Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Israel attack on Iran "unavoidable"


Recommended Posts

I do concede there would be a serious chain reaction much of which can not be predicted and could set off a wide range of terrorist responses and ground wars and a huge negative effect on world markets.

Yep, an attack on Iran would definitely devastate the economy and Iran knows this well. Talk about a conundrum!

I say this even though personally I don't buy into the idea that Iran will nuke Israel if it does acquire nuclear technology. I believe Israel's gripe has more to do with the fact that Israel knows that its actions in the occupied terrorities are ultimately dangerous to its own existence, so they prefer to make sure nobody else in the region becomes too powerful... this way they can continue the expansionist status-quo without any disruption from yappy regional neighbours. In other words, Iran isn't as much of a threat to Israel as Israel just wants to make sure it keeps the upper hand in the neighbourhood in order to go on doing whatever it wants on Palestinian land.

Nonetheless, even though I think Israel is exaggerating the Iranian threat for its own gain, I still hate the idea that the Iranian mullahs and regime are sitting back with their smug grins knowing that nobody is in a position to attack them right now.

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, they are about to get their religious headgear slapped off their heads when Israel bombs the hell out of their country.

BC chick, you don't seem to remember that Israel gave land back to Palestine. If they were taking land I could see your point, but since they are not expanding, your argument holds no water.

Did anyone hear that Bolton commented on this situation and said that Israel would attack Iran before a new president is sworn in. This is looking like a concerted effort to rattle sabers and bring Iran to the negotiating table. A couple of days later, North Korea is taken off the list:

President George W. Bush announced Thursday the United States would lift some trade sanctions on North Korea and remove the communist nation from its terrorism list, a dramatic move that came after Pyongyang provided long-awaited details of its nuclear program.

This appears to be a carrot and stick approach to Iran, showing them the good things that can happen when you negotiate in good faith. Or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel Prodding US to Attack Iran

I just thought I would paste this up there - since it is a rare event that the MSM actually cites the REAL cheerleaders for the war against Iran!! (Same ones who drove for the war in Iraq too).

Want your kids to die for Israel?

Attack Iran!

I would prefer that NO ONE die for either Israel or Iran.

Bring the troops home and stop fu***ng around in other's people's business.

But go ahead and monger the war.

The time is ripe. Isn't it?

I doubt many 'kids' would be dying in this particular one if the US goes ahead. But, there would be some rather lopsided dogfights for a day or two as the Iranian Airforce was put to sleep. Then the surgical stikes would occur until nothing remotely "atomic" was left standing. If the Israelis do it, as the article says, it is unlikely to totally destroy Irans A-Bomb program as it would be a one shot deal. For that you need strategic bombers packing a massive punch which Israel doesn't have. However, Iran has promised to rain down missiles helter skelter...so perhaps then, eh?

Curious, buffy. Do you support Iran's quest for atomic weapons? If so...why? If not...what would you suggest be done to prevent them getting these weapons?

Earlier this year, Iran opened its new space centre which plans on doing orbital launches. Shows you how far their ICBM program has come along since the old days of unguided SCUD type missiles. Once they can place something in orbit...they can drop something on Los Angeles.

---------------------------------

The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time...

---Michael Oren: CBS

Link to post
Share on other sites
And pray tell, what exactly is the strategic benefit of dropping something on Los Angeles? Total annihilation?

The benefit comes with the threat. Having the capability means the capaibilty to blackmail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, an attack on Iran would definitely devastate the economy and Iran knows this well. Talk about a conundrum!

I say this even though personally I don't buy into the idea that Iran will nuke Israel if it does acquire nuclear technology. I believe Israel's gripe has more to do with the fact that Israel knows that its actions in the occupied terrorities are ultimately dangerous to its own existence, so they prefer to make sure nobody else in the region becomes too powerful... this way they can continue the expansionist status-quo without any disruption from yappy regional neighbours. In other words, Iran isn't as much of a threat to Israel as Israel just wants to make sure it keeps the upper hand in the neighbourhood in order to go on doing whatever it wants on Palestinian land.

Nonetheless, even though I think Israel is exaggerating the Iranian threat for its own gain, I still hate the idea that the Iranian mullahs and regime are sitting back with their smug grins knowing that nobody is in a position to attack them right now.

:(

We are on opposite sides of the debate but fair is fair, I can't say I find your above comments unreasonable at all. My minor disagreement with your take would be I would say I don't think Israel wants to do whatever it wants on Palestinian land -I think we are past that and its at a more practical problem where they may have gone in for security reasons back in 1967 but its now evolved to something far different then what it was originally intended to achieve and Israel knows full well it can not do whatever it wants on the West Bank but has a major political problem in deciding how and when and where to pull back to and they know its part of the equation in any over-all meaningful peaceful coexistence settlement with Palestinians. I think you should not be surprised if I tell you if the IDF had there way they would not be in the West Bank at all and do not want to be a quasi police force at all because its not what they were designed to do and have ever wanted to do or feel comfortable doing.

For me I ask this question and maybe its naive. If safeguards were put in place so that Israel could be assured the nuclear technology is being used for legitimate purposes not military ones does it still need to blow up anything? Is it naive to think you could have proper monitors in place so there is no need for pre-emptive strikes? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

See for me the problem is not nuclear plants, it's whether nuclear technology can be used for weapons. I again appreciate Israel's concern over a hostile regime having the ability to nuke it but again I am also a realist. You and I can go on the internet and build a dirty bomb with radioactive fall out. You and I can take some chemicals and wreck havoc on a water supply killing millions. So to think a conventional nuclear attack from a missile is the most likely threat Israel is facing in this day and age just doesn't resonate say the way it would ten years ago for me and I have no doubt the blow up of the nuclear reactor beginning to be built in Syria was a direct message to Iran-a preemptive warning.

I think there is a lot more underlying manouvering going on not just between Iran and Israel but the US, China, Russia, France, Britain, etc., that all of us just won't ever know about and the nuclear sabre rattling is part of very complex elaborate foreplay and posturing in a bigger economic war going on as to oil and energy sources.

Call me a naive fool but I prefer to exhaust all possible diplomatic and peaceful methods of dialogue before blowing something up. Surely Palestinians have just as much to lose as Israelis in any nuclear attack not to mention Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, Saudi Arabians, Egyptians who would all be contaminated from the fall out. I am sure they are all aware of that.

I think what we see is no longer the Israel v.s. hostile Arab nations scenario anymore but in fact a not so subtle alliance between Israel and Sunni Muslim regimes all concerned with Iran's attempts to expand its Shiite version of fundamentalism across the Middle East so what I would also state is its quite possible a lot of Israel's sabre rattling is happening because of not so subtle approval from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabian, Turkey, countries that can't overtly admit they now rely on Israel to protect their countries as well from Iran or the kind of fundamentalist terrorism that is just as much a threat to their governments as it is Israel's.

There are just too many interconnected factors other then just Israeli security at play here that could be influencing and generating the dialogue we hear.

I think BC Chick where I agree with you is that I think Israel,a ll those Sunni Muslim nations I mentioned, Iran, China, France, Russia, the U.S., Japan, etc., are all meddling and manouvering behind the scences trying to do what's strategically best for their own nations' interests. Its the way of the world and part of this global economic war we now see being waged where suddenly India and China have emerged with expanding middle classes and powerful energy appetites causing tension and competition to access and control energy supplies.

In the grand scheme of things, Israel is one piece in a very large web of conflicted and competing networks of power trying to control energy supplies.

I personally believe Israel's piece in the larger web as a player or influence is a hell of a lot smaller then most people give it credit for. In reality Israel's economy is a proxy economy, its totally dependent on the US economy so it does not have the economic clout of China, India, the European Union, the US and Russia to influence what goes on, on the ground.

The riddle really lies not with Iran and Israel but with China, India, Russia, The European Union, the US, Britain and France. They are the major players and countries like Iran, Israel, the Arab League nations, they are just sub-headings of regional power influence predicated by the interests and directions of the above.

You really want peace in the Middle East, who is kidding who, that depends on the US, Russia, India, China and to a lesser extent the European Union and what they are doing to advance their energy agendas.

These conflicts between Iran and Israel relieve tension and avoid the big boys having to battle each other-they can do it instead through localized proxy wars.

Who are we kidding, its all about natural has and oil. That is all its ever been about. No one gives a flying f..ck about Israelis or Palestinians or Muslims in terms of their own needs, its all about getting access to natural gas and oil-if the Israelis, Palestinians, other Arab nations help with that goal, good, if they don't they are expendable.

Now I sound like BC Chick. I have become a raving communist. No I am too old for that. Just a realist. More like Henry Kissinger without any desire to dominate the world.

Hey in an ideal world there would be no weapons, and we would use solar and wind energy and alternative clean fuels and there would be no hunger and people could travel anywhere without having to use a passport.

Oops I better go back on my medication.

In an ideal world no one would have weapons. How we go about disarming the world of course remains the impossible task.

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I sound like BC Chick. I have become a raving communist. No I am too old for that. Just a realist. More like Henry Kissinger without any desire to dominate the world.

I was equally surprised to see how much the two of us are in agreement while reading your post. While I was merely commenting on one aspect of this great big international puzzle - whether or not Iran would nuke Israel if had the means to do so - your post was amazingly over-arching and accurate in its assessment.

Then you go and call yourself a raving communist and say you sound like me! Ouch! :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
And pray tell, what exactly is the strategic benefit of dropping something on Los Angeles? Total annihilation?

What M.Dancer said. Once Iran has the ability to strike a US city, the stakes become that much higher. Suddenly 'Star Warz' missile shields start looking practical no matter the cost. As some general commented, at least with the Russians we knew they didn't want to die...Iran...not so sure with religious nutbars at the helm. Perhaps they view it as a means to an end. You know...they're all going to Heaven...right? Why not speed things up?

--------------------------------------------------

6-Those who disbelieved among the people of the scripture, and the idol worshipers, have incurred the fire of Gehenna forever. They are the worst creatures.

7-Those who believed and led a righteous life are the best creatures.

8-Their reward at their Lord is the gardens of Eden with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever. GOD is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. Such is the reward for those who reverence their Lord.

---Sura 98

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because the capability to blackmail has worked out so well for the United States, obviously it is going to be a runaway success for Iran...

It worked very very well for the USSR. Just ask an east german, a pole, a czech or a hungarian....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharkman

BC chick, you don't seem to remember that Israel gave land back to Palestine. If they were taking land I could see your point, but since they are not expanding, your argument holds no water.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7455231.stm

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Jewish settlement building was having a "negative effect" on efforts to forge a Middle East peace deal.

Ms Rice was referring to Israeli plans to build 1,300 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, an area of the West Bank that Israel considers part of Jerusalem.

------

Israel has been accused of violating a commitment to halt all settlement activity under a 2003 US-backed "road map" peace plan, which also called on the Palestinians to clamp down on militants.

They are still doing it, so rockets are still flying.

Dog

What M.Dancer said. Once Iran has the ability to strike a US city, the stakes become that much higher. Suddenly 'Star Warz' missile shields start looking practical no matter the cost. As some general commented, at least with the Russians we knew they didn't want to die...Iran...not so sure with religious nutbars at the helm. Perhaps they view it as a means to an end. You know...they're all going to Heaven...right? Why not speed things up?

Remember all the hysteria over India and Pakistan having nukes?? Wonder what happened!!?? Eventhough Pakistan and India seem to be rivals, they never tossed a nuke at each other, and yet they have them.

Iran poses no threat to the US. For the fact the US can take them out before they take us out. So you are going to see Iraq-ish tactics for Iran. Sanctions, ect, alienating them. But it is for the rest of the Middle East resources.

Israel has nukes, so it really does not matter who has nukes. North Korea just trashed their nuke facility today. They were more of a threat than Iran. NK actually has nukes, but soon to be deetroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sharkman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7455231.stm

They are still doing it, so rockets are still flying.

Dog

Remember all the hysteria over India and Pakistan having nukes?? Wonder what happened!!?? Eventhough Pakistan and India seem to be rivals, they never tossed a nuke at each other, and yet they have them.

Iran poses no threat to the US. For the fact the US can take them out before they take us out. So you are going to see Iraq-ish tactics for Iran. Sanctions, ect, alienating them. But it is for the rest of the Middle East resources.

Israel has nukes, so it really does not matter who has nukes. North Korea just trashed their nuke facility today. They were more of a threat than Iran. NK actually has nukes, but soon to be deetroyed.

Pakistan and certainly not India are not enemies of the United States of America. However, elements in Pakistan are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons. That's a big for sure, for sure. The two haven't nuked each other...this is true for the moment at least. However, all bets are off if they start fighting again like they did in the past. Pakistan...as I'm sure you already know...is the main source for much of the nuclear technology being spread around the globe today.

As far as Iran not being a threat. When does the situation constitutes a threat to you? Before or after Tel Aviv gets nuked?

:lol::lol:

As for Israel having nukes...we really don't know. You could show me one, I suppose. They are assumed to have the Bomb...though they've never tested this original design which is a problem. Do they even work?

As for anyone having nukes. Do you really understand what one of these things does in a crowd? The more folks that have one...the greater the chance of one being used. It's like having a loaded gun in the house. It has a rather high probability of carrying out its role if you have one. An ever greater chance if you leave it just laying around on the table. Want Sudan to have one? How about Ivory Coast?

NK's nuke was a dud. Probably why you're seeing the co-operation you're seeing now. No sense going to war over a wet ladyfinger. Kim's not so dumb...

------------------------------------------

Future Krusty: What's the difference between Pakistan and a pancake? A pancake has never been nuked by India!

Crowd: Boooo!

Future Krusty: What?? Too soon??

---The Simpsons

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would prefer that NO ONE die for either Israel or Iran.

Bring the troops home and stop fu***ng around in other's people's business.

But go ahead and monger the war.

And in what way is bringing the troops home going to stop the war? The same way that bringing the US troops home prevented an unimaginable bloodbath in both Cambodia (now Democratic Kampuchea) and the former South Viet Nam?

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Iran not being a threat. When does the situation constitutes a threat to you? Before or after Tel Aviv gets nuked?

Iran , economicaly, and militarily is not a threat to Isreal or the US.

As for Israel having nukes...we really don't know. You could show me one, I suppose. They are assumed to have the Bomb...though they've never tested this original design which is a problem. Do they even work?

I would say, Isreal is getting the nukes from the US. The US is a huge supplier of weapons to Israel. The bombs work, because they have already been tested elsewhere.

As for anyone having nukes. Do you really understand what one of these things does in a crowd? The more folks that have one...the greater the chance of one being used. It's like having a loaded gun in the house. It has a rather high probability of carrying out its role if you have one. An ever greater chance if you leave it just laying around on the table. Want Sudan to have one? How about Ivory Coast?

If you want to look at numbers, the US and Russia have the most nukes out of any country. More 'gun's if you will. But none have been fired. And smart people don't just let guns lying around. They sell them to stupid people.

NK's nuke was a dud. Probably why you're seeing the co-operation you're seeing now. No sense going to war over a wet ladyfinger. Kim's not so dumb...

Nukes are not the real or perceived threat anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran , economicaly, and militarily is not a threat to Isreal or the US.

I would say, Isreal is getting the nukes from the US. The US is a huge supplier of weapons to Israel. The bombs work, because they have already been tested elsewhere.

If you want to look at numbers, the US and Russia have the most nukes out of any country. More 'gun's if you will. But none have been fired. And smart people don't just let guns lying around. They sell them to stupid people.

Nukes are not the real or perceived threat anyways.

We had this conversation before and you lost that one. No reason to make yourself look uninformed twice. Both you and Leafless were unable to support any of your claims and both of you made sweeping assumptions about things you both know little about. Care to attempt to prove it now? (loads the ol' Winchester)

-------------------------------------------------

In early 1968, the CIA issued a report concluding that Israel had successfully started production of nuclear weapons. This estimate, however, was based on an informal conversation between Carl Duckett, head of the CIA's Office of Science and Technology, and Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. Teller said that, based on conversations with friends in the Israeli scientific and defense establishment, he had concluded that Israel was capable of building the bomb, and that the CIA should not wait for an Israeli test to make a final assessment because that test would never be carried out.

---FAS.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the propaganda of Iran an a major threat is that most of the " evidence " that they use to try and push the claim can basically be boiled down to, " Iranians are stupid. " Any strategy has has, " Iranians are stupid, " as a premise likely has worse implications than the reality of the problem it is designed to take care of, precisely because it does not engage the reality, it engages a stereotype.

For all the sensationalist talk about Iran nuking Israel, the fact remains that the only country that has unequivocally implied that it would be willing to use nuclear weapons to attack another country is the United States with, " All options are on the table. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
...For all the sensationalist talk about Iran nuking Israel, the fact remains that the only country that has unequivocally implied that it would be willing to use nuclear weapons to attack another country is the United States with, " All options are on the table. "

This is false....France is at least one other nation who has made the same implication.

LONDON, January 22, 2006 (IranMania) - French President Jacques Chirac came under attack in Iran Sunday after warning that France could use nuclear arms against state sponsors of terrorism, with officials in the Islamic republic branding the remark "shameful" and "unacceptable", said AFP.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...rrent%20Affairs

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
All right, so France as well. But importantly, not Iran. Not any of the " bad guys " .

Patently false....Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons several times:

From 2007

Iran’s chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.

or how about....

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles...eats_141201.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hardly call the Ali Larjani quote threatening. Exchange " Ali Larjani " for any other world leader and " Iran " for their country, and you would not find a controversial statement.

The second is obviously more troubling, but let us look at a little more than the tiny selective bit you produced:

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Keep in mind that this is from 2001 when considering the status of their nuclear program.

But it seems to me to be saying the same as the first, " Screw with us and we will seal your fate. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was equally surprised to see how much the two of us are in agreement while reading your post. While I was merely commenting on one aspect of this great big international puzzle - whether or not Iran would nuke Israel if had the means to do so - your post was amazingly over-arching and accurate in its assessment.

Then you go and call yourself a raving communist and say you sound like me! Ouch! :unsure:

I was being self-effacing. No offense meant to you. I am not calling you a commie. Lol. Just making fun of myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
....Keep in mind that this is from 2001 when considering the status of their nuclear program.

But it seems to me to be saying the same as the first, " Screw with us and we will seal your fate. "

My only purpose was to disabuse you of any notion that only the United States has threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hardly call the Ali Larjani quote threatening. Exchange " Ali Larjani " for any other world leader and " Iran " for their country, and you would not find a controversial statement.

The second is obviously more troubling, but let us look at a little more than the tiny selective bit you produced:

Keep in mind that this is from 2001 when considering the status of their nuclear program.

But it seems to me to be saying the same as the first, " Screw with us and we will seal your fate. "

That doesn't seem to be what Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani is saying at all. He seems to be saying: "If we all rush 'em, Israel won't be able to shoot all of us."

The article may be a bit old, however, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani has more power and influence these days...not less. He now sits on the Assembly of Experts which picks Iran's supreme leader. He's also head of the Expediency Discernment Council which coaches said supreme leader. I'd treat his comments as "serious".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Europe resolved a great problem – the problem of the Zionist danger. The Zionists, who constituted a strong political party in Europe, caused much disorder there. Since they had a lot of property and controlled an empire of propaganda, they made the European governments helpless. What Hitler and the German Nazis did to the Jews of Europe at that time was partly due to these circumstances with the Jews. They wanted to expel the Zionists from Europe because they always were a pain in the neck for the governments there. This is how this calamity fell upon the Muslims, especially the Palestinians, and you all know this history, more or less. The first goal was to save Europe from the evil of Zionism, and in this, they have been relatively successful.

---Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is for DOP, who just doesn't seem to believe that Israel has nuclear weapons!

A TELEVISION documentary in which Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minister, discloses for the first time details about Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons is to be broadcast in the Arab world. It is intended, at a time of rising tensions, as a warning.

In the documentary, Mr Peres goes further than any other Israeli official in confirming that the Jewish state has a nuclear capability. He and former French government officials give details about co-operation between Israel and France in launching Israel's nuclear programme.

The film, made by a leading Israeli documentary team, is a sign that the government may be finally relaxing its rule of absolute silence on its nuclear programme. Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the Dimona nuclear facility, is serving an 18-year jail sentence for revealing in 1986 that Israel had a nuclear programme and more than 100 warheads.

The documentary, The Bomb in the Basement: Israel's Nuclear Option, was shown in Israel last month and is being sold to leading Arabic television stations including Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite channel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...