What will happen if Israel hits Iran's nuclear power facility?

[Nietzsche]

Sam Stone:

Well, then they got the spin from the U.S. Department of State, which in fact calls Iran the largest state sponsor of terror.

No arguments there. But I am wondering who else, as in what governments other than the U.S. and Israel, agree with that charge.
Iran’s support for Hizbollah may be listed as terrorism by the U.S. State Department, but why? What has Hizbollah done that qualifies them as a terrorist organization and why is Lebanon not being held to the same standard as Iran and Syria in regards to Hizbollah?

url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7974.pdf]State Department Report on Iraq.

I don’t want to hijack the thread too much further, however, I did read this document and didn’t read any specific facts or evidence in regards to Iran’s participation in terrorism. Also, that document lists Iran’s dispute with the UAE about the two Tonb Islands. America certainly didn’t have any problems when the Shah claimed those as Iranian territory. But now that a government that is hostile towards Israel is in power, it’s a “big concern.” How does that preclude Iran’s right to nuclear technology?
Again, I think all of this attention Iran is getting in regards to its nuclear program is born out of its outdated policy towards Israel. America will do almost anything to protect it’s strongest ally in the region. Iran would do itself a world of good if it fought fights that actually pertained to it, rather than championing the cause of the same people who supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.

[CyberPundit]

He may be referring to the role of GM and Ford in the German war effort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

[Sam_Stone]

What has Hizbollah done that qualifies them as a terrorist organization and why is Lebanon not being held to the same standard as Iran and Syria in regards to Hizbollah?

How about blowing up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 people? Or a series of kidnappings of Americans in the 1980’s? Or the hijacking of TWA flight 847? Hezbollah is responsible for blowing up the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 people, and of blowing up an Israeli cultural center in Argentina, killing 95 civilians. Iran was directly linked to both of those attacks, btw.

Here’s what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say about Hezbollah.

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by CyberPundit *
**He may be referring to the role of GM and Ford in the German war effort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm **

He may be, but if he is he’s mischaracterizing it to the point of falsehood. GM and Ford having economic dealings with Germany from 1939-41 does not equal the US selling weapons to the Nazis for the first two years of the war. Henry Ford was a notorious anti-semite. This doesn’t make the US in bed with the Holocaust.

[Nietzsche]

Sam Stone:

How about blowing up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 people?

Without a doubt, not terrorism. If you are the supporter of the those who are occupying a country, you are a legitimate target. The U.S. was supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. That makes the U.S.'s military a legitimate target.

Or a series of kidnappings of Americans in the 1980’s? Or the hijacking of TWA flight 847?

I agree. Both of these need to be prosecuted. Much like the case with Libyan agents being charged with complicity, Hizbollah agents involved with these events should be prosecuted. But this was 20 years ago, Sam. I think if the U.S. doesn’t want to drudge up their support for Nicaraguan rebels and Israel doesn’t want to answer for Sabra and Shatilla, one shouldn’t get to morally uppity.

Hezbollah is responsible for blowing up the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 people, and of blowing up an Israeli cultural center in Argentina, killing 95 civilians. Iran was directly linked to both of those attacks, btw.

I have yet to find any evidence of those links. That is because so far, there has been zero in the way of viable evidence. If there had been, you better believe there would have been some trial like those seen for the Libyan involvement in Pan Am 103.

Here’s what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say about Hezbollah. **

Look, I have no doubt that another U.S. agency holds the same view as some other U.S. agency. I’m hoping you could provide such links to some government other than that of the U.S. and Israel.
At the risk of hijacking this thread further, I’d like to submit to you a document which discusses engaging Iran and lists out the reasons why.
It is also an American organization and the document’s authors are well noted figures.

Link

In any case, I still don’t see how any of this makes Iran disqualified from having nuclear technology. You mentioned earlier that Israel should be allowed to have them because their government is more stable. So then, why is Pakistan, who just recently went through a coup, is much more undemocratic than Iran, has less control over the regions within it’s borders than Iran (heck, Iran even has some influence over Lebanon), is allowed to have nuclear weapons without so much as a peep from the U.S. or Israel? Perhaps it’s because Pakistan isn’t openly hostile toward Israel. That’s where I think this whole issue stems from.
If Iran was foolish enough to give terrorists the big weapons, they know it would wind up hurting themselves more. They could ship much bigger arms than they ship right now. My guess is they don’t because they don’t want to be held liable for how it’s used (or used against).
If Iran wants to get the U.S. and Israel off it’s back, it has to do one of two things. Recognize Israel (they don’t even have to be nice… Egypt recognizes them, but isn’t all that nice), or they have to sign the additional protocol for inspections.
But if the Russians, Indians, and Chinese don’t seem to mind Iran’s actions, I think that says volumes about the sincerity of the Americans’ claims of the danger from Iran.

[Sam_Stone]

Pakistan was allowed to have nuclear weapons with nary a peep? Funny, I seem to recall quite an outcry from the U.S. government when Pakistan tested its nuclear bomb.

I read your link - it’s an argument for normalizing relations with Iran. But I notice that that document ALSO describes Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and points out that Hezbollah was responsible for kidnapping and subsequently killing Lt. Col William Higgins, as well as being responsible for numerous acts of terror against Israeli civilians.

As for why Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear weapons, perhaps it’s because of statements like this:

“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world”

• Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Now, that sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. Israel can be wiped off the map, and their retaliation can only do limited damage, because the Muslim world is much larger geographically.

Just the idea that they might entertain the use of their weapons unless Israel accepts their demands is frightening.

[Aldebaran]

Is it?

So the threat coming from non Muslim nations towards Muslim nations is nothing? This is absolutely normal to you?
The whole globe needs to hug Israel and Israel can freely murder and occupy and ignore the UN?

Can you explain this?

Do you find it also absolutely normal that the USA is occupying a sovereign nation right now?
Do you find it absolutely normal that Israel does the same in Palestine. Since decades?
Do you find it normal that both the USA and Israel have a record of invasions and attacks on sovereign nations?

If yes: Why is that normal to you while other nations building up defence against these threats and agressions are in your eyes more dangerous then the ones who actually are the agressors, invadors and very real and proved threats right now.

Don’t you think you should get a bit realistic in your views?

Salaam. A

[Sam_Stone]

So the threat coming from non Muslim nations towards Muslim nations is nothing? This is absolutely normal to you?
The whole globe needs to hug Israel and Israel can freely murder and occupy and ignore the UN?

Can you explain this?

Sure, I can explain it. The Muslim world is full of dictatorships that don’t respect human rights, export terror, and still largely maintain the position of wanting Israel destroyed. Israel is no threat to anyone outside its borders. Do you believe Israel is waiting to attack Iran? Or Syria? Or Egypt?

I notice the Indonesia doesn’t seem to be at risk of invasion. Or Turkey. They seem pretty safe. Does that give you a hint as to what the real problem is?

If Iran stops oppressing its own people, exporting terror, and working towards nuclear weapons, the U.S. would welcome it with open arms into the community of nations. As long as the mullahs stay in power, don’t expect me to shed a tear for Iran. The people, yes. They are bravely resisting their government. That needs to be supported.

Do you find it also absolutely normal that the USA is occupying a sovereign nation right now?

I personally do not recognize the sovereignity of dictatorships. Government legitimacy accrues from the consent of the governed. Just because a thug manages to get enough thugs around him to take over a government is no reason to suddenly declare that any depravity he might wish is within his domain. Plus, there was a legal casus belli due to his flaunting of U.N. resolutions, and besides that, Saddam himself had already shown nothing but contempt for the sovereignity of other nations through his invasion of Kuwait.

Do you find it absolutely normal that Israel does the same in Palestine. Since decades?

The Palestinian situation is another matter, and there is plenty of blame to be tossed around on both sides. But the root of Israel’s intransigence is its worry for its own security - this is the result of relentless aggression by its neighboring Arab regimes.

Do you find it normal that both the USA and Israel have a record of invasions and attacks on sovereign nations?

This is just disingenuous in the extreme. In Israel’s case, any attacks it has made on its neighbors were pre-emptive in the face of imminent war. Israel has no desire to attack ANY of its neighbors. If the Arabs surrounding Israel hadn’t repeatedly attacked Israel and called for its destruction, Israel would not have had to take any of the steps it has. The blame for that lies squarely at the feet of the Arab nations. When they controlled the Golan Heights, they indiscriminately shelled the farms of peaceful people living below. Invasions were launched against Israel twice. Israelis have had to live under fear of invasion by its enemies. The same can not be said for Arabs, who have absolutely nothing to fear from Israel if they are just willing to leave the Israeli people alone to live in peace.

[2Thick]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**How about blowing up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 people? Or a series of kidnappings of Americans in the 1980’s? Or the hijacking of TWA flight 847? Hezbollah is responsible for blowing up the Israeli embassy in Argentina, killing 29 people, and of blowing up an Israeli cultural center in Argentina, killing 95 civilians. Iran was directly linked to both of those attacks, btw.

Here’s what the Council on Foreign Relations has to say about Hezbollah. **

There is zero proof for those attacks.

You are just slandering blindly. The last bastion of the defeated.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by 2Thick *
**There is zero proof for those attacks.

You are just slandering blindly. The last bastion of the defeated. **

Well, it was a nice thread, while it lasted.

[2Thick]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Well, it was a nice thread, while it lasted. **

Et tu Brutus, et tu?

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by 2Thick *
There is zero proof for those attacks.

Ahem… speaking of zero proof, about your claim that the US was selling weapons to the Nazis for the first two years of World War II…

crickets chirp

[Nietzsche]

I read your link - it’s an argument for normalizing relations with Iran. But I notice that that document ALSO describes Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and points out that Hezbollah was responsible for kidnapping and subsequently killing Lt. Col William Higgins, as well as being responsible for numerous acts of terror against Israeli civilians.

I already agreed with you on this point. I said those involved should be prosecuted. But yet another U.S. organization calling Hizbollah a terrorist organization does not lend further merit to the claim. Still wondering if you know of any other governments who take the same official policy.

As for why Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear weapons, perhaps it’s because of statements like this:

“If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world”

• Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Now, that sounds suspiciously like a threat to me. Israel can be wiped off the map, and their retaliation can only do limited damage, because the Muslim world is much larger geographically.

Just the *idea that they might entertain the use of their weapons unless Israel accepts their demands is frightening. *

(emphasis added)
I’m with you on the fact that that stupid mythologist ought to keep his mouth shut. But could you point out to me where, in that statement, you found the threat of “do as I say or else?” It sounded more to me like he was saying “they sure as hell won’t be able to threaten us with the same stuff anymore.”

One more question, Sam:

I personally do not recognize the sovereignity of dictatorships. Government legitimacy accrues from the consent of the governed. Just because a thug manages to get enough thugs around him to take over a government is no reason to suddenly declare that any depravity he might wish is within his domain.

Do you hold such views towards illegitimate usurpers of any stripe, or just Middle Eastern ones?

[Roger_Mexico]

*Originally posted by Dissonance *
**He may be, but if he is he’s mischaracterizing it to the point of falsehood. GM and Ford having economic dealings with Germany from 1939-41 does not equal the US selling weapons to the Nazis for the first two years of the war. Henry Ford was a notorious anti-semite. This doesn’t make the US in bed with the Holocaust. **

There’s more. Standard Oil supplied petroleum to the Nazis, Alcoa supplied the aluminum, SKF the bearings and so forth. The closest thing to weaponry suppliers was ITT who built the Focke-Wulf bombers for the Nazis:

"Even after Pearl Harbor, ITT was working for the Nazis, reports Higham: “. . . the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells used to kill British and American troops.”

ITT also “supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London,” and other devices as well, without which “it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea.” (24)

In 1938, “following a series of meetings with Luftwaffe chief Herman Goring, (ITT founder and chairman Sosthenes) Behn encouraged ITT’s Lorenz subsidiary to purchase 28 percent of the Focke-Wulf firm, manufacturer of the bombers that were to sink so many Allied ships during the war,” according to researcher and author Jim Hougan. (25)

Anthony Sampson, in “The Sovereign State of ITT,” reports on what is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the US/Nazi corporate partnership, war reparations:

“. . . ITT now presents itself as the innocent victim of the Second World War, and has been handsomely recompensed for its injuries. In 1967, nearly thirty years after the events, ITT actually managed to obtain $27 million in compensation from the American government, for war damage to Focke-Wulf plants - on the basis that they were American property bombed by Allied bombers.” (26)"

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas2.htm

[SunTzu2U]

I quickly scanned through this thread so I might be repeating something here about recent middle-eastern history.

The Iranians held americans hostage for 444 days until Regan came into office.

The Iraqi nuclear program was dealt a blow when Israel bombed their nuclear facility.

Please don’t ask me to cite dates here. Lets just accept them as happenings.

Given Israel’s predication to “go it alone” on several occasions the probability of a bombing run on an Iranian nuclear facility is pretty high if Israel perceives it as a threat.

As far as escalation who’s to say? It could escalate and it could not. If it did I don’t think it would be a pretty picture. If a nuclear exchange happened the world would stop functioning. In this I cite 9/11. For that day and for the rest of that week people changed every perception they held before that time. No planes flew for 3 days and when they did no one was flying (except my parents). 9/11 still haunts us whether we acknowledge it or not.

What do you think the effect would be if say Jerusalem, Tehran, Ryhiad and Karachi went up in a nuclear fire storm? Do you think anyone would be traveling? Do you think people would revisit their assumptions of the world? If it only stopped there how long do you think it would take to find some normality again? I’m betting in the neighborhood of about 100 years.

Do you think terrorism would continue? Whats the point? Israel would be destroyed and uninhabitable for countless years. I’m sure a new branch of medicine would result in treating the victims of the fallout and those poor unfortunate souls who were too close yet not close enough to get incinerated from the initial blast. I’m sure India, Burma, Indonesia and the other south asian countries would have all sorts of illnesses related to the fallout.

Hey if they use some serious firepower they might just knock enough ash and fallout into the atmosphere to polute the entire southern hemisphere as well as the US.

[Finagle]

Curiously, all the hypotheticals in this thread seem to be running towards the End-of-the-World-As-We-Know-It scenarios. I’m inclined to think that there would be much public indignation and tsk’ing of tongues and much unspoken profound relief from the other nuclear powers (as well as the usual anti-Israel shitstorm of protest from the rest of the Middle Eastern countries). Nuclear weapons are like any other weapon – if enough people have them, eventually someone is going to use one. So no one in the nuclear club is anxious to have more people join.

So what I'm *guessing* is that if Israel (or anyone else) were to bomb the reactor, Stern Words would be spoken while behind the scenes there would be frantic supportive diplomatic action to make sure that things didn't spiral out of control.   

This doesn't mean that this is anyone's favorite course of action -- I think people are hoping that Iran's nuclear ambitions can be derailed diplomatically.

[Roger_Mexico]

Sam ( I believe) said:

"I personally do not recognize the sovereignity of dictatorships. Government legitimacy accrues from the consent of the governed. Just because a thug manages to get enough thugs around him to take over a government is no reason to suddenly declare that any depravity he might wish is within his domain. "

This is especially ironic given that the CIA along with Norman Schwartkopf Sr. overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh and put the Shah, a brutal thug who murdered and tortured his people, back in power. After Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry (which he had every right to do), Dulles called him a “madman” --similar rhetoric towards Iran has been posted here. The Iranian revolution was a direct result of our intervention in Iran, and holding hostages for 444 days was nothing compared to what we put the Iranian people through.

Sam, you should be saying that you only recognize the sovereignty of brutal dictatorships that you approve of. Of course, you are probably unable to discern the hypocrisy of this attitude.

[Sam_Stone]

Sam, you should be saying that you only recognize the sovereignty of brutal dictatorships that you approve of. Of course, you are probably unable to discern the hypocrisy of this attitude.

Only if you assume that I agree with all those other actions.

The fact is, when it comes to dictatorships the U.S. engages in Realpolitik, engaging them, encouraging them, or overthrowing them whenever it sees a benefit to the national interest. Much like the way police deal with crime bosses. You won’t get me to give a blanket endorsement of everything the U.S. does, because I don’t agree with a lot of it.

I gave you a statement of personal belief. I do not believe that dictatorships should enjoy the right of sovereignity. They should be evaluated and dealt with as circumstances warrant. If they abuse their people and commit atrocities, we should step in and stop them as we did with Milosevic and Saddam. If they threaten their neighbors, they should be dealt with. If they are reasonably benevolent and act in our interests, perhaps they can be tolerated.

My prime motivating driver is human rights. I supported Clinton’s actions in the Balkans. My government tried its damndest to get the U.N. involved to stop genocide in Rwanda, which I heartily supported. If Adolf Hitler had not been expansionist, but had just rounded up Jews for incineration, my personal position would have been that he should be invaded and stopped.

All clear now?

[Roger_Mexico]

Unfortunately, the US does not share your concern for human rights. The overwhelming pattern in US foreign policy is overthrowing democratic governments and supporting brutal dictatorships. This is done not to favor US interests necessarily, but the narrow interests of US or US-based multinational corporations. The US only overthrows dictatorships when the dictator gets too big for his britches like Noriega or the overthrow can be a public justification for an unstated or denied policy objective, like our geostategic goals in Central Asia.

[Roger_Mexico]

Unfortunately, the US does not share your concern for human rights. The overwhelming pattern in US foreign policy is overthrowing democratic governments and supporting brutal dictatorships. This is done not to favor US interests necessarily, but the narrow interests of US or US-based multinational corporations. The US only overthrows dictatorships when the dictator gets too big for his britches like Noriega or the overthrow can be a public justification for an unstated or denied policy objective, like our geostategic goals in Central Asia.