AI
Saturday, April 24, 2010 12:14:46 AM
Would the U.S. Shoot Down an Israeli Jet? Top Officer Won’t Say
[PHOTO: The Joint Staff via Flickr [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejointstaff ]]
By Noah Shachtman
April 20, 2010 | 3:07 pm
MORGANTOWN, West Virginia — I’m not going to make a big deal of this, although some dug deep in the trenches of the Middle East debate might. But America’s top military officer wouldn’t rule the possibility today of U.S. forces firing on Israeli jets, if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
In a town hall on the campus of West Virginia University, a young Air Force ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?
Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”
The cadet followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”
Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.
Does this represent a shift in American policy towards Israel? Some signal that the U.S. would stop an Israeli first strike at the final moment? Probably not. I’d guess this is Mullen trying not to wade further into treacherous waters. But it was interesting to hear America’s top military officer decline to knock down the idea that U.S. troops might fire on America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/top-officer-iraq-no-fly-zone-applies-to-israeli-jets/ [with comments]
=====
Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.
[Photo: Specialist Chad J. McNeeley [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejointstaff ]]
By Noah Shachtman
April 18, 2010 | 6:32 pm
NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen [ http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=9 ] told a forum at Columbia University.
“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”
At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html ] that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.
“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.
But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.
“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”
Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.
“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”
But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.
“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that [ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/iran-going-nucl/ ]. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.
When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.
---
See Also:
•Pentagon Scientists Target Iran’s Nuclear Mole Men
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/irans-nuclear-molemen/
•How To: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/how-to-destroy-irans-nuclear-program/
•Iran Going Nuclear? Get Over It, Strategist Says
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/iran-going-nucl/
•Atomic Watchdogs: Iran May Have More Secret Nuke Sites
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/atomic-watchdogs-iran-may-have-more-secret-nuke-sites/
---
Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/mullen-please-for-the-love-of-god-dont-attack-iran/ [with comments]
[PHOTO: The Joint Staff via Flickr [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejointstaff ]]
By Noah Shachtman
April 20, 2010 | 3:07 pm
MORGANTOWN, West Virginia — I’m not going to make a big deal of this, although some dug deep in the trenches of the Middle East debate might. But America’s top military officer wouldn’t rule the possibility today of U.S. forces firing on Israeli jets, if Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
In a town hall on the campus of West Virginia University, a young Air Force ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a “no-fly” zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?
Mullen tried to sidestep the question. “We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,” he said. “I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.”
The cadet followed-up: “Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?”
Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. “Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,” the admiral said.
Does this represent a shift in American policy towards Israel? Some signal that the U.S. would stop an Israeli first strike at the final moment? Probably not. I’d guess this is Mullen trying not to wade further into treacherous waters. But it was interesting to hear America’s top military officer decline to knock down the idea that U.S. troops might fire on America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/top-officer-iraq-no-fly-zone-applies-to-israeli-jets/ [with comments]
=====
Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.
[Photo: Specialist Chad J. McNeeley [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejointstaff ]]
By Noah Shachtman
April 18, 2010 | 6:32 pm
NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.
Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen [ http://www.jcs.mil/biography.aspx?ID=9 ] told a forum at Columbia University.
“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”
At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report [ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html ] that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.
“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.
But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.
“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”
Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.
“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”
But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.
“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that [ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/iran-going-nucl/ ]. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.
When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.
---
See Also:
•Pentagon Scientists Target Iran’s Nuclear Mole Men
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/irans-nuclear-molemen/
•How To: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/how-to-destroy-irans-nuclear-program/
•Iran Going Nuclear? Get Over It, Strategist Says
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/iran-going-nucl/
•Atomic Watchdogs: Iran May Have More Secret Nuke Sites
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/atomic-watchdogs-iran-may-have-more-secret-nuke-sites/
---
Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/mullen-please-for-the-love-of-god-dont-attack-iran/ [with comments]
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
