Will Israel back us if we attack Iran?

  • News
  • Thread starter Nothing000
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Israel
In summary: The IAEA has not stated that Iran is at 5 years from obtaining the technology to make nuclear weapons. They have stated that Iran has been working on developing nuclear weapons for many years. Would it make sense to threaten rather than invade? Or even bomb?I don't think that it would make much of a difference. I don't think that the US would want to be shown to be making war if there is no WMD again after the last embarassement.
  • #1
Nothing000
403
0
Do you guys think that Israel would assist us if America and our allies attack Iran? Because as I look at it, Iran, not Palestine, is Israels greatest threat.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Everyone that's not Israel is a threat to Isreal in that region. They would jump at the chance of war with Iran.
 
  • #3
cyrusabdollahi said:
They would jump at the chance of war with Iran.

They sure don't seem to be jumping at it yet.
 
  • #4
This is very hypothetical of course, but we went to great lengths to keep Israel out of the last two gulf wars. I don't think a war with Iran would be any different.
 
  • #5
How did we go to great lengths to keep Israel out of Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom?
 
  • #6
How did we go to great lengths to keep Israel out of Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Did u miss the news? Iraq was firing skud missels at Israel and they didnt retaliate! Isreal wouldn't join any war, they have enough of there own problems, plus they arent stupid enough to do that IMHO.
 
  • #7
Anttech said:
Did u miss the news? Iraq was firing skud missels at Israel and they didnt retaliate! Isreal wouldn't join any war, they have enough of there own problems, plus they arent stupid enough to do that IMHO.


Are you implying that the US is :wink:
 
  • #8
Anttech said:
Iraq was firing skud missels at Israel...

When did that happen?
 
  • #9
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Are you implying that the US is :wink:

Are you trying to make fun of the United States? Don't forget your country is in this as much as we are.
 
  • #10
Are you implying that the US is

Perhaps but don't take that the wrong way, Israels and US's cirumstances are totally different, so you can't compare...
 
  • #12
I was pretty young, but this is still something I should have known. Very interesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
 
  • #13
What the hell did they do that for?
 
  • #14
Another thing I did not know about until a few hours ago, was the scale of the Iraq-Iran war. I had no idea that this war was the longest war in the 20th century. And I didn't know that the Iraqi millitary used chemical weapons; and killed so many people! I just read that the chemical attacks on Iran killed more people by a WMD than any other attack in history, next to the nuclear attacks on Japan.
 
  • #15
Nothing000 said:
Are you trying to make fun of the United States? Don't forget your country is in this as much as we are.

Since when am I responsible for my governments actions? I never quite got why people never make the distinction between a citizen and it's government :smile:

Discalimer: just to be clear I have no direct control over the actions of my governement whatsoever, their political decisions both misguided and adroit are none of my doing.

And yes I supose I am being a little sarcastic but I do think any sort of military action against Iran when it is already involved in a costly war with Iraq, is somewhat unwise to say the least. I'm hoping all this is is posturing and who's got the biggest **** type stuff. But with old GW you never can tell what he's going to do.

Hasn't the IAEA already stated that Iran is at least 5 years from obtaining the technology to make nuclear weapons? Would it not then make sense to threaten rather than invade? Or even bomb? Would the US want to be shown to be making war if there is no WMD again after the last embarassement? Is there more to this than just WMD, as there was in Iraq?
 
  • #16
I really think that Isreal should take them out. Iran is a crazy theocracy, and they obviously are a big threat to Israel. I trully do think that the US should stay out of it. But who else is going to step up.
You don't really think that Iran should be able to have a nuclear arseneal, do you?
Because if not, someone has to stop them.

Did you vote for Tony Blair?
 
  • #17
Schrodinger's Dog said:
And yes I supose I am being a little sarcastic but I do think any sort of military action against Iran when it is already involved in a costly war with Iraq, is somewhat unwise to say the least. I'm hoping all this is is posturing and who's got the biggest **** type stuff. But with old GW you never can tell what he's going to do.

Hasn't the IAEA already stated that Iran is at least 5 years from obtaining the technology to make nuclear weapons? Would it not then make sense to threaten rather than invade? Or even bomb? Would the US want to be shown to be making war if there is no WMD again after the last embarassement? Is there more to this than just WMD, as there was in Iraq?
Bush won't be President in five years. If he's going to make his mark on history, he has to do it within the next two years. :rolleyes:

If he does attack Iran, I doubt he'll go to Congress about it first. You don't do that unless you're sure they'll back you. Even if Bush could eke out a majority for support, the scene in Congress would be positively ugly.
 
  • #18
what are you talking about? If we just immediately invaded Iran without getting some serious support it would be a very difficult battle. I seriously doubt that we would even be able to invade Iran alone. Our millitary is too thinly spread right now.
 
  • #19
Nothing000 said:
What the hell did they do that for?
Do WHAT for? Please quote statements you are responding to.

During the first gulf war, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and the United States was bombing Iraq, Iraq did, in fact, start firing missiles at Israel who, to that point, had had nothing to do with the war. Iraq's whole point was to get Israel to retaliate- then most of the middle east, moslem, nations would stop fighting Iraq and turn against Israel.
 
  • #20
How very interesting.

I am referring to the statement made by the Member of Physics Forums named HallsofIvy on Tuesday, Aprill 11, 2006 at 10:04am Central Standard Time, in which this member said:
HallsofIvy said:
During the first gulf war, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and the United States was bombing Iraq, Iraq did, in fact, start firing missiles at Israel who, to that point, had had nothing to do with the war. Iraq's whole point was to get Israel to retaliate- then most of the middle east, moslem, nations would stop fighting Iraq and turn against Israel.
:biggrin: :biggrin:
 
  • #21
That school you work at look very cool HallsofIvy. If you don't mind me asking, are you deaf too?
 
  • #22
BobG said:
Bush won't be President in five years. If he's going to make his mark on history, he has to do it within the next two years. :rolleyes:

If he does attack Iran, I doubt he'll go to Congress about it first. You don't do that unless you're sure they'll back you. Even if Bush could eke out a majority for support, the scene in Congress would be positively ugly.

But at the moment there is no excuse for an attack other than some completely unsubstantiated claims that Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Which I think personally they may not of been doing, but you can be damn well sure they are now, since the US has made it some sort of matter of pride.

There is no way Bush could garner suport for invasion at the moment, no one in their right mind thinks it's a good idea. How many countries supported the invasion of Iraq? Something like 46 out of 192 wasn't it. How many do you think would support an invasion of Iran 5/6? tops, aiming to ignore the UN again?

Nah to me this is little more than threats and bluster atm, should Iran be revealed directly to be moving towards making nukes, or should it be shown they have acquired the technology to do so then I'll worry, 'til then this is all just hot air.

If I was cynical I'd say that Bush has an eye for the gas fields of Iran, no coincidence that it is the most gas rich country in the Middle East, but that's just silly surely, who'd attack a country for Fossil fuels and then pass it off as concern for non existent WMD and terrorism?:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #23
[already answered by others, but...]
Nothing000 said:
When did that happen?
In the first Gulf War. We stationed Patriot Missiles in Israel and all but begged them to stay out of the conflict. Saddam was trying to pull them in precisely because it would break-up the international coalition against him. We had been invited (begged?) in by the Saudis, Kuwaities, and other oil states (thinking they were next in line), but they are all Muslim and they would never would have accepted being on the same side of a war as Israel.

For the second Gulf War, Israel never was challenged directly, so it was not difficult to keep them out.
I really think that Isreal should take them out.
They might. More history for you: Do you know about Israel taking out Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant/facility in 1981?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

This would be a tougher strike, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, and I think it is more likely than a US strike (but only by a little).
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Show me direct evidence that Iran is enriching uranium?Not speculation not circumstantial gossip, not suggestion, actual proof, No? Or that Iran has an eye to make WMD? That's because there is none?

I reserve judgement until I see facts, I am suspicous of Iran but not certain enough that I'd risk the lives of thousands of people, stir up a hornets nest of terrorism and make even more political enemies whilst simultaneously alienating the UN.

We've seen where all these plans charts and bits of hearsay lead before, did you learn nothing from Iraq, it seemed then at least at face value that they had WMD, but when you dug deeper, it was all a house of cards.

Pardon me for being cynical of the US propoganda machine, once bitten.

[insult response deleted by Russ]

EDITED: OK I actually meant to say enriching uranium for nukes, I am well aware Iran has enrichment facilities, but enrichment does not mean nukes absolutley, there are peacefull motives for doing so.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
russ_watters said:
This would be a tougher strike, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility, and I think it is more likely than a US strike (but only by a little).

Do you mean that you think it is more likely that Israel will attack Iran before the US does? Because I absolutely agree with you. And I think that Israel will kick there ass. I think Israel has every right to.

Man, I just wish everyone would get along. I am not trying to make a hateful comment, and I have nothing against the religion of islam, but as I see it muslims are really the only ones that have problems with the rest of the world AND it is because of their religion. (I emphasised the word AND, because many other countries dislike other countries, but I know of none that hate other countries just due to religious differences).

I really think that Muslims need to incorporate some type of tollerance into their relligion. Everyone is always saying how america is intollerant; well I think that the relligion of Islam is much more intollerant.
 
  • #26
Oil is one of many reasons, economics are a major consideration in a capatalist country; are you so naive that you believe it was solely to depose Sadaam?

I think personally that the US is behaving politicaly ineptly as seems usual under Bush, and stomping around like a 7 year old with a bee in it's bonnet.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Schrodinger's Dog said:
...show me direct evidence that Iran is enriching uranium?

Dude, Ahamadinejad straight up says that they are pursuing uranium enrichment. He just claims it is for nuclear power. Do you dispute he said that? I don't really think this requires providing a source, because this is what the whole conflict is about. Ahamadinejad says they want to start a nuclear program, but for energy. The US says that they are doing it for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Schrodinger's Dog said:
...you believe it was solely to depose Sadaam?

Yes, but I don't think it was soley for the reasons that we are told. I think that after 9/11 we had no one to fight. I mean it was a completely new type of attack. No single country hit us, so who the hell do we fight. Of course America has extreme pride, so if we get hit we have to hit someone back. So I think that once we could not find Osama, I think we looked for the easiest target that is also viewed by Americans as evil...Saddam. Unfortunately we are still running into this new "invisible enemy" type of gurilla warefare in Iraq (people dressed in everyday clothes attacking us). So I think it is turning out to be harder than we thought.
 
  • #29
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Show me direct evidence that Iran is enriching uranium?Not speculation not circumstantial gossip, not suggestion, actual proof, No? Or that Iran has an eye to make WMD? That's because there is none?
SD, it has been all over the news. It's the very reason we are having this conversation - why the governments are having the rhetoric-war.
The International Atomic Energy Agency announced today that Iran had begun removing seals at several nuclear facilities in the area of Natanz under the observation of the IAEA's nuclear safeguards inspectors.

ABC News reported yesterday that Iran intended to begin enriching uranium — the critical step in making material for nuclear weapons — a move European diplomats and officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency have tried to prevent over the last three years.

Sources with knowledge of Iran's nuclear program told ABC News that a senior Iranian official notified the IAEA verbally over the weekend of the country's intention to introduce uranium hexafluoride gas, or UF6, into centrifuges at a facility in Natanz, 150 miles south of Tehran.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1488020
 
  • #30
Awesome. Thanks for providing a source russ.
 
  • #31
This just out on cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html [Broken]
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I guess that Schrodinger did not know what the situation was really even about! Or maybee he thinks that Ahamadinejad saying that he wants to a nuclear program is just propaganda made up by the American media.:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #33
WHOA! Thanks for the news greg. Man that is crazy.
 
  • #34
[take it easy, Nothing000. -Russ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
I guess the conversation is over?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
127
Views
15K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
132
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
67
Views
9K
Replies
43
Views
37K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
938
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top