Will Isreal attack Iran?

Will Isreal attack Iran?

  • yes
  • no

0 voters

[quote]JERUSALEM (AFP) - The head of the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, poised to enter the next cabinet, said that
Israel may have to take its own pre-emptive action to stop
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Avigdor Lieberman said Iran’s nuclear programme “represents an existential threat for Israel which will oblige us to take unilateral action if the international community does nothing to stop it”.

“The only difference between the aspirations of the madmen of the current regime in Tehran and Hitler is that their (Iranian) threat is more concrete,” he added on Israeli radio.[/quote]link

Did Cheney call this or what? :America:

[quote]In direct threat on Inauguration Day, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Bush

Why should Israel do it when they’ve got their lackey, the USA, and its imbecile leader all lined up to do it for them. Israel might well do it without warning the USA first, but the USA knows who’s boss and would certainly coordinate with Israel and get their approval before taking action. Approval which would be easy to get since Israel set the USA up to do their dirty work in the first place.

Maybe. But maybe US hands are a little full already, or maybe that would be the simplest way to get the US involved and insure the job is done “right.”

I agree with Toe Tag up there. No reason to get their hands dirty while they got thier neighborhood bullies to do the job. They are too busy selling China advanced US military technology on the sly. If you hang around here long enough, don’t be surpised to look up and see an AWAC plane with a Chinese flag plastered on the side.

Toe Tag is spot on. due to the current political climate, why and the hell would they lift a finger?

Fred Smith, I am enjoying your point of view on things although I don’t understand the usage of Nukes in this case. Diplomacy and deceit have always played a huge role in Western politics so why would the USA have to throw it all out of wack by flexing their muscles at this stage?

Droppin a nuke on Iran would spell disaster at this point in time.

I say “Chill Winston…”. Play it easy and take your time. It’s not as if they (Muslim World) could inflict the damage the coaltion could at the moment.

Fred has some interesting points and I for one have been watching and listening with a new found respect. Regardless, I think it’s ridiculous to drop a nuke in that region right now. You’ll make martyrs out of each and every one of them.

Israel has the bomb, but does it have the will to use it? I don’t think so, not unless it was in a hopeless position. However, Israel will launch more air attacks against Iran when it feels sufficiently threatened.

On the spot about what?

First of all, the nuke option is one of many ON THE TABLE. That does not mean that it will be used but given that the tactical nukes in question would cause no more destruction than some of the large bombs we have in our arsenal, what really is the difference? And what exactly are we throwing out of whack? Iran’s leaders have from the very beginning in 1979 made it very clear what their regime stands for. Diplomacy has been going on since then about their nuclear program. As with Iraq, when does enough become enough? I think that time is now. I am glad that this new leader is talking as openly as he is because people should know and understand that this is not some “difference of opinion” that can be negotiated. Iran’s leaders want to destroy Israel (so much for caring about the Palestinians and wanting their land). After which, who will be next? Europe? America? hell, even Canada? I hope the sneer in my writing is heard loud and clear.

I do not see that and, in any case, I believe the point to be a non-issue. Those nations that would respect such treaties would never use a nuke on the US nor fear that the US would use a nuke on them. Those that would not abide by the treaty would certainly not hesitate to use nuclear weapons on other states if they had them so what’s the point of pretending that these treaties matter so much?

You confuse this as a Muslim thing. This is a fascist thing. The mullahs are widely despised within their nation. They must be removed. They are a danger to themselves and others. Unfortunately, as Germans under Hitler found out, unwise, reckless leaders bring a great deal of pain and suffering to their people no matter how nice or friendly or hospitable or just like us they may be.

thank you.

Why the newfound?

I doubt it. It is only after these leaders sense weakness or lack of resolution that the martyrs surface. When we invaded Iraq, you could have heard a pin drop. When we started to negotiating (our biggest mistake was handing Fallujah over in April 2004) then the bleating and triangulating started. If we bombed Iran, there would be nothing but silence across the Middle East. Everyone would be running to cooperate. An object lesson: When we invaded Iraq, Libya came running not to the UN, not to France, not to Germany, not to Russia but to the US and UK to discuss its secret wmd programs. They were real and far more advanced than expected. Why does the media fail to mention this? When we pulled Saddam out of a hole they were turned over in their totality to the US and UK not the UN not France nor Germany nor Russia.

Total coincidence. These negotiations had been going on for years, blah blah blah some said. Right? What do you think? Do you really think that Qaddafi would somehow have a change of heart precisely at those two very specific times? In fact, bombing a few of the leadership targets in Teheran could spark an uprising that would overthrow the mullahs once and for all. Who knows? I am willing to take that risk because I think that the alternatives are far worse. Iran has always been the chief trouble maker in the Middle East. The mullahs must be removed or there will never be stability. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq were good starts. But in World War II, we did not wait and negotiate with Hitler, we took him out and finished the job. We must do so with Iran and Syria. Yes, our troops as in Europe as in East Asia will be there for 60 years but I do not see anyone complaining about the results elsewhere. More America not less is the answer. But it will be difficult. Bush has said this all along, yet the media treats it as if he suggested there would be no challenges ahead. That was not what I heard. I know what we are in for and I say action is what is needed not more Carterite negotiations that lead to failure.

One thing you forgot to mention, when the US invaded Iraq, not only did Libya turn over its WMD program, but the West’s new best buddy renounced terrorism, having been one of its most ardent supporters for decades.

Here’s what’s going to happen assuming Iran doesn’t end its uranium enrichment program:

  • Some time during the window period from after the mid-term congressional elections in November to the end of the Bush presidency, the U.S. will launch an air and special forces assault on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities using 15 ton bunker buster conventional bombs in an attempt to destroy and/or entomb those facilities.

  • Rumsfeld will be kept in place as defense secretary because removing him now would thwart those plans.

  • Israel will be deeply involved in the special forces assault but clandestinely and the Bush administration will characterize its role as “supportive”.

  • Tactical nuclear weapons won’t be used though they’re the only means for destroying Iran’s most hardened underground uranium enrichment facilities. Entombment and long-term disruption using conventional weapons will be the chosen strategy instead.

  • Iran will react by withholding oil and disrupting Persian Gulf shipping, particularly at the Strait of Hormuz, driving oil prices well up over $100 per barrel and causing major disruptions to the world economy.

  • Iran will vow to continue enriching uranium and will actively and intensively stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq and Israel in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon.

  • The radicalization of the moderate Muslim majorities in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria will intensify at what is regarded as another unprovoked attack on a Muslim country by the U.S. and Israel.

I can live with most of your above statements except this one. Whenever the US has attacked a Muslim nation, there has been no rising of the Arab street but deathly silence. In this case, there will be sighs of relief throughout the Arab world and as to the Muslim world? If they cannot even be bothered to send aid to their brethren stricken by the tsunami, what makes you think that they really care in this case? Besides, once Iran’s leaders are removed, so is a major source of funding and support for terrorism, including the pernicious varieties that are causing so much trouble in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran’s leaders need to be taken out and I doubt very much that anyone in the Arab or Muslim street will rise up. If anything, we can expect the Iranian people to rise up against their very unpopular leaders. That would be ideal. Bit too much to hope for, but it remains a possibility.

Where have I read that before? :wink:

This is like some sort of mantra.

Where have I read that before? :wink:

This is like some sort of mantra.[/quote]

Hi Tigerman,

Where? That would be August 2002 when as ‘Gavin Januarus’ I posted my prognostications on Forumosa’s predecessor Oriented about the invasion and occupation of Iraq including the one that moderate Arab and Muslim attitudes would be radicalized against the U.S. as a result of its already decided invasion of Iraq the following year.

Hi spook,

Yeah… and plenty of other hand-wringers have made the same prediction… many, many times. :slight_smile:

Toe Tag, Zoidberg, Circleback, Spook and Monster, thanks for your input. I really hope Isreal doesn’t attack Iran.

Fred and T-man,

When Fred wrote wrote that the nuke is an option on the table, did you mean for the US or for Isreal?

So, do you guys think Isreal is gonna attack Iran? Will they give support a US attack as part of the next coalition of the willing? Will it be decided it might be more politically pallatable for the US not to strike first, but to play some kind of supporting role for our ally’s air strikes? I’m curious what role, if any, you see Isreal playing in any future conflict or strikes or whatever. Also, regardless of how you think Isreal’s role might shape up, does Isreal have the right to pre-emptive strike?


For the US.

That is up to them. Last time I checked Israel was a sovereign nation.

Israel is irrelevant to the US as an ally in this. No one will ally with Israel when attacking a Muslim nation, certainly not the US.

I doubt it. If this is going to be taken care of, as usual, there is only one indepensible nation and that is the US. Pity, but there you are. The rest are all living in the post-modern world. Good luck to them.


Certainly, it has the right to pre-emption given the president of Iran’s statements.

Fred, thanks. It’s nice to get it straigt-up. A couple more, if you please…

I’ll grant that they’re sovereign and that it is up to them whether they attack, but will they do it? What if it the political climate in America wouldn’t allow US strikes?

Also since you say Isreal has a right to preemtion, do you also think they have the right to use nukes in preemtion?

Eventually, it we do not. Yes.

What if it the political climate in America wouldn’t allow US strikes? [/quote]

The political climate may find surprisingly common ground. I have faith in America’s leaders (yes, even the Democrats) to do the right thing. They are making hay right now over difficulties in Iraq but when Saddam was there, everyone was unanimous that he represented a threat. When push comes to shove, everyone will recognize and does recognize the same about Iran. Otherwise, find me one US senator or representative that is not making noise about Iran. The Europeans are even on board with us on this one, by this, I mean the Germans, British, French, Italians, Spanish, Dutch, etc. so here we have even greater support than with Iraq. BUT at the end of the day, what can these nations really do but send a few token forces? This is our game and that is why I have no patience for fence-sitters watching safely refusing responsibility but demanding a “say” in the course of events.

Also since you say Israel has a right to preemtion, do you also think they have the right to use nukes in preemtion?[/quote]

Absolutely, Israel has the right to nuke Iran in a pre-emptive strike. Is it in the world’s interests or Iran’s interests for them to do so? No. That is why it is best handled by the US. Once again, the world leads us to do the dirty work. I am sure once all the world’s leaders are absolutely sure that the US will act then we will hear the cries for more diplomacy and whining about the world’s bully. But they will wait until they have the luxury of knowing that they will be protected. Then, they will as usual explain to the US that while they privately support us, you know, election considerations and hostile public opinion don’t you understand and thanks awfully so in public, many apologies about slurring and slamming you but that’s the way it is and thanks awfully again for being such a good sport about it.

The only country threatened by Iran going nuclear is Israel. Iran won’t have the means to target the U.S. in our lifetimes and a Shia Iran won’t hand off weapons of mass destruction to a fundamentalist Sunni Al Qaida which is already terrorizing their Shia brethern in Iraq. Iran has no natural quarrel with the U.S. other than its alliance with its regional enemy Israel.

Neoconservatives are ardent supporters of Israel but acidly accuse anyone who points that out of anti-semitism in an attempt to silence them because they know there’s very little inherent support among the American public for entanglement in foreign wars. Therefore invasions and assaults against Iraq, Iran, Syria have to be sold as defending the U.S. against these countries even if it means stretching the truth repeatedly and blatantly.

It soon becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy though because the more the U.S. threatens and attacks countries in the Middle East as Israel’s proxy, the more they truly do become America’s enemy.

So it goes.

And that statement shows why you will never work in diplomatic or military strategy. Ever heard about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and possibly others and why they would go nuclear? I mean they have not even though every one knows Israel has nukes so which nation would prompt them to do so, er, um, can you give me a hint? Gosh. Cannot quite figure this one out!

They can target Europe right now. What? Five years before they have something more advanced? possibly? certainly not in a lifetime.

Right. Just how Saddam would never cooperate with Islamofascists terrorists because he was secular. Oh he did. Hmmm. Someone needs a lesson in Middle Eastern Politics 101. Everyone cooperates with everyone else.

Bullshit. The mullahs were angry at the US and it has very little to do with our support of Israel.

Neocons accuse you of anti-Semitism for a very good reason in my view. You do seem to have a lot of special concerns about Israel. If you would substitute the US relationship with Country A, B or C, you would not be able to pull out which one was Israel, yet for that nation, all the worst sort of things are attributed to the relationship because of cabals and secret nefarious deeds.

So why are the Russians and Chinese cooperating with the US in the UN security council regarding Iran’s nuclear program?

You think (questionable) that is how Iraqis now view the American intervention in Iraq? All about Israel? Why don’t you smell what you are shoveling and get some help for that paranoid obsession. What did some Jew turn you down for a loan?

Regrettably and it is usually too late. Take it from the descendants of those German, Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvians, etc. I include all those others because they cooperated with the Nazis. You don’t want to go down that path. It has nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with their (now your own) twisted views. OR do you think that the Germans had the right to do what they did because of the pernicious influence of the Jews. Either way, look at Germany before and after and at all the suffering from World War II. Was it worth it? D’ya think?

"The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread