Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US, Israel

[GostHacked]

This is patently false....see occupation of islands claimed by UAE and border clashes over the past 100 years.

You may have a point.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/04/21/106444.html

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories.

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency.

Even Arab occupation of Arab lands is a bad thing. lol.

What a fucked up world we live in.

[jbg]

Take a look at the price of oil for the last 20 years. It has gone way up and way down. Taking over Iraq did not drive down prices of oil and gas, so what makes you think taking over Iran will produce those results?

I didn't say it would. I said, "if anything...". Edited October 19, 2010 by jbg

[ToadBrother]

What I always find amazing is the friends of those long haired hippy type pinkos who together see the West as the enemy and strongly advocate for a complete disarmament of our own nukes but for those countries who are antithematic to every social issue they believe in, from women to gays to justice to religion, they will go out of their way to defend and promote the rights of these terrorist, theocracies and dictators to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

I know of no one who is advocating for Iran, beyond Iran itself.

[jbg]

i really need you to surprise me for once and say something that's actually true. it's not healthy to just say whatever that pops into your uneducated mind. price of oil since the gulf war:

http://www.epomm.eu/newsletter/bilder/OilChart.gif

I see you enjoy prevaricating as well. You stop the graph during the summer of 2008. Since then the price has been as low as $33 per barrel, and now is at $82 or so a barrel. I don't like to question someone's honesty but you just called me a liar. You get what you give.

[dre]

I see you enjoy prevaricating as well. You stop the graph during the summer of 2008. Since then the price has been as low as $33 per barrel, and now is at $82 or so a barrel. I don't like to question someone's honesty but you just called me a liar. You get what you give.

Regardless of what that chart shows and where its an undeniable fact that wars in the middle east cause energy price volatility and price spikes. What basically happens is that oil futures traders start worrying about interuptions on the supply side and start bidding up the price of oil.

A good example of this would be the Israel/Lebanon war of 2006 when traders worried about the war escalating into a regional conflict that involved Syria or Iran bid the prices up to record highs at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-oil.2222473.html?_r=1

FRANKFURT — Oil prices gyrated again Monday, surging and then retreating, over worries about a wider conflict in the Middle East, underscoring energy markets' intense sensitivity at a time of tight supplies.

Israel and Lebanon are not oil producers, but the week-old clash already has traders contemplating the prospect of oil at $80 a barrel as the next price barrier to fall. Analysts said the confrontation could drag on for weeks, further destabilizing the region, or widen to involve Syria and even Iran - a major producer.

"Things can still get a lot worse, in terms of expansion of the bombing campaign and other countries getting involved," said Andrew Harrington, an analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group in Sydney, Bloomberg News reported. "Whenever Israel is involved in a shooting war there is a reaction from the Arab-dominated oil suppliers."

Iran is a major oil producing nation... If speculators think a war with Iran is imminent they will drive the price way up. The oil futures market reacts to news and events just like every other market... so obviously when you have traders worried about interuptions in supply caused by things like regional conflict youre going to get a lot of price volatility.

And in addition to direct shortages in supply caused by Iranian oil not getting to the market, futures traders will be worried that an even bigger interuption in supply is likely if Iran starts sinking ships in the straits of Hormuz. 40% of the worlds sea born oil shipments go through that passage, and a regional war could create a bottle neck there, with tankers either unable to get through the strait safely at all, or having to wait for military escorts.

[Bonam]

Nobody is suggesting that those terrorist groups should have nuclear weapons. We are talking about Iran and Iran fits your criteria fairly well.

I agree, Iran itself is probably sane enough that it wouldn't want to wipe itself out in a nuclear Holocaust. But if it let a bit of fissile material "accidentally" find itself into the hands of Hamas, who happened to use it as, say, a dirty bomb somewhere in Israel, Iran may well calculate that it would escape unscathed.

I dont buy the "nuclear terrorists" argument.

What's not to buy about it? Do you doubt that terrorist groups would use nuclear materials if they had them? I think it is quite likely. Do you doubt that Iran would supply terrorists with some small quantities of nuclear materials if it had these materials available? Maybe, maybe not, but there's a high enough chance that it's just not worth the risk, certainly not from the Israeli perspective.

Hamas or another terrorist group getting (and using) nuclear materials covertly from Iran is just about the worst case nightmare scenario for Israel. Israel would have to go through the motions of an investigation before it could retaliate against Iran, and by then, world leaders everywhere would be urging restraint, and if Israel then struck back against Iran in the way that a nuclear attack deserves, it would get the brunt of the world's condemnation, as always. All it could likely do is the typical Gaza / West Bank incursion to try to root out the terrorists with the nuclear materials, but a few years down the road Iran + their proxy could just repeat the trick.

I'm not talking about strategic-sized nukes here that destroy whole cities, but nuclear weapons that contaminate an area, kill perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand people, cause cancers and deformities for generations, etc. Stuff that a terrorist can smuggle in in their backpack, or in their suicide vest, or in their suitcase, or dissolve in the water supply.

In short, non-state actors, without a care for the well-being of their civilian populations, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Based on Iran's recent stance against Israel, and its relationship with terrorist organizations, Iran developing nuclear weapons means that Hamas or Hezbollah may well get their hands on them. And that is completely unacceptable from the Israeli perspective as it poses a near-existential threat. If the US and its allies do not succeed with their route of sanctions/diplomacy to curb Iran's nuclear program, which they likely will not, I predict that Israel will attack Iran and try to destroy all their nuclear facilities and kill as many as possible of their nuclear scientists.

[dre]

I agree, Iran itself is probably sane enough that it wouldn't want to wipe itself out in a nuclear Holocaust. But if it let a bit of fissile material "accidentally" find itself into the hands of Hamas, who happened to use it as, say, a dirty bomb somewhere in Israel, Iran may well calculate that it would escape unscathed.

What's not to buy about it? Do you doubt that terrorist groups would use nuclear materials if they had them? I think it is quite likely. Do you doubt that Iran would supply terrorists with some small quantities of nuclear materials if it had these materials available? Maybe, maybe not, but there's a high enough chance that it's just not worth the risk, certainly not from the Israeli perspective.

Hamas or another terrorist group getting (and using) nuclear materials covertly from Iran is just about the worst case nightmare scenario for Israel. Israel would have to go through the motions of an investigation before it could retaliate against Iran, and by then, world leaders everywhere would be urging restraint, and if Israel then struck back against Iran in the way that a nuclear attack deserves, it would get the brunt of the world's condemnation, as always. All it could likely do is the typical Gaza / West Bank incursion to try to root out the terrorists with the nuclear materials, but a few years down the road Iran + their proxy could just repeat the trick.

I'm not talking about strategic-sized nukes here that destroy whole cities, but nuclear weapons that contaminate an area, kill perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand people, cause cancers and deformities for generations, etc. Stuff that a terrorist can smuggle in in their backpack, or in their suicide vest, or in their suitcase, or dissolve in the water supply.

In short, non-state actors, without a care for the well-being of their civilian populations, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Based on Iran's recent stance against Israel, and its relationship with terrorist organizations, Iran developing nuclear weapons means that Hamas or Hezbollah may well get their hands on them. And that is completely unacceptable from the Israeli perspective as it poses a near-existential threat. If the US and its allies do not succeed with their route of sanctions/diplomacy to curb Iran's nuclear program, which they likely will not, I predict that Israel will attack Iran and try to destroy all their nuclear facilities and kill as many as possible of their nuclear scientists.

In short, non-state actors, without a care for the well-being of their civilian populations, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Based on Iran's recent stance against Israel, and its relationship with terrorist organizations, Iran developing nuclear weapons means that Hamas or Hezbollah may well get their hands on them.

Iran would pay the same price for giving Hezzbolah nuclear weapons as it would if it used them itself. Its one thing shipping them small arms, and small conventional rockets... giving nuclear material to Hezzbolah would post a huge threat to Iran.

As for bombing Iran, that would be nothing short of a war crime IMO. Morally reprehensible... we dont even have a shred of proof that they HAVE a weapons program in fact most intelligence agencies claim that they dont. So all they will doing is bombing legal facilities that are Irans right to operate as a signatory of the NPT.

This is just Iraq all over again... Its not even about the real threat of Iran having nuclear weapons, its about finding a pretense to attack.

This would just be another example of other nations getting dragged into a fight that Israel started with an act of naked aggression. Iran will probably rain Shahab3's down on telaviv and maybe even destroy Israels illegal nuclear weapons program. Countries like Iraq and Lebanon will also get dragged into it, and the rest of the world will pay for it at the pumps.

Id rather see a nuclear standoff personally.

Heres an article about the "terrorists with nukes" talking point.

http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/138969/analysis/20090528_debunking_myths_about_nuclear_weapons_and_terrorism

Edited October 19, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Iran would pay the same price for giving Hezzbolah nuclear weapons as it would if it used them itself.

Why? It wouldn't be immediately obvious and provable that Iran supplied the nuclear materials to Hezbollah. Maybe it was some terrorist cell in Pakistan? Maybe it was some ex-Soviet republic's bad security? An investigation would have to be carried out to legitimize any response against Iran. And, by the time that was done, everyone would be urging Israel to "show restraint". It would hardly be possible for Israel to reduce Tehran to radioactive cinders as its response at that point, as it would be if Iran directly launched nuclear weapons at Israel.

As for bombing Iran, that would be nothing short of a war crime IMO.

Israel's critics call just about everything it does a war crime. Nothing new here.

Morally reprehensible... we dont even have a shred of proof that they HAVE a weapons program in fact most intelligence agencies claim that they dont. So all they will doing is bombing legal facilities that are Irans right to operate as a signatory of the NPT.

Right, which is why it happened yet. Intelligence does not yet show that they are far enough along to warrant being destroyed. If and when they get close enough to the development of nuclear weapons, I think Israel will have no choice but to strike. Whether some people would condemn it as morally reprehensible or not, I wouldn't expect Israel to sit back and do nothing as a threat to its very existence comes into being.

This is just Iraq all over again... Its not even about the real threat of Iran having nuclear weapons, its about finding a pretense to attack.

A pretense to attack? Hardly. Why would Israel want to attack Iran, short of a very real concern about nuclear weapons? It's not like Israel can annex territory in Iran or profit from Iran's oil supply by invading or something.

This would just be another example of other nations getting dragged into a fight that Israel started with an act of naked aggression.

Why do other nations have to get "dragged in"? It is their choice whether to join a conflict or not. No one is forcing them to get involved. By the way, no wars started when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities, or Syria's.

Iran will probably rain Shahab3's down on telaviv and maybe even destroy Israels illegal nuclear weapons program. Countries like Iraq and Lebanon will also get dragged into it, and the rest of the world will pay for it at the pumps.

I think you greatly overestimate Iran's military capabilities.

Id rather see a nuclear standoff personally.

I would too, but as I said, I don't think it's possible there, for the reasons I mentioned.

Heres an article about the "terrorists with nukes" talking point.

http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/138969/analysis/20090528_debunking_myths_about_nuclear_weapons_and_terrorism

It's generally not worthwhile posting links to sites that you have to register for, since few people will be able to view them.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

As for bombing Iran, that would be nothing short of a war crime IMO. Morally reprehensible...

It would be everything short of a "war crime", as so called international law recognizes such action as a crime against the peace, not a war crime.

[DogOnPorch]

This would just be another example of other nations getting dragged into a fight that Israel started with an act of naked aggression. Iran will probably rain Shahab3's down on telaviv and maybe even destroy Israels illegal nuclear weapons program. Countries like Iraq and Lebanon will also get dragged into it, and the rest of the world will pay for it at the pumps.

What would be another example of Israel dragging us all into a war that they started with an act of naked aggression?

[bush_cheney2004]

What would be another example of Israel dragging us all into a war that they started with an act of naked aggression?

Maybe he thinks Israel started WW2?

[dre]

Why? It wouldn't be immediately obvious and provable that Iran supplied the nuclear materials to Hezbollah. Maybe it was some terrorist cell in Pakistan? Maybe it was some ex-Soviet republic's bad security? An investigation would have to be carried out to legitimize any response against Iran. And, by the time that was done, everyone would be urging Israel to "show restraint". It would hardly be possible for Israel to reduce Tehran to radioactive cinders as its response at that point, as it would be if Iran directly launched nuclear weapons at Israel.

Israel's critics call just about everything it does a war crime. Nothing new here.

Right, which is why it happened yet. Intelligence does not yet show that they are far enough along to warrant being destroyed. If and when they get close enough to the development of nuclear weapons, I think Israel will have no choice but to strike. Whether some people would condemn it as morally reprehensible or not, I wouldn't expect Israel to sit back and do nothing as a threat to its very existence comes into being.

A pretense to attack? Hardly. Why would Israel want to attack Iran, short of a very real concern about nuclear weapons? It's not like Israel can annex territory in Iran or profit from Iran's oil supply by invading or something.

Why do other nations have to get "dragged in"? It is their choice whether to join a conflict or not. No one is forcing them to get involved. By the way, no wars started when Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities, or Syria's.

I think you greatly overestimate Iran's military capabilities.

I would too, but as I said, I don't think it's possible there, for the reasons I mentioned.

It's generally not worthwhile posting links to sites that you have to register for, since few people will be able to view them.

You should register for that site.

I think you greatly overestimate Iran's military capabilities.

I think you underestimate Irans ability to retaliate. Theres a number of different means at their disposal. 40% of the worlds seaborne oil supply have to navigate through water in range of Iranian anti ship missiles. 15-20 huge oil tankers per day that are literally sitting ducks. Iran has numerous different missiles capable of reaching Israel, and it has proxies in Iraq and Lebanon capable of causing a lot of trouble as well.

In any case such an act would be shear stupidity for a whole host of reasons. Not the least of which is that it would generate a lot of new support for the government there.

Israel will simply be trading an enemy with a nuclear program, for an enemy that still has a nuclear program but now ALSO has a very good reason reason to use force against Israel in response.

Sounds about as smart of Israels invasion of Lebanon in 2006 to "wipe out Hezzbolla"... You know the one that made Hezbolla more powerfull and more popular.

And theres other problems as well... Iran has developed a naval tactic called swarming, that has the ability not only to sink every oil tanker that goes through the straits but can also do heavy damage to the US Naval ships.

Iran has honed a swarming tactic, in which small and lightly armed speedboats come at far larger warships from different directions. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated just such an attack and in it the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times last January.

"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack," Lt. Gen. K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who commanded the swarming force, told the Times. "The whole thing was over in five, maybe 10 minutes."

These concerns about the impact on the global economy, and regional stability, and the knowledge Iran can cause a lot of trouble if attacked is the reason this hasnt happened, even though its been discussed since about 6 or 7 years now.

The reality is that while message-board hawks are predicting an easy and effective operation, and dusting off your "Mission Accomplished" banners... people who really understand the dynamics over there are warning governments that this is a really really stupid idea.

I would too, but as I said, I don't think it's possible there, for the reasons I mentioned.

No the only reason you gave is that Iran might give nuclear weapons to its proxies. You could say the exact same thing about any other nuclear power, but its unlikely and implausible and theres certainly nothing that suggests MAD doctrine would not apply here.

Edited October 19, 2010 by dre

[jbg]

No the only reason you gave is that Iran might give nuclear weapons to its proxies. You could say the exact same thing about any other nuclear power, but its unlikely and implausible and theres certainly nothing that suggests MAD doctrine would not apply here.

You haven't told us why it's implausible that they'd give nukes to their proxies.

[Bonam]

No the only reason you gave is that Iran might give nuclear weapons to its proxies. You could say the exact same thing about any other nuclear power, but its unlikely and implausible and theres certainly nothing that suggests MAD doctrine would not apply here.

Really? Which other nuclear power can you say the exact same thing about? Which terrorist proxies is the US gonna give nuclear weapons to? Who is China gonna give nuclear weapons to? It doesn't have many proxies. Not gonna give em to North Korea that's for sure. Who is India gonna give nukes to? The UK? France? Russia? Unsurprisingly, the most dangerous (in this regard) country that has nuclear weapons right now is Pakistan, though it is officially a Western ally.

Iran is a whole other story.

Look, if it was like Egypt or Turkey going after nukes, I'd be all with you, MAD away. But not Iran.

[bud]

Really? Which other nuclear power can you say the exact same thing about? Which terrorist proxies is the US gonna give nuclear weapons to? Who is China gonna give nuclear weapons to? It doesn't have many proxies. Not gonna give em to North Korea that's for sure. Who is India gonna give nukes to? The UK? France? Russia? Unsurprisingly, the most dangerous (in this regard) country that has nuclear weapons right now is Pakistan, though it is officially a Western ally.

Iran is a whole other story.

Look, if it was like Egypt or Turkey going after nukes, I'd be all with you, MAD away. But not Iran.

iran is not the crazy, aggressive rogue state that you and most of the mainstream media tries to portray it as. one only needs to look at the track records of the countries in the middle east to realize that once again, the zionist bots are pretty much trying to paint israel's track record onto iran. you can't even name one aggressive military behaviour iran has done in the past century. then you look at israel's military behaviour just in the past decade and it's easy to pick out the bullshitters who post under these debates.

[bush_cheney2004]

...then you look at israel's military behaviour just in the past decade and it's easy to pick out the bullshitters who post under these debates.

LOL! It sure is easy to spot the "bullshitters"....which of these nations attacked Canada?

• 
  Iraq
  Haiti
  Serbia
  Bosnia
  Afghanistan
  

[naomiglover]

LOL! It sure is easy to spot the "bullshitters"....which of these nations attacked Canada?

• 
  Iraq
  Haiti
  Serbia
  Bosnia
  Afghanistan
  

So, Canada = Israel. Excellent comparison.

Edited October 19, 2010 by naomiglover

[bush_cheney2004]

there you go again with your impotent attempt at comparing israel's behaviour to canada's. some of the canadian missions may have been mistakes and most of them were carried out poorly, but none were done for the reason of protecting and continuing an illegal and brutal occupation and annexation of land.

Not only was Canada never attacked (unlike Israel), it engaged in such "brutal" and aggressive military actions for presumed collective security and self interests related to UN and NATO objectives. Israel doesn't have this political luxury, but it is just as much a sovereign state as Canada and will act for its own interests just the same.

Why are you not consistent on such matters when it comes to your own nation's aggressive military adventures?

Edited October 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

So, Canada = Israel. Excellent comparison.

Israel is a sovereign state just like Canada....get use to it.

[naomiglover]

Israel is a sovereign state just like Canada....get use to it.

Is this how you justify comparing Israel's military actions and violations of international law to Canada? By saying they are both Sovereign? How is being a sovereign state justify violating human rights and committing war crimes?

It's too bad that Israel would not be able to continue doing what it's doing without the extremely generous economic and political help from the United States.

[GostHacked]

You haven't told us why it's implausible that they'd give nukes to their proxies.

The same reasons why it is implausible that the US would give weapons to their proxies. wooooooooo!!

[Wild Bill]

I think you underestimate Irans ability to retaliate. Theres a number of different means at their disposal. 40% of the worlds seaborne oil supply have to navigate through water in range of Iranian anti ship missiles. 15-20 huge oil tankers per day that are literally sitting ducks. Iran has numerous different missiles capable of reaching Israel, and it has proxies in Iraq and Lebanon capable of causing a lot of trouble as well.

If Iran started attacking oil tankers willy nilly, would that not be considered a declaration of war against each and every country that was operating one of those tankers? In effect, would Iran not be building up a considerable number of enemies besides Israel and/or the US?

Would not some of these countries be Iran's own Arab neighbours?

Would this be a positive move for Iran's interests?

[bush_cheney2004]

The same reasons why it is implausible that the US would give weapons to their proxies. wooooooooo!!

But the US does give nuclear weapons to proxies...has for years. Canada, Turkey, Germany, and other NATO partners.

Edited October 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Is this how you justify comparing Israel's military actions and violations of international law to Canada? By saying they are both Sovereign? How is being a sovereign state justify violating human rights and committing war crimes?

Ask Ottawa. My only purpose in such comparisons is to point out your biased, anti-Israeli perspective. How do you think Puerto Rico came to be a US possession? Examine your own country's actions abroad before criticizing a nation that has actually been attacked and faces a far greater security threat at its border.

It's too bad that Israel would not be able to continue doing what it's doing without the extremely generous economic and political help from the United States.

No less than Canada, the greatest recipient of US political and economic benefit.

[GostHacked]

But the US does give nuclear weapons to proxies...has for years. Canada, Turkey, Germany, and other NATO partners.

But Canada does not have any nuclear weapons, unless that is all off the records and off the books. Which would not surprise me.