Political Discussions
Will Israel Attack Iran? With Nukes?
Posted by csiunatc • 9/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: israel iran
Looking for some input on what people think about this.
Will Israel attack Iran's Nuclear production?
Would they use Nukes to do it?
What would be the result if they did either?
User Comments
-
Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski said this about that very subject, csi.
"Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?
Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.
How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
What if they fly over anyway?
Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]"
So we have a former NSA advocating the shooting down of planes belonging to one of our staunchest allies and our only ally in the Middle East. Nice. I think the Democratic Party should be proud at this moment... /sarcasm
Personally, I think it is the world's only hope to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. We know that Obama only wants to "talk" to Iran, and then without any pre-conditions. What is their incentive to behave properly on the world stage? - None.-
"... fallout..."
interesting choice of words..... -
He is right, denial of flyover is crucial to protecting Israel from itself. Your term staunchest allies is a bit of a stretch, last time I deployed near an Israeli Soldier he shot at me, they are not our allies, they are like our little brother. You know the little brother that starts fights with all the kids on the block and then runs behind you for protection. Israel did after all attack our ships on more then one occasion, and in Beruit they created major problems for us which we are still dealing with the fallout from. Sure politicians always will call Israel our ally to get big campaign donations, the truth is they are just like everyone else in the region whacko, they are just not Muslim so you like them more.
-
-
If Israel ever feels so threatened that it is willing to risk a seriously soured relationship with the US and other western countries, it will attack, but I do not think Israel is anywhere close to that point, though there is certainly a current of opinion there that feels otherwise.
I also can't see Israel wanting to strengthen the current regime, which is one effect such an attack would have.
Sicking to the hypothetical, *if* it did, it would not use nukes, for then its open secret would no longer be a secret and it would have no leg to stand on when pushing for a nuclear-free Iran. It would have to go nuclear-free itself. Or become an even bigger pariah than an attack might make it in the first place.
Of course, I'm sure its military is working on all sorts of contingency plans, but that's another matter.
Lastly, I know Israel bombed Iraq, but that was a whole different matter.
Turning from hypotheticals to reality, has anyone noticed Russia's new tone vis-à-vis Israel? That might be the unofficial and unacknowledged quid pro quo for Obama's policy change on the missile defense shield in Europe.-
Yikes! That should have read, Russia's new tone vis-à-vis *Iran* of course.
-
-
I think Israel is better off leaving Iran alone, for the time being. They are obviously having some serious internal problems and turf battles given the summers events. A premature attack (or a politically untimely one) could easily unite the country behind Ahmendijad and actually make matters worse not just for Israel, but the rest of the world. The Iranians would not directly retaliate since they know that cannot fight Israel toe to toe. They would force Hezbollah or Hamas to begin another war with Israel and depend on the knuckleheads in the media to win the PR for them. So at the moment, it seems more prudent to let the Iranians fight amongst themselves.
With regards given to the nuclear option, Israel will restrain from using them unless their situation became more dire than the Yom Kippur War. A scenario not likely to happen given Israel's traditional military dominance. -
From a purely strategic point of view.
Israel cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear warheads.
When it comes to a nuclear exchange it is mainly a question of landmass.
Israel 8,000 sq miles
Iran 1.273 million sq miles.
Half a dozen warheads would be enough to obliterate Israel. It is unlikely that Israel has the capacity to hit Iran with enough nuclear warheads to provide an effective deterrent against a country of Iran's size. If Israel had that kind of capacity then we would know about it.
It is a situation that Israel can not allow even to be a remote possibility.
Israel has advanced plans to attack Iranian nuclear installations without violating air space (other than Iranian) and rehearsed them in June this year news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7465170.stm
Unless there is rapid political movement towards Iran halting it's nuclear program then a conventional Israeli attack is highly likely. Highly likely anytime.
Israel can do the job without deploying nuclear weapons. However if the attack were to fail or partially fail then the use of missiles even tactical nuclear weapons would be necessary to finish the job. The mission would have to be completed in one attack as Israel does not have the capacity for a sustained air campaign against Iran.
As for what would happen then here are a few thoughts. Most likely Iran would just absorb the attack. The regime would then use the attack to tighten it's grip against it's home opposition and bolster support from abroad.
Nightmare scenario.
Iran could strike at Israel with it's medium range missiles but given their technology and the small size of Israel the chances of wiping out a Palestinian enclave would be very high (of course this is an argument on why Iran would never launch a pre emptive nuclear attack on Israel but that is not relevant here). If they were minded to counterstrike the best target would be US/ coalition forces in Iraq, an Iranian excursion into Iraq would be supported by significant sections of the Iraqi population.-
So why should Israel have nuclear weapons if thats the case... which not only can strike Iran by any other country on the face of the earth.
Israel has shown over and over again that it does and will attack its neightbouring countries, while Iran has not been the agressor towards any coutnry over the past 250 years..
Iran is a member of the IAEA - Israel has refused to sign and become a member
Iran has had the most number UN inspectors at its sights - Israel has broken the most number UN resolutions than any other country in the WORLD
One fact is for real; If it wasn't for the brave Jew Mordechai Vanunu (who was later captured, prison and tortured by the Israeli government), the world would not even known that Israel was sitting on hundreds of secret nuclear weapons.
And NO Iran has repeatedly said that they have no intention of attacking any country, its ISRAEL and US who are threatening Iran and Not the other way around...
Get it right, don't fall for what the media telling you... don't fall for another Iraq, another Afghanistan, another Vietnam..
Dont support the war mongers behind the Israeli government and save millions of lives.
www.lookfromabove.com -
You raise some important points to consider. However there is a fundamental difference between Israel and Iran. One is a democracy the other is effectively a theocracy.
Until such time that Iran has a leadership that can be trusted to truely represent the people of Iran, and the best interests of the people of Iran, it is wise for the international community to take a defensive stance against Iran.
-
-
If they do, having dealt with Israeli Military first hand they are unpredictable at best, they will fail, Iran is not the same place as Iraq in the 1980's. The program is spread over multiple locations and hardened against conventional airstrikes. Bunker busters could do some damage, but the effect would be bad for everyone. Let Iran have nuclear power, who cares they are not a threat to us, they want them to protect themselves from us. They see the difference in how we treat 3rd world nations versus how we treat countries with nukes. They are 20 years away from having an ICBM. The russians still have 12,000 nuclear missles pointed at us right now that is far more disconcerting then Iran who cant even make a airplane having 3 or 4 Hiroshima sized devices and that is all they could muster with current capacity, the Mullahs will collapse and it will be Iranians that make it happen as long as they dont get a common enemy to rally against say Israel. Don't believe the hype about Iranian boogie men, Putin on the other hand is pure evil watch out for that guy.
-
Calling Putin "pure evil" is quite an exaggeration. I'm not saying we should go back to the statement former President Bush made about his soul, but your statement is way too strong.
-
If we are referring to the subversion of the media in Russia, Putin doesn't seem much worse than Tim Pawlenty.
-
-
"Will Israel Attack Iran? With Nukes? "
I dunno, I prefer the WKRP in Cincinnati version of bombing. Dropping live turkeys on them... -
A concealed Iranian underground nuclear facility has just turned up. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8274903.stm
-
Let me guess... they are getting Yellowcake from Niger
-
-
Not directly related, but it is interesting to note that the Iranian president felt compelled to admit that some people were tortured or otherwise abused and that those responsible would lose their jobs in the security services. Don't know if that will happen, but such an admission in an NPR interview could be a sign of how much pressure he is feeling. Or it could be more smoke and mirrors.
-
I'm guessing
1. No one important will lose their job, if someone does, it will be a bottom level security guy. But I find it highly unlikely.
2. I think he is throwing out bones that make no real difference, if he was under such pressure, why did they build a second nuclear plant while under that pressure.
Sanctions don't work.
I Said "STOP"... if you don't stop, I'll say "STOP" Again...
-
-
I can't figure out why Iran won't bow down to our moral superiority...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%...-
1. That link doesn't work.
And considering you didn't approve of Rasmussen as a source.. Glad Wiki meets your standards.
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_IranâI...
lets try that
I must have screwed up the "paste" function -
When I click the link, the second one - all I get is "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
But I must agree with csi, you denigrate Rasmussen, yet turn to Wikipedia??? -
Agit8r and his crazy tenuous links. What a whacko... Hang on just by reading the URL polybore can see that it refers to the USA's support for Iraq during the Iran Iraq war.
Without having to click any links polybore knows that this is a given. What is more the the main reason that US intelligence thought that Iraq had biological weapons is because the US supplied them to the Iraq. But as things transpired because Iraq did not need to make biological weapons (because it got them in the past from the US) Iraq did not develop any means of making them. Those weapons that had existed (supplied by the US) had been used against Iran or had mouldered away in a rusty pile in the dessert. Nuts.
To be fair the US did also sell arms to Iran but the reason for this was not to support the Islamic Revolution against Iraq but to finance terrorists in South America while avoiding the scrutiny of US law makers and the world. Although it did not quite work out like that in the end.
Polybore would supply links to back up these statement up but as it is a matter of record what is the point?
Petty boys, petty. -
Thanks polybore... for summing up at least...
-
-
It is quite astonishing how one country, being (Iran) is:
1- a member of the IAEA and abides by its regulations
2- has had the most number of UN inspectors on its sites than any other country in the world
3- has not been the aggressor towards any country over the past 250 years
4- publicly and repeatedly emphasizes its opposition to nuclear weapons
5- denounces war and shows its willingness to cooperate with the international regulating bodies
While the other country, being (Israel) is:
1- NOT a member of the IAEA and has refused to sign this treaty
2- has broken more UN resolutions than any other country in the world
3- openly occupies, bombs and attacks its neighbors and other countries
4- holds hundreds of nuclear war heads and is a processor of nuclear arms
5- Occupies other nations and massacres innocent people in the name of peace and regional security
Yet the second is encourage, held as a dear friend, is repeatedly sympathized with, and above all it (Israel) accuses the first (Iran) of having ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons and not cooperating with the "international community"
The hypocrisy and the double standards in this world are extraordinary.
lookfromabove.com/2009/09/03/drum-beats-of-war-running-high-with-irans-enri...-
How about the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently denied the Holocaust?
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm
How about the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran have said they want to wipe Israel off the map?
www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html
Israel is killing innocents? You mean like this?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/02/bush-hamas-attacks-on-isr_n_154906.html
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/30/israel
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5158480.ecehttp://w...
Gosh those evil Israelis going and defending themselves. akfortruth, the Israelis are SURROUNDED BY MILLIONS OF ARABS THAT WANT THEIR DESTRUCTION and you advocate FOR IRAN???
Iran has been secretly developing nuclear facilities. They have admitted to one, but according to the Associated Press, there are more than one "secret" facility.
Tell me this, why do you hate the Jews so much? -
Reading his blog, your last question is a valid one...
-
Well, I don't really expect an answer. But the question had to be asked.
-
@akfortruth - your screen name is ironic when you look at the falsehoods you posted.
* Israel has been a member state of the IAEA since its inception in 1957.
* How can you say that Iran denounces war, when they threaten to wipe Israel off the map when they have the capapbility to do so?
* How can you say that Iran denounces war when they beat, brutalize and open fire on their own citizens who protested the theft of their national election?
And why do you think Iran wants nuclear weapons? Even the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency now says that Iran wants to send a message. They cannot be trusted.
"Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, was asked in September 2007 about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He said this:
“We have not come to see any undeclared activities or weaponization of their program,” ElBaradei said. “Nor have we gotten intelligence to that effect.”
This week (June of this year) — after months of speculation that Iran may already have enough fissile material to build a small nuclear bomb — he finally revised his opinion:
Iran wants to “send a message” to its neighbors and the rest of the world: “Don’t mess” with Iran and “we can have nuclear weapons if we want to.”
In other words, ElBaradei (and all the people listening to him) were dupes of the regime, exactly as the Bush administration said they were. Yet, in that same interview last month ElBaradei made sure we knew one thing:
It was others who failed."
www.verumserum.com/?p=6427
Again, I ask you akfortruth - why are you so PRO Iran and so ANTI Israel??
-
-
I think the country that is most dangerous, and most investigative in everyone wanted to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, is Israel. If I were to worry about anyone of the Middle Eastern Countries launching an nuclear attack it would be Israel.
Israel has been sending that message for eons.-
What message?
Please remain calm. Israel won't use nuclear weapons against anyone. -
Cooper,
I'm sure you understand regimes in countries like Syria must use all the help they can get in order to justify the strict military law they impose. They will often use an excuse like an outside threat to the country even if one doesn’t really exist.
-
-
antic wrote "Iran wants to “send a message” to its neighbors and the rest of the world: “Don’t mess” with Iran and “we can have nuclear weapons if we want to.”
"Israel has been sending that message for eons." was regarding.
One can't assume that those who want the same thing we have, Israel has, feel any less threatened?
I think there is nothing more investigative to a nations desire for nuclear weapons than countries in close proximity to them, and of a different ideological stance, having them.-
I think that depends on what you think are the real intentions of this country. Ahmadinejad has clearly stated that his goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the planet, and actively works towards an offensive nuclear capability.
Let's say your neighbor always tells everybody he's gonna kill you. Then you find out he's buying a gun. What are the chances he's just bluffing? Can you take that risk? What would you do? -
Cooper, I'm confused by your use of the term "investigative," which you've repeated in two comments. It sounds like you might mean "instigative." Do you?
-
your right red guy - not a devil, typing at the speed of lite while I'm supposed to be doing something else, and letting the spell=check choose is, probably not a good idea. I should give my full attention to dear bc.
-
urikalish
I won't defend Ahmadinejad, but even that was taken a bit out of context as at the time he said that he was speaking after an attack of Israel on Palestinian settlements, was he not? I know they've called for Israel nuclear annihilation before, depending on what group has the stronghold in Iran.
Israeli has committed grave crimes of humanity in Gaza, they don't see it that way but they have. How long can a man who has had his family murdered continue to murder others in their name?
I don't think we can forget that Israel nuclear capabilities were, what did they call it..a public secret back way before my time, when Israel said they would not be the first to bring nuclear weapons to the middle east when all the time they had nuclear weapons hidden.The guy who finally revealed that has suffered greatly for that revelation. Their capabilities at destruction are suspected to be rather large.
I personally think a more appropriate neighbor analogy would be, how would you like to live next to a neighbor who promised to never be the first one to bring a gun into the neighborhood, yet the whole time that neighbor, with a history that has made him paranoid and fearful of all his neighbors, was stockpiling a powerful comprehensively destructive artillery. -
To say that Israel has had nukes for so long and then condemn them for it is disingenuous. They have had them for how long? They haven't used them. I never realized there was this much hate of the Jewish people on this board.
-
"To say that Israel has had nukes for so long and then condemn them for it is disingenuous. They have had them for how long? They haven't used them. I never realized there was this much hate of the Jewish people on this board."
Please stop calling people out for "hating" on a certain people when people are discussing the nation state. I think we've already been through this. You actually don't have much of an idea of what nationality most of the people here are do you?
The Jewish people and the state of Israel are two different things. But we've been over this.
I was merely responding to the neighbor analogy. It made no sense considering Israel had them first, and though they haven't used them, they have bombed THE facilities of those who they felt threaten them in the past, and they are the only nation in the Middle East with Israela nuclear arsenal. So they are the neighbor with the gun. And they have done some terrible things in Gaza that is a fact. -
Tell me, who makes the decisions that you are against in Israel? Wouldn't that be Jewish people? So you can detest a country, but love the people? That is a funny distinction, unless it is more of an excuse for antisemitism.
-
wow. I think that the israeli state is a separate entity from the israeli people, or from non-zionist jews living elsewhere. Let's also not forget that Israel's arab neighbors are also Semites.
-
-
As they said earlier polybore is pretty sure that there will be an Israeli strike on Iran sooner rather than later. Can't see Benjamin Netanyahu wanting to go down in history as the PM who allowed Iran to get the bomb. Notably he has been doing a his own bit of ratcheting up the rhetoric recently.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1116933.html-
What Netanyahu did was give the speech that OUR President should have. Instead, Obama got up there and pandered to the dictators, once again apologizing for America. He has yet to give a speech in which he says anything positive about the very country that put him in the highest office in the land.
The Mullahcracy in Iran only understands one thing - power. Obama demonstrates zero power on his foreign policy. He drops the missile shield, panders to dictators, punishes Honduras when their democracy rightfully and lawfully under their constitution removes a would be dictator, and generally sends the wrong message to our allies and enemies alike. -
In response to antics: In my summation, the Zbigniew/Obama foreign policy is still anti-Iranian but it hopes to achieve its goals through subterfuge and trickery rather than direct confrontation.Forget about what Obama says and just look at what he does (the two are almost always mutually exclusive). Dropping the missile defence shield was a gesture towards Russia to get them to consider placing tougher sanctions on Iran on Oct 1st. Obama is basically trying disrupt the relationship between Russia and Iran and is ultimately attempting to play the two countries against each other. You can see this same pressure on Russia coming from other sources also. Most notably, it was reported in Bloomberg that the NATO Secretary General indicated that the U.S. and NATO would consider merging its missile defence systems with Russia if Russia adpoted an anti-Iranian stance. Also,recently, U.S. ally, Saudi Arabia has been attemping to broker a massive arms deals with Russia, but with the stated precondition that Russia has to stop supporting Iran for the deal to go ahead.
I personally oppose Obama's foreign policy for a number of reasons too long to go into here. If, however,as you seem to, think that Iran just needs to go down, then please be aware that despite appearances, Obama's foreign policy is, at present, still basically anti-iranian in orientation. -
You raise very interesting points hanifal, and they are intriguing to say the least.
Can we (America) trust the Russians to stop aiding Iran?
If we get the tough sanctions, will China go along or continue to aid Iran as well?
And lastly - and I am not trying to discredit you - but how sure are you that Obama isn't just too arrogant or too naive to think that he can't talk Iran out of military nukes? I mean let's face it, Obama hasn't had to work all that hard in his life and he really isn't used to hearing the word "no." -
Thanks anticsrocks, I'll try to quickly respond to your questions:
"Can we (America) trust the Russians to stop aiding Iran?"
- I wouldn't because unless Russia thinks its can gain more by agreeing with the propsosed U.S./NATO/Russia 'alliance'(unlikely), it's not exactly in Russia's long term interests to stop aiding Iran. Russia does have a lot to gain by aiding Iran and can currently use it as a counterpoint against the U.S./ Arab oil bloc in the middle east. The Russians may continue to aid Iran even after agreeing to more sanctions (after all, they can cut and run with their short-term victory - no missile defence system in Poland now). Overall, I would say that the Z-big/Obama plot has a very low chance of successfully turning Russia away from Iran completely. The danger for Iran is that it does have *some* chance for success (even if almost nil) and it has seemed to disrupt their relationship with Russia regarding the necessity for economic sanctions.
"If we get the tough sanctions, will China go along or continue to aid Iran as well?"
- I'm not really sure on this one - all eyes are looking at Oct 1st to see what transpires.I would think that there is an extremely strong possibility that China would continue to aid Iran even if sanctions were passed as Iran is an absolutely critical supplier of oil and natural gas for China's growing economy.
"how sure are you that Obama isn't just too arrogant or too naive to think that he can't talk Iran out of military nukes?"
- I am *very* sure that on a personal level, Obama is too arrogant and probably does think that the world turns just because of his rhetoric He certainly gives that impression. On the otherhand, the political moves that I described in my previous comment have already transpired and have have been reported in the media. We can clearly see the result - Medvedev has never aggreed with sanctions on Iran, but immediately after the Polish missile shield was removed and his meeting with Obama he now (publicly) agrees with these sanctions.
So yeah, I'm certainly not suggesting that the Obama policy would be any good at preventing iranian nuclear development, just that it is basically anti-Iranian in orientation and one component of it attempts to convince Russia to put pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue. -
Thanks han. It is refreshing to have questions actually answered here on BC.
I agree with your basic assessment, however I would say that on the face of it, I would not give Obama credit for the seemingly convoluted moves he is employing. But we must also remember he is a child of the Chicago pay for play politics, so you might be onto something with regards to the missile shield.
-
-
You all might be worth listening to if you actually knew anything. The danger in the spread of nuclear weapons is that they will fall into the hands of some lunatic who doesn't understand that they are only for show and are not to be used. If Israel has, in fact, had nuclear weapons for decades, then that country is obviously not a threat to use them. Iran, however, with its ignorant, close-minded leadership, is quite another matter. We don't know what Iran is planning to do, except we know its leadership plainly lies under the cover of diplomacy and, even on the world stage, spouts crude and venomous rhetoric under the guise of statesmanship. So, the answer to the question is another question -- Who is more deserving of our trust and support?-
"ignorant, close-minded leadership"
they are just a right-wing nationalist state like our government, and they are just itching to have a nuke-measuring-contest with us like the USSR did, cause with all the peaceniks over here, we are always going half-soft.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
