Israel planning a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

Ok. Tell me how are they going to bomb it this time around. The facilities are underground. There is no way to stop them short of a regime change. I doubt Israel can do a regime change there.

 

Your views on Pakistan are correct. It's nukes have only raised the "scare factor" on what would happen if the government fell. A much worse prospect now than without nukes.

India isn't close to being a superpower in any way shape or form. It's a great nation taking it's rightful place in the world. If you don't think the nukes didn't help put India higher in the food chain you don't know anything about global politics. Bush's complete about-face on the nuclear issue with them is positive iron-clad proof. Deny it if you want.

The only time warp that exists are your views on Iran. Go ahead and ignore the last 25+ years about the country, except their worst rhetoric. If you want to stay ignorant, that's your right and privilege. Of course no one can say for certain what would happen if they got nukes, but strong probabilities can be devised. Severe global consequences of an attack must also be examined and they are awful. Assuming the worst when it is improbable is no different than sticking your head in the sand about something. Doing either will yield the worst results.

 

If Iran is going to build nukes underground, then Israel has the technology to deal with that.

Sometimes the best self-defense is a powerful offensive strike.

 

Really? I heard that if it is deep enough, even the best nuclear bunker-buster can't get to that.

 

That technology sure dealt with it in Lebanon, right? Israel dealt a lethal blow (to it's own self-esteem and it's confidence as a nation in the capability and leadership of it's armed forces). Sort of like stabbing yourself in the chest when you meant to hurt someone else.

That line of thinking sure worked wonders for us in Iraq. Let's repeat the same mistake and hope something different happens.

Some define insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Let's hope Israel learns from Lebanon and the U.S. learns from Iraq instead of doing something insane in Iran.

 

I can't believe this thread is still going. The Israelis don't have the will to carry out a "nuclear attack" on Iran, and I highly doubt they will even carry out a conventional one.

Sure, the Israelis are known to be risk-takers, but they are not suicidal (nor are the Iranians).

Wishful thinking on the part of some posters here...this is not a video game, it's the real world.

As for the whole "regime change" idea and how it might bring a halt to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's not going to happen. The Iranian people are overwhelmingly supportive of their nuclear program, so short of installing another 'puppet' regime alas the Shah I highly doubt Iran will halt its nuclear progress to appease the West or the Arabs.

They have already mastered the nuclear cycle, they have the know-how to eventually militarize their program if need be, and I don't think anything short of an all-out invasion and occupation of Iran can stop them; aerial strikes of their nuclear installations will ultimately prove ineffective (they are strategically located underground, spread out across their huge land, and we're not even sure where all of them are; there are probably others unaccounted for). If anything, any attack on Iran is almost guaranteed to accelerate their nuclear program, not bring a halt to it.

 

Bush did broaden our imagination, so I won't blame the wishful thinkers.

I don't think the Israel and Iran are suicidal but the hard reality is that Israel is militarily stronger than Iran and it has US's backing, so it is possible that Israel might consider a strike. It did it on Iraq back in the 80s. Why not now as well?

 

Because Iran is not Iraq of the 1980s, and the Israelis have become painfully aware of that fact in recent years (just ask them, or better yet read their own newspapers and you will get some insight into what the Israeli public/officials are thinking).

Any attempt to compare Iraq to Iran miserably fails and only highlights a general ignorance of the two nations, the "q" and the "n" isn't the only difference between the two; they're not 'interchangeable'. You don't plug in "Iran" instead of "Iraq" and expect a similar outcome.

 

Clearly Israel would consider an attack. It's a contingency that diligence requires them to plan for. The circumstances are so different between now and 1981 that there are lots of reasons why they wouldn't carry out a strike this go round. I'll give you two: (1) The consequences are 100 times more steep, (2) the priceless element of complete surprise is missing this time.

 

Report: 3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran

By Yoav Stern and Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondents

Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Al-Siyasa further reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an Attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack.

According to a British diplomat who spoke to an Al-Siyasa correspondent, Turkey will not repeat the mistake it made in 2003, when it refused to open its airspace to U.S. Air Force overflights en route to attacking Iraq.

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday that Israel is negotiating with the U.S. over permission for an "air corridor" over Iraq, should an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities become necessary.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on Saturday denied the reports and said Israel has no such plans.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=830309&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

 

Iraq is not the same situation. The U.S. action in Iraq was not one of self-defense, it was of nation building - and that's why it utterly failed.

Israel's action in Lebanon was not to eliminate a nuclear threat. It was relatiation.

Neither act was really self-defense. I'm not encouraging war. Just a percision strike to wipe out a nations capacity to carry out it's threat. That's fair game.

The Iranian PM should have thought about that before making threats.

 

Let's not delude ourselves. Might makes right in international politics. That's what "fair game" is all about.

 

The similarities of Iraq and Lebanon to this are one of gross miscalculation, not situation, i.e, Israel over-estimating it's ability and the U.S. using offense as a defense. Both concepts can lead to utter failure. I know the U.S. won't occupy Iran but the consequences of a strike are just as devastating. Whatever the aftermath, Iran will be in a strong position to take retaliatory measures and Israel could very well fail to accomplish their task. "Precision" military strikes are often not so precise. It just isn't that easy, especially when the target makes plans to be hit.

Your "he said it, therefore we have a blank check" viewpoint is nonsense. The decision to strike must be made on probabilities, facts and consequences, NOT punishment. For example, if it was determined there was a 90% chance Iran would use nukes soon after acquiring them, public words of peace from them would be meaningless on a decision to attack. In that case, we would be obligated to strike them anyway.

Your laser focus on "The Iranian PM should have thought about that before making threats" is completely ridiculous. We aren't talking about teaching schoolchildren a lesson. This is war. You would probably fit very well on the Bush foreign policy team, somewhere between Rumsfeld and Cheney.

ymc, might does make right a lot of times. Even more than that, the appearance (or reputation) of might makes more of a difference. As the U.S. and Israel have learned, using military force can reduce your reputation (and self-esteem) in the world because it can show your limitations as well as your capabilities.

 

I'm not advocating a U.S. strike on Iran, the U.S. is only threatneds by Iran spreading nuclear technology to rouge groups.

But Israel is far more threatned. And Iranian first strike would be highly effective, and could completely wipe Israel off the map with Israel having the ability to mount a counter-strike.

Even if the probability is remote - say 0.01% - that's enough for Israel to act. You do not place dice with the fate of one's civilization. You do the sure thing.

 

It's not going to happen, Palestine is right beside Israel, there will never be a strike...anything against Israel will affect the Palestinians just as much.

It's all bullsh*t...if Iran did anything to Israel the world would be in an uproar, the Iranians would be as good as gone as soon as they strike. Therefore making the probability of a stike, nil.

 

The only "sure thing" is that a military strike would have massive fallout for Israel and the world.

ChrisBosh, it's called M.A.D, and Iran does not have a death wish.

 

Well, the majority of Jews are still in US.

 

Iran doesn't not care about Palestine. It cares about destroying Israel.

Also, you'd have to be able to determine whose bomb it belonged to.

I don't think Iran will launch a missle attack, much more likely to be delivered by smuggling it in then detonating it in an Israeli city.

 

What's your point?

That because there's a lot of Jews in the US, Israel should think that it's ok to be nuked? Hmmmmmm....spurious reasoning my friend.

 

That was how I read it. I very rarely am taken aback or disgusted by things that I read on these forums but this did it. The most polite response that I can think of is to say that I'm hoping ymc just wasn't thinking too deeply or wasn't serious when he wrote this.

Genocide is not cool, no mater who it is done to. Every Islamic life, every Christian life, every Jewish life, and every other life has the same sacrosanct intrinsic value. Anybody who thinks otherwise, I would appreciate their opinions here.