Proton Soup said:i don't think israel really wants to attack iran directly, they'd much rather we do it. but, with US troops leaving iraq, we wouldn't be there to shoo israel back. plus, we'd still be just a short hop away in bahrain to provide backup.
Greg Bernhardt said:It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance.
Greg Bernhardt said:Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?
skippy1729 said:Probably of interest to readers of this thread:
Israeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak
Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warned against an Israeli strike on Iran, saying that the results of a confrontation could be devastating for the Mideast.
"The State of Israel cannot be destroyed," he told Ynet on Friday. "An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years."
The former head of the Israeli secret service said Thursday during an army boarding school reunion that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still "far from posing an existential threat to Israel."
Greg Bernhardt said:It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance. Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?
ThinkToday said:I have no doubt. Remember the present "elected government" of Iran has a number of 12ers amongst them, including their president. FWIW, they believe in helping bring about the Muslim equivalent of judgment day. They really think it is their duty. What better way than tossing nukes at Israel?
Greg Bernhardt said:It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance.
WhoWee said:Wouldn't it be interesting if Israel was to win over the Iranian people - convince them they should take their country back to avoid war?
nobahar said:Isn't Israel pushing for war? Both through it's seemingly endless posturing (as with Iraq), and through it's policies? It'd be interesting if the majority of the world won over Israel. I think the response from the world community in the UNESCO bid was a demonstration of current attitudes.
skippy1729 said:These comments by Obama and Sarkozy must make Israel feel that they are really on their own (if they haven't already figured it out):
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html
Skippy
Under a worst-case scenario 30-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the analysis finds that the U.S. would lose nearly $75 billion in GDP.
“You could wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the Iranians sense an attack on their nuclear power plants,” General James T. Conway, USMC (Ret) said. “And so they preemptively take steps to shut off the flow of oil in the Gulf. The U.S. would likely view this as a threat to our economy, and we would take action. And there we are, drawn into it.”
Above all, the scenario described here points to the critical importance of
early detection of any Iranian mine laying in the Persian Gulf and especially
the need to keep close tabs on Iranian submarine activity. Such surveillance depends
not only on U.S. activities in the region but also on those of Iran’s gulf
neighbors. If the United States wishes to continue to act as the guarantor of
free passage in the strait, it needs to make these monitoring activities a clear
part of a broader effort to discourage Iranian attempts at harassment or closure.
It also may wish to convey to Iran that, precisely because of the potential
length and complexity of the operations outlined in this article, a campaign to
clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian mines could quickly become a war to clear the
Iranian harbors and coast of most remnants of the country’s military.
klimatos said:I doubt if Iran would launch an attack. Iranian leaders may sound irrational, but this is a deliberate ploy. I have lived there, and I have confidence in the people's ultimate good sense of their own best interests.
They have their religious nut cases, but so do we. God forbid that any of ours get into positions of power!
nobahar said:Isn't Israel pushing for war? Both through it's seemingly endless posturing (as with Iraq), and through it's policies? It'd be interesting if the majority of the world won over Israel. I think the response from the world community in the UNESCO bid was a demonstration of current attitudes.
Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.Majd100 said:If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament".
Jimmy Snyder said:Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset"
WhoWee said:If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?
skippy1729 said:Most Iranian people do not want a nuclear war but they are trapped in a 21st century version of Nazi Germany.
Greg Bernhardt said:It is also interesting to consider who the moderate mulsim countries would support. Most feel threatened by Iran, but to support Israel is a tough political stance. Also would an attack on Iran help fuel the Palestinian statehood push?
Majd100 said:If Israel accepts to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and to declare peace with the Palestinian, then their State will be recognised by the Arab world, and they should not feel lonely and isolated. Iran -the same as Saddam did- is using the occupied Palestine as excuse to get a huge support in the region.
The Israeli can live in peace if they accept to take one of the following decisions:
- Withdraw from the Palestinian territories and let the refugees to return back.
- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.
MarcoD said:From your name I gather you're muslim, but whose demands are these? The UN's? Palestinian? The Middle East? Yours?
No offense, I hardly sympathise with any of the two factions. Just asking for clarification.
Majd100 said:- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.
Majd100 said:If Israel accepts to withdraw from the Palestinian territories and to declare peace with the Palestinian, then their State will be recognised by the Arab world, and they should not feel lonely and isolated. Iran -the same as Saddam did- is using the occupied Palestine as excuse to get a huge support in the region.
The Israeli can live in peace if they accept to take one of the following decisions:
- Withdraw from the Palestinian territories and let the refugees to return back.
- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.
mheslep said: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)?
non-parties: India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan
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.Proton Soup said:
mheslep said: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.
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?Proton Soup said: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. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/interview-hanan-ashrawi-14601442"
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.klimatos said: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.
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.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 said: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 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.
Majd100 said: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/news/did-israel-ever-consider-using-nuclear-weapons-1.317592
MarcoD said:I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Yes, let's remain on topic please.rootX said:Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.
rootX said:Israel-Palestinian is not only offtopic but also forbidden to be discussed here in PW&A IIRC.
