Is Israel building up for a strike againt Iranian nuclear facilities.

[Anna Glypta]

That is, of course, speculation in the Daily Mail and AFAIK, they don't decide anybody's defence policy.

 

Do you prefer the Guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran

 

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

 

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

 

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far reacted coolly. They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general's office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

 

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent "a clear and present threat". Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states.

 

"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."

 

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the British government, and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

 

"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."

 

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

 

The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

 

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, earlier this summer to run through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

 

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

 

"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way."

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded a diplomatic solution as the priority. But this depends on the White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

 

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the US, explained another official. "The key to holding back Israel is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the moment is right."

 

With diplomatic efforts stalled by the US presidential election campaign, a new push to resolve the crisis will begin in late November or December.

 

Six global powers will spearhead a drive which is likely to involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of enriched uranium.

 

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

 

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time."

 

The Foreign Office said it would not disclose whether the attorney general's advice has been sought on any specific issue.

 

A US state department official said: "The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations."

 

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that Iran's nuclear programme would reach Israel's "red line" by "next spring, at most by next summer", implying that Israel might then take military action in an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.

 

That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material, should Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to abandon Iran's observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention.

 

In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".

 

He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [israel] choose to do it."

[Rupert_Baehr]

Do you prefer the Guardian?

 

Not really. I'm not interested in speculation by any (probably) poorly informed newspaper.

 

"The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for ... permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic."

 

Well, if the Guardian expects anybody to believe their drivel, it would perhaps be a good idea to get the basics right. There are no US bases on Ascension Island. Many years ago (when the author of the Guardian article was probably running around in short trousers) Pan Am [remember that company?] operated Wideawake as an Auxiliary Airfield for the USAF to re-supply the NASA test range, but that's almost ancient history. RAF Ascension Island opened in the early 1980s.

 

If it was 'Secret legal advice' how did the Guardian find out about it? Can't have been much of a secret, can it?

 

The article says that "The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran."

 

So? I've no doubt that many governments (not excluding that of the UK) have contingency plans for all sorts of possibilities. Including, no doubt, visits by extra-terrestrials.

 

Further down in the article: "Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the British government and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely..."

 

Does that mean "The Americans haven't actually asked, but if they had asked then perhaps the Brits would have refused. I'm making this up, but I do want to be paid this week and if I don't write something I might find myself out of a job"?

 

If the Americans haven't asked the British government for permission to use British bases and there is no 'acceleration towards conflict' what's the purpose of the article? (Apart from 'to justify this week's salary')

 

 

Then again, further down: "A US state department official said: "The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations." "

 

So the article is not based on fact, but upon pure speculation.

 

As has already been noted:

 

1. The Israelis do not have GBU-57's (The Americans have only got about half a dozen so far)

2. The Israelis have no means of delivering such a weapon.

3. The GBU 57 relies heavily on kinetic energy. - You have to drop it from high altitude. If you do not have absolute air superiority and if you have not suppressed completely the target's air defences, you stand a very good chance of being engaged (and possibly destroyed) by the enemy's Air Force or SAMs.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Israel can and does what it likes, and chaos is the name of the game in the region. It could and possibly will nuke Iran, and who is going to do anything but at worst spit? Nukes have not been used for a long time, and nuking Iran that has no nukes, can be blamed on Iran! ...

 

That's one of the most stupid posts I've read on this forum and if you could be taken seriously, it would probably be one of the more offensive.

 

The Israelis have probably had nuclear weapons for some time.

The Israelis have never threatened anybody with a nuclear attack.

(They haven't even said anything about 'all Iranians and Iran being wiped off the planet.')

 

If Israel was to nuke Iranian cities or military installations (it would have some difficulty in nuking the nuclear installations, because they are deep underground) do you really think nobody would care?

 

Your suggestion that Israel is likely to nuke Iran is offensive. Please provide evidence to support it or withdraw it.

[spilldig]

I'm sure I heard on the news this week that our government replied to America that there is no blank cheque this time,we learnt our lessons from Iraq.

[Anna Glypta]

 

Well, if the Guardian expects anybody to believe their drivel, it would perhaps be a good idea to get the basics right. There are no US bases on Ascension Island.

 

No one seems to have mentioned that to the governors on the Island.

 

http://www.earthphotos.com/Countries/Ascension-Island/11027928_kGQ2Dd/895538336_YKkTT#!i=895538336&k=Wpf5GGc

 

http://www.ascension-island.gov.ac/faq

 

Q: What is the status of the US Air Force on the island?

 

A: The US Air Force presence on the island is regulated by the 1956 Bahamas Agreement, an international treaty between the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This allows the USAF to use agreed designated sites. These are not leased as is commonly, but mistakenly, thought. Nor are the sites US soil and everyone on the base is subject to Ascension Island's laws and jurisdiction. The USAF built and maintain the runway at Wideawake airfield, and provide essential services such as air traffic control. The USAF and contractors employ 218 people, 162 of whom are on contract from St Helena.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Somewhat dated, I'm afraid. - and inaccurate.

 

There are no 'governors' on Ascension Island. (The head of the local government is HH The Administrator.) (References to 'the governor' refer to the governor of St Helena.)

 

When did www earthphotos .com (whoever they may be) become an authority on Ascension Island?

 

You might feel that a UK MOD website is likely to be a little more accurate. Did you look at any Royal Air Force links? - I refer you to http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsascension.cfm

 

RAF Ascension Island. "The station comes under the overall jurisdiction of the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands, an officer of one-star rank. Since 2011, this has been Brigadier William Aldridge CBE. The RAF base on Ascension Island is run on a day-to-day basis by around seventeen RAF personnel. The flight, including the Ops Officer, consists of five officers and around twelve non-commissioned service personnel."

 

There are still a handful of US personnel there (because the ETR is still active) and because the Americans provide a lot of re-supply from Patrick AFB.

 

(You might ask: "What makes Rupert think he knows anything about Ascension Island?" - Well, between 1982 and 1986 I spent an aggregate of just over a year flying out of Ascension Island.)

 

The photo (1st link) showing a sign which reads 'US Air Force, Ascension Auxiliary Air Field' is particularly misleading.

 

Prior to the Royal Air Force moving to Ascension (for the Falklands conflict) and the construction of the RAF accommodation on Donkey Plain, there were 3 'communities' on Ascension.

 

'Two Boats' (BBC personnel and other British communications personnel.)

 

'Georgetown' (Cable & Wireless personnel and a few administrative personel)

 

'American Base' ( A commissary to feed the workers [run by Brian Joshua MBE - a British subject] The NASA tracking station, a small shop (about 100sq ft) to supply the NASA personnel at that tracking station [known officially as USAF Eastern Test Range] an admin block and an open-air cinema.

 

Ascension Auxiliary Air Field was operated under contract by Pan Am. - A company which folded some years ago.

 

The US 'military presence' was one USAF major and a handful of NCOs ( a couple of medics who staffed the clinic and a few administrators. - The Major's post has now been down-graded to a Captain.

[andygardener]

Isn't Ascension kind of in the wrong ocean to be of much use in a war with Iran anyway? Questions about reactivating Fairford would seem credible, a desire to push back Iranian dominance of the South Atlantic less so.

[Harleyman]

Somewhat dated, I'm afraid. - and inaccurate.

 

There are no 'governors' on Ascension Island. (The head of the local government is HH The Administrator.) (References to 'the governor' refer to the governor of St Helena.)

 

When did www earthphotos .com (whoever they may be) become an authority on Ascension Island?

 

You might feel that a UK MOD website is likely to be a little more accurate. Did you look at any Royal Air Force links? - I refer you to http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsascension.cfm

 

RAF Ascension Island. "The station comes under the overall jurisdiction of the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands, an officer of one-star rank. Since 2011, this has been Brigadier William Aldridge CBE. The RAF base on Ascension Island is run on a day-to-day basis by around seventeen RAF personnel. The flight, including the Ops Officer, consists of five officers and around twelve non-commissioned service personnel."

 

There are still a handful of US personnel there (because the ETR is still active) and because the Americans provide a lot of re-supply from Patrick AFB.

 

(You might ask: "What makes Rupert think he knows anything about Ascension Island?" - Well, between 1982 and 1986 I spent an aggregate of just over a year flying out of Ascension Island.)

 

The photo (1st link) showing a sign which reads 'US Air Force, Ascension Auxiliary Air Field' is particularly misleading.

 

Prior to the Royal Air Force moving to Ascension (for the Falklands conflict) and the construction of the RAF accommodation on Donkey Plain, there were 3 'communities' on Ascension.

 

'Two Boats' (BBC personnel and other British communications personnel.)

 

'Georgetown' (Cable & Wireless personnel and a few administrative personel)

 

'American Base' ( A commissary to feed the workers [run by Brian Joshua MBE - a British subject] The NASA tracking station, a small shop (about 100sq ft) to supply the NASA personnel at that tracking station [known officially as USAF Eastern Test Range] an admin block and an open-air cinema.

 

Ascension Auxiliary Air Field was operated under contract by Pan Am. - A company which folded some years ago.

 

The US 'military presence' was one USAF major and a handful of NCOs ( a couple of medics who staffed the clinic and a few administrators. - The Major's post has now been down-graded to a Captain.

 

Deleted. Dupe post

[Harleyman]

Somewhat dated, I'm afraid. - and inaccurate.

 

There are no 'governors' on Ascension Island. (The head of the local government is HH The Administrator.) (References to 'the governor' refer to the governor of St Helena.)

 

When did www earthphotos .com (whoever they may be) become an authority on Ascension Island?

 

You might feel that a UK MOD website is likely to be a little more accurate. Did you look at any Royal Air Force links? - I refer you to http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsascension.cfm

 

RAF Ascension Island. "The station comes under the overall jurisdiction of the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands, an officer of one-star rank. Since 2011, this has been Brigadier William Aldridge CBE. The RAF base on Ascension Island is run on a day-to-day basis by around seventeen RAF personnel. The flight, including the Ops Officer, consists of five officers and around twelve non-commissioned service personnel."

 

There are still a handful of US personnel there (because the ETR is still active) and because the Americans provide a lot of re-supply from Patrick AFB.

 

(You might ask: "What makes Rupert think he knows anything about Ascension Island?" - Well, between 1982 and 1986 I spent an aggregate of just over a year flying out of Ascension Island.)

 

The photo (1st link) showing a sign which reads 'US Air Force, Ascension Auxiliary Air Field' is particularly misleading.

 

Prior to the Royal Air Force moving to Ascension (for the Falklands conflict) and the construction of the RAF accommodation on Donkey Plain, there were 3 'communities' on Ascension.

 

'Two Boats' (BBC personnel and other British communications personnel.)

 

'Georgetown' (Cable & Wireless personnel and a few administrative personel)

 

'American Base' ( A commissary to feed the workers [run by Brian Joshua MBE - a British subject] The NASA tracking station, a small shop (about 100sq ft) to supply the NASA personnel at that tracking station [known officially as USAF Eastern Test Range] an admin block and an open-air cinema.

 

Ascension Auxiliary Air Field was operated under contract by Pan Am. - A company which folded some years ago.

 

The US 'military presence' was one USAF major and a handful of NCOs ( a couple of medics who staffed the clinic and a few administrators. - The Major's post has now been down-graded to a Captain.

 

No good trying to bring facts and common sense into an argument. It just spoils it

[Rupert_Baehr]

I wasn't trying to put anybody down.

 

The internet often has inaccurate information and Newspaper articles - in my (albeit jaundiced) view are usually inaccurate.

 

I've no idea why the author of the Guardian article felt that Ascension Island would be of some use if the Americans wanted to carry out attacks on Iran - unless, perhaps, he's not too sure where Iran is.

 

As you said in an earlier post, Harleyman, there does appear to be an increase in isolationism in the US. The US does have treaties with Israel and if Israel was attacked, I've no doubt the US would retaliate in support of those agreements, but if Israel was the aggressor, the US might be somewhat reluctant to get involved.

 

In all the election gibberish I've heard (and I must admit, I ignore most of it) I've heard little or no comment or argument about foreign policy. - Most people seem to be more interested in what the next president's domestic policies will be.

 

It seems that many people think: "We've been involved in foreign wars continuously for over 10 years now. Whatever we do, we're wrong. Perhaps it's time we left the rest of the World to sort out their own policing." I can understand that attitude but I do hope (and expect) that the US will not become markedly isolationist (I can't see a reversion to anything like pre WWll foreign policy - which is just as well, perhaps.)

 

"Go away! - We don't want you interfering in our politics" is one thing (and they just might do it), but "Go away! - We don't want you interfering in our politics, but please leave your money behind and send us some more next week" is unlikely to get a positive response.

 

If Iran was to have a 'hissy fit' - for whatever reason - and was to decide not to export any oil to the US, I don't suppose too many people would be worried. - Particularly as the US doesn't import any oil from Iran. The Saudi's can export oil through the Red Sea, so any attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz wouldn't be as bad as some might think.

 

If Iran was to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, should the US say: "It's not our problem. We do not rely on oil coming through the straits. Let those who need that oil clear the blockade?"

 

If the Iranians did manage to halt much of the flow of oil to the Western World Europe and nobody did anything about it and World Trade was damaged severely, then - although the US would suffer badly - the US could feed itself, could provide most of what it needs from its own resources and could probably buy the rest from its neigbours to the North and to the South and from Eastern countries.

 

It's unlikely to happen. There are embargoes in place against Iran and although they're not in the news every week, they may well be hurting the economy of that country. Eventually, perhaps, the Iranians will decide they need a government which is prepared to work with the rest of the world.