Israeli planned strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities

100gSoma

Won't be long now. all indicators point to a first strike by Israel to obviate any threat to itself. The end of march was previously indicated by Sharon as the point of no return. Iran is ploughing ahead full steam with its enrichment and is upgrading and increasing its ability to refine uranium on a weekly basis. This has been confirmed by the IAEA. Apparently the US has given Israel the nod for a strike; and with the europeans feling more and more ill at ease with a nuclear armed Iran they are likley to aod Israel in any way possible. French intelligence was provided to Israel in 1981 when they hit the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq. Similar European clandestine aid cannot be ruled out.
Then again, Iran as been offically (their leader) spouting on about how "Israel should be wiped off the map" etc. So you can hardly criticizr the Israeli stance. The Iranians (or to be fair, the current Iranian regime) has proven they are fanaticals. I would predict a strike sometime in the next 6 months. Certainly before end of the year.

Gurgle

100gSoma wrote:

The Iranians (or to be fair, the current Iranian regime) has proven they are fanaticals.

In a just world, the foreign legion would sneak in some moonless night and murder the 'regime' leaders in their sleep, then sneak back out and let the government provide humanitarian aid in the morning.

meditraitor

Doesnt surprise me that Isreal would sanction such an act, they are responsible for so many heinous crimes at this stage that another wont matter!

Manic Moran

Of the various things Israel has done, I don't know if I'd consider a strike on a nuclear facility with potential weapons use in a country overtly hostile to Israel as a heinous crime.

Actually, I do know. I wouldn't.

NTM

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

Doesnt surprise me that Isreal would sanction such an act, they are responsible for so many heinous crimes at this stage that another wont matter!

Crime? Personally, I think if they blew the Iranian nuclear plants apart the Israelis should get the Nobel Peace Prize...

Captain Trips

Israel has a far longer history of violent behaviour towards it's immediate neighbours and also the wider world community.

Iran has been violent, but nowhere to the extent of Israel.

You should view violent potential less from simply calling them "fanatical" - they are simply just different cultures - look at the past behaviour of the countries to estimate and predict future likley behaviour. If you remove the prejudiced viewpoint (i.e., calling Iran fanatical and so on - they view us as no different in all probability) and accept that we should look rationally at the past behaviour of the respective governments of Israel and Iran, we see clearly that Israel has been far more violent and thus likely to cause more violent behaviour in the future.

aido_2006

Would the us not take it upon themselves to do this as they are right beside iran already?

Stimpyone

100gSoma wrote:

Won't be long now. all indicators point to a first strike by Israel to obviate any threat to itself. The end of march was previously indicated by Sharon as the point of no return. Iran is ploughing ahead full steam with its enrichment and is upgrading and increasing its ability to refine uranium on a weekly basis. This has been confirmed by the IAEA. Apparently the US has given Israel the nod for a strike; and with the europeans feling more and more ill at ease with a nuclear armed Iran they are likley to aod Israel in any way possible. French intelligence was provided to Israel in 1981 when they hit the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq. Similar European clandestine aid cannot be ruled out.
Then again, Iran as been offically (their leader) spouting on about how "Israel should be wiped off the map" etc. So you can hardly criticizr the Israeli stance. The Iranians (or to be fair, the current Iranian regime) has proven they are fanaticals. I would predict a strike sometime in the next 6 months. Certainly before end of the year.

Any strike on Iranian reactors and enrichment facilities would have to be a sustained one. The Iranians aren't idiots and haven't put all their eggs in one basket like the Iraqis did in 81.

The israels have the balls but not the manpower, neither do the US. The Europeans might have the manpower but we lack balls, unity and direction.

It's all just saber ratteling and political maneuvering. Anybody in any doubt should google the history of the Iran/Iraq war, Iranian weapons develpment and Iranian arms industry.

A conflict with Iran would be big and bloody, and the outcome would be far from certain. All sides concerned know this.

Orizio

Israel has a far longer history of violent behaviour towards it's immediate neighbours and also the wider world community.

Iran has been violent, but nowhere to the extent of Israel.

Please please please tell me your understanding of Iranian military history doesn't go back to the mid 80's. :rolleyes:

Pazaz 21

I agree that a "first strike" against the Iranian nuclear facilitie's would not be enough to destroy their nuclear capabilities, they are not that stupid. It seems that the only way to solve this is to negotiate, i mean if britain decided that it didn't like the french having nuclear weapons its not going to attack it is it, thats kind of the point of having nuclear weapons, no one is going to mess with you. Thats why the Iranians want nuclear weapons because they don't want to be next on bush and blairs hitlist, i know it may be the iranian regeime that's covering its own ass and not the Iranian people, but do you really think that if we try to "liberate" Iran that things will really get better for the ordinary people, i mean look at afganistan and iraq.

I think if we look at this senario from the Iranian Government's viewpoint it may look a bit different then from ours !

Lemming

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I agree that a "first strike" against the Iranian nuclear facilitie's would not be enough to destroy their nuclear capabilities, they are not that stupid. It seems that the only way to solve this is to negotiate, i mean if britain decided that it didn't like the french having nuclear weapons its not going to attack it is it, thats kind of the point of having nuclear weapons, no one is going to mess with you. Thats why the Iranians want nuclear weapons because they don't want to be next on bush and blairs hitlist, i know it may be the iranian regeime that's covering its own ass and not the Iranian people, but do you really think that if we try to "liberate" Iran that things will really get better for the ordinary people, i mean look at afganistan and iraq.

I think if we look at this senario from the Iranian Government's viewpoint it may look a bit different then from ours !

To be honest, it'd be difficult to "liberate" an Iran not equipped with NBC weapons (I'll not use WMD because it's farcical soundbites at their worst) regardless. Difficult and bloody. Consider the size of the country. Then consider that it has an army that isn't all that badly equipped nor lacking in discipline on account of being demoralised by a decade of sanctions.

Then consider the fact that the US & the UK are already fighting a war on two fronts. They're [the US at least] already stretched to breaking point. A third front of any significance would be disasterous.

Frederico

I think Iran should just keep playing for time, logically speaking. The US is tied up with Iraq and Israel doesn't have the capability to knock out Iran's nuclear assets totally. North Korea must be pissed that Iran is getting all the bad guy terrur attention right now.

meditraitor

Manic Moran wrote:

Of the various things Israel has done, I don't know if I'd consider a strike on a nuclear facility with potential weapons use in a country overtly hostile to Israel as a heinous crime.

Actually, I do know. I wouldn't.

NTM

This is not what they will use!

"They are dispersed, underground, hardened," says the senior Israeli military source. U.S. analysts say each facility would require multiple hits before serious damage was done. Still, the Israelis—who have an undeclared nuclear arsenal of their own, and refuse international inspections or oversight—insist they have all the firepower they need: more than 100 U.S.-made BLU-109 "bunker buster" earth-penetrating bombs. "I think they could do the job," says the senior Israeli source

How can any man or woman with an ounce of sense think Isreal is within thier rights to do such a thing???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orizio
Please please please tell me your understanding of Iranian military history doesn't go back to the mid 80's.

I have an understanding of both, and to compare Iran to Isreal is like comparing Ireland to Cambodia(pol pot era)

If you want me to list the crimes of each country I will have to start a new thread just for Isreal!
In saying that, I am not condoning Irans Nuclear programme, but I think that Isreal has no right to preach at anyone considering their deplorable past crimes!

Gurgle

Lemming wrote:

Then consider the fact that the US & the UK are already fighting a war on two fronts. They're [the US at least] already stretched to breaking point. A third front of any significance would be disasterous.

I agree, it would be an absolute disaster to continue the crusade further east now.
They haven't even got Afghanistan firmly underfoot, never mind Iraq.

Afghanistan: 30 million, Military expenditure: $188m (2004, i.e. after liberation)
Iraq: 26 million, Military expenditure: $1.3b (as of 2000)
Iran: 68 million, Military expenditure: $4.3b (as of 2003)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

Doesn't mean the idiot Bush in his last 2 years as 'the man' won't further bankrupt his country in trying, especially if Israel starts something off that they can't finish.
Conscription is still an option for the US, so manpower will always be available.

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

I have an understanding of both

Well fair play to you. Give yourself a pat on the back.

meditraitor wrote:

I think that Isreal has no right to preach at anyone considering their deplorable past crimes!

Yeah. I thought the same when Germany disagreed with the US on the invasion of Iran. I mean, they have no right to preach at anyone etc. etc. past deplorable crimes etc. etc.

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

Well fair play to you. Give yourself a pat on the back..

Done....

Deleted User wrote:

Yeah. I thought the same when Germany disagreed with the US on the invasion of Iran. I mean, they have no right to preach at anyone etc. etc. past deplorable crimes etc. etc.

germany have done alot to exorcise their past ... Isreal dont see what they did wrong and are doing wrong to this day! spot the difference......

Shame(past criminal behaviour) and bareface cheek(present criminal behaviour )--which is which!

And another thing- Germany were not invading Iraq, the USA were(you knew that didnt you! clap yourself on the back), so they have a right to their opinion.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Crime? Personally, I think if they blew the Iranian nuclear plants apart the Israelis should get the Nobel Peace Prize...

Yeah...starting another war in the ME is exactly what I would consider as grounds for the NPP.

jc

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

Isreal has no right to preach at anyone considering their deplorable past crimes!

meditraitor wrote:

Shame(past criminal behaviour) and bareface cheek(present criminal behaviour )--which is which!

I'm afraid the contradictions are all property of you. By all means decide what you are trying to say and revert to me.

meditraitor wrote:

Germany were not invading Iraq, the USA were(you knew that didnt you! clap yourself on the back), so they have a right to their opinion.

I do know that. For clarity, do you want me to go through the list of countries Germany invaded? It would not be central to the topic, but to your point (from which you have now moved away) about past behaviour.

meditraitor

Deleted User wrote:

I'm afraid the contradictions are all property of you. By all means decide what you are trying to say and revert to me..

Coming from a guy who thinks blowing up nuclear plants(which will have a significant human presense) should get Isreal a Nobel prize, the only thing I will be reverting back too you for is a good laugh

Deleted User wrote:

I do know that. For clarity, do you want me to go through the list of countries Germany invaded? It would not be central to the topic, but to your point (from which you have now moved away) about past behaviour.

Just for clarity here, we are not talking about germany, this thread is about the Isrealis possible bombing of targets in Iran because of a threat percieved to their security,
This was put out there to generate discussion about their right to murder people from another country because of perceived threat!

And from your reply I can surmise that you are for it, I pity you! even though Im sure you dont want it........

meditraitor

meditraitor wrote:

Coming from a guy who thinks blowing up nuclear plants(which will have a significant human presense) should get Isreal a Nobel prize

Yep. The world should be thankful if Israel prevents Iran building a nuclear arsenal. As for relevant atrocities, I suspect Israel will have to rack up a few more hits to reach the savagery of the Iran Iraq war which featured the use of civilians as minesweepers as resulted in millions of casualties. Think Israel killed about 20,000 in the Six Day War alright, but you do the math, there's still a bit of catching up to be done. Sure, a few Iranian nuclear scientists will reduce the arrears.

Tbh I don't really subscribe to the 'who did worse when' approach, I would just be grateful to Israel if they stopped Iran advancing their nuclear power.

popinfresh

I have an interesting theory on this whole thing. If you beleive America's motivations are based on the whole petro-dollar thing. Iran, possibly advised by russia, are holding all the cards. America are going to try and justify an invasion based on the nuclear threat. But any war will be because of the proposed Iranian oil brouse later this year. So around the weeks that Iran set up the oil brouse they'll agree to Russia's proposal to enrich Uramium in Russia. Hence, belting any propeganda justification that the US could have used to invade them. And as the US can only gain support by lying like they did for the Iraq war, they'd be able to do nothing about Iran.

But hell, if that theory was correct then things will get very nasty if America tries to invade anyway. WW3 style stuff.

And BTW, don't go bashing me for thinking this, I've just got an active imagination

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Yeah...starting another war in the ME is exactly what I would consider as grounds for the NPP.

jc

Gotta break eggs to make an omelette

Captain Trips

Deleted User wrote:

Yep. The world should be thankful if Israel prevents Iran building a nuclear arsenal. As for relevant atrocities, I suspect Israel will have to rack up a few more hits to reach the savagery of the Iran Iraq war which featured the use of civilians as minesweepers as resulted in millions of casualties. Think Israel killed about 20,000 in the Six Day War alright, but you do the math, there's still a bit of catching up to be done. Sure, a few Iranian nuclear scientists will reduce the arrears.

Tbh I don't really subscribe to the 'who did worse when' approach, I would just be grateful to Israel if they stopped Iran advancing their nuclear power.

Since when did maths and algebra decide what's acceptable and what's not?

Torturing 100 people is okay, but 1000 is wrong? The line is not based on pissing contests, but on what is morally acceptable IMHO. Israel's recent behaviour and Iran's recent behaviour makes me see clearly that Israel is a great threat to the stability of the world, with flouting international treaties on torture, atomic and nuclear research and human rights.

ISrael's undisclosed nuclear arsenal is of far greater importance. Why no IAEA inspectors to visit there? Or would the Mossad simply make them have an "accident".

Pazaz 21

I think it's because people think that the Iranian Government will actually use the Nuclear Weapons it may have / build. According to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Israel "Should be wiped off the map", Well i think a couple of nukes throwen in there direction would take care of that, don't you ?

halkar

Why does people think Iran will use nukes if they have it? Nothing more than what people hear and see what western media want us to hear and see. I doubt Iran would be interested in nukes if US was not threating them on a daily base. It was Iraq Iraq now it is Iran Iran. Also looking at the double standards in ME they have no really choice to keep US of their back. If Israel strikes they will dig their own grave and give Ahmadinejad the pretex to wipe them of the map. It will not be only between Iran and Israel, there will be Syrians, Palestinians and Lebanese too in any possible conflict. Must remember that western influence is not working in ME. Talking about democracies and when an elected party like Hamas wins elections in a democratic manner threating them about cutting their funds? Go figure, Iran has offered them to fill the gap so both US and EU got two finders from Palestinians and now scratching their heads looking for U turns.

Hopefully there will be a peaceful solution to all this but with Iran switching to Euros for oil soon and US does not like this idea I don't think things will be quite in the region for a long time. :mad:

Captain Trips

halkar wrote:

Talking about democracies and when an elected party like Hamas wins elections in a democratic manner threating them about cutting their funds? Go figure, Iran has offered them to fill the gap so both US and EU got two finders from Palestinians and now scratching their heads looking for U turns.

Hopefully there will be a peaceful solution to all this but with Iran switching to Euros for oil soon and US does not like this idea I don't think things will be quite in the region for a long time. :mad:

Well, the EU said it would release financial aid for Palestine last week, so it's a step in the right direction.

Also, Syria has already gone to the Euro and dumped the Dollar, so there is change afoot. I suppose it's basically a grabbing contest now as US/UK/Israel try and keep their portion of influence as the financial and resource industries reshuffle (e.g., Russia flexing it's strength with the gas episode in Ukraine, inviting the new Palestinian elected to the Kremlin).

That said, I am a fan of neither the communist CHina-Russia situation or the capitalist UK/US/Israel situation. Both groups appear to be publically politicomasturbating.

Pazaz 21

I personally don't see how the US or anyone has the right to tell Iran they do not diserve or have the right to have Nuclear or any other type of weapons. If Iran said that it was going to invade America because it was afraid that the US was going to attack them then what would people say, if Iran called for sanctions against America because it believed that America was conducting an illegal, and unprovoded war in Iraq, what would be said ? Nothing !!!

(I realise that Iran could not attack the US, i'm just trying to make a point)

I know that people are afraid that if the Iranian Government gets "the bomb" we are all screwed but North Korea has them and what happened about the scaremongering going on about that. Well bush got a new enemy i guess !

Manic Moran

halkar wrote:

Why does people think Iran will use nukes if they have it?

Because they said so?

Rule one of bluffing: Always be prepared to have your bluff called. If someone points a gun at me and says I need to die, I'm damned well going to take him at face value and try to disarm him by any and all means at my disposal. What's the worst that could happen? He'd do exactly what he implied.
Iran says that Israel should be wiped off the map: Maybe Iran is bluffing or being rhetorical. How can Israel take such a gamble? What happens if Iran is -not- bluffing or being rhetorical on the issue?

NTM

ronbyrne2005

seems to be a growing move towards a strike on iran by usa or israle ,john bolton us ambassador to UN and david kay former chief weapons inspector in iraq were on tv talking about pre emptive strikes.i think this will be a bad thing, iranians are very nationalistic and they and the wider shia muslim world will be further outraged and out to get america.would be better to support dissident groups in iran and cause a coup or stick with diplomatic route till the latest possible time. looks like strike on iran late this year though.

ronbyrne2005

also iranian mullahs know that if they launch a bomb they would be wiped off the face of the earth,i dont think the entire iranian administration are that irrational.

globalconspirac

i do not believe Iran would use the bomb. the president made these remarks at a nationlist rally and the powers that be in Iran tried to distance themselves from the remarks. They where inflammatory but I think they where more for the crowd in attendance.

I have read about movements within Iran that are opposed the current regime ie the movements towards a more censored Iran. AFIK the US where supporting these groups for a more open Iran. Although they disagree with the regime I think these groups would turn against the West if any strikes where launched at their country. This would be a disaster.

Also the Euro thing is a big deal because Saddam started to trade in the Euro, I think the November before the invasion of Iraq. Then we got the escalation in so called intelligence in what is a disastrous war in Iraq. I have just heard that America is going to tout intelligence about a nuclear Iran. How can anyone believe this and how are we going to believe the media that where so complicit in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

Nietzschean

this whole nuclear non-proliferation treaty has turned into a bit of a farce, an excuse for america to terrorise anyone who doesn't have nukes, as soon as ye grab a few nukes you get to talk at the big boys table. What country in their right mind who's getting crap from the us isn't going to try build a few nukes?


And preempetive strikes would be possibly the worst thing isreal or the us can do, think of the plants they want to hit, the possible radiation fallout(from material on site, assuming they attack with non-nuclear weapons) could kill millions. Thats not going to go down overly well anywhere, except maybe isreal, but they are just as much fanatics as their neighbours if not more so.

I think the russians/chinese should just make a defense pact with iran, solve the entire problem, station a few nukes in iran under their control, would stabilse the region alot more than further us/isreal messing with people.


As has been pointed out, North Korea got nukes, haven't seen any detonations in tokyo yet..... and doesn't seem to be any more discussions of the us attempting another invasion...


If iran gets invaded or attacked i don't suppose we'll see a stable planet before were all well burried(possibly due to some terrorist attack).

(if anyone's read Scott Adams - The Religion War, the segrated planet described in that seems quite possible, though the outcome doubtfully so rosey)

Flame Weilder

The west will probably only be interested in the ME as long as they are a major oil supplier, when that oil runs out we probably won't give a s**t about them.

Flame me if you want but I am merely expressing my views.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

I thought the same when Germany disagreed with the US on the invasion of Iran. I mean, they have no right to preach at anyone etc. etc. past deplorable crimes etc. etc.

What an absolutely ridiculous attempt at a point.
Germany has spend 50 years building one of the most comprehensively fair and peaceful democratic systems in the world, to make absolutely sure that no psychopath like Hitler ever gets into power again.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

Gotta break eggs to make an omelette

Yes, you do indeed.

The Nobel Peace Prize, however, is not given to the best omlette-maker.

Pazaz 21

What do people think of the double standard Bush is showing between India and Iran ? I mean he is complaining that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon when they say all they want is to increase there power output to stimulate Industrial growth and to bring power to millions of peoples homes. India says the same thing ( we only want nuclear power plants to help the people, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB) and Bush is like, ok at least they won't try to use the technology to build a bomb because, oh wait, THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE !! I mean am i missing something here, if you manage to get a nuclear weapon, one way or another, then its ok to have nuclear reactors in your country, but if you get caught trying to acquire/build one, your screwed, branded " mad men " and " Fanatics ". I'm not sure if i like the fact that Iran may have a nuclear weapon, but i'm not that happy that India have one either, or the US for that matter. At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World, but i think the problem people have is that they are not sure that Iran would feel the same sense of enormity and utter outrage if a nuclear weapon was used by them as it would have in the Western World.

It comes down to a mixture of ignorance and fear, as most things in this world do !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Captain Trips

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Reminds me of something....

Manic Moran

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I mean am i missing something here, if you manage to get a nuclear weapon, one way or another, then its ok to have nuclear reactors in your country, but if you get caught trying to acquire/build one, your screwed, branded " mad men " and " Fanatics ".

I think a lot of it is the realisation that the genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Once someone has nukes, there's little guarantee that a disarmament is effective. Of those countries that are accepted as having voluntarily gotten rid of their nukes, three of them handed theirs over to Russia (who already knew exactly how many were out there) in exchange for economic concessions, and South Africa didn't have any particularly valid threats against it. If any country that has developed or acquired nuclear weapons happens to have any blood enemies, such as India/Pakistan or Israel/Insert-Arab-Country-Here there needs to be a hell of a lot of convincing done for the programme to be revoked, and for it to be certain to have been revoked.

On an academic note, whilst there has been international co-operation in the past, such as Israel/South Africa, I'm aware of only one instance where nuclear weapons were transferred outright to the control of what at the time was another country: Canada, which had six nuclear strike squadrons based in Europe, and their Canada-based air defense fighters equipped with nuclear air-to-air missiles. I'm not sure if the ownership of the weapons was transferred along with the control or not. However, I'm pretty sure that the other nuclear assets in Canada were retained under American control (Such as the BOMARC anti-air missile)

At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World,

Oh, heaven forbid that the people of the US themselves might think that nuclear weapons are terrible things that one hopes never to have to use. It's only the fear of disapproval by the Western World that has prevented the US from nuking people left, right and centre...(Notwithstanding the fact that disapproval hasn't stopped them doing other things, such as invading Iraq)

but i think the problem people have is that they are not sure that Iran would feel the same sense of enormity and utter outrage if a nuclear weapon was used by them as it would have in the Western World.

Nail, hit by hammer, on head. i.e. There is an extant fear that nukes in the hands of certain governments, most notably Iran and North Korea, are likely to be used as offensive weapons, not deterrents.

NTM

Gurgle

Pazaz 21 wrote:

At least we know that the US won't use the bomb because they know that they could never live down the use of a weapon like that in this day and age in the Western World

If only!
They remain the only country to ever have used nukes.
GWB has continuously demonstrated that the opinions of the rest of the western world are irrelevant.

Nuclear armed countries:
United States
Russia
United Kingdom
France
People's Republic of China
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea

The US is still the most likely to use them as they are probably the only country who could reasonably expect to be able to defend against a nuclear counter-attack.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

What an absolutely ridiculous attempt at a point.

It may well seem like that to you because you missed it.

I was not having a pop at Germany, but the idea that Israel is somehow not allowed to express a valid opinion on this matter or do the right thing because they commit atrocities elsewhere or have done so in their history. The point you missed was that I was saying that would be as invalid a stance as suggesting Germany shouldn't have an opinion because of their past. It's the complete opposite of the meaning you took.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

the idea that Israel is somehow not allowed to express a valid opinion on this matter or do the right thing because they commit atrocities elsewhere or have done so in their history

The difference is that the current Israeli government is the direct successor to those who committed the atrocities. They subscribe to the same predujices and priorities. They have the same basic definition of right and wrong, and the same disregard for international outrage.
The Germans have distanced themselves as far as possible from the repression and intolerance of Hitler's politics. They have earned the right to be treated as a separate entity to Hitler's Germany.

Gurgle

To deal with your points in the reverse order...

Gurgle wrote:

The Germans have distanced themselves as far as possible from the repression and intolerance of Hitler's politics. They have earned the right to be treated as a separate entity to Hitler's Germany.

I completely agree.

Gurgle wrote:

The difference is that the current Israeli government is the direct successor to those who committed the atrocities. They subscribe to the same predujices and priorities. They have the same basic definition of right and wrong, and the same disregard for international outrage.

One could argue that. But to take a totally different issue, and I'm not making a comparison or analogy here, if Israel were to donate money to a Third World country, it would be the right thing to do - their problems do not change that. The fact that they have a chequered past and present on domestic matters does not of itself render their concern about Iran building a nuclear arsenal invalid or any action they might take objectionable.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

The fact that they have a chequered past and present on domestic matters does not of itself render their concern about Iran building a nuclear arsenal invalid or any action they might take objectionable.

Fair point.
Iran with nukes would be a particularly unpleasant prospect for Israel.

I fully believe that Iran needs a 'regime change', and the rest of the area needs Iran to have one. But I think the cost is too high for a change forced on a country by unsympathetic foreigners. Much as we all love to hate Bertie, how impressed would we be if the US Air Force levelled everything from Parnell street to the Dail?

The Iraqi people have suffered enormously at the hands of both the US invaders and the anti-US insurgents.

In the case of Iran, bombing any 'possible' or 'suspected' nuclear related sites will kill grunts not policy makers. Nothing short of a full scale invasion will prevent them from building nukes, and a full scale invasion would be a bloodbath on a scale 10 times greater than Iraq.
But such a strike will give them an event to point at and say "And thats why we need nukes, the US and its minions will hit anyone who doesn't have them as defence".

Manic Moran

In the case of Iran, bombing any 'possible' or 'suspected' nuclear related sites will kill grunts not policy makers. Nothing short of a full scale invasion will prevent them from building nukes, and a full scale invasion would be a bloodbath on a scale 10 times greater than Iraq.
But such a strike will give them an event to point at and say "And thats why we need nukes, the US and its minions will hit anyone who doesn't have them as defence".

I mentioned it on another thread, but there is a level in between airstrikes, which aren't a guarantee of anything, and a full-blown invasion coupled with occupation and regime change. Given the presumably dispersed and hidden nature of the Iranian nuclear programme, any raid would require boots on the ground. They do not, however, require boots on the ground over the entire country or for an extended period of time. The US and other countries have several units which are pretty suitable for this sort of hit-and-run attack.

I'll bet a substantial sum of money that some people in the Pentagon are taking a look at an airborne raid.

NTM