News Teheran: Israel will regret any attack

[Mental Gridlock]

What does that have to do with anything?

I'm thinking the same rationale will happen here too. (hopefully not) They will say like "Iran is building nuclear weapons and must be stopped. They are helping terrorists too. We need to deal with Iran."

So then we'll want to go to war... but so many of our soldiers died for that cause in Iraq and are still dying... And to invade Iran would be a logistical nightmare because we don't have enough troops and it will cost a lot of our servicemen their lives. I can see the same justification repeating. History repeats. At least we won't have to lose OUR soldiers.. If it worked before why couldn't it work now?

So why can't we bomb them into submission? Just like at the end of World War II? Bomb them until our demands are met.

 

[turbo]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

On the other hand, if you think it's okay to maintain a rhetoric that troubles the rest of the world and refuse to permit the IAEA to satisfactorily inspect your facilities, yet insist that the rest of the world is being unfair to you, you may have a career in Ahmedinejad's cabinet.

This cuts many ways, and Iran is, by no reasonable judgement, an innocent victim to Western trigger-happiness.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.

I don't think it's "ok" at all. I don't even believe the atomic bomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "ok" either and I think Truman is a mass murderer, but that's off topic.

All I'm saying is, the same decision could be made today as well. I don't want it to, I'm not advocating it, but the western world is going to want to force Iran into submission on its own terms, exactly the same as the end of WWII. And the United States might use a show of force to compel Iran to do such.. But the United States could decide to use more force than they should in the interest of saving American lives.. If that was the scenario at the end of WWII and if that is what is important, than why wouldn't they make the same decision today?

If Iran is GOING TO build up nuclear weapons, and plans to use them against Israel, or supply them to terrorists, we will have a catastrophe. This is the premise which the western world is using for the purposes of being paranoid. That said, everything is being done to avoid this alleged activity. Sanctions are placed on Iran. But what if the stakes are too high and the US is too stubborn or whatever, no progress is made, and Iran may very well be "forced" to abandon their nuclear weapons program one way or another by the United States. Since an invasion would be really costly (as can be seen in Iraq), what else would they do besides bomb the heck out of Iran?

 

[Yonoz]

1) what do you think is supplying their power stations with energy at the moment? Oil.

2) Would it make better economic sense to use nuclear power and sell the oil?

Not only does it make no economic sense (sanctions), it makes no diplomatic sense either.

Sorry I meant patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about it, this source should make it clear anyway.

This would all be good and well had Iran's nuclear program remained under the supervision of the IAEA. Furthermore, all those other nations didn't spread their civilian enrichment facilities and reactors across the country in deep underground tunnels.

Iran got it's first reactor and the Engineering know how from the US, it got it's centrifugal technology from Germany, as well as engineering input, theese highly advanced technologies don't appear in a country by magic.

Iran was supplied with the technology for a civilian nuclear program from the west - just goes to show there would be no problem with such a program had it remained civilian. FYI they also got military-grade enrichment technology from Pakistan.

WIll they won't they, fact is no one knows and so this is academic. Do you think it would be wise for Israel to nuke Iran, same question reversed?

Israel isn't headed by religious extremists that encourage martyrdom.

This is just the usual MAD posturing. Only difference is no one knows anything. Should Iran let in inspectors, hell yes. Should it give up it's nuclear reactors to a hypocritical western world, hell no, it has the same rights to exploit it's resources for economic reasons as anyone else.
Take a look at the NPT, it says any country may build nuclear plants for the use of power. Apparently though Iran has a law unto itself, it must stop building nuclear plants with the know how it got from America? Does anyone see this as fair at all. Yes inspectors no to halting it's progress.

No one is demanding Iran "give up" its nuclear reactors, "halt their progress" or anything of that sort - only to open its nuclear program for inspection. They've even been offered the fuel for these reactors in exchange for abandoning their clandestine enrichment program.

 

[Yonoz]

LightbulbSun, Iran cannot nuke Israel because Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no chance of building any for years.

So should we wait until they produce nuclear weapons to stop their production?

Israel has nukes and may elect to use them on Iran's nuclear facilities, as you noted.

Just as [insert nuclear capable country here] "may elect" to use their nukes on [insert nearly nuclear capable country here].

 

[Yonoz]

All I'm saying is, the same decision could be made today as well. I don't want it to, I'm not advocating it, but the western world is going to want to force Iran into submission on its own terms, exactly the same as the end of WWII. And the United States might use a show of force to compel Iran to do such.. But the United States could decide to use more force than they should in the interest of saving American lives.. If that was the scenario at the end of WWII and if that is what is important, than why wouldn't they make the same decision today?

Those are different scenarios. WWII Japan had popular support for its regime. The inhabitants of Iran, especially in the major cities, are mostly as fed up with their regime as we are. I don't think "bombing into submission" is any type of objective.

If Iran is GOING TO build up nuclear weapons, and plans to use them against Israel, or supply them to terrorists, we will have a catastrophe. This is the premise which the western world is using for the purposes of being paranoid. That said, everything is being done to avoid this alleged activity. Sanctions are placed on Iran. But what if the stakes are too high and the US is too stubborn or whatever, no progress is made, and Iran may very well be "forced" to abandon their nuclear weapons program one way or another by the United States. Since an invasion would be really costly (as can be seen in Iraq), what else would they do besides bomb the heck out of Iran?

Bomb their nuclear facilities, and sit back patiently while they let off steam.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not only does it make no economic sense (sanctions), it makes no diplomatic sense either.

This would all be good and well had Iran's nuclear program remained under the supervision of the IAEA. Furthermore, all those other nations didn't spread their civilian enrichment facilities and reactors across the country in deep underground tunnels.

Iran probably didn't forsee sanctions.

I still can't get over just how sure you are that you know what they are doing in these secret military underground enrichment facilities, do you have proof of these assertions?

It still makes sense to pursue nuclear technology this was my original point.

Iran was supplied with the technology for a civilian nuclear program from the west - just goes to show there would be no problem with such a program had it remained civilian. FYI they also got military-grade enrichment technology from Pakistan.

OK anyway the point is that we should steer clear of bombing facilities that are for peaceful purposes.

Israel isn't headed by religious extremists that encourage martyrdom.
No one is demanding Iran "give up" its nuclear reactors, "halt their progress" or anything of that sort - only to open its nuclear program for inspection. They've even been offered the fuel for these reactors in exchange for abandoning their clandestine enrichment program.

You make it sound like Ahmadinejad is a raving maniac, he's a cool and calculating leader, a real loose cannon maybe, but we are not talking a group of terrorists here, we're talking a state that's playing every posturing tactic in response to the US, that it can.

Actually they are, they demand that Iran stop operating at their "peacefull" nuclear facilities as well, or they were. Facilities that can produce heavy water for example.

Again I think the point is without knowing what Iran is doing, the US couldn't bomb Iran, it would be seen as a damaging blow to talks, sanctions could prove a more level headed solution, but then as I said in my first post, this is more posturing from the big dog in the Whitehouse.

 

[Gokul43201]

I still can't get over just how sure you are that you know what they are doing in these secret military underground enrichment facilities

The only way you can be sure about what they are doing is by having the IAEA inspect the facilities. Barring that, you can wait for the fisrt nuke that gets launched.

You're putting the burden of proof on the wrong people, SD. It's Iran's job to convince the world that their nuclear program is purely civilian, and they're actively refusing to do that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The only way you can be sure about what they are doing is by having the IAEA inspect the facilities. Barring that, you can wait for the fisrt nuke that gets launched.

You're putting the burden of proof on the wrong people, SD. It's Iran's job to convince the world that their nuclear program is purely civilian, and they're actively refusing to do that.

I'm not arguing with that, I agree the inspectors should be allowed in, and Iran should be more transparent about what it's doing; what I was saying is you can't start bombing a country based on an assumpttion; if it turns out they have no means or nukes then it would be extremely damaging to the US's reputation. It's not like they haven't acted without the burden of proof before. This is why I think it's more posturing than a real threat at the moment.I don't think the US wants to repeat passed mistakes by being too keen to use military force. I think it's just a bit of bravado atm.

 

[Astronuc]

Iran was supplied with the technology for a civilian nuclear program from the west - just goes to show there would be no problem with such a program had it remained civilian. FYI they also got military-grade enrichment technology from Pakistan.

There is no distinction of civilian and military-grade enrichment technology. There are however degrees of efficiency, and the more efficient the less energy (separative work unit - SWU) for a given enrichment and the fewer stages necessary. As the enrichment increases, the work (amount of SWUs) increases because there is a lesser gradient of the lighter isotope.

To get to higher enrichments, one just adds stages to the process.

Under the Shah, the US supplied Iran with nuclear technology.

In theory any country has the right to nuclear technology. However, if that country is hostile, then other countries may decide to intervene and deny that right.

 

[Yonoz]

Iran probably didn't forsee sanctions.

It was made very clear to them - but even if it wasn't - what do you expect when you remove IAEA seals and equipment from nuclear enrichment facilities and accelerate a clandestine enrichment program? A stern letter from an attorney?

I still can't get over just how sure you are that you know what they are doing in these secret military underground enrichment facilities, do you have proof of these assertions?

I have no idea (nor have I ever claimed to know) what they're doing in these secret military underground enrichment facilities. I suppose it's secret military enrichment. However, if I were in charge of the security of Israel I wouldn't wait for evidence that Iran has already manufactured nuclear weapons.

It still makes sense to pursue nuclear technology this was my original point.

It certainly does - but for what purpose?

OK anyway the point is that we should steer clear of bombing facilities that are for peaceful purposes.

Then let them prove what facilities are for peaceful purposes.

You make it sound like Ahmadinejad is a raving maniac, he's a cool and calculating leader, a real loose cannon maybe, but we are not talking a group of terrorists here, we're talking a state that's playing every posturing tactic in response to the US, that it can.

I wasn't referring to Ahmedinejad.
Suppose the Iranian people decide to revolt against their leaders. Iran's strategic weapons are controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, a force composed of the most ideological, loyal troops the regime can find. There's a very good chance that Iran's leaders, knowing their days are numbered, would like to take down some infidels with them. I, for one, would not like them to have that ability, no matter how safe you may feel right now.

Actually they are, they demand that Iran stop operating at their "peacefull" nuclear facilities as well, or they were. Facilities that can produce heavy water for example.

Actually, they're not demanding that. Rather the western world is demanding Iran open these sites for inspection.

 

[Yonoz]

There is no distinction of civilian and military-grade enrichment technology. There are however degrees of efficiency, and the more efficient the less energy (separative work unit - SWU) for a given enrichment and the fewer stages necessary. As the enrichment increases, the work (amount of SWUs) increases because there is a lesser gradient of the lighter isotope.

To get to higher enrichments, one just adds stages to the process.

Under the Shah, the US supplied Iran with nuclear technology.

The point still stands - western countries provided Iran with nuclear technology so it could accomplish a civil nuclear power program. For some reason, the Iranian leadership insists on accelerating its enrichment program in a clandestine manner, using Pakistani technology. For all we know, it could be aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

 

[turbo]

The point still stands - western countries provided Iran with nuclear technology so it could accomplish a civil nuclear power program. For some reason, the Iranian leadership insists on accelerating its enrichment program in a clandestine manner, using Pakistani technology. For all we know, it could be aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

For all you know, Iran could simply be posturing to strengthen its bargaining position in a region that has been seriously destabilized by the US invasion. You have absolutely no idea if their supposed enrichment program could produce enough weapons-grade material to build a bomb in 5 years, 10 years, or even 20 years. Is it a good idea to bomb Iran with this degree of knowledge? Remember that Iraq was invaded on the flimsy unsupported premise that Iraq had WMDs. Since Bush "knew" that Iraq had WMDs and Iraq wouldn't turn them over, that was "proof" that Iraq was hiding them so they could use them later. Guess what? No WMDs were found. How about that? Someone was lying and it turns out that the liar was not Saddam.

Using your logic, Israel's enemies are perfectly justified in trying to destroy Israel because it it is an absolute certainty that Israel has nuclear weapons and the leaders of Israel have made it clear that they are willing to use them. Please do not make the mistake of believing that your country's leaders are somehow infallible or are morally superior to the leaders of your enemies, nor should you believe that the lives of your enemies are worth any less than the lives of your countrymen. That kind of thinking results in war and suffering, not peace.

 

[Yonoz]

For all you know, Iran could simply be posturing to strengthen its bargaining position in a region that has been seriously destabilized by the US invasion. You have absolutely no idea if their supposed enrichment program could produce enough weapons-grade material to build a bomb in 5 years, 10 years, or even 20 years. Is it a good idea to bomb Iran with this degree of knowledge?

Yes. It's not news that countries can have a secret nuclear weapons program.
It makes little difference. Iran's very ability to maintain an enrichment program that could be used to produce nuclear weapons is a problem that needs solving on its own. This ability should be denied, be it by diplomacy or force.
Now ask yourself if you were Israeli - would you be willing to take a chance on this issue? If you were part of a nation whose neighbours have refused to accept its very right to exist among them, have been attacking it since its very first day and wish to see it wiped off the map / pages of history - would you be willing to take a chance on this issue?

Remember that Iraq was invaded on the flimsy unsupported premise that Iraq had WMDs. Since Bush "knew" that Iraq had WMDs and Iraq wouldn't turn them over, that was "proof" that Iraq was hiding them so they could use them later. Guess what? No WMDs were found. How about that? Someone was lying and it turns out that the liar was not Saddam.

I don't know why you Americans keep talking of invasions. All that needs to be done is to put an end to Iran's nuclear enrichment program. It didn't take an invasion to stop Saddam's nuclear program, it shouldn't take one to end Iran's enrichment program.
The decision to attack Iraq was based on more than the claims of Iraqi WMDs. It may be what the administration told the American people - but why invade a country only to stop a WMD program? The invasion of Iraq was meant to replace the regime. You may have your own beef with GWB's administration - fine. Israel never tried to change another country's regime, and we're not asking for that now. We want security, and stability is very important to security.
When the twin towers were attacked we knew we would pay a price for what was to come. We knew that was the case when the US invaded Iraq. We have no delusions about our neighbours. Today we know we will pay a price for an attack on Iran, and we are willing to pay this price - we want to be secure in our home.

Using your logic, Israel's enemies are perfectly justified in trying to destroy Israel because it it is an absolute certainty that Israel has nuclear weapons and the leaders of Israel have made it clear that they are willing to use them.

Israeli leaders have not used nuclear weapons even when Israel was thought to have been doomed during the Arab assault of the Yom-Kippur war. Slander us as they may, Iran's leaders know Israel is a stable democracy that first and foremost seeks safe existence amongst its neighbours. The constant attacks on Israel by their proxies prove this.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that your country's leaders are somehow infallible or are morally superior to the leaders of your enemies, nor should you believe that the lives of your enemies are worth any less than the lives of your countrymen. That kind of thinking results in war and suffering, not peace.

I do believe my country's morally superior to Iran's leaders: secular, democratically elected leaders are morally superior to radicals, regardless of their nationality or religion.
I won't lie to you - I think Iran should not have a nuclear enrichment program mostly out of selfishness. However, I also think there would be a lot more non-Israeli deaths in the middle east and the world in general if it will not be stopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#Operational_planning" cost 11 lives - a small price to pay for the removal of such a threat.

Israeli military also decided that it was essential to destroy the reactor before it was loaded with nuclear fuel, in order to minimize the effects of the reactor's destruction on the civilian population.
...
Operation Opera was carefully planned for a Sunday to minimise the loss of lives of any foreign workers and the late-afternoon attack was designed so as to provide the Israeli Combat Search and Rescue Team (CSAR), all night to search for any downed Israeli pilots.
...
The reactor complex was heavily damaged, according to plan. Eleven men — ten Iraqi soldiers and one French civilian researcher — were killed in the attack. Since that time, it has been proposed by some commentators that the French researcher, Damien Chaussepied, was actually a Mossad agent who was responsible for placing homing beacons on site for the aircraft to follow, although no incontrovertible evidence for this has yet been presented.