PDA

View Full Version : Israelís Secret Staging Ground



Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Israelís Secret Staging Ground (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/28/israel_s_secret_staging_ground)

U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/88756744resized.jpg


In 2009, the deputy chief of mission of the U.S. embassy in Baku, Donald Lu, sent a cable to the State Department's headquarters in Foggy Bottom titled "Azerbaijan's discreet symbiosis with Israel." The memo, later released by WikiLeaks, quotes Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev as describing his country's relationship with the Jewish state as an iceberg: "nine-tenths of it is below the surface."

Why does it matter? Because Azerbaijan is strategically located on Iran's northern border and, according to several high-level sources I've spoken with inside the U.S. government, Obama administration officials now believe that the "submerged" aspect of the Israeli-Azerbaijani alliance -- the security cooperation between the two countries -- is heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran.

In particular, four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran's northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. "The Israelis have bought an airfield," a senior administration official told me in early February, "and the airfield is called Azerbaijan."

Senior U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly concerned that Israel's military expansion into Azerbaijan complicates U.S. efforts to dampen Israeli-Iranian tensions, according to the sources. Military planners, I was told, must now plan not only for a war scenario that includes the Persian Gulf -- but one that could include the Caucasus. The burgeoning Israel-Azerbaijan relationship has also become a flashpoint in both countries' relationship with Turkey, a regional heavyweight that fears the economic and political fallout of a war with Iran. Turkey's most senior government officials have raised their concerns with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with the Azeris, the sources said.

The Israeli embassy in Washington, the Israel Defense Forces, and the Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, were all contacted for comment on this story but did not respond.

Rockntractor
03-29-2012, 02:43 PM
You have to hate it when a comb over gets away!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/88756744resized.jpg

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 04:20 PM
The Intrigue (http://news.yahoo.com/israelis-suspect-obama-media-leaks-prevent-strike-iran-172438650--abc-news-topstories.html)

Zeus
03-29-2012, 06:14 PM
The Obama admin has pissed off both Iran & Israel. I think the US has pretty much lost any persuasive influence, outside of Checkbook diplomacy in the Iran/Israel situation. It'll take some other country to talk them down. Strange as it may seem I think Turkey may play a hand in any agreement or understanding made.

obx
03-29-2012, 11:09 PM
Wait! Let me get some popcorn. I want to see this. My money is on Israel.

JB
03-30-2012, 06:04 AM
Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?I hope not.

I wouldn't want to be living in Israel right now so I understand their plight but as soon as the first bomb hits Iran soil we'll have $12 gas and no chance for an economic recovery anytime soon.

DumbAss Tanker
03-30-2012, 09:41 AM
The Obama admin has pissed off both Iran & Israel. I think the US has pretty much lost any persuasive influence, outside of Checkbook diplomacy in the Iran/Israel situation. It'll take some other country to talk them down. Strange as it may seem I think Turkey may play a hand in any agreement or understanding made.

Quite true, though Turkey remains kind of a wild card with an unpredictable flux going on between it's Europe-looking side and its Islamist-looking side. I do wonder if the Israelis will see a need for some sort of payback to rap our knuckles for interfering in this matter, I think it's unlikely they would do that if Obama loses but they might well feel a compelled to do it if we choose four more years of Idiocracy.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 09:42 AM
I hope not.

I wouldn't want to be living in Israel right now so I understand their plight but as soon as the first bomb hits Iran soil we'll have $12 gas and no chance for an economic recovery anytime soon.

Which is why it irritates me that pundits and others keep talking about tapping the Strategic Reserve over 3.89 a gallon.

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 10:55 AM
Which is why it irritates me that pundits and others keep talking about tapping the Strategic Reserve over 3.89 a gallon.

And here I was worrying about the impending deaths of millions of people in the Middle East. Glad to see that you have your priorities straight. :rolleyes:

Leaking this information serves to undermine Israel's mission to take out Iran's nukes. It provide early warning to Iran, which has repeatedly declared that it is at war with the United States. If this came out of the State Department, as Ambassador Bolton believes that it did, then the leaker needs to be in the cell next to Bradley Manning.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:57 AM
And here I was worrying about the impending deaths of millions of people in the Middle East. Glad to see that you have your priorities straight. :rolleyes:

Leaking this information serves to undermine Israel's mission to take out Iran's nukes. It provide early warning to Iran, which has repeatedly declared that it is at war with the United States. If this came out of the State Department, as Ambassador Bolton believes that it did, then the leaker needs to be in the cell next to Bradley Manning.

Wouldn't it also serve to give Obama's buddy Vladimir a heads up to exert some pressure on a former part of the USSR to get back in line?

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 10:59 AM
And here I was worrying about the impending deaths of millions of people in the Middle East. Glad to see that you have your priorities straight. :rolleyes:


I was addressing a specific; JB's $12 dollar a gallon scenario.



Leaking this information serves to undermine Israel's mission to take out Iran's nukes. It provide early warning to Iran, which has repeatedly declared that it is at war with the United States. If this came out of the State Department, as Ambassador Bolton believes that it did, then the leaker needs to be in the cell next to Bradley Manning.

I don't give a flying fuck what the Walrus has to say.

Zeus
03-30-2012, 11:07 AM
I hope not.I wouldn't want to be living in Israel right now so I understand their plight but as soon as the first bomb hits Iran soil we'll have $12 gas and no chance for an economic recovery anytime soon.I don't think an Israeli strike on Iran's Nuke facilities will have much impact on world oil supplies/prices. Any strike will be strategic , nuke sites only no oil producing sites. Oh Iran may threaten to withhold but they won't. they need the money. Same for the other ME countries.

Arroyo_Doble
03-30-2012, 11:09 AM
I don't think an Israeli strike on Iran's Nuke facilities will have much impact on world oil supplies/prices. Any strike will be strategic , nuke sites only no oil producing sites. Oh Iran may threaten to withhold but they won't. they need the money. Same for the other ME countries.

I think it is more of an issue of rattling the Market. If that is all that occurs, it would be short lived. If it was a real supply disruption on the level of 1973 or 1979, that might get brutal.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 11:10 AM
I think it is more of an issue of rattling the Market. If that is all that occurs, it would be short lived. If it was a real supply disruption on the level of 1973 or 1979, that might get brutal.

Which would be an absolute non issue if we'd already been drilling and producing on our own soil.

Zeus
03-30-2012, 11:17 AM
Quite true, though Turkey remains kind of a wild card with an unpredictable flux going on between it's Europe-looking side and its Islamist-looking side. I do wonder if the Israelis will see a need for some sort of payback to rap our knuckles for interfering in this matter, I think it's unlikely they would do that if Obama loses but they might well feel a compelled to do it if we choose four more years of Idiocracy.

I don't think Israel will wait until November. Unless Obama threatens to pull out support for their missile shield defense. Even then Israel may by now have things under control,they learn fast. I do believe Israel is rightfully upset with the US at the moment but I don't think they'll exact payback as much as They'll just not cede to US request to stand down this time.

Turkey definitely is a wild card. Europe need ME oil way more than we do so maybe they will exert what little pull they have or throw out some more enticements in their zeal to get Turkey in to the EU .

Zeus
03-30-2012, 11:31 AM
I think it is more of an issue of rattling the Market. If that is all that occurs, it would be short lived. If it was a real supply disruption on the level of 1973 or 1979, that might get brutal.

I'll go with short lived.

Iran's economy is in the crapper, The Mullahs are dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad , he may even be looking for a new job if a strike occurs.

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 01:04 PM
Wouldn't it also serve to give Obama's buddy Vladimir a heads up to exert some pressure on a former part of the USSR to get back in line?

Possibly, but even if that's not the intent, it certainly would work out that way. The interesting thing is that Israel was one of the first countries to recognize the independence of Azerbaijan, and the Azeris have had mutual defense ties with Israel long before this. This is especially interesting in view of Azerbaijan being a Shia-majority state, but one whose religious identity has been suppressed due to the Soviet influence. The Russians haven't really tried to force them back into the fold, so the mullahs haven't had a chance to try to radicalize them, and Iran cannot support them against Russia, so they have nothing to lose by backing Israel.


I was addressing a specific; JB's $12 dollar a gallon scenario.

Yes, and I was addressing your lack of concern for the human cost of the war. Apparently, Israeli casualties aren't on your radar.


I don't give a flying fuck what the Walrus has to say.

I'm sure that you don't care about what the eggmen have to say either, but that doesn't address the content of the comment. It's pretty obvious that the State Department is the source of the leak, but since you won't acknowledge that, let's just say that hypothetically, if someone at Foggy Bottom decided to leak this in order to undermine the Israelis, or worse, to drive a wedge between the US and Israel (worse in the sense that it would be undermining the policies of his/her own country, the one for which that person actually works), wouldn't you like to see the leaker subjected to the full force of the anti-espionage act?


I think it is more of an issue of rattling the Market. If that is all that occurs, it would be short lived. If it was a real supply disruption on the level of 1973 or 1979, that might get brutal.

It depends on how much damage is done. If no oil gets out through the Strait of Hormuz for an extended period, the oil shocks could be nasty. The best possible outcome for the US would be a decisive and effective Israeli strike that not only takes out the nuclear program, but also drives home to the Iranian people that the mullahs are leading them on a reckless course.


I'll go with short lived.

Iran's economy is in the crapper, The Mullahs are dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad , he may even be looking for a new job if a strike occurs.

Ahmedinejad recently had to justify himself to the Iranian parliament, and his responses made him sound like a school kid who was trying to negotiate a grade. It was pathetic, and if the video of that echange gets out, then the mullahs will have no trouble replacing him in the next elections. The real problem is that he was their handpicked candidate the last time around, and the next election will feature a new face, but not a change of direction or ideology. The Iranian people have two choices in leadership: Take it, or take it.

Zeus
03-30-2012, 03:10 PM
Ahmedinejad recently had to justify himself to the Iranian parliament, and his responses made him sound like a school kid who was trying to negotiate a grade. It was pathetic, and if the video of that echange gets out, then the mullahs will have no trouble replacing him in the next elections. The real problem is that he was their handpicked candidate the last time around, and the next election will feature a new face, but not a change of direction or ideology. The Iranian people have two choices in leadership: Take it, or take it.

I don't think the Mullahs are as bat shit crazy as they are portrayed. Ahmadinejad on the other had is so even the mullahs are worried. They both may want the same thing the Mullahs are willing to take it a little slower and under the radar so to speak. The Iranian people have been for years on the cusp of an Uprising they are just Leary of any US support because they got shafted once already.

noonwitch
03-30-2012, 03:25 PM
I'll go with short lived.

Iran's economy is in the crapper, The Mullahs are dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad , he may even be looking for a new job if a strike occurs.


I'm not sure it will be a new job that Ahmadinejad will be looking for. I suspect that his body will be looking for his head.

Odysseus
03-30-2012, 03:35 PM
I don't think the Mullahs are as bat shit crazy as they are portrayed. Ahmadinejad on the other had is so even the mullahs are worried. They both may want the same thing the Mullahs are willing to take it a little slower and under the radar so to speak. The Iranian people have been for years on the cusp of an Uprising they are just Leary of any US support because they got shafted once already.

No, they really are crazy, they're just not idiots. Ahmedinejad turned on them, not the reverse. The mullahs are less popular than he is, which is why Ahmedinejad has been distancing himself from them by (among other things) arguing for softer treatment for young people (If he has his way, the number of lashes for an exposed ankle or stray lock of hair will be substantially reduced, which is reform, of a sort, I guess...). He's pandering to the mass of Iranians who hate the regime, and the mullahs are not amused. Ahmedinejad is an embarrassment to them now, but if he didn't share their ideological outlook, they'd never have allowed him to run for president, much less stolen the election for him.