Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?

Be like Nutella

ok so we're not talking 'a few years'... fine

and we both agree that where the oil comes from doesn't matter when there will still be a large quantity of world oil taken out of the region and therefore its stability is and will remain important to all for the foreseeable future... fine

the 'holding America to a higher standard than ourselves' point is good... it does seem that way alright but really I think its obvious what people mean when they jump on America for doing this or that... we simply mean to say that America is ONE COUNTRY under ONE GOVERNMENT and is SOOOO UNBELIEVABLY POWERFUL its not even funny so when they act it is INCUMBENT UPON THEM to act in as moral a way as possible because of the influence they wield in all situations.

IF America comes out and backs the Egyptian rising and says that these people were justified to rise up because of their terrible corrupt leader then that has a massive impact on the situation and similarly when America talks about WMDs in Iraq it can and did end up in a massive invasion point being THEY
have unchallengeable power and can basically do what they want. .. like for instance invade a country who has not attacked them or remotely kill 3 to 4 thousand people with missiles from robotic planes in a country with which it is not at war who has never attacked them and who does not want them missiling their country no matter what the US says justifies it.

America has not been challenged nearly enough for things it has done and is doing and should be held to the absolute highest standard... in fact there is no comparison to America's position in the world in almost any sphere - they are simply an incredibly militarily powerful force who can do what they want and have done what they want whether we care or not... we voice our opinion about what they do as loud as we can in order to bring reason into the global consciousness... forums etc... TV debates... it all matters when America goes on a mad one like in the case of the WMD's in Iraq which is universally considered to be a big pile of complete crap based on the whim of a small group of determined men in Washington so in order to prevent a groundswell for something so ****in mental as that happening in plain sight again, we talk loudly about the bullsh1t 'America' does or is maybe thinking about doing.

I don't blame American citizens on the actions of its government it wouldn't be rational... so I don't but I know that groups within Washington can get their way even when it seems bleedin incredible lunacy... so this 'higher standard' is reserved for America's almost omnipotent power to do what it wants given the right type of mental groundswell .. that can and does happen. We scrutinize its actions because it has done bad ****in things many many times (and very good things too) so we don't really trust 'America' and we know that it has 'interests' and that it has acted paradoxically before and in some ways is a complete oxymoron.. in what it says are its ideals- to what it actually does and has done out there in the world.

It has prevented genocide and also stood by and watched eyes open as genocide happened (Clinton - Rwanda... Clinton - Kosovo)... it has acted on behalf of the worlds poor and then simultaneously singlehandedly upheld entire brutally evil regimes all in the name of its supposed 'interests'... America is a double edged sword in this world and has caused immense hurt and suffering with its actions and has also brought wealth and innovation and good deeds to the world too... it has no face no clearly identifiable personality and its set of ideals we so often hear about are a pile of crap really because each and every administration republican or democrat acts totally differently.

Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Kosovo or Waziristan... America wields great influence. I hope this high standard you speak of is a 'high standard' and I hope we and its own citizens demand this 'High standard' forever as long as it wields such a mighty sword upon this world.

southsiderosie

SamHarris wrote: »

There wasnt a point there to begin with worth noticing.

SamHarris wrote: »

I am? No, your confusing yourself and basically arguing with yourself - YOU claimed I said it would be of no consequence - Im afraid this is all a figment of your imagination.

SamHarris wrote: »

Do people on this thing actually read news ever, or just kind of guess whats going on?

SamHarris wrote: »

Trust me, I almost certainly know more about oil and global politics than you do. Given that you evidently believed
most of the US' oil came from the ME is just testament to that.

SamHarris wrote: »

Wow, you find it unlikely in 20 years? Im glad Ive gotten such an expert opinion on the subject.

SamHarris wrote: »

If you think oil alone "explains the world we know so much" then you have little complexity in your opinions.

SamHarris wrote: »

Thanks for repeating my post Nutella, in a much more longwinded manner...

MOD NOTE:

Is this what you consider civil discourse? Take a week off - and when your ban is up, you need to seriously rethink your posting style if you want to continue to have access to this forum.

Voltex

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok so we're not talking 'a few years'... fine

and we both agree that where the oil comes from doesn't matter when there will still be a large quantity of world oil taken out of the region and therefore its stability is and will remain important to all for the foreseeable future... fine

the 'holding America to a higher standard than ourselves' point is good... it does seem that way alright but really I think its obvious what people mean when they jump on America for doing this or that... we simply mean to say that America is ONE COUNTRY under ONE GOVERNMENT and is SOOOO UNBELIEVABLY POWERFUL its not even funny so when they act it is INCUMBENT UPON THEM to act in as moral a way as possible because of the influence they wield in all situations. IF America comes out and backs the Egyptian rising and says that these people were justified to rise up because of their terrible corrupt leader then that has a massive impact on the situation and similarly when America talks about WMDs in Iraq it can and did end up in a massive invasion point being THEY
have unchallengeable power and can basically do what they want. .. like for instance invade a country who has not attacked them or remotely kill 3 to 4 thousand people with missiles from robotic planes in a country with which it is not at war who has never attacked them and who does not want them missiling their country no matter what the US says justifies it. America has not been challenged nearly enough for things it has done and is doing and should be held to the absolute highest standard... in fact there is no comparison to America's position in the world in almost any sphere - they are simply an incredibly militarily powerful force who can do what they want and have done what they want whether we care or not... we voice our opinion about what they do as loud as we can in order to bring reason into the global consciousness... forums etc... TV debates... it all matters when America goes on a mad one like in the case of the WMD's in Iraq which is universally considered to be a big pile of complete crap based on the whim of a small group of determined men in Washington so in order to prevent a groundswell for something so ****in mental as that happening in plain sight again we talk loudly about the bullsh1t 'America' does or is maybe thinking about doing. I don't blame American citizens on the actions of its government it wouldn't be rational... so I don't but I know that groups within Washington can get their way even when it seems bleedin incredible lunacy... so this 'higher standard' is reserved for America's almost omnipotent power to do what it wants given the right type of mental groundswell .. that can and does happen. We scrutinize its actions because it has done bad ****in things many many times (and very good things too) so we don't trust 'America' and we know that it has 'interests' and that it has acted paradoxically before and in some ways is a complete oxymoron in what it says are its ideals to what it actually does and has done out there in the world. It has prevented genocide and also stood by and watched eyes open as genocide happened (Clinton - Rwanda... Clinton - Kosovo)... it has acted on behalf of the worlds poor and then simultaneously singlehandedly upheld entire evil brutaly evil regimes all in the name of its supposed 'interests'... America is a double edged sword in this world and has caused immense hurt and suffering with its actions and has also brought wealth and innovation and good deeds to the world too... it has no face no clearly identifiable personality and its set of ideals we so often hear about are a pile of crap really because each and every administration republican or democrat acts totally differently but all the same and always with America's Interests at heart whether those 'Interests' cause it to inflict or cause to be inflicted - literal evil or great good for huge swathes of the world whether it be Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Kosovo or Waziristan. I hope this standard you speak of is a 'high standard' and I hope we and its citizens demand this 'High standard' forever as long as it wields such a mighty sword upon this world.

Anyone else find this post difficult to read?
But getting back to the original point of this thread. I think Israel is very close to launhing an attack on Iran. If we look at the the fact that with an American election in less than 60 days, Israel has a window of political uncertainty in which to act, Syria is out of the picture in terms of supporting Iran and Iran is speeding up its enrichment process. All these elements point towards a strategic opportunity that Israel should take.

Be like Nutella

yeah I'm no great writer tis true but here it is again broken up a bit... if you mean to say its all bollox then have at it... don't just try and get others to agree that YOU thought it was by saying it was hard to read for the sake of it... offer something useful yourself dude:

the 'holding America to a higher standard than ourselves' point is good... it does seem that way alright but really I think its obvious what people mean when they jump on America for doing this or that... we simply mean to say that America is ONE COUNTRY under ONE GOVERNMENT and is SOOOO UNBELIEVABLY POWERFUL its not even funny so when they act it is INCUMBENT UPON THEM to act in as moral a way as possible because of the influence they wield in all situations.

IF America comes out and backs the Egyptian rising and says that these people were justified to rise up because of their terrible corrupt leader then that has a massive impact on the situation and similarly when America talks about WMDs in Iraq it can and did end up in a massive invasion point being THEY
have unchallengeable power and can basically do what they want. .. like for instance invade a country who has not attacked them or remotely kill 3 to 4 thousand people with missiles from robotic planes in a country with which it is not at war who has never attacked them and who does not want them missiling their country no matter what the US says justifies it.

America has not been challenged nearly enough for things it has done and is doing and should be held to the absolute highest standard... in fact there is no comparison to America's position in the world in almost any sphere - they are simply an incredibly militarily powerful force who can do what they want and have done what they want whether we care or not... we voice our opinion about what they do as loud as we can in order to bring reason into the global consciousness... forums etc... TV debates... it all matters when America goes on a mad one like in the case of the WMD's in Iraq which is universally considered to be a big pile of complete crap based on the whim of a small group of determined men in Washington so in order to prevent a groundswell for something so ****in mental as that happening in plain sight again, we talk loudly about the bullsh1t 'America' does or is maybe thinking about doing.

I don't blame American citizens on the actions of its government it wouldn't be rational... so I don't but I know that groups within Washington can get their way even when it seems bleedin incredible lunacy... so this 'higher standard' is reserved for America's almost omnipotent power to do what it wants given the right type of mental groundswell .. that can and does happen. We scrutinize its actions because it has done bad ****in things many many times (and very good things too) so we don't really trust 'America' and we know that it has 'interests' and that it has acted paradoxically before and in some ways is a complete oxymoron.. in what it says are its ideals- to what it actually does and has done out there in the world.

It has prevented genocide and also stood by and watched eyes open as genocide happened (Clinton - Rwanda... Clinton - Kosovo)... it has acted on behalf of the worlds poor and then simultaneously singlehandedly upheld entire brutally evil regimes all in the name of its supposed 'interests'... America is a double edged sword in this world and has caused immense hurt and suffering with its actions and has also brought wealth and innovation and good deeds to the world too... it has no face no clearly identifiable personality and its set of ideals we so often hear about are a pile of crap really because each and every administration republican or democrat acts totally differently.

Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Kosovo or Waziristan... America wields great influence. I hope this high standard you speak of is a 'high standard' and I hope we and its own citizens demand this 'High standard' forever as long as it wields such a mighty sword upon this world.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Try everyone, not "the US". Where do you think Europe, Canada Australia etc etc etc get their energy needs?

True.

The same acussation can be leveled with regard to the Israeli situation, the EU is its biggest trading partner but the idea that we take moral and political responsibilty for putting preassure on them never seems to enter the minds of those who support the Palestinian cause.

Economic sanctions are tricky and often hurt those they are supposed to benefit (Iraq). There are moves afoot to ban products and services that emanate from Israeli colonies in the West Bank and Ireland is supportive and is considering going it alone if needs be.

those who support the Palestinian cause.

You're constructing a false dichotomy. Most people just want to see and end to the conflict and oppression of the Palestinians. Israeli settlements(spit) fortified apartheid state supported colonies in the West bank are illegal by international law and are only worsening the situation. The Israeli right are constantly crying foul that they have no credible Palestinian peace partner/movement while expanding its colonising of the West Bank and E. Jerusalem; They are saying 'let's share the cake' while greedily stuffing their faces with it.

Pro-conflict resolution =/= anti-Israel.

old_aussie

Canada gives iranian diplomats five days to get out.

Time to go iran.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/08/iran-calls-five-day-deadline-for-its-diplomats-to-leave-canada-is-unwise/


I think this is a precursor to bigger things about to happen.

Be like Nutella

yes there is some noise at the moment and as well as the Canada thing there's also some talk of a possible leak or 'find' which says Iran has actually been carrying out a nuclear weapon 'yield study' recently and this will come out more clearly in the coming days but I would reiterate that most 'big' opinions on the situation are saying that Iran is not actually actively pursuing a nuclear weapon and is and has acted like a rational actor thus far when one ignores the rhetoric (on both sides actually).

http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/iran-pursued-nuke-yield-studies-data-suggests/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1

Also, the analysis (from what I can see) of what Israel can actually do when it comes to a strike is that a strike by Israel on its own is considered 'not really worth it' as it would not achieve enough of a set of defined goals as to make it 'worth it' and presents too many risks in any event. Israel is actually 'trying to seem like' the irrational actor with its threats - kinda like the shaper in the pub standing behind his mates shouting 'cmonn I'll have ya'... bluffs and gaming is all that has been happening it seems.

On the other hand, if the pundits are wrong - then Israel may try and actually do the strikes BUT and this seems to be a big issue - Israel's military and intelligence and political leadership are actually at odds (by some accounts) about Iran and Netanyahu could conceivably 'attempt' to pull the trigger and find himself blocked... or may in fact already feel he may be blocked if did try and give the green light so there are still some barriers in the way of a trigger-happy Netanyahu and co.

What is sure and certain is that if Israel kick off and hit a necessarily limited number of sites (say 3 or 4) and cause any sort of wide dispersal of nuclear material AND kill say 100 Iranians in the process then Iran will retaliate in kind and it is almost impossible to imagine a scenario where Iran's response attack does not lead to instant war with Israel which would then very quickly draw the US right into the straits in force to prevent shut down of 30% of world oil traffic and overnight 50% price spikes in oil products. The US would act quickly with overwhelming fire power and take out so much Iranian war infrastructure it would cripple Iran's military ability in two weeks and ideally stop there, however it's very easy to see an Israeli strike cause a chaotic and unpredictable slide into all out war between Israel/US and Iran which could very easily result huge casualties on both sides (not the US) and lead to a ground offensive right to Tehran to overthrow the regime and nation build etc etc

America simply cannot afford to let this situation realize for many many reasons and so this must be taken into account when considering whether you think Israel actually mean one cent of what they say about being ready to strike Iran even if the US doesn't want them to. My opinion is that Iran does not believe that Israel will strike, at all under any circumstances short of Iran going directly for the bomb and visibly so.

So nobody believes Israel will strike, Iran is not going for the bomb (although it may have done some computer simulations) and America CANNOT FOR ONE SECOND CONTEMPLATE FULL WAR AND REGIME CHANGE. Oh and Iran can withstand the current level of sanctions too so Israel is just getting more and more pissed off and blowing more and more steam... so it's a slow motion crisis we're watching which has no obvious end in sight unless there is a massive massive uprising in Iran and there's nothing to support that happening. What is most important is that Romney doesn't win and possibly open the door to a change in stance by the US which has until now been playing Israel off Iran to justify sanctions upon Iran... and very successfully. Everything, including allowing Iran to get the bomb is better then Israel doing the strikes and lighting the fuse for war. If Iran got the bomb it would not use it (bar deeming Iran as one massive crazy bearded irrational suicide bomber) and I'm 100% sure that Iran having nuclear weapons is a much much safer scenario then Israel bombing Iranian nuclear sites this year or next and thus assuming that all concerned are in fact rational actors acting with their respective interests at heart then Israel will not bomb Iran I'd bet my life on it. (at least not unless there is some massive finding or leak which shows Iran is 100% directly pursuing an immanent nuclear test)

saladin

Well like everybody else who's been predicting WW3 for the last 60 years you'll be wrong again. Did it ever occur to you that war rhetoric in Israel and Iran like in American in 2004 is just for domestic political purposes.

Do yourself a favour and read real newspapers not the tabloids.

saladin

No two democracies have ever gone to war with each other because their electorates generally don't like the idea of being conscripted to fight against fellow rational beings.

Non democracies however are not rational state actors and often up end in wars with democratic nations. The Israeli public aren't exactly in favour of any war with Iran and that gets for their military and intelligence services despite teir populist Prime Minister making scary statesns. It's called politics. The Iraninan and Israeli leaders are simply distracting their local populations from ther own problems by saying look there's a big bad scary guy over there.

Israel is lready conducting a covert war and maybe eventually they'll do an Osirak( attack on Iraqs nuclear plants) but they Iran won't be able do anything in response except a bit of terrorism.

Be like Nutella

actually all of that sounds quite feasible.

I don't agree with it but it does sound possible.

I would actually think there is a real risk of full war if Israel were to attempt a strike. Also I don't really regard Iran as a democratic country in the 'normal' sense so that changes things there too.

Bibi COULD be playing the 'boogie man' game on his own population (who care more about economic problems there than this stuff as polls show) but I just think the stakes are too high for that to be true... it just seems a bit CT to me and would need some supporting evidence... anything at all in fact.

I think Iran would lose any full military engagement in any possible scenario here but I do feel there is a possibility that IT (or large parts of its revolutionary military) would fight to the death in certain situations even if it knows it would lose and I wouldn't put that under 'irrational' either as it could be defined as self defense and justifiably so.

I just don't think it's likely as simple as you sum up there.... but it's possible.

nyarlothothep

Be like Nutella wrote: »

yeah I'm no great writer tis true but here it is again broken up a bit... if you mean to say its all bollox then have at it... don't just try and get others to agree that YOU thought it was by saying it was hard to read for the sake of it... offer something useful yourself dude:

the 'holding America to a higher standard than ourselves' point is good... it does seem that way alright but really I think its obvious what people mean when they jump on America for doing this or that... we simply mean to say that America is ONE COUNTRY under ONE GOVERNMENT and is SOOOO UNBELIEVABLY POWERFUL its not even funny so when they act it is INCUMBENT UPON THEM to act in as moral a way as possible because of the influence they wield in all situations.

IF America comes out and backs the Egyptian rising and says that these people were justified to rise up because of their terrible corrupt leader then that has a massive impact on the situation and similarly when America talks about WMDs in Iraq it can and did end up in a massive invasion point being THEY
have unchallengeable power and can basically do what they want. .. like for instance invade a country who has not attacked them or remotely kill 3 to 4 thousand people with missiles from robotic planes in a country with which it is not at war who has never attacked them and who does not want them missiling their country no matter what the US says justifies it.

America has not been challenged nearly enough for things it has done and is doing and should be held to the absolute highest standard... in fact there is no comparison to America's position in the world in almost any sphere - they are simply an incredibly militarily powerful force who can do what they want and have done what they want whether we care or not... we voice our opinion about what they do as loud as we can in order to bring reason into the global consciousness... forums etc... TV debates... it all matters when America goes on a mad one like in the case of the WMD's in Iraq which is universally considered to be a big pile of complete crap based on the whim of a small group of determined men in Washington so in order to prevent a groundswell for something so ****in mental as that happening in plain sight again, we talk loudly about the bullsh1t 'America' does or is maybe thinking about doing.

I don't blame American citizens on the actions of its government it wouldn't be rational... so I don't but I know that groups within Washington can get their way even when it seems bleedin incredible lunacy... so this 'higher standard' is reserved for America's almost omnipotent power to do what it wants given the right type of mental groundswell .. that can and does happen. We scrutinize its actions because it has done bad ****in things many many times (and very good things too) so we don't really trust 'America' and we know that it has 'interests' and that it has acted paradoxically before and in some ways is a complete oxymoron.. in what it says are its ideals- to what it actually does and has done out there in the world.

It has prevented genocide and also stood by and watched eyes open as genocide happened (Clinton - Rwanda... Clinton - Kosovo)... it has acted on behalf of the worlds poor and then simultaneously singlehandedly upheld entire brutally evil regimes all in the name of its supposed 'interests'... America is a double edged sword in this world and has caused immense hurt and suffering with its actions and has also brought wealth and innovation and good deeds to the world too... it has no face no clearly identifiable personality and its set of ideals we so often hear about are a pile of crap really because each and every administration republican or democrat acts totally differently.

Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Kosovo or Waziristan... America wields great influence. I hope this high standard you speak of is a 'high standard' and I hope we and its own citizens demand this 'High standard' forever as long as it wields such a mighty sword upon this world.

I feel that America is the true successor to Rome, it's debatable but the wheels of their machine of power turn on such an unfathomable scale. It even seems to be transforming from a republic into an imperial state although one could argue that the country was founded upon decadence, eg systematic extermination of the Indians, slavery, voter intimidation such as cooping, all of this and more would directly contradict the enlightenment ideals that the nation was founded upon. If America was meant to be an Elysium, a new Eden, then it was a paradise lost from the beginning.

kstand

From what I can see and have been reading, Israel is doing everything it can to coerce the US into attacking Iran and in fairness to Obama, he has been stubborn enough about doing so. I would however fear what regime change in the US could do should there be a republican win in the US Presidential election. Israel cannot achieve its goal without the US.

poeticseraphim

The population of Iran is about 75 million...the population of Israel is 7 million.

The idea of Israel striking Iran alone is laughable it is Israeland America or nothing....Iran has a military and an infrastructure...Israeli defense forces are superior but they would still have a lot to deal with.

Iraq Syria and Jordan would be drawn in because they are so close.

Infact it has been speculated the sitution in Syria is being helped by forces with agenda linked to this.

Without American intervention Israel would be wiped off the map.

This is why Israel has been trying to drag the U.S into a strike or a joint war effort....which so far Obama has been refusing.

So it really depends on this next administration and who it is.

Also it would the mean the US militarily involved in Iran Syria Iraq ,Afghanistan and possibly Jordan......so like WOW...I think Romney is just stupid enough to do it.

Richard Hillman

It will be relatively localised to the middle east. China and Russia will steer clear but sell arms to anyone that will buy them. America of course would get involved.

Mr.Micro

kstand wrote: »

From what I can see and have been reading, Israel is doing everything it can to coerce the US into attacking Iran and in fairness to Obama, he has been stubborn enough about doing so. I would however fear what regime change in the US could do should there be a republican win in the US Presidential election. Israel cannot achieve its goal without the US.

I agree, the trouble is if Israel does attack Iran and achieves its short term goal that will not be the end of it. The hornets nest will have been disturbed and Israel will have to deal with a vengeful Iran IMO. Is Israel ready for the backlash forever?

JustinDee

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree, the trouble is if Israel does attack Iran and achieves its short term goal that will not be the end of it. The hornets nest will have been disturbed and Israel will have to deal with a vengeful Iran IMO. Is Israel ready for the backlash forever?

It is already in a "backlash" situation and has been for some decades now. Israel won't attack Iran. They don't have the diplomatic or logisitical support within or outside its borders to carry out an overt war against them, so in the meantime, it will remain in a cold war situation with its enemies and enemies' allies.

kstand

JustinDee wrote: »

It is already in a "backlash" situation and has been for some decades now. Israel won't attack Iran. They don't have the diplomatic or logisitical support within or outside its borders to carry out an overt war against them, so in the meantime, it will remain in a cold war situation with its enemies and enemies' allies.

I would have thought they are already engaged in a covert war, what with Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian scientists plus the other ways they slowed down the Iranian nuclear programme?
Either way the world has a problem on its hands. Let Iran get the bomb and you have a very volatile and dangerous situation. Stop them and its equally so. The liberation of Kuwait and the invasions of Afghanistana and Iraq will seem like a squabble between 2 neighbours over a retaining wall in comparison if or rather when this goes off.

JustinDee

kstand wrote: »

I would have thought they are already engaged in a covert war, what with Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian scientists plus the other ways they slowed down the Iranian nuclear programme?

You're misreading "overt" for "covert" in my post.

jmayo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

All the while Israel's nuclear arsenal (the only one in the Middle East) does not come up for discussion because their nukes, of course, aren't allowed to be part of the narrative.

Israel isn't really concerned with Iran committing nuclear suicide by attacking it with its non-existent nukes - let's face it that's exactly what an attack by Iran would be.

Israel is concerned with losing its theatre dominance i.e. the choice to knock the shit out of its neighbours, subjugate the Palestinians, and fulfil the Zionist project.

As for a world war? Highly unlikely. Imo an attack on Iran is highly unlikely too.

They will have to attack Iran just like they had to attack Iraq.
The problem as laid out by another poster is how to do it.

And like their attack on Iraq they did the world and indeed their neighbours a bloody favour.
What would have been the outcome of the Kuwait invasion if saddam had nukes ?

But of course some people, because of their blind hatred for Israel would rather see a bunch of numpties in Iran gain nuclear capability.
I would rather Israel had a thousands nukes rather than some eejit like ahmadinejad have one.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree, the trouble is if Israel does attack Iran and achieves its short term goal that will not be the end of it. The hornets nest will have been disturbed and Israel will have to deal with a vengeful Iran IMO. Is Israel ready for the backlash forever?

And what is the choice ?
Do you seriously think that Israel can afford to let the Iranians get nuclear weapons ?

This is a state who has sponsored groups to continually attack Israel, a country whose leadership has openly stated it's aim is to drive the Israelis into the sea.
Israel deals with a backlash every day as it is.

The biggest problem for Israel is not really whether to attack or not.
It is how to make sure they actually take out their nuclear capability in one go.
The Iranians haven't left their facilities as exposed as the Iraqis and it makes for a harder target.

wes

jmayo wrote: »

But of course some people, because of their blind hatred for Israel would rather see a bunch of numpties in Iran gain nuclear capability.

I fail to see how this is blind hatred. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Also, I don't think people are stupid enough to fall for the same Iraq war song dance, quite so soon.

jmayo wrote: »

I would rather Israel had a thousands nukes rather than some eejit like ahmadinejad have one.

Well, even if Iran has nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have them. The Supreme Leader would control them. Ahmadinejad doesn't have nearly as much power, as say the US President.

jmayo wrote: »

And what is the choice ?
Do you seriously think that Israel can afford to let the Iranians get nuclear weapons ?

There is no program, in the first place. Israeli and US leaders have been making claims about Iranian nuclear weapons for years, and no weapons have materialized.

jmayo wrote: »

This is a state who has sponsored groups to continually attack Israel,

There have been numerous attacks on Iran as well. Both sides are guilty of sponsering various violent groups.

jmayo wrote: »

a country whose leadership has openly stated it's aim is to drive the Israelis into the sea.

Not true, and such claims have already been debunked.

jmayo wrote: »

The biggest problem for Israel is not really whether to attack or not.

It is how to make sure they actually take out their nuclear capability in one go.

An attack on civilian nuclear program, would count as act of war, and probably be considered a war crime, as it could kill a lot of civlians due to the potential contamination. IMHO, its appaling so many people are supportive of such a war crime.

jmayo wrote: »

The Iranians haven't left their facilities as exposed as the Iraqis and it makes for a harder target.

Well, that might have to something to do, with threats being made by various countries.

jmayo

wes wrote: »

I fail to see how this is blind hatred. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. Also, I don't think people are stupid enough to fall for the same Iraq war song dance, quite so soon.

And you know this because ...
Oh wait it must be true since the US says otherwise. :rolleyes:

BTW it is a fact that the Iraqis actually did have a nuclear program and had tried their best during the 70s to procurr a reactor and enriched uranium from a number of countries.
Finally they had managed to get a research reactor from the French.

Oh and if their nuclear program was such a red herring dreamt up by the Israelis and American then please explain why the fook did the Iranians (yes the Iranians) attack the reactor site a few months before the Israelis.
And yes I know they were at war, but surely they had bigger more military related sites to attack. :rolleyes:

wes wrote: »

Well, even if Iran has nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad wouldn't have them. The Supreme Leader would control them. Ahmadinejad doesn't have nearly as much power, as say the US President.

Yeah it will make the Israelis a whole lot more easy knowing that the Ayatollah Khomeini's successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his finger on them.

wes wrote: »

There is no program, in the first place. Israeli and US leaders have been making claims about Iranian nuclear weapons for years, and no weapons have materialized.

Of course it has to be wrong since the bad guys said so.
Well do you expect to see them on al jazeera or would you like a program on Discovery channel.

And it seems the 35 state U.N. nuclear watchdog passed a resolution yesterday "rebuking Iran for defying demands to curb uranium enrichment and failing to clarify mounting concerns about its suspected research into atomic bombs. "

wes wrote: »

An attack on civilian nuclear program, would count as act of war, and probably be considered a war crime, as it could kill a lot of civlians due to the potential contamination. IMHO, its appaling so many people are supportive of such a war crime.

Shure what's wrong with letting the poor old Iranians do their "civilian" research into nuclear power and uranium enrichment.

Personally I would rather not have a country that so readily supports fatwas (the death sentence kind) on people who make a joke about their religious icons and a country that readily supports the use of suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians indiscriminatly, to have the ability to kill even more inocent civilans at the touch of a button.

Are people for fooking real or are they so blind in their hatred of certain countries that they don't care what the fook enemies of said countries do.

Unless you are a muslim, and even a shia muslim at that, Iran and it's rulers are not your friend.
Just ask their Arab neighbours.

christmas2012

Jews and muslims will cause huge problems to come,there always at it..

wes

jmayo wrote: »

And you know this because ...

The people making the accusations need to provide proof. They haven't.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh wait it must be true since the US says otherwise. :rolleyes:

The US lost a lot of credibility after the claims regarding Iraq. Its certainly a good idea to view new claims about countries having WMDs with a grain of salt.

The only people to blame for the loss in US credibility is the US themselves.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW it is a fact that the Iraqis actually did have a nuclear program and had tried their best during the 70s to procurr a reactor and enriched uranium from a number of countries.

Finally they had managed to get a research reactor from the French.

Oh and if their nuclear program was such a red herring dreamt up by the Israelis and American then please explain why the fook did the Iranians (yes the Iranians) attack the reactor site a few months before the Israelis.

And yes I know they were at war, but surely they had bigger more military related sites to attack. :rolleyes:

The Iraq invasion occured in 2003. I was talking about 2003, when you know the US and UK lied about a Iraqi WMD program.

No program existed in 2003. Sorry, but you clearly know that the 70's and 2003 are 2 different time periods, and that no WMDs were found after the 2003 invasion. Sorry, but you are being hugely disingenuous imho.

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah it will make the Israelis a whole lot more easy knowing that the Ayatollah Khomeini's successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has his finger on them.

There is no trigger, as there are no weapons. BTW, the Ayotollah made a Religous edict against nuclear weapons.

Still, I notice your lack of concern for Iranian civilians. Amazing how little there lives matter to war mongers.

jmayo wrote: »

Of course it has to be wrong since the bad guys said so.
Well do you expect to see them on al jazeera or would you like a program on Discovery channel.

Considering that a lot of the same people lied about Iraq in 2003 (not the 70's and you know full well I was talking about 2003), are now making claims regarding Iran, then they as such lack credibility. Just common sense really, not to trust the same cast of characters making the exact same bull**** claims they made less than a decade ago.

jmayo wrote: »

And it seems the 35 state U.N. nuclear watchdog passed a resolution yesterday "rebuking Iran for defying demands to curb uranium enrichment and failing to clarify mounting concerns about its suspected research into atomic bombs. "

See the word "suspected" there. Hardly the same as confirmed program for Nuclear Weapons, now is it.

jmayo wrote: »

Shure what's wrong with letting the poor old Iranians do their "civilian" research into nuclear power and uranium enrichment.

They have every right to do that under the NPT. They certainly have questions to answer, and they should comply with the NPT, but I see no reason why they should go above and beyond the NPT,.

jmayo wrote: »

Personally I would rather not have a country that so readily supports fatwas (the death sentence kind) on people who make a joke about their religious icons and a country that readily supports the use of suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians indiscriminatly, to have the ability to kill even more inocent civilans at the touch of a button.

Well, you have no need to worry, as there is no nuclear weapons program....

Also, its odd that you ignore the Fatwa against Nuclear Weapons, and only bring up the ones that suit you.

jmayo wrote: »

Are people for fooking real or are they so blind in their hatred of certain countries that they don't care what the fook enemies of said countries do.

I see no evidence of this hatred at all. Its just something your saying, and ignoring the fact that the countries involved lied about WMDs very recently, and you even went as far as to pretend you didn't know that I was talking about the 2003 invasion.

jmayo wrote: »

Unless you are a muslim, and even a shia muslim at that, Iran and it's rulers are not your friend.
Just ask their Arab neighbours.

For someone accusing others of hatred. Your statement here seems pretty damn hateful.

BTW, Iran was attacked by its neighbours, and not the other way round. I am no fan of the regime, they are certinaly odious, but quite frankly, there no worse, than other in the region, and I see no reason, why they should be singled out.

Mr.Micro

jmayo wrote: »

I would rather Israel had a thousands nukes rather than some eejit like ahmadinejad have one.



And what is the choice ?
Do you seriously think that Israel can afford to let the Iranians get nuclear weapons ?

This is a state who has sponsored groups to continually attack Israel, a country whose leadership has openly stated it's aim is to drive the Israelis into the sea.
Israel deals with a backlash every day as it is.

The biggest problem for Israel is not really whether to attack or not.
It is how to make sure they actually take out their nuclear capability in one go.
The Iranians haven't left their facilities as exposed as the Iraqis and it makes for a harder target.

Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Israel does not have the automatic right to own nuclear weapons and it's neighbours not. A lot of rhetoric comes out of Iran, hot air. So far Iran has not attacked Israel and is not likely to IMO..... It wants to exist and knows it would be attacked by the US et al if it did.
Israel is just as dangerous as Iran, if you consider the latter dangerous.

stoppress

paddylanger wrote: »

There has been a awful lot of rhetoric coming from Israel (and Iran too) lately and been reported in the press about a pre emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Is this the precursor to world war 3?

We all know or at least we should understand that israel cannot mount such attack with out the express permission of their number 1 and bff America. Simply because an attack by israel on iran will be seen by the iranians as an american attack on iran.

Likewise any attack by israel will more than likely unite the muslim world in such a way that israel would face their own demise. surely they must realize this and thus not really conceive that an attack on iran is possible or likely and its all talk to try to enhance their own political strength among their own voters and to try an get more finance from america to.

israel states that they are just protecting themselves and a pre emptive strike is vital in their eyes so that Iran can not develop nuclear weapons and thus use them on israel! Are we seeing the propaganda machine in motion. its beginning to sound similar to the other lies we were told like that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that Bin laden was in Afghanistan.

As it is asserted by certain individuals that iran has not attacked directly another state in over 300 years. However they have shown support to other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah .

I tried to have a reasonable debate on one of the irish newspaper sites recently and i was surprised by the amount of pro zionist contributors. I was approaching the topic from an unbiased view and open to learn about both sides of the argument. but their fervor in stating that Iran wants to push the jews into the sea and they were all adamant that israel has to strike first and put iran back into the dark ages got me really concerned.

When i queried the fact that israel is an apartheid state and they should consider trying to make an acceptable peace with the palestinians first rather than worrying about Iran, i was immediately jumped on as almost anti israel, anti jew. which i am not, but it got me thinking i maybe was leaning toward the anti zionist end of the spectrum.

I was trying to figure out if there is a difference between being anti israel and anti zionist and indeed some research lead me to find that even in israel there are jewish people that are anti zionist and had no conflicts with their faith about that fact, indeed they even believe that it is the zionists that have lost their faith or a portion of it.

I believe that all organized religion is a bad thing for this world and religion has caused more wars and deaths and often contrary to the beliefs and practices of those religions. But i can accept that people choose to believe and they are perfectly entitled to do so imho. But there are serious consequences of their beliefs that they use as an excuse to incite hatred and indeed kill and murder in the name of one god or another but those are the faults of man and not necessary the religion or belief structure .

It is also difficult to assume that the true conflict between iran and israel and palestine is due to different religions. less than 20% of muslims in the world are arabs/ persians. so not all muslims for the time being anyways has any grievances with israel despite what they themselves might think.

Also i when the pro zionists mentioned that iran wants to push all jews into the sea that they are interpreting the fact that iran has indeed stated that israel will be wiped off the map. It follows that indeed if it wasn't for the Balfour declaration by the british that the state of israel that exists today wouldn't even be there. So maybe that is what Iran is talking about.

So are we just dealing with another consequence of britain and america interfering in countries thousands of miles away and leaving a trail of destruction behind them?

the people of palestine had elections that former us president carter described as the most fair and democratic elections seen anywhere in the world and when they elected a Hamas majority to represent them both america and israel refused to deal with the elected officials as in their eyes they are a terrorist organization. How can they try to force democracy on the palestinians and yet then refuse to accept the results of that democracy when it happened? to me it makes no sense.

I find it incredulous to read that israel want to refuse iran the right to science and provide nuclear energy for its people. they know the oil will run out one day and are preparing to address their energy concerns. Should religion differences be allowed for one state to deny anothers a right to science ? when science is based on facts and reality and religion is based on fiction and beliefs?

Again i will admit i am a pacifist and have no religious belief despite being raised R.C. there might be some similarities with what happened in ireland and palestine so maybe i have some understanding and sympathy for the palestinian people. but i sincerely hope that a war of words and a symptom of the problems of the middle east does not end up in a third world war. surely we have learnt our lessons from history and that it is not the way forward and even a threat of war is infact one of the worse forms of global terrorism we could see and no better than the terrorist organizations that the supposed war on terror is trying to defeat.

So if anyone has anything to add . please do . i am eager to try an understand things better. if thousands of more lives are going to be lost maybe we should try to understand why and hopefully inquire together and find a way to save lives. Of course i wouldn't be presumptuous enough to think a discussion on boards.ie will solve the crisis but i certainly would want to question both sides of the argument and not accept all things at face value as i am sure there will be propaganda from both sides of the divide.

WW3, not likely.

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Israel does not have the automatic right to own nuclear weapons and it's neighbours not. A lot of rhetoric comes out of Iran, hot air. So far Iran has not attacked Israel and is not likely to IMO..... It wants to exist and knows it would be attacked by the US et al if it did.
Israel is just as dangerous as Iran, if you consider the latter dangerous.

We are pretty sure Israel has nukes. But it's important to see the context of why they have them and Iran shouldn't in terms of nuclear proliferation.
Israel has had them since at least the 60s. A lot has changed since then. In the early days of nuclear weapons it was assumed every industrialized nation (and many were considering it) could create a nuclear weapon. Little was done to try prevent it since the major powers were more interested in building their own stockpiles than preventing countries doing so.

These days there is a broad consensus in the world that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. The number of nuclear warheads has been declining since the 70s. Should Israel be encouraged to give theirs up? Absolutely.
Is Israel having them a good reason to let her enemies have them? Absolutely not.

Be like Nutella

So this just came out on AP.

A press conference with the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Quote

"I do not think any part of Israel will be untouched given our missile capabilities. Thus, our response (warning of annihilatory retaliation) is in itself a deterrent."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jlzm2DtUIAUGeNvCyk_tu-KaXyfw?docId=CNG.b0d1cb705164693dadc62479a8a2c79e.351

Basically he goes on to say that if Israel strike that he'll fire so many rockets at Israel, being such a small country, the damage would be so massive that Israel is therefore unlikely to strike given the (supposedly) assured retaliation i.e. a lower level version of M.A.D. and of course if Iran started firing huge quantities of rockets at Israel Israel could react with anything from cruise missiles from their submarines all the way to nuclear missiles to end the war before it suffered catastrophic losses.. that is, in my opinion.

This is serious rhetoric coming from the Iranians and clearly planned it seems to me. What is the game theory involved here... what is the message Iran is putting out? and how seriously should that retaliatory threat be taken? IMO Iran would have every right to retaliate on some level if Israel struck any of their installations and killed any of their people as it would be a clear act of war in my view... what do you think?

he also says,

"In case of an attack, Iran's obligations will change. My assessment is that Iran may leave the NPT -- but it would not mean a dash towards a nuclear bomb because we have a religious edict from the supreme leader" against atomic weapons, he said."

This is a very important statement because it seems to reaffirm the superiority and straight forward Fatwa/ban on nuclear weapons that the Ayatollah enacted. The question is; could the Ayatollah actually reverse that decision in a heartbeat IF Israel did the strike or should that Fatwa be taken seriously? what was the original wording of this edict?

__________________________________________________


This Washington Post piece from April discusses the Fatwa and hints at the possibility that the Supreme Leader should not be necessarily taken at his word given previous remarks on the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/irans-supreme-leader-embraced-concept-of-nuclear-arms-archival-document-suggests/2012/04/20/gIQAnvMTWT_blog.html

"ISIS ..... said it would be unwise, given Iran’s past behavior, to take Khamenei at his word.

This the ISIS site (Institute for Science and International Security)
Carnegie funded (FYI) and it is a pretty comprehensive one-stop Iran/Nuclear shop - quite interesting actually... only bumped into it recently.

http://isisnucleariran.org/

in their own words:

Its primary focus is on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to other nations and terrorists, bringing about greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide, strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, and achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. ISIS is widely recognized both as a source of authoritative information on nuclear programs in states that seek or possess nuclear weapons and an important contributor to efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

There really is a lot of info there on Iran's nuclear past and present. Remember that the US actually SET THEM UP with their first reactor ! Think it was called 'Atoms for peace' or somethin.

Anyway this statement by the military guy seems to be a gauntlet throw down to Israel... you want to strike us... fine but we'll send a few thousand rockets at your small territory if ya do! Wonder what the fall-out will be, bad pun.

Border-Rat

Iran has enough thermobaric missiles installed in the Lebanon to ruin Israel. This was what the 2006 invasion was about, an attempt to remove this MAD-Deterrent. It failed.

Iran itself is a deeply tunnelled Country, heavily mountainous. It can endure more damage per square mile than Israel.

Israel/UK/USA are openly threatening a nuclear attack on a Sovereign Country. If they were to make a movie about this, the civilised world would take military action against this aggressive, cancerous Axis. That trio really is the scourge of humanity.

Be like Nutella

So Iran could destroy a lot of Israel with their missiles yeah? But do ya think this retaliatory threat is real?
Surely IF Iran did hammer Israel with Missiles and kill thousands that Israel would just send a few nuclear cruise missile from their Dolphin subs their way to end the conflict before they lost too many people and surely Iran know this?

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

So Iran could destroy a lot of Israel with their missiles yeah? But do ya think this retaliatory threat is real?
Surely IF Iran did hammer Israel with Missiles and kill thousands that Israel would just send a few nuclear cruise missile from their Dolphin subs their way to end the conflict before they lost too many people and surely Iran know this?

The Iranian regime, no matter how hardline, are aware of the severe consequences if they were to start striking Israeli population centers.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Iran has enough thermobaric missiles installed in the Lebanon to ruin Israel. This was what the 2006 invasion was about, an attempt to remove this MAD-Deterrent. It failed.

How many thermobaric missiles does Iran actually have installed in Lebanon.

Israel/UK/USA are openly threatening a nuclear attack on a Sovereign Country. If they were to make a movie about this, the civilised world would take military action against this aggressive, cancerous Axis. That trio really is the scourge of humanity.

Show us these statements please.

Border-Rat

Be like Nutella wrote: »

So Iran could destroy a lot of Israel with their missiles yeah? But do ya think this retaliatory threat is real?
Surely IF Iran did hammer Israel with Missiles and kill thousands that Israel would just send a few nuclear cruise missile from their Dolphin subs their way to end the conflict before they lost too many people and surely Iran know this?

There is no thinking about it. Iran's retaliatory capability is probably, relatively speaking, more devastating than Israel's first-strike capability. In fact, Iran has MRBM's scattered all over the Country, tied in to key targets (Such as nuclear facilities) where the radio transmision is constant. If they signal is broken, i.e. if the facility broadcasting it is destroyed, the missile will dutifully launch itself at a pre-programmed target, such as Israel's nuclear reactor, Saudi oil facilities etc. This response will be instantaneous and not even the head of Iranian military intelligence knows where each missile is hidden. Simply bombing suspected sites won't cut it.

Israel can nuke Iran after it ceases to exist as a Country from its submarines, assuming the Russians and Chinese don't sink these boats. But even if they do, its more likely that there'll be enough Iranians left to even form a temporary Government, even if it means drawing help out of Shi'ite Iraq. There'll be no Government for Israel and their Dolphin subs will have to beg for bed and board in some other Country - as the last of the most hated people on Earth (Starting a nuclear war will do that, bet on it).

Jonny7 wrote: »

How many thermobaric missiles does Iran actually have installed in Lebanon.

Israel estimates Hezbullah to have upwards of 40,000 missiles and munitions. Who knows what the actual number is. They shouldn't even be called Hezbullah anyway, they're all manned by a Brigade-sized Iranian Special Forces detachment.

Show us these statements please.

Its called sabre rattling. Have you ever heard of this term?

Jonny7

You said..

Iran has enough thermobaric missiles installed in the Lebanon to ruin Israel.

How many thermobaric missiles does Iran have installed in Lebanon? 1? 10? 100?

Its called sabre rattling. Have you ever heard of this term?

You said..

Israel/UK/USA are openly threatening a nuclear attack on a Sovereign Country.

I am just curious to see these statements.

leincar

I'm coming late to this thread mainly as I would probably be accused of bias but here goes.

A conflict between Iran and Israel looks increasingly likely probably after October 9th. Will it lead to World War III? No.

People have to look aside from their pro or anti-Israeli stance. I would be seen as pro-Israeli. I'm married to an Israeli-American who has served in the IDF, we lived in Israel for much of the 90's, still have property near Tel-A-Viv and one of my Brother's-in-Law is a ranking officer in the IDF.

Despite this we left Israel as we did not like the way the Orthodox right wing and hawks were taking the country and I personally did not want my daughters serving in the IDF.(Or any military)

Since we moved to Ireland we are constantly amazed by the anti-Israeli stance by some people, mainly of the left wing variety. The very political spectrum that supported the Israeli Zionist movement in its attempt to become a nation state in the 1930's and 1940's and again in the 1940's to protect Jewish people after the Holocaust. (Here sympathy played a major role)

When we put our collective prejudices' aside, we are left with some facts and a lot of supposition. Have Israel nuclear weapons? Undoubtedly. When did they get them? Between the end of 1967 and 1972. Have they ever felt the need to use them before? Yes probably on the afternoon and evening of October 9th 1973 when it looked especially as if the Syrians were making serious in-roads.

Will they use them in the future? Undoubtedly if they feel there is a threat to their existance and no-ones coming to help.

If Israel feels as they do at the moment that Iran offers a clear and present danger to their State they will not hesitate to act. Will Iran retaliate? Absolutely, they are Persian, not Arab, They have a long history of fighting and with the warped fundamentalism that seems to be put forward by both the Iranian Clerics and Ahmadinejad, they will fight back at whatever means they have, or are left with.

Russia will not act. Despite differences with the West, they have no love for their 'troublesome' Islamic neighbours who they see as causing many problems in Chechnya and Dagestan. China is too far away and if their military were to become involved the west would probably embargo Chinese goods. The Chinese economy cannot afford that.

Who is left? The Western powers will be quite happy and content to see Iran suffer. They will of course make sure that the Straits of Hormuz stays open, otherwise they will not openly support Israel unless the existance of Israel is at stake.

The Arab nations? The nations which possibly had the military power to retaliate against Israel are in turmoil. Egypt, Syria and the military hardware and financial help of Libya are no longer in the picture. The one that could have caused serious damage, Syria is too busy with its own dirty Civil war. Jordan has no capacity. Iraq, even if it had the hardware and military would not be allowed intervene against either of the protagonists.

That leaves the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. There is absolutely no love lost between any of these states and Iran. I feel that the Saudi's secretly hope that a strike takes place against Iran as they fear them. Kuwait, Qutar and the U.A.E. like the west will just want to make sure that the shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz stays open and like the Saudi's could care less for their Persian neighbours.

Finally nothing will happen from the Israeli side(And I fervantly hope nothing ever does but fear the worst) until the Jewish Festivals have concluded. Tonight is the start of Rosh Hashanah(New Year) followed on the 25th by Yom Kippur(Day of Atonement) followed by Sukkot and Simchat which starts on September 25th until October 9th. After that an attack may well happen.

Border-Rat

Jonny7 wrote: »

How many thermobaric missiles does Iran have installed in Lebanon? 1? 10? 100?

One 1,000lb thermobaric warhead hitting a nuclear weapons facility will effectively end a Country the size of Israel.

I am just curious to see these statements.

Well its quite simple, Israel is openly discussing bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The only way to effectively do this is to use a tactical nuclear bunker buster.

Border-Rat

leincar wrote: »

Who is left? The Western powers will be quite happy and content to see Iran suffer. They will of course make sure that the Straits of Hormuz stays open, otherwise they will not openly support Israel unless the existance of Israel is at stake.

Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open means an invasion of Iranian territory. No 'Western Power' has the resources to do that.

wes

An excellent article from the Christian Science Monitor, showing how long Israel and the US have been banging on about this:

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.

I really don't see how anyone can expect Israel and the US to be taken seriously considering that they have been making claims about a imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, which year after year, and decade after decade, has failed to materialize. These guys have been getting this wrong since 1979, and yet we are suppose to believe them now?

Be like Nutella

any of this right?

Iran WILL NOT actually send thousands of rockets (apparently they could fire upwards of 500 per day if things kicked off) at Israel population centers IF Israel strike some nuclear sites, because Israel would launch a nuclear weapon at them end of story... so they just wouldn't no matter what Gen Jafari said today at his news conference in Tehran? true/false?

Israel MAY strike some of the sites, nobody knows one way or another there's bleeding endless opinions either way... but what is known is that the US genuinely doesn't bloody want them to. True I think.

IF Israel does back up its shapes/rhetoric then it's likely to happen, say, within the next 10 months? but would only have a limited affect on any supposedly active Iranian effort towards the bomb, likely only delaying such a supposedly active program by a few years at best? lets say a maximum of 4 years.

The international community and the US will not be happy with Israel if they do strike the sites, but they'll do feck all about it except hope to god it doesn't cause a huge war. Israel striking Iran is much more risky to the US than the status quo.

Iran will not strike Israel directly with rockets, no matter what strike Israel does.. but... Hezbollah may well do some nasty stuff and things could get real ****ty in the gaza strip... but to what extent nobody knows.

If Israel do some pretty large extensive air strike on say half a dozen sites killing many personnel/people, then Iran may feel compelled to actually publicly announce a reversal of the Ayatollah's Fatwa on nuclear weapons and leave the NPT and head straight for the bomb using Israel's attack as the rationale? counter to what Gen Jafari said about not dashing for the bomb... possible/not possible, likely/unlikely? what do yee think?

If Israel strikes the sites, Iran may do some stuff in the Straits to flex its muscles and appear to have some strength to its population and its neighbors but they know the US will step in strongly immediately and they will not risk overt war with the US as they would lose badly and relatively quickly and it would result in regime change or a high likelihood of it ...and a whole new Iran (over about 20 bloody years!).. I can't see any other outcome IF Iran were to directly attack any US ships in the straits.. either Iran would immediately be compelled to stop any such action and the straits would remain open OR war happens and the US wins and therefore Iran will not seriously attempt to close the straits in my view.. and when I say close I mean use it's entire mine fleet and so forth to completely stop oil traffic through there to have a huge affect on the global oil price which is what Iran has threatened but yet again is, in my view so unlikely to happen in any real way as to be almost written off because of the US reaction.
agree/disagree?

New York Times July 3rd

The Navy has doubled the number of minesweepers assigned to the region, to eight vessels, in what military officers describe as a purely defensive move.

“The message to Iran is, ‘Don’t even think about it,’ ” one senior Defense Department official said. “Don’t even think about closing the strait. We’ll clear the mines. Don’t even think about sending your fast boats out to harass our vessels or commercial shipping. We’ll put them on the bottom of the gulf.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/middleeast/us-adds-forces-in-persian-gulf-a-signal-to-iran.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www


My opinion sways towards this.
Ultimately Israel will do nothing and act rationally in a way that reflects the actual situation which is, as the US says, Iran is no threat to anyone right now or in the near future and is not directly after the bomb at present and sanctions and talking and pressure may allow Iran to develop nuclear power and allow more inspections and this thing will bubble on and have ups and downs for years maybe decades to come but no WW3!

I hope I'm right because an Israeli strike is not a rational action, how can it be? and irrational actions lead to unpredictable chaos which simply means anything and everything could happen. The Israeli population does not want to strike Iran as far as I have read about polls taken there. The US and whole International community also does not want Israel to strike Iran. Netanyahu is playing some sort of game and he has all the chips at the moment. My personal opinion is that there would be internal chaos within the Israeli military and intelligence upper echelons if Netanyahu actually put the order out to do the strikes and that order may in fact not be carried out as a result.

Be like Nutella

Here's how they stack up according to globalfirepower.com

Iran Israel

Total Population 77,891,220 7,473,052
Military Manpower Available 46,247,556 3,511,190
Fit for Military Service 39,556,497 2,963,642
Reaching Military Age Yearly 1,392,483 121,722
Active Military Personnel 545,000 187,000
Active Military Reserves 650,000 565,000
Total Aircraft 1,030 1,964
Total Land-Based Weapons 12,393 12,552
Total Naval Units 261 64
Towed Artillery 1,575 550
Merchant Marine Strength 74 10
Major Ports and Terminals 3 4
Aircraft Carriers 0 0
Destroyers 3 0
Frigates 5 0
Submarines 19 3
Patrol Coastal Craft 198 42
Mine Warfare Craft 7 0
Amphibious Operations Craft 26 0
Defense Budget /Expenditure $9,174,000,000 $16,000,000,000
Foreign Reserves $75,060,000,000 $66,980,000,000
Purchasing Power $818,700,000,000 $219,400,000,000
Oil Production 4,172,000 bbl 3,806 bbl
Oil Consumption 1,809,000 bbl 231,000 bbl
Proven Oil Reserves 137,600,000,000 bbl 1,940,000 bbl
Total Labor Force 25,700,000 3,080,000
Roadway Coverage 172,927 km 18,290 km
Railway Coverage 8,442 km 975 km
Waterway Coverage 850 km 0 km
Coastline Coverage 2,440 km 273 km
Major Serviceable Airports 319 48
Square Land Area 1,648,195 km 20,770 km

hatrickpatrick

I could be being overly cynical here, but I honestly believe in MAD. Iran is definitely not stupid enough to nuke anyone with the firepower to fire back.
Given this, I honestly suspect that the real reason Israel / US don't want a nuclear Iran is because it will mean they won't be so easy to bully in the future. Let's not forget that Iran is especially unstable because of US enforced regime change there. Iran has every reason to feel threatened and held to ransom.

Therefore I suspect that their desire for nuclear weapons is merely to give themselves the strength to tell the West to f*ck off the next time they are bullied, and that the West's main reason for opposing it is because they don't like having their power diminished.

If this is overly cynical then I can accept that, but it seems extremely likely from what I've seen, and if the main consequence of a nuclear Iran is a lessening of any world power's ability to bully other sovereign nations, it seems on balance like a positive development.

Be like Nutella

take your points ... but still I don't think Iran actually wants nukes... as it stands... not really...it did... it doesn't now...not yet anyway and it wouldn't use them ever.

A high level game of influence not dissimilar to a very high quality very long poker match between cagey players.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

take your points ... but still I don't think Iran actually wants nukes... as it stands... not really...it did... it doesn't now...not yet anyway and it wouldn't use them ever.

A large majority of Iranians polled have indicated they want nuclear weaponisation. The country itself would benefit overnight, become a bigger player in the region, have instant security and deterrent, the current administration (which is under no threat anyway since opposition has been banned) would be further cemented into power.

Tehran has repeated that they have no intention to acquire nuclear weapons and that it is unislamic, yet they have conducted research and there is strong evidence they began importing tech and expertise, so not much consistency there.

And what if they weaponised?

It would most certainly spark a regional nuclear arms race. Volatile situation, region is quite the tinderbox, and whilst no country would be reckless enough to directly first strike (yes even a parliament that regularly chants "death to America", "death to Israel"), there are dozens of proxies more than willing to carry out, on all sides.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

One 1,000lb thermobaric warhead hitting a nuclear weapons facility will effectively end a Country the size of Israel.

I'll ask for a third time, how many thermobaric weapons does Iran have installed in Lebanon?

Well its quite simple, Israel is openly discussing bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The only way to effectively do this is to use a tactical nuclear bunker buster.

Again, same question applies, please show the open nuclear threats to Iran..

BlaasForRafa

Border-Rat wrote: »

One 1,000lb thermobaric warhead hitting a nuclear weapons facility will effectively end a Country the size of Israel.

God almighty will you ever just stop displaying your ignorance?

hatrickpatrick

To come at this from another angle for a moment, without nukes how do people propose Iran can stand up to the West or Israel? There is currently no M.A.D with Iran, if the West threatened to use nukes against them they would have absolutely no crad to play in the opposite direction.

Why does the West have nukes? "As a deterrent". Why is it so difficult to imagine that Iran wants them for exactly the same reason?
It's very easy to forget that part of the reason for Iran's current mess is Western meddling in their sovereign government for the purposes of securing oil supplies. While that may or may not be considered ancient history, they have absolutely every reason to remain paranoid.

It doesn't strike me as odd in the least for them to want a trump card that says "back the f*ck off and leave us alone".

Be like Nutella

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To come at this from another angle for a moment, without nukes how do people propose Iran can stand up to the West or Israel? There is currently no M.A.D with Iran, if the West threatened to use nukes against them they would have absolutely no crad to play in the opposite direction.

Why does the West have nukes? "As a deterrent". Why is it so difficult to imagine that Iran wants them for exactly the same reason?
It's very easy to forget that part of the reason for Iran's current mess is Western meddling in their sovereign government for the purposes of securing oil supplies. While that may or may not be considered ancient history, they have absolutely every reason to remain paranoid.

It doesn't strike me as odd in the least for them to want a trump card that says "back the f*ck off and leave us alone".

Yep I agree mostly... BP were havin the oil up to 1950's then Iran decided to nationalize its own resources (god forbid they'd want to actually own and have their own oil) so the US and UK just stepped in with their intelligence agencies and organized a coup which installed a dictator 'The Shah' who then ruled the country using a CIA trained stazi type police force called SAVAK for the next 24 years flaunting his wealth in the most anti Islamic fashion that just p1ssed off Iran to the point where they revolted in 1979 with a load of pent up rage for the west who had just raped and meddled with their entire country and the lives of everyone in it for decades and decades.... I don't think any opinion about Iran and its leadership and all that's going on right now is valid that DOESN'T take all this history, hatred and meddling into account.

This story should be told in clear black and white terms on every so called news channel if they really want to inform people about the situation there, but they don't and so, most (not all) people who read and talk about this thing around water coolers don't know about all the crap 'the west' did to Iran. The whole thing was about setting an example in a way... coz the US was taking oil from various countries through its huge oil companies and if THESE OTHER COUNTRIES all got the message from Iran that it was ok to turn against the US and nationalize their oil resources then the US would have suffered on a massive scale...it actually was almost an existential risk to their entire power structure in the time of the cold war so the hardliner hawks in Washington decided to be proactive and install dictatorships and prop up ones that were there already and so forth all over the middle east and further afar - just to keep their grip on the oil, their control on the order of things and to keep these countries on-side in the context of the cold war. It was world sized chess being played by the CIA using cash and mobs and paid thugs and assassinations and torture and setting up and training stazi forces here and there and breaking every law in the book and all morality went out the window and every ideal on which the US was 'supposed' to be founded and represent was fukced out the window which is why all this bloody hatred exists and is fed off of by the masses in the middle east who are taken advantage of by either ultra nationalist as$holes like Ahmadinejad or ultra fundamentalists like the two Ayatollahs. It's all their own bloody fault clear and simple America and the UK did really really bad bad sh1t to middle eastern people for oil and proxy control.

All of that is true but that don't mean I want an Ayatollah led country such as Iran to have nuclear weapons, I don't personally like the idea of a situation where an old beardy dude who ****in hates the **** out of the west has absolute personal control of nuclear weapons and an ultra hardcore nationalist fundamentalist personal army in the form of the Revolutionary guard who would die at his command. That is not a smart situation. Iran's population are young and educated and modernizing faster than most populations around the region and are a lot more moderate and sophisticated than most westerners and certainly western press present them as. It's not their fault that the revolutionary leadership structure and method hasn't modernized fast enough or given enough actual control or freedom to them, not allowing free speech and protesting and reforms as fast as THEY would like it. The fact is that everyone involved are pure wannkers... the US for being unbelievable hypocrites, the Israeli's for that and more and the Iranian leadership for causing all this sh1t while laughing out the other side of their face while their currency and economic situation suffers greatly. Hate is at the center of this thing and most of the hate is actually justified so it's hard to blame anyone for their positions... however again... ya just don't want Iran in its current format to have nukes... it's not a rational thing to want. They have moved down the road towards nukes starting decades ago but they stopped and they haven't made any serious commitment to go for a nuke since that time as the international community agrees however they still have a lot of infrastructure which is hard to explain away and they are intent on not being bullied ever again by anyone so they will continue to enrich for their medical isotopes and produce low enriched in big quantities to get their power going (which nobody should have a problem with as long as they stick to the NPT rules like everyone else note: Israel isn't NPT)

Jonny7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To come at this from another angle for a moment, without nukes how do people propose Iran can stand up to the West or Israel? There is currently no M.A.D with Iran, if the West threatened to use nukes against them they would have absolutely no crad to play in the opposite direction.

Why does the West have nukes? "As a deterrent". Why is it so difficult to imagine that Iran wants them for exactly the same reason?
It's very easy to forget that part of the reason for Iran's current mess is Western meddling in their sovereign government for the purposes of securing oil supplies. While that may or may not be considered ancient history, they have absolutely every reason to remain paranoid.

It doesn't strike me as odd in the least for them to want a trump card that says "back the f*ck off and leave us alone".

Doesn't this justify any country getting nuclear weapons, so, Taiwan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria..

Why not extend that right to the Palestinians, I mean they are virtually a state, you think they should have a right to nuclear weapons, you think this would be good in the long term?

czx

Border-Rat wrote: »

One 1,000lb thermobaric warhead hitting a nuclear weapons facility will effectively end a Country the size of Israel.

What's your obsession with thermobaric weapons? Seems to be based on ignorance.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Jonny7 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To come at this from another angle for a moment, without nukes how do people propose Iran can stand up to the West or Israel? There is currently no M.A.D with Iran, if the West threatened to use nukes against them they would have absolutely no crad to play in the opposite direction.

Why does the West have nukes? "As a deterrent". Why is it so difficult to imagine that Iran wants them for exactly the same reason?
It's very easy to forget that part of the reason for Iran's current mess is Western meddling in their sovereign government for the purposes of securing oil supplies. While that may or may not be considered ancient history, they have absolutely every reason to remain paranoid.

It doesn't strike me as odd in the least for them to want a trump card that says "back the f*ck off and leave us alone".

Doesn't this justify any country getting nuclear weapons, so, Taiwan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria..

Why not extend that right to the Palestinians, I mean they are virtually a state, you think they should have a right to nuclear weapons, you think this would be good in the long term?

All countries should have a right to nuclear enegy and nuclear weapons if they please. Why should they be dictated to? The US and Israel have no authority over Iran.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

ronoc wrote: »

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Israel does not have the automatic right to own nuclear weapons and it's neighbours not. A lot of rhetoric comes out of Iran, hot air. So far Iran has not attacked Israel and is not likely to IMO..... It wants to exist and knows it would be attacked by the US et al if it did.
Israel is just as dangerous as Iran, if you consider the latter dangerous.

We are pretty sure Israel has nukes. But it's important to see the context of why they have them and Iran shouldn't in terms of nuclear proliferation.
Israel has had them since at least the 60s. A lot has changed since then. In the early days of nuclear weapons it was assumed every industrialized nation (and many were considering it) could create a nuclear weapon. Little was done to try prevent it since the major powers were more interested in building their own stockpiles than preventing countries doing so.

These days there is a broad consensus in the world that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. The number of nuclear warheads has been declining since the 70s. Should Israel be encouraged to give theirs up? Absolutely.
Is Israel having them a good reason to let her enemies have them? Absolutely not.

The thing is though, Israel isn't Iran's only enemy. It has US troops and pro-US states/puppet-states all around its borders; Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, US naval fleets in the Persian Gulf. Israel isn't the only country in the Middle East that's surrounded by threats on all sides and that has history of conflict with its neighbours. It's not unexpected that Iran would want to have a nuclear deterrant and it wouldn't be solely against Israel. Israel wants to be the centre of attention.