Iranian President gone mad

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I do see American cruise missiles or Israeli fighters striking Iranian targets. (Does anyone know if the Israelis have the means to strike at such a distance?)

Yes, they have the means. However, they would have to fly over Iraq, making it look as though the US was in collusion, whether or not they were.

from... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm

The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I [i for Israel, no Iran] Ra’am (Thunder) aircraft, the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, in January 1998, and as of early 2004 had an inventory of 25 aircraft. According to the Israeli Air Force, this aircraft has a range of 4,450 km, which equates to a combat radius of 2,225 km. Deliveries of the F-16I Sufa (Storm) began in early 2004. This heavily modified aircraft, with massive conformal fuel tanks, has a reported combat radius of 2,100 km. Probable strike targets such as Bushehr and Esfahan lie about 1,500 km from Israel.

The 2,060-km strike on the Palestine Liberation Organization's headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, in retaliation for the murder of three Israelis on a yacht in Cyprus, was the IAF's furthest attack from home to date. The F-16s which bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981 were not refueled and returned home on their last drops of fuel.

On 21 September 2004 Israel acknowledged that it was buying 500 BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs, which could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The bombs, which can penetrate more than 7 feet of reinforced concrete, are part of a $319 million package of air-launched bombs being sold to Israel under America's military aid program.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reported in October 2004 that Israel had completed plans for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Der Spiegel reported that a special unit of the Mossad had received order in July 2004 to prepare a detailed plan, which had been delivered to the Israeli Air Force. The source for the report, an IAF pilot, said the plan to take out Iran's nuclear sites was "complex, yet manageable." Israel's plan assumes that Iran has six nuclear sites, all of which would be attacked simultaneously.

It would be difficult for Israel to strike at Iran without American knowledge, since the mission would have to be flown through American [formerly Iraqi] air space. Even if the United States did not actively participate with operations inside Iranian air space, the US would be a passive participant by virtue of allowing Israeli aircraft unhindered passage. In the eyes of the world, it would generally appear to be a joint US-Israeli enterprise, any denials notwithstanding. Indeed, it is quite probable that Iran would not be able to readily determine the ultimate origins of the strike, given Iran's relatively modest air defense capabilities. Thus, even if the strike were entirely of American origin, Israel would be implicated. When asked in August 2004 about Israeli threats to attack Iran, Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, declined to say whether the United States would support such action by Israel.

[Black Dog]

The former Iranian president had an answer to that. He said that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons they must use them on Israel. You see, there aren't that many Jews, and they're all in one place. So even though millions of Muslims would be killed in the retailation, the Muslim world would survive, but Israel would not. God would smile on his Muslim children and welcome them into paradise as reward for sacrificing themselves for the good of Islam.

I wonder: would that include sacrificing the third holiest site in Islam?

Anyway, this formulation is crap. It won't happen. As I've said a million times before, these people aren't stupid, and they aren't about to throw away their power here for the vague promise of the afterlife, no matter how ferverent their beliefs might seem to us.

I took that to imply a "moral equivalence" of the Iranian and Israeli governments.

Well, then I withdraw my comment that no one said anything of the sort. And, yeah, I would draw a equivilance between Israel and Iran, as well as North Korea, India, Pakistan or any other nation that is willing to excrabate the problem of nuclear proliferation.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

And, yeah, I would draw a equivilance between Israel and Iran, as well as North Korea, India, Pakistan...

With the exception of India, this statement of yours shows what a morally bankrupt person you really are.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

The former Iranian president had an answer to that. He said that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons they must use them on Israel. You see, there aren't that many Jews, and they're all in one place. So even though millions of Muslims would be killed in the retailation, the Muslim world would survive, but Israel would not.

Technically, there are Jews everywhere, they are not 'all in one place'. So, theoretically, calling for the elimination of Israel is not the same as calling for the elimination of the world's Jewry. In fact, Israel could be 'eliminated' without a single loss of life, were it to be a truly democratic nation, as the Jews are the smallest group of 'Semites' in the region.

I harbour no illusion that any such move to disband/eliminate the State of Israel would be peaceful, by any stretch, but Israel would abandon democracy if it indeed became a threat.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Interesting, Iran and Israel used to be allies...

In 1978, domestic turmoil swept the country as a result of religious and political opposition to the Shah's rule and programs--especially SAVAK, the hated internal security and intelligence service. In January 1979, the Shah left Iran; he died abroad several years after. On February 1, 1979, exiled religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from France to direct a revolution resulting in a new, theocratic republic guided by Islamic principles.

Prior to the Revolution, Iran and Israel had been de facto allies in the Middle East.

from.... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...nist-entity.htm

However, pervasive rumour-mongering, combined with actual fact, on both sides, has muddied the waters a bit.

from.. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...israel-maps.htm

On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

A map of 'Greater Israel'...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...israel-map5.jpg