Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Non-taxi News; How serious is this likely to be?
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14276		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:51 am ]
Post subject:  Non-taxi News; How serious is this likely to be?
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

June 12, 2010

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

Source; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 148555.ece
Author:  skippy41 [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
If it ever happened we could all say goodbye to our jobs as the price of fuel would be astronomical, that's if we could get any
Author:  Nigel [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
skippy41 wrote:
If it ever happened we could all say goodbye to our jobs as the price of fuel would be astronomical, that's if we could get any


£10 a gallon within days.
Author:  bloodnock [ Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
BP wins the prestigious best deep sea drilling company Obama award 2010 :D
Author:  edders23 [ Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Saudi Arabia could make up any shortfall in supply from Iran in fact I would not be at all surprised if if extra sales of their own oil isn't behind their assistance of Israel

I doubt however that the US would allow Israel to carry out such an inflamatory and dangerous attack because they would know full well that that could unite several middle eastern countries in an all out war against israel and that would be the start of WW3
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
edders23 wrote:
I doubt however that the US would allow Israel to carry out such an inflamatory and dangerous attack because they would know full well that that could unite several middle eastern countries in an all out war against israel and that would be the start of WW3

But is the option of nuclear bombs in the hands of the Iranians much better? :?
Author:  edders23 [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
If the Americans believed for one minute that Iran actually has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb I think the troops would have gone in by now. It's very hard for a country like iran to make that kind of technological leap given the embargoes and controls in place

Besides which use of nuclear weapons would probably involve damaging important islamic holy sites which would probably cause a civil war and the overthrow of the government anyway
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
I doubt however that the US would allow Israel to carry out such an inflamatory and dangerous attack because they would know full well that that could unite several middle eastern countries in an all out war against israel and that would be the start of WW3

But is the option of nuclear bombs in the hands of the Iranians much better? :?


the yanks have got em....


north korea too
Author:  Sussex [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
edders23 wrote:
If the Americans believed for one minute that Iran actually has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb I think the troops would have gone in by now.

I think that's not far from the truth.
Author:  bloodnock [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
If the Americans believed for one minute that Iran actually has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb I think the troops would have gone in by now.

I think that's not far from the truth.



The Israelis will have been there long before the americans arrive..

Them Israelis dont mess about with International technicalities.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
bloodnock wrote:
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
If the Americans believed for one minute that Iran actually has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb I think the troops would have gone in by now.

I think that's not far from the truth.

The Israelis will have been there long before the americans arrive..

Them Israelis dont mess about with International technicalities.

And don't you just LOVE 'EM for it !!!!

When you've fired the bullet or launched the missile, you can't bring it back; it ain't on a rubber band!!!
Author:  bloodnock [ Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
bloodnock wrote:
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
If the Americans believed for one minute that Iran actually has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb I think the troops would have gone in by now.

I think that's not far from the truth.

The Israelis will have been there long before the americans arrive..

Them Israelis dont mess about with International technicalities.

And don't you just LOVE 'EM for it !!!!

When you've fired the bullet or launched the missile, you can't bring it back; it ain't on a rubber band!!!


But then again...If you wanted it back you wouldnt fire it in the first place.

Some countries need a bit of a slap down...though its not for me to say which countries that Might be..
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/