Ahmedinajab is making it really easy for Israel to call the close ones in favor of a hit.
One might ask in their place, what do they have to lose? At some point if a guy says he wants to fuck you up, you are probably well advised to do your best to fuck him up first.
If it turns out that he was only kidding, well, that’swhy they don’t let you make bomb jokes at the airport…
would it be a hijack to ask :
what if the only strategically sound option for Israel that would produce a nuclear free Iran included the use of nuclear weapons against the most hardened sites?
( my impression is that the “military option” has be rendered really problematic by the amount of excvation the Iranians have had time to do while we pissed into the fragrant mesopotamian wind.)
that’s what I meant by the last time it was justified was when it would really work.
the worst thing to do is tryto decapitate their nuclear program military and screw the pooch. We all know what that looks like, without the nukes–Baghdad
See Bush just got confused. We should have invaded Iran not Iraq. The dope.
He was never much at spelling…
would you distinguish our legitimate options from Israel’s?
(from the international law point of view, of course, there is no difference–we are both equally bound or equally empowered by the sercurity council’s diktat)
There’s sort of an intuitive difference when you are actually within range of the other guy, tho.
i might have missed it, but to anyone that says that we’ve passed the time to attack them and we should do it now or that we should be doing/planning on it…why?
self preservation? attacking them will stop (world) war? stopping terrorism? spread of freedom? a combination?
Geez, I don’t know… Nuclear proliferation? Nuclear blackmail? Nukes in the hands of terrorists? Constant brinksmanship? Some nutbar firing a nuke at Israel because it’s what Allah wants?
Think about the chilling effect the Muslim riots have had on free speech in the west. Now imagine the crazies waving around nuclear weapons and demanding that we accede to their demands.
A world in which Iran has the bomb is a hell of a lot more dangerous than one in which it doesn’t.
What happened to the left, btw? In the 80’s and 90’s, their big issue was nuclear non-proliferation. Now it’s like, “Who are we to tell Iran they can’t have a nuke? We’ve got them, so why can’t they?”
By the way, the President of Iran follows a mystical sect of Islam that believes that it is their duty to hasten the return of the 12th Imam by spreading chaos and destruction, and by destroying Israel. So I wouldn’t be too quick to claim that the hatred he’s been spewing is just ‘hot air for domestic consumption’. Every act Iran has taken since he’s become president has been provocative and destabilizing. Allowing that country under its current leadership to have nuclear weapons is just insane.
alaricthegoth: No, I don’t think Israel should use nuclear weapons. That would be a very bad idea. And anyway, nukes don’t really help in this situation. The problem with destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities is not that they are too hardened to get at with conventional weapons, but that they are spread out and hidden. So it will take a lot of strikes to do significant damage, and Israel’s aircraft would be at the extreme edge of their range, even with in-flight refueling. It’s an immensely difficult problem, and nukes don’t help.
The real question to ask is not whether we should stop Iran, but whether or not we CAN stop Iran. They learned some pretty good lessons watching Saddam’s beloved reactor get blown up, and they aren’t making the same mistake. It can probably be set back some, but destroyed? I don’t know.
Perhaps the difference is that now, with Bush in office, the Iranians have a legitmate need for nukes, to back him down. One could argue that under the cicumstances it’s the duty of the Iranian government to it’s people to get nukes as fast as possible, in case we do manage to stabilize Iraq, and free up forces to invade.
With the incentive of a crazed superpower taking aim at them, I doubt it.
The time has already come to turn Iran’s nuclear facilities into rubble. Any more delay and it will be too late to do anything, then we’ll be stuck with another North Korea.
Of course, that’s presupposing that the Iranian government feels any duty towards the Iranian people at all.
In other words, there are absolutely no legitimate reasons for doing so and you propose that we make ourselves a further outlaw nation (although too big to be repremanded by civilized society) once again?
I agree that Iran wields terror far too easily and I have no problem with taking steps to get them to rein in that policy. If their nuclear program continued in concert with their policy of terror, that might justify some pre-emptive steps by the United Nations. However, discussion now regarding what we should do now is premature.
I have still seen no indication that Iran would actually commit suicide as a nation simply to “get” Israel. Despite all their rhetoric, they have never threatened any nation other than Israel, so they do not appear to have plans for conquest and they have to know that an attack on Israel would doom them–especially as along as we continue to elect people like Bush.
Every act? Or every speech? The nuclear program was in place before he became president. What actual actions has Iran taken since he became president, besides a “conference” to review the Holocaust and a contest to produce Holocaust cartoons, along with continuing the existing stonewalling over nukes? The Iranian presidency is a pretty weak office (ask Rafsanjani), and I get the distinct impression that Khameini is using Ahmadi-Nejad as a stalking horse to see how far he can push the West.
The leadership? Or Ahmadi-Nejad? I definitely think that we should let Khameini know that his loose reins on his president are actually going to create more problems for him and his country than he can handle. Letting them know that an attack on Israel would be met with a like-weaponed response from the U.S. is appropriate, (preferably privately so that we do not make this a public chest-thumping act of brinkmanship).
xtisme, according to your response, as long as Iran does not happen to admit that they have succeeded in building a nuclear weapon, we should leave them alone–just as we have left Israel and South Africa alone.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, the issue is liable to be moot if Israel goes after Iran, anyway.
So far, all the Western world has proven with its overwhelming use of conventional arms based on the pretext of a transparent pack of lies, is that if you are a reasonably well developed Islamic nation, with plenty of strategic resources, the only way to guaruntee national security is to obtain nuclear weapons, because absolutely nothing else will stop the Bushes of this world from invading at their convenience.
From Iran’s POV there is a choice, build up your armed forces but no matter what you do, they can never prevent a US led invasion, or you can take a look at N Korea, a bunch of nutjobs to be sure, but they have nuclear devices, a means of delivery, and the US won’t be invading that nation for the foreseeable future.
Far from making the world a safer place, the invasion of Iraq has made it considerably less so, it has provided the impetus for anyone with the means to obtain or develop nuclear devices.
That invasion of Iraq now means that if we wish to ensure non-nulear proliferation, then we will have a lot more international police work to do.
At some point it seems likely there will be some military action against Iran, like it or not, and I would expect that plenty of plans and diplomatic moves have already been made to deal with the consequencies.
I sometimes wonder if a little bit more of realpolitik had been employed and Saddam Hussain and a few of his top henchmen had been taken out if we would have had a better transfer of power, assassination of world leaders is not exactly a highly moral thing and someone would have it on their conscience, but gvein what we now know, no WMD and others now queueing up to be the next target.
ABout how long does that take?
America should bomb Iran any time it feels that bombing is required for its own safety and the safety of the world. America cannot look to the UN for its defence. The UN is an anti-American talking shop with a large contingent of cronies of dictators.
Ironically, I think that at the moment the only thing saving the Iranian reactors is the American presence in Iraq. Otherwise the Israelis would have bombed them long since.
Well, there is the fact that South Africa managed to keep their program under wraps while Iran has felt the need to continually shout to the world that they are going to start their enrichment program…for ‘peaceful’ purposes of course wink wink, nudge nudge.
Once Iran HAS nukes all bets are off pretty much and we have to play it as its dealt…sort of like we have to play along with lil’ Kimmy and friends in North Korea at this point. Certainly if we fuck around and look the other way until Iran presents us all with a fait accompli then we won’t have any options at that point. I suppose the question is…is this the wisest course? Is it a course The West™ finds palatable? And of course, as you said, there is always the wild card…Israel might not join the Euro’s in their reindeer games and decide to play on their own once they are convinced that the US is toothless on this on due to Iraq and the Euro’s are…well Europeans and will probably simply hem and haw and screw around debating things until Iran manages to get at least one bomb built.
-XT
As mentioned earlier in the thread, an overt Israeli air strike is unlikely for several reasons:
It’s farther from Israel to Iran than it is to Iraq. Radar is much better than it was in 1981. That’s not to say that the Israelis couldn’t outfly and outfight the Iranian air force. They probably could. But they’d have to mount a helluva force since they could expect to take some serious losses while still maintaining a large enough force to get the job done.
Israel would have to cross coalition-controlled (read: US) airspace. That would amount to a tacit agreement by the US, if it was allowed. Boy would that piss the Saudis off.
Israel doesn’t operate any aircraft carriers or tomahawk-capable submarines that I know of.
The Iranian facilities, as I understand them to be, are more hardened in the sense that they’re underground in some places as well as spread out to various locations.
Still, a few zealous Jews with suitcase bombs could do some sizable damage.
Why another North Korea and not another Pakistan?
Even if Iran gets the coolest nukes in the world, THEY CANNOT REACH US. There is absolutely no threat to the US and any threat to the US is in the very distant future.
Can’t anyone see that we are the destabilizing force here?
This is just a load of nonsense, and I’m getting tired of hearing it. Is Egypt under threat of invasion from the U.S? How about Turkey? Bahrain? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Indonesia? The UAE? Do you think any of the leaders of these countries lay awake at night worrying about a U.S. invasion?
Here’s an easy formula to avoid invasion by the U.S: Don’t invade your neighbors. Don’t oppress your people. Don’t scream ‘Death to Israel’ and develop nuclear weapons. Don’t support terrorism.
Countries that are good world citizens are under no threat from the United States. Period. No matter how much oil they have. I live in Alberta. We have the second largest oil reserves in the world. The U.S. could walk in here and take it all tomorrow with nary a fight, since our Liberals destroyed our armed forces. But Albertans don’t lay awake at night worrying about a U.S. invasion.
No carriers, to be sure, but I present to you the Dolphin class submarine, armed (perhaps) with Popeye Turbo cruise missiles.
… that aside, I not sure if it’s possible - it’s a much more difficult operaton than Osirak. I’m not sure Israel has the capablity; and if we do, I’m not sure we have leaders capable of making that decision. Sharon was - that’s why we loved him.
I think the concern relates to the perception that
1: As a revolutionary theocracy Iran may not act predictably or rationally (relative to our limited historical experience with nations that own nukes) once it possesses this weapon.
2: Beyond the immediate threat to Israel, which I think has a relatively small chance of becoming real, as using the bomb would effectively spell the end of Iran as we know it, the larger realpolitik concern is if Iran (somehow) leverages this power to extend it’s aggressively anti-US position and regional influence, it could potentially disrupt oil supplies throughout the region, and that would have us by the short hairs.