Israel Plans for Iran Strike as Citizens Say Government Serious

[AntiFascist]

Source: Bloomberg News

Aug. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Dozens of Israelis crowded in front of a storefront at a Jerusalem shopping mall yesterday to pick up new gas masks, part of civil defense preparations in case the military strikes Iran and the Islamic Republic or its allies retaliate.

“Our leaders seem to have gotten very hawkish in their speeches and this time it seems they mean what they say,” said Yoram Lands, 68, a professor of business administration, who was picking up new masks for himself and his wife at a distribution center in the mall.

...

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Israel-Plans-for-Iran-Strike-as-Citizens-Say-3788419.php

---

Even if their government is not serious, its important to know the affect the media has on the people.

[Socal31]

1. Wouldn't surprise me.

We have a massive amount of naval forces in the Gulf. It is no accident.

I believe we have a deal with Russia that they will stay out and not deliver all the S-300/400 systems. and Obama will cut back our shield in Eastern Europe for his 2nd term.

Quid pro quo in action.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Israel begins distributing gas masks to citizens

Israel has begun distributing new gas masks to its 7 million citizens to offer protection against a possible chemical attack.

Israel's postal service is handing out the equipment in a process, it says, that will take about three years.

Avi Hochman, CEO & President of the Israel Postal Company stated that they have made the necessary preparations for the task, including a state-of-the art technological and logistical infrastructure.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-begins-distributing-gas-masks-to-citizens-1.263878

Feb.28, 2010

[Scootaloo]

3. Posturing

Israel is hoping to lure Iran into making the first move. If there was going to be an actual attack, it wouldn't be advertised this loudly.

If I'm wrong, well... I hope the sake of the people of both nations that I'm not, is all I can say, really.

[aquart]

4. Not mention Iran just had an earthquake.

You don't attack a country calling for international aid.

But no, Israel isn't trying to get Iran to attack and kill Israeli citizens. Israel is aware of the smallness of its population, even if the casual anti-Semitism of world warmongering utterly fails to recognize that.

Perhaps you might want to Google population numbers for the two nations. Check how many are under arms. A massive strike could wipe out a nation the size of New Jersey. But Iran is far too big for Israel to dent it unless it went nuclear. ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT ISRAEL IS PLANNING A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON IRAN?

[davidpdx]

5. There is a lot of tough talk by both nations

I hope it is all just posturing. Iran is probably in worse shape then is being reported. Any kind of conflict is going to probably get the US involved in some way or another which is not good.

[Scootaloo]

6. Wow... people don't usually go off the deep end mid-post

Bravo, sir.

First... I have little faith in Israel's concern for its own citizens. I would imagine several Israeli policies would be very different, if the safety of the Israeli people were of paramount concern... Like... for instance... not rattling sabres at Iran. Just a thought.

If Israel hits Iran first, this is what happens: The US might provide recon, like we gave to Iraq in the 80's, but we will not be giving direct assistance; this has been the stated US position since Israel started doing this in 2001. Since Israel's neighbors are weak (or in the case of Iran-aligned Syria, "busy&quot there won't likely be any local retaliation, barring extra rockets from Hamas... and since Hamas shoots like a bunch of imperial storm troopers, not a gigantic worry. However, Israel does not have the military capability to subdue Iran. Nor for that matter, does Iran have the military capability to do much to Israel. All that would happen is that they trade some missiles (and since both Israel and Iran have strong missile defense systems, even that won't accomplish much). Maybe piss off the neighbors with some dogfighting.

It's stupid to start a war that will literally accomplish nothing and reach no resolution, right?

Things are very different if Iran shoots first. In that case, the US and NATO step in to defend their ally. Possibly Saudi Arabia and Jordan pitch in somehow. Israel eats some missiles (or not; missile defense system, after all) and Iran starts to look very similar to Iraq circa 2004 thanks to the massive military power being brought to bear against it.

In other words, it looks like this for Israel
Israel attacks first - Nothing accomplished
Iran attacks first - Iran becomes Afghanistan 2.0

If Israel's goal is to take down Iran as a regional power - and I'm pretty certain that is exactly Israel's interest here - then which is the better option?

Regarding your all-caps diving session... Nobody's going to be "wiped out." People will die in either instance, but there will be no "wiping out." Nor will there be anything but conventional weapons used.

It's clear that Iran is not going to conduct a first strike under any circumstance. There's that whole "nothing to gain, everything to lose" thing, after all. And I'm very certain Israel sees the same problem, and will also not launch a first strike. But... if Israel's government is shitheaded enough to ignore that and go ahead anyway, then yes, I worry for the people of both nations. No nation is getting "wiped out," but people will die just the same.

[AntiFascist]

10. I thought the plan was always to...

bomb Iran's nuclear facilities first, thus crippling their nuclear capabilities. Then, Iran would likely retaliate and at that point the US would probably get involved. Israel would argue that the pre-emptive strike was necessary to eliminate the nuclear threat against them. Iran would argue that this was an act of war that they must avenge. The US would then argue that they must protect Israel above all else. War mongers on all sides would get what they want.

[Scootaloo]

11. The trouble with that is that it won't work

The US has already stated its position that if Israel starts something, it will be doing so alone. We'll help them out if htey're the ones being attacked, but not if someone shoots back at them.

The "halting Iran's nuclear capabilities" thing doesn't hold water anyway; it hinges on the Osirak myth, that Israel "stopped" Saddam's nuclear ambitions. In fact all their attack did was convince the Iraq regime to scale up their nuclear programme. Every bit of evidence we;ve gathered about Saddam's weapon programmes points to the probability that, except for the Gulf War, Saddam would have had nuclear weapons by 1994.

If things worked that way, then the Us would have never entered WW2 because oh gee, the Japanese took our our Pacific fleet, darn it.

[nanabugg]

9. That's right, always hit them when they are down!!!!! And for what?

Is it all to keep Iran from getting nukes or is it all to keep Obama from being re-elected and hurting the US economy more so the Israelis can own more and more of our government?

[Scootaloo]

12. Israel doesn't own our government

A few politicians might have their head far enough up Israel's butt to taste falafel, but when it comes down to it, it's the other way around; Israel is a US client state, and without the US at its back, Israel would be up shit creek without a paddle and would need to start doing things quite differently. We're the France to their Acre, basically.

The goal is regional dominance. Israel, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt are the four most powerful states in the middle east. Turkey and Egypt both have agreements that are favorable to Israel, which leaves Iran the odd man out there, and the only real rival to Israel's military power and political influence in the region. What's more, Iran is fully aware of its position and isn't going to sell itself cheap. Further complicating matters? everyone else in the area wishes Israel and Iran would both get fucked.

So you've got this situation where there are two tough kids circling each other and nobody else wants to get involved. Israel wants to take Iran down a notch, Iran wants to preserve its own status. Neither can afford to make the first move, though.

[AntiFascist]

16. From the neoconservative point of view..

the whole point of the "Clean Break" document was for Israel to stop receiving non-military aid from the US so that it could then become more independent and make its own, more aggessive, foreign policy decisions. They were prepared to throw the Oslo Accords out the window. This may not represent the opinion of all Israelis, but it was prepared specifically for Netanyahu once he entered office, and with the blessing of the Likud Party.

[Xolodno]

7. I think its all talk...

...to keep Iran from sending "volunteers" into Syria.

Ratchet up the rhetoric on Iran, so that Iran has to think twice about deploying any significant assets into Syria.

The civil war in Syria hurts Hezbollah and if Assad's regime falls, Iran's life line to them will be severely hampered and they could lose influence in Lebanon.

And no matter if Assad's regime stands or falls, he' is weakened. But having him tossed out will keep Syria on the sidelines for a very long time.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Consider that they are serious.

Israel strikes Iran. What then?

Doesn't Iran have the right to strike back?

What if they already have a nuke? What if they only have conventional weapons and strike Israel with those?

Will Israel use their nuclear arsenal next?


Madness. Complete madness.

[HeiressofBickworth]

13. When Romney went to Israel

I had the feeling that there was something not right about that. It seems inappropriate for a CANDIDATE to be meeting with other heads of state. The candidate does not represent the US government in any way and therefore should have nothing to say. Given the Reagan deal with Iran regarding hostages and other subversive activities listed in another post, there should be some LAW that forbids this kind of contact. Romney undoubtedly made some outlandish promises (about issues he knows nothing about) in order to curry financial support from Israel. If we were able to see who the donors are to the 501(c)(4) organizations supporting him, no doubt there would be such financial support. Why else would he have gone there -- Israelis can't vote in our elections so he wasn't there to charm them. So my suspicion is that Romney said something like give me the money and I'll back your attack on Iran. You cast the first stone and Daddy will clean up after you. It's frightening to have a power-hungry, soul-less individual having discussions with a war hawk. Doesn't bode well for anyone on this earth.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. When one treats speculation, ignorance, and fabrications as fact, it is no wonder some "worry."