Israel plans nuclear attack on Iran; Sunday Telegram

[kitty1]

Well folks, the time is at hand. The British media is publishing the contents of a report which indicate that Israel is planning to strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
The pieces of this global chess game are starting to come together now.
The surge, Saudi Arabia's sense of panic lately. Ships deployed to the gulf.
It looks like it's near game time for Bush. God help us all if this is true. See more at www.drudgereport.com

[roamer65]

1. Israel is on their own if they do it.

Our kids won't be sent to fight for such a fiasco. Period.

[babylonsister]

5. I wish I had your optimism. "Our kids" are already on carriers in the gulf. nt

[sam sarrha]

9. AND ANOTHER CARRIER GROUP IS ON THE WAY

[TheWraith]

52. There's been "another carrier group on the way" almost continuously for years.

And it's always triggered the same paranoia on DU. The fact is that we rotate out carrier groups from the Gulf on a regular basis, for the purpose of keeping the crews fresh.

[roamer65]

17. They may get the volunteer forces...

...but they won't get draftees.

[PerceptionManagement]

41. No, no, no, this is BS.

[babylonsister]

44. Care to back that up with ANYTHING?

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061221/ZNYT03/612210571

U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran

THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

The officials said that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was expected this week to approve a request by commanders for a second aircraft carrier and its supporting ships to be stationed within quick sailing distance of Iran by early next year.

Senior American officers said the increase in naval power should not be viewed as preparations for any offensive strike against Iran. But they acknowledged that the ability to hit Iran would be increased and that Iranian leaders might well call the growing presence provocative. One purpose of the deployment, they said, is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran. That would also reassure Washington’s allies in the region who are concerned about Iran’s intentions.

The officials said the planned growth in naval power in the gulf and surrounding waters would be useful in enforcing any sanctions that the United Nations might impose as part of Washington’s strategy to punish Iran for what it sees as ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons. And the buildup would address another concern: that Iran could try to block oil shipments from the gulf in retaliation for United Nations sanctions or other American-led pressure.

more...

[PerceptionManagement]

97. The AP/New York Sun is quoting Israeli defense analysts as saying it's just propaganda.

Olmert's office and the Israeli military declined to comment on report by The Sunday Times.

But Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report, saying Israel was supporting diplomatic efforts. "If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably," he said.

Some analysts viewed the report as another element of a delicate diplomatic dance.

"I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent Israeli defense analyst and columnist for the newspaper Haaretz, told The Associated Press in Jerusalem. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say: 'Someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"

Ephraim Kam, a former senior Israeli intelligence official who is now at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, also suggested the report should not be taken literally.

"No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to The Sunday Times," he said.

[alfredo]

49. Iran sees no difference between the US and Israel.

Aggression by one is the same as aggression by the other.

[iamjoy]

59. Not Really

Saudi Arabia would publicly condemn any attack by Israel on Iran, but privately, they'd be breathing sighs of relief.

SA is primarily Sunni. Iran is mostly Shiite. SA doesn't want a nuclear Iran any more than we do. They both hate Israel, but they hate each other, too.

Nah, SA is quite content to let Israel do the dirty work, and so are we.

[Kablooie]

77. Israel will NOT be on there own.

Bush is probably encouraging it to create an opening for himself to send in more troops.

WE won't be there, but our country sure will if Bush remains president.

[caledesi]

101. Agree K. Is Israel a proxy for the US? I say yes. I wouldn't put

anything past these thugs.

[krispos42]

85. And what event in BushCo's history makes you think that is true?

Remember, with Bush, 'fiasco' is another word for 'fun'!

:sarcasm:

You see, NOT getting invoved would be the actions of somebody intelligent, who cared about life and peace.

Talking with Iran to defuse the situation would be the actions of somebody intelligent, who cared about life and peace.

And I have absolutely no faith, at all, that he is competent to deal with this, nor does he care to even try.

[Tight_rope]

92. SOLO...Big time!

[AlienGirl]

93. The US does not abandon its allies like that; this is a silly thing to suggest could happen.

[kitty1]

99. Wasn't Iraq an ally at one time?

[maryallen]

100. "Silly?" Nuclear bunker busters, "silly?"

Criminal, is more like it; and only a fool would support "allies" who wanted to drop nuclear weapons on another country.

[aquart]

2. Drudge Report? DRUDGE REPORT?

I notice you aren't linking to the Sunday Telegram. Why is that?

[INDIA]

31. self delete

[HughMoran]

79. Sickening

isn't it? Drudge?Whaaaaaa????

[rainy]

3. remind me of where we are suppose to meet when all hell breaks out?

[sam sarrha]

14. There will be curfews, the constitution will be suspended.. shoot to kill orders.. the party is over

[roamer65]

18. Nah. The "party" will be just starting.

[MGD]

33. Roger that. nt

[rainy]

27. There is a Yahoo address that we are suppose to meet at. Does anyone

know what that address is? Maybe we should just once post some cell phone numbers for ourselves and save them so we can communicate.

[bananas]

30. The DU Panic Room

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DUPanicRoom

[rainy]

46. Thanks, I bookmarked it and signed up for group membership. nt

[babylonsister]

4. Here's another source:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-06T232035Z_01_L06759405_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAN-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL.xml

Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran -paper
Sat Jan 6, 2007 11:20 PM GMT17


LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, the Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters".

Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment that Western powers fear could lead to making bombs. Tehran insists its plans are peaceful and says it will continue enrichment.

Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran along the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, though many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to take on alone.

more...

[Josh]

6. I'm sure the US has plans that call for tactical nukes too - doesn't mean

they'll ever, EVER use them. Same with Israel. Let's hope. :)

[daleo]

20. Here is a little more detail, from the Times article

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years."

---------------------------------------------------------
That sounds like it has gone past the hypothetical stage, although the source isn't named.

[nodehopper]

63. strike against nuclear project or a nuke strike? I am confused by the language

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. Is Congress going to support anything like this?

I wonder?

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Will our Congress ever go against ANYTHING that Israel does?

Irrespective of which party is in charge? :-(

[jody]

22. Congress gives Israel $$$ so the U.S. is an accessory if Israel uses nukes. n/t

[democrank]

8. I wondered all along if

this is how Bush would manage to have his cake and eat it too with a strike on Iran. If this report is true, I`d bet anything that we`re in this up to our eyeballs.

[babylonsister]

11. I read somewhere recently that Israel is just waiting for the word from

the US. :-(

[peacetalksforall]

51. Just as they waited for us to signal an OK for the bombing of Lebanon.

[babylonsister]

60. Yes, I agree. But I do wonder who's calling the shots and why. nt

[reprobate]

81. Cheney. Just like he gave the orders to attack Lebanon

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Not "Sunday Telegram", but 'Sunday Times' - link here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

[daleo]

16. Is the Times more reliable than the Telegram?

For some reason, I tend to think so, but I don't know if that is supported by the evidence. What is your opinion of the various British newspaper sources, as someone on the scene?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. The 'Telegram' doesn't exist

There is a 'Telegraph'. Both are right wing (not rabidly so, but think 'Republican' rather than 'Democratic'); Murdoch owns the Times/Sunday Times, while Conrad Black used to own the Telegraph, before he sold it to the Barclay brothers, who are publicity-shy businessmen. The Sunday Times isn't just a mouthpeice for Bush/Blair etc. - it did, after all, publish the Downing Street Memo (and ,for that matter, Michael Smith has previously published similar memos when he worked for the Telegraph).

In this case, I think the reporter(s) probably have spoken to people in the Israeli government or military; whether those people were telling the truth, and whether the reporters really believe them, or are just going along with it for the sake of a headline story, is another matter. Israel might well think it's a good idea for Iran to suspect that Israel might stop at nothing, to get Iran to think about some new negotiations - a 'good cop/bad cop' routine, with or without the explicit involvement of the US.

[daleo]

37. Thanks for the information

I had a feeling that The Times was conservative, but printed some alternative viewpoints as well. The Globe and Mail is like that here in Canada.

The "good cop/bad cop" point is well taken. Israel may also be trying to pressure the U.S. into attacking first ("you do it or we will").

[hang a left]

61. doesn't it suck that

you don't know which stories are planted and that which are then
carried or coopted by some other news source, which to me all are suspect. It just takes a little investigation into past propaganda campaigns waiged in South America to get that you can't know what is for real anymore. To me that is the biggest problem we face.

[allemand]

12. Please change the title: "Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran"

It's Sunday Times, not Sunday Telegram:

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi New York and Sarah Baxter Washington

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

[nebenaube]

13. '67

A russian nuclear sub was sitting in the Mediterranean waiting for the order to liquidate Israel. No doubt there is another one lurking about as well...

[MGD]

48. Israel has submarines of its own now.

And it is generally accepted that they can launch nuclear missiles from them
too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1061399,00.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/missile/popeye-t.htm

There would be other complications for Russia if they nuked Israel too.

[Pirate Smile]

15. I swear Bush shared his stupid pills with Olmert before the War with Lebanon.

He is apparently still taking them.

Don't we know that we can't actually take out all their nuke facilities? They are spread out and way down and we don't know where they all are? Plus, the retaliation by Iran may be huge. This isn't like Israel's attack on Iraq's nuke facilities.

Geez, this should make the rapture people happy.

Is it a bluff? How does that do anything but make Iran look stronger.

They keep pulling this tough guy crap that is counterproductive, which they can't win and just weakens their nations ala the Iraq War and the Lebanon War.


edit to add - plus, if they were really going to do it, why the hell do we and Iran know about it? I guess we already kind of knew but can't anybody keep a friggin secret.

This just gives me a headache.

[durtee librul]

23. Ok, I am new to this mid east stuff and I readily

admit it....so will someone PLEASE tell me WHY the hell Isreal is so damn special to the USA? To me, they are just warhawks. I do not understand why they did what they did last summer to Palestine and NO-ONE here really complained about it (by that I mean the politicos...)

Any help would be appreciated especially in light of this 'revelation.'

BTW, our neighbors' son's ship has been deployed to the Persian Gulf from VA just last week when all the crap broke about the ESCALATION...it ain't no surge. Katrina and the tsunami were surges, this is ESCALATION. Call it what it really is.

Anyway, any enlightenment on Isreal would be appreciated.

[mike_c]

29. that is a question many of us are asking....

eom

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacetalksforall]

56. Abandon allies. hmmmmm. I didn't mind Israel as an ally. I also

want Palestinians as allies. I now mind Israel as an ally. I'm fed up with the constant, consistent war and policies against Palestinians. I'm losing all desire to support Israel. I absoltuely despise the Israeli operatives in the top rungs of our government. Who are they - those whose night and day reasons for working involves the protection of Israel and preferential attention and deals for Israel. I want Israel to exist - in peace. I've had it. There are people in Israel whoalso want peace.

This is a very dark period in the history of man and look who is causing it. The U.S., the U.K., and Israel and very stubborn leaders of Moslem countries.

I can't imagine what logic was used to come to a conclusion that they can continue to exist if they strike Iran. In the long run.

I am very afraid - now more than the first day I heard about the theory of strikes - with the U.S. in full partnership - as planned by a tiny per cent of the population of our country.

[Hardrada]

83. Fed up here too. Too much special pleading for Israel.

[HuffleClaw]

62. & F.) the fundy's WANT the 'end times'

[MGD]

68. I really don't think that has anything to with it. I don't care for the fundies either

but I don't think they have any bearing on our relationship with Israel. They can't even come to a concensus about Israel among themselves.

[madeline_con]

57. It all boils down to some biblical crap from back in the day.

Supposedly, "Good Christians" support anything the genocidal powers that be want to do in Israel 'cause (booming voice) GOD SAID.

If you don't believe me, grab the nearst fundie and ask them, they'll tell you the same thing, only they leave out the genocide part and wrap it up in a "Godly" package. :puke:

[peacetalksforall]

53. There have been U.S. spies in Iran for years - enhanced a little over

a year ago.

[provis99]

21. wouldn't make too much of this

of course, the Israelis have a plan to attack Iran. Have for decades. This is obviously just a diplomatic move using the press as a patsy. Every powerful country has plans covering attacks that will never be implemented. After all, the US still updates War Plan Crimson every year, which is the plan for the invasion and takeover of Canada. Doesn't mean they're going to carry it out.

[daleo]

54. Unfortunately, the U.S. and Israel do carry out a lot of their war plans

Whereas a lot of other countries don't.

[cal04]

24. Sunday Times link:Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran -paper

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,381859,00.jpg

[wakeme2008]

25. We had First Strike plans to attack the Soviet Union with nucs in the 70s

So what's new...

Been there Done that...

[MGD]

36. MAD prevented it from happening. MAD doesn't exist between Israel and Iran yet

and I doubt Israel will ever let it.

[Purveyor]

38. Iran is well equipped with chemical and biological weapons

with the means to deliver them.

Must less land to pollute than Iran and the high population density could allow Iran to really make a mess of things.

Israel ought think this one out before doing something stupid.

[MGD]

45. Iran really should have thought it out first. Ahmedinijihad wants the 12th Imam though.

Isarel has made it clear that they will minimize collateral damage to the extent possible but if Iran retalliates with chem/bio weapons, Israel will more than likely kill every living thing in Iran in true Biblical fashion. It is well known that they have more than enough capacity to do this with enough left in reserve to cripple anyone(read Russia) who retalliates on Iran's behalf.

[daleo]

55. But wouldn't Russia then obliterate Israel?

Nuclear war escalation doesn't end up well for anyone. I think any country that starts lobbing nukes around will end up destroyed.

One pretty clear lesson of history, is that great powers tend to seek a balance of power. Anyone that destabilizes that too much (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler) will suffer at the hands of the others, as they try to prevent any overwhelming dominance. In a nuclear world, you can see where that leads.

[Purveyor]

84. Iran should have thought it out first? It is israel floating this BS.

IMHO, Iran has every right to launch at anytime a pre-emptive strike on israel.

BTW, isn't a "pre-emptive" action approved by the Bush doctrine?

[MGD]

91. They're floatring it for a reason. Iran has been given a UN mandate to cease uranium enrichment.

They have declined to submit to the will of the international community and, as such, have condemned themselves to violent intervention in one form or another. Furthermore, they haven't helped themselves by declaring that Israel must be wiped off the map. Like it or not, Iran is the bad guy here.

"BTW, isn't a "pre-emptive" action approved by the Bush doctrine?"
Yes it is.

[yojon]

28. Why would Israel leak this information?

Seems like they would lose the element of surprise which might be kind of important.. just saying...

[MGD]

35. Sounds like fair warning to me.

This isn't the kind of move Israel (or anybody) would want to make suddenly.

[Poll_Blind]

76. Well, of course, they'd much rather NOT tangle with Iran. Despite...

...having nukes, Israel is a very (geographically) small country. They've been working U.S. generals behind the scenes for months now trying to get people to sign on but there haven't been many takers. So now the extortion part comes into play: The U.S., just like Israel, would much rather not tangle with Iran. But if the Israelis say that they're strongly considering nuking the country if the U.S. does not, they're hoping that'll be enough.

PB

[MGD]

32. Reuters is reporting the same story

Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper
Sat Jan 6, 2007 6:22pm ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters".

Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment that Western powers fear could lead to making bombs. Tehran insists its plans are peaceful and says it will continue enrichment.
Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran along the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, though many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to take on alone.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has said it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-01-06T232231Z_01_L06759405_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL.xml&src=rss

[INDIA]

34. They have the balls to do it. I have no doubt. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

43. balls?

So initiating the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 is a 'ballsy move'? How about it is an atrocity, an outrage, and a crime against humanity? Balls indeed. Microscopic dry balls to go with the microcephalic dust filled heads planning this crime.

[INDIA]

65. Yup. Launching that attack would require serious cojones...

Which the Israelis do not lack. Never said if it was a smart move or not, but ballsy, yes. They did the same thing to Saddam, and it worked quite well. This is obviously a diff situation though.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. "They did the same thing to Saddam" wrong.

At least get your facts straight. Nuclear weapons have not been used in combat since 1945.

[INDIA]

70. Well duh...

I was referring to their conventional attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities in the 80's, which crippled Saddam's nuclear weapons programs. It worked. Iraq was no longer a nuclear threat to Israel after the attack. The only reason Israel would need nukes in this attack is because Iran moved their facilities underground.

"Nuclear weapons have not been used in combat since 1945."

Uh yeah, I know. I knew that when I was 10 years old. Thanks for that little nugget of knowledge though. You must read books.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Ah shape shifting.

Always a clever technique.

The topic: nuking Iran.

Your post:
"Yup. Launching that attack would require serious cojones...
Which the Israelis do not lack. Never said if it was a smart move or not, but ballsy, yes. They did the same thing to Saddam, and it worked quite well. This is obviously a diff situation though."

I am truly sorry that I misinterpreted your statement "they did the same thing to Saddam" as meaning "they did the same thing to Saddam".

How could I be so stupid?

Cheers.

[INDIA]

73. Shape shifting?

Yeah dude, I graduated cum laude in Political Science, am a huge history buff, yet I forgot that nukes were only used in combat twice. I assumed that was a fact so obvious that it didn't warrant pointing out.

I was referring to the striking similarity between the past attack on Iraq and the possible attack on Iran. Both Arab states with hostile intentions developing nuclear weapons. The only difference between the two attacks (one in the past, one possibly in the future)would be the type of weapon used, and the location of the facilities (underground in Iran's case.)


I gotta go, my nanny is teaching me how to tie my shoes.

[BeHereNow]

39. If so, then it is official- America is over.

A little experiment in history that failed.
That is how we will be looked upon by history,
if indeed there is a history to be written when
all is said and done.
Personally, I am doubting it.

BHN

[Junkdrawer]

40. OK. Clearly *someone* wants this story out there...

Currently, Iran has thumbed their nose at a US sponsored UN Security Council demand that they stop enriching uranium. China is now talking to Iran to try to get them to change their mind.

Looks like a psyops game to me at this point. But, in a few weeks, who knows....

The most dangerous, highest stakes game of chicken ever.

[kitty1]

47. Israel bombed a nuclear plant near Baghdad in 81;....

because of fears it would be used to make atom bombs.
You can't totally discount that scenario. Iran is no Lebanon though, and they must know that even if the U.S. attacks as well, it won't be a pushover event like Iraq. The whole ME would be one big powder keg.
I guess we'll have to wait until the contents of the paper come out to see if it sounds imminent or a just a huge fear tactic on Israel's part.

[toshirajo]

50. Something smells

Of course Israel has plans for Iran. So does any nation with military planners. I would be more surprised to hear Israel had no plans to use their arsenal. They probably have contingencies for the contingencies, color glossy photographs with circles and arrows on the front, and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what all the circles and arrows mean. What stinks is the "great revelation". There is no there. This should not be a surprise. I suspect either sensationalism on the part of the paper, or a deliberate misinformation campaign - probably by Iran since they would stand to gain the most - to blow dust in the eye of the public. I believe this is subtrefuge.

[pa28]

58. Chess game is right.

Could be they are using their arsenal as leverage to maneuver the U.S. into a conventional bombing campaign.

[ckramer]

64. Democrats should not support the war of Israel

Cut off the funding of any war.

[HuffleClaw]

66. this is merely agitprop

though... ...i've little doubt they WOULD use nukes if they felt it necessary (oh, and the nukes in question would be AMERICAN, the israelis don't have any 'mini-nukes') but they would claim they didn't afterwards? 'radiation? oh, that's from the uranium enrichment facility!' of course, it wouldn't matter one whit, which is the true danger this sort of propaganda produces, for it wouldn't take much to convince the iranian public (or the public in syria, jordan, lebanon...) that they did.
this story also demonstrates the lunacy of the planners in question. "Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel." this is just madness, who wouldn't retaliate? they'd attack both US and Israeli interests in a heartbeat if/when attacked. they know that olmert isn't gonna act unless he gets a wink and a nod (and weapons) from bush first, and so does everyone else. the israeli's will probably pretend that they 'acted alone' but only the most rabid of kool-aid drinking freeper will pretend to believe them.

[seemslikeadream]

69. SCOTT RITTER: Yes, we're going to do it.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Seymour_Hersh/Iran_SHersh_SRitter.html
SEYMOUR HERSH: Final question: given all this, are we going to do it?
SCOTT RITTER: Yes, we're going to do it.

[JCMach1]

74. Saw it on New Years: UAE is speedily building another 'new' pipeline to bypass the straits of Hormuz

Make of that what you will. This is being done very DOWN LOW... had not heard about it at all.

[JCMach1]

72. From Reuters in Khaleej Times

Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: report
(Reuters)

7 January 2007


LONDON - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear ”bunker busters”.

Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said...

sraeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000 mile (3,200 km) round-trip to the Iranian targets, the Sunday Times said, and three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out including one over Turkey.

However it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene. Disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, the paper added... http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2007/January/middleeast_January55.xml§ion=middleeast

[Poll_Blind]

75. Picked up by Ha'aretz in Israel, probably largest Israeli newspaper.

Certainly Israel's oldest newspaper. Interestingly, Ha'aretz does not typically run with stories of this (sensational) nature so I assume they have vetted it in some way.

Report: Israel planning nuclear attack on Iran

PB

[Hideboh]

78. It will happen anyway

We can't afford another NK.
It will be a total nightmare.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

80. Blah Blah Blah

Sensationalistic news article for contingency planning. There are military plans for ALL contingencies. Hell, I even bet the US has a contingency plan to invade Israel and Israel has a contingency plan if it is invaded by the US.

These things are buried deep in archives and all possibilities are wargamed out. Doesn't mean they will happen.

[Contrite]

82. South Africa: Attack On Iran Could Bring Devastation to Arab World

"The real danger this year is that Saudi Arabia, alarmed at the rise of Iran and the self-assertion of Shiite communities in Lebanon and the Gulf region, will be persuaded to side with the US against Tehran."

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701030563.html

(Did we not just read about new missiles in Saudi Arabia?)

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”

[krispos42]

86. And the South Africans are proably in the safest place on the globe

Wonder if Rosetta Stone has "Afrikaans" in it's library...

[guruoo]

87. see idleworm "Iraq Game"- circa 2002

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[dogfacedboy]

88. My prediction is correct!!!

I called it at least one year ago. BushCheneyCorp has talked Israel into doing it's dirty work. Fuckin' scum talked Israel into firing the shot across the bow that begins TripleDumbya III.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[edelsman]

90. Not so optimistic

Israel will not stand alone if it launches an attack (nuclear or conventional) on Iran and the supposition that "our boys" will not be engaged in this battle assumes that the United States cares about its people. Take a look at our health care system, our welfare system, our old-age pension schemes, any country that cares so little about how its "boys and girls" live certainly cares nothing about how or where they die. The good news is that only the poor die (volunteer armies don't attract a lot of recruits from wealthy families) and from time to time a wealthy journalist (whose courageous if not heroic death can be easily instrumentalised by Hollywood). So, it then becomes part and parcel of the government's responsibility to maintain itself that a large underclass always exists to feed the military machine. It is really quite a simple formula and if the average Joe hasn't figured that one out and still sends his sons and daughters off to die (in the hope that if they survive and are not too traumatized by the whole event, they may get some sort of marketable education), then don't expect Israel or any other country who is willing to promote the interests of the capitalist class to stand alone.

[VegasWolf]

94. Israel plans on becoming a fucking, smoking hole in the ground. nt

[Contrite]

98. Got that right.

It's the way I see it, too. Israel becomes a smudge if they start this. They're feeling pretty cocky, if this is true. I think Israel might be bluffing in order to nudge the U.S. to start it up.

[Pavulon]

95. Load of horse shit, space aliens plan takeover

Every country maintains gaming scenarios against other countries.

The source is shit. If it comes out of a real news source, let me know.

[AlienGirl]

96. How does this differ from other governmental first strike scenario plans?

All of the nuclear powers in the world have plans on the books for how they could "win" a first-strike limited nuclear exchange against other nuclear powers. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that this is anything other than a standard first strike scenario what-if plan, not significantly different from the ones the US still has on the books against the states of the former Soviet Union, or the ones India and Pakistan have against each other.

Tucker

[Dogmudgeon]

102. Distraction from the Democrats' "100 Hours", I see

There is nothing new about this.

But ... this will certainly get the attention off of the Democratic agenda and back onto Bush as the Wise and Courageous War President.

Then, in about two weeks, it can all go away, as Team Bush makes some kind of deal with Iran. They'll go to war at their leisure.

--p!

[maddezmom]

103. locking

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x162410

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x162402