Bet on the day Iran sites will get bombed.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

When Iran states it wishes to wipe another country from the map and then seeks to acquire nuclear capability then attacking such a country - which has a stated aim of annihilation against your country - would be an act of defence, in my view.

The alternative is to wait and see if it's a bluff but I see that as no alternative, in reality.

Hobbes

Ahh ok so its ok then for Iran to start getting nukes then because Bush clearly stated that they would attack these countries (remember "axis of evil" speech).

Although Bonkey sums it up much nicer.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok then for Iran to start getting nukes then because Bush clearly stated that they would attack these countries (remember "axis of evil" speech).

In the context of Iran's programme for nuclear capability - the attainment of which would be 'intolerable'. If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Talk about going round in circles...

lostexpectation

Nuttzz wrote:

Dont know about the rest of you but I find it a bit tasteless to be "betting" on when a country will be bombed....

you right it is I was being flippant. But it going to happen in two months. IT IS. Pretending it isn't is more tasteless.

I only learned a couple of weeks back the Israel already did something similar in at Osirak 1977. It didn't start an all out war.

I woud say the end of March but they will get a bit delayed a little by Europe they didn't start Shock and Awe on the exact date they'd planned.


FEIC YEAH!

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

In the context of Iran's programme for nuclear capability - the attainment of which would be 'intolerable'. If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Talk about going round in circles...

Indeed. Circles which are only problematic because we know for a fact that we've recently nations had action taken against them ostensibly for persuing such intolerable goals....only for us to find out afterwards that they weren't persuing such intolerable goals at all. Its also worth bearing in mind that we've also had at least one nation (N. Korea) effectively ignored while they persued and obtained these intolerable goals. Such shifting standards makes me wonder if "intolerable" isn't an inaccurate term to use without qualification here.

Lets not also lose sight of the fact that it is nothing but mere speculation that Iran is under threat solely because of its nuclear program - speculation I would argue is incorrect. Should they get rid of it, what then? Allegations of Bio and/or Chem (the other sides of the ABC WMD triangle)? Allegations of state-sponsored terrorism? Allegations of being an oppressive regime? Allegations that they would still attack Israel (through conventional means) given the opportunity. Are we seriously supposed to believe that the only threat from Iran is an as-yet unrealised capability?

jc

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Which would be impressive considering they have been under threat even before this. Or the US special forces being in the country where there just for a holiday.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/euro-j25.shtml

The nuclear plants is all posturing IMHO. Iran could give up tomorrow and swear they would never go near nuclear technology again and there would still be some excuse to invade them.

TBH Pakistan would be more serious in nuclear regards then Iran.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

Pretending it isn't is more tasteless.
...
FEIC YEAH!

Cheering on the bombing / attacking of a nation, from my perspective, beats the rest of it all into a cocked hat with regards to tastelessness.

lostexpectation

bonkey wrote:

Cheering on the bombing / attacking of a nation, from my perspective, beats the rest of it all into a cocked hat with regards to tastelessness.

I was being sarcastic Im not cheerleading OBVIOUSLY

amp2000

lostexpectation wrote:

FEIC YEAH!

****, have you any idea how serious this is???
This isn't Iraq, if they hit iran you can kiss your way of life goodbye, energy prices will go through the roof ending economic growth.

Be careful what you wish for.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

The nuclear plants is all posturing IMHO. Iran could give up tomorrow and swear they would never go near nuclear technology again and there would still be some excuse to invade them.

Sadly I think you're correct. Ever since the Iranian US embassy hostages(remember them) and the laughable US rescue attempt that ended in complete failure, I suspect certain types in the US gov have been itching to get back at them.

TBH Pakistan would be more serious in nuclear regards then Iran.

In a big way. That whole India/Pakistan border shenanigans is a nuclear powder keg.

The Saint

This is a very interesting subject with all possibilities not being so cut and dried. I can't see the Americans currently being in a position to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. This would not go down well in Iraq where the majority of Shi'ites seeing their interests being tied into normalised relaions with Iran. Most cleric in Iraq are also from Iran or have lived or trained in Iran. The last thing the US needs is to antagonise the majoity of the population of Iraq who don't want the Americans there anyway. Iran could also make the Americans life very very difficult in Iraq by sending more insurgents and Islamists into the country if not regular forces and destabilising the country further.

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either. This will clearly be seen by the Iranians as an American backed action using American hardware considering that the Israelis can't scratch their own arses without getting approval from the US. This could also inflame the region with action being taken against Israel by other countries or groups such as Hezbollah, in the region. This did not happen when Israel bombed the Iraqi facilities as most countries in the region were allied to the US, especially Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Things are slightly different now.

From Irans point of view it makes perfect sense to develop nuclear weapons. Countries will always look to ways to provide their own security as no one else is going to do so. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution the US has been outright hostile towards Iran and now it is on the Americans axis of evil list. American have stated in their national security reports that the US has the right to bomb, with nuclear weapons, non-nuclear countries, even ones that have signed the NPT. Nuclear states also do not attack one another so having a nuclear weapon guarantees security as well as provides levelage in the international system. The US knows this and it threatens their ultimate veto power in the region.

Experts say that Iran is about ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. This leaves plenty of time for diplomatic action and/or military force with resourses are freed up. I, myself cannot see an attack on Iran happening any time soon but given past performances by the US government I would not rule out any ill advised actions that would further inflame the region.

AS for the Israeli issue, it was probably a good idea for Israel nuclear weapons at the time, with help mostly from the French, as their security was constantly being threatened. This is not the case now though. Israel has not been attacked by another country since 1973, a long time in terms of politics given that Iraq has been attacked countless times by the Americans since 1990 and never retaliated. Since Camp David Egypy, Jordan and Turkey have normalised relations with Israel. Syria has ffered to do so in return for the Golan Heights. In 2002 the Saudis put forward a proposal for all Arab countries to recognise Israel, give it security guarantees and open diplomaic relations in return for Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights taken by Isreal in the six day war in 1967. This was again put forward by the Arab league but was both time rejected by Israel. The Palestinians have also recognised Israels right to exist therefore Israels protests about their existance being threatened and being driven into the sea ring quite hollow. Israel hasn't accepted any deals as they are in practise expansionary and do not want peace in exchange for land as peace will remove their reasons for expansion. After the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 Ben Gurion states that only Israel will determine it own borders. Nearly sixty years on this still appears to be the case.

GypsumFantastic

The Saint wrote:

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either.

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

The Saint wrote:

Israel has not been attacked by another country since 1973,

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

The Saint wrote:

Syria has ffered to do so in return for the Golan Heights.

Oh, purlease. We'll give you security in return for your land? Is there any nation on earth that would accept this insult?

Lemme see - Syria lost the region in question during the 1967 war - which Syria began by bombarding northern Israel - and then turns round and says 'we'll not bother you if you give us it back"? Talk about doing deals with the devil. Shove it.

The Saint wrote:

In 2002 the Saudis put forward a proposal for all Arab countries to recognise Israel, give it security guarantees and open diplomaic relations in return for Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights

and the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The Saudi 'peace plan' was generally, and correctly, regarded as unreasonable and not a serious effort to build bridges.

The Saint wrote:

The Palestinians have also recognised Israels right to exist therefore Israels protests about their existance being threatened and being driven into the sea ring quite hollow.

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

The Saint wrote:

Israel hasn't accepted any deals as they are in practise expansionary and do not want peace in exchange for land as peace will remove their reasons for expansion.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

Sure...because if it wasn't their nuclear capability, then there's nothing else it could have been. There's only these two options, right?

To suggest it could be more complex than this binary option would be - as you put it - naiive.

jc

The Saint

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

As I had stated it was inconsequential given the realtions most states in the region with the US at the time. Also, I'd be very surprised, even if the US hasn't admitted it, that they had prior knowledge of the event if not giving the nod.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

Iraq launched a few scuds at Israel as a symbolic action to garner support from more Islamic countries to help ni the war against the US. It was also an act of desperation given the overwhelming power of the US army and Israels position as a client state. It was hardly an outright attack. Saddam never gave a toss about Israel except when it served his purpose but I'll agree he did 'attack' Israel.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

I said that it was in Israels interests to have nuclear weapons but the fact that they have peaceful relations with most of its neighbours and not because of its nuclear capabilities. The peace deals were done before they acquired the bomb.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Oh, purlease. We'll give you security in return for your land? Is there any nation on earth that would accept this insult?

They were to give security guarantees and open diplomatic relations with Israel under international agreement. Do you realistically Syria would attack Israel again given the major military power who they invaded with before in 48, 67 and 73 now as full relations with Israel, Egypt, as well as the other power they invaded with, Jordan. Seriously, can you say that with a serious face. Syria are tripping over backwards to please the international community and get rid of its periah status, withdrawing from Lebanon and complying with the Harriri poobe in which it looks like Assad will be interviewed by the UN afterall. It would be suicide for Syria to even threaten Israel and they blooby know it. You must thing that the people running these countries are stupid reactionaries. If they were that naive and stupid they wouldn't be in power for so long.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Lemme see - Syria lost the region in question during the 1967 war - which Syria began by bombarding northern Israel - and then turns round and says 'we'll not bother you if you give us it back"? Talk about doing deals with the devil. Shove it.

It did deals with Egypt and Jordan, why can't it do the same for Syria? The reason is that they don't have to. It was in their interests to do a deal with Egypt they were seen as Israels main threat and the fact that Sadat had wanted to do a deal long before Camp David but Israel refused. After 73 Egypt was not seen as the weak basket cae it was before therefore a peace deal was done for a return of the Sanai. With Syria they know there is no threat so the return of the Golan Heights is unnecessary.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

and the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The Saudi 'peace plan' was generally, and correctly, regarded as unreasonable and not a serious effort to build bridges.

Here is a basic outline of the proposed deal:

Israel is required to withdraw from all territories seized in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
In return, all Arab states offer normal diplomatic relations - including a peace deal that recognises Israel's right to exist and secures its borders.
The plan was formally announced at an Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2003.

"Reports suggest that the Saudi plan allows for Israeli sovereignty over the Western or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - one of Judaism's holiest sites.
The same reports suggest that the plan allows for the transfer of some areas of the West Bank to Israel in return for equivalent transfers to a Palestinian sate.
It is also suggested that the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel has been dropped or sidestepped. This issue is crucial because many Israelis see the Palestinian claim to the right of return as a fundamental demographic threat to the idea of Israel as a state for Jewish people. "

Seems like a reasonable deal to me in line with UN Security Council resolutions. The fact is that Israel has stated many times that they will not give up East Jerusalem. They want it all and this is shown by settlement building patterns to cut it off from the rest of the West Bank and has been stated by many Israeli leaders.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

I was refering primarily to the democratically elected PA who have recognised Israels right to exist.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

But they have given some back in return for peace. This is not the case with the West Bank though. They continue to annex and settle land. This can hardly be used as a pretext for security. Annexation and settlement does not increase security but the contrary. The reason it won't give up the land is because there is no reasonable threat to cause it to. Israel can give itself peace by returning conquered land but it does not want to.

Anyway, this discussion was about Iran. If you want to continiue this conversation you can open another thread.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

I'd say they will. A large portion Israels budget is gotten from the US. It would be economic suicide unless they get the US on board.

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

What a handful of scud missiles which were fired to try and bring Israel into the war. Saddam didn't have the support of the other countries and this was the only way he could get it.

Nuking or dropping bombs on a nuclear site will polorise the whole of the middle east.

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability.

If thats the case we should let everyone have a bomb because then no one would attack each other.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

Not all land grabs have been initiated by the Arabs unless your trying to tie land grabs to earlier incidents.

BrianD

I would of thought that Iran is more sophisticated and powerful from a military point of view. They were trained and equipped by the US and despite the sanctions have reverse engineered much of the equipment supplied and have a strong defense industry.

Sand

Ok if a country says "We are going to attack your country first to defend ourselves" are you going to stand around and do nothing or stand back and admire their troops?

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Honestly Hobbes, theres a time for trawling through international law books and theres a time for acting pre-emptively on intelligence. The US spent months building up its forces on the borders of Iraq prior to the 2003 liberation - If the Iraqis dared to try and hit the buildup of troops before war was actually declared and Coalition troops invaded would you consider it unlawful or common sense?

Remember the holy UN, blessed be its name, allows pre-emptive strikes to defeat attacks that are imminent.

Israels development of nukes was a result of their belief, backed up by the statements of their neighbours who had vowed to annialate them, that they could be attacked at any time. Trying to equate that with Irans development of nukes whilst it repeatedly states that Israel should be annialated and shouting "hypocrites!!!!"....TBH, its rules lawyering over common sense. Israels development of nukes stabilised the region by ending their neighbours desire to attack them openly. Irans nukes will only embolden them. Even if some mad mullah doesnt decide to go to Paradise as the *ultimate* suicide bomber, other Arab states will be emboldened to attack Israel, confident that Iran will support them with its nuclear shield.

I'd say they will. A large portion Israels budget is gotten from the US. It would be economic suicide unless they get the US on board.

Israel will act in its interest over that of the US, and there is a massive pro-Israel lobby in the US on both sides of the Rep-Dem spectrum that will support them. And its done it before.

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

Hamas have refined their position for the latest Palestinian polls. Theyre removed the call to annialate Israel and drive the jews back into the sea from their manifesto. They havent rejected it, they simply do not call for it anymore. Their position now is to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and leave the decision of whether to annialate Israel to future generations. Which is nice of them.

Since the defeat of the Intifida Hamas has been morphing into a quasi terrorist/political movement in the style of SFIRA. They may not enjoy the same success as the Israelis dont take much inspiration from British appeasement policies.

But they have given some back in return for peace. This is not the case with the West Bank though. They continue to annex and settle land. This can hardly be used as a pretext for security. Annexation and settlement does not increase security but the contrary. The reason it won't give up the land is because there is no reasonable threat to cause it to. Israel can give itself peace by returning conquered land but it does not want to.

In fairness, Syrias asking for something concrete - more land. And all Israel gets in return is a promise that can be reversed at any point in time, especially if the dictatorship collapses and Syria enters chaos. Land for peace is a bad deal.

Manic Moran

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

I refer you to the October War of 1967 as a perfect example of a legitimate pre-emptive strike. It even involved the Israelis.

Few people dispute that the Arab armies were about to launch another co-ordinated invasion. The Israelis decided to start the war on their terms instead of the Arabs'.

NTM

Victor

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

You could have the decency of providing a link. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382527,00.html

Victor

lostexpectation wrote:

I only learned a couple of weeks back the Israel already did something similar in at Osirak 1977. It didn't start an all out war.

Do you mean 1981?

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

The Saint wrote:

This is a very interesting subject with all possibilities not being so cut and dried. I can't see the Americans currently being in a position to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

They can bomb the sites, whether such bombing would be effective is another matter.

The Saint wrote:

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either.

There is the problem that he shortest route from Isreal to Iran and back is via Iraq. To take this route would require American (and Iraqi?) complicity, if not actual support. Going all the way around the Arabian peninsula is possible, but has pracatical difficulties, both in range and payload. They could go via Turkey, but I think this is unlikely. Going via Saudi Arabia would make the Saudis profoundly nervous and likely lead to much more of a mess than we already have.

The_Scary_Man

Interesting take on matters here
Click

If the US does move troops into Iran then this certainly gives credence to the theory that the nuclear threat is just a pretext. Even if we take it that the Iranian government is aiming to produce nuclear weapons, and not looking to develop a nuclear energy infrastructure as they say they are, then it would be close to 10 years before they have enough highly enriched uranium to create one nuclear bomb.

Click

Surely this leaves a lot more time to pursue the diplomatic route.

rsynnott

I'd be very surprised if Israel (a country, incidentally, with at least one illicit nuclear arms production facility; this is France's fault) would bomb nuclear sites, which potentially house hot tanks, reactors and other nastiness, on its own doorstep.

And, I'd VERY surprised if the Americans attack. Iran's not Iraq. They could be looking at another long and unpleasant war.

Victor

rsynnott wrote:

I'd be very surprised if Israel (a country, incidentally, with at least one illicit nuclear arms production facility; this is France's fault) would bomb nuclear sites, which potentially house hot tanks, reactors and other nastiness, on its own doorstep.

Do you know how far it is from Israel to Iran?

fly_agaric

Victor wrote:

There si the problem that he shortest route from Isreal to Iran and back is via Iraq. To take this route would require American (and Iraqi?) complicity, if not actual support.

Would the US really shoot down Israeli jets that flew unannounced through Iraq's airspace on their way to Iran if they refused to go back the way they came? Somehow I can't see it happening.

Hobbes

fly_agaric wrote:

Would the US really shoot down Israeli jets that flew unannounced through Iraq's airspace on their way to Iran if they refused to go back the way they came? Somehow I can't see it happening.

It wouldn't be up to the US, it would be up to the Iraqis (it is there country). To not shoot down the jets would mean the US was joining Israels side in the matter.

shotamoose

Seems to me that one good way to de-escalate the tensions in the region would be for Israel to hold up its hands and say "yeah, we've got nukes, but we'll decomission most or all of them if Iran stops developing their own". Also, some genuine progress on the road-map or other route towards resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians would really undercut support for the 'annihilate Israel' lobby in Iran and elsewhere.

the_syco

Erm, I doubt it.

During the "war on terror" Iran has co-opratated nicely, giving info on terrorsits, and even helping US to kill them with US unmanned planes.

The US won't bomb Iran, as Iran would then supply the terrorists. And as Iran has a fully fuctioning nuclear program, that'd be a very bad idea.

Oh, that and (stir fryed) Rice has said the US won't attack them.

Hobbes

the_syco wrote:

Oh, that and (stir fryed) Rice has said the US won't attack them.

Bush declared Iran a "grave threat" if they go nuclear.

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/bushnuclear14.htm

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

It wouldn't be up to the US, it would be up to the Iraqis (it is there country). To not shoot down the jets would mean the US was joining Israels side in the matter.

You are being a bit pedantic. It doesn't take a military expert (which I'm not - obviously) to see that while the US may be very keen to get the Iraqi army up and running for counter-insurgency so they can pull out some troops, I doubt they will be so keen about Iraqi controlled AA defenses and an Iraqi airforce! The airspace above Iraq will be controlled by the US military for quite a while yet I'd say.
What will the Iraqi govt. shoot down the Israeli jets with if the US won't? Peashooters?

The extent of future US anger with any unilateral Israeli action against Iran will depend on how it pans out. I don't think the US would lift a finger to hinder said action while it is in progress.

Victor

Will complete post late today

fly_agaric wrote:

Would the US really shoot down Israeli jets that flew unannounced through Iraq's airspace on their way to Iran if they refused to go back the way they came? Somehow I can't see it happening.

Quite possibly.

Scenario:

You are the American General responsible for the air defences in Iraq. 100 aircraft are approachin from Jordan and are about to cross the Jordan - Iraq neutral zone. You've passed this information up the chain, but are waiting for a response. You have challenged the aircraft by radio but they are not responding.

Alternatives: