Bet on the day Iran sites will get bombed.

lostexpectation

April 10th 2006

Nuttzz

about the same time as the North Korean ones do....You honestly think the yanks are going to stretch their forces even further? The cure to an increasingly unpopular war is not another unpopular war....

Wibbs

I wouldn't be too sure about that. An airstrike or cruise missle attack would be a very easy and safe(for them) thing to do. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the US tried this, possibly with Israeli backing or cooperation. After all it's Israel that would have the most to fear from any Iranian nuclear program. Well that would be the official line anyway. The Iranian prez doesn't do his country any favours with his increasingly nutty ranting either.

Maskhadov

Israel have done this type of thing before. I wouldnt be in the bit surprised.

ronbyrne2005

theres about 32 nuclear sites and the experts reckon it would be difficult to deal with the problem with limited airstrikes. it would imflame the muslim world too much,i dont think they will do it but israelis might try and in the process start another major was between the muslim countries of the reigon and the "state" of israel.

pete

Maskhadov wrote:

Israel have done this type of thing before. I wouldnt be in the bit surprised.

yeah, so Mordechai Vanunu says....

GypsumFantastic

Someone's going to have to do something as the European 'diplomacy' isn't exactly wooing the Mullahs, eh?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country, like Iran, that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world.

Der Spiegel: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council?

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

Der Spiegel: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. I thought you and the UK and France were.

Der Spiegel: You aren’t?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. You’ve got the lead. Well, lead!

Der Spiegel: You mean the Europeans?

Rumsfeld: Sure. My goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don’t have to do everything!

Der Spiegel: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany.

Rumsfeld: That’s hardly the phrase I would have selected.


No wonder the Iranians feel cocky enough to remove the UN-imposed seals. Who's gonna stop them? The Europeans that have taken their eye off the ball to such an extent that they don't even know where it is? The international community? Who's that? Belgium and Norway? The UN? Well, they've just shown their contempt for that organisation. I wonder who's gonna have to step in to the Iranian 'negotiations'.

flogen

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Someone's going to have to do something as the European 'diplomacy' isn't exactly wooing the Mullahs, eh?

Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country, like Iran, that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world.

Der Spiegel: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council?

Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.

Der Spiegel: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. I thought you and the UK and France were.

Der Spiegel: You aren’t?

Rumsfeld: I’m not talking about sanctions. You’ve got the lead. Well, lead!

Der Spiegel: You mean the Europeans?

Rumsfeld: Sure. My goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don’t have to do everything!

Der Spiegel: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany.

Rumsfeld: That’s hardly the phrase I would have selected.


No wonder the Iranians feel cocky enough to remove the UN-imposed seals. Who's gonna stop them? The Europeans that have taken their eye off the ball to such an extent that they don't even know where it is? The international community? Who's that? Belgium and Norway? The UN? Well, they've just shown their contempt for that organisation. I wonder who's gonna have to step in to the Iranian 'negotiations'.

That wasn't great but it did show promise. Try the creative writing forum next time, perhaps.

Once you're done there look here, then realise that EU countries seem to be taking the right path, and the IAEA are likely to go to the Security Council with the issue.

GypsumFantastic

flogen wrote:

That wasn't great but it did show promise.

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

flogen wrote:

Once you're done there look here, then realise that EU countries seem to be taking the right path,

So successful, in fact, that Iran has restarted its programme.

So successful that Iran was forced to concede that it "will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognise its right to do so." So the Europeans have managed to knock Iran down to an ultimatum of 'let us go nuclear or else we'll go nuclear'. Bravo to the European negotiators. Iran on the run.

flogen wrote:

and the IAEA are likely to go to the Security Council with the issue.

Wow, the Security Council. From your same beloved BBC site -

"Its parliament has passed a law obliging the Iranian government to stop short-notice visits of its nuclear sites by UN inspectors if it is referred to the UN Security Council. "

And who do you believe, amongst the friendly international community, will enforce any UN 'resolution' or 'condemnation'? Spain?

randombassist

Rice seemed to be very eager to help the European moves by the big three, but that seems to have failed now. And with their prime ministers comments about wiping Israel off the map, international opinion has hardened significantly against them.

I agree that there's a chance of Israel taking matters into their own hands and bombing them. They made quite a big deal of the fact that they were buying a couple of hundred 'bunker buster' bombs from the US a while ago, I think they were trying to send the Iranians the message that they're serious about stopping them. We might just see those in action. However I think before it goes that far, there will be more negotiations, this gives them a better bargaining position.

flogen

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

I was referring to your rant afterwards, but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

So successful, in fact, that Iran has restarted its programme.

So successful that Iran was forced to concede that it "will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognise its right to do so." So the Europeans have managed to knock Iran down to an ultimatum of 'let us go nuclear or else we'll go nuclear'. Bravo to the European negotiators. Iran on the run.

This latest move has come in response to the removal of UN seals by Iran, so it comes after the restart, not before.

Wow, the Security Council. From your same beloved BBC site -

"Its parliament has passed a law obliging the Iranian government to stop short-notice visits of its nuclear sites by UN inspectors if it is referred to the UN Security Council. "

What? Iran is being hostile towards the UN, that's hardly a surprise, is it?

And who do you believe, amongst the friendly international community, will enforce any UN 'resolution' or 'condemnation'? Spain?

I don't know, but I doubt Germany, the UK and France are all pushing the UN on this issue just so they can block any planned resolution or statement in relation to it.

GypsumFantastic

flogen wrote:

I was referring to your rant afterwards,

Ah, I see. It was snide and pointless. Fair enough.

flogen wrote:

but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

'Fraid not. You'll need to buy said publication from a reputable newsagent near you.

flogen wrote:

This latest move has come in response to the removal of UN seals by Iran, so it comes after the restart, not before.

This statement makes little sense.

flogen wrote:

What? Iran is being hostile towards the UN, that's hardly a surprise, is it?

It isn't to me. But then I wasn't the one investing a lot of hope in the UN having any clout to sort it out.

flogen wrote:

I don't know, but I doubt Germany, the UK and France are all pushing the UN on this issue just so they can block any planned resolution or statement in relation to it.

Who said anything about blocking resolutions or statements? But they're just bits of paper. Do you believe Iran will halt its programme because of a sternly worded letter?

randombassist

GypsumFantastic wrote:

But they're just bits of paper. Do you believe Iran will halt its programme because of a sternly worded letter?

Actually they're quite a bit more than pieces of paper. UN security council reolutions in the past have authorised military action, peacekeeping missions, and sanctions. Sanctions are being touted at the moment as one possible way of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and would certiainly have a detrimental effect on them, whether or not they decist on the back of it.

dathi1

The yanks haven't a hope of achieving anything by bombing Iran. Even with sanctions Iran can threaten to turn off the taps and in an already volatile oil market this would have disastrous consequences for an already lacklustre US economy.
Iran now also has more influence than ever before across the middle east. From their new proxy Al Basrah province in what was southern Iraq to the Mediterranean coast in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon attacking Iran would mean a total goodbye to US influence in Iraq..........maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing after all??

kurisu

whos taking over if sharon dies, that could be the difference between israel and the US attacking iran

Manic Moran

randombassist wrote:

Actually they're quite a bit more than pieces of paper. UN security council reolutions in the past have authorised military action, peacekeeping missions, and sanctions. Sanctions are being touted at the moment as one possible way of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and would certiainly have a detrimental effect on them, whether or not they decist on the back of it.

"Oh No! Hans Brix!"
"Kim, show us your underground facilities, or else"
"Or else what?"
"Or else we will be very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are!"


More seriously, the authorisations are one thing, but someone actually has to go and carry them out. In 1831, the courts declared an action by President Jackson to be illegal. He replied "Mr Justice Marshall has made his ruling. Now let him enforce" The same thing happens with UN resolutions. There have been ample UN resolutions, many of which are completely unenforced, and some which were enforced solely by a few members. If we were to say that the US isn't in a position to do anything (Which I dispute, but anyway), and let's say the reprecussions of an Israeli strike are such that it would be politically prohibitive, who else is going to have both inclination and the ability to do anything? The Russians certainly wouldn't, the Germans can't, the British might if they felt inclined (and probably used RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus as a base), the French could carry out a strike, but doesn't have enough assets to do it... I am at a loss offhand to think of any UN-sponsored military action barring the Congo which didn't have a major US involvement in it. Which brings us back to the problem of American involvement, both in the realm of international relations, and domestic support.

NTM

Manic Moran

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

start another major was between the muslim countries of the reigon and the "state" of israel.

I'm curious. Why put quotation marks?

NTM

Sand

I was referring to your rant afterwards, but if you wouldn't mind could you link to that interview?

'Fraid not. You'll need to buy said publication from a reputable newsagent near you.

By the power of google, and 5 seconds of my time.

TBH, Id imagine the US is not so much delegating to the EU3 on this matter as distancing itself from whats for quite some time been a case of the EU3 saying "Stop it!", and the Iranians replying "Why should we exactly?" The EU3 havent been able to come up with a suitably convincing answer. The limits of soft power are exposed. I think the US tried to bail them out before by saber rattling, but the EU3 quickly reasserted their weakness by ruling out force even as a last resort. I think even the EU3 are regretting making such a big deal of it because theyre now unable to back out without looking weak, and they cant continue without looking weak.

I agree that there's a chance of Israel taking matters into their own hands and bombing them. They made quite a big deal of the fact that they were buying a couple of hundred 'bunker buster' bombs from the US a while ago, I think they were trying to send the Iranians the message that they're serious about stopping them. We might just see those in action. However I think before it goes that far, there will be more negotiations, this gives them a better bargaining position.

There will be more negotiation, but not involving Israel. Given the Iranian Presidents comments on Israel and Jews in general Id imagine its only a matter of time before they bomb every nuclear related facility in Iran back into the stone age - probably with US nudge and wink. Theyre skating uphill though, nuclear technology is 60 years old at this stage. Anyone with the proper resources and motivation can develop it, as the Israelis demonstrated themselves.

Wibbs

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm curious. Why put quotation marks?

NTM

Kind of wondering that myself.

Hobbes

Iran and NK are hardly comparable.

Anyway as for the bombing. If any country was to do it then it would be Israel. They have already said they would not rule out pre-emptive strikes and done such things before.

The issue of if they do it or not rests on the US. Despite Israels intent any such action would inflame the whole of the middle east. Iraq would be even more messed up then before. Bush is also fighting serious approval ratings and this would tank them if he was to side with Israel after a pre-emptive strike. It would drag the US into further conflicts in the middle east and then bring into question why Israel was allowed do such a thing with money they got from the US.

All roads would lead back to the US.

Also I find the whole thing hypocritical. All these countries getting up in arms over Iran yet did nothing when Israel did the exact same thing and even went as far as building a fake control room to their nuclear plant to hide the fact they were building nuclear weapons (plus US+UK helping them build them).

randombassist

hey MM, Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that UN resolutions are the way to go about doing things, and I'm not saying they always work. I was just saying that sometimes they are more than a 'piece of paper' but perhaps you were just being flippant with that comment! Of course it needs US support, they are a permanent member after all. But if you look at sanctions against Iraq and South Africa, it is possible to take action through the security concil. In the case of Iraq it led to the well documented suffering of lots of ordinary people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it can happen, which you seemed to dismiss.

And sand, I agree that they won't want to involve israel in any new negotiations, Iran wouldn't stand for it, and Israel aren't big on talking to them either. I was just agreeing with a previous comment that Israel have the capability, and the materiels to strike.

As for Hobbes. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's hypocritical in relation to Israel. However I do think that a distinction should be drawn between the dogmatic totalitarian state that is Iran, and democracy in Israel. The Israeli's really did feel like they were going to be wiped off the map, the wars and attacks on them did nothing to ease those worries, so they pushed for 'the bomb' as a way of securing their future. I'm not saying it's right, but there is a difference in the type or regieme and the motives present.

Captain Trips

MY money is by by March 2006.

In March 2006, Iran will launch it's € euro-based oil bourse. The US (incredibly) don't want this. Last country to start selling in Euros was Iraq, which since it was given democracy and peace, has returned to selling in US $.

NOw, to complicate matters (and it's into speculation time), if the EU don't "oppose" this, as in Iraq's case, and are pro-war/invasion/redemption/whatever, then the euro will trounce the dollar by year end. If E3 (or whoever, new europe, old europe, etc., ) do not support sanctions/war (unlikely given Merkel) then same as Iraq, but Israel will attack first.

I mean, come on, all liklihood is that covert SpecOps teams have been going at it tit for tat for months IMHO.

Have a google http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Iran+euro+oil+bourse&meta=. Given the recent gas issue in Europe, it will be interesting to see any new developments especially with Merkel and the ?Rapid Reaction Force??. I think the days of Mission Accomplished and Shock and Awe are over, TBH.

Bets on - 1 euro = $1.40-50 by end of year, if no war on Iran. Maybe I'll call Paddy Power.

As an addendum to this: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/37fee9b4-8231-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html. This has been going around for a while, but I bet a lot of large currency stakeholders are taking note of Iran developments.

Wars don't happen for ideaologies. They happen for money and power. Or else CHina is the next target of invasion, right?

GypsumFantastic

Manic Moran wrote:

More seriously, the authorisations are one thing, but someone actually has to go and carry them out.

Exactimundo.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

All these countries getting up in arms over Iran yet did nothing when Israel did the exact same thing

Different political regimes and Israel does not have a stated intent to annihilate any of its neighbours - though it is surrounded by neighbours who have, at various points in the last 50 years, stated their intent to annihilate it - or an expressed belief in Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. we don't mind if we get blown up as long as you die too.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Different political regimes and Israel does not have a stated intent to annihilate any of its neighbours

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance. I'm still not used to this whole double standards thing.

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Nuttzz

Dont know about the rest of you but I find it a bit tasteless to be "betting" on when a country will be bombed....

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance. I'm still not used to this whole double standards thing.

Yea it's a puzzler alright. Funny how Saddam got slapped for much the same thing(though he actually didn't have nukes in the end).

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Tbh, It's slightly different when the others refuse to even recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and given a chance would wipe it off the map. I can't remember the Israelis saying the same kinda crap in the past. Also they're a secular democracy, whereas many of their antagonists are hardly that.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok to purposely decieve and lie to UN nuclear inspectors in such an instance.

It's not entirely okay but it's not morally equivalent to the Iran case.

Hobbes wrote:

Israel have said they will pre-emptive strike other countries, how is that different to what the other countries in the region has said similar?

Because one is an act of aggression - we're going to annihilate you - and one is an act of defence against said aggressors. If a country says they're going to destroy you, you don't hang around and watch them build the military capability to do so or stand back and admire their troops.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It's not entirely okay but it's not morally equivalent to the Iran case.

We have to agree to disagree then. Because a lie is a lie.

Because one is an act of aggression - we're going to annihilate you - and one is an act of defence against said aggressors.

Ok if a country says "We are going to attack your country first to defend ourselves" are you going to stand around and do nothing or stand back and admire their troops?

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

We have to agree to disagree then. Because a lie is a lie.

Exactly.

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Grey area tbh. If the US knew that the Japanese were about to launch an attack on pearl harbour back in the day, would sinking their aircraft carriers be a defensive act? I can see how under law it may not be, but for practicalities sake would it not be? I do take your point though.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

I'm hoping someone will come up with a strong argument to show how this can be done.

Then you can ask them what happens if Iran uses this as its justification - that it believed Israel was going to pre-emptively strike its (allegedly) legitimate nuclear research facilities, and that it had the right therefore to strike first.

The problem with allowing pre-emption is that you'll find it very hard to decide who provoked whom. If either side seriously believes the other will attack...they have grounds for pre-emptive action, right? But once you have grounds for pre-emptive action, the other side now has grounds for pre-pre-emptive action regardless of the validity of the reasoning for the pre-emption that you are pre-empting.

What it boils down to is that the usual sides will condemn the people/nations they usually condemn, and will insist that the side they ususally support is - as always - perfectly justified in its actions.

Having said all of that, I see the whole current affair as being relatively standard political to-ing and fro-ing. Bit of a storm in a teacup, from what I can see.

Iran agreed to negotiations. They then discovered that the EU et al wanted to negotiate what the Iranians would accept in order to give up their nuclear research, while they themselves wanted to negotiate the conditions under which their research could continue.

In short, the negotiations failed because neither side was actually negotiating the same thing. Iran refuses to totally abandon its research, and the other side refuse to accept anything less.

I see the abandonnig of talks and a resumption of research as a show of strength by the Iranians - they agreed to halt extraction until an agreement was reached, but now see that no agreement can be reached given the positions both sides are unwilling to move from. This left them three choices:
- "negotiate" a complete submissal to the EU/US demands
- keep extraction halted indefinitely whilst remaining in talks they know will get nowhere
- abandon talks, and put pressure on the EU/US to move from their current position.

Coupled with the situation in Iraq, and the sabre-rattling we've seen recently (anti-Israel commentary), my opinion is that Iran is basically making a power-play. Its pushing in every arena it can, taking advantage of the overall conditions which the "Mess o' potamia" (as Jon Stewart has referred to it on occasion) has brought about.

jc

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

When Iran states it wishes to wipe another country from the map and then seeks to acquire nuclear capability then attacking such a country - which has a stated aim of annihilation against your country - would be an act of defence, in my view.

The alternative is to wait and see if it's a bluff but I see that as no alternative, in reality.

Hobbes

Ahh ok so its ok then for Iran to start getting nukes then because Bush clearly stated that they would attack these countries (remember "axis of evil" speech).

Although Bonkey sums it up much nicer.

GypsumFantastic

Hobbes wrote:

Ahh ok so its ok then for Iran to start getting nukes then because Bush clearly stated that they would attack these countries (remember "axis of evil" speech).

In the context of Iran's programme for nuclear capability - the attainment of which would be 'intolerable'. If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Talk about going round in circles...

lostexpectation

Nuttzz wrote:

Dont know about the rest of you but I find it a bit tasteless to be "betting" on when a country will be bombed....

you right it is I was being flippant. But it going to happen in two months. IT IS. Pretending it isn't is more tasteless.

I only learned a couple of weeks back the Israel already did something similar in at Osirak 1977. It didn't start an all out war.

I woud say the end of March but they will get a bit delayed a little by Europe they didn't start Shock and Awe on the exact date they'd planned.


FEIC YEAH!

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

In the context of Iran's programme for nuclear capability - the attainment of which would be 'intolerable'. If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Talk about going round in circles...

Indeed. Circles which are only problematic because we know for a fact that we've recently nations had action taken against them ostensibly for persuing such intolerable goals....only for us to find out afterwards that they weren't persuing such intolerable goals at all. Its also worth bearing in mind that we've also had at least one nation (N. Korea) effectively ignored while they persued and obtained these intolerable goals. Such shifting standards makes me wonder if "intolerable" isn't an inaccurate term to use without qualification here.

Lets not also lose sight of the fact that it is nothing but mere speculation that Iran is under threat solely because of its nuclear program - speculation I would argue is incorrect. Should they get rid of it, what then? Allegations of Bio and/or Chem (the other sides of the ABC WMD triangle)? Allegations of state-sponsored terrorism? Allegations of being an oppressive regime? Allegations that they would still attack Israel (through conventional means) given the opportunity. Are we seriously supposed to believe that the only threat from Iran is an as-yet unrealised capability?

jc

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

If Iran stopped its nuclear programme today then it would find itself under no threat from anyone.

Which would be impressive considering they have been under threat even before this. Or the US special forces being in the country where there just for a holiday.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/euro-j25.shtml

The nuclear plants is all posturing IMHO. Iran could give up tomorrow and swear they would never go near nuclear technology again and there would still be some excuse to invade them.

TBH Pakistan would be more serious in nuclear regards then Iran.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

Pretending it isn't is more tasteless.
...
FEIC YEAH!

Cheering on the bombing / attacking of a nation, from my perspective, beats the rest of it all into a cocked hat with regards to tastelessness.

lostexpectation

bonkey wrote:

Cheering on the bombing / attacking of a nation, from my perspective, beats the rest of it all into a cocked hat with regards to tastelessness.

I was being sarcastic Im not cheerleading OBVIOUSLY

amp2000

lostexpectation wrote:

FEIC YEAH!

****, have you any idea how serious this is???
This isn't Iraq, if they hit iran you can kiss your way of life goodbye, energy prices will go through the roof ending economic growth.

Be careful what you wish for.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

The nuclear plants is all posturing IMHO. Iran could give up tomorrow and swear they would never go near nuclear technology again and there would still be some excuse to invade them.

Sadly I think you're correct. Ever since the Iranian US embassy hostages(remember them) and the laughable US rescue attempt that ended in complete failure, I suspect certain types in the US gov have been itching to get back at them.

TBH Pakistan would be more serious in nuclear regards then Iran.

In a big way. That whole India/Pakistan border shenanigans is a nuclear powder keg.

The Saint

This is a very interesting subject with all possibilities not being so cut and dried. I can't see the Americans currently being in a position to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. This would not go down well in Iraq where the majority of Shi'ites seeing their interests being tied into normalised relaions with Iran. Most cleric in Iraq are also from Iran or have lived or trained in Iran. The last thing the US needs is to antagonise the majoity of the population of Iraq who don't want the Americans there anyway. Iran could also make the Americans life very very difficult in Iraq by sending more insurgents and Islamists into the country if not regular forces and destabilising the country further.

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either. This will clearly be seen by the Iranians as an American backed action using American hardware considering that the Israelis can't scratch their own arses without getting approval from the US. This could also inflame the region with action being taken against Israel by other countries or groups such as Hezbollah, in the region. This did not happen when Israel bombed the Iraqi facilities as most countries in the region were allied to the US, especially Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Things are slightly different now.

From Irans point of view it makes perfect sense to develop nuclear weapons. Countries will always look to ways to provide their own security as no one else is going to do so. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution the US has been outright hostile towards Iran and now it is on the Americans axis of evil list. American have stated in their national security reports that the US has the right to bomb, with nuclear weapons, non-nuclear countries, even ones that have signed the NPT. Nuclear states also do not attack one another so having a nuclear weapon guarantees security as well as provides levelage in the international system. The US knows this and it threatens their ultimate veto power in the region.

Experts say that Iran is about ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. This leaves plenty of time for diplomatic action and/or military force with resourses are freed up. I, myself cannot see an attack on Iran happening any time soon but given past performances by the US government I would not rule out any ill advised actions that would further inflame the region.

AS for the Israeli issue, it was probably a good idea for Israel nuclear weapons at the time, with help mostly from the French, as their security was constantly being threatened. This is not the case now though. Israel has not been attacked by another country since 1973, a long time in terms of politics given that Iraq has been attacked countless times by the Americans since 1990 and never retaliated. Since Camp David Egypy, Jordan and Turkey have normalised relations with Israel. Syria has ffered to do so in return for the Golan Heights. In 2002 the Saudis put forward a proposal for all Arab countries to recognise Israel, give it security guarantees and open diplomaic relations in return for Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights taken by Isreal in the six day war in 1967. This was again put forward by the Arab league but was both time rejected by Israel. The Palestinians have also recognised Israels right to exist therefore Israels protests about their existance being threatened and being driven into the sea ring quite hollow. Israel hasn't accepted any deals as they are in practise expansionary and do not want peace in exchange for land as peace will remove their reasons for expansion. After the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 Ben Gurion states that only Israel will determine it own borders. Nearly sixty years on this still appears to be the case.

GypsumFantastic

The Saint wrote:

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either.

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

The Saint wrote:

Israel has not been attacked by another country since 1973,

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

The Saint wrote:

Syria has ffered to do so in return for the Golan Heights.

Oh, purlease. We'll give you security in return for your land? Is there any nation on earth that would accept this insult?

Lemme see - Syria lost the region in question during the 1967 war - which Syria began by bombarding northern Israel - and then turns round and says 'we'll not bother you if you give us it back"? Talk about doing deals with the devil. Shove it.

The Saint wrote:

In 2002 the Saudis put forward a proposal for all Arab countries to recognise Israel, give it security guarantees and open diplomaic relations in return for Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights

and the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The Saudi 'peace plan' was generally, and correctly, regarded as unreasonable and not a serious effort to build bridges.

The Saint wrote:

The Palestinians have also recognised Israels right to exist therefore Israels protests about their existance being threatened and being driven into the sea ring quite hollow.

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

The Saint wrote:

Israel hasn't accepted any deals as they are in practise expansionary and do not want peace in exchange for land as peace will remove their reasons for expansion.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

bonkey

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

Sure...because if it wasn't their nuclear capability, then there's nothing else it could have been. There's only these two options, right?

To suggest it could be more complex than this binary option would be - as you put it - naiive.

jc

The Saint

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

As I had stated it was inconsequential given the realtions most states in the region with the US at the time. Also, I'd be very surprised, even if the US hasn't admitted it, that they had prior knowledge of the event if not giving the nod.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

Iraq launched a few scuds at Israel as a symbolic action to garner support from more Islamic countries to help ni the war against the US. It was also an act of desperation given the overwhelming power of the US army and Israels position as a client state. It was hardly an outright attack. Saddam never gave a toss about Israel except when it served his purpose but I'll agree he did 'attack' Israel.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability. No, the Arab aggressors merely decided one day not to bother, for no apparent reason.

I said that it was in Israels interests to have nuclear weapons but the fact that they have peaceful relations with most of its neighbours and not because of its nuclear capabilities. The peace deals were done before they acquired the bomb.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Oh, purlease. We'll give you security in return for your land? Is there any nation on earth that would accept this insult?

They were to give security guarantees and open diplomatic relations with Israel under international agreement. Do you realistically Syria would attack Israel again given the major military power who they invaded with before in 48, 67 and 73 now as full relations with Israel, Egypt, as well as the other power they invaded with, Jordan. Seriously, can you say that with a serious face. Syria are tripping over backwards to please the international community and get rid of its periah status, withdrawing from Lebanon and complying with the Harriri poobe in which it looks like Assad will be interviewed by the UN afterall. It would be suicide for Syria to even threaten Israel and they blooby know it. You must thing that the people running these countries are stupid reactionaries. If they were that naive and stupid they wouldn't be in power for so long.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

Lemme see - Syria lost the region in question during the 1967 war - which Syria began by bombarding northern Israel - and then turns round and says 'we'll not bother you if you give us it back"? Talk about doing deals with the devil. Shove it.

It did deals with Egypt and Jordan, why can't it do the same for Syria? The reason is that they don't have to. It was in their interests to do a deal with Egypt they were seen as Israels main threat and the fact that Sadat had wanted to do a deal long before Camp David but Israel refused. After 73 Egypt was not seen as the weak basket cae it was before therefore a peace deal was done for a return of the Sanai. With Syria they know there is no threat so the return of the Golan Heights is unnecessary.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

and the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The Saudi 'peace plan' was generally, and correctly, regarded as unreasonable and not a serious effort to build bridges.

Here is a basic outline of the proposed deal:

Israel is required to withdraw from all territories seized in 1967 - the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
In return, all Arab states offer normal diplomatic relations - including a peace deal that recognises Israel's right to exist and secures its borders.
The plan was formally announced at an Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2003.

"Reports suggest that the Saudi plan allows for Israeli sovereignty over the Western or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - one of Judaism's holiest sites.
The same reports suggest that the plan allows for the transfer of some areas of the West Bank to Israel in return for equivalent transfers to a Palestinian sate.
It is also suggested that the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel has been dropped or sidestepped. This issue is crucial because many Israelis see the Palestinian claim to the right of return as a fundamental demographic threat to the idea of Israel as a state for Jewish people. "

Seems like a reasonable deal to me in line with UN Security Council resolutions. The fact is that Israel has stated many times that they will not give up East Jerusalem. They want it all and this is shown by settlement building patterns to cut it off from the rest of the West Bank and has been stated by many Israeli leaders.

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

I was refering primarily to the democratically elected PA who have recognised Israels right to exist.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

But they have given some back in return for peace. This is not the case with the West Bank though. They continue to annex and settle land. This can hardly be used as a pretext for security. Annexation and settlement does not increase security but the contrary. The reason it won't give up the land is because there is no reasonable threat to cause it to. Israel can give itself peace by returning conquered land but it does not want to.

Anyway, this discussion was about Iran. If you want to continiue this conversation you can open another thread.

Hobbes

GypsumFantastic wrote:

The Americans may not get a say in the matter - as they didn't with Osirak in 1981.

I'd say they will. A large portion Israels budget is gotten from the US. It would be economic suicide unless they get the US on board.

Iraq attacked Israel in 1991, old bean.

What a handful of scud missiles which were fired to try and bring Israel into the war. Saddam didn't have the support of the other countries and this was the only way he could get it.

Nuking or dropping bombs on a nuclear site will polorise the whole of the middle east.

It would clearly be naive to suggest that new-found Arab reticence in attacking Israel was linked to Israel's new-found nuclear capability.

If thats the case we should let everyone have a bomb because then no one would attack each other.

The reasons for expansion have been wars - initiated by Arabs and then subsequently lost by said Arabs.

Not all land grabs have been initiated by the Arabs unless your trying to tie land grabs to earlier incidents.

BrianD

I would of thought that Iran is more sophisticated and powerful from a military point of view. They were trained and equipped by the US and despite the sanctions have reverse engineered much of the equipment supplied and have a strong defense industry.

Sand

Ok if a country says "We are going to attack your country first to defend ourselves" are you going to stand around and do nothing or stand back and admire their troops?

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

Honestly Hobbes, theres a time for trawling through international law books and theres a time for acting pre-emptively on intelligence. The US spent months building up its forces on the borders of Iraq prior to the 2003 liberation - If the Iraqis dared to try and hit the buildup of troops before war was actually declared and Coalition troops invaded would you consider it unlawful or common sense?

Remember the holy UN, blessed be its name, allows pre-emptive strikes to defeat attacks that are imminent.

Israels development of nukes was a result of their belief, backed up by the statements of their neighbours who had vowed to annialate them, that they could be attacked at any time. Trying to equate that with Irans development of nukes whilst it repeatedly states that Israel should be annialated and shouting "hypocrites!!!!"....TBH, its rules lawyering over common sense. Israels development of nukes stabilised the region by ending their neighbours desire to attack them openly. Irans nukes will only embolden them. Even if some mad mullah doesnt decide to go to Paradise as the *ultimate* suicide bomber, other Arab states will be emboldened to attack Israel, confident that Iran will support them with its nuclear shield.

I'd say they will. A large portion Israels budget is gotten from the US. It would be economic suicide unless they get the US on board.

Israel will act in its interest over that of the US, and there is a massive pro-Israel lobby in the US on both sides of the Rep-Dem spectrum that will support them. And its done it before.

The stated aim of Hamas (leaving aside the sundry Arab loony states Israel has to put up with) is to drive Jews into the sea. Fact. A statement they repeated last year. Are you privvy to information to the contrary?

Hamas have refined their position for the latest Palestinian polls. Theyre removed the call to annialate Israel and drive the jews back into the sea from their manifesto. They havent rejected it, they simply do not call for it anymore. Their position now is to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and leave the decision of whether to annialate Israel to future generations. Which is nice of them.

Since the defeat of the Intifida Hamas has been morphing into a quasi terrorist/political movement in the style of SFIRA. They may not enjoy the same success as the Israelis dont take much inspiration from British appeasement policies.

But they have given some back in return for peace. This is not the case with the West Bank though. They continue to annex and settle land. This can hardly be used as a pretext for security. Annexation and settlement does not increase security but the contrary. The reason it won't give up the land is because there is no reasonable threat to cause it to. Israel can give itself peace by returning conquered land but it does not want to.

In fairness, Syrias asking for something concrete - more land. And all Israel gets in return is a promise that can be reversed at any point in time, especially if the dictatorship collapses and Syria enters chaos. Land for peace is a bad deal.

Manic Moran

How can you claim attacking someone before the others attack as an act of defense?

I refer you to the October War of 1967 as a perfect example of a legitimate pre-emptive strike. It even involved the Israelis.

Few people dispute that the Arab armies were about to launch another co-ordinated invasion. The Israelis decided to start the war on their terms instead of the Arabs'.

NTM

Victor

GypsumFantastic wrote:

I wish it was fiction rather than an actual interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. I thought Rumsfeld was remarkably restrained, in fact.

You could have the decency of providing a link. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382527,00.html

Victor

lostexpectation wrote:

I only learned a couple of weeks back the Israel already did something similar in at Osirak 1977. It didn't start an all out war.

Do you mean 1981?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

The Saint wrote:

This is a very interesting subject with all possibilities not being so cut and dried. I can't see the Americans currently being in a position to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

They can bomb the sites, whether such bombing would be effective is another matter.

The Saint wrote:

I can't see Israel being allowed by the Americans to bomb Irans nuclear sites either.

There is the problem that he shortest route from Isreal to Iran and back is via Iraq. To take this route would require American (and Iraqi?) complicity, if not actual support. Going all the way around the Arabian peninsula is possible, but has pracatical difficulties, both in range and payload. They could go via Turkey, but I think this is unlikely. Going via Saudi Arabia would make the Saudis profoundly nervous and likely lead to much more of a mess than we already have.