Israel ready to attack Iran?

[newcomer]

@brazil84

And of course whatever Iran’s intentions are at the moment, they could change down the road. For example, if there were a revolution and the supreme leader’s residence were surrounded by rebels who would surely execute him. In such a situation the leader might be tempted to order a nuclear strike against Israel in hopes of provoking a nuclear war. He might hope that a massive nuclear strike against his own country would have a bigger impact on rebels than on loyalists; or that the resulting disarray might give him a better chance of escaping or at least holding on to power. He might hope that if the rebels learned that Iran is likely to get nuked in the next hour or two, they will flee.

And you have a gall to call other people positions ridiculous while having a feast of your own.

I mean, construct such as “He might hope that a massive nuclear strike against his own country would have a bigger impact on rebels than on loyalists” is one of the craziest stuff I read in a while. Other than the ticking bomb justification for torture.

[Lantern]

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the Iranian military will listen to the orders of a leader on the verge of being overthrown and commit national suicide. Not to mention the truly crackpot idea of lobbing a nuke at Israel and hoping for a massive retaliatory strike which will somehow help the leader stay in power.

[brazil84]

@Lantern

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the Iranian military will listen to the orders of a leader on the verge of being overthrown and commit national suicide. Not to mention the truly crackpot idea of lobbing a nuke at Israel and hoping for a massive retaliatory strike which will somehow help the leader stay in power.

Umm, does that mean yes or no?

[brazil84]

@newcomer

And you have a gall to call other people positions ridiculous while having a feast of your own.

So you think that Iran’s leadership would NEVER launch a nuclear strike out of desperation?

[Lantern]

@brazil84

Umm, does that mean yes or no?

You figure it out. Someone who can come up with a sentence like “He might hope that a massive nuclear strike against his own country would have a bigger impact on rebels than on loyalists; or that the resulting disarray might give him a better chance of escaping or at least holding on to power.” is obviously blessed with a penetrating intellect and a deep knowledge of national security.

[brazil84]

@Lantern

You figure it out.

Sorry, it’s not my job to puzzle out what you are trying to say. Since you continually refuse to answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position, our discussion is concluded.

" is obviously blessed with a penetrating intellect and a deep knowledge of national security.

Personal insults are a poor substitute for actual arguments.

[YogSothoth]

So it looks like, bottom line, we’ve all agreed that Iran getting nukes wouldn’t be a threat to Israel, right? Glad we got that settled!

[sqweels]

The way I see it, Iran is exercising its Second Amendment Rights. They aren’t necessarily gunning for anyone in particular, but they aren’t necessarily not, either.

Nevertheless, I agree with those who think we should start World War III.

[Mosier]

@brazil84

I think you need to ask Der Trihs that question, since he is the one who asserted that Iran tried to make peace. I’m simply trying to determine whether there is any truth to such a claim.

I would say it’s Iran, but let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that the US is the “badguy.” The question on the table is whether (1) it’s reasonable for Israel to attempt to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons; and (2) what Iran could or should do to prevent an attack by Israel.

The question is more along the lines of “how far should Israel (or the USA) go to prevent Iran from getting nukes.” In my opinion, that line should be drawn so far away from “military strikes” that you can’t even see it on the horizon.

[brazil84]

@Mosier

The question is more along the lines of “how far should Israel (or the USA) go to prevent Iran from getting nukes.”

Not really, if you look at the exchange which sparked my question:

Finnagain: If they really wanted to avoid a potential attack by Israel, in addition to stopping their support of Hamas and Hezbollah they could always actually make peace.

Der Trihs: They tried making peace with America and got slapped with the “Axis of Evil” label in return

Of course, the question you are asking is an important one – but it’s a slightly different topic from what I was asking Der Trihs about.

[sqweels]

@brazil84

Der Trihs: They tried making peace with America and got slapped with the “Axis of Evil” label in return.

From this site: U.S.-Iran Engagement Through Afghanistan - Middle East Policy Council

@Middle East Policy Council

Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran assisted the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and participated in international efforts to establish a new Afghan government. A senior Iranian diplomat describes the decision making in Iran immediately after the 9/11 attacks: “[W]e consciously decided not to qualify our cooperation on Afghanistan or make it contingent upon a change in U.S. policy, believing, erroneously, that the impact would be of such magnitude that it would automatically have altered the nature of Iran-U.S. relations.”9 U.S.-Iran cooperation was unprecedented, but in the years that followed, the George W. Bush administration chose not to continue substantive diplomatic dialogue with Tehran on Afghanistan unless Iran changed its behavior toward nuclear development

[brazil84]

@sqweels

From this site: U.S.-Iran Engagement Through Afghanistan - Middle East Policy Council

What exactly did Iran do to assist the US invasion of Afghanistan? And if they were trying to make peace, why didn’t they publicly offer to (1) resume diplomatic relations with the US; (2) restore the US to its embassy in Tehran; and (3) pay compensation to the Americans who were taken hostage back in the late 70s?

[sqweels]

@brazil84

What exactly did Iran do to assist the US invasion of Afghanistan? And if they were trying to make peace, why didn’t they publicly offer to (1) resume diplomatic relations with the US; (2) restore the US to its embassy in Tehran; and (3) pay compensation to the Americans who were taken hostage back in the late 70s?

I was only quoting the article. My own recollection is that Iran didn’t do anything but rather offered to help in Afghanistan and the Bush Administration rejected that outright.

I think we should have used the contacts that that would have entailed as a basis for some low-key backdoor diplomacy. The point is to get the lines of communications open and gradually build confidence, taking baby steps toward a thaw in relartions. With all due caution, of course.

It’s absurd to start off with heavy-handed demands. Of course that’s going to put them off. But after 9/11 we had big problems and we needed to reduce the number of enemies and increase the number of non-enemies. (For one thing, the Iranians and Taliban were more or less enemies.)

9/11 re-shuffled the Middle Easter deck quite a bit and suddenly there were alternatives to brinkmanship in purshuing inproved behavior from both Iran and Iraq. Mideast terrorism was suddenly a much bigger deal and there was a massive international backlash against it. Iran and Iraq should have been given a chance to show that they’re willing to get with the program at least a little bit. Carrot-and-stick, good cop/bad cop and all that.

There was also a huge pro-US rally or vigil on Teheran after 9/11; you’d think that would have meant something. But if you start right off denouncing them, well, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[brazil84]

@sqweels

I was only quoting the article. My own recollection is that Iran didn’t do anything but rather offered to help in Afghanistan and the Bush Administration rejected that outright.

I think we should have used the contacts that that would have entailed as a basis for some low-key backdoor diplomacy. The point is to get the lines of communications open and gradually build confidence, taking baby steps toward a thaw in relartions. With all due caution, of course.

Perhaps, but I would not call that “trying to make peace.” At best, I might call it an “overture.” Depending on what exactly was offered or done.

[Kobal2]

Takes two people to make a peace.

[RedFury]

President Obama: U.S., Israel in ‘lockstep’ on Iran

That’s that. Bombs away.

[brazil84]

@Kobal2

Takes two people to make a peace.

And it takes only one to break it.

[BrainGlutton]

Look, why is everyone assuming Israel can attack Iran with any desired effect?

[brazil84]

@BrainGlutton

Look, why is everyone assuming Israel can attack Iran with any desired effect?

Why are you assuming that everyone assumes it? Here’s what I said in Post 21:

I don’t know enough about military matters to know whether such an attack would fail.

[XT]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Look, why is everyone assuming Israel can attack Iran with any desired effect?
[/QUOTE]

It depends on what you mean by ‘can attack Iran with any desired effect’. If you mean that Israel can attack Iran’s purported nuclear weapons program and get a desired effect, I’d say that the odds are good, but by no means assured. If you mean attack Iran’s purported nuclear program and that the ‘desired effect’ would be to wipe it off the face of the earth then the odds of that are less good, though possible. If you mean attack Iran, full stop, with some other goal in mind then that’s probably not going to happen.

AFAIK, opinions are split on how effective an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear programs would be, so I don’t see that ‘everyone’ is assuming, well, anything here.

[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Takes two people to make a peace.
[/QUOTE]

But it only takes one to start a war or keep hostilities simmering along nicely.

[QUOTE=sqweels]
The way I see it, Iran is exercising its Second Amendment Rights. They aren’t necessarily gunning for anyone in particular, but they aren’t necessarily not, either.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps when they start honoring their First Amendment Rights they can claim they have some Second Amendment rights. It might help if they push through all those resolutions to become the 51st US state first, though.

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
So it looks like, bottom line, we’ve all agreed that Iran getting nukes wouldn’t be a threat to Israel, right? Glad we got that settled!
[/QUOTE]

It does look like the thread has mainly degenerated into mostly an echo chamber of folks who have convinced themselves that Iran getting nukes is really no threat, that they deserve to have the things because other countries have them, and also because they need them to repel tigers and imminent vicious US attacks. I think whatever ‘debate’ that was happening in this thread died a page or so ago. Have fun storming the castle, boyz (and gurlz).

-XT