Register to reply

Will Israel Attack Iran?

by DoggerDan
Tags: iaf pilots
Share this thread:
Proton Soup
#37
Nov10-11, 02:21 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
The next time Ron Paul he goes off on his isolationist bent saying, more or less, "the Soviets had thousands of nuclear weapons and we didn't attack them", somebody needs to ask him the topic question. Follow that question with, are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, perhaps Turkey and Algeria, likely to follow a nuclear Iran with weapons of their own? Would not the already stressed Nuclear Proliferation Treaty fall to pieces under such a scenario, pressuring all developing countries to pursue nuclear weapons (i.e. Brazil, Venezuela)?
why all the focus on Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty
non-parties: India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan
mheslep
#38
Nov10-11, 03:22 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,097
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
Well that might very well be a Paul-like answer: a non-responsive red-herring. Redirecting the question back to Iran misses the point, which is that several other Middle Eastern countries will likely feel obliged to obtain nuclear weapons. Once you have a parade of signatories to the NPT flaunting the thing it becomes meaningless everywhere.
klimatos
#39
Nov10-11, 03:57 PM
P: 412
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Redirecting the question back to Iran misses the point, which is that several other Middle Eastern countries will likely feel obliged to obtain nuclear weapons. Once you have a parade of signatories to the NPT flaunting the thing it becomes meaningless everywhere.
If I were a citizen of a non-nuclear nation, I would view the NPT as a bald attempt to keep my nation from obtaining any sort of parity with the "old boys club".

Iran has threatened more than once to "wipe Israel off the map", but it has never threatened to use nuclear weapons to do so. If I were an Iranian, surrounded by avowed enemies on all sides, I would definitely want my nation to develop nuclear weapons.

If I can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Israel, then I can live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
russ_watters
#40
Nov10-11, 05:07 PM
Mentor
P: 22,286
Quote Quote by Proton Soup View Post
the thing is, Palestine already accepts and recognizes Israel's right to exist, as a democratic secular state. the big brouhaha that gets repeated over and over in the news is that they won't accept them as a Jewish state. Interview with Hanan Ashrawi, skip to 3:40.
You appear to assume that Ashrawi speaks for all Palestinians. Does he speak for Hamas? Surely, you must know that they do not accept even the existence of Israel?
rootX
#41
Nov10-11, 05:15 PM
rootX's Avatar
P: 1,294
Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.
mheslep
#42
Nov10-11, 05:25 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,097
Quote Quote by klimatos View Post
If I were a citizen of a non-nuclear nation, I would view the NPT as a bald attempt to keep my nation from obtaining any sort of parity with the "old boys club".

Iran has threatened more than once to "wipe Israel off the map", but it has never threatened to use nuclear weapons to do so. If I were an Iranian, surrounded by avowed enemies on all sides, I would definitely want my nation to develop nuclear weapons.
Though there is no shortage of tensions in the Middle East, I don't know that Iran has any avowed enemies as nation-state neighbors, so if I were a sane Iranian, the last thing I'd want is possession of a weapon that by your logic would encourage neighbors to do the same thing. On the other hand if I were an Iranian dictator at risk of being tossed by sane Iranian citizens, a weapon that scares everyone should my government become unstable is exactly what I'd want.

If I can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, and Israel, then I can live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Meaning what, they all have roughly the same behavior? Then Cuba, Zimbabwe, The Sudan, the Palestinians in Gaza are all also free to obtain nuclear weapons? Aside from greatly increasing the chance of a country to country war, such a world would have a great increase in proliferation! That is, the world would have much more weapons grade nuclear material, bomb designs, and people with expertise in both, in the hands of countries with little experience in securing it all, increasing the risk that such material or people fall into the hands of an Al Qaeda type.

I add last that I don't see, on balance, today, that a military attack on Iran to stop it from getting a weapon would be wise, effective, or warranted, but I don't come to that conclusion from pretending nothing bad can happen should Iran acquire a weapon, as Ron Paul suggests.
Proton Soup
#43
Nov10-11, 05:42 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
You appear to assume that Ashrawi speaks for all Palestinians. Does he speak for Hamas? Surely, you must know that they do not accept even the existence of Israel?
the reverse argument holds as well.
Proton Soup
#44
Nov10-11, 05:50 PM
P: 1,070
as for the whole wiping israel off the map nonsense, that is an intentional lie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...IKML_blog.html

The firestorm started when Nazila Fathi, then the Tehran correspondent of The New York Times, reported a story almost six years ago that was headlined: “Wipe Israel ‘off the map’ Iranian says.” The article attributed newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to a report by the ISNA press agency.

The article sparked outrage around the globe, with then-President George W. Bush and other world leaders condemning Ahmadinejad’s statement. The original New York Times article noted that Ahmadinejad said he was quoting Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, but that aspect was largely overlooked.

Then, specialists such as Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project pointed out that the original statement in Persian did not say that Israel should be wiped from the map, but instead that it would collapse.
skippy1729
#45
Nov10-11, 05:51 PM
P: 148
Quote Quote by Majd100 View Post
I do not see any similarities. Iran is not occupying other nation as Israel doing and they have fixed international borders. While Israel is the only country without clear international borders because they are working to colonise most of the Near East countries to create the "greater Israel". It is the only country with nukes in ME and they were willing to use them:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...apons-1.317592
Similarities?

The brutalities following the sham election of 2009. The extreme ideologies of the leaders. The Revolutionary Guard and the Brown Shirts. Military buildups.

There are no clear international borders because of the Arabs refusing all offers.

In the darkest days of the Yom Kippur War Golda Meir was considering nuclear weapons as a last resort. They may even have nuclear weapons on submarines as a doomsday reply. I don't fault this.

Skippy
MarcoD
#46
Nov10-11, 05:56 PM
P: 98
I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Proton Soup
#47
Nov10-11, 06:55 PM
P: 1,070
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
well, it's not the Palestinian issue in particular that is at issue here for me. it is this idea of whether Israel is indeed a secular democratic state, or whether it is something of a more theocratic nature. and that issue is front and center in the rhetoric used by both sides in the Iran/Israel conflict.
Evo
#48
Nov10-11, 07:48 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.
Yes, let's remain on topic please.
Bobbywhy
#49
Nov11-11, 02:29 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,894
Here's one paragraph from an article that argues the USA should attack Iran:

"The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran's incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout."

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136655/
DoggerDan
#50
Nov11-11, 03:05 AM
P: 77
Quote Quote by rootX View Post
Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.
Why? I understand some topics tend to inflame a proliferation of responses. I also understand some topics require a further look by highly-educated folks who can bring the sums of their experience to bear upon the problem.

Shutting off these threads only closes solutions.

Properly managed, on the other hand, there's no longer a need to go down that road.

Ah, the decisions we make! Make them good ones! Better yet, make them great ones.
Bobbywhy
#51
Nov11-11, 04:54 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,894
Here are two paragraphs from an article quoting L. Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, who says the US should NOT attack Iran.

"Military action against Iran could have "unintended consequences" in the region, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, said on Thursday, hours after Tehran warned that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists".

Panetta, who took over the Pentagon's top job in July, said he agreed with the assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a strike on Iran would only delay its nuclear programme, which the west believes is aimed at making an atomic bomb."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ns-iran-strike
MarcoD
#52
Nov11-11, 07:41 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by DoggerDan View Post
Why? I understand some topics tend to inflame a proliferation of responses. I also understand some topics require a further look by highly-educated folks who can bring the sums of their experience to bear upon the problem.
Because you end up discussing the disinformation from either side while people are dying?
nobahar
#53
Nov11-11, 02:41 PM
P: 501
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?
Nope.

Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
When was this banned? Some prominent members - such as Hurkyl -started threads on this topic.

Quote Quote by Bobbywhy View Post
Here's one paragraph from an article that argues the USA should attack Iran:

"The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran's incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout."
What's the "regional fallout"? US presence and Israeli policies (I mention this because it's relevant to the Iran topic) are a major destabilising factor in the region: the quotation seems to suggest the US is having some kind of mediating role in the middle east. According to a poll by AII: "The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and U.S. interference in the Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East." http://aai.3cdn.net/5d2b8344e3b3b7ef19_xkm6ba4r9.pdf

A Pew poll also finds attitudes towards the US are unfavourable, and that the US is a military threat: "Majorities in six of the seven predominantly Muslim countries surveyed say they are very or somewhat worried that the U.S. could become a military threat to their country someday", and "As is the case with his performance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ratings for Obama’s handling of Iran and the situation in Afghanistan are extremely low".
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/05/17/...ve-us-image/2/

There seems to me an inherent supposition that the US 1) is some kind 'bringer of justice' and 2) it has some right to intervene in the middle east. If Iran isn't entitled to Nuclear weapons in the middle east, then why is the US? What about Israel, supported by the US, that hasn't even signed the NPT.
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
Because you end up discussing the disinformation from either side while people are dying?
I don't know, if you can raise awareness, it's not a bad thing I suppose.
WhoWee
#54
Nov11-11, 03:00 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by nobahar View Post
Nope.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Biden: New Israel would be 'ill-advised' to attack Iran Current Events 132
Teheran: Israel will regret any attack Current Events 44
Will Israel back us if we attack Iran? Current Events 126
Attack Iran ? Current Events 127
Iran calls for Israel's destruction Current Events 61