News Israel's Possible Attack on Iran: An Objective Analysis

[Majd100]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

These demands of mine, and there are some Israeli and Palestinian support them. The UN's, the Palestinian and The Middle East agree with the first demand.

I am a Palestinian from West Bank (my town is 25 km east of Tel Aviv) who spent most of my life under occupation and need to see my country free and to have a decent life as any human in this world. As a Palestinian, I could be Christian, Muslim, Jews, agnostic or atheist; these ideologies are personal and should be separated from politics. I do not believe in wars and all my wishes to end the barbaric occupation peacefully.

 

[Acetone]

- Create one democratic united country for the Israeli and Palestinian.

Oh so give back ALL land to Palestine but they can live there! You should give them a call see what they think.

 

[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]

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.

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"

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]

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_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

non-parties: India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan

 

[mheslep]

why all the focus on Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

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]

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]

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"

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]

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]

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]

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/nov/11/leon-panetta-warns-iran-strike

 

[MarcoD]

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]

If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?

Nope.

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.

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/arab-spring-fails-to-improve-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.

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]

Nope.

 

[mheslep]

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

That WaPo article does not support your "nonsense", "intentional lie" interpretation.

In addition, the article references photos such as this one:

with this explanation:

This banner appears on the building which houses the Center for the Basij Resistance in the Judicial Branch, which is part of the Basij Resistance in Government Ministries and Departments. The Basij are “mobilization forces” used as reserves for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) [Iranian IRGC]

 

[rootX]

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.

When was this banned? Some prominent members - such as Hurkyl -started threads on this topic.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3498221&postcount=3

I don't know, if you can raise awareness, it's not a bad thing I suppose.

There is awareness and there is nonesense/propaganda.

You guys can always make a thread in "Forum Feedback & Announcements" in regards to any "moderation" issues you see here. Personally, I also don't know what in specific led to the ban on discussing Israel-Pales issues but I liked the decision.

 

[rootX]

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...il-use-30-reduce-grave-national-security-risk

Or this 2008 paper stressing that laying the mines is pretty low tech and hard to combat...

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf

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/

Your link doesn't work.

The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran seem to be more speculative than the consequences of attacking Iran. e.g. what will lead to "the regional fallout"?

I don't think Iran is as stupid as people think and will actually dare to do something like "wiping Israel off the map" but I do think that attacking Iran will create a very messy situation as it says in those aperion links. Russia might also involve in this mess(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15617657).

 

[Bobbywhy]

OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

 

[Proton Soup]

That WaPo article does not support your "nonsense", "intentional lie" interpretation.

In addition, the article references photos such as this one:

with this explanation:

and again, this all comes down to what people think "Israel" is. it is obvious that they object to the religious nature of the state (which is perhaps hypocritical). the recent statement clearly precludes any sort of genocidal solution, which is what it seems the Israeli government wants us to believe. actually, it sounds like they want a "regime change", and not using the sort of means that the west has been imposing on the middle east.

“The Islamic Republic’s proposal to help resolve the Palestinian issue and heal this old wound is a clear and logical initiative based on political concepts accepted by world public opinion, which has already been presented in detail. We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organizations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.”

— Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, October 2, 2011

but if singular instances of military leaders rubbing shoulders with genocidal holy men are going to be our measures of starting wars, then it should be noted that we can find these idiots in Israel as well. and Lior is really not one to back pedal or mince words, he affirms these views when confronted.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...inisters-idf-commander-to-honor-racist-rabbi/

 

[rootX]

OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

The most substance I got out of that article was:

Beyond regional nuclear war, Tehran's acquisition of these weapons could be a catalyst for additional proliferation throughout the Middle East and beyond. Few observers have failed to note that the United States has treated nuclear-armed rogues, such as North Korea, very differently from non-nuclear ones, such as Iraq and Libya. If Iran became a nuclear power and the United States reacted with a policy of containment, nuclear weapons would only be more appealing as the ultimate deterrent to outside intervention.

It's only here they provide their opinion on what would happen if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. While I agree that nuclear race must be prevented at all costs however, the second point is more of a U.S. concern than it is of Middle East/world.