Would Israel strike first at Iran?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0818/p06s01-wome.html

Israel holds the preemptive wildcard, but experts doubt Osirak-style repeat.

By Joshua Mitnick | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

TEL AVIV – Moments before dispatching Israeli pilots to bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June, 1981, army Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan is said to have depicted the importance of the mission in stark terms: "The alternative is our destruction.''

In ordering the lightning knockout, Israel served notice to its Middle Eastern foes that the Jewish state would act - even preemptively - to deprive them of a nuclear option.

Two decades later, the Osirak precedent endures. As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard.

But several Israeli experts say that the Osirak experience bears little relevance in the case of Iran and that the chances of a repeat strike are very low.

more

[geek tragedy]

1. Not unless the Iranians were complete idiots

and left the nukes where the Israelis could bomb them.

[kaos]

2. It is kind of hard to hide a nuclear reactor....

[Disturbed]

4. A slight problem.

Iran has missles that could also destroy Israels nuke facility and spread radiocactivy in a wide area in Israel.

[kaos]

6. Iran has missiles..

Non with the capability of hitting specific targets

[jayfish]

10. Too Bad I Cant Put Smiles In Subject Lines,...

cause all would get is one of these :eyes:. Keep dreaming. This ain't 1981.

[Charlie Brown]

3. I sure hope not

'cause they'd be creating a mess which we'd ultimately have to clean up. Just like Taiwan would be looking for trouble if it decided to bomb China. Iran is going to nuke a neighboring country (with millions of Muslims within its borders) and send deadly fallout across all the Arab countries (even itself possiblly)? This would not make them terribly popular. If Iran threatens Israel, a strike could be justified. Otherwise, it's just insane.

[kaos]

7. If Iran threatens Israel..

What do you mean if?

[Charlie Brown]

9. As Israel has only existed since 1948

I'll leave it to you to figure out the fallacy of that statement (and the Iranian gov't is only 25 years old). Unless you mean that all Muslims want to destroy Israel, in which case we should clearly take them all out surgically (surely you don't mean this).

[kaos]

8. If Iran threatens Israel..

They have been threatening them for the last 1500 yrs.....

[Charlie Brown]

11. To my knowledge

the Mullahs have not stated they intend to attack Israel. This doesn't mean they are not anti-semitic, but it would not justify a pre-empitive strike either. Saddam attacked Israel during the Gulf War. Do you think this would have justified a nuclear assault on Baghdad by Israel?

[newyorican]

12. "threatening them for the last 1500 yrs"

Quite a trick as Israel hasn't been around for "1500 yrs"...

[Malikshah]

17. Oh my stars! 1500 Years???

15OO Years???

I guess Cyrus II (i.e. the Great) must be a new villain...

And, of course, from 1920s to the 1970s, the Pahlavi special relationship must have been a case of mistaken identity...

This is just too rich.

It would be funny, if it didn't stem from a complete denial of history.

;)

[lastknowngood]

5. Yes then Iran responds and the shrub has to invade Iran. Bingo

war number three justified and the shrub gets a huge bump in the polls.

[Keilwerth41]

14. Believe Me

If the U.S. could manipulate Israeli policy like you're talking about, we would have done so a long time ago.

I hope someone in that region (Syria, Iran, whoever) tries to invade Israel again so Israel has it's excuse to nuke the whole region. Turn the place into a parking lot and start over. They were 1000 years behind anyway.

[NeoConsSuck]

15. I believe you made a wrong turn on the Internet..

I think you wanted to make a "right" hand turn. Your zionist neocon buddies need your donation:

http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html

[Keilwerth41]

16. Zionist?

Is everyone who has something good to say about Israel a Zionist NeoCon? I'm neither, I'm mostly sarcastic actually.

But Israel has been invaded several times and most of the land that is now disputed between them and the Palestinians was land taken in a defensive counter-invasion in the 60s and 70s.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Keilwerth41]

21. If

a country in that region attacked Israel or anyone else, that country would have a right to defend itself to the fullest. This includes use of nuclear weapons.

That's why it's stupid to invade a country with nuclear weapons.

I was not advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iran.

[kodi]

30. so, according to your logic iraq would have been justified to nuke the US

nicely done.

and by your logic you just became an apologist for saddam's nuclear program....after all, according to you, its just a program used for self defense.

often, i wondered where the cia stashed tarik aziz, and here he is popping up on DU.

imagine that?

[Keilwerth41]

31. Of course!

Ever heard of deterrance theory?

I'm not saying I WANTED Iraq to have nukes or that I WANT North Korea to have nukes. I'm simply saying that any country that perceives a threat from its neighbors, especially if its neighbors are stronger, is likely to want to acquire nuclear weapons to serve as an equalizer. This is what happened with India and Pakistan, and it's what's happening with Iran right now.

The Iraq war basically showed Iran and North Korea that the best way to get the U.S. to back off is to have nuclear weapons, and it appears they're trying to do so.

[kodi]

the NKs already have nukes. and for allowing that bush should be impeached

but i am curious about this remark:

The Iraq war basically showed Iran and North Korea that the best way to get the U.S. to back off is to have nuclear weapons, and it appears they're trying to do so.

i would have thought that the entire Cold War and MAD with the Soviets and China would have made that clear, doncha' think?

i mean, it was like in the news for say, about 45 years. you really think the iranians and NKs did not think of this before bush went wilding in the cradle of civilization?

[Malikshah]

19. Exactly how many times?

Let's recap.

1948 -- Yup

1956 -- Nope

1967 -- Nope (and this was the whopper that expanded the country three times over)

1973 -- Yup (mainly to land taken in 1967)

1978 -- Nope

1982 -- Nope

Twice (and I'm being generous here) does not equal several.

BTW-- This thread will no doubt be moved rapidly to the I/P forum, but it doesn't fit the bill for LBN either as the title isn't the title of the article-- or am I reading it wrong?

[Keilwerth41]

22. So

Are we pretending that Israel's neighbors have no hostile intentions beyond recovering land that Israel is said to have stolen? If you buy that I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[wuushew]

23. The land does not belong to Israel

as territorial expansion by armed force is forbidden in the U.N. charter.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Keilwerth41]

27. Wow

Quite the little board you people have up here.

I won't resort to personal attacks but I will say that I believe the dispute is about much more than just land. Israel's neighbors want to drive her into the sea, which puts her in a unique position. Iran, on the other hand, does not have much to fear from Israel when it comes to conquest for land or genocidal wishes. Iran need only fear a first strike from Israel if it makes Israel feel insecure. Obviously the U.S. can go a long way towards making that happen so we don't have to worry about a nuclear Iran or a first strike against Israel.

[funnymanpants]

29. Nice try. You are still evading what you said.

No, you won't resort to personal attacks. Instead you wish to turn the Arab world into a parking lot. I was being nice to call you a jerk. I should have used stronger language.

Your still haven't given any proof that Israel was invaded six times. That is because you don't have any.

Instead, you resort to empty statments, again without a shred of proof. As I recall, it is Israel that has flouted over *70* UN Security Council Resolutions and it is Israel that is illegally occupying land--not Iran. Israel has members in the cabinet who have advocated ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, so yes, Arabs do have something to fear.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim...

[Keilwerth41]

32. I said several....

....not six. And someone else has pointed out two occasions.

Please don't tell me you think there are as many Israelis who want to exterminate Arabs as there are Arabs who want to exterminate Israelis.

If Israel offered the Palestinians everything they were "officially" asking for tomorrow, would the Palestinians take it? And if not, why not?

[funnymanpants]

36. Still evasive

Two occasions do not make up several. According to my dictionaly, several means "more than two." Israel was more often the aggressor. So on these grounds, Iran would have reason to have a nuclear weapon.

Please back up what you said. Why do you think the Arab world should be turned into a parking lot? Are you racist? Do you think that they don't have feelings sot they can be nuked?

And don't give me more nonsense about how many Arabs want to exertinate the Israelis as opposed to the other way around. In fact, polls in Israel show that 60 percent favor expelling the Palestinians from their homeland. This includes Israeli-Arabs as well.

Israel right now is illegally occupying Iraeli land. This is a fact. It continues to move women and children illegally to this land. It has been found guilty by *140* nations of "willful killing" and "torture."

These are facts. They are not speculation about what the Palestinians would do if Israel ever lieved up to international law--which it has not even come close to doing.

[Keilwerth41]

38. Israeli Polls

show that Israelis want to kill Arabs? Because I said Kill, not expel from land.

Most reasonable people understand that Israel is not blameless in this at all. And I didn't mean to seriously advocate nuking the Middle East. But this is what may happen if Israel feels threatened by a nuclear Iran.

And personally, given what kind of a country Israel is (democracy) and what kind of problems the rest of that region has given the U.S., I wouldn't think it would be hard for most Americans to figure out which side to be on. But apparently that's not the case.

Israel may not occupy the highest moral ground, but surely it sits atop a higher hill than any of its opponents, whom the UN is too cowardly to condemn so routinely.

[funnymanpants]

41. again, more groundless statements and evasion

Still you haven't shown how several is two. You simply keep switching the topic when I bring up facts.

You did seriously advocate nuking the middle east. You stated that Israel would have an "excuse" for using nuclear weapons, and in your opinion that would be just as well because the Arabs are 500 years behind. There is no sarcasm there. There is mean racism.

My poll showed that a majority of Israelis advocate ethnic cleansing.
(The same poll has been taken several times over the past few years, with similar results, though more and more Israelis are advocating transfer.) This should be distrubing enough to you. But apparently it is not. Becaue the Iraelis don't actually want to kill the Palestinians, well, then it's okay.

You have not provided any proof that Arab states seriously threaten Isreal. Instead, you rely on vague assertions. Apparently, even though Israel has the 4th largest army in the world and routinely bobms Lebanon, against international law; even though it invaded Egypt in 1956 for territorial gains; and invaded Lebanon in 1982 for the same reason--despite this, Iran is not supposed to feel threatened.

Finally, you provide false either-or-logic. Either you are with Israel (a democracy, even though it denies over 3 million people the rights!), and the other states.

It is entirely possible to be against Israel aggression and still be for democracy. One can not want Iran to get a nuclear bomb (as I do) and still demand that Israel give up its illegal nuclear weapons, as it is required to do under international law.

Last, I like that you engage in gratituous UN bashing. Unfortunately, it is not just virtually *every* country in the UN who codemns Israel. It is also *every* human rights group, including human rights watch, B'Tsleem, Doctors without Borders, and Amnesty International. The excuse given is that other countries are worse than Israel. As I pointed above, this is a stupid argument to deflect criticism away from Israel.

Israel is the *only* country in the world that still has settlements, an archaic brutal policy. And Israel is the only country in the world that receives 5 billion dollars in US aid, including Apache hellicopters, which Amnesty International asked the US not to send, since they were used to mow down Palestinians.

Shouldn't American be upset that our tax dollars are being ued to oppress? Or should we simply say "Well, Israel is democracy, and China has a worse human rights record?"

[Malikshah]

40. That was not my statement and/or point.

Please do not change the argument of my post.

I was referring to the several invasions statement and correcting for clarity.

Hostility (to refer to the word used)in the region, alas, is very much a multi-lane, multi-directional highway. No one people either has a monopoly on morality, or victimhood in the region and we would all do well to keep that in mind.

[keopeli]

13. Given their aggressive and 'pre-emptive' history, I'd say Yes, she would.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Iran's doing the crazier than a shithouse rat act too

They threatened to the demona reactor if Israel did that. I hope they are both bluffing and realize they are both bluffing. Too bad nobody in that region is fucking sane.

[Merlin]

25. Iran actually acted in a responsible manner.

Everybody in the world knows this is the potential gambit Bush and his neocon allies may play to win the election. There is a question, surely, of whether Sharon and his Zionist-supremacist supporters believe such a risk is in their own best interests. But the most important player of all, Iran, has acted maturely. It has demonstrated its missile capacity. It has indicated its intentions to persist in (presumably) peaceful nuclear development. And it has made clear to the world that an attack on it by either the US or Israel would lead to an immediate retaliatory attack against Israel. That's a sane, rational policy.

[Gyre]

39. Israel's plan is to have the U.S. attack

instead of them. What are proxy states for anyways? If Bush is reelected COUNT ON IT!

Gyre

[tlcandie]

24. If they had the backing of the US or believed beyond a shadow of

a doubt that the US would back them up... you betcha!

[molly]

35. P.S. they don't NEED the US

the U.S. needs them in the region.

[Gyre]

42. And why would that be?

Do we require an ally that is an out of control nuclear detonator? I think not! And guess what? We taxpayers continue to pay for the privilege of having them out of control and give them a substantial amount of their serious weaponry including their entire initial arsenal of nuclear warheads. I'm talking about Israel.

I say cut them AND EGYPT off, remove our military umbrella and they'll start acting like solid citizens in the middle east community of nations who have to coexist, rather than bullies who will destroy for no reason, savage a people under their care routinely and in the most brutal and inhuman ways possible, just because they can and because the US is covering their collective bad asses for some reason. But I say that only because I'm interested in a radioactive-free atmosphere for my children to breathe.

Of course, the alternative is a radionucleotide future.

Gyre

[kodi]

28. experts? probably mossad agents trying to lull the iranians to sleep

wouldn't you?

[Bo]

33. They will strike at the nukes

[molly]

34. Only if they thought the threat was imminent - like 1967

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Moderator]

43. We need to lock this thread now

We know it's not technically an I/P issue, but it seems the exact same arguments are brought up in this thread. Ergo, we would appreciate it if discussion of this topic was kept in the I/P forum. Thanks for your understanding.

Link to LBN Rules