Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

When Iran declares that it's mission is to wipe Israel off the map and Iran is clearly developing weapon's capabilities (let's not pull the wool over anyone's eyes here - of course they will say it's for peaceful purposes ), Israel has a right to prevent being wiped off the map.

Israel shouldn't have to wait to be attacked by Iran. If someone says they are going to kill you, and they start shifting around for "a pen" when you suspect they are looking for a gun...well, are you going to stand there and do nothing? I won't, I'll go defend myself.

 

They can declare that with or without nuclear capabilities. That has nothing to do with whether their nuclear program is for weapons or just nuclear power.

I'm not against Israel defending itself, possibly even pre-emptively if need be. But an idle boast certainly doesn't justify launching a first strike nuclear attack.

 

I have no problem with Israel having defensive plans. Idle and idiotic chit chat about wiping off Israel off the map, however, doesn't warrant a first strike nuclear attack. That isn't defense.

 

Idle?, idiotic,...sure. The problem is the "chit chat" is serious and when coupled with capability lends itself to defensive reactionary planning by Israel...and with more of this:... ''From Sunday morning, we will begin activities at Natanz -- the site of 3,000-centrifuge machines -- and we will drive it with full speed,” said Ahmadinejad’s top nuclear advisor, Ali Larijani, just one day after the UN Security council vote. Accelerating the nuclear program “will be our immediate response to the resolution,'' he said.

Ahmadinejad also warned that the UN action was compelling Iran to accelerate its nuclear development program, and hinted that his regime “will celebrate our atomic achievements in February,” well ahead of earlier boasts of unveiling a nuclear surprise in late March 2007.,...gives credence to possible execution of that planning by Israel...What choice does Israel have then to not conduct all exploratory planning for it's survival?

quote derived from:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26293

 

If the nuclear program isn't for weapons, then who cares? They can get it finished as fast as they want.

What we really need to be working on is finding out for certain if it is just a disguised weapons program or really for nuclear energy. That should be a number one priority in dealing with Iran.

Right now that Iran wants to develop nuclear capacity is no secret. We just need to find out what kind of nuclear capacity they are developing.

In the meantime yes Israel should be planning a defense, and prepared to used should they need to. "need" is the key word.

 

I agree...but given the nature/characterization/statements, connecting the dots lends itself towards that the realization of a disguised weapons program is much more likely a goal than not...All we need now is the F.A.G. to align themselves with this guy to make connecting the dots that much easier...

c'mon!...

 

My apologies to hi-jack this thread for a moment.

Hey Roxran have you ever had any interest in visiting Vietnam, or have you been?

I was doing some research for a trip, and if you go over there, they have a place that will allow you to fire all kinds of weapons(AK-47, M-16, .50 Cal machine gun, BAR, etc.) for $1 a bullet. I think that is a lot cheaper than places offer that here. It might not be worth it if you weren't going over there, but I read that and thought you might enjoy it if you ever take a trip.

 

It's funny that you say that because I was just doing research on Hue City a few minutes ago!...Of course, if the War in Vietnam was a movie, the Tet offensive in late '68 was the turning point...It was a tactical disaster for then North Vietnam, but an unplanned strategic success...Coming back to visitation,...If I did, I would love to visit that city for the significance and the monuments...

 

This is nothing more than a diplomatic dance the Israelis are engaged in with Iran, not to mention their way of putting more pressure on the U.S. and the rest of the world to address the 'Iranian problem'.

The Israelis are pragmatic guys, not crazy...


Israel rejects report it may attack Iran's nuclear program with nuclear weapons

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-israel-iran_x.htm?csp=24

LONDON (AP) — A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israeli pilots were already training to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran's controversial uranium enrichment program.

Israeli officials swiftly denied the report, which comes amid growing global concerns over an Iranian nuclear program that many believe is secretly aimed at developing weapons. Israel has never confirmed it has nuclear weapons itself, although the Jewish state is widely believed to possess a significant stockpile.

Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals drawn up in Israel involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.

The United States and its allies suspect Tehran of secretly trying to produce atomic weapons there — and the issue has taken on redoubled urgency because of Iranian leaders' statements calling for the destruction of Israel, as well as their recent hosting of a conference at which the Holocaust was questioned.

Though Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not explicitly ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, he says the issue should be dealt with diplomatically — and that an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a problem for the entire world, not just Israel.

Some view Israeli officials' occasional implied threats as a means of pressuring the world community to take action itself, building on the recent United Nations Security Council decision to impose some economic sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran claims its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, including generating electricity. Its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned the U.N. move as invalid and illegal.

The Sunday Times reported that Israeli military officials believed Iran could produce enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons within two years.

It reported that Israeli pilots had made flights to the British colony of Gibraltar to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets.

Israeli pilots conducted a similar mission in Iraq in 1981, destroying the country's nuclear facility in a surprise, preventive strike.

But Iran's program is far more difficult to cripple as it is believed to be distributed over many sites and in part deep underground.

Olmert's office would not react to the report. "We don't respond to publications in The Sunday Times," said spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Minister of Strategic Threats, whose portfolio includes dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, also declined to comment, as did the Israeli military.

But Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report, saying Israel wanted "to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council resolution 1737 (on sanctions). If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably."

In an interview last month, Olmert appeared to step back from Israel's longstanding policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons when he listed Israel among countries that possess them. He was criticized in Israel for what many took for a gaffe and his office maintained the comments were misinterpreted.

Some analysts viewed Sunday's report as another element of a delicate diplomatic dance.

"I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say: 'Someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy."'

Former senior intelligence official Ephraim Kam — now of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies — also suggested the report should not be taken literally. "No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times," he said.

 

I guess if he just said they were an "evil empire" destined for the "ash heap of history," and then increased his defense budget to $300 billion, that'd be okay, right? Of course, they treat their women like floor rugs (walk all over them, then beat 'em when they're dirty) and they've never apologized for the embassy thing, so, whatever.

 

I believe they were offered nuclear technology that could not be used for weapons but could be used for power plants and they refused (light water reactor technology IIRC). If their goal were truly to develop only peaceful applications of nuclear technology, why turn down the offer to have it simply handed to them in order to continue developing tech that can be used both for power generation and for weapons?

 

I'm Iranian , and i can assure you, there trying to make the A-bomb. However, i believe through nefotiations and given the mollah's security gurantees, a Military Confrontation can be Avoided. iran is not iraq, iraq has one of the most powerfull Missile programs on the planet. there terrorist Proxies are vast. from South America to Sudan in Africa. they can unleash hell on isreal.

 

best guess this is just a contingency plan...

a preemptive strike on iran is a good plan.... but israel better be ready for a half million man army marching towards them. and if that's the case, our troops in iraq are screwed.

saudi would be screwed too, cause iran would more than likely go for their oil fields in the process.

 

Gosh Religion is so forgiving !

DD

 

Yes they will. iranian F-4's and the new iranian Sadgehe jet fighters will start bombing the Saudi oil fields. iranian missiles( shahab 3's) will target american troops in Kuwait, and Iranian F-14's will start attacking ships in the Persian Gulf. not to mention iran has allready put charged mines in the Gulf. they need to be activated. iran has practised this type of missions over and over again. i know this information first hand. whilst the mol;lah's are unpopular amongst the Armed forces, there Patriotic duties rides everything before all. they have sworn to defend and keep the integrity of there Arian land above all. much like when the loyal shah fighter pilots, army commandos and navy united to fight and kick saddambs armies ass.

 

Manpower is basically meaningless in modern war. The country with the better technology is going to win a war every time. Now, people with worse tech can sit in their home country and make life tough for an occupying force (see Iraq, Afghanistan in the 80's, and Vietnam), but as a conquering army, it is not a big factor anymore. If it was, Israel would have been gone long ago.

This is bad news for Iran if they follow the scenario laid out by blazer_ben, because all of the planes he mentioned are no longer in service (at least as fighters) and would be easy prey for the F-15s used by both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Iran's air force would likely prove no more effective that Iraq's was against the US in the Gulf War (especially if Israel and Saudi Arabia receive C&C help from their American allies). If Iran had an effective air force, they wouldn't need to worry so much about an air strike against their nuclear facilities. Iran's most effective military response would be trying to block what waterways they can control and in doing so hurt the world's oil supply.

 

This specific sentence typifies the problem with your statement. These planes (except perhaps a couple made by cannibalizing the rest) can not get off the ground. They have been out of supply since 1979 and the F-14 is by far the most labor and parts intensive plane the US or any other country has ever made. Thinking that the F-14's could do anything at all indicates exceptionally hopeful forecasting.

The steps which you have indicated with the F-4's would overtly draw the United States in. It would F-4's are old American Junk that we retired 20+ years ago, and even when in service were not that highly thought of. Every F-4 ever made can be shot down by F-18's without the F-4's, even realizing that they were targeted etc. etc. Even the top tier US client states for arms (Saudi Arabia among them) have retired F-4's as hopelessly obsolete.

It goes on and on but the results would not be nearly as strong as you predict. Nobody in the world can beat the United States in 'traditional warfare.' If Iran wants to have hope of victory they would have to limit the US from overt involvement.

Attacking American troops in Kuwait would be even worse. The gloves would be off. Attacking US forces, even in response to an Israeli attack, would galvanize American opinion and it would be open, unlimited war in the traditional sense. Iran would be flattened. I seriously don't mean to exaggerate or sound belligerent, but it would happen.

I believe that Iran could manage to mine the gulf and shut it down without directly involving the US, be even that would be iffy. And retaliating against Iran by the USA would not involve any sort of occupation or other situation which would draw the US into a gorilla war/insurgency. Things would get worse in Iraq, but the US public would look away from that with their short attention spans and increases in violence there wouldn’t increase descent in the US.

Retaliating in the ways you speak would be absolutely the worse move that the Iranians could possibly consider. There is very little to gain, and a great deal to be lost. I doubt anybody in Iran really thinks a traditional war with the United States would be a winning proposition.

This is without even mentioning that attacking Saudi Arabia would help to ruin the 'Muslim vs. the Zionists' image that the Iranians would want to create.

 

The F-14's in Iran are Operational and flying. not all of them, but around 30 to 52 are still mission capebale. Tom Cooper who wrote a book about the F-14's in service during the iran -iraq war. , rescently went to iran and saw and verified this claim. iran during it's reverse engineering program that started during the late 70's during the shahs regin has been able to maintain there f-14's. Iran has made the Old AWG-9 RADAR UP TO FOUR TIMES AS POWERFULL on the Tomcats and Several pounds lighter. Iran has rescently updated it's Pheonix missiles to. iran has also installed MIM-23 Hawk missiles on there F-14's .they have digitalised it's avonics. according to tom cooper, iran had the capabelities to reverse engineer up to 70% of the Tomcat.

Granted the Tomcats can carry only 2 hawk missiles at this point, but there with the help of Ukaranians engineers to inable to carry upto 6 hawk missiles. also instead of Sidewinders, iran is using alamo and archer missiles. according to many us and british pilots along the iran iraq border, they have seen many healthy iranian F-14's patroling there airspace. not to mention, they were loaded with Pheonix and hawk missiles.

 

As for the F-4's, iran has upgraded it's it's radars and Fire control Systems, but they still lack the Sphisticated radars of the f-14's. iran rescently mounted the Phantoms R-33 ans R-37 Missiles.

 

blazer_ben, I appreciate your posts about issues involving Iran. First of all, I'm not a military expert but I can tell you this: If Iran bombed Saudi oil fields, targeted American troops in Kuwait and attacked ships in the Gulf, the consequences would be incredibly severe. The retaliation by the United States would be massive and Iran's entire military infrastructure could be leveled by massive air attacks. I'm sure Iran's leaders know this. Using proxies around the world would be a much smarter response. The last thing Iran wants to do is invite the U.S. Air Force into the country. That would be tragically stupid.

I believe the measures you describe would happen only if Iran was actually invaded by U.S. troops. But that's just my wild guess.