Israel Reportedly Considering Attacking Iran

[Nottingham]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=9c19f4d0df6f3c25

Israel Reportedly Considering Attacking Iran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Saturday 27th September, 2003

Israeli military leaders are considering an assault operation to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, a report said Friday.

Israel's chief of staff, alarmed by the failure of the international community to move against Iran, has warned that Israel would consider unilateral action to stop the nightmare scenario of Teheran's development of nuclear weapons.

Earlier, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom demanded that the international community stop the program, WorldTribune.com reported.

Israel's Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon took the rhetoric up a notch.

more....

Their talking about Bombing the Nuclear reactor! :bounce:

[Girlfriday]

1. Being egged on by shrub......

...and his evil minions no doubt!

[ixion]

3. and the neocons are the ones

who made pre-emptive acts of aggression 'fashionable' :grr:

What a mess. Way to go you PNAC slime.

[Dover]

22. Actually Bushco has fashioned their pre-emption and other

agressive policies after Israel's. The whole assassination policy idea came from them too.

[tlcandie]

41. Agreed Dover!

n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

81. Israel's policies and PNAC's are one and the same

Both were written by Perle and Wolfowitz.

[burrowowl]

2. The GD reactor is HOT!

The one in Irak was cold, it wasn't in operation.
Radioactivity all over the place. What are the directions of the prevailing winds in Iran. Anyone know?

[Nottingham]

6. This is really Latest breaking News! I bet they will hit soon!

Israel doesn't make Idle threats! :bounce:

I'm glad US isn't doing this! But maybe the deal is we will go after Syria in exchange! :nuke:

[tlcandie]

42. US isn't doing this? They are behind it .. one and same!

No sense splitting hairs here.

[lazarus]

43. prevailing winds in Iran

the Jet Stream goes west to east there, so the fallout would go right over Afghanistan. Is the reactor in the east or west of Iran?

[Nevernose]

4. Wouldn't be the first time, would it?

I don't agree with the policy, but I understand it: the absolute second the Iranians get the bomb, they'll send it hurling towards Tel Aviv.

[starroute]

34. Why would they be that stupid?

Israel has something like 300-400 bombs, as I recall. Iran would have no reason in the world to want to bring that down on their heads.

[Classical_Liberal]

57. I doubt that. They would get hit with nukes themselves

also I think Israel needs a similar threat to deter it from using them. Their bar isn't much higher than Iran and their leaders are no less radical. They brag all the time about their first strick capacity against European capitals so they probably shouldn't be surprised that many people feel this way.

[jiacinto]

63. Didn't they do that once before in the 1980s?

nt

[leesa]

75. That's ridiculous! Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs.

Why would anyone invite suicide by doing that?

[The Magistrate]

5. They Probably Are Considering It, Sir

But they probably will not: it would be very difficult to be sure of success, and that is likely to prove the determining factor.

[bemildred]

7. I was sort of thinking this is meant to prod others into action.

Might just work too.

[Nottingham]

8. How can you be so sure? Israel destroyed their Reactor before

It would be easier than before they have better capabilities the General says :bounce:

[Carmerian]

9. That was Iraq's reactor, not Iran's

back in 1982, I believe.

[MariMayans]

69. it was both

They did it once in Iraq and once in Iran. However, Iran's anti-aircraft defenses are a damn sight more impressive now than in the past.

[chapter32]

88. "it was both", Not Correct!

Israel has not attacked Iran before nor destroyed their Reactor in the past. What are you referring to?

[KoKo]

11. How do you blow up or destroy a Nuclear Reactor and keep world opinion in

your favor? Do you send the Mossad in beforehand to shut the reactor down? How do they get in there to do it? Do you send fighter planes into their territory to bomb it?

How exactly does this get accomplished? I don't think Sharon wants to look like a monster.....does he?

[MUAD_DIB]

48. Too late for him not to look like a monster.

I think that many in Lebenon think of him as such.

He reminds me of Rabban the Beast.

[leesa]

76. World opinion is definitely NOT in Israel's favor.

This may be the reason. Their aggressive anti-Muslim behavior is not a wise idea when they are fully surrounded by Muslims. And now, the US is in no shape to give them any military assistance whatsoever, plus we are completely broke too. Won't be anymore handouts to Israel soon.

[The Magistrate]

12. It Is Not Easier Than Before, Sir

It is noteably more difficult.

If attempted by aircraft, the distance is much greater, and the likelihood of surprise much less. The Iranians have a pretty good air defence capability, and Israel probably cannot suppress it sufficiently to guarantee insertion of the strike itself.

An attempt by cruise missile has similar difficulties. These fly fairly slow, and are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. Since the target is known, it can be ringed with an impressive barrage.

It is not known to me whether Israeli ballistic missiles have the necessary accuracy to hit such a pin-point target. My inclination is to doubt they do, as it would not be necessary for weapons intended either for delivery of nuclear warheads, or for attacking large military installations. Designers seldom bother to engineer what is not required into the product.

[bpilgrim]

16. the real question will be the FALLOUT

not just nuclear but political.

if they are successful and they take out their reactor how will they react?

if they are unsuccessful yet iran doesn't have nukes yet how will they react?

if they are unsuccessful and they do have nukes how will...

how will others in the region act and the g8 to an attack whether it is successful or not?

lots of varibles and most of them dangerous...

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

17. Indeed, My Friend

And the uncertainty of the outcome of the attack itself makes it even more difficult to calculate those imponderables.

To any competent planner, this is precisely the sort of hornet's nest best left undisturbed.

[Tinoire]

32. Sharon and Bush have already "chatted" about this

and unfortunately, neither Bush nor Sharon is a competent planner.
Neither one seems to be able to stop from disturbing hornets' nests.
----

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

Sharon sketches awful alternative

WASHINGTON -- A grim warning from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to President Bush that Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than U. S. intelligence believes has triggered concern here that Israel is seriously considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Sharon dramatized his forecast by bringing Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, a three-star army officer who serves as his military secretary, to a meeting with Bush in the Oval Office two weeks ago, U.S. and Israeli sources tell me. Galant showered a worried-looking Bush with photographs and charts from a thick dossier on Iran's covert program.

<snip>

But Sharon's presentation to Bush challenges the assumptions and viability of the emerging U.S. non-proliferation strategy on Iran. U.S. intelligence estimates that put Iran's covert nuclear weapons drive about four years short of being able to turn plutonium into a workable nuclear warhead overstate the time factor by at least 100 percent, Sharon argued. One to two years is his projected timeline.

To be sure, Sharon would face formidable logistical and political problems in trying to update Israel's successful pre-emptive 1981 strike against Iraq's Osirak reactor. His Oval Office briefing may have been designed to pressure Bush to move more forcefully on Iran rather than to advertise an impending Israeli action.

<snip>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/134697_hoagland13.html

[teryang]

51. Bushehr is very accessable to alpha strike

Its location on the coast not too far from Iraq makes it an easy target. I don't see this complicating American regime policy. Rather, I suspect that there is complicity between American and Israeli governments and that this is a plan. The planning likely has already been done. It would be unusual if the planning had not already been carried out, especially after top level Israeli military personnel have visited their colleagues in the Pentagon not too long ago. I'm sure US Navy and Air Force strike planners have their own unilateral plans for striking Bushehr targets among others. This is routine, to make such "contigency plans." Such plans are made for likely targets when assets are already in the region within striking distance.

Such a strike by the Israelis would require significant refueling resources. Also traversing Arab territory is required for Israeli aircraft. Israeli aircraft could overfly Jordan after secret collaboration is obtained. Israeli aircraft could easily overfly Jordan and destroy any attempted resistance since there is complete EW, and air defense coverage from both sides of Jordans borders. I would expect the US Air Force to assist. The US Air Force could provide airborne tanker support and AWACs support in order that vulnerable slower Israeli aircraft with shorter legs not be used. US tanker support and AWACs support over Iraq will almost definitely be required to suppport any such strike. US permission for overflight of Iraq will be required.

Assuming Jordanian compliance, an Israeli American supported attack via Iraq would encounter virtually no resistance because the main leg is overwater with redundant US Navy Fleet Air Defense and Bushehr is seconds from the coast in point.

Other scenarios are possible. US aircraft flying out of Iraq could attack with phony Israeli markings. US carrier aircraft could attack with false Israeli markings or no markings at all. Israeli aircraft could land to arm and fuel at US bases in Iraq at night. The only reason the Israelis need to be the nominal attackers is to avoid a direct land war with Iran with US forces engaged in Iraq. This could be a diaster.

[Nottingham]

56. That is a fantastic Military Assesment! Great job!

Israel when it comes to protecting itself will do what is necessary
no matter what!

If they feel Iran with its 3 missiles is threatening them then its Nuclear Reactor adios! They did it against Iraq and while people said those terrible Israelis but secretly they gave Israel a pat on the back!

No its just a matter of time for Bush..ehr reactor to be toast!

I believe the Israelis will act before Bush's reelection because Bush will give the OK for them to Bomb Iran another President (Democratic) may wait and Israel needs to destroy it now. The situation is perfect right now! :bounce:

[Tinoire]

73. Great post!

What scary times.
We've got 2 nut balls terrorizing the world with their military might and greed!

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Nutballs?

Is it nutball to prevent an avowed enemy from getting nukes?

Not likely.

[Classical_Liberal]

82. They wouldn't be getting nukes if israel weren't threatening

them with nukes all the time. Terrorists are more likely to get nukes from Russia now that Bush and his Neocon NUTBALLS destroyed the ABM treaty and slashed the budget used to assist the cashpoor Russians in their disarmament efforts.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Your post is laughable

That's right, Israel is threatening poor Iran all the time.

I mean, sure Israel takes offense that Iran continues to sponsor terrorism and support sending illegal arms to be used against Israel, but when has Israel done anything to Iran?

[Classical_Liberal]

96. They are arming people fighting soldiers who are occupying them

Israel shouldn't be occupying anyone, and should expect resistence if they are. If they nuke people for resisting occupation that is a black mark on Israel. None of the arms you have cited are employed by suicide bombers. They are obviously arms that would be used to resist israelis soldiers. I also am not going to condemn the Lebonese for kicking israel out.

[Aidoneus]

95. Bushehr II would most likely never be able to produce nuclear weapons

to be fair, I know practically nothing about nuclear technology, though I know that much about light-water moderated reactors.
That's why the Clinton administration agreed (only to go back on it shortly after the agreement was made) to build 2 light-water reactors for North Korea in exchange for them shutting down the graphite-moderated reactor--they were virtually harmless as far as weapons go.

Iraq already bombed the first version of Bushehr during the 80s war (the program started under the US-backed dictator Pehlavi with US & German assistance, maybe more..only read a bit about it in passing and not any indepth studies), but it is being rebuilt at another nearby site with Russian assistance. Attacking it would be pointless adventurism and possibly a disaster on several fronts..

[JCMach1]

26. I am worried more about the Nuclear type

:(

[burrowowl]

14. It was Irak's

and the hot source hadn't been loaded. It was like bombing a regular building. Here we are talking about bombing a HOT! RADIOACTIVE! reactor.
NOT GOOD!
Remember Chernobyl and nothing around it is edible. The cancers, etc.

[Aidoneus]

15. this is a bit different

Iraq is not Iran; the latter is and was in a considerably stronger position than the former.

Iranian air defenses, perhaps planning for just such an occasion, would likely catch any IAF jet that tries to invade (there being around a thousand miles between the Israeli border and the 3 known locations within Iran). The Jericho-II missile has the range (advertised as 1500km; the Bushehr/Arak/Natanz sites are somewhat comfortably within that range, there are supposedly other/lesser sites as well), but perhaps not the accuracy to be relied on to hit the locations in a way that wouldn't be a total catastrophe and health hazard for people nearby (or perhaps that's not a concern to the planners of the proposed strike?), or just missing them altogether. They can try, but it might be just futile adventurism and would, in any result, inspire a legitimate reaction from Iran and its allies in the region. The approach assumes that Iran's insidious conspiracy (of which it is of course assumed to be by the predictable and shrill brigade) is limited to these known locations and that any unprovoked aggression such as this actually has the ability to disrupt the program signifigantly enough.

The Israelis can cry and moan, bark empty threats, and that's about the extent of their options here.

[megaplayboy]

10. It won't do any good for Israel...

Even if they are successful in striking the reactor, it is likely that if Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon, then they probably have a secure, redundant underground facility somewhere.
And what if Iran fires a half dozen of it's IRBMs with conventional warheads at the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona, in retaliation?

Israel must know they can't remain the only power in the region with nukes indefinitely. They are better served trying to find a way to make peace with the Palestinians and Syrians, so there is less of a pretense of justification for some extreme hostile action against them...

Haifa, Tel Aviv, West Jerusalem, Dimona--3 to 6 nuclear weapons would essentially wipe out the state of Israel, and at that point their retaliation would simply up the body count.

There are only two outcomes--nonviolence or nonexistence.

[The Magistrate]

13. You Make An Excellent Point, Sir

It is quite likely there are concealed facilities.

[Nevernose]

18. They would wipe out the West Bank and Gaza, too

If not in direct damage, then in fall out.

The question then becomes, do the Iranians want to get rid of the Israelis/Jews bad enough to get rid of the Palestinians at the same time? I think it's a very real possibility; the Arab world has never been very kind to the Palestinians.

[The Magistrate]

21. Iranians Are Persians, Sir

Persians do not much like Arabs. Arabs do not much like Persian. It is a little worse than calling a Scot an Englishman.

[Nevernose]

24. I am well aware of this

I was generalizing, perhaps overly so, in order to make a point. "Arab" is just easier than "Middle-Eastern/North-African Muslims." I did not mean to offend any Persians present.

I used to date a Persian girl. They were Ba'hai, refugees from the Ayatollah's takeover. Lovely people. She spoke Farsi. Her parents hated me. It did not end well. :)

[Aidoneus]

33. some are

Iran is actually a very diverse place, only about 1/2 Persian (the language itself a bit more dominant)..

[Syrinx]

19. what is bignewsnetwork.com?

[Nevernose]

20. Not quite as prestigious as the Large News Network.com

n/t

[bemildred]

23. Quote:

Big News Network.com is a leading provider of news headlines with over 400 distinct categories of current news including Breaking News.
plane crash, major earthquake, assassinated, major terrorist attack, nuclear alert, major hurricane, major flood, major loss of life, Breaking Newspapers, Breaking News
papers, Breaking News

[candy331]

25. Seem like another 9/11

is proving not to be the thing we needed to fear but perhaps we are on the road to the bigger fear- ARMAGEDDON

[bemildred]

27. The nukes worry me a lot more.

[Mari333]

37. The Bush/Sharon Neocon Cabal loves the idea

Bush's base demands it

http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm

[Old and In the Way]

29. This would qualify as "breaking news"

Why now? Are the actions of the RW in Israel tied at all to the growing problems of the Bush administration? Is this unprovoked event timed to distract/dilute our momentum? Leaders guilty of capital crimes....if their cornered and going down, would they pursue a scortched earth policy?

[bemildred]

30. Why now?

One never knows for sure.

Foreign threats are always handy when things are uncomfortable
at home, as you point out, and this one doesn't need to be
trumped up, so maybe it's just convenient to belabor right now..

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. So it looks like they just pick up other sites' stories

Their source for this appears to be worldtribune.com - which is a site not working now. From references to it, it seems to be an offshoot of the Washington Times, specializing in world news (and UFOs). So I'd take the story with a pinch of salt.

[neverforget]

28. The Israeli AF will stop in Iraq to refuel so distance isn't a problem.

[bemildred]

31. Maybe, but they'd have to get permission.

[neverforget]

85. I'm sure Bush would give them a wink and a nod to do it and

then think of some bs cover story to hide the fact that we helped them.

[bemildred]

87. Opinions will vary.

I skeptical, at least until they manage to extract
themselves from the Iraq mess. Pissing off Iran would
not be helpful. It's noticeable that both Syria and
Iran don't seem that intimidated lately. One expects they
are in touch with things in some detail.

On the other hand, it must be said that prudence doesn't
seem to be one of their stronger traits. It would certainly
liven things up, if they did attempt it.

[Nottingham]

35. Why Now. The UN has found radioactive material! Proof!

They have asked Iran to stop and they haven't

So this has UN proof not Bush Proof UN Proof!

And in the article the Israeli's

and I quote
But Israeli officials assert that the nation's deep-strike air capability has been vastly upgraded since Israeli F-16 multi-role fighters destroyed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in 1981.


in other words they have better capabilities than in 1981

Israel doesn't make Idle threats! They don't CARE what ANYBODY thinks! If they feel they must defend themselves this reactor is TOAST! just like it was in 1981! and Iran better rethink or get Bombed!:bounce:

Thats the Israel Warning!....Its Not Bush its Israel!

[Julien Sorel]

36. Whenever you see public sword rattling of this sort, it pays

to ask yourself: what does the U.S. have that Israel wants? This is one of Israel's tried and true methods of blackmailing something out of the U.S.: find a potential threat, complain about it, threaten to attack it, and then back down in exchange for some kind of deal with the U.S., that, often as not, is never publicly acknowledged.


A strike in this case would probably entail more risk than it's worth, but there's always something to be gained by false restraint. Perhaps this time it isn't even the U.S. that is getting played -- it might be Europe. Israel has been seeking some kind of entrance into the EU trading arrangement. My own guess would be that oil pipeline from Iraq, but one just never knows for sure. An F-22 deal, maybe? Political leverage to hose the Palestinians a little more? The opportunities are endless, paid for, at the end of the day, by your tax dollars.

[annagull]

38. Jump start WW3 would ja?

Aren't we all sick of the killing? Obviously not the hawks in Likud gov't, we must all tell them they can't do this!!!

[markus]

40. Israel must be de nuclearized

If we were serious, we would be forcing the Israeli's to dismantle their nuclear capacity, as part of a deal with other regional powers to abandon their own ambitions toward nuclear weapons.

[tlcandie]

44. I think * co wants it just as bad as Israel and both will probably

work together on it! If they found evidence of US bombs in Iran when it was supposedly Israel doing the bombing...so? They could just say that it was sold to the Israelis.

Look for Israel and US to both talk about and threaten while maybe Israel, supposedly, does the bombing while the US hides out and slips something under the wire?

Partnership ... Tricky they are and tricky they will be! Both sides are very well versed in subversion and dark secrets!

[Darranar]

45. Oh, great...

just what we need, more tension in the Middle East.

If they do destroy the reactor, I doubt it will accomplish much, since they probably have underground facilities and facilities in other locations that Israel doesn't know about. It would certainly warrant a retaliation, perhaps in the form of Iranian ICBMs striking Israeli population centers and/or nuclear facilities. This could start another war, and this time with both powers having or close to having nuclear capacity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Not exactly Israel's fault here

Israel is REACTING to events. They have to destroy this reactor or face the threat that not only Iran will have nukes but that the many terrorists funded by Iran acquire them.

Iran is the bullyboy here right now. Note the story in I/P about Iranian missiles with lovely threats to Israel written on them.

If Sharon DOESN'T do something, he will be being foolish.

[MUAD_DIB]

50. Please spare me with the

"It's not Israel's fault" apologies.

The Israeli arsenal holds more than enough nukes to sanitize large areas of the ME and then some.

They have never, to my understanding, aknowleged that they have any nukes.

Let's be realistic here. If somebody tried using diplomacy instead of sabre rattling then the crisis could possibly be averted.

Maybe the UN could start by checking out whether Israel has nukes and then telling them destroy some of them. (right... that will never happen.)

Maybe Israel could stop building settlements on Palestinian lands. (oh sorry, those lands are disputed.)

Maybe the UN could give assurances to Iran that they would not allow the U.S. to attack them. Maybe we could try talking an listening instead of killing. (...ahem)

...or maybe we can turn a blind eye to the whole ME and let WWIII get underway.

If Sharon DOESN'T do something, he will be being foolish.


My problem is that I believe that if Sharon does something then he will appear more than just foolish.


Did you ever read On the Beach?


Let's not help start a nuklar war there, please!

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Diplomacy

Israel and Iran are still at war my friend. Iran ACTIVELY supports terror against Israel and Israel is supposed to expect that diplomacy will work with them?

Not likely. Sure, I wish it so. But I also wish that the next knock on my door will be Halle Berry moving in. Neither event is very likely.

Yes, so Israel has nukes. I agree. So what?

As for the UN, they are under the thrall of the oil-producing nations who massively outnumber Israel. Israel has not gotten a fair break from that body in 50 years. It won't start now.

Settlements are a strawman argument on this issue.

Yes, I read On The Beach. I don't want nuclear war, which is why Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Israel has had them for years and has never deployed them. Can you trust Iran to be as rational? I can't.

[Classical_Liberal]

58. So far as I know Iran only supports Hizbolla

who only target military targets that threaten Lebonon. This action is being brought to us by the same people who fucked up in Iraq.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Karine-A

Complete with tons of weapons was going directly to Palestine right from Iran. Who do they support again?

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Oh so all Palestinians are terrorist including those who

fight the Israelis Army? Come off it. They sold them antiaircraft weapons. That is a business deal. Aniaircraft weapons don't compromise the security of Iran like Nukes would. Antiaircraft weapons don't get used by suicide bombers against busses. You have proved yet again that you think all Arabs are terrorists including those who fight the Israelis Army and not its citizens. Furthermore the Palestinians don't have much of an interest in nuking their own country. They would be left with nothing worth living in after they won.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. Not at all

I don't think all Arabs, all Palestinians or even the majority of Palestinians are terrorists. But there was a lot more to Karine-A than you say.

I found the same list of goodies in a couple spots but it apparently included:

"Both 122 mm. and 107 mm. Katyusha rockets, which have ranges of 20 and 8 kilometers respectively. It also contained 80 mm. and 120 mm. mortar shells, various types of anti-tank missiles, anti-tank mines, sniper rifles, Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition. From Gaza, the 122 mm. Katyushas could have threatened Ashkelon and other coastal cities; while from the West Bank, Ben-Gurion International Airport and several major Israeli cities would have been within their range. The shipment also included rubber boats and diving equipment, which would have facilitated seaborne attacks from Gaza against coastal cities."

How are you not bothered by that?

For the record, I have said before that terrorists target civilians, as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others typically do. Targeting the military is not an act of terror in a war.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. Tell me about an incident where Hezbolla targeted civlians

.

The weapons you mentioned were ALL weapons that would be used against the military. None of them were suicide bomber weapons of choice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Those katyusha rockets

Sure do threaten civilians in Israel all the time when the are fired over the border from Lebanon. But I guess you don't count those.

[Classical_Liberal]

97. So, it still isn't targeting civilians. Those are unintended vicitms.

They haven't fired a rocket as Israel since the Israelis withdrew from Lebenon. Israel certainly made no effort to avoid hitting civilians during that Lebonese stint either. That is why some people want to try Sharon as a war criminal. If they thought Hizbolla was in that town they would shell the town, reguardless of the innocent civlians. Using that standard, both Israel and America are terrorist entities, since they inadvertantly kill civlians all the time. I believe they call them "collateral damage" I seem to remember a little armless, legless boy from Iraq that fell into this category.

[Darranar]

52. It's mostly rhetoric, IMO...

Iran knows that Israel has nukes. They won't attack Israel unless they ahve to. Despite the rhetoric that we sometimes here from them about jihad and martyrdom, the thing they care most about is survival of themselves and their regime, if they can pull it through.

Look, if Israel could destroy their nuclear capabilities in one strike, with certainty of success, I'd be all for it. But they can't, and any strike they do launch will have a significant chance of failure.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. What is to stop Iran

From giving one of those lovely new nukes to one of its many client terror groups?

Nothing.

Iran gets to blast Israel and gets to deny involvement. Then, if Israel strikes, it will look like it is starting nuclear war.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. The only way Israel could piss off hizbolla is by

invading Lebanon again. The PLO and Islamic Jihad are sunnies,and the enemies of Shia Iran. There connections to Iran is as unlikely as Al Qaeda's connection to Saddam. Just aside from that they would also be pissing in their own den.

[rman]

61. that's cause for pre-emptive strike - if you'r a neocon

-

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Don't have to be a con

If you are Israel and know your enemies well and know what they do, you can never let them get the upper hand like this.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. I don't think Israel knows its enemies at all

which why they go over the top all the time like they are now. They are obviously as unknowlegable about ARabs as most Americans. so they buy the idea that Shia Iran and Sunnie Islamic Jihad are one, and that Islamic Jihad would ruin a country they claim to be fighting for with nuclear contaimination.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Israel knows them pretty well

Jews have been living in that area for 2,000 years. Israel has survived in that area for 55 of those years.

Some of Israel's enemies hate it so bad they would do anything and risk anything to rid themselves of Israel.

And Shia vs. Sunni doesn't really apply when talking about Muslim solidarity against Israel. The Arabs were the creators of the saying, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" after all.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. The Jews that are native to region are less hawkish than

recent immigrants. Israel has survived despite it's kooky leaders. Pray it's luck doesn't run out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Palestinians have survived

Despite their homicidal and self destructive leaders.

Go figure.

[underpants]

46. Oh good that would really help calm things down over there

Actually W&Co. are probably getting them to make this threat so that an armed response is on the table. See that's how Clinton got N Korea to stop production which everyone agrees meant the Nutboy only has 3 nukes instead of 100 and is not selling them to whoever has enough cash.

Of course W&Co. reversed 50 years of American foreing policy when they took that off the table (and I believe signed at least one non-aggression pact with N Korea) so they could grandstand and point there collecitve fingers at them and scream "THEY HAVE NUKES!!"

Well we knew that already what are you doing about it? Oh nothing, they needed a non-Muslim nation in their "Axis of really really bad guys who wear black hats but we wear white hats so be afraid but blindly trust us to make it all better" thing they did.

[Flying_Pig]

49. Also, it must not be forgotten that Iran has a population of...

25 million. If Israel were to bomb Iran, even those pro-democracy forces in Iran would be calling for retaliation. This would be an excellent way to foment world war.

If the U.S. were an honest broker, it would call for the de-nuclearization of the entire M.E., including Israel, but given Israel's extraordinary political influence on our military and foreign policy, that is not going to happen.

It is obvious that PNAC, vis-a-vis their operatives in the White House, have either signed off on Israel's plans, and/or, are using it as a political ploy.

With the election coming up, PNAC, and their American and Israeli allies (AIPAC/JINSA/JDL/Likud), will no doubt be rattling sabres for months to come. Witness the weekly negative press on both Syria, and Iran.

It is Sharon/Likud's highest priority to go after Syria and Iran, and to use internal political pressure on the U.S. (supplied by PNAC/AIPAC/JINSA/JDL, and their allies in the media) to get BushCo to go along. As BushCo is in desperate need of something that would put the nation back on big-time war footing, with scary headlines (to displace Bush's latest crimes and rotten poll numbers), not to mention wanting to insure the votes of right-wing U.S. Likudnik Jews, we can probably expect them to acquiesce and support (behind the scenes) the fascist Likud in these types of endeavors.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. Massively outnumbered

Why would Israel, outnumbered about 300 million to 5 million (not counting its Arab population) agree to lose its last line of defense?

Friendship with America is not a guarantee nor is American protection. And the UN has shown itself unable to intervene in even the most minor conflicts.

[Nottingham]

60. Muddleof the road you make some great points

Israel sees this as the perfect time to get rid of that reactor!

Israel thought Bush would do it for them! Which he may top secretly do anyway but thats why we have Iraq as our military base in the mideast. Iran is right across the border. And this may give the message to the Shiites that Bush & Israel aren't playing around here!

But the fallout is going to be ugly! :bounce:

I guess the price for not cooperating!

Yes this looks the Bush is pushing us into WWIII

[chasqui]

94. Nice comparison there

Why do 270 million americans have to continue giving unconditional support to a nation that has violated more security council resolutions than any other I can think of?
WHY?
American pro-israeli stances are relatively recent...not sure there would be much of an effect on american interests outright if we did not support Israel as unquestioningly any longer.

[karlschneider]

70. Uh, Iran has about 75 million population. Iraq is the one with ~24M

:eyes:

[arwalden]

62. "Preemptive" Is A Whole New Can Of Worms... Thanks George!

Asshole! Jerk! Idiot! Moran!

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Not new at all

Israel acted preemptively against Iraq because Israel was still at war with Iraq.

[Nottingham]

77. Israel is not making Idle threats here! UN has confirmed Prove

This is totally different than Iraq! The UN has had inspectors in and they have asked Iran to stop and it hasn't infact it has paraded its 3 missiles around. Israel has the proof it needs and it did it in 1981 and it worked for Iraq. It is a deterrent not a perfect Deterrent but it does work because the reality is You make a nuclear reactor its definitely a Target! I think NKorea is too right now!

Saudis have taken a different take Have Billions will Buy Nuke Bomb!

the sad part is how things have escalated in just a few years to this!

and really Nukes are NOT the Answer :nuke:

[Classical_Liberal]

98. Then Israel should disarm themselves of nukes

. Otherwise their enemies will naturally want them too.

[Malva Zebrina]

78. any nation that does not tighten up it's ability to defend itself

in today's climate--with Israel threatening any and everybody while egging on the US to destroy who they think should be destroyed, and with Bush the arab slayer, going off half cocked and insane, naming anyone in the region as terrorists, I would say that any nation should be protecting itself and it's citizens by developing weapons that could deter any attack by insane people wanting what they have--and having no respect for anything but their own sense of empire. I never thought I would say this about my own country--but, sadly, Bush and the neocons have proven that they are as evil as any fascist dictators we have read about in past history. This is really sad. I was once proud of the country that seemed to be concerned about humanity and it's problems--and not concerned about conquest at an cost. Really, this is sad.

[Walt Starr]

83. Proof that Israel is the biggest terrorist nation in the ME

What a fucked up double standard.

IMO, until Israel gives up its WMDs, every nation in the ME is 100% justified in developing WMDs.

[sattahipdeep]

84. Amazing, isn't it?

And the sheep keep following the judus goat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. The world standard on nukes

No one wants any more members of the nuke club, but once you are in, no one can get you out.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

86. if they do, it will launch" Armageddon"

[Nottingham]

93. Ya Know whats really scary! Our troops are all in IRAQ

well in range for a nuke Missile from Iran :bounce: :nuke:

[Classical_Liberal]

99. They wouldn't be there if neocons hadn't..lied about the Iraqi

threat like the are now dreaming up the Iranian threat. Basically Israel is generating self fulfilling prophesies. They threaten everyone WMD that are never found, then everyone gets nukes to defend themselves from israelis threats.