Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran

[Art]

The BBC has added it's voice to the mounting speculation that Bush and Olmert may be planning an attack on Iran before the end of their terms of office.

Analysis: Growing talk of Iran attack

The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, looks at increasing speculation that Iran may come under attack because of its nuclear programme.
snip
The speculation is that President George W Bush and Prime Minister Olmert want to remove what they believe is a clear and present danger before they face their own political oblivion.

Mr Bush is finishing his time at the White House still dogged by the disaster of Iraq - and Mr Olmert faces disgrace over allegations of corruption.
snip
One scenario being discussed by Israeli analysts is that there could be an attack, by Israel or by the Americans, after the US election in November and before the new president is inaugurated in January, with the tacit consent of the incoming president.

That might be easier if it is Senator Obama's Republican rival John McCain.

During the campaign for his party's nomination, he once sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beachboys' classic Barbara Ann.

In a less jocular moment, he said that the only thing worse than attacking Iran would be to allow it to have nuclear weapons.

Some pro-Israeli US analysts are arguing that Iran's response to an attack would not be as harsh as many have predicted.
The full article is available here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7439431.stm

What do people here think? Will the US and/or Israel attack Iran before the end of Bush's term in office?

[mheslep]

...That might be easier if it is Senator Obama's Republican rival John McCain.
Hardly.
We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.
...
[Iran's] president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

What do people here think? Will the US and/or Israel attack Iran before the end of Bush's term in office?Maybe sometime into an Obama Presidency based on these statements, not before.

[vociferous]

Israel can do whatever it wants, but it does not have the military power to launch more than an air skirmish against Iran.

A real military campaign, aerial or ground would require the military power of the United States. The constitution is pretty explicit about the war powers being reserved to congress. Simply put, constitutionally, Bush cannot legally launch a significant air or ground strike against Iran without congressional approval, which is unlikely to be forthcoming.

Iran has been interfering with the internal affairs of Iraq, especially in the Shi'ite south for some time now in order to promote what they believe are their national interests. A limited strike against certain Iranian forces might be doable, but the consequences of the use of significant military power against Iran is going to lead to them retaliating by redoubling their efforts to destabilize Iraq, something that coalition forces absolutely cannot afford right now, as things are barely under control in the country as it is.

[quadraphonics]

but the consequences of the use of significant military power against Iran is going to lead to them retaliating by redoubling their efforts to destabilize Iraq,

I'm not so sure about that. A destabilized Iraq is not really in Iran's interest, given the border they share and various other regional issues. Although, if we replace the word "destablize" by "subvert American plans in," then that's a different story.

[mheslep]

There are millions more Shia in Iraq, 60%+ of the population. I would have to see a good argument as why Iran's default policy would not be to just annex the heavily Shia parts of Iraq. At least in the Mullah's minds, I would think this likely.

[g33kski11z]

I voted "no" because I think war is bad. :smile:

But, Israel can take care of its self and if they feel that there is an immanent threat from Iran, they have the capability to take care of it. With or without US approval/help.

[russ_watters]

What do people here think? Will the US and/or Israel attack Iran before the end of Bush's term in office? Well, at least we won't have to wait until 2012 for this one to die.

[Evo]

If what Obama says can be believed, if he's elected , Iran will conform immediately or they are toast.

[vociferous]

I'm not so sure about that. A destabilized Iraq is not really in Iran's interest, given the border they share and various other regional issues. Although, if we replace the word "destablize" by "subvert American plans in," then that's a different story.

What Iran is interested in is an Iranian puppet government in Iraq. They are not interested in a democracy, like that which exists there now.

When coalition troops withdraw, they need to leave behind a stable Iraqi democracy, otherwise it will fail, the Sunni and Shi'ite factions will engage in a civil war, with the Shi'ites supported by Iran, and the Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

At the end of the day, the Ayatollah would probably rather see a destabilized, impotent Iraq engaged in an endless civil war than a stable, united, democratic Iraq. It is simple logic; there are more Shi'ites than Sunni Arabs, so Iranian-supported factions would have an upper hand in a civil war, and so long as Sunni Arabs in Iraq are fighting Shi'ite Arabs, they are no threat to Iran itself.

One important factor to remember is that there is still a lot of resentment and fear about Iraq, a country that fought them in a long, bloody war with plenty of ruthless violations of international law.

[vociferous]

There are millions more Shia in Iraq, 60%+ of the population. I would have to see a good argument as why Iran's default policy would not be to just annex the heavily Shia parts of Iraq. At least in the Mullah's minds, I would think this likely.

Because, it will never work so long as Iraq has a sovereign central government, and, if and when the government falls, Iran will not simply be able to send its troops waltzing into Southern Iraq. The Sunni Arab states will make sure of that. The last thing that they want is Iran to expand its influence and territory, not to mention that US and British forces could pound Iranian troops to dust from the air before they reached the border.

A direct annexation of Iraqi territory is pretty unlikely. The Iranian religious leaders may be bold, but they are not stupid. They can reap more rewards simply by supply indirect support to friendly Shi'ite factions and militias.

[DrClapeyron]

bomb bomb iran, now that is legit. elect mccain.

[Evo]

Obama is very clear on Iran.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists.

Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

(APPLAUSE)

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew in 2002 that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran proposed a great threat to Israel.

But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq.

When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran. The hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Senator McCain, and I look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ.

Senator McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternative reality, one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels.

The truth is the opposite: Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium, and it has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats towards Israel have increased.

Those are the facts. And they cannot be denied. And I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Senator McCain and others offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to Iran.

I reject this logic, because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran; it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a policy for victory.

I have proposed a responsible phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything.

(APPLAUSE)

That starts with aggressive, principled, tough diplomacy, without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.

We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We have tried limited, piecemeal talks, while we outsourced the sustained work to our European allies. It has not worked. It is time for the United States to lead.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, there will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, especially Israel, and evaluate the potential for progress.

And contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States.

That is my position. I want it to be absolutely clear.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy, and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy, backed by real leverage, was a fundamental tool of statecraft.

And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice: If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, your support for terror, and your threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives, including the lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause.

If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. And that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China, as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council.

And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the gulf states to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime, from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who Quds Forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

(APPLAUSE)

I was interested to see Senator McCain propose divestment as a source of leverage, not the bigoted divestment that has sought to punish Israeli scientists and academics, but divestment targeted at the Iranian regime. It's a good concept, but not a new one.

I introduced legislation over a year ago that would encourage states and the private sector to divest from companies that do business in Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

This bill has bipartisan support. This bill has bipartisan support. But for reasons that I'll let him explain, Senator McCain never signed on. Meanwhile, an anonymous senator is blocking the bill.

It is time to pass this into law so that we can tighten the squeeze on the Iranian regime. We should pursue also unilateral sanctions that target Iranian banks and Iranian assets.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we want real leverage over Iran, we must free ourselves from the tyranny of oil.

We should work -- we should work with Israel, increasing scientific collaboration and joint research and development. The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04text-obama-aipac.html?pagewanted=6&_r=2&sq=aipac&st=nyt&scp=3

[vanesch]

I really wonder what is the problem with Iran developing a nuclear weapon. I will of course agree that from *my* PoV, I would prefer them not to. However, if I were an Iranian, I would prefer my country to have them, I think. It would give a more secure feeling, in a world that looks upon my country in a very negative way.
I don't think Iran having nuclear weapons is an unsurmountable threat to anyone, except to those who are planning to *invade* Iran. I think the Cold War has shown us that no country possessing nuclear weapons dares to use them from the moment that the other side also has some. So let us assume for the moment that has happened what will inevitably happen one day: Iran has nukes. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that if that's what they *really* want, nobody will be able to stop them. One can slow them down, or one can try to make them change their minds. But if they don't decide themselves to change their minds, then inevitably one day they will have nuclear weapons. So let us imagine that yesterday, Iran exploded its first nuclear weapon in a test. So what ?

The only target they might really want to hit is Israel, but Israel has enough retaliatory power to rubble Iran too. So contrary to the strong words of M. Ahmadinejad, I don't think he will push the button, as he knows that he might indeed destroy Israel, but he will also destroy Iran, entirely, on the same occasion. So I bet anything you want that he won't push the button. Giving a nuke to a terrorist group is equivalent to pushing on the button, so that won't happen either.

So even if Iran has nukes, it won't do anything with them. It will only be a guarantee for them not to suffer a major invasion, that's all. That's all nukes are good for. They are impossible arms to use as offensive weapons by a nation, only as ultimately defensive weapons. MAD works. If Iraq had had nuclear weapons, the US wouldn't have invaded them, and that would have been better for everyone.

[Alfi]

So I bet anything you want that he won't push the button. you bet with other peoples lives?

I would prefer my country to have them, I think. It would give a more secure feeling, in a world that looks upon my country in a very negative way. I would prefer, and it would make me feel more secure, if no country waisted any more money on atomic weapons.

[turbo-1]

I would prefer that nobody have nukes, and would be thrilled to see cooperative, verifiable nuclear disarmament. Absent that, the best reason to have nukes is deterrence against attack.

Israel is believed to have about 150 nukes and they are acting as if it would be the end of the world if Iran built one. That is unrealistic in the extreme, because Israel could flatten Iran like a bug.

[Alfi]

One EMP would render most of the high tech weapons and systems to the blue screen of death.

So could one really big mass ejection by the sun for that matter. ( hehe pun ) .... it's a weakness in high tech warfare and a weakness to rely on it too much.

The mutual assured destruction defense is mad-ness

[jimmysnyder]

I voted no. However, the threat is often more effective than the execution. I can just hear Bush now.

We're going into Iran to look for WMD. This time I'm telling the truth. The Iranian people will greet us as liberators. This time I'm not just making it up. The mission will be accomplished in a few weeks. This time I really mean it.

[vanesch]

The mutual assured destruction defense is mad-ness

Sure, I agree. But it is madness that works :smile: Or at least, that has shown to work at least once.

I would also prefer everybody living peaceful one next to another, but humanity has a bad record for that. And I really wonder whether, if there hadn't been any nukes, Western Europe wouldn't have been invaded by the Soviet block during the Cold War. I know that it is just opinion and can be discussed, but I tend to believe that nukes was what made the Cold war "cold". Of course with a non-negligible risk factor of blowing everything up.

So, again, me too I would prefer not there to have to be these terrible weapons. But if they can change real conflicts with real casualties into just threats and some fear, then we won something. Again, I don't mind too much any *nation* to have a few nukes. Terrorists, that's something else. But nations, no. They will not use it.

[Gokul43201]

I voted "no" because I think war is bad. :smile:The poll question was "Will the US...?", not "Should the US...?"

Looks like you've answered the wrong question.

[Astronuc]

I voted No. It's not practical. The US military is overextended as it is.

Politically, it would hurt McCain and the Republicans.

Economically, it would hurt the US economy, which isn't doing so hot lately.

Congress wouldn't approve it.

[turbo-1]

I voted No. It's not practical. The US military is overextended as it is.

Politically, it would hurt McCain and the Republicans.

Economically, it would hurt the US economy, which isn't doing so hot lately.

Congress wouldn't approve it.I hope you're right. Of course, the US Congress cannot tell Israel what to do, and if Israel wants to launch a preemptive attack on Iran in the hopes of embroiling our carrier groups in the conflict we cannot control that. It is highly unlikely that Iran would absorb such an attack without engaging in hostilities against the carrier groups, and the neo-cons could characterize any US response as "self defense" and start a pretty hot war without any input from congress. The US news media is supine and the public has a tendency to wave flags and buy yellow ribbons when the war-mongers strike, so I don't think we're out of the woods based on what rational people like you or I might do.

[seycyrus]

I voted no. I believe the U.S. is not strategically deployed to attack Iran at the moment.

I also believe that Israel has sufficient force and intelligence (of the CIA kind) to strategically bomb select targets to postpone Iran's development of nuclear weapons, for "another 6 months" for an indefinite amount of time.

I do not believe that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The mere act of ownership opens up a whole new avenue of options for Iran. They have pledged to destroy Israel. The only thing that has stopped them until now is fear of retaliation.

If they possessed a nuclear weapon, they could greatly increase their support of attacks against Israel and/or directly attack Irael themselves. If we were to interfere, then the US would be the one that would have to fear retaliation, of the nuclear kind.

[g33kski11z]

Looks like you've answered the wrong question.
Questions was; Will the US and/or Israel attack Iran this year? I said No... am I missing something?? If Israel wants to attack (and feels like they have good reason to do so) I feel they would. But I hope it will not happen.

[seycyrus]

...
embroiling our carrier groups in the conflict we cannot control that. It is highly unlikely that Iran would absorb such an attack without engaging in hostilities against the carrier groups, and the neo-cons could characterize any US response as "self defense" and start a pretty hot war without any input from congress.

So, in your opinion, given the scenario you just depicted. Iran should just be allowed to attack our carrier groups without reprisal?

Thank God for the Neo-cons!

[turbo-1]

So, in your opinion, given the scenario you just depicted. Iran should just be allowed to attack our carrier groups without reprisal?

Thank God for the Neo-cons!Please stop attributing ignorant ideas to me. I never said that and you know it. If Iran attacks any members of our carrier groups, they will be counter-attacked. That's what the military does. The wild card is if Israel wants to trigger such a confrontation.

[seycyrus]

Please stop attributing ignorant ideas to me. I never said that and you know it. If Iran attacks any members of our carrier groups, they will be counter-attacked. That's what the military does. The wild card is if Israel wants to trigger such a confrontation.

Look, you set up the scneanrio. You ridiculed the idea in such a way as to suggest that such a response would be "war mongering"

And by the way, Israel wouldn't *want* to trigger such a confrontation.

Israel would attack because it want's to stop Iran from doing what Iran has said time, and time, and time again what it wants to do *Wipe Israel off the map*.

[turbo-1]

Please don't read your preconceptions into what I write and attribute ignorant ideas to me. In this scenario the war-mongers would be Israel's hard-liners. With the US Navy at their back, they know they can strike with impunity, and that's a dangerous situation.

If you would like to discuss the probability raised in the OP, fine. I refuse to be drawn into an argument in which you twist and mis-characterize my every post. Enough.

[seycyrus]

Please don't read your preconceptions into what I write and attribute ignorant ideas to me.

I did not.


...the neo-cons could characterize any US response as "self defense"...


What exactly are those quotation marks meant to signify?



If you would like to discuss the probability raised in the OP, fine.


I already did so.


I refuse to be drawn into an argument in which you twist and mis-characterize my every post. Enough.

And I refuse to sit back and watch *every* single aspect of every discussion turn into a rambling anti Neo-con session.

Israel has got *PLENTY* of reasons to stop Iran from devoloping nuclear weapons without any sort of evil neo-con plot.

To just throw it down for every single thing just indicates a lack of situational awareness.

[mheslep]

...So, again, me too I would prefer not there to have to be these terrible weapons. But if they can change real conflicts with real casualties into just threats and some fear, then we won something. Again, I don't mind too much any *nation* to have a few nukes. Terrorists, that's something else. But nations, no. They will not use it.Comparing Iran / Israel to the cold war rather poor analogy. Iran is not the Soviet Union. They do not completely behave as a nation-state, they still behave in part as a revolution in progress. A nation state has defined, limited goals and can be readily negotiated with; Iran is at least in part something else:
Ruling Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani declared Friday that the Muslim world could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel - while accomplishing the goal of obliterating the Jewish state.

"[The] application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," Hashemi-Rafsanjani said, in quotes picked up by the Iran Press Service
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml
With regards to third parties, Iran blatantly sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon w/ cash, arms, and training. What is to stop them from likewise supplying Hezbollah or some other non-state actor w/ a weapon?
Then of course the geographical reality of MAD ala the cold war doesn't remotely apply to Iran / Israel. Iran very well could destroy Israel entirely w/ a first strike of 10 weapons not to mention its ability to strike back. Israel can not afford a guaranteed retaliatory arsenal via a massive nuclear submarine missile fleet, nor a 24/7 always in the air bomber fleet, nor a 24/7 satellite launch coverage, and certainly has no 5000 mile flight distance to give it a few minutes to prepare. No, this situation would be nothing like Cold War MAD, on the contrary it would likely force Israel into first strike move.

Finally, Iran and Israel are very likely not going to be the only players. The other Sunni Arab states are going to want to match Iran, especially Saudi Arabia who can afford to do it.

I believe Iran most likely can be dissuaded diplomatically and/or through sanctions from getting a nuclear weapon, but it also can be stopped by force if necessary.

[lisab]

And I refuse to sit back and watch *every* single aspect of every discussion turn into a rambling anti Neo-con session.



Discussions go where discussions go. Unless you're the OP or a moderator, there's not a lot you can do about it.

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, the inapplicability of the MAD paradigm is a good point. In order for MAD to operate, both sides need to have so developed a nuclear capability that they could not be reliably destroyed in a first strike. These days, that requires nuclear attack subs, if not a full panopoly of mobile launchers, bomber planes and hardened silos. There is no chance of Iran getting to that point in the foreseeable future.

Along those lines, scholars have recently pointed out that the decay of Russia's nuclear arsenal is creating a global nuclear posture of US primacy. I.e., the United States could reasonably expect to destroy the retaliatory capability of any other nuclear power in a first strike. MAD, it seems, is over with.

[turbo-1]

That's key. "Mutually assured" does not apply to some country who might like to eventually get nukes, and a country like Israel that has probably 150 of them already, plus the required delivery systems.

[chemisttree]

Obama the Neo-Con! Ha!

There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran.
The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.
And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime - from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.
Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

Sorry Seycyrus, I just couldn't resist.

[seycyrus]

Discussions go where discussions go. Unless you're the OP or a moderator, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Excuse me?

I can do exactly what I said I was going to do about it. *Not sit back*

[russ_watters]

Israel is believed to have about 150 nukes and they are acting as if it would be the end of the world if Iran built one. That is unrealistic in the extreme, because Israel could flatten Iran like a bug. Well, there is the slight issue of Iran's intentions for the people of Israel. The situations are not exactly mirror images of each other.

[russ_watters]

However, the threat is often more effective than the execution. Yes. It is just plain incorrect foreign policy to take the threat of force off the table. Obama knows this, which is why he doesn't do it.

[Evo]

And I refuse to sit back and watch *every* single aspect of every discussion turn into a rambling anti Neo-con session.


Discussions go where discussions go. Unless you're the OP or a moderator, there's not a lot you can do about it.And something is going to be done about it. We will be raising the level of maturity of discussions here to an adult level. No more hysterics, no more name calling, no more hate mongering.

I am working on a new sticky on what is acceptable here. In the mean time I advise all posters to keep discussions civil and adult.

[turbo-1]

And something is going to be done about it. We will be raising the level of maturity of discussions here to an adult level. No more hysterics, no more name calling, no more hate mongering.

I am working on a new sticky on what is acceptable here. In the mean time I advise all posters to keep discussions civil and adult.Thanks, Evo.

[OmCheeto]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Tsu. I only quoted your post because I would like to see you at the OCF this year.

As far as this thread goes.... I've had this argument at another website:
http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=939&highlight=iran

I have to out myself.... I'm the Crackpot..........

Anything that we can do to keep us from attacking Iran would, in my opinion, save this world from a whole lot of grief.

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

[lisab]

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

It EXTREMELY pains me to think we may bomb Iran. I had so many friends from college who were Iranian. They were always smart, generous, well-read, funny.

[Tsu]

Tsu. I only quoted your post because I would like to see you at the OCF this year.

As far as this thread goes.... I've had this argument at another website:
http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=939&highlight=iran

I have to out myself.... I'm the Crackpot..........

Anything that we can do to keep us from attacking Iran would, in my opinion, save this world from a whole lot of grief.

Iran and the USofA need to start talking, and it should not be in the language of bombs.

OmCheeto, I go to the Oregon Country Fair EVERY year!! :biggrin:
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/


In fact, I'll be there while you are at your OCF (Obsessive Compulsion Foundation?) meeting, and, trust me, I'll be having LOTS more fun than you. :rofl:

I agree with you about the US and Iran needing to start talking. Vote Obama.

[mathwonk]

even i am not that cynical.

[OmCheeto]

OmCheeto, I go to the Oregon Country Fair EVERY year!! :biggrin:
http://www.oregoncountryfair.org/


In fact, I'll be there while you are at your OCF (Obsessive Compulsion Foundation?) meeting, and, trust me, I'll be having LOTS more fun than you. :rofl:

I agree with you about the US and Iran needing to start talking. Vote Obama.

Uh uh..... I just went back and found the first picture taken of me at the OCF. I always thought it was one of my best pictures. But I did a 90' rotation and see now that I was completely out of my mind that evening. My friends will confirm that I never remember anything from the fair, and therefore, by the definition of the 60's, I've been to the fair, and you haven't. I think..... errr... Go Obama!!!!!!! Sho Ma Chatori!!!!!

[Tsu]

Uh uh..... I just went back and found the first picture taken of me at the OCF. I always thought it was one of my best pictures. But I did a 90' rotation and see now that I was completely out of my mind that evening. My friends will confirm that I never remember anything from the fair, and therefore, by the definition of the 60's, I've been to the fair, and you haven't. I think..... errr... Go Obama!!!!!!! Sho Ma Chatori!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Hey, I said I GO to the fair every year. I NEVER said I REMEMBER it!! :biggrin:

p.s. OMG!! Was that YOU in that picture??? I always wondered who that out-of-his-mind-guy was... :biggrin:

[Cyrus]

It EXTREMELY pains me to think we may bomb Iran. I had so many friends from college who were Iranian. They were always smart, generous, well-read, funny.

But, what do they have to do with the government of Iran? I'm Iranian and I dont trust the gov. of Iran with a nuclear anything.

[vanesch]

Comparing Iran / Israel to the cold war rather poor analogy. Iran is not the Soviet Union. They do not completely behave as a nation-state, they still behave in part as a revolution in progress. A nation state has defined, limited goals and can be readily negotiated with; Iran is at least in part something else:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/14/10132.shtml


That's bully talk, one shouldn't take it seriously. That's like way back, Saddam giving bully talk. One shouldn't believe all that. The Iranians want power and influence, they don't want smoking smoldering cities. Certainly the guys on top.


With regards to third parties, Iran blatantly sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon w/ cash, arms, and training. What is to stop them from likewise supplying Hezbollah or some other non-state actor w/ a weapon?


Well, the former soviet union and the Chinese also sponsored certain terrorist organisations. But they didn't distribute nukes.



Then of course the geographical reality of MAD ala the cold war doesn't remotely apply to Iran / Israel. Iran very well could destroy Israel entirely w/ a first strike of 10 weapons not to mention its ability to strike back. Israel can not afford a guaranteed retaliatory arsenal via a massive nuclear submarine missile fleet, nor a 24/7 always in the air bomber fleet, nor a 24/7 satellite launch coverage, and certainly has no 5000 mile flight distance to give it a few minutes to prepare.


Not at all. Even with 10 nukes, you cannot be sure that you have taken out all launching capability of Israel. In fact, it is pretty certain that you haven't. Even if Israel has only 10-20% of its retaliation capability left, that would still hurt badly, and Iran would still be bombed into the middle ages. And hey, if ever they do that, they might not only face Israelian nukes. They are SURE they will get several Israelian nukes on their head, and they can expect also several other nukes on their heads.


No, this situation would be nothing like Cold War MAD, on the contrary it would likely force Israel into first strike move.


Israel will also never do a first strike. They are reasonable. They would loose ALL support worldwide if they do so, and they might get some nukes on their heads too.


Finally, Iran and Israel are very likely not going to be the only players. The other Sunni Arab states are going to want to match Iran, especially Saudi Arabia who can afford to do it.


Which would bring the whole middle east to a big stale mate, probably the best thing that can happen there.


I believe Iran most likely can be dissuaded diplomatically and/or through sanctions from getting a nuclear weapon, but it also can be stopped by force if necessary.

I'm not against putting pressure on them to change their minds. But if they are decided to get a nuke, then they will sooner or later get one. And the more they feel threatened, the more they are likely to want one.

There is something which is illogical in the whole thing. If you think that the Iranians are ready to sacrifice 3/4 of their cities and people just to be able to level Israel (which I don't think they are REALLY ready for, even though they might say so: I call them bluff), what might make you think that some sanctions and some minor bombing will make them change their minds ? And if that can make them change their minds, that means that BY FAR they are not going to risk (despite their saying) a nuclear conflict with Israel.

And, again, if they really want to make a nuke, they will sooner or later have one. It might take 5 years, or it might take 20 years, or 50, but they will make one if that's what they want. The laws of nature are the same for everybody.

[seycyrus]

That's bully talk, one shouldn't take it seriously. That's like way back, Saddam giving bully talk. One shouldn't believe all that.

Unfortunately, world history has shown what can happen when words are just dismissed as "bully" talk.

Compound this with the fact that we are faced with zealots who think that straping a vest on and blowing up a wedding is a perfectly legitimate sense of action.


Well, the former soviet union and the Chinese also sponsored certain terrorist organisations. But they didn't distribute nukes.


Vanesch, I do not believe that representatives of these countries have proclaimed that they will wipe another country off the map. Have they or any other governments made any statements that rise to this level?

Israel does not have the luxury to believe that Iran is bluffing.

The Cuban missile crisis would never have been averted if it was just assumed that both sides were bluffing. Negotiations were made (even if they were behind the door) not because both sides were willing to call the other guys bluff, but because both sides believed the other sides intentions were as stated.

Do we want to reach *that* level again? I use the word *we* in a global sense. Certainly the US will not be the one that has to decide if anyone is bluffing.

The guys making *that* call will be Israel and Iran.

That is why this is a serious issue, the fact that two most important players (Iran and Israel) might *not* be joking.

To simply throw down the words *neo-con plot* marginalizes the very real, the very historical, and the very deadly potential of this crisis.

This issue did not suddenly popped up in the last 8 years. It has evolved to the present crisis, in my opinion because we have in the past ignored it, or decided that both sides were bluffing.

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel.

B) Isael has stated that it will not give Iran the opportunity to do so.

Maybe we should take them at their word and work on changing these two facts?

[vanesch]

Unfortunately, world history has shown what can happen when words are just dismissed as "bully" talk.


I guess you refer to Hitler and Chamberlain. The difference is, Hitler didn't think that he was going to level Germany when he started WWII. The Japanese didn't think they'd get some nukes on their head when they bombed Pearl Habor. However, Israel as well as Iran (assuming they both have nuclear weapons one day) *know* that if they nuke the other, they are going to be fried themselves, one way or another. It is *this* situation which has to prevail: that each side knows very well that he will be leveled when he pushes the button. I think you can search through history, this has never happened, that leaders wage a war of which they know beforehand that it will lead to total destruction of their own country. True, it happened to Germany and Japan, but their leaders thought it wouldn't.


Compound this with the fact that we are faced with zealots who think that straping a vest on and blowing up a wedding is a perfectly legitimate sense of action.


Well, playing with nukes is strapping on *yourself* with the vest, instead of sending a few lunatics doing it. In other words, you know that you will blow up your own country, even if you succeed in blowing up the other.


Vanesch, I do not believe that representatives of these countries have proclaimed that they will wipe another country off the map. Have they or any other governments made any statements that rise to this level?


Words are only to impress someone. What counts are genuine intentions, and deeds.


Israel does not have the luxury to believe that Iran is bluffing.


Of course it has that luxury. It's just words.


The Cuban missile crisis would never have been averted if it was just assumed that both sides were bluffing. Negotiations were made (even if they were behind the door) not because both sides were willing to call the other guys bluff, but because both sides believed the other sides intentions were as stated.


It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Conventionally, they could do it. My father, who worked as a military for NATO, has participated in studies that showed that it would take them less than a week to run over Europe if they put all their means to it in the 70ies. Western Europe has to thank its freedom in the second half of the 20ieth century to the threat of nuclear missiles. Now, I agree that it was a dangerous game to play, but it paid off. You win some, you lose some.

I think that a similar effect might play in the ME.


Do we want to reach *that* level again? I use the word *we* in a global sense. Certainly the US will not be the one that has to decide if anyone is bluffing.

The guys making *that* call will be Israel and Iran.

That is why this is a serious issue, the fact that two most important players (Iran and Israel) might *not* be joking.


I'm 100% sure that they are. Well, 99.999%. In fact, the most dangerous moment is *now*, when Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear supremacy while it still had it - in the same way as the years 46-beginning '50 were the most dangerous ones, because the US was hesitating whether to use its temporary nuclear supremacy to bomb the Soviet Union.

Best would be if all the major players in the area would have a reasonable arsenal of nukes. Them staring at each other, watching every move, playing poker games, and, 50 years later, decide to call it off and disarm together.


This issue did not suddenly popped up in the last 8 years. It has evolved to the present crisis, in my opinion because we have in the past ignored it, or decided that both sides were bluffing.

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel.

B) Isael has stated that it will not give Iran the opportunity to do so.

Maybe we should take them at their word and work on changing these two facts?

Well, the best thing to do is to just let them face their own words and decisions, and they will realize themselves (just as the US and the Soviet Union did) that they are before an impossible choice - no matter how big-mouthed they were before.
Of course, the game is not without a risk. It can turn wrong. They can blow themselves up. That's a risk to run. So be it. It's the price to pay for "cold" in a cold war.

[seycyrus]

Words are only to impress someone. What counts are genuine intentions, and deeds.


Who are they trying to impress, and to what effect? Like it or not, one of the best ways we have to gauge intent is their words.


Of course it has that luxury. It's just words.


Words can indicate intent. Due to the high stakes, words cannot just be dismissed.



It was a poker game...


I think you too casually dismiss the high level of tension. It was genuine! The situation was resolved because both players negotiated as if the other side wasn't bluffing.



Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe.


The Soviet Union would not have been able to threaten Western Europe if it did not have nuclear weapons.

That is an important factor. Mere possession would give Iran the freedom to do basically whatever it wanted, not neccessarily resorting to nuclear means. Think the rocket and suicide attacks on Israel are bad now? Wait until Iran formally begins financing them.


I'm 100% sure that they are. Well, 99.999%. In fact, the most dangerous moment is *now*, when Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear supremacy while it still had it -


I sense a disparity here in the fact that you seem to assign a smaller likelihood that the Israel's are *just bluffing*.

It is my contention that we are in our present pickle because of the belief that Iran doesn't really mean it.


...
Of course, the game is not without a risk. It can turn wrong. They can blow themselves up. That's a risk to run. So be it. It's the price to pay for "cold" in a cold war.

That is too casual of an attitude.

I for one, do not have to watch my grandchildren read their history books and ask me, "Granpa, If Iran kept saying they were going to destroy Israel, why did we let them do it? Were the Jews bad men?"

[Art]

People seem to be forgetting Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program according to the US intelligence services. The idea that Iran should be attacked in case they ever do have one is more than a little insane.

It is also bemusing that those so quick to call for the destruction of Iran because of a weapon they may one day develop make no such condemnation of the serial aggressor nation Israel who has at least 150 nuclear bombs. Why not call for a totally nuclear free ME? I am sure Iran and others would be far less likely to ever even attempt to develop nuclear weapons if they didn't feel threatened by Israel's.

In the meantime the only real bargaining chip Iran has to ward off an illegal attack by the 'peace loving' Israelis is their ability to close the gulf to shipping and so starve the world of oil. There is a pipeline to Israel which could be used instead but America's supposed best friend Saudi Arabia won't ship oil through Israel. That leaves Syria as a possible export outlet which no doubt explains the sudden flurry of diplomatic activity to try to reach a settlement with Syria.

[seycyrus]

People seem to be forgetting Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program according to the US intelligence services.

The NIE report stated that the ONE program was shut down. Incidently, this is the same program that Iran, to this day, claims never existed.


The idea that Iran should be attacked in case they ever do have one is more than a little insane.


Not when iran has unequivocally called for the destruction of Israel.

It is also bemusing that those so quick to call for the destruction of...


I am not callign for Iran's destruction. Merely that they fully comply with the IAEA on all matters pertaining to the NPT, which they signed.


...serial aggressor nation Israel who has at least 150 nuclear bombs.


That's more than a bit of an exageration. The list of countries that Israel has invaded is very short indeed.


Why not call for a totally nuclear free ME? I am sure Iran and others would be far less likely to ever even attempt to develop nuclear weapons if they didn't feel threatened by Israel's.


Unfortunately, the public policy of Iran towards Israel is very clear. Maybe they should think about rewording it, just a tad?


In the meantime the only real bargaining chip Iran has to ward off an illegal attack by the 'peace loving' Israelis ...


Am I going to get in trouble here, by assuming that when you put that phrase in quotes, you in fact are suggesting just the opposite?

If this indeed your intent, I ask you this. If the Israelis were such war-mongers, (given the fact that they have such a strong military, and the backing by the US), why have they not simply taken over every other surrounding country?

If the situation were reversed and Iran had a huge military advantage, is there any doubt that the Israelis would in fact, be "driven to the sea"?

[OmCheeto]

hmmm........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XamwRJwDwmI
iran
The next war
.
1. Iran allows nuclear inspections
2. only 3.5% vs 60% enrichment of uranium has been reached
3. America developed Iran's nuclear program
4. America is preparing for war with Iran
5. Iran has not invaded another country in over 100 years
6. America encouraged Iraq when they invaded Iran
7. America has troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, & Qatar
8. America controls the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea
9. America says Iran's nuclear program is the cause of the current conflict
10. Iran has the 2nd largest untapped oil reserve in the world.(125 Gbbl) and 15% of the world's natural gas(1 quadrillion cubic feet)
11. Iran is building a gas pipeline to India and Pakistan.

Someone let me know if it's inappropriate for me quote myself. But as I mentioned, I've been involved with this argument before. And I promise only to use the good stuff.

[Art]

The NIE report stated that the ONE program was shut down. Incidently, this is the same program that Iran, to this day, claims never existed.Not only Iran says it, the IAEA also said they found no evidence of post revolutionary Iran ever having had a nuclear weapon's program. If you wish to disagree with the IAEA please provide sources to support your allegations and preferably something better than a link to where Israel or America said so.


Not when iran has unequivocally called for the destruction of Israel. Again source please?



I am not callign for Iran's destruction. Merely that they fully comply with the IAEA on all matters pertaining to the NPT, which they signed. As explained in another thread they are in compliance with the NPT agreement they signed and ratified. They are not in compliance with the additional protocol which they withdrew their support for because of the sanctions levied against them and they are not in compliance with UN resolutions but then again who in the ME pays any attention to them?



That's more than a bit of an exageration. The list of countries that Israel has invaded is very short indeed. :rofl: Okay let's keep it simple which of Israel's neighbours hasn't it invaded.



Unfortunately, the public policy of Iran towards Israel is very clear. Maybe they should think about rewording it, just a tad? Why? Does Israel make any attempt to hide it's hatred for Iran?



Am I going to get in trouble here, by assuming that when you put that phrase in quotes, you in fact are suggesting just the opposite?

If this indeed your intent, I ask you this. If the Israelis were such war-mongers, (given the fact that they have such a strong military, and the backing by the US), why have they not simply taken over every other surrounding country? We'll ignore the land they took from their neighbours in 1949 and just look at since 1967. Have you by any chance ever heard of the West Bank or perhaps the Gaza strip or maybe even the Golan heights. Now where do you think all those territories came from? I'm sure Israel would have liked to have held onto a lot more of the land it has occupied at one time or another but unfortunately for them there is a big, big difference between taking land and holding it, Iraq being a good example of the problems entailed.

If the situation were reversed and Iran had a huge military advantage, is there any doubt that the Israelis would in fact, be "driven to the sea"? I think there is a lot of doubt. When did Iran ever attack Israel or anybody else for that matter.

[seycyrus]

Not only Iran says it, the IAEA also said they found no evidence of post revolutionary Iran ever having had a nuclear weapon's program.
If you wish to disagree with the IAEA please provide sources to support your allegations and preferably something better than a link to where Israel or America said so.


I've played this game before where I'm required to provide documentation from the IAEA ad infinitum and it is then ignored. To be honest, I had viewed the NIE as a legitimate source.
You cast aspersions on the NIE report? So be it. Since you have raised the topic of the IAEA report, please show me the IAEA report where it states what you claim.


Again source please?


I am not sure what you would consider a legitimate source for this one?

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2170.cfm

Are going to play semantics?


As explained in another thread they are in compliance with the NPT agreement they signed...


No, as was blatantly demonstrated by multiple posts of actual statements from the IAEA, the IAEA does not consider Iran to be in compliance with its obligations.


:rofl: Okay let's keep it simple which of Israel's neighbours hasn't it invaded.


Right, and when I look at a world map, I am SOOOOOO awed by the size of the Israeli empire!


Why? Does Israel make any attempt to hide it's hatred for Iran?


There is none that I am aware of. Please provide me with ANY quotes from an Israeli leader calling for Iran to be wiped off the face of the map.


We'll ignore the land they took from their neighbours in 1949 and just look at since 1967. Have you by any chance ever heard of the West Bank or perhaps the Gaza strip or maybe even the Golan heights.


I'm sorry, but we can't just easily dismiss the multitudes of attacks that stem from these territories.


Now where do you think all those territories came from? I'm sure Israel would have liked to have held onto a lot more of the land it has occupied at one time or another but unfortunately for them there is a big, big difference between taking land and holding it, Iraq being a good example of the problems entailed.


Unfortunately, the logic does not follow. Given its military Israel would be quite capable of holding onto much larger chunks of land if it wanted to. That is the point, it doesn't want to.


I think there is a lot of doubt.


There is only doubt, if we assume they are *bluffing* or outright lying or both. And that's just great, we have to assume a liar is bluffing.


When did Iran ever attack Israel or anybody else for that matter.


The key point was *the situation being reversed*. The situation was, in the past, not in danger of being reversed. Now that is...

[seycyrus]

hmmm........
Someone let me know if it's inappropriate for me quote myself. But as I mentioned, I've been involved with this argument before. And I promise only to use the good stuff.

These factoids merely provide speculation as to motive. Nothing more.

So, what's your vote?

[Gokul43201]

The fact's are as follows.

A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel
...
This is a fact? Sounds more like an opinion.

[seycyrus]

This is a fact? Sounds more like an opinion.

Well I guess we could debate the semantics of comments such as "wipe Israel off the map" and "erase the zionist regime from the pages of history", but then we'd have to go into the details of what is meant by Iran when they use the phrases zionist regime and such.

Iran does fund Hamas and Hizbolah which does not mince words.

What's your opinion of Iran's stance toward Israel? Do they want to have a bake sale?

[Gokul43201]

What's your opinion of Iran's stance toward Israel? I think Ahmadinejad has a more extremist (and nutty) stance than both the population in general and the Parliament. And this is about as extreme a Parliament as Iran has had in recent history, thanks in large part to the machinations of the Guardian Council in the last two elections as well as the raging anti-US sentiment following the Iraq War.

Ahmadinejad's popularity[1] in Iran is lower than GWB's is here. The odds of his re-election, next year are pretty small. The official stance of the Iranian Government towards Israel has been one of guarded animosity, but definitely not one speaking of obliteration. In fact, the Government went to great pains to tell the world that Ahmadinajad's words had been misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.


[1] http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=960
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/16/iran_holocaust051216.html
[3] http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
[4] http://english.people.com.cn/200705/19/eng20070519_375995.html

Do they want to have a bake sale?Probably no less than Bush would like to have one with Iran.

[mheslep]

I think Ahmadinejad has a more extremist (and nutty) stance than both the population in general and the Parliament. I am not sure his views relative to the population/Parliament are that relevant. I think his nuttiness relative to the Assembly of 'Experts', the 'Guardian Council', or the Supreme Leader is what counts, and in that company its by no means clear that he has extreme views. Almadinejad's populartity can go to near zero, but nobody can oppose him without prior approval of the Guardian Council.
...The official stance of the Iranian Government towards Israel has been one of guarded animosity, but definitely not one speaking of obliteration. How do you go about discounting Ahmadinajad as the official voice of the government and selecting some other? What other?
In fact, the Government went to great pains to tell the world that Ahmadinajad's words had been misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.


Well they need to restart the 'he was misunderstood' bureau.
"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
Ahmadinejad added that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese" - a reference to the 2006 war between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/981727.html

[mheslep]

Finally, Iran and Israel are very likely not going to be the only players. The other Sunni Arab states are going to want to match Iran, especially Saudi Arabia who can afford to do it.
...Which would bring the whole middle east to a big stale mate, probably the best thing that can happen there.Your best ME policy is to go down a path to get everybody there a nuclear weapon?

[seycyrus]

misinterpreted [2,3,4] and that Iran has absolutely no intentions of wiping Israel of any map.

...

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/16/iran_holocaust051216.html
[3] http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
[4] http://english.people.com.cn/200705/19/eng20070519_375995.html



There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.

Why do we all of a sudden discount the meaning behind Ahmanj's words, and insist on the strictest interpretatation, and smile when this interpretation is so obviously twisted?

***
i.e.
How can we remove Israel from the map? Who's map? What if we don't find all the maps?
***

Israel is a region in addition to a state, there is word in Farsi for this area. They cannot remove a *region* from the map.

This is doubletalk.

Who/what comprises the zionist regime? Take a guess.

[mjolnir80]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

[Gokul43201]

There is a far cry from a public policy statement directly countermanding the president of Iran's public statement and the semantical backsliding shown in those three links.There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:Mohammad Larijani, Iran's national security chief said Friday that his country was not intending to wipe Israel "off the map."That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

[Ivan Seeking]

most people underestimate iran
first off its military is allot more advanced than most people think it is
second i doubt Russia and China would be very happy if america or israel suddenly decided to attack iran

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

[seycyrus]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position, presented at the World Economic Forum, and it countermands any translation of A'jad's words that involves "wiping Israel off the map."

Do you think that the western media deliberately distorted Ahmanj's words?

Perhaps this new "peaceful" Iran should discuss it's position with Hamas and Hizbollah?

[Art]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.Iran probably wouldn't be as obliging in waiting for the US to build up their forces before kicking off.

Iran's main strength is probably it's missile forces which it is believed includes the Russian sunburst missile which could pose a genuine threat to US carriers. Maybe the layered defence the USN employs would be successful in countering such an attack but as no-one is quite sure what the full capabilities of the sunburst are other than it has a long range, is very fast and self-manouverable to avoid anti-ASMs it could be dangerous finding out especially if a swarm attack was used with numerous, cheaper more plentiful missiles timed to arrive at the same time as them.

Their older silkworm ASCMs would also be extremely dangerous to any commercial shipping in the gulf whilst they have many missiles more than capable of hitting US assets in Iraq plus targets in Israel including their nuclear reactor.

Obviously Iran's missile assets would be something the US and Israel would target first but one would think the Iranians have contingency plans for that.

Ultimately Iran would be beaten but I wouldn't expect the cake-walk the US and it's allies found in Iraq.

[seycyrus]

Here's an interesting article about some of these issues just recently raised.

http://globalpolitician.com/24904-syria-iran

[mheslep]

There's no semantic backsliding or doubletalk here:That's the official government position, Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

[mheslep]

...There is something which is illogical in the whole thing. If you think that the Iranians are ready to sacrifice 3/4 of their cities and people just to be able to level Israel (which I don't think they are REALLY ready for, even though they might say so: I call them bluff), what might make you think that some sanctions and some minor bombing will make them change their minds ? And if that can make them change their minds, that means that BY FAR they are not going to risk (despite their saying) a nuclear conflict with Israel.I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.

And, again, if they really want to make a nuke, they will sooner or later have one. It might take 5 years, or it might take 20 years, or 50, but they will make one if that's what they want. The laws of nature are the same for everybody.
Twenty, fifty years would likely be a far different story internally in Iran. I think that amount of time will give the democratic movements there time enough to eject the nutty Mullahs.

[mjolnir80]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.
it might have had a strong military but it was not a united country. no Iraqi liked their current regime

[mheslep]

...It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.
"Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces." -http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
I've seen an interview with a Soviet commander on the ground at the time that said he would have used his tactical nukes had the US invaded in those 14 days. Then add Castro and pal Che Guevara who urged the use of Soviet nuclear weaponsIf the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City, ... We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims. ... We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/4/175241.shtml

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe. The only fact is that the Soviets did not invade W.E. The 'why' is an opinion, but granted a reasonably based one.

[quadraphonics]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, this is a big issue when it comes to diplomacy/relations with Iran. The Islamic Republic is fairly schizophrenic, with some elements acting like a normal, rational nation-state, while others seem to still be wedded to a messianic idea of Iran as the vanguard of a global Islamic revolution. As far as anyone outside can tell, these different strains have yet to be reconciled, which leads to erratic, sudden shifts in Iran's approach to the world, and a lack of coherence between the rhetoric emerging from different factions. This poses a major problem for any outsider considering diplomacy with Iran, as it's hard to guage exactly how much authority the delegate you're negotiating with has to make any deal stick. It also makes it extremely difficult for more pragmatic elements with Iran to engage in effective diplomacy with the outside world, as they risk being undermined by the hardline elements (either being portrayed as 'collaborators,' or simply discredited by having their deals undone after the fact).

One should bear in mind that America's diplomatic impasse with Iran predates the current Administration by decades; there are structural impediments to effective diplomacy that any President, no matter how committed, will be faced with. The big problem here is that while everyone is more-or-less happy to wait around for Iran to sort its identity out, as long as they don't pose a dire threat. But the risk of nuclear proliferation changes that calculus, which, considering the disfunctions of Iran as a polity, creates serious risks.

So, while there are presumbly factions in Iran bent on weaponization (and even nuclear attacks), and others that are opposed to weaponization, my best guess is that Iran will end up developing a robust fuel cycle that would position them to credibly be able to develop a bomb on a short time frame (the fuel cycle is, by far, the most difficult part of creating weapons. Building a rudimentary, but still devestating, weapon is easy work once you already have the fuel). This gives them much of the benefits of actually possessing a weapon (i.e., neighbors will be afraid of antagonizing them into weaponizing), while leaving the door open for a non-violent resolution to the current stand-off, where Iran would pledge not to build a weapon and abide by the NPT, etc. This is the same basic posture maintained by many countries such as Japan and Brazil. You might call it a "nuclear threshold state," if you like.

However, such a state of affairs is still unacceptable to the US, as well as every other country in the Middle East. While the threshold posture is probably sufficient to avoid actual military action, it is pretty much guaranteed to lead to further fuel-cycle proliferation in the region, which in turn could lead to an actual weapons race. Any of which, given the polities in question, greatly increases the odds of nuclear materials or even weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists. A nuclear Iran is simply not good for regional or global peace and stability. And it's troubling that people have gotten so used to complaining about Iraq that they don't seem to consider the possibility that attacking Iran to prevent such an outcome might be the lesser of two evils. MAD only barely worked at preventing nuclear war between two stable, rational powers, and even then it required quite a bit of luck and restraint. A Middle East where Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and Egypt all have nuclear arms is a recipe for Armageddon.

[Gokul43201]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.But he represents them in the WEF.

[russ_watters]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it. Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

[OmCheeto]

These factoids merely provide speculation as to motive. Nothing more.

So, what's your vote?

There was no third choice. So I didn't vote. Attacking another nation out of pure ignorance, of who and what they are is, well, purely ignorant, as in, beyond stupid.

I've not mastered the any of the debate styles. The first being subjectivism, the second being objectivism, and of course the newest, and most peculiar in my mind, projectionism, ie. let me tell you how or what you think.

Knowing nothing about a country that you think you hate can lead to some very odd opinions.

I would say that everyone should go back and read pages 2 through 5 at that other forum I hang out in. I did at least 20 hours of research trying to figure out why we would bomb another country.

If you're not into reading, then google:
1. Mohammed Mosaddeq
Mosaddeq was removed from power on August 19, 1953, in a coup d'état, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments

Imagine if the US were in Iran's position right now.
How would we react to some upstart nation on the planet?

[Gokul43201]

I am not sure his views relative to the population/Parliament are that relevant. I think his nuttiness relative to the Assembly of 'Experts', the 'Guardian Council', or the Supreme Leader is what counts, and in that company its by no means clear that he has extreme views. Almadinejad's populartity can go to near zero, but nobody can oppose him without prior approval of the Guardian Council.I agree, for the most part, but the Assembly of Experts is chaired by Rafsanjani, who is orders of magnitude more progressive than Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, even an oppressive regime needs some support of the people. A hugely unpopular government is ripe breeding ground for revolution. And stomping out revolution makes for lousy press.

How do you go about discounting Ahmadinajad as the official voice of the government and selecting some other? What other?1. The intent of the speaker is at least clouded by the quality of translation. But more likely than not, it was just impolitic ranting by the President that had to be corrected in a hurry.

2. When making an unambiguous statement about official policy representatives of the Iranian government (the Foreign Minister, Minister of the Interior and National Security Chief) stated that no such policy exists, to wipe Israel off the map. Even Khamenei stated that Iran will never threaten another country. (Of course, Khamenei probably doesn't consider Israel a legitimate country!)

3. Not only may Ahmadinejad have actually meant the sentence in the context that it was most commonly reported, but Khamenei has also made similar remarks in the past (in much less ambiguous language), though in non-official circumstances. What they may wish for is far from what they can officially endorse or enact.

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world...In which century?

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it. This is a joke, right? Iraq never had the "4th most powerful military"...not in the last 4 centuries, at least!

[vociferous]

Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

It was still one of the most powerful military forces on the planet.

With the exception of Russia, the United States, using conventional military weapons, could easily destroy the military forces of any other possible adversary. The United States' annual military budget is larger than all other potential enemies' military budgets combined.

The issue is not whether the United States is capable of utterly and quickly destroying Iranian military forces (it is, quite easily and that goes for other powers like China, though it may take longer and be more difficult). The issue is, defeating an enemy and capturing its capital may be a resounding military victory, but a tactical victory is not the same as achieving the political goals that were the impetus for the military action.

The United States won the war in Iraq in a matter of days. As we have seen, winning a war is very easy. Achieving political goals can be very difficult if not impossible.

[vociferous]

I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.


I highly doubt it. If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.

Iraq was using a breeder reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium. A single strike eliminated the reactor and the threat.

Iran is pursuing the path of refining weapons-grade Uranium. Their have huge nuclear facilities, decentralized and hardened against air strikes. Israel simply does not have the military power to destroy them.

The US/NATO may be able to destroy most of Iran's nuclear facilities with aerial bombardment, but without sending in an invasion force to sweep the country and secure nuclear facilities, it would be uncertain exactly how big of a setback it would be.

Also, a massive air strike aimed against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably trigger an attempt by Iran to further destabilize Iraq, which is not in the best interests of the US or the EU.

[TR345]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

[vociferous]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

The issue is really size. Israel's military is designed for self-defense. It is smaller (although more potent) than the air forces and armies of most of its Arab neighbors. Israel has a very capable air force for self defense, but Israel does not have an Air Force capable of conducting a massive and prolonged aerial assault against Iran.

It is pretty difficult to imagine Israel being capable of striking a crippling blow against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[TR345]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

[vociferous]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

What they would need would be a much larger Air Force and maybe a huge Army to make sure that the Air Force did its job. It simply is not going to happen. There are very few true global military powers left in the world, and Israel is not, nor will it ever be one.

Now, it is still possible that Israel could launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, but I doubt that they would end up being more than a modest setback.

Iran's nuclear program needs to be dealt with, but it is not in the United State's best interest to deal with it by using military force at the moment. The actual threat of Iran's nuclear program is probably unrealistic. From everything I have seen and read, Iran is pretty backwards technologically, scientifically, and militarily.

They are probably a lot farther from a working fission weapon than a lot of hawks claim, and even if they detonate a primitive weapon (like North Korea did), they have a decrepit air force and primitive ballistic missile technology. I doubt that they could create an effective nuclear weapon and delivery system within the next twenty years, much less the next few (as some claim).

The biggest threat coming from Iran right now is not its potential future nuclear weapons, but its threat to the stability of the region, which could eventually involve covert or open war between Iran, its proxies, and the Sunni Arab states, not to mention a new arms race as countries like Saudi Arabia may decide that they have no alternative but to develop their own nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear proliferation is very bad. Russia developed nuclear weapons because the United States had them. China developed nuclear weapons because the Russians had them. India developed nuclear weapons because the Chinese had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because the Indians had them. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear arms is very important. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, then it may be impossible to stop its neighbors from doing the same. Pretty soon, every two bit country that seems to have a revolution or civil war every couple of decades is going to have some of the most awesome and devastating weapons on Earth.

The IAEA has once again found Iran non compliant. The US and EU continue to pursue sanctions through the UN, which have been moderately successful. If attempts to press sanctions fail, NATO forces could always develop their own sanction programs and possibly even a blockade of Iranian land, air, and sea trade. Military force, especially on a massive scale, should be a last resort.

[TR345]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

[wildman]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

[wildman]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

[TR345]

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

Do you know how much money the military industrial complex makes off of us using them? War cost a lot, but for some people like CEO's of Haliburton, war is very profitable.

Also, I'm not giving my opinion on what should happen, just what I think might happen.

[TR345]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

Yes, but that does not rule out bombing them. Attacking does not equate to invading.

[Jordan Joab]

Can the U.S. realistically mount an attack on Iran today? No. We can barely fight two wars at the same time. Also, President Bush does not command the same kind of political power he had back in the early 2000s. It would spell disaster for Republicans in November and Congress would not approve of it anyways.

Can Israel mount an attack on Iran today? I'm sure they can sustain a short-term conflict. Would they be willing to risk all-out regional war to get their point across? I don't want to know the answer.



Jordan Joab.

[TR345]

Can Israel mount an attack on Iran today? I'm sure they can sustain a short-term conflict. Would they be willing to risk all-out regional war to get their point across? I don't want to know the answer.

Jordan Joab.

It would not be the first time, besides Iran already wants Israel obliterated, so what do they have to lose?

[AhmedEzz]

Hi guys, I want to say alot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok lets assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation??? that's hypocrisy

[vanesch]

Who are they trying to impress, and to what effect? Like it or not, one of the best ways we have to gauge intent is their words.


Like GWB's words concerning Iraq ? Come on. Iran's leaders are out to become a dominant regional power, and they will do and say anything which helps them - or which they think will help them in that respect. Bully talking about Israel is usually well-received in the Arab world, so that's what they do. In fact, I believe that *if* they found a way to "wipe Israel off the map" without hurting too much themselves, they might even consider it. But they are not going to risk their own existence for that. It would lead them away of their main goal. They don't hate Israel for its own sake, they hate Israel because it is the right thing to do from an Arab point of view. If they want to impose them as a regional leader, then hating Israel is part of the job.


Words can indicate intent. Due to the high stakes, words cannot just be dismissed.


If I'm going to write that I'm going to blow up planet earth, then you're just listening to a lunatic talking. There is in that case absolutely no relationship between what I'm saying and what I could or would possibly do.


I think you too casually dismiss the high level of tension. It was genuine! The situation was resolved because both players negotiated as if the other side wasn't bluffing.


The *tension* was of course genuine. However, we will never know what were the *real* intentions.


The Soviet Union would not have been able to threaten Western Europe if it did not have nuclear weapons.


This is manifestly and utterly wrong. In fact, even at the end of WWII, the Soviets could *easily* have continued all the way to Spain. After the withdrawal of the bulk of American soldiers, the conventional force of the Western European countries was an order of magnitude below what the Soviets had ready on the other side of the iron curtain. They would have ran over Germany and France in a blink of an eye. It was the fear of a nuclear conflict which refrained them. At no point, Western Europe was threatened just by Soviet nuclear arms. It was their huge conventional force that was the real menace. And that was countered by a nuclear threat on the western side. As I said, my dad did studies on that in NATO context, and they found that there was no way they could avoid, using purely conventional arms, from initial hostility onward, the Soviets to advance entirely up to the Rhine within *48 hours*.
This is documented in a book a certain General Close wrote back then, based upon these studies:

http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/10404844/General-Close-R-L-europe-Sans-Defense-48-Heures-Qui-Pourraient-Changer-La-Face-Du-Monde-Livre.html


I sense a disparity here in the fact that you seem to assign a smaller likelihood that the Israel's are *just bluffing*.


Because they might not fear yet total extermination - although it surely would be bad publicity! If Israel launched a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear country, they might have some hope to get away with it without being completely fried. Once their enemy would have nukes, then they would rather be sure to get fried too. Which is the main deterrent.

I call any menace of attack of one nuclear power against another, bluff. However, I don't necessarily call any menace of attack of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear power bluff. Look what we are discussing here in this thread: whether the US will invade Iran.

Believe me, if Iran had nukes, this discussion would be moot. (I think it is moot too right now, but for other reasons)


It is my contention that we are in our present pickle because of the belief that Iran doesn't really mean it.


I think they mean it to get nuclear weapons. I am sure they don't mean it to use them against Israel.


I for one, do not have to watch my grandchildren read their history books and ask me, "Granpa, If Iran kept saying they were going to destroy Israel, why did we let them do it? Were the Jews bad men?"

The answer to that one is simple: "we are not responsible for all evil that happens throughout the world, and after all, that wasn't such a bad thing, because now we got rid of Evil Iran too, which got blown up by Israelian bombs! Things calmed down a lot in the region since then."

Like the Japanese say: after long enough a time, even a disaster becomes useful. If ever (which I don't think would happen, but if ever it does) Iran and Israel blow each other up (no matter who started: one could even link the buttons together) this would then be a very good lesson for any other nuclear nation wanting to attack another one: that you can't get away with it.

[vociferous]

Hi guys, I want to say alot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite



I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok lets assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation??? that's hypocrisy

I would just like to point out that the IAEA has found Iran in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has resulted in them being sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so it is not simply a matter of the United States believing it not to be in their best interests to allow Iran to pursue weapons of mass destruction, but the majority of the world.

It should also be pointed out that Israel is a Democratic state that has a single, stable government since its inception. It is pretty difficult to imagine a Democracy launching an unprovoked attack with nuclear weapons unless it felt that a nuclear attack was imminent.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship with an unstable government that has gone through several revolutions and attempted coups. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, it is a lot harder to believe that they would not fall into the wrong hands and possibly be used in an unprovoked strike.

[AhmedEzz]

so your argument is that its harmless to give Israel nuclear weapons but its harmful for the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons given that they are nuts?? am i correct so far?

[quadraphonics]

I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman??

It's not "who" so much as "what." And the answer, of course, is that power confers upon the powerful the duty and obligation to employ it in the service of peace and justice.

ok lets assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ?

Do you have any proof that Israel has nuclear weapons? But, anyway, the reason that Iran should be punished for pursuing nuclear weapons while Israel should not (necessarily) be is that Iran signed the NPT, explicitly giving up any claim to the right to pursue nuclear weapons. Israel did not. So, Israel is not violating a binding committment to anyone by pursuing nuclear weapons, while Iran is openly undermining the international nonproliferation regime by doing so.


why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation??? that's hypocrisy

The right to self defence is not equivalent to the right to possess nuclear weapons. In this particular case, you could argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for Israel to protect its existance, but this is not the case for Iran, which does not face any existential threats. The survival of the Iranian *regime*, however, might certainly be prolonged by nuclear capability.

Also, the whole hypocrisy charge is kind of weak anyway. If it's a choice between nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states and being called a hypocrite, I'll opt for the latter every time.

[AhmedEzz]

Do you have any proof that Israel has nuclear weapons?
proper word would be "duh"

the reason that Iran should be punished for pursuing nuclear weapons while Israel should not (necessarily) be is that Iran signed the NPT, explicitly giving up any claim to the right to pursue nuclear weapons. Israel did not. So, Israel is not violating a binding committment to anyone by pursuing nuclear weapons, while Iran is openly undermining the international nonproliferation regime by doing so.

I think we agreed before that the international law does not "enforce" itself upon nations, it rather encourages nations to comply. Moreover, although I am not sure but I don't think that the NPT states that a nation will be bombed to its knees if it does not comply with the treaty's requirements.

In this particular case, you could argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for Israel to protect its existance, but this is not the case for Iran, which does not face any existential threats.

Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries. Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?


the whole hypocrisy charge is kind of weak anyway. If it's a choice between nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states and being called a hypocrite, I'll opt for the latter every time.

rogue states? why?
so you admit that you are a hypocrite...interesting.

[quadraphonics]

proper word would be "duh"

So why the double-standard on Iran's nuclear intentions? The estimates in question are coming from the exact same (Western) intelligence sources. When they say Israel probably has nukes, it's apparently obviously fact, but when they make claims about Iran, it's mere propaganda?

I think we agreed before that the international law does not "enforce" itself upon nations, it rather encourages nations to comply.

I have no recollection of such an agreement, nor any idea what the distinction between "enforcement" and "encouragement to comply" would be in the first place.


Moreover, although I am not sure but I don't think that the NPT states that a nation will be bombed to its knees if it does not comply with the treaty's requirements.

To be specific, it lays out a path for referring said nation up to the Security Council, who can for their part authorize bombing a country to its knees. Not that I think that would be a productive or wise strategy, but my point about the NPT was only meant to answer your question as to why Iran and Israel have different international obligations with respect to nuclear technology.


Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries.

Only if you count a nuclear arsenal as part of their military power, which is putting the cart before the horse in this case...


Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?

I don't recall aknowledging that as a fact, but supposing it is, isn't the fact that Israel hasn't destroyed any countries in the region since (purportedly) becoming a nuclear power evidence that this is not the case? Moreover, there is a qualititative difference between Israel's susceptibility to nuclear annihilation and that of most countries in the region. I.e., Israel is a tiny country with a small population. A few nuclear bombs could literally destroy it. This is not true of most states in the region, excepting Lebanon and some of the smaller Guld States. A limited nuclear attack might well cause one of their governments to topple, but that doesn't amount to an existential national threat. Israel does not have the manpower to actually take over a significant country, even one crippled by nuclear attack.


rogue states? why?

Should be obvious from the definition of rogue state.


so you admit that you are a hypocrite...interesting.

No, I admit that being called a hypocrit by you doesn't keep me up at night.

[mjolnir80]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

there are no "bad guys" in the world

[TR345]

Hi guys, I want to say alot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite



I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok lets assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation??? that's hypocrisy

I am not advocating this, I am just giving my opinion on what might happen. I don;t think they should do it, but I think that can and might. You have to realize that this thread is not about whether the U.S. should attack Iran, but if they will.

[AhmedEzz]

I respect your opinion yet I disagree with it because I think you have double standards. I think that the West looks at Israel as "peaceful" "sane" and "friendly" while unfortunately, the West looks at other ME countries as "war-mongering" "barbaric" and "inferior"...sad but most of it is true, atleast I think so.

So why the double-standard on Iran's nuclear intentions? The estimates in question are coming from the exact same (Western) intelligence sources. When they say Israel probably has nukes, it's apparently obviously fact, but when they make claims about Iran, it's mere propaganda?


ok, you got me there but that's a good thing, admitting being wrong, because then we might reach a compromise and correct our views. I hope you would do the same.

I have no recollection of such an agreement, nor any idea what the distinction between "enforcement" and "encouragement to comply" would be in the first place.

I started a thread on the "international law" and most of you agreed that its a rather a promising idea than a real law that all nations must abide with.

Should be obvious from the definition of rogue state.

My point is that I don't think Iran did any worse than Israel to be called a "rogue" state.

[vociferous]

Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries. Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?


That is untrue. Israel's military is smaller than most of its Arab neighbors. The few times that the IDF has pushed into its neighboring countries is in response to direct provocation. Israel does not have the military power to invade and occupy a country like Syria or Iran, so claiming that "Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries" is simply untruthful.

You can count on one hand the number of States that have any real military power. Israel is not one of them.

Israel does have nuclear weapons, which were developed primarily as a last resort to protect Israel against its Arab neighbors (who have a history of launching unprovoked attacks on Israel).

There are probably two countries that could win a decisive military victory against Iran, Russia and the United States. Russia is their semi-ally and the United States would be completely outside the range of any Iranian attack, so there really is no external threat that justifies Iran violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

[vociferous]

I respect your opinion yet I disagree with it because I think you have double standards. I think that the West looks at Israel as "peaceful" "sane" and "friendly" while unfortunately, the West looks at other ME countries as "war-mongering" "barbaric" and "inferior"...sad but most of it is true, atleast I think so.


I think if you look at the evidence objectively, you will see why. Israel is a secular democracy that provides for western-style civil and human rights guarantees for its citizens, similar to American and European nations.

With the exception of Turkey, the current Iraqi government, and perhaps Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, none of that can be said of the other Muslim states in the Middle East.

Iran, for instance, is a theocratic dictatorship with virtually no guarantees of civil rights for its citizens and an extremely poor human rights record. Iran is an Islamic state which treats non-Muslims as second class citizens. Iran's legal system is based upon Islamic law, and employs barbaric punishments such as stoning for "crimes" such as homosexuality and adultery. Women are treated as second class citizens and do not have equal rights.

Granted, there are many Iranians who want their country to become a Western Style democracy, but it should come as little surprise that most people who were raised in a western democracy find Iran's system of governance and jurisprudence offensive to their sensibilities.

[AhmedEzz]

Israel does have nuclear weapons, which were developed primarily as a last resort to protect Israel against its Arab neighbors (who have a history of launching unprovoked attacks on Israel).

you need to revise your history lessons...Israel as a state emerged on Arab lands, this of course meant that Arabs had to defend themselves, they went to several wars some lost some won and finally we offered peace last year but Israel declined. Unfair accusation.

. Israel does not have the military power to invade and occupy a country like Syria or Iran, so claiming that "Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries" is simply untruthful.

Oh but Israel can send all those countries to rubble with all kinds of missiles, air force, artillery, you name it...Israel doesn't need to "invade" a country to bring it to its knees.

There are probably two countries that could win a decisive military victory against Iran, Russia and the United States.

You are way over-estimating Iranian military.

there really is no external threat that justifies Iran violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

I DONT support the Iranian nuclear programme but I'm saying if you will judge them then judge by the same standards....you judge by DOUBLE standards.

[mheslep]

I highly doubt it. If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.Who said single? I don't expect it would be that easy, and even if it was I expect Israel would have to wait until Iran is further down the road.

Iraq was using a breeder reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium. A single strike eliminated the reactor and the threat.

Iran is pursuing the path of refining weapons-grade Uranium. Their have huge nuclear facilities, decentralized and hardened against air strikes. Israel simply does not have the military power to destroy them.