Possible Iran strike this month?

[hollohas]

I was thinking about the "October surprise" comment in another thread which made me think of this. I have been reading that there are rumors of a possible Israel strike on Iran soon.

Here's one story...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-isra...trike-on-iran/

The biggest ever multi-nation naval drill was conducted over there last month.

And currently, 3 carrier groups are listed as underway with the 5th fleet. The John C. Stennis returned to the area 4 months early recently. The Stennis is currently listed with the 5th fleet but the Navy published an article today saying it was performing joint drills with the USS George Washington in the Andaman Sea which is in the 7th Fleet's area. So based on that article perhaps only 2 CSG's are actually with the 5th fleet. However, the 5th fleet won't have any less than two CSG's through March though.

Some have suggested Oct 15th as the day because it is a new moon. I don't know what to think but I do know Israel is going to make a move sooner rather than later. It is not their style to sit and wait for their enemies to get the upper hand anymore. BO has not been a supporter of Israel since day one, but him changing his mind and giving Israel the go ahead would certainly be one hell of an October Surprise.

[merl]

Oh yes please, we need another war...

[Zundfolge]

So Obama "inherited" all these financial woes because "Bush started all these expensive wars" ... so vote for me because I just started another expensive war?

I say go for it Barry ... the only two politicians that will be harmed by it are you and Ahmadinejad.

[hollohas]

So Obama "inherited" all these financial woes because "Bush started all these expensive wars" ... so vote for me because I just started another expensive war?

I say go for it Barry ... the only two politicians that will be harmed by it are you and Ahmadinejad.

I agree with you but here is an portion of the original source article explaining why it might be advantageous for BO.

What does this have to do with Romney's remarks? Were it clearer that the primary Iran option being discussed is this very limited surgical strike, then a U.S. threat of force would be that much more credible. And if it were more credible -- because it seemed like the kind of risk the president is more willing to undertake -- then it would have the added benefit of providing precisely the kind of added leverage that might make diplomacy more successful. In other words, the public contemplation of a more limited, doable mission provides more leverage than the threat of even more robust action that is less likely to happen.

With that in mind, and given the progress that the Israelis and the administration seem to have made in the past couple of weeks, it may be that the easiest way for the Obama team to defuse Romney's critique on Iran is simply to communicate better what options they are in fact considering. It's not the size of the threatened attack, but the likelihood that it will actually be made, that makes a military threat a useful diplomatic tool. And perhaps a political one, too.

[SuperiorDG]

So Obama "inherited" all these financial woes because "Bush started all these expensive wars" ... so vote for me because I just started another expensive war?

I say go for it Barry ... the only two politicians that will be harmed by it are you and Ahmadinejad.

I thought if we were in a declared war (not a military campaign) that the Presidency change is put on hold. Is this correct?

[Zundfolge]

I thought if we were in a declared war (not a military campaign) that the Presidency change is put on hold. Is this correct?

Nope ... FDR had to win re-election in 1944 and Woodrow "The Dark Lord" Wilson had to win re-election in 1916. Both of those two were statist clowns that would have gladly suspended a Presidential election because of a war if they could have got away with it.

Obama tries that BS and Civil War 2.0 will start so fast it'll make your head spin.

[hollohas]

Another interesting article.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/newsweek-s-iran-war-game.html

Will America get pulled into another Mideast war? We hosted a ‘war game’ with former U.S. officials to find out.

An Israeli attack on Iran would present the United States with one of the most complicated and vexing situations the country has faced in decades. The scenario outlined above—the outcome of a recent simulation conducted by Newsweek—offers one version of how events might play out.

No matter what role politics play, the upshot of the simulation is a sobering one: Washington could quickly lose control of events after an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Iran attacks Americans or goes after Israel too aggressively, even an administration wishing to avoid another war in the Middle East might find itself in the middle of one.

[BPTactical]

They don't need a missile.
Just another one anxious to get their 72 virgins and a suitcase.

[Ronin13]

In regard to the Iran discussion in the debate last night, I have a prediction...
It's not a matter of if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it's when. And Mr. Biden is awful stupid about his whole "They don't have a weapon to deliver a nuclear payload in." Uh, dude, I'm not the vice president, but even I know Iran has the Shahab-3C medium range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead over 1,500 miles (That's Iran-Tel Aviv ladies and germs).

My prediction is not weather whoever is in the WH can stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but what they will do when Iran becomes a nuclear power. I wonder what will be done when Iran tests a nuclear weapon. And afterward, if nothing is done, what will be done when Iran launches a nuclear attack on Israel as they have openly voiced their desire to have Israel "wiped off the face of the earth." And, if they develop a weapon with the range, what will be done if Iran were to attack us- either at home or abroad (IE: our bases/allies/interests).

[jhood001]

And Mr. Biden is awful stupid about his whole "They don't have a weapon to deliver a nuclear payload in." Uh, dude, I'm not the vice president, but even I know Iran has the Shahab-3C medium range missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead over 1,500 miles (That's Iran-Tel Aviv ladies and germs).

I think the goofball said they don't have a device yet and haven't started building one. He wasn't talking about delivery systems. Regardless I wonder how anyone knows whether they do or don't have a device or how anyone would know when they start making one. I don't think hiding something like that is even remotely on the same level as hiding enrichment facilities.