Is Israel about to bomb bomb bomb Iran?

kactus · November 9, 2011

Like the US and coalition in Iraq? Or Operation Babylon - re: Israel destroying Iraq reactor in 1981?

Actually, they are being punished by Iran trying to make nukes so they don't become Iraq or Afghanistan. I don't blame Iran one bit, and any sane country would do exactly as Iran is doing now. That said, who the heck wants Iran with nukes?...though odds are very low that Iran would use them despite Western/Israeli propaganda.

This is so going down. Israel will attack Iran's sites, and with Western support.

Attacking a sovereign country like Iran and creating fear that it might attack Israel and the wider world is only half the story from one sided argument. An argument debatable as it could lead to the death of many civilians.

This is exactly my point before some people jump on the band wagon and accuse me of having subjective opinion. Let's look at the rationale for having nuclear capability as a deterrent:

1- Both neighbouring countries of Iran are invaded by US and allies

2- For many years even before Ahmadinejad came to power and Iran had a relatively more moderate president called Khatami there have been constant rhetorics of attack echoing the news headlines from US and Israel

3- North Korea has nuclear capability and has become immnue to an attack

4- There's shia/ sunni card to play to isolate Iran further, which has been the case for many years

5- Systematic sanctions are hurting Iranian people not the regime contrary to the popular belief

6- All other countries except US and Israel have shown restraint but are being put under pressure for approval of collective punishment

In the face of these realities it might explain why acceleration of becoming nuclear might be important in the face of an attack. Let's also not forget the current hey ho that started in North Africa and now contagous to the Middle East by bombing the shit out of them to bring peaceful "arab spring".

Pardon the exprssion but you can not allow to be shafted in the back and then say thank you for doing it.

bush_cheney2004 · November 9, 2011

To the layman...a nuke is a nuke. But really, there's no comparison between what countries like Pakistan have (tiny, unreliable) and your typical modern TN device (freakin' huge).

I agree Doktor...let them have their fun.

kactus · November 9, 2011

You hope Iran's tiny device will neutralize the Teller-Ulam design. But, I wouldn't count on it.

Yep and I thought you said earlier tiny Iran has ICBM.

wyly · November 9, 2011

Wyly, Israel is a very small country. If IRAN used nukes in a first strike Israel would be GONE! Period and end of story!

Why do you think the idea is so attractive to an Islamic fundamentalist? To such a personality, the negative repercussions of such an act would be worth it!

One of those Iranian leaders said it himself recently, that if Israel were to be wiped out and Iran only damaged, even with a large loss of life, it would be a cheap price to pay!

for iran to nuke israel serves no purpose, it doesn't help the palestinians gain state as the damage from a nuclear strike will carry over into palestinian lands...you're losing sight of the fact the entire conflict in the ME centers on the palestinians/islam and zionism, if it were not for the zionist aggression towards palestinians iran would have no issue with israel...as hard as israel tries to frame this as a israel vs iran scenario it's still zionism vs islam...all the tension in ME is a result of zionism with backing from the christian west persecuting the predominately muslim palestinians..

You are expecting a fundamentalist religious mindset to be rational You would not have allowed that with Harper or heaven forbid! Stockwell Day. Yet you credit the rulers of Iran israel?

Of course, one could never call you partisan!...try step back from your preconceived position and look at the entire issue...

DogOnPorch · November 9, 2011

Yep and I thought you said earlier tiny Iran has ICBM.

They are working on them, yes. Would you like to discuss rocket technology?

Edited November 9, 2011 by DogOnPorch

wyly · November 9, 2011

Yep and I thought you said earlier tiny Iran has ICBM.

the nukes that hit japan were primative and tiny in yield but the effect was devastating regardless, in the end size don't matter much when it comes to nukes...

DogOnPorch · November 9, 2011

all the tension in ME is a result of zionism with backing from the christian west persecuting the predominately muslim palestinians..

Sunni and Shia dancing hand in hand singing Kumbaya...got it.

DogOnPorch · November 9, 2011

the nukes that hit japan were primative and tiny in yield but the effect was devastating regardless, in the end size don't matter much when it comes to nukes...

As mentioned...to the layman, a nuke is a nuke.

kactus · November 9, 2011

the nukes that hit japan were primative and tiny in yield but the effect was devastating regardless, in the end size don't matter much when it comes to nukes...

My response was in relation to the fact that irans military is portrayed best as confined to rusty Russian military weaponry sometimes and at other times when it suits the argument is overplayed by having sophisticated inter continental ballistic missiles...

Coming back to your point US deployment of nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was partly in response to defeat a japan in attacking and destroying US navy.

In this case Iran is the country subject to the attack without attacking anyone in the first place conventionally or hypothetically nuclear. I am not disputing what you are saying of the degree of devastation by nuclear attack. You can argue that a large country like Iran with 80mil population has a lot more to lose.

Edited November 9, 2011 by kactus

dre · November 9, 2011

My response was in relation to the fact that irans military is portrayed best as confined to rusty Russian military weaponry sometimes and when it suits the argument is overplayed by having sophisticated inter continental ballistic missiles...

Coming back to your point US deployment of nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was borne in response to a country (japan) attacking and destroying US navy. In this case Iran is the country subject to the attack without attacking anyone in the first place. I am not disputing what you are saying.

Thing is the people pining for war will just ignore whatever doesnt suit them.

We all know how this works. You alledge imminent danger, and active WMD and nuke programs to justify aggression. Then after they carpet bomb the country and dont find the goods, theyll make bizzare claims about nuclear facilities in the back of trucks that had been hidden or spirited out of the country.

Theres really no point in debating motivation with people who just like to blow stuff up. The people who want war with Iran would want it regardless of what Iran was doing. THey are the exact same people that wanted war with Iraq, and were dumb enough to believe all the propoganda then.

Edited November 9, 2011 by dre

Moonlight Graham · November 9, 2011

I wouldnt be so sure. Remember, this wont just be a few airstrikes. This will start open war. Irans nuclear program is scattered across about 300 different sites. A pretty massive bombing campaign would be required, and Iran would respond. Iran can cause the west a lot of grief if this happens, in 4 different ways.... through its proxies in shia-governed Iraq, though its proxies in Lebanon and Palestine, by directly counter attacking with military assets, and buy sinking oil tankers in the Tiran strait.

Western countries that want to play in the game know this. They know that starting a war with Iran will mean a very expensive regional conflict, that will require more than just bombing campaign. It will likely lead to open war, regime change, nation building, and another open ended conflict. Plus further damage to the global financial system.

Iran's entire nuclear program wouldn't need to be destroyed. I thought they only have 1 nuclear reactor and 2 uranium enrichment sites (maybe they have a 3rd or 4th site in secret?). Destroy those and they can't produce nukes.

Given this, there would be no need for regime change/invasion. Airstrikes were enough to take out Iraq's nuke program threat. Iran's sites are buried within mountains, plus lessons learned would say such airstrikes would be much harder if possible at all. But if Israel thought they could get at them they'd try it.

Regional war is a possibility if there's an attack. But would Israel be willing to risk that compared to an Iran with nukes? Israel wouldn't need to ask US/Nato permission, we would be dragged into it whether we liked it or not. US wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. NATO acted in Libya despite a crappy economy.

GostHacked · November 9, 2011

Iran's entire nuclear program wouldn't need to be destroyed. I thought they only have 1 nuclear reactor and 2 uranium enrichment sites (maybe they have a 3rd or 4th site in secret?). Destroy those and they can't produce nukes.

Given this, there would be no need for regime change/invasion. Airstrikes were enough to take out Iraq's nuke program threat. Iran's sites are buried within mountains, plus lessons learned would say such airstrikes would be much harder if possible at all. But if Israel thought they could get at them they'd try it.

Correct, Iraq's nuclear ambitions died in the first Gulf War. They never had the chance to resurrect the program.

Regional war is a possibility if there's an attack. But would Israel be willing to risk that compared to an Iran with nukes? Israel wouldn't need to ask US/Nato permission, we would be dragged into it whether we liked it or not. US wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. NATO acted in Libya despite a crappy economy.

See that's the thing, once a country is known to have nukes, they are left alone. We invading North Korea anytime soon? Any oil there?

dre · November 9, 2011

Iran's entire nuclear program wouldn't need to be destroyed. I thought they only have 1 nuclear reactor and 2 uranium enrichment sites (maybe they have a 3rd or 4th site in secret?). Destroy those and they can't produce nukes.

Given this, there would be no need for regime change/invasion. Airstrikes were enough to take out Iraq's nuke program threat. Iran's sites are buried within mountains, plus lessons learned would say such airstrikes would be much harder if possible at all. But if Israel thought they could get at them they'd try it.

Regional war is a possibility if there's an attack. But would Israel be willing to risk that compared to an Iran with nukes? Israel wouldn't need to ask US/Nato permission, we would be dragged into it whether we liked it or not. US wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. NATO acted in Libya despite a crappy economy.

Given this, there would be no need for regime change/invasion.

Yes there would. A bombing compaign would not be the end of it. Iran has assets all over the region. They will counter-attack both with military assets and by proxy, and things will escalate from there. At some point youre going to wind up having to put boots on the ground. And a large percentage of the world oil supply is delivered by tankers that basically have to drive along Irans shoreline for a few hundred miles. If those ships start hitting mines, or getting sunk by missiles, and need military exports you are going to get some pretty major price instability and economic consequences. This is a problem on two different fronts because anything that increases oil prices will increase Irans revenue and their ability to fund a nuclear program.

The other problem is that building nuclear facitilities isnt all that hard. The hardest part is learning how to run a large cascade of centrifuges. And once you have that technology and expertise you can build facilities more quickly.

Thats this idea has been around for about 10 years now, and nobody has found it all that compelling. Its just a dumb idea and thats why it didnt happen a long time ago.

Regional war is a possibility if there's an attack. But would Israel be willing to risk that compared to an Iran with nukes? Israel wouldn't need to ask US/Nato permission, we would be dragged into it whether we liked it or not. US wouldn't just sit back and do nothing. NATO acted in Libya despite a crappy economy.

Yeah thats the problem with offering free protection on the school yard to the lippiest and most aggresive kid. He will hide behind your back and make obsene gestures... and get you into fights.

Anyhow we are going to do what we are going to do. Maybe another war is in the cards. But dont be stupid enough to believe the same starry eyed rhetoric we heard about Iraq. Remember how that was going to take about 6 months and cost a "few million dollars"? By some estimates its over 3 trillion now. The most expensive single project in the history of the human race. Starting a regional conflict in the area where much of the world gets the energy to power its economy will be an astronomically expensive proposition that will likely engage us for decades.

Edited November 9, 2011 by dre

dre · November 9, 2011

But would Israel be willing to risk that

Of course! They would absolutely love to be able to trick the west into spending trillions of its dollars deposing the Iranian leadership and carpet bombing its cities, military assets, and anything else that moved.

I definately agree with you there. But I was talking about the implications for western countries.

bush_cheney2004 · November 9, 2011

...We all know how this works. You alledge imminent danger, and active WMD and nuke programs to justify aggression. Then after they carpet bomb the country and dont find the goods, theyll make bizzare claims about nuclear facilities in the back of trucks that had been hidden or spirited out of the country.

...and if that doesn't do the trick, we'll just take a card out of the human rights and "Responsibility to Protect" magic hat. Then Michael Ignatieff can write another book.

Wild Bill · November 9, 2011

for iran to nuke israel serves no purpose, it doesn't help the palestinians gain state as the damage from a nuclear strike will carry over into palestinian lands...you're losing sight of the fact the entire conflict in the ME centers on the palestinians/islam and zionism, if it were not for the zionist aggression towards palestinians iran would have no issue with israel...as hard as israel tries to frame this as a israel vs iran scenario it's still zionism vs islam...all the tension in ME is a result of zionism with backing from the christian west persecuting the predominately muslim palestinians..

You are expecting a fundamentalist religious mindset to be rational You would not have allowed that with Harper or heaven forbid! Stockwell Day. Yet you credit the rulers of Iran israel?

Of course, one could never call you partisan!...try step back from your preconceived position and look at the entire issue...

You really believe that Iran gives a damn for the Palestinians? In all these years they have done diddley-squat for them! No food, no aid, no taking them in as Iranian citizens. Nothing but giving them money and smuggling in weapons for the Palestinians to commit terrorist attacks on Israel.

To be fair, none of the other Arab countries have done bugger all either. They only acted to wage a few wars, which they lost. The Palestinians are still a displaced people, in the same spot they were over 60 years ago.

No, IMO the issue is quite clear. Iran only cares about destroying Israel. The Palestinians are merely convenient cannon fodder.

You know, it's likely that if Israel launches a strike the damage may reveal to the world just how advanced the Iranian nuclear program really is. They already have the missile capability.

The only hope I see is a popular uprising from the people of Iran, particularly the younger ones. I don't believe that the Iranian people ever intended to trade a dictator like the Shah for a religious dictatorship. Once the mullahs took power the idea of free elections just disappeared. And they have all the guns! Still, the Iranians are a very educated people, well connected into the world's news media. They may not be that happy about their government dragging them into another war.

olp1fan · November 9, 2011

The more I think about this the less I see Israel being capable of bombing all of Iran's underground labs

Russia and China have said they will veto any attempt at tougher sanctions so forget about that

So 2 things can happen...

Israel and the world will have to deal with a nuclear Iran

OR

A possible world war

I prefer the 1st option personally

bush_cheney2004 · November 9, 2011

....OR

A possible world war

I prefer the 1st option personally

Well, it is an option. Also, I am tired of old WW2 TV shows on Netflix or DVD. Would be nice to get some new World War III productions in widescreen HD. Don't get me wrong, I love Vic Morrow in Combat!, but I can only watch the same episodes so many times.

wyly · November 9, 2011

My response was in relation to the fact that irans military is portrayed best as confined to rusty Russian military weaponry sometimes and at other times when it suits the argument is overplayed by having sophisticated inter continental ballistic missiles...

Coming back to your point US deployment of nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was partly in response to defeat a japan in attacking and destroying US navy.

In this case Iran is the country subject to the attack without attacking anyone in the first place conventionally or hypothetically nuclear. I am not disputing what you are saying of the degree of devastation by nuclear attack. You can argue that a large country like Iran with 80mil population has a lot more to lose.

iran is rapidly updating it's technology, it has no intention of being unprepared for war as it was with iraq, it already has accurate ballistic missiles capable of hitting israel, whether they have conventional or nuclear(unlikely) warhead is the question...iran is a much larger country than israel if it came down to a nuclear exchange it would only take a few hits on major urban centers and israel is no longer viable, and you'd see a large exodus of people no longer willing to live there...iran like japan would survive and recover...

GostHacked · November 9, 2011

why dont they just keep trojaning irans nuclear plants? cyber war > real war

True, but then you got the new variant of Stuxnet called DUKU, once you release a virus into the wild, it will come back to haunt you. Pandora's Box.

bush_cheney2004 · November 9, 2011

iran is rapidly updating it's technology, it has no intention of being unprepared for war as it was with iraq,

Yea, because it saw how the Americans made child's play out of Iraq's old Soviet and Chinese crap. Israel don't need no "updating"....it is always ready. Iran couldn't even bomb Osirak correctly...they screwed up the mission. The Israelis did not.

GostHacked · November 9, 2011

Yea, because it saw how the Americans made child's play out of Iraq's old Soviet and Chinese crap. Israel don't need no "updating"....it is always ready. Iran couldn't even bomb Osirak correctly...they screwed up the mission. The Israelis did not.

All Iran had at the time were those crappy F-14 Tomcats. I think some F-15s as well.

Edited November 9, 2011 by GostHacked

wyly · November 9, 2011

You really believe that Iran gives a damn for the Palestinians? In all these years they have done diddley-squat for them! No food, no aid, no taking them in as Iranian citizens. Nothing but giving them money and smuggling in weapons for the Palestinians to commit terrorist attacks on Israel.

oh my...other than repeat propaganda bs have you ever made an honest attempt to understand the situation?...there are something like 4.7million palestinian refugees scattered throughout the world why should any country legitimatize ethnic cleansing by giving them citizenship?...and how does any country give aid to palestians while israel blockades the borders?...how about the country that occupies palestine obey the geneva convention in that regard and do it, no that wouldn't work they're to concerned with dispossessing them of their land...

To be fair, none of the other Arab countries have done bugger all either. They only acted to wage a few wars, which they lost. The Palestinians are still a displaced people, in the same spot they were over 60 years ago.

to be really fair your history knowledge is very weak...

No, IMO the issue is quite clear. Iran only cares about destroying Israel. The Palestinians are merely convenient cannon fodder.

ya and the chinese and ruskies are lurking in the arctic waiting to steal our ice flows...why they would do that no one can explain but hey logic never played a part in this before so why change now...iran is set on destroying israel for no apparent reason...

You know, it's likely that if Israel launches a strike the damage may reveal to the world just how advanced the Iranian nuclear program really is. They already have the missile capability.

not with out US assistance/permission

The only hope I see is a popular uprising from the people of Iran, particularly the younger ones. I don't believe that the Iranian people ever intended to trade a dictator like the Shah for a religious dictatorship. Once the mullahs took power the idea of free elections just disappeared. And they have all the guns! Still, the Iranians are a very educated people, well connected into the world's news media. They may not be that happy about their government dragging them into another war.

their government never dragged them into any war before, that was iraqi aggression with US assistance, and the youth of iran have no recollection of a war that occurred before they were born and they will unite should they be attacked by israel/usa despite any reservations they have with their government...