Israelis Brace Themselves For War With Iran

wsj.com:

The postcard from the Home Front Command that recently arrived in my mailbox looks like an ad from the Ministry of Tourism. A map of Israel is divided by color into six regions, each symbolized by an upbeat drawing: a smiling camel in the Negev desert, a skier in the Golan Heights. In fact, each region signifies the amount of time residents will have to seek shelter from an impending missile attack. If you live along the Gaza border, you have 15 seconds after the siren sounds. Jerusalemites get a full three minutes. But as the regions move farther north, the time drops again, until finally, along the Lebanese and Syrian borders, the color red designates "immediate entry into a shelter." In other words, if you're not already inside a shelter don't bother looking for one.

Read the whole story: wsj.com

Comments

[duxguts]

Israel knows that they have lost the PR battle. Now they start playing the victim again.

[Ergon]

I think WWIII was the war to destabilise Communism, with all sorts of proxy wars and destabilising movements and actions. WWIV, which has already begun, is being fought to destroy Islam, the only force that resists occupation.
There won't be conventional wars but wars on the cheap, with assassinations, color coded 'democratic' movements, fake 'suicide bombers' and assorted separatist movements.
The ultimate goal is to control the resources of Africa, South America, and Central Asia, and the minds of everyone on this planet.
This is Fascism. Except we don't know it.

[tomterif]

What strikes me most, about your simply ludicrous post, here, Ergon, is the absolutely mind-numbed, total MEANINGLESSNESS with which the word "occupation" has become imbued, in the vapidly pompous pronouncements of "true believer" idealogues of the left.

Would I be too presumptuous in inferring, from your breathtaking analysis of what [your stated] World War III "was", that you were and still remain "a fan" of Communism.

As if that utterly disfunctional behemoth hadn't quite worked itself into a position, "for all the good it ever did" to those millions upon millions enslaved by it, over multiple decades, "to topple quite simply, of its' own accord", from within, with "just the slightest pushes from without", without all your cloak and dagger scenarios, or any kind of "World War".

If Communism was so inherently superior to Capitalism, how come Viet Nam, which essentially "defeated" the U.S. in a war, and Red China, which was never defeated in any war, both in effect ended up voluntarily eschewing "Communist" economic systems, in favor of essentially Capitalist ones ?

Where did "Communism" ever succeed, in any verifiable and long term way, such that any "World War III" was necessary to ultimately undermine it ? Russia ? Russia had PLENTY of years in which it could defend itself from outside military incursions, in order to give it's multiple "5 year plans" every chance to succeed.. Did they ever ? No !, the place fell from within.

Cuba ?, a Communist "success story" ? Oh, please !

[travelinghead]

WOW!!! What a crazy day!!!! I`m just a Teamster. Thank God were all safe 2night. At least at my house we are. Time to relax.

[rissole]

If you think Iraq is quietening down, wait till Israel attacks Iran.

[BiBiJan]

Lets get back to the issue, if there is one.

Is there anything wrong with the population of one country discussing when (not if) they will attack another country? Is such a mindset good/bad for that country/re­gion/world­? Is such talk legal? Is WSJ correct to give space to authors such as this, and John Bolton, and various other blow-hards?

And, more importantly, does such warmongering belong at the top of HP's Iran news? Do constant talk of war, attack, and obliteration naturally come to us, or is it pushed on us by HP's editorial choices?

[nexxtep54]

While I'm sure everyone earning money from news would love a new war to report on H. P. generates visitors by making commenting on the news a game whereby you try to collect points (fans) and stir controversy. Of course it's pushed on us. Go to the style section and see how many responses are posted to news items there.

[BiBiJan]

OK. lets get back to talking about war. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ONE.

According to reliable intelligence (my common sense) given the human rights record of Russia, China, Iran, Israel, US, etc. if there were a snowballs chance in hell of not getting badly mauled, one or all of them would have started a war already a 100 times over.

It is not doable for any of them. Period.

Why so much chatter in the media? What media? You call this media?

[wwoody]

Russia and China has sold Iran billions in military equipment, such as submarines, advanced aircraft, tanks, helicopters, and advanced air defense systems, SA-20 missile system, modeled after the U.S. Patriot system. foreign ministry, Sergey V. Lavrov, said that threatening Iran while talks were under way would be “counterpr­oductive.”
Moreover, with Russia and China willing to supply Iran with gasoline, a situation over which the United States has limited leverage, it would seem difficult for the U.S. to enforce any embargo short of military-backed blockade, or a military strike on Iranian nuclear facility by the U.S. or by Israel.No matter how tough the sanctions are, there is always room for American products to find its way into Iran. Most U.S. exports are found in the markets of Tehran, from GE refrigerators to Apple laptops and other items. They are smuggled via the Arabian Gulf States. In addition, the sanctions have restricted U.S. companies from doing business in Iran and opened the door for Russia, Chinese and other European firms to do business in Iran.
We see what they want us to see what on the table,like vintage 84 aircraft with no replacement parts, nuclear program, yet no nuclear bomb in near future. Someone has their head in the sand, if they believe that Iran don't have and nuclear weapon.

[zaknick]

so what? good for them. This is the only way that small countries rights get some respect around here. Enough.

[Americafirst2008]

Sure Israel will start it but American taxpayers will be left with the trillion dollar hangover for the mess that an attack on Iran would cause.

Our young men and women would do the fighting and dying while the settlers and racists count the billions in taxdollars they have come to expect from big dumb brother america.

[tomterif]

Israel is FAMOUS for always "fighting its' own wars", with the blood of its' own men and women, when that tiny country has deemed it absolutely necessary.

Personally, I'd like to see Israel avoid any military conflicts with Iran, if the Israeli powers that be deem it's in any way practical for them to do that, and still remain the sovereign and inviolable nation they are.

But I'll never be so presumptuous to deem that I, or you, are somehow in a better position to decide that than is Israeli political and military leadership, who know it's the blood of their soldiers and citizens on the line, while you fret about your stupid "tax dollars" .

Regarding your postulation what situation'd more likely cause "our young men and women" to have to fight and die, I'd say it'd be MUCH more likely from a wacko Iran, with nukes, giving small nuclear weapons to wacko Islamist terrorist "independent contractors" to plant around the world, than any results of any possible Israeli military attempt at a pre-emptive strike against Iran, comparable to successful [non-nuclear] pre-emptive strikes they did in the past, on "under construction" Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities.

[profco]

The article, from the Wall Street Journal, is by a former member of the Jewish Defense League, now a Fellow of the very right wing Israeli nationalist Shalem Center, funded by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (also the patron of the neoconservative advocacy group Freedom's Watch, which advocates an aggressive US policy on Iran). The piece reproduced here was originally published in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, on an op-ed page that carries only the most right-wing positions. All that aside, the headliner left off a significant part of the original headline: "In tabloid cartoons and dinner conversations, Israelis brace themselves for war with Iran." I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't have been published on HuffPo, just that it be read in the context of the author's and original publisher's hawkish agenda.

[Albert Amato]

I believe if you research the Op-Ed authors in the NY Times or any major newspaper or MSM news outlet you will find something in their political bent to try and negate the essence of the opinion...­..........­..........­.Unless you are extrememly left-wing and then you may adopt the whole point as a mantra.

[BiBiJan]

Now, when Meirsheimer and Walt pointed out a pro-Israel bias in MSM, they got branded anti-Semite. But, you get to shrug off the brazen bias as natural as the air we breath.

[wwoody]

Its obvious Israel feel threaten by Iran. Iran is becoming not only and nuclear powers also militarily power in the region, this gives Israel a reason to be concern. Iran has ambition to develop nuclear weapons which is very alarming and disturbing to Israel. So what would Israel first move be, King pawn moves to king 4, the basic opening move, meaning if Israel go a head and bomb Iran nuclear plants with out American help, the international community would come down hard on Israel. Iran would answer with King pawn move to kings four. Meaning launching missile into Israel, attacking our troops in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and blocking the Straits of Hormuz, and drying up the world demand for oil. We know what the middle game would look like....( higher price for oil, higher price for food, etc....everything would cost more.Our own economy would collapses from the weight starting a depression, bypassing the recession again ). The question still remain, the end game, who would win?. who would be left to tell them that they won.

[MajorKong]

Iran has a military budget roughly equal to Norway or Mexico and most of us don't cringe in fear of the Norwegian military juggernaut.

Their Air Force has 84 aircraft, mostly 1970s vintage, compared to 1200+ in the IAF.

Other than their missile force, which is pretty decent, they're hardly a hulking behemoth capable of regional domination. They can cause trouble, but they can't really project power.

[CigarGod]

Being 4 times the size of California and 70% rural are pretty decent defense assets.

[BKFactor]

I hate (yep hate) my neighbors. They drive into their driveway with the stereo blasting at 2 in the morning.
They have house parties that go on for hours ... stereo blasting. When I call them and ask them to turn the stereo down, they will for awhile; however, a month later they are back at it. I asked the police to intervene and they've asked the mother to be a considerate neighbor. They've often awakened me out of a deep sleep with their noise. They are rude, inconsiderate and have destroyed my property.

When they first moved in, I was nice to them. I even plowed their driveway in winter.

Their kids destroyed my fence; however, I'm the one that had to pay money to have it fixed. Couldn't prove they did it even though I saw them lean on my fence over and over again.

I wish they would disappear off the face of the earth. I tell all my friends I wish they would disappear off the face of the earth.

They now know I can't stand them. Would they be justified coming into my home guns blazing because I can't stand them and want them to disappear off the face of the earth? I'd never attack them, but hey, I wouldn't shed not one tear if I came home one day and they were gone.

Get my point?

[omobob]

If the Israelis are bracing for war then they know who will start it. Israel. Nukes are a defensive weapon, not offensive. Sure the rhetoric from Iran is war mongering but with NO bite, they know it. When was the last one dropped in anger. Why haven’t they been used since? Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. The Iranians want what Israel has. Nuclear immunity from a first strike.

[billw8017]

How exactly is Israel to attack Iran? Even a bombing raid must cross at least one Arab nation, an act of war not only against Iran but Iraq and Syria or Turkey. Turkey, of course, is a NATO ally. Bombing Algeria meant flying over the Mediterranean Sea, but the ocean routes to Iran are more awkward.

[JaneQCitizen]

Well, that's what you get when you antagonize your neighbors, hmmm?

Truth be told, I don't have sympathy for either side. Both are brainwashed, religious zealots. Let them go at one another, but keep the US out of it.

[mergina]

More death and destruction. Why? Religion? Just plain hate? No value for human life? Why?

[SangZe]

Tis the will of god.

[BlackLight]

If Israel can have nooks, everyone should have nooks.

[Albert Amato]

My, what a brilliant statement in the step toward peace in the world!

[Tony Andrews]

Another one would be Netanyahu addressing the United Nations General Assembly with the words:

"We, in Israel, have had nuclear weapons for years and the whole world knows it. We now feel that the least we can do, to fall into line with the international community, is to cordially invite inspectors to examine our nuclear facilities and stockpiles, as an immediate precursor to our signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty".

Alternatively, another brilliant statement in that same body, would be from the representative of the United States saying:

"We have consulted with all states that have nuclear weapons and regretfully announce that, if Israel fails to open its nuclear facilities and stockpiles to inspection within the next month, the response will be the immediate withdrawal of all aid programmes, the introduction of strictly enforced sanctions, an international embargo on Israeli produced products and supplies to that country, and a strongly maintained blockade of all land, sea and air connections".

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.