, etc.)

So the roque nations who insist on possessing weapons of mass destruction - north korea and iran if iran chooses to make nukes, would not be allowed tot be members of NATO. With the exception that one nation - or perhaps a limited number based on who had weapons of mass destruction first - would be allowed to have nukes. (America.)

Any nuclear strike on any NATO member nation would result in a retaliatory strike by the US and/or approved NATO nuke member.

So now we've reduced the number of nukes, the number of countries with nukes, the likelihood of course of rogue organizations buying nukes through the black market.

And we have the economic incentive already in place to prevent nations from going rogue.

There would also be unofficial trade "preferences" for NATO members. Or all out trade sanctions against the rogue nations.

I just wonder why this sort of system wasn't put in place 40 years ago. I think we weren't thinking out of the box. We were in the box of the cold war.

And it seems to me the Bush Administration is without any doubt still in the cold war box.

The article I linked to identifies "the Bone" aircraft as responsible for the destruction of the Baghdad restuarant that Saddam & Sons had just left
by delivering two "hard target penetrating" GBU-31's.

? Would there be critical differences in the upgraded versions and how significent is the tweaking that determines the need for a new numerical designation?

Just an observation: once the balloon goes up and the US takes out Iran's oil export facilities, the US will have succeeded in eliminating both of the sources of Persian Gulf oil which excluded US oil companies -- Saddam's Iraq, and Iran. Everywhere in the gulf, either US oil companies will have a cut of the business, or the flow will be cut off.

Just an observation.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

This thread tangent has a, "besides THAT [the bullet caliber, weapon manufacturer, range, killing power] Mss. Lincoln, how was the play" feel to it. It seems like the color commentary to a sporting event (which I realize is an extremely crass way of expressing a deadly serious subject).

The real besides THAT in this case is more of THIS.

More times than not I read detailed and knowledgeable technical post like these and come away questioning myself why. Why do I read them? They often take me away from the thrust of the thread.

Like;

What is going on behind the scenes with the people who pull the trigger… and I don’t mean the pilots of the B1s. Why are these planes being deployed? And what does it mean relative to a further escalation?___________________________________________

“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Dave that's why I posted the MPR report. Spent some time doing Google and it may not be Iran -- it seems they are using the B-1 in Afghanistan at this point, at least a couple stories indicate that as of five days ago they were. It was to "destination unknown" -- so it could be either one. It looks like the Ellisworth planes (Rapid City) are one package, and the crews and ground crew are Minnesota Air National Guard, so that was why MPR passed the news. I think the Air Tankers are at Grand Forks. The BRAC had a huge debate about this, and I am not certain how it came out in the wash. But Destination Unknown is still Destination Unknown.

Bill Perry said in his Commonwealth Club Presentation that he believed the votes were present in the Senate for a medium strong resolution on the Surge (a symbol, but he thought the number would impress) and a binding resolution requiring congressional action before any Iranian action would be permitted -- deny use of any funds currently in pipeline for anything in Iran without congressional action. He thought the Senate numbers would be higher on that resolution.

In a way I do think this is step one in re-balancing the powers of Congress and the Executive, though I don't like seeing that done with a spat over B-1 bombers. Apparently Biden will hold hearings on the Iraq Study Group report this week in Foreign Relations. Perry had choice things to say about Bush, Cheney and the whole troupe of Neo-Cons in the Q and A. One question was about his evaluation of the current crop of top brass -- he named off three or four, and someone said any more, he answered he didn't think so. (I show my age when I quote, "What a revolt'en development this is."

What I'm "itching" for is to see both America and Israel adopt policies that make less likely the use of atomic weapons by anybody.

I see absolutely no reason not to negotiate on every issue with Iran (nukes, Iraq, crazed rhetoric, sanctions, trade) with the Iranians. We negotiated with the Soviets (Stalin, one of the most evil leaders who ever lived was our ally). Why not Iran?

On Sept. 12, 2001, a million Iranians took to the streets of Tehran in a mass demonstration of solidarity and sympathy with America. Why are we determined to take actions that will turn every Iranian into an America-hater and a Mullah-Ahmedenijad backer?

And before the accusation arises. Yes, I am deeply worried that an attack on Iran will have consequences that could lead to terrible destruction in Israel. For me, the survival of Israel is too critical to be trifled with by neocons who get everything wrong.

Yes, Teheran with nukes is scarey. That is why we need to negotiate about them.

It is amazing. Even as Iraq rages, the next Iraq is being planned. And by the same people who promised us the Iraq cakewalk.

Going to war with Iran is now the Israel lobby's top agenda item.
In case one wonders why Hillary is an Iran hawk, here is the answer from Joshua Frank today.

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
By Joshua Frank
Online Journal Contributing Writer

George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn?t the least bit happy about the compromise.

In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."

Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So, it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.

Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous U.N. Resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including U.N. Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.

AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease enriching uranium while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her crosshairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December of 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day . . . It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel . . .?

As Senator Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's fraudulent posture on Iran, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the continued shelling of the Gaza Strip over the past year.

Clinton?s silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran. AIPAC is correct -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against the warmongering of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary inIsrael?s pocket

Hillary, along with her husband Bill, paid a visit to Israel in the fall of 2005. The former president was a featured speaker at a mass rally that marked the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It was Hillary's second visit to Israel since she was elected to office in 2000.

The senator did manage to take time out of her tour to meet with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss "security matters." Hillary also made her way to the great apartheid wall, which separates Palestine from Israel. As the barrier is nearing completion, the monstrosity will ultimately stretch to over 400 miles in length.

Palestinians rightly criticize the obtrusive wall on the grounds that it cuts them off from other towns in the occupied in the West Bank. Thousands more will be cut off from their jobs, schools, and essential farmland.

Hillary and her pro-Israel buds don't get it. When you put powerless Palestinians behind a jail-like wall where life in any real economic sense is unattainable, you wreak pain and anguish, which in turn leads to more anger and resentment toward the Israeli government?s brutal policies. Indeed, the wall will not prove to be a deterrent to resistance, but an incitement to defiance.

"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton said as she gazed over the massive wall. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."

The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May of 2005 Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States:

"[O]ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to talk about the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering and surprise, surprise, Hillary got a standing ovation for her comments.

It is of no matter that Iraq will never see true democracy. The U.S. won't allow that. Our government will never allow a free Iraq to form that embodied even the slightest disgust toward Israel or America. Democracy in Iraq, like democracy in Israel, has clear limitations.

Similar to her husband and the current president, Hillary Clinton will never alter the U.S.' Middle East policy that so blatantly favors Israeli interests.
Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush and edits BrickBurner.org, the official news blog of DissidentVoice.org.

"What the f... is going on?" I do think it's time to place you in the "thou doth protest too much" category.

Chill dude. I find it hard to believe that you are chiding MJ of all people for simply admitting that he hasn't crystallized his thoughts on an issue. I guess you have everything figured out Seth, just like I did back in the day when I ingested little laced-sugar cubes and everything become oh so clear (until the next morning).

Israel's very possession of actual, existing nuclear weapons is a threat to the existence of Iran and however you want to characterize Ahamadinejad's words, they're still words not actual existing nukes.

A serious question here for MJ and others who know more than I about such things. I followed Lally's link to the Herzliya Conference (dedicated to Israeli national security issues) and learned that three presidential candidates (Edwards, McCain, and Romney) and several former US officials (Gingrich, Woolsey, maybe others) attended. Most of them made statements similar to Edwards's, which Lally has quoted. My question: do American politicians and officials attend similar conferences dedicated to the national security of nations other than Israel? If so, do they make such strong statements about America's commitment to protecting the security of that nation? If attendence at such conferences dedicated to the security of nations other than Israel is common, then I would say Walt and Mearshiemer's thesis about the unusual strength of the Israeli lobby is weakened. If not, then Walt and Mearsheimer's thesis would appear to be rather strong. Can anyone answer the question with examples?

Examples of non-statements can't be provided.

Yes but my point was that even an Israeli attack on Iran will be counterproductive and not "the solution" as many here seem to assume.

Iran is an heir to an ancient civilization which has significantly influenced the West (Christmas, anyone?) and country of 70 million intensely nationalistic people (for a sense of proportion, all of the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf minus Iraq don't have a population that can match even Tehran) which is larger than France, Germany, Spain and Britain combined.

In short, know who you're picking a fight with.

"It’s true that Israel has nuclear weapons and is fighting a bloody war with the Palestinians"
is this some sort of joke? I'm on the Palestinians side on the "war" as again are most people. Give them back their land or share it.

"The government in Iran is far less stable than Israel’s"
But I trust the reformers in Iran more than I trust the Israelis, whether reactionary or liberal and merely racist. You might want to read up a bit.

And someone rated the last with a "1" Why? Am I supposed to want to side with the Israelis? Are they "like me" in some why that other people aren't. Are they "western" or white or do they watch star trek and eat Pizza in from of the teevee?
As I said I'd rather be a Jew in Tehran than a Palestinian in the the west Bank. And the Jews in Tehran don't want to leave.
The Jews in Israel with the exception of the fascists, are having second thoughts themselves.

Dave,

Indeed, the technical discussion might have gotten more specific on things, such as bomb designations, than is useful to most people looking at policy and, generally, what the Administration is doing. Pointing out that the B-1 is not a nuclear weapons capable platform, however, does speak to that deployment not being meant for a nuclear strike. To me, that's important negative information; sometimes it's as important to know what is not being done as to know what is being done.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The War in Iraq is an off shoot of Afghanistan. Violence is violence. When Mexican drug lords sell drugs in L.A. does that mean the Mexican Army comes to the U.S. and kills off the American drug pushers? I'm sure if we gave them the permission it would do us a favor to have them do that. The only problem is these drug pushers in L.A. are usually U.S. citizens and it would be a violation of their civil rights to do that. In Iraq, we have permission to help them take care of terrorists within their borders, but instead of helping us they are letting us do all the work. Iran is a different story, they are like Columbia, Iran is where all the terrorism originates and is the only Sovergn Nation that we can bomb other than North Korea and let the world that the U.S. can in fact bomb a country to combat terror. That would be like Mexico bombing Columbia to stop the drug pushers in L.A. selling Mexican muled illegal drugs.

The baseline estimate for the centrifuge cascades comes from the IAEA, which, IIRC, either saw in production or being prepared about 3,000 centrifuges. Again from memory, and just for context without verification, Ahminejad talked about expansion, in the near term, to about 12,000; that was in the context of a slap back at sanctions. Again not knowing the specific design of the Iranian equipment, a fair number of analysts consider a significant number to be around 30,000. Iraq did get by with a much smaller number by using them in series with another separation technique, but Iraq also did not develop a significant weapons capability -- not for lack of trying.

How do we know at this point? While it's never sure, overhead imaging tells a lot. While we only have a limited ability to look underground with ground-piercing radar, we have a better ability to look for heat signatures. While it's low-probability, if they ever have an accidental release, air sampling at the borders is certainly present.

Most important in identifying a large centrifuge cascade is identifying the very large electrical generation and transmission system needed by this incredibly power-hungry technique. While the US did not use centrifuges as its main technique, gaseous diffusion, the technique used, has comparable power needs. As a result, the Oak Ridge installation was deliberately sited near Tennessee Valley Admininstration hydroelectric generation.

Even if the power plants are underground, satellites should be able to see a good deal of construction. It's going to be extremely hard to hide the thermal signature of a non-nuclear power plant, unless it's hydroelectric and thus visible at the dam. Yes, in theory, they might be doing geothermal or some new method, if that would provide enough power.

I was one arguing that Iraq was not a clear and present threat. My posts leading up to the war will show that I didn't exclude Iraq as a future threat, but I thought a better strategy was engaging the fUSSR Central Asian Republics to try to establish a northern pressure from Turkey to Afghanistan. I also wanted more involvement from the Arab nations of the Maghreb (North Africa).
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When it comes to unintentional puns, my favorite is probably from a hairspray-abusing TV reporter, back from a first Foreign Correspondent assignment. The reporter spoke of the former Yugoslavia, where she had been, and gasped "The former Yugoslavia is becoming Balkanized!"

Clancy is wrong on a lot of technical details if one is expert in the technology, but quite plausible. He explicitly said he fuzzed some details of a nuclear weapon, but, from my own knowledge, there were problems with his biological weapons. When I went to see the movie of Hunt for Red October, I went with a sonar engineer friend, who became sufficiently annoyed at the sonar techniques to jump up in the theater, yell "Go active, you idiot!" and then sit down quickly, red-faced in the darkness. Clancy's Palestinian solution actually might have some elements worth examining.

Ever since he wrote about a suicide airliner crash into a major government building (no spoilers, I hope) in a 1994 book, people do wonder about his predictions.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Here's another "negative information" data point: Guam Water to be Shut Off.

As annoying as I eventally found Clancy to be, his comment on the lead up to Iraq War II was pretty cogent: "I see no causus belli".

sPh

Since Guam is a plausible forward staging base for heavy bombers (Anderson AFB), this could be part of protecting the water from deliberate contamination, or could just be as routine as it sounds.

Students of WWII intelligence will remember the trick that the US used to determine that the code-within-a-code Japanese attack target AF was indeed Midway. Pearl Harbor, through a then-untappable underwater cable, sent a message that AF should broadcast, in a code known to be broken by the Japanese, a request for repair parts for its water plant and a shipment of water. Soon afterwards, "AF is short of water" came up in an intercepted Japanese message.

Midway is worth studying as an example of how strategic intelligence can work extremely well, especially if the decisionmakers use it (and it's right). It did not hurt that Japanese tactical intelligence was poor, although there was immense sacrificial heroism, as well as just plain good luck, in the decisive American victory. We may not have suicide bombers in the jihadist sense, but I wish that more of the jihadi leaders knew what the torpedo squadrons did at Midway -- and stopped assuming Americans are weak and cowardly.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Unfortunately the standard of proof to wage war is pretty low these days."

Good point, but I don't think we can all it "the standard." It is the Bush administration's standard. But this standard is in violation of international law, and therefore illegitimate, and there is a good possibility that we'll see war crimes trials in the future because of America's use of this standard. Especially if it's used as justification for a US attack on Iran at a time when the world has lost patience with us.

If Bush, whose future is already bleak and growing more so, has an ounce of self-preservation he will resist the urge to broaden this war.

The only Israel exceptionalism found at TPMCafe is holding Israel and Jews to a standard that no other country is held. Another part of the exceptionalism is that Palestinians and other Arabs are never held to account for their behavior.

As part of the ground that would that would have been exterminated I can live with your perceived view of Israeli exceptionism. By and large such claims are held by those who do not care if Israel and Jews are exterminated.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Much as I believe the Bush Administration wants to go to war for irrational reasons, I have yet to see an international treaty, other than the generally ignored Kellogg-Briand Accord, that outlaws war. As I read the UN Charter, members are strongly urged to bring disputes (short of war) to the Security Council, and, once they have done so, they do subject a war decision to the UNSC. If neither party to the conflict (i.e., Iran could do it) brings it before the UNSC, I see stupidity and arrogance but not illegality.

I do believe that, especially in the current Congressional majorities, an attack without Congressional authorization would trigger a Constitutional crisis and probably impeachment proceedings.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Since I posted one unreasonable piece on Iran, I'm making up for it by a very reasonable one by Iranian-American scholar, Dr. Trita Parsi.  For the record, Parsi is no friend of the Iranian government and is decidely NOT anti-Israel.  

Daniel, as you can see from the reply of Hass, some people will always reject the notion that Israel has any right to consider its own self-defense. Thus, Hass has to return to the Jewish victimization thing to deflect any notion that self-defense is a legitimate consideration even for countries one might loathe (such as Hass' loathing for the State of Israel).

You're not going to change that, and neither will I. I will say that I am genuinely skeptical of any claims coming from the Bush Administration on the progress of Iran's nuclear capabilities, and I'm almost as suspicious as reports being leaked by members of Israeli intelligence to Haaretz et al.

My bottom-line is that I see no harm in talks but I do see harm in refusing to talk. I subscribe to the "speak softly but carry a big stick" credo on this one (to the extent such a stick exists at this point).

Yes I am sure - to the extent that the offer was ever finalized (never)

You can check out the real terms of the Israeli self-described "generous offer" to the Palestinians that Arafat rightfully rejected here: Gush Shalom (an Israeli peace group site) or the Washington Report's Q&A.

I don't speak for the Palestinians but they've repeatedly indicated that they want their capital to be in East Jerusalem - the REAL east Jerusalem and not just a make-pretend version. They also want their lands to be contiguous, meaning attached to each other as one piece - not just a bunch of enclosures and bantustans that separated by Israeli roads and that are constantly shrinking as Israeli settlements cotninue to "naturally expand"

Well, I wasn't talking about a final agreement Hass in 2000 since there wasn't any, but very well. lol

Just to make sure I understand, am I correct that you agree that a viable solution for Jerusalem would be to cede East Jerusalem to Palestine and West Jerusalem to Israel (subject of course to working out jurisdiction (as I discussed with HC) in the various quarters of the Old City)?

Maybe we can get a li'l consensus here, eh?

Last night I left a comment with johnedwards.com that they have lost my vote and support, and it wasn't just talk. I liked Edwards' performance in his debate with Cheney, and I've put in a good word for him ever since, but this is too much.

I wonder how Edwards plans to "educate" us. Will we all get free flights to Israel now, to go on a tour with their PR teams?

I'm glad we agree that while Nueremberg is explicit, its status, as an order of the four-power International Control Commission, is iffy in formal terms. Ironically, the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 clearly outlawed war and clearly was a ratified (with reservations by the US) treaty that applied to the US. Kellogg-Briand is considered moot by the principle that an enforceable international law has to have some track record of anyone trying to endorse it.

There is a UN GA resolution adopting the Nueremberg principles, but, significantly, the UN SC did not do a similar resolution.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Given that this was a period of rabid anticommunism, from the relatively rational containment policy of George Kennan to Joe McCarthy's hysteria, I believe the greatest, essentially automatic response on Truman's part was seeing Communist expansion. I doubt tungsten particularly entered his mind.

No, reporters got quite a few photographs. The North Koreans also made a very specific practice of shielding their troops with refugees. My late father-in-law was a naval aviator in 1950, during the "Bug-Out", and had nightmares for the rest of his life -- and pretty clear PTSD -- from US orders to strafe refugee columns from which friendly forces were taking gunfire.

Americans, like Task Force Smith, took very bad casualties in the early days. This was due to sending them in with a nearly criminal lack of training and supplies. I doubt