Is Israeli saber rattling toward Iran serious or not?

[astro]

Per these comments it appears that Israel is prepared to semi-unilaterally (with US approval) make a move against Iran's growing nuclear capability with a military air strike.

Is this sabre rattling a good idea strategically and realpolitik wise or not? Unless Bush wants to add "insane" to the "incompetent" bullet point on his historical resume I can't see even him being reckless enough to acquiesce to this.
Israeli minister says alternatives to attack on Iran running out (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606073645.fjrccoo1&show_article=1)

An Israeli deputy prime minister on Friday warned that Iran would face attack if it pursues what he said was its nuclear weapons programme.
"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons programme, we will attack it," said Shaul Mofaz, who is also transportation minister.

"Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme," Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot daily.

He stressed such an operation could only be conducted with US support.

A former defence minister and armed forces chief of staff, Mofaz hopes to replace embattled Ehud Olmert as prime minister and at the helm of the Kadima party.

[ralph124c]

I think this represents the last Israeli attempt to get the USA to attack Iran. I also think the Israelis are very foolish if they think this will happen-the LAST thing GWB needs right now is another wasting war.
As they say, "be careful what you wish for, in case your wishes come true".

[Sevastopol]

I think this represents the last Israeli attempt to get the USA to attack Iran. I also think the Israelis are very foolish if they think this will happen-the LAST thing GWB needs right now is another wasting war.
As they say, "be careful what you wish for, in case your wishes come true". You can't blame them for trying, worked so well last time. And not a single Israeli exposed to hostile fire in over 5 years fighting. While still Americans can be lead to refer to Israel as "our strongest military ally in the Middle East". To laugh, 'tis.

[elucidator]

If it were only the posturing, that would be bad enough. But ratcheting up the tension increases the liklihood of a war without real intent, a hothead here, a blunder there, next thing they know, they're knee deep in a war that nobody started.

[Alessan]

Why no intent?

If the U.S. weren't in the way, we'd have attacked Iran years ago. As things stand now, I don't want you guys dragged into our fight, but make no mistake - it is our fight.

[Mosier]

What are you supposed to do when a country whose government announces its intent to erase your country from the map is close to getting nuclear weapons?

Seriously, what's the alternative here?

[Lust4Life]

Israel has more strategic savvy then the Western Coalition,I suspect that when they say attack they dont mean sending an incredible number of air,sea and groundforces in WW2 style as we have done in Iraq and Afghan followed by occupying the country and trying to make everyone like them,but a lightening strike to take out the Nuclear facilities using a comparitively limited number of resources.


Lets face it since the Shah was deposed successive Iranian governments have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate to the world that they are fit to be included within the community of civilised nations.

Admittedly this is not the fault of the mass of the Iranian people but is very much down to the Revolutionary guard and clerics enforcing corruptly laws amongst other things to suit themselves.

Not too long ago there was a BBC documentary that told the story of a young girl executed by hanging for prostitution.

By Iranian law she was too young for the death penalty but someone in authority had altered her date of birth on the documentation.

She was mentally subnormal.

The people who arrested,tried and killed her were in fact the officials who had forced her into the business and owned the brothel.

It is believed that they were scared that their running of the prostitution had been exposed so they got rid of her to protect themselves.

No men who have used prostitutes have even been arrested apparently,the woman is guilty,the man is not.


The programme mentioned the clergys involvement in the drug trade aswell.

Apparently these sort of crimes are widespread throughout the country.

I will try to find a cite,the programme was about ten months ago.

[Mosier]

Israel has more strategic savvy then the Western Coalition,I suspect that when they say attack they dont mean sending an incredible number of air,sea and groundforces in WW2 style as we have done in Iraq and Afghan followed by occupying the country and trying to make everyone like them,but a lightening strike to take out the Nuclear facilities using a comparitively limited number of resources.


Lets face it since the Shah was deposed successive Iranian governments have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate to the world that they are fit to be included within the community of civilised nations.

Admittedly this is not the fault of the mass of the Iranian people but is very much down to the Revolutionary guard and clerics enforcing corruptly laws amongst other things to suit themselves.

Not too long ago there was a BBC documentary that told the story of a young girl executed by hanging for prostitution.

By Iranian law she was too young for the death penalty but someone in authority had altered her date of birth on the documentation.

She was mentally subnormal.

The people who arrested,tried and killed her were in fact the officials who had forced her into the business and owned the brothel.

It is believed that they were scared that their running of the prostitution had been exposed so they got rid of her to protect themselves.

No men who have used prostitutes have even been arrested apparently,the woman is guilty,the man is not.


The programme mentioned the clergys involvement in the drug trade aswell.

Apparently these sort of crimes are widespread throughout the country.

I will try to find a cite,the programme was about ten months ago.

That's great, but what does it have to do with the topic again?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

What are you supposed to do when a country whose government announces its intent to erase your country from the map is close to getting nuclear weapons?

Seriously, what's the alternative here?Get nuclear weapons yourselves

Oh wait.. you already did that

[Alex_Dubinsky]

I think this represents the last Israeli attempt to get the USA to attack Iran. I also think the Israelis are very foolish if they think this will happen-the LAST thing GWB needs right now is another wasting war.
As they say, "be careful what you wish for, in case your wishes come true".The FIRST thing Bush wants right now is a war with Iran. He's wanted it for a while. It's got nothing to do with him being the President of the US. It's got everything to do with him getting rich if Iran's pipelines are shut off and his friends getting rich if the US spends another trillion or two to buy another war.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

But still, I think the middle east countries are mostly used to this kind of abuse. It's like kicking a dog. Iran won't fight back. It just spoils relations for the longer-term.

[Alessan]

But still, I think the middle east countries are mostly used to this kind of abuse. It's like kicking a dog. Iran won't fight back. It just spoils relations for the longer-term.
Wow. That's one of the most racist things I've ever read on this board.

[elucidator]

Why no intent?

If the U.S. weren't in the way, we'd have attacked Iran years ago. As things stand now, I don't want you guys dragged into our fight, but make no mistake - it is our fight.
Sometimes wars are entirely intentional, Japan's attack on the US, Germany's invasions of Poland and Russia. Lord knows, this is bad enough.

But as Barbara Tuchman famously pointed out in The Guns of August, war can happen without such intent, because they are expected and planned for, and because some stupid incident starts the massive gears turning, and no one knows how to stop the horrible momentum.

And these days we don't need to mobilize armies and get them to train depots, war can begin at a moment's notice, one hothead, one fool, one blunder, and we are up to our necks in the blood of innocents.

That is "war without intent".

[Alessan]

I understand what you meant (and I've read plenty of Tuchman), I just don't think it's applicable. In other words, I don't think it's so much saber rattling, as it is saber sharpening, saber oiling, and saber drawing.

[mswas]

Yes, absolutely serious. I expect a reprise of Opera. The problem with that though is the Iranians have learned from Opera and have hardened their targets.

No one really profits from the fall of Iran. It's just that it hurts China/India/Russia more than it hurts us, at least in theory. If so, we'll have a hotbed of terrorist anarchy from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. Less people to fund terrorism, but more people willing to be recruited.

[mswas]

Israeli and Us Strikes on Iran a Speculative Analysis (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070305_iran_israelius.pdf)

[Mosier]

Get nuclear weapons yourselves

Oh wait.. you already did that

Are you serious? You're happy with the defense of mutually assured destruction?

[Bryan Ekers]

While still Americans can be lead to refer to Israel as "our strongest military ally in the Middle East". To laugh, 'tis.
Just out of curiosity, if Isreal doesn't hold that position, who in your opinion does?

[The Them]

Strictly my gut feelings, backed up by no info.

I'd take Isreal's concerns very seriously. They don't see the whole "we're gonna exterminate you" rhetoric as a joke. And when your life is on the line for real...
The Isrealis have taken out nuclear mischief in Iraq and Syria, and I'll bet $5 they didn't wait around long for permission.

Dubya would love it if Isreal hit Iran, but they wouldn't be doing it for him.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Are you serious? You're happy with the defense of mutually assured destruction?Haha, we're not happy with defense by mutually assured destruction... because that would mean Iran would have a defense!

Wow. That's one of the most racist things I've ever read on this board.Huh?? How is that racist? Non sequitor, much? Do you have some sort of subconscious problem with the fact that we can smack around any middle east country we want knowing that they won't fight back?

No one really profits from the fall of Iran.Of course they do. I'm repeating myself here, but it would send the price of oil through the roof and anyone who manufactures and sells armaments would rake in too. If Iraq didn't prove so successful, we'd already be in Iran.

[elucidator]

Heaven forbid a peace scare should break out.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Strictly my gut feelings, backed up by no info.

I'd take Isreal's concerns very seriously. They don't see the whole "we're gonna exterminate you" rhetoric as a joke. And when your life is on the line for real...
The Isrealis have taken out nuclear mischief in Iraq and Syria, and I'll bet $5 they didn't wait around long for permission.

Dubya would love it if Isreal hit Iran, but they wouldn't be doing it for him.


^^This mostly.

Israel can saber rattle better than most as they have shown repeatedly that they will take preemptive action they feel is in their national defense interests.

Bush probably loves the idea too letting the Israelis have at it. In Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech he managed to go after the one country that was the least of the worries. Now he has left the US in a position where it is far less able to deal with issues like Iran.

We also have firm pledges of commitment from Obama and McCain towards Israel so they likely feel emboldened.

How much the Israelis can damage Iran's nuclear program I have no idea. They have gotten smart and done a lot to protect themselves. But the Israelis are no pushover either.

Hopefully Iran will view this as a credible threat and will become more diplomatic. One can only hope.

[elucidator]

I wonder what diplomacy they might undertake, when one nation urges another to attack a third, on the presumption of what they might very well do at some future date. This throws the whole idea of "defense" right out the window. At least the insanity of the Iraq invasion was based on the fantasy of a direct threat to the US!

As much as I admire the Israelis for their pluck and verve, this is a bridge too far.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I wonder what diplomacy they might undertake, when one nation urges another to attack a third, on the presumption of what they might very well do at some future date. This throws the whole idea of "defense" right out the window. At least the insanity of the Iraq invasion was based on the fantasy of a direct threat to the US!

As much as I admire the Israelis for their pluck and verve, this is a bridge too far.

Well, are you supposed to wait for an attack to be sure that is what your enemies are about? In particular are you supposed to wait for a nuclear attack?

There is no question that Iran is overtly belligerent towards Israel. Iran's leaders have publicly stated their wish to "wipe Israel off the map". Just rhetoric Israel should ignore? Iran has been deemed the #1 state sponsor of terrorists in the world and a large part of that is aimed at Israel. Till now though it has not risen to the level that Israel would preemptively attack.

However, Iran with nuclear weapons is a whole other ball game. This is not the fantasy that was Iraq getting nukes. Iran most definitely has a nuclear program and I do not think anyone really denies it.

I can hardly blame the Israelis for getting edgy about this.

[Alessan]

!

Huh?? How is that racist? Non sequitor, much? Do you have some sort of subconscious problem with the fact that we can smack around any middle east country we want knowing that they won't fight back?


I have a very conscious problem with your implication that Muslims are either cowards or incompetants. Do you think they have no pride? No will? No surface-to-air missiles?

Besides... who's "we", paleface?

[RedFury]

...Huh?? How is that racist? Non sequitor, much? Do you have some sort of subconscious problem with the fact that we can smack around any middle east country we want knowing that they won't fight back?

They don't, huh? So tell me, how's that little squabble in Iraq going?

[Mosier]

Haha, we're not happy with defense by mutually assured destruction... because that would mean Iran would have a defense!

That's not what I asked. It's a hard question to confront, though, so I won't press it any further.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Does anyone here think there can be a diplomatic solution?

The Iranian government survives in large part (with its populace) by fanning the flames of hatred for Westerners and Zionism. Practically a guiding principle on all their foreign policy.

Pakistan on their border has nukes and that is not a terribly stable government.

They saw how the US steam rolled Iraq...twice...with a conventional army. I forget which national leader over there said it but something to the effect that the lesson for them was they needed nukes as that would be the only defense they could have that would dissuade the US (I paraphrased that but it was along those lines).

Iran probably sees itself as THE regional power. Little stands in its way except Israel and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Nukes would certainly aid them in that goal.

In short, I would expect them to do everything in their power to obtain nuclear weapons. Any diplomacy and promises to play nice will only be done to engage in a shell game and keep others off their backs till they succeed in their goal.

Am I missing something?

[Moirai]

Not exactly on topic, but I was talking about Iran with my sons' teacher the other day. She said the Persian community in SoCal is stumping hard for John McCain, in the hopes that he does something stupid, like blasting the government of Iran into kingdom come. Seriously- it's all over the Persian-language TV stations and newspapers.

She says most of them can never go back to their birth country, and would whole-heartedly support US military action against the Iranian government.

Interesting. She is Canadian and Christian now, BTW, but going back to Iran this summer to see her aging mother. She is scared to death, but being a dutiful daughter can be a bitch that way...

[Alex_Dubinsky]

I have a very conscious problem with your implication that Muslims are either cowards or incompetants. Do you think they have no pride? No will? No surface-to-air missiles?

Besides... who's "we", paleface?Muslims (although i'm talking about Arabs... hope you don't think they're the same thing) are neither cowards, incompetants, nor without pride. They're just vastly underpowered against the armies of America, Israel, and anyone else who's willing to join in. Therefore, we can bully them around with these precision strike insults to their sovereignty all we want, and unless we really start to humiliate them, they're not going to fight back. That'd simply be suicide.

They fight as amateur terrorist, but will never in an official capacity.

Maybe you don't understand this fact, being all gung ho about your enemy. (Though i'm confused by your story... are you an Arab taking my words as a personal insult, or an Israeli with a false impression of reality?) But our worries about Iran and ex-Iraq are all understood from the wrong end. The only thing we worry about is that they'll stop being so weak as to keep taking our shit. Even if they get nukes they obvious won't use them, unless we invade.

Middle East countries have far more to fear from us, than we do from them. Don't you know this? Even with nukes we'll have the insurmountable advantage. We just hate the thought that we'll have to think twice about invading.

(Note: Iran handing off nukes to terrorists is a whole other matter, and a legitimate one. But the specific issue of Iran, the country, launching a war is completely crazy.)

[Alex_Dubinsky]

btw, do you remember what happened with Iraq? We kept bullying them, bombing them, being dicks to them in person. Eventually when we made up lies about them having WMD, they were too worked up to deny the allegations. They would let America invade, if only out of pride. This is the trajectory that this saber ratling will take with Iran. It's to put Iran into more of a hole so that it would puff itself up, like we did with Iraq, like a dog.

Then we either feel good about ourselves, for making our propaganda seem like reality. Or else, we take advantage and justify invasion.

If what we honestly cared about is keeping Iran non-nuclear for the long-term future, we'd get the job done a lot better by being soft and non-aggressive. That's how you deal with a threat if you are in a position of inarguable power and advantage.

[Argent Towers]

The question to ask is, is Iranian saber rattling towards Israel serious or not?

Their leader obviously thinks the country should be destroyed and has said so. They're pursuing nuclear bombs. Why is Israel the one getting accused of saber-rattling? They're just parrying Iran's thrust.

[elucidator]

By this theory of threat, the USA was wholly justified in launching a first-strike, thermonuclear war against the Soviet Union. Didn't they say "we will bury you"? Sure, they claim they were just talking about history and economics, but you know how they are. And didn't they give material support to regimes that were, in fact, directly attacking out troops? And weren't they clearly in the process of obtaining more and better weapons? Well, whats to stop them from handing off a few nasty tidbits to the Red Army Faction, or the Weather Underground?

Civilization requires risk. It requires taking the risk of trusting your fellow beings not to be insane. The very essence of our international agreement, the founding principle of the UN, is that aggressive war is a crime against humanity. We charged men with aggressive war, we tried them and we hanged them.

Now we are offered to believe that war is defensive if the party of the first part feels "threatened". Not even a direct threat, like a massing of troops on a border, but a possible threat. If Israel is justified to war on the basis of belligerent quotes, how less justified is Iran? Do we have news reports of the Iranian head of state urging, say, Syria to launch an attack?

I hold neither party to blame, and neither blameless. As Amos Oz said, true tragedy occurs when both antagonist have legitimate grievances.

[Argent Towers]

Israel is a tiny tiny country, inhabited by Jews, who are a tiny tiny percentage of the world's people, and who numerous people over the years have literally tried to exterminate. It's surrounded by big, big countries filled with people who hate them. One of those countries has a leader who says that he wants to remove Israel from the map. This leader is trying to build a device whose purpose is to remove small countries from maps.

What is there not to understand here?

[The Them]

There are so many thoughful posts here! Hope I can match the standard.
There can't be doubt about a few things. Isreal has nukes and lots of conventional stuff to use before they get to those. Iran badly wants nukes and is getting ever closer to having them. The Isrealis are understandably jittery about being wiped out. Many governments in the region, including Iran's, aren't just blowing smoke as regards their intentions.
The problem isn't that using nukes is suicide, it's that somebody (Iran for one) may be perfectly fine with suicide. Of course, The Persian populace at large may feel differently, but the Iranian government doesn't consult them.
Which gets to another, scarier matter. If Iran (for example) were to get sufficiently belligerent AND credibly have the means to deliver a nuclear attack, the Isrealis could plausibly conclude that it would be suicide NOT to strike first.
There are any number of diplomatic, economic, and military safeguards against events going that far, and I sure hope they're being used as we speak. But the last wildcard is the US. The Bush administration is so far off-kilter, it's anyones' guess what false steps or disinformation it might get into. Happily, the US govt. has some extra failsafes that Iran doesn't. But let's say that a hostile power does something that causes serious harm to Isreal, in the 50,000 casualty range. Then the Isrealis might feel no compunctions at all about letting fly and worrying about it later.

This is a terribly dark and apocalyptic vision, I know. Please Eris, let cooler heads prevail.

[Magiver]

If it were only the posturing, that would be bad enough. But ratcheting up the tension increases the liklihood of a war without real intent, a hothead here, a blunder there, next thing they know, they're knee deep in a war that nobody started.How much more racheted can it get when Iran continually say's Israel is going to be annihilated?

[Magiver]

By this theory of threat, the USA was wholly justified in launching a first-strike, thermonuclear war against the Soviet Union.

Now we are offered to believe that war is defensive if the party of the first part feels "threatened". Not even a direct threat, like a massing of troops on a border, but a possible threat. If Israel is justified to war on the basis of belligerent quotes, how less justified is Iran? Do we have news reports of the Iranian head of state urging, say, Syria to launch an attack?

I hold neither party to blame, and neither blameless. As Amos Oz said, true tragedy occurs when both antagonist have legitimate grievances. MAD only works when both parties are sane. Ahmadinejad believes the 12th Imam is getting ready to make an appearance and drop the hammer and that Iran is paving the way. His cryptic threats of imminent doom are way beyond saber rattling. the only good news coming out of his country are clerics (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080507094625.zy32hvir&show_article=1) telling him to shut the hell up.

[Whack-a-Mole]

If Iran (for example) were to get sufficiently belligerent AND credibly have the means to deliver a nuclear attack, the Isrealis could plausibly conclude that it would be suicide NOT to strike first.


Iran has the means (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysumfolder/shahab-3.html) to land nuclear missiles on Israel.

Of course they could likely sneak them in. Give new meaning to the term suicide bomber and allow them (maybe) some chance at saying, "Who? US?"

[Magiver]

Iran has the means (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysumfolder/shahab-3.html) to land nuclear missiles on Israel.

Of course they could likely sneak them in. Give new meaning to the term suicide bomber and allow them (maybe) some chance at saying, "Who? US?" There won't be anyone left to make that statement.

[mswas]

I guarantee you, if we elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a more moderate President. Ahmadinejad was the bulldog they put in the yard to woof at Bush. Khatami vs Clinton, Ahmadinejad vs Bush.

Though, if the next guy is Rafsanjani, we're in trouble.

[MrDibble]

Well, are you supposed to wait for an attack to be sure that is what your enemies are about? Generally, yeah. Look, almost everyone around them says Israel should be wiped out, if you took that as casus belli, they'd never stop fighting. It's different when the tanks are actually on your borders, like in the past
In particular are you supposed to wait for a nuclear attack?

I don't know why people get all het up about nuclear. 's not like Iran will be able to wipe Israel off the map in one swoop in this generation. If they're using anything like the Pakistani tech, which seems about right, they'll only have warheads in the kiloton range, and not too many of them at first - nuclear weapons take time to produce even with all centrifuges firing flat-out. 's taken Pakistan 30 years to build their current arsenal of oh, anywhere from 30-75 weapons. Nuclear's not the end of the world (although a first nuclear strike by Iran would be the end of them)

[Quartz]

How could Israel attack Iran without America's connivance? Their warplanes will have to overfly any of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia and they'd be spotted by AWACS pretty quickly.

[ralph124c]

The only way that i could see the Israelis destroying iranian nuclear capability, is through a massive missile strike, with nuclear bombs. Other than that, a few aircraft-launched attacks will not do the job. If they use the nuclear option, all bets are off-Pakistan will probably attack israel, and etc.
Surely a very DANGEROUS sistuation.

[Captain Amazing]

MAD only works when both parties are sane. Ahmadinejad believes the 12th Imam is getting ready to make an appearance and drop the hammer and that Iran is paving the way. His cryptic threats of imminent doom are way beyond saber rattling. the only good news coming out of his country are clerics (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080507094625.zy32hvir&show_article=1) telling him to shut the hell up.

Ahmadinejad doesn't have control over the millitary, though, so he can't order the troops to do anything.

[davidw]

There is no question that Iran is overtly belligerent towards Israel. Iran's leaders have publicly stated their wish to "wipe Israel off the map". Just rhetoric Israel should ignore?

Yes, they should ignore it. Ahmadinejad is a loud mouth who has no real power.


However, Iran with nuclear weapons is a whole other ball game. This is not the fantasy that was Iraq getting nukes. Iran most definitely has a nuclear program and I do not think anyone really denies it.

The American intelligence community doesn't believe Iran has a nuclear program. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm) says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

[davidw]

Iran probably sees itself as THE regional power. Little stands in its way except Israel and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Nukes would certainly aid them in that goal.

What goal are you referring to? For all it's loud talk, Iran has never invaded another country. Why would they do so now? Especially when they have plenty of influence without having to go to war.

[davidw]

btw, do you remember what happened with Iraq? We kept bullying them, bombing them, being dicks to them in person. Eventually when we made up lies about them having WMD, they were too worked up to deny the allegations. They would let America invade, if only out of pride.

I'm sorry, but you're misremembering these events. They did deny the allegations of having WMD, and they allowed inspectors into the country to have a look. The U.S. just ignored their denials.

[davidw]

Israel is a tiny tiny country, inhabited by Jews, who are a tiny tiny percentage of the world's people, and who numerous people over the years have literally tried to exterminate. It's surrounded by big, big countries filled with people who hate them. One of those countries has a leader who says that he wants to remove Israel from the map. This leader is trying to build a device whose purpose is to remove small countries from maps.

What is there not to understand here?

Of course, looking at it from the Iranian point of view, Israel has a mighty military, they possess nuclear weapons, and they have a close relationship with the most powerful military in the world. Israel also has shown a willingness and history of invading and attacking nearby countries (something that Iran hasn't done), and they are trying to get the U.S. to attack Iran. How should Iran respond to that?

[Whack-a-Mole]

The American intelligence community doesn't believe Iran has a nuclear program. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7125701.stm) says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.


Did you read that article?

The issue is uranium enrichment which Iran continues to do. This is the critical step. Two weeks after that article the UN Security Council voted to sanction Iran (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/iran-061223-unsc01.htm) over its enrichment program.

Despite facing sanctions and incentives to stop enrichment and accept help for developing peaceful nuclear power help Iran remains belligerent.

They hid their nuclear program for 18 years as well. None of this speaks to an honest, non-nuclear weapon program.

[elucidator]

Well, it certainly makes a bad comparison to Israel's frank and open approach to the issue of their own pursuit of nuclear weapons.

[Spoke]

Of course, looking at it from the Iranian point of view, Israel has a mighty military, they possess nuclear weapons, and they have a close relationship with the most powerful military in the world. Israel also has shown a willingness and history of invading and attacking nearby countries (something that Iran hasn't done), and they are trying to get the U.S. to attack Iran. How should Iran respond to that?

Moreover, the US has troops on two of Iran's borders, and has a leader who refers to Iran as part of something he calls "the axis of evil." Not hard to imagine that the Iranians would like to have nukes for deterrent value, rather than as a first-strike weapon.

[mswas]

Moreover, the US has troops on two of Iran's borders, and has a leader who refers to Iran as part of something he calls "the axis of evil." Not hard to imagine that the Iranians would like to have nukes for deterrent value, rather than as a first-strike weapon.

Heh, well all that justification does is make war more likely.

[Magiver]

Ahmadinejad doesn't have control over the millitary, though, so he can't order the troops to do anything. Yes, in theory. But in a region where personal army's seem to pop up as needed I don't get any warm and fuzzy's from this guy. His election was the direct result of cleric intervention. Only candidates that follow their general philosophy are allowed to run.

His most recent foot-in-mouth decree (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkqvlPndHPxXMqNzQLCQAPNyxbdQ):

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.

[Magiver]

Moreover, the US has troops on two of Iran's borders, and has a leader who refers to Iran as part of something he calls "the axis of evil." Not hard to imagine that the Iranians would like to have nukes for deterrent value, rather than as a first-strike weapon. Yah, they would never give Hezbollah rockets or anything like that. The Iranian funded group wants Western government out of Lebanon and Israel dead.

[Argent Towers]

For the life of me, I don't know why people can see stuff like that, and yet still accuse Israel of being the one rattling the saber. Folks love to whine about how they hate being accused of being anti-Semitic when they have blatant bias against Israel seemingly for no other reason than that it's Israel, but frankly in some cases I don't see how it could be anything else.

You'd have to be brain-dead not to see the threat to Israel here. Has one of Israel's leaders ever stated his intention or desire to have an entire country wiped off the map?

[Spoke]

Folks love to whine about how they hate being accused of being anti-Semitic when they have blatant bias against Israel seemingly for no other reason than that it's Israel, but frankly in some cases I don't see how it could be anything else.
Despicable ad hominem argument, and utterly unresponsive to the point being made.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

For the life of me, I don't know why people can see stuff like that, and yet still accuse Israel of being the one rattling the saber. Folks love to whine about how they hate being accused of being anti-Semitic when they have blatant bias against Israel seemingly for no other reason than that it's Israel, but frankly in some cases I don't see how it could be anything else.Yes, we say that you're a belligerent nation with vast armaments and nuclear capabilities because you're all Jews. That's it.

But hey, that's ok, because the other countries keep saying stuff about how they'd totally kick your ass if they had more than a fucken hundredth of you and your ally's military budget (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Gb32NKWYsxwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures+iran+military+budget+wiki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera).

[Argent Towers]

Well then why don't you tell me, why, when the leader of the damn country has said in his own words that he wants to destroy Israel, do you insist that it's for "deterrent" purposes?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

For the life of me, I don't know why people can see stuff like that, and yet still accuse Israel of being the one rattling the saber. Folks love to whine about how they hate being accused of being anti-Semitic when they have blatant bias against Israel seemingly for no other reason than that it's Israel, but frankly in some cases I don't see how it could be anything else.Yes, we say that you're a belligerent nation with vast armaments and nuclear capabilities because you're all Jews. That's it.

But hey, that's ok, because the other countries keep saying stuff about how they'd totally kick your ass if they had more than a fucken hundredth (http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Gb32NKWYsxwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures+iran+military+budget+wiki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera) of you and your ally's military budget.

[Argent Towers]

Belligerent?

How, on God's green earth, can Israel be more belligerent than a nation whose leader says he wants another country to be destroyed?

[elucidator]

As you probably already know, there is some question as to the translation of the Dreaded Threat. Now, I have little Latin, no Greek, and squat Arabic, so I cannot offer a definitive opinion, but there is enough "out there" to give me pause.

And just as I pointed out upstream, Russia threatened to "bury" us. There was a long history of subterfuge and deceit between us. They supplied arms and training to regimes actively killing our soldiers. Oh, and just to top it off: we're talking H-bombs, which make A-bombs look like Nerf balls.

And yet, somehow, perhaps by the grace of the Goddess, we managed not to annihiliate each other. Personally, I think that's a positive result. May I make so bold as to recommend it?

See, what we are saying is: Give peace a chance. Sorry if we seem tiresome and/or naive on the subject, but we are in dead earnest. In a manner of speaking.

[Argent Towers]

The difference is that the leaders of Russia didn't believe in a religion that mandated the destruction of America. Iran's leader seems to genuinely believe that Israel should be destroyed, not for mere political purposes but because it is God's will. I'm sure he would have no problem at all if his entire nation's population were nuked in response to the Iranian destruction of Israel - they would all be martyrs for the cause, in his eyes.

[elucidator]

Then why hasn't he already done so? If, as you seem to imply, he is beyond all reason and dissuasion, and cannot be deterrred by the same rational approaches we used with the Soviets....why hasn't he simply launched an attack anyway? Whats holding him back, if he's as bloodthirsty as you say?

[Argent Towers]

Well, he doesn't have the nuclear bombs yet. He's working on it.

[sqweels]

When talking about Ahmadinejad's infamous remark, it helps to look at the broader context, as sketched out in the Wikipedia article:


Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech

[treis]

It's unclear to me how Israel intends to attack Iran. It's out of range of it's fighter jets, meaning that any attack will requiring refueling. The problem is that this will have to occur with the permission of Iraq, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. I can't see any way that those countries will give that permission. Any ideas on how Israel would actually attack Iran?

[MrDibble]

The difference is that the leaders of Russia didn't believe in a religion that mandated the destruction of America.
Nor does Iran's. Unless you have a cite that says the destruction of Israel is a tenet of Islam.

[Quartz]

It's unclear to me how Israel intends to attack Iran. It's out of range of it's fighter jets, meaning that any attack will requiring refueling.

Well, it is and it isn't within range. If the planes fly at a high altitude, it's well within range. Of course, flying at altitude means that they'll be spotted very early. If they fly at very low level, they'll escape Iranian radar but need to refuel.

Hmm... maybe they intend to sneak in underneath a 747 or similar?

[davidw]

Yes, in theory. But in a region where personal army's seem to pop up as needed I don't get any warm and fuzzy's from this guy.

So, what, Israel needs to attack Iran because Ahmadinejad may form a personal army and attack Israel with it? That's the big threat?

[Spoke]

Well then why don't you tell me, why, when the leader of the damn country has said in his own words that he wants to destroy Israel, do you insist that it's for "deterrent" purposes?

Because I know the definition of "rhetoric." And because a nuclear strike on Israel by Iran would be suicidal. And because I am confident the Iranians are not suicidal.

Look; it is not "anti-semitic" to try to understand Iran's perspective.

George Bush labeled three nations as members of the so-called "Axis of Evil": Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

Iraq, which had no nuclear weapons, was quickly invaded. North Korea, which does have nuclear weapons, was not. Instead, North Korea got food supplies and negotiations.

What lesson should Iran's leadership draw from this?

Now Iran finds itself with US troops on two borders, and at least one presidential candidate "joking" that he wants to "bomb, bomb Iran." (Maybe just more rhetoric, but you certainly seem to take rhetoric seriously. Should you be surprised when Iran does?)

Would the US, or Israel, bomb Iran if it had nuclear weapons with which to retaliate? Nope. Iran, no doubt, sees the deterrent value of these weapons. Don't you?

[tagos]

What are you supposed to do when a country whose government announces its intent to erase your country from the map is close to getting nuclear weapons?

Seriously, what's the alternative here?

Not repeating right-wing lies for one thing.

[davidw]

The difference is that the leaders of Russia didn't believe in a religion that mandated the destruction of America. Iran's leader seems to genuinely believe that Israel should be destroyed, not for mere political purposes but because it is God's will. I'm sure he would have no problem at all if his entire nation's population were nuked in response to the Iranian destruction of Israel - they would all be martyrs for the cause, in his eyes.

Ahmadinejad is not the leader. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1185293,00.html) Iran's leader is Ayatollah Ali Khameini:

As the Bush administration consistently points out, Iran is ultimately run by unelected, clerical leaders, and Ahmadinejad is not one of them. President Bush's opposite number in Iraq is really the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Khameini makes the final decision on all matters of security and foreign policy — including and especially the nuclear issue — although he typically abides by the consensus of the National Security Council. The Council is led by Ali Larijani, appointed by and answerable to the Supreme Leader, and a man who also ran for president against Ahmadinejad.

It is Larijani rather than Ahmadinejad who is managing the negotiations over the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has only one vote — out of around a dozen — on the Security Council. So as much as he rattles his saber at the West, the President is in no position to act on any of this threats. He has to lobby for his position within a power structure in which his is not the dominant voice. And while Ahmadinejad thunders against compromise, Larijani and other elements of the regime have made clear that Iran still seeks a deal (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/791/re6.htm) , preferably in direct face-to-face talks with Washington.

I'd recommend reading this for a fuller picture of the Iranian political situation (http://tonykaron.com/2005/11/03/the-clerico-kremlinology-of-irans-israel-threat/)

[davidw]

Sorry, that link is a little out of date. Larijani is no longer the head of the National Security Council. He resigned in October. He is now speaker of the Parliament.

[davidw]

More on the confused state of Iran's nuclear position (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ23Ak03.html)

[Magiver]

So, what, Israel needs to attack Iran because Ahmadinejad may form a personal army and attack Israel with it? That's the big threat? When you're the PRESIDENT of a country and you continuously talk about wiping out another country that's not a "so what". That's a threat.

Lets look at that reality of that threat from the perspective of intent. Iran directly funds Hezbollah who in turn launched rockets into Israel a year ago. Not 1 rocket, not a hundred rockets, THOUSANDS of rockets. That would qualify as an act of war by any standard. This is made worse by the fact that Hezbollah is trying to take over the government of Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad is only a couple of key military people away from wielding power. If the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei were to have an accident than a vacuum is created which will be filled by someone with a plan that fits religious dogma. Take Ahmadinejad’s belief that the 12th Imam’s arrival is imminent and you have an excuse to build an elite secrete police to make things happen. All that’s necessary is a fall guy to take the blame for a bad economy or the general evils of the world.

Let’s recap:

Articulate charismatic leader who hates Jews
Country based on fundamental religion
Well funded terrorist wing that has attacked Israel (Satan).
Single religious leader surrounded by a council
Economic problems

Change the word Hezbollah to “Secret Police” and you’ve got the potential for a Hitler-style coup complete with Jews.

[elucidator]

When you're the PRESIDENT of a country and you continuously talk about wiping out another country that's not a "so what". That's a threat. ....
And what is it when the President of Israel publicly urges the President of the US to attack a third nation?

War with Iran will not make Israel more secure, but less so. Gradually and grudgingly, the Islamic world is coming to accept the existence of Israel. You can measure the safety of Israel by the number of its sworn enemies, which are fewer now than before.

War will not eliminate Israel's enemies, it will multiply them. Read the instructions of the packet of dragon's teeth: Do Not Sow.

[puppygod]

It's unclear to me how Israel intends to attack Iran. It's out of range of it's fighter jets, meaning that any attack will requiring refueling. The problem is that this will have to occur with the permission of Iraq, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. I can't see any way that those countries will give that permission. Any ideas on how Israel would actually attack Iran?

Custom-rigged unmanned plane fitted with extra fuel tanks and couple of bunker-buster bombs, applied kamikaze-style maybe? At least it's how I would do it.

[Magiver]

And what is it when the President of Israel publicly urges the President of the US to attack a third nation?

War with Iran will not make Israel more secure, but less so. Gradually and grudgingly, the Islamic world is coming to accept the existence of Israel. You can measure the safety of Israel by the number of its sworn enemies, which are fewer now than before.

War will not eliminate Israel's enemies, it will multiply them. Read the instructions of the packet of dragon's teeth: Do Not Sow. But we're not talking about war. We're talking about Israel destroying a nuclear facility. And if they managed to capture any of Hezbollah's rockets that could just return them to their rightful owners.

[davidw]

When you're the PRESIDENT of a country and you continuously talk about wiping out another country that's not a "so what". That's a threat.

And I'd like to point out again that the president is not the one in control.

Lets look at that reality of that threat from the perspective of intent. Iran directly funds Hezbollah who in turn launched rockets into Israel a year ago. Not 1 rocket, not a hundred rockets, THOUSANDS of rockets. That would qualify as an act of war by any standard. This is made worse by the fact that Hezbollah is trying to take over the government of Lebanon.

If Israel didn't attack Iran then, why should they now, after the cease-fire in Lebanon?

Ahmadinejad is only a couple of key military people away from wielding power. If the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei were to have an accident than a vacuum is created which will be filled by someone with a plan that fits religious dogma. Take Ahmadinejad’s belief that the 12th Imam’s arrival is imminent and you have an excuse to build an elite secrete police to make things happen. All that’s necessary is a fall guy to take the blame for a bad economy or the general evils of the world.

So Israel should attack Iran because Khamenei might have an "accident," then Ahmadinejad might step into the power vacuum, vanquish his rivals, and use Hezbollah members as a secret police force to consolidate power? The reasoning for an Israeli attack is becoming more and more baroque.

[Magiver]

And I'd like to point out again that the president is not the one in control. I'd like to point out that Iran already supports Hezbollah who has attacked Israel. Their actions are in line with the President and parliament’s continued call for the death of Israel.

If Israel didn't attack Iran then, why should they now, after the cease-fire in Lebanon?

So Israel should attack Iran because Khamenei might have an "accident," then Ahmadinejad might step into the power vacuum, vanquish his rivals, and use Hezbollah members as a secret police force to consolidate power? The reasoning for an Israeli attack is becoming more and more baroque. Israel should defend itself against a country whose President and parliament actively promotes it's genocide, is developing nuclear weapons, and is funding an army that has actively attacked it with thousands of missiles using ANOTHER country as a battlefield.

Do you not understand that Israel was attacked by thousands of missiles? Do you see this as a minor event?

and what cease-fire? I wasn't aware Hezbollah pulled it's army and weapons out of Lebanon so "cease-fire" is just another word for restocking ammunition. Nothing has changed in this situation.

[Moirai]

It's unclear to me how Israel intends to attack Iran. It's out of range of it's fighter jets, meaning that any attack will requiring refueling. The problem is that this will have to occur with the permission of Iraq, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. I can't see any way that those countries will give that permission. Any ideas on how Israel would actually attack Iran?


Well, it is and it isn't within range. If the planes fly at a high altitude, it's well within range. Of course, flying at altitude means that they'll be spotted very early. If they fly at very low level, they'll escape Iranian radar but need to refuel.

I thought that the F16i Sufa was designed especially for this purpose- isn't the joke that the "i" stands for "Iran?" These planes should have no problem getting there and back undetected. Even if they need to be tanked on the way back, I assume that Israel can get tankers up without endangering any of the planes.

[gonzomax]

So you could logically see Iran attacking and trying to destroy Israels nuclear hoard. Israel is a real threat and is considering bombing them. What more reason do you need.?

[clairobscur]

Iran most definitely has a nuclear program and I do not think anyone really denies it.
.


The Russians deny it (Iran having a *military* nuclear programm, that's it).

[clairobscur]

MAD only works when both parties are sane. Ahmadinejad believes the 12th Imam is getting ready to make an appearance and drop the hammer and that Iran is paving the way.


That's what I find the most worrying about him. He's the exact equivalent of christian fundamentalists who believe that the second coming of Christ is imminent. One can hope that he's not willing to help accelerate the process. He also believes that Iran is actually currently led by the guidance of said 12th Imam (actually he has been criticized by Iranian clerics for this theological assumption that the late Khomeyni was specifically rejecting).One reassuring fact is that he's kept in check in large part by the guide and the conservative clerics, and can't act on his own accord.

[Magiver]

That's what I find the most worrying about him. He's the exact equivalent of christian fundamentalists who believe that the second coming of Christ is imminent. One can hope that he's not willing to help accelerate the process. He also believes that Iran is actually currently led by the guidance of said 12th Imam (actually he has been criticized by Iranian clerics for this theological assumption that the late Khomeyni was specifically rejecting).One reassuring fact is that he's kept in check in large part by the guide and the conservative clerics, and can't act on his own accord. Hezbollah represents an army of religious zealots who will do the bidding of the person they believe best represents them. They are the brown shirts of this century. It only takes one articulate leader to rally them. Clerics can be removed in a single event designed to consolidate power. Look at Saddam Hussein and his rise to power. There's a video of him calling his detractors forward and then trying them for treason.