Bolton thinks Israel is waiting for outcome of US election to invade Iran

[glockmail]

This guy's nearly always right.


Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in November.

Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
....
Bolton reasons Israel won’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given the Illinois senator's intended foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic.
...
Bolton thinks Israel may consider postponing the attack, however, if Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., emerges as the victor in the presidential race. He says McCain's stance on Iran “is far more realistic than that of the Bush administration.”
.....

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bolton_israel_iran/2008/06/25/107224.html

[Kathianne]

This guy's nearly always right.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bolton_israel_iran/2008/06/25/107224.html

He is usually correct. On the other hand, I think Israel may need US help, thus not waiting for an Obama presidency, which is most likely.

[glockmail]

He is usually correct. On the other hand, I think Israel may need US help, thus not waiting for an Obama presidency, which is most likely.

n a related interview with The Telegraph, Bolton says he believes Arab countries will support an Israeli strike, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, while publicly denouncing it.

Their reaction, he tells the British paper, "will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations, but no action."

....

Bolton doubts Iran would respond immediately with a counterstrike of its own, partially because Tehran would fear an American reprisal.
Bolton was the best ammbassador to the UN that we've ever had.

[Yurt]

He is usually correct. On the other hand, I think Israel may need US help, thus not waiting for an Obama presidency, which is most likely.

that would be interesting and a test of obama's -- Israel is our ally -- statement. my opinion, i would not be surprised if israel does this, iran has already threatened to annihilate them, imagine the US, Russia, England, France, China, putting up with some country calling for their total annihilation.

israel is not as weak as people think.

[Kathianne]

that would be interesting and a test of obama's -- Israel is our ally -- statement. my opinion, i would not be surprised if israel does this, iran has already threatened to annihilate them, imagine the US, Russia, England, France, China, putting up with some country calling for their total annihilation.

israel is not as weak as people think.

And Mohamed ElBaradei has already said they may be within a 6 month-1 year time span. He said that last month. Makes November 6 months. If you were Israel, on which side would you err?

[mundame]

Bolton was the best ambassador to the UN that we've ever had.


Yes, I agree. Interesting point he makes..........

A lot of people are assuming BUSH may start a war with Iran, to throw the election to McCain, but Bush has in fact never shown any sort of interest in helping his party, so I doubt that.

But Bolton is a very original thinker (he writes often for the Wall Street Journal), and this is an interesting idea.

I guess we'll see!

[Little-Acorn]

This guy's nearly always right.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bolton_israel_iran/2008/06/25/107224.html

Bolton's definitely right about this one. How do I know? Because he agrees with me! :)

Israel has long been surrounded by enemies slavering for their blood and screaming for their annihilation. Not just their defeat, but their annihilation. The only thing that has kept them alive to date, aside from their coourage and refusal to knuckle under, has been massive financial and arms support from the U.S.

If Obama is elected in November, that will likely slacken off as the appeasers and do-gooders take over in Washington. Such people will be less likely to support Israel if Israel is attacked for the fourth time in sixty years, and they will be left alone to face being outnumbered 100 to 1 or more. It will only be a matter of time before they are crushed under sheer weight of numbers.

If Israel atttacks Iran to destroy their nuclear capability after Obama takes office, they will likely lose the resulting war as all Islamic nations join to destroy them while they stand alone. But if they attack they day after Obama wins in November, Bush will still be in office, and is much more likely to send help.

If you were Israel, what would you do?

As I see it, if Obama wins, Israel will have no choice but to attack immediately. The Islamic nations surrounding her will only have to wait until an appeaser is in office, and can then destroy Israel at their leisure. Only if Israel attacks immediately, does she have any chance of getting help from the U.S. that can save her.

[Hagbard Celine]

Neocons suck at life. They're what got us in this mess to begin with.

[glockmail]

Neocons suck at life. They're what got us in this mess to begin with.
Wow Hag you must be in a bad mood today, as this post makes even less sense than usual.

[namvet]

Israel is not going to wait on anyone's elections. period.

[Little-Acorn]

Israel is not going to wait on anyone's elections. period.

They're doing it now.

Israel will play it whatever way that gives them the best chance of survival, in the face of overwhelming odds and against insane enemies who have already tried to destroy them three times.

What else do you expect them to do?

[namvet]

They're doing it now.

Israel will play it whatever way that gives them the best chance of survival, in the face of overwhelming odds and against insane enemies who have already tried to destroy them three times.

What else do you expect them to do?

no their not !!!! if an attack is needed tomorrow do you really think they'll wait on a stupid election??? get a grip

[glockmail]

no their not !!!! if an attack is needed tomorrow do you really think they'll wait on a stupid election??? get a grip
Did you read the article and understand the logic? The results of the election may force them to react sooner rather than later.

[Little-Acorn]

no their not !!!! if an attack is needed tomorrow do you really think they'll wait on a stupid election??? get a grip

Please calm down. Of course, if they're going to get wiped out before November, of course they'll attack first.

My point is, even if they're not going to get wiped out on, say, December 1, 2008, if Obama wins they'll have to attack anyway on Nov. 10, if they want enough support to survive the ensuing war. Once Obama is inaugurated, they can kiss that support goodbye... along with their asses.

[mundame]

Please calm down. Of course, if they're going to get wiped out before November, of course they'll attack first.

My point is, even if they're not going to get wiped out on, say, December 1, 2008, if Obama wins they'll have to attack anyway on Nov. 10, if they want enough support to survive the ensuing war. Once Obama is inaugurated, they can kiss that support goodbye... along with their asses.


So you think, Little-Acorn, that Obama will NOT support Israel to aid that country from an existential threat?

Is that even possible? Jews have a strong lobby, perhaps the strongest one there is, and have secured our promise of help if they are threatened with being overrun for a long time. Is that possible to undo at this point?

[mundame]

Last night 7/2 the Fox Panel referred to this rumor, that Israel will strike Iran between the election and the inauguration, if Barack is elected, for fear they won't get support from the U.S. otherwise.

Interestingly, the panel preferred the idea that Israel would strike Iran just BEFORE the election.

Personally, I think Fred Barnes was just talking that up in hopes Bush would do it to promote McCain's election, because I haven't heard that variation anywhere else.

[namvet]

and now the mongoloids threaten to shut down the Strait of Hormuz


The U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said Wednesday.

The warning comes as Iran's oil minister vows that any attack on his country by the U.S. or Israel will provoke an unimaginably fierce response



source (source)

[Monkeybone]

hahahaha i would like to see them try and shut it down. you think we would sit idly by? or any other country after a day or two?

[mundame]

Question: COULD Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz?

They think they could:
U.S. Navy Commander Warns Iran: Don't Try Closing Gulf Oil Passageway

Wednesday, July 02, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif<SCRIPT language=javascript _extended="true">function farkItButton(h, u, s) { if (!IsDef(h)) { if (IsDef(window.fark_headline)) { h = window.fark_headline; } else { h = ''; } } u = unescape(location.href); var img = 'FarkItButton2_16x16.gif'; imgw = 16; imgh = 16; document.write('http://img.fark.net/pub/' + img + ' (http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/farkit.pl?h=' + h + '&u=' + u + ')');}function IsDef(variable) { return (!(!( variable||false )))}function GetThis(T, C, U, L){ var targetUrl = 'http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?' + 't=' + encodeURIComponent(T) + '&c=' + encodeURIComponent(C) + '&u=' + encodeURIComponent(U) + '&l=' + L; window.open(targetUrl);} </SCRIPT>


The U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the country is attacked, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said Wednesday.


The warning comes as Iran's oil minister vows that any attack on his country by the United States or Israel would provoke an unimaginably fierce response.

The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Gulf from Iran. Cosgriff said that if Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, it would be "saying to the world that 40 percent of oil is now held hostage by a single country." "We will not allow Iran to close it," he told reporters.

Cosgriff's comments follow Iranian threats that it could seal off the key passageway in case of a Western attack on Tehran.
*************************************************
[Emphasis mine]

If you look at a map, that strait is very, very narrow. On that passage depends the economy of the West, because if the Iranians even tried something, oil would double overnight, everyone agrees; if such a closing lasted any time, who knows how high oil could go. It would change everything.....

And obviously, we'd be at war.

I'm thinking they could sink large ships --- tankers, even --- in the Strait to block it.

Also, note the point of land reaching out toward the other side: could they atom bomb it enough to shift the rock into the passage?

The most obvious way to "shut" the strait would be virtually: they could threaten to torpedo or bomb any ship going through. However, our Navy is there to defend against exactly that, and presumably Iranian airfields and artillery emplacements (yes, they have them) overlooking the strait would be quickly obliterated by our bombers. Still, it would have the effect of raising oil prices a LOT for some little time; but then, they'd also lose the war.

Another threat would be one Iran has made before: shooting tankers inside the Gulf like shooting fish in a barrel. Again, same objection: we'd take out their primitive air force and navy quickly, and they'd lose the war.

Any other ideas? It's Iran's main threat: is it plausible at all?

[mundame]

http://www.dataxinfo.com/hormuz/icons/new_hormuz_map1.gif



Uh-oh --------- NewsMax (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml?s=lh) is running a story that Iran means to lay bottom-tethered mines in the Strait, thousands of them.

And to attack our Navy ships in the Gulf with hundreds of explosives-laden small fastboats at the same time.

[Trigg]

In our waiting room this morning I actually heard this gem.

The guys says "I think Bush will invade Iran in the fall and delay the Presidential election--possibly for a few years." I, of course, have to sit there and smile saying "well I don't think that'll happen".


Lots of loonies out there :laugh2:

[mundame]

Well, it's nice you are so polite, though.

Lots and lots of countries that DOES happen in. Presumably it will eventually happen here, too, but hopefully not during our lifetime.

[Trigg]

Well, it's nice you are so polite, though.

Lots and lots of countries that DOES happen in. Presumably it will eventually happen here, too, but hopefully not during our lifetime.

have to be nice, customer service and all that.

[glockmail]

...NewsMax is running a story that Iran means to lay bottom-tethered mines in the Strait, thousands of them.

And to attack our Navy ships in the Gulf with hundreds of explosives-laden small fastboats at the same time.

1. Mine sweeping subs.
2. Turkey shoot!

[mundame]

1. Mine sweeping subs.
2. Turkey shoot!


I'm inclined to agree with you about No. 2.

The article said the mine-sweeping would take longer.

But would be hard for Iran to lay.

But I don't believe that is necessarily true, because of Gallipoli in WWI: the many giant British ships sailed into the Dardenelles Strait ready to take Constantinople and the Black Sea, and they had mine-sweepers that swept the strait clean.............................................

And then one Turkish ship with no lights worked all night, silently, laying one whale of a lot of mines, and the next morning the British fleet set forth proudly up the passage ------------



And pretty much blew up.

The British lost Gallipoli, as you probably know, and never did take Constantinople.


So yeah, mines..........that's probably the answer to my question, how could Iran stop up the Strait of Hormuz.

[Monkeybone]

if we are running off of technology from WWI then we are screwed.

[mundame]

if we are running off of technology from WWI then we are screwed.


Hello, haven't you noticed these past five or six years that we ARE screwed??

We're not anywhere close to as far as WWI got. We're fighting guerrilla troops with no uniforms, hardly any arms, and we're LOSING.

Damn, if we were up to WWI technology, we could at least use MACHINE GUNS, and we might actually WIN something for a change!!


I say again:

The reason not to get into a war with Iran is simply because given the current complete lack of ability to fight, it would be the third war we're in that we are LOSING!

Our military can't win wars. You know it, I know it. There is no use trying to fool ourselves about this like way too many people here try. This is a very serious situation because if they DO stop up fully 40% of the world's oil, that is a really bad time for our government to have a broken military!!

[glockmail]

I'm inclined to agree with you about No. 2.

The article said the mine-sweeping would take longer.

But would be hard for Iran to lay.

But I don't believe that is necessarily true, because of Gallipoli in WWI: the many giant British ships sailed into the Dardenelles Strait ready to take Constantinople and the Black Sea, and they had mine-sweepers that swept the strait clean.............................................

And then one Turkish ship with no lights worked all night, silently, laying one whale of a lot of mines, and the next morning the British fleet set forth proudly up the passage ------------



And pretty much blew up.

The British lost Gallipoli, as you probably know, and never did take Constantinople.


So yeah, mines..........that's probably the answer to my question, how could Iran stop up the Strait of Hormuz.
In WW1 they used horses in the infantry, and artillery range was about 6 miles. These days the navy is used to deliver aircraft within fueling distance, deliver men and supplies to hot spots, and to provide a comfy office for the commanders. The delay in delivery of men and supplies just means that fewer Iranian civilians will get assistance from our guys after the battle is over.

[namvet]

if we are running off of technology from WWI then we are screwed.

jez dude. you need to catch up on modern military hardware. WW1???? :laugh2:

[Monkeybone]

Hello, haven't you noticed these past five or six years that we ARE screwed??

We're not anywhere close to as far as WWI got. We're fighting guerrilla troops with no uniforms, hardly any arms, and we're LOSING.

Damn, if we were up to WWI technology, we could at least use MACHINE GUNS, and we might actually WIN something for a change!!


I say again:

The reason not to get into a war with Iran is simply because given the current complete lack of ability to fight, it would be the third war we're in that we are LOSING!

Our military can't win wars. You know it, I know it. There is no use trying to fool ourselves about this like way too many people here try. This is a very serious situation because if they DO stop up fully 40% of the world's oil, that is a really bad time for our government to have a broken military!! the only reason we can't win this war is becasue of the ROE and the fear that is in our troops minds that if they defend themselves and kill the wrong person or the weapons are taken off of the person that they shoot that they will be tried for murder. it's also that they tried to fight a 'cheap' war. if you're gonna fight a war it should be fought in a Total War way

it we fought WWII style then we could've had this wrapped up in a month. plus on water would be a bit different than on land. and Iran would atleast have uniforms on.


jez dude. you need to catch up on modern military hardware. WW1???? :laugh2:
to you Mundame and Namvet, it was a sarcastic statment since she used WWI mining as an example. mines would not bother us that much, especially since they would more than likely be using Cold War Era stuff.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Well you can't blame Israel they have fanatic Muslims threatening to wipe them out And the American main stream media is predicting A person with 3 Muslim names maybe the next president IF your Israel do you wait to find out if this American Muslim supporter Will help keep these nut case Muslims inline. NOT ONLY NO BUT FUCK NO

[actsnoblemartin]

Well you can't blame Israel they have fanatic Muslims threatening to wipe them out And the American main stream media is predicting A person with 3 Muslim names maybe the next president IF your Israel do you wait to find out if this American Muslim supporter Will help keep these nut case Muslims inline. NOT ONLY NO BUT FUCK NO

:clap:

:laugh2: