Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

Your selective bolding left out some important information.

Like I said, Iran should be watched. They should be engaged in dialogue, and real pressure needs to be brought. Ahmadinejad is wrong about Israel, and he is wrong about the holocaust. His ignorance and attitudes do merit keeping a close eye on, and being prepared.

They aren't conclusive evidence that Iran is building a nuke, or that they will strike Israel.

 

Israel doesn't want to "nuke" Iran. It's going to destroy their facilities. You make it sound like Iran will be a devastated wasteland.

 

If they use atomic weapons, they will be "nuking" Iran. Parse all you want, but it would be the first use of atomics since the United States dropped it's two on Japan to end WWII. There is no valid comparison between the two scenarios. To attempt one is hubris, in my opinion, and exposes the person who thinks this is a reasonable idea as one who thinks as deeply about ramifications as my dog when he takes a leak on a tree. With all due respect.



D&D. Pet your Dog Today.

 

Israel seeks all clear for Iran air strike

By Con Coughlin in Tel Aviv

Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucially important," said the official, who asked not to be named.

"The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled air space. If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

As Iran continues to defy UN demands to stop producing material which could be used to build a nuclear bomb, Israel's military establishment is moving on to a war footing, with preparations now well under way for the Jewish state to launch air strikes against Teheran if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis.

The pace of military planning in Israel has accelerated markedly since the start of this year after Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, provided a stark intelligence assessment that Iran, given the current rate of progress being made on its uranium enrichment programme, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by 2009.

Last week Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he had persuaded Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one of Israel's leading experts on Iran's nuclear programme, to defer his retirement until at least the end of next year.

Mr Olmert has also given overall control of the military aspects of the Iran issue to Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force and a former F-16 fighter pilot.

The international community will increase the pressure on Iran when senior officials from the five permanent of the United Nations Security Council and Germany meet at an emergency summit to be held in London on Monday.

Iran ignored a UN deadline of last Wednesday to halt uranium enrichment. Officials will discuss arms controls and whether to cut back on the $25 billion-worth of export credits which are used by European companies to trade with Iran.

A high-ranking British source said: "There is a debate within the six countries on sanctions and economic measures."

British officials insist that this "incremental" approach of tightening the pressure on Iran is starting to turn opinion within Iran. One source said: "We are on the right track. There is time for diplomacy to take effect."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/24/wiran124.xml

 

If Iran develops the bomb, Israel as a responsibility to attack and destroy Iran's nuclear capability. Iran has threatned the extinction of Israel, it's an act of self-defense and Iran would only have itself to blame.

 

I think what Iran actually want to have is a status like Japan. They will stockpile weapon grade uranium/plutonium. And then announce that they have capability to make bombs but they don't plan to do it. If that's the case, do you think it is justified to attack them?

 

I don't think Iran is without self-defense motivations as well:

On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said: “We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”

Ariel Sharon, Ex-Israeli Prime Minister "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches."

 

Pissed off Arab extremists "Israel may have the matches, but we aren't afraid of fire."

 

leave iran alone. sheesh. the US needs to just leave people alone.

 

Just do it already and let's get this sh*t over with.

(all this talk about Armegeddon, the 12 Iman, the coming of the Messiah,
bullsh*t. Let's pull the trigger and see who's right)

 

That is the sad thing. People only see it as a threat when it comes from the other guy. I think the sad thing is that there is probably some cultural or ethnic bias/ignorance involved.

It is understandable to people when someone they can identify more easily with like Sharon says something like that. They are able to imagine a reasonable context more easily.

When someone who is Persian and perceived as being the enemy says it, then the comments are elevated and there isn't any context. It is a set up for real misunderstanding.

 

From my perspective, I ask how many times has Israel started a war to delete an Islamic state? Then, I ask how many times have Islamic states started wars to delete Israel?

It seems a pretty one sided affair to me, which is why I give Israel more slack in this regard. It has nothing to do with ignorance and racism. The historical record shows a pretty clear dichotomy to me.

 

I think we should cut off Israel and give that region the total war they've wanted for the past 40 years.

Bush claims that we opened a front in terror with Iraq. This war would open a front in Israel.

With $120 barrels per oil, new ideas and plans to switch to alternatives would suddenly appear.

 

Tell Ahmadinejad to apologize for the hijacking the embassy and it's a start. (He denied being involved with the hijacking but was part of the student group that helped plan it, and has stated that he supported the hijacking's aims.)

 

Answer me this: Do you honestly think Iran would nuke Israel if they develop the bomb? Seriously think about it. If no, then Israel nuking Iran to prevent them from developing the bomb would be a much bigger catastrophe than the Iraq invasion. You sound as if the decision is cut and dried, but it isn't. The consequences of such an action are enormous. The Bush-ites who say we had to "play it safe" and assume the worst about Iraq have the same blind spot. One can argue the worst case scenario for Israel is for Iran to get the bomb and use it on them. This is true. But the LIKELIHOOD of this happening must be taken into account along with the consequences of military action.

If Israel strikes Iran, the bullseye on them will grow ten times bigger. Plus, there is also the real possibility the strike would not destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Iran isn't North Korea. They aren't led by a tiny schizo/paranoid regime. Iran thinks of itself as a great nation with a lot to lose (and gain). Inflammatory rhetoric is part of the equation with them. Ahmadinejad's words DO NOT give Israel a carte blanche excuse to take any action they desire. Ahmadinejad is a dying quail who will say anything to cover up his government's incompetence and keep himself in power.

Some of you need to come out of the past. As a nation, Iran has evolved quite a bit since the hostage crisis. How many here remember in July 1988 (8 years after the hostages were freed) the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air flight with 266 passengers? Remember the unforgettable cover of Newsweek? Iran has semi-democracy and has been moving in the right direction for quite some time (with Ahmadinejad being a temporary step backward). It has a loooooong way to go but Americans need to look at them without the prism of the hostage crisis, which happened over 25 years ago. IMO, our reconciliation with Vietnam shows what could happen.

 

If a guy says he is going to kill you and then starts walking to his car to supposedly grab his gun....

Do you try to psychoanalyze him and assume he's bluffing - or do you do something about it?

I'd run. But Israel can't run. So ya got to take pre-emptive action.

A verbal threat from the head of state is enough to take seriously. Israel would be acting in self-defense.

 

It is and has been my assumption that the primary benefit of Iran developing the bomb would be that it would give them deterrence against Israel using their bombs as a deterrent. There has not been a pan-Arab war to destroy Israel since the Israelis developed the bomb right after the Seven Days War in 1973. That does not strike me as a coincidence. Right now anybody who attacks Israel has to worry about the Israelis, unleashing their nuclear weapons on their attacker if the country is about to be overrun.

With their own nuclear weapons, the Iranians could engage in a traditional war with Israel and not worry about the Israelis using their weapons, probably right up until the point where the Israelis wouldn't strategically be in a position to use them anymore and arguably past that point.

Iranian nukes cancel out Israeli nukes, to some degree.

 

A nation that threatnes genoicide isn't evolved. If that nation is about to get nukes, it would be irresponsible to not attack their nuke facilities.

When you threaten a nation, then you are fair game for counter-attack. It doesn't matter if you think Iran will follow-through or not. They made the threat. And that's enough.

Sorry Iran, if you build a nuke, then you will get attacked. That's the price to pay for putting reckless leaders in place who threaten to wipe another nation off the map.

 

I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge Iran has evolved and come a long way from what it used to be. This kind of denial is a big part of the problem. Just think what you want to think and ignore stuff that you don't like. In case you didn't know, we can be thankful that public rhetoric is only a small part of diplomacy. Why? Because it's often for homefront political gain, nothing more.

It's fair to say to Iran: You are in the crosshairs because of your president's public threats. However, it's idiotic and "irresponsible" to carry out military action for the sake of punishing the public rhetoric, even when you know it is unlikely Iran will carry out what was said.

Hopefully sanity will prevail and decisions will be made based on reason, facts and what is best for the U.S. and the world. To be kind, I think you are severely underestimating the political and economic fallout from attacking Iran.

Ottomaton, you make a valid point on the issue of why Iran would want nukes. Another reason is Iran looks at Pakistan and (especially) India and sees how they were legitimized in the eyes of the world because of their nukes. (I'm sure some here will try to dispute this but there is no argument). The entire world, especially the great powers like the U.S, Russia, China & Europe view India and Pakistan in completely different lights now. Iran wants the same respect and believes they won't get it without nukes.

[For the sake of balance: Those of you who believe Iran is pursuing nuclear technology solely for energy need to remove your head from the sand and soak it in water for a while.]

 

You are right the world does view India and Pakistan differently, but not because of their nukes. Pakistan is viewed differently because now it's known to be a hot bed for Islamic extremism - and look at the danger their with fanatics and the bomb. It's already a scary situation - and India should have taken out their facilities when they had the chance.

India is viewed differently because it's growing into a superpower.

Iran hasn't changed. It's still the same fanatical place trapped in a time-warp where women are second class citizens and thinking is seen as the devil's work. It's in the grip of nut-jobs.

And you can't allow nut-jobs to get nukes under any circumstances. Because if they have nukes, and they have threatened to use them, you have to take it seriously. You may think you know, but the truth is no one knows.

And if you are Israel, you've learned the hard way not to take risks. So hey, Iran gets the bomb, and it will get bombed.

Deal with it.