Will Israel eventually have a pre-emptive strike on Iran?

Post Reply New Topic

The point is that Iran is not pointing nukes at Israel and Israel is pointing nukes at a lot of places. Iran doesn't have nukes and Israel does.

I could get behind it if rather than preemptively striking the nuclear facilities they took out the revolutionary council and it's apparatus of control, given the recent unrest in the country I think the Iranian people could be trusted to take care of the rest if the guns pointed at their collective heads were to be "removed". I think that the majority of Iranians have had quite enough of being an international pariah so that a bunch of old men can play their version of international brinksmanship, and that if they were to overthrow their government building nukes would not be high on their to do list in the immediate aftermath.

Quite frankly if I were a political leader in Iran from the "old guard" I'd do whatever the Shia equivalent of a happy dance is if Israel did this. Nothing would take the mind of Iran's populace off of the gang of idiots currently running the place like an attack from another country.



With nothing but conventional airstrikes? I don't see how they can effectively do either, though I guess there's a chance they could do something to Iran's nuke abilities. Certainly they wouldn't be able to do much vis a vis Iran's conventional forces, whatever their current state of readiness.

After all, Israel couldn't get Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon in 2006, and that was next door, with air bombardment followed by -- if not exactly a fullscale invasion -- certainly the commitment of a large number of on-the-ground troops. The Israeli air force blew up a lot of stuff, but when the smoke cleared the Hezzies were as firmly in control as before. And that also included fighting the Israeli Army to what I would consider a draw. And I believe the Israeli military would agree with me.



Actually I'd be a lot more worried about Iraq. if Israel traveled through Iraqi airspace to get to Iran, and I don't see how they couldn't, I think things would get very ugly for the US there, at least as bad as 2004-6. probably worse. It would sure as hell sweep some sort of anti-American coalition into power in those elections the Bush Administration treated like some bizarre talisman.

And if Iran did decide to make a move, well, I hope there won't be any US aircraft carriers in the area, assuming the so-called "sunburn missiles" work as advertised...



Last I heard, the US Navy has no defense against these things, and has nothing coming on-line any time soon to function as such. Of course, who knows if they'd work as advertised, or if the Iranians would be able to use them as they're supposed to be used, or if there is some super-dooper Tom Clancy solution no one knows about, or if Russia did what it sometimes does and sells a debased version of the product that doesn't work as well as what they keep for themselves, etc...but Iran theoretically has the capability to sink a few, perhaps more than a few, US ships, something Saddam never had and never would have had.



Sorry about that. Will fix the error, if it will let me.



The issue was being seriously discussed a few years ago, whether or not he was joking.

Iran is an enemy of the US and the western world and Israel is not. I know who I'd rather have nukes. It's not about what's fair for both sides.

And I agree Israel has their problems to but if your argument is they have nuclear weapons therefor their enemies should be allowed to have them too, I have to disagree.

Iran is trying to produce the medical isotopes that save the lives of thousands of patients. If Israel decides to commit aggression to prevent Iranian doctors from treating their patients then this shows their moral bankruptcy.

Israel has a far greater quarrel with the Western world than Iran does. Something about those six million... so I would more trust Iran with the bomb.

Jacoby -

the point with the protests is that they are winning over large sections of the police and army (á la Petrograd 1917) who, in the last round of demos, refused orders to fire on the protesters - the only remaining element in all this is a general strike, that would be game over for the ayatollah's regime. The anniversary celebrations of the revolution are going on now - this could be bloody or bloody marvellous

But the West is starting to be suspicious of Iran since it is enriching uranium to a higher percentage then neccessary. I think, if I remember right, that medical isotopes only need 20% enrichment while nukes need like 80% enrichment.

And as nutty as the religious maniacs running Iran might be, do you seriously think they might strike Israel with even one bomb while Israel is calculated to have 200? They are not that crazy. But they did notice that the atomic explosions created by North Korea cooled down Bush's threats effectively. Why should not the Iranians want the same counter force which is politically so useful?

Please tell me you're not thinking that Arab = Muslim and Muslim = Arab. In fact, until very recently (I think the 1990s) most people of Arab descent living in the US were Christians of some denomination or other, who had either fled or had ancestors who had fled from the joy of being a Christian in country dominated by the Religion of Peace. And even today somewhere between 5% to 10% (estimates vary) of the population of Egypt remains Christian. And good luck to them. They need it.

In any event, the Druze consider themselves Muslim, but most other Muslims do not, probably in the same way Mormons consider themselves Christian, but a lot of Christians do not think they are. This is because both Mormons and Druze have made additions to these faiths (extra prophets, new holy books) that orthodox followers consider both unacceptable and heretical. But in the West "heretical" means one thing, and in the Islamic world quite another. As in, the Druze historically got slaughtered in pogroms from time to time and the Mormons run one state (Utah) and arguably two more (Arizona and Idaho).

Anyway, the Druze are ethnically Arab, and the Druze serve in Israel's military and die on her behalf. And have been doing so since the 1950s, when they requested that their exemption to the military draft be lifted.

I'm more worried about them missing Israel and hitting New York or Washington...
They hate us more than they hate Israel.

And do you expect a "mistake" of that order would not result in massive retaliation?

And besides, is it really probable that Iran is aiming to develop nukes yet no one in Iran dare to admit the "truth". (the "truth" that Iran is pursuing the bomb)

I knew that not all Arabs were Muslim. But what group of Arabs LOVE being occupied by Israel and LOVE the siege and LOVE having their homes evicted because Jewish settlers "need to move in"?

Perhaps the Israelis should drop guns instead of bombs, and drop them over the populace, sounds like it might be more effective long term.

Israel and the US will plan an attack, just like 9/11, go through with the attack. The US will blame it on Iran and then invade Iran, while at the same time take away more of our liberties.

[quote="Jacoby"
I think Iran pointing nukes at Israel and our troops in the middle east and Israel pointing nukes back probably would be worse for the region than if Israel bombed just their nuclear facilities.[/quote]

Iran doesn't have any nukes and the IAAEC inspectors keep saying that and that they aren't building any.

Remember Saddam and his "nooks" and "weapons of mass destruction"?

Saddam allowed the weapons inspectors back in. The inspectors inspected and said "We haven't found anything. Give us another few weeks and we will know for sure"

But Bush said "We haven't a minute to waste! We must invade NOW!"

And so they did.

How many "nooks" and "weapons of mass destruction" did they find?
Err... none.

But did anyone say "Sorry, our bad. We will go home now"

No. We are still killing them.