Will Israel Attack Iran?

mheslep

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)?

Proton Soup

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.

and this is the same sort of misrepresentation that gets presented in the media propaganda to attack Iran. is Iran going to nuke Israel? of course not. there are millions of muslims living in and around israel that would be killed or poisoned, not to mention sites that are holy to at least three abrahamic religions. it's a ruse. and from what i've learned and posted about earlier in the thread, there's been a plan in the works for at least 10 years at the pentagon to methodically topple 7 governments in the region. IMO, this is about oil, and about settling old scores over the cold war and governments that had alliances with the former soviet union.

Proton Soup

why all the focus on Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

mheslep

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

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

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

Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.

mheslep

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.

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

the reverse argument holds as well.

Proton Soup

as for the whole wiping israel off the map nonsense, that is an intentional lie.

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

skippy1729

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

I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Proton Soup

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

Yes, let's remain on topic please.

Bobbywhy

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

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

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