Israeli Attack on Iran Timed Between November and January?
Middle East Times / Olivier Guitta
08-Sep-2008 (8 comments)

That clearly leaves Israel with a potential opportunity to surprise everyone including most importantly the mullahs' regime in Tehran. Taking a contrarian view, the ideal time for a strike would be in the transition period in the United States between Nov. 4 (the election of a new president) and Jan. 20 (his entering office).

But depending on who is elected, the odds are not the same. In fact, if Dem. Sen. Barack Obama wins, the likelihood of an Israeli strike during the transition is significantly higher, maybe up to 70 percent, than if Rep. Sen. John Mc Cain becomes president because of Obama's and Joe Biden's appeasing views on Iran and less favorable to Israel.

In this eventuality, it would make more sense for Israel to strike while the more favorable President George W. Bush is still in office.

>>>
recommended by News Goffer

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Kaveh Nouraee

This is getting comical

by Kaveh Nouraee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:01 AM PDT

Yazdi is reminding me of a family acquaintance.

A functioning alcoholic, he gets polluted on box wine, and once in a while he'll spark up a joint to "enhance" the buzz.

In all honesty, that cheap crap he gets wouldn't even enhance a plate of spaghetti. 

Yazdi, send me an e-mail and I'll introduce the two of you. The two of you can discuss global politics and philosophy over some Chateau Cardboard and the clippings from my lawnmower.


  •  
default

Baloney

by zereshk polo (not verified) on Tue Sep 09, 2008 09:19 AM PDT

This is such baloney. All this talk about attacking Iran or doing this and that to Ahmadinejad (now it's kidnapping him, a while ago it was assassinating him) is provocation. Whoever is spreading this kind of crap is perhaps hoping that they will get the Iranian government or people so mad that they will start dissing Jews.

Hello folks... Iranians weren't born yesterday. As an extremely savvy diplomat and writer, Indian guy, wrote on Asia Times a while ago, Americans don't understand the wily cleverness of Persians: "It's a civilizational thing."


  •  
default

1972 Yazdi,

by Killjoy (not verified) on Mon Sep 08, 2008 07:17 PM PDT

And then the killer mullahs came and completed CIA's mission. They killed, exiled and imprisoned all Mossadegh's friends and followers plus hundreds of thousands of thousands of anti-imperialist members of the opposition forces.

Mr. Yazdi, you know, a story half-told can't be very exciting. Your story isn't even half told.

We have heard or read about CIA-led coup in Iran thousands of times, so please tell us a little bit about the mullahs who came to save Iran from imperialists, too.

And tell us about the great achievements of the mullahs in the past thirty years.


  •  
default

Reply to nonsense stopper

by 1972 Yazdi (not verified) on Mon Sep 08, 2008 05:36 PM PDT

Aryamehr Shahanshah Reza Pahlavi has openly said he opposes a U.S. attack on Iran; however, the Pahlavi clan has a well-established history of relying on Uncle Sam's covert operations to assume and maintain the Peacock Throne. Just to give one example, in 1953 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi told CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt that he owed his throne to God, his people, and to him (the part about his people and God is baloney, of course--unless you consider the CIA-paid rent-a-crowds and gangsters, like Shaban bi Mokh and the Rashidian brothers, to represent God and the Iranian people). Reza the Great knows that he has to oppose such an attack openly (because only a traitor would support it), while supporting it behind the scenes. He has never honestly denounced his father's dictatorship and still consorts with Savakis like Parviz Sabeti.


  •  
default

Yazdi you're wrong

by nonsense stopper (not verified) on Mon Sep 08, 2008 04:05 PM PDT

Reza Pahlavi has said many many times that he is against military attack and sanctions.

you can't clump those two groups up together without sounding utterly ignorant and stupid. They're arch enemies! just because you hate them both doesn't put them on the same side.

you're out of touch!


  •  
default

Rajavists and Pahlavists are desperate for an attack on Iran

by 1972 Yazdi (not verified) on Mon Sep 08, 2008 03:08 PM PDT

The cronies of the Pahlavi regime in Los Angeles and Virginia and the cultists of the Rajavi gang currently hibernating at Camp Ashraf in Iraq (as well as Europe and North America) are desperate for their U.S. and Israeli masters to attack Iran, since they know that such an attack represents their best chance of again sitting in Niavaran Palace and running Evin Prison once more. Many of these so-called oppositionists can be found on Iranian.com writing opinion pieces, posting comments, and linking to articles supporting their views.


  •  
IRANdokht

Dear NG

by IRANdokht on Mon Sep 08, 2008 02:05 PM PDT

It almost sounds like a fear mongering attempt to get more republican votes this election, especially in the section below, it sounds like this guy is trying to scare people off Obama:

But depending on who is elected, the odds are not the same. In fact, if Dem. Sen. Barack Obama wins, the likelihood of an Israeli strike during the transition is significantly higher, maybe up to 70 percent, than if Rep. Sen. John McCain becomes president because of Obama's and Joe Biden's appeasing views on Iran and less favorable to Israel.

In this eventuality, it would make more sense for Israel to strike while the more favorable President George W. Bush is still in office.

I just don't trust these guys and you know it! They'd say anything to get their own man in...

IRANdokht


  •  
Kaveh Nouraee

Highly Unlikely

by Kaveh Nouraee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:06 AM PDT

This should illustrate how unlikely such an act is.

 


  •