Will Israel attack Iran???

Amerika

Iran continues to ignore the many UN Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program.

So now Israel, Iran’s archrival, has just eight days to launch a military strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility. After that the reactor goes online, and according to international law, installations which have real nuclear fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences as once the uranium fuel rods are very close to the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation.

Worrisome knowing the whole world could change in less than eight days.

FISMA

Amerika,
Got any links to back up this time period?

Knowledge of an Israeli strike would be an easy play in stocks. A few buys, a few shorts,... This is especially true of some of the beaten down defense stocks.

dlofnep

Amerika wrote: »

Iran continues to ignore the many UN Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program.

At least Iran is an NPT signatory.

Amerika wrote: »

So now Israel, Iran’s archrival, has just eight days to launch a military strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility.

Israel won't hit it IMO. Israel is too small a nation, geographically to withstand a response from Iran. Funnily enough - the biggest threat to the Iranian nuclear program, is another nation which refuses to disclose it's nuclear weapons to the world, refuses to sign the NPT, and has been caught in the past selling nuclear weapons to an Apartheid government in South Africa. Talk about hypocrisy.

Amerika wrote: »

After that the reactor goes online, and according to international law, installations which have real nuclear fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences as once the uranium fuel rods are very close to the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation.

I don't think "international law" would stop Israel from hitting it when it was operational. We all know Israel doesn't adhere to international law. The fear of international condemnation, and loss of further support in Europe would make it think twice of doing so however. I'd be very skeptical that Israel would hit the facility when it goes operational. There is probably a 10% chance it would hit it in the coming week.

I could be wrong. Time will telll.

dlofnep

FISMA wrote: »

Amerika,
Got any links to back up this time period?

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=185060

Amerika

FISMA wrote: »

Amerika,
Got any links to back up this time period?

It's being reqorted almost everywhere. Here are a couple more for you.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfcwidkfcwkf/rss2/
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100817/tpl-israel-has-8-days-to-hit-iran-nuclea-10170b4.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/08/17/2010-08-17_exun_envoy_john_bolton_israel_should_attack_iranian_nuclear_plant_now_before_its.html?r=news

Ping Chow Chi

I thought that the Russians where providing the fuel for this power plant - and then taking the spent / waste fuel away after it is used? If that is the case, I would imagine that this particualar power plant would be low down on the 'hit list' so to speak.

Jaafa

Isreal chance to attack Iran is quickly dissapearing. The main reason for not doing it yet is Irans ability to mine the gulf sea resulting in the price of oil likely rising to over 200 dollars a barrel. During the worst of the recession that may have been less, which is why it may have been possible to strike. Now oil is at 80 dollars a barrel and will rise to the heights of 150 under normal circumstances again at some point. So an attack on Iran would cause world wide chaos. Angering mainy nations not least of which China with its still rising demand for oil. Sanctions (yes I know its hard to believe ) would follow on Isreal forcing it to halt its attack.

Little would be achieved and Isreal knows this.

Dotsie~tmp

People have a tenancy to see these conflicts in isolation. This is all merely a continuation of the struggle to control Central Asia that began in the 18th century. It never ended and every conflict since then in Eurasia is intimately involved. From Iran up through the Caspian Basin to Russia it's the most important region in the world from a resource and strategic viewpoint. The players have changed, stayed the same, amalgamated and nascent ones have arrived (Iran).

You may want to believe that large scale conflict is behind us and that the future holds a caring sharing vision but the current configuration points to one thing. An increase in conflict. We are entering into a new hot period as the large blocs vie for control and influence. Anyone not taking part will loose out. In all the competing ideologies there is only one that's demonstrated it can wield great power without descending into genocide mode. That is the western one. Its not perfect and don't ask me to define it but for all ye self loathing out there I suggest you consider what a world dominated by China, resurgent Russia or a wider radical Iran would look like.

If Iran obtains and can weaponise nuclear weapons all hope of containing that radical strain of Islamic ideology in that region will be lost. Its clandestine expansion in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caspian basic will we there for all to see as new wars spring up. An already unstable region could become a nuclear nightmare. The Iranian regime are serious when it talks of annihilating Israel. The plague is already spreading to moderate Islamic nations undermining democracies. What will be Israel's position in 20 years if Turkey, Egypt and the the surrounding already unfriendly nations become radicalised and fall under Tehran's influence and equip for war? Israel is a current front-line in the new great game. A competition of ideologies that will shape the next century.

Europe is still recoiling at the thought of war due to that last century. But they have also learned that in the face of aggressive expansionist ideologies appeasement only postpones conflict to a later greater time. Nobody in the region (especially the big player) want Iran to have nukes because it will eventually lead to their fall to Tehran's brand of "democracy". The question is where do we stand? Nowhere as usual. A fantasy of right-on wishy washy liberalism dominates all discussion. We are not only blind to threats but blind to the possibility threats can even be real anymore. This is why vital nation security issues are squirreled away in secret places and hamfisted reasons for the current Asian wars have to be made up and trotted out to the public.

There is going to be some configuration of power blocs in the world in 50 years, and with nuclear weapons whatever the blocs decide to do inside their zone of control (happiness, sadness, famine, genocide) will be totally beyond others control. The only hope is for those things to play out in a bloodless fashion. What we must face up to is that between now and then the EU, US and the loose affiliation of nations that consider themselves part of the western alliance gain as much influence in this region as possible. If we lose access to those resources we lose full stop. Sadly (happily?) our culture now disdains war in all its forms, even self preservation. It will probably take something big before people realise there is a wolf at the door and he doesn't want to talk anymore.

The early stages aren't looking good. The badly planned Iraq invasion has handed it to the Iranian clerics on a plate. Radicalism is exploding in the region. Almost the complete opposite of what the US intended. Afghanistan is going nowhere as its the impossible task the British & Russians found it to be. Iran will not get its air defence missiles and it will not get its nukes. The major powers will see to it.

meditraitor

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

People have a tenancy to see these conflicts in isolation. This is all merely a continuation of the struggle to control Central Asia that began in the 18th century. It never ended and every conflict since then in Eurasia is intimately involved. From Iran up through the Caspian Basin to Russia it's the most important region in the world from a resource and strategic viewpoint. The players have changed, stayed the same, amalgamated and nascent ones have arrived (Iran).

You may want to believe that large scale conflict is behind us and that the future holds a caring sharing vision but the current configuration points to one thing. An increase in conflict. We are entering into a new hot period as the large blocs vie for control and influence. Anyone not taking part will loose out. In all the competing ideologies there is only one that's demonstrated it can wield great power without descending into genocide mode. That is the western one. Its not perfect and don't ask me to define it but for all ye self loathing out there I suggest you consider what a world dominated by China, resurgent Russia or a wider radical Iran would look like.

If Iran obtains and can weaponise nuclear weapons all hope of containing that radical strain of Islamic ideology in that region will be lost. Its clandestine expansion in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Caspian basic will we there for all to see as new wars spring up. An already unstable region could become a nuclear nightmare. The Iranian regime are serious when it talks of annihilating Israel. The plague is already spreading to moderate Islamic nations undermining democracies. What will be Israel's position in 20 years if Turkey, Egypt and the the surrounding already unfriendly nations become radicalised and fall under Tehran's influence and equip for war? Israel is a current front-line in the new great game. A competition of ideologies that will shape the next century.

Europe is still recoiling at the thought of war due to that last century. But they have also learned that in the face of aggressive expansionist ideologies appeasement only postpones conflict to a later greater time. Nobody in the region (especially the big player) want Iran to have nukes because it will eventually lead to their fall to Tehran's brand of "democracy". The question is where do we stand? Nowhere as usual. A fantasy of right-on wishy washy liberalism dominates all discussion. We are not only blind to threats but blind to the possibility threats can even be real anymore. This is why vital nation security issues are squirreled away in secret places and hamfisted reasons for the current Asian wars have to be made up and trotted out to the public.

There is going to be some configuration of power blocs in the world in 50 years, and with nuclear weapons whatever the blocs decide to do inside their zone of control (happiness, sadness, famine, genocide) will be totally beyond others control. The only hope is for those things to play out in a bloodless fashion. What we must face up to is that between now and then the EU, US and the loose affiliation of nations that consider themselves part of the western alliance gain as much influence in this region as possible. If we lose access to those resources we lose full stop. Sadly (happily?) our culture now disdains war in all its forms, even self preservation. It will probably take something big before people realise there is a wolf at the door and he doesn't want to talk anymore.

The early stages aren't looking good. The badly planned Iraq invasion has handed it to the Iranian clerics on a plate. Radicalism is exploding in the region. Almost the complete opposite of what the US intended. Afghanistan is going nowhere as its the impossible task the British & Russians found it to be. Iran will not get its air defence missiles and it will not get its nukes. The major powers will see to it.

I would like to point out that Germany, UK, Spain, Portugal are so called western societies.

If you dont know were I am going with this you should look up a few things

World War 2 (specifically concentration camps)
the colonisation of the america's
the colonisation of australia and new zealand

Dotsie~tmp

We are not talking about the past. The present and the future. Its precisely becuase of Europes cololonial past (and further) and Europe-US 20th century war experience and liberalisation that western society has progressed beyond those low points. Im not trying to say one society is better than another. People are all the same, im saying Europe has been through the process already of experimenting and rejecting ultimately these extreme ideologies (extreme religion, facism, extreme socialism).

Eventually and inexorably others will go the same way. Whats im saying is the world can no longer afford the violence thats is necessary for societies to learn from those mistakes. Nuclear weapons mean a way to proceed outside of large scale conflict (given current population levels current conflicts are mere skirmishes) is necessay. Thus power bloc emergence. Hence unpredictable agressive regimes like Iran must be denied such things.

meditraitor

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

We are not talking about the past. The present and the future. Its precisely becuase of Europes cololonial past (and further) and Europe-US 20th century war experience and liberalisation that western society has progressed beyond those low points. Im not trying to say one society is better than another. People are all the same, im saying Europe has been through the process already of experimenting and rejecting ultimately these extreme ideologies (extreme religion, facism, extreme socialism).

Eventually and inexorably others will go the same way. Whats im saying is the world can no longer afford the violence thats is necessary for societies to learn from those mistakes. Nuclear weapons mean a way to proceed outside of large scale conflict (given current population levels current conflicts are mere skirmishes) is necessay. Thus power bloc emergence. Hence unpredictable agressive regimes like Iran must be denied such things.

Progressed? The ideals you speak of with such vigour are built on foundations of genocide and to hold these up as moral guides is beyond rediculous, the point you made was built on rocky foundations.... I only pointed them out.

You talk of

the unpredictable agressive regimes like Iran

but you provide no proof/validity for this statement!
Your coherent writing style is not tuned enough to hide you blatant disregard for truth. Iran is not a country you can attribute a single genocidal( is that a aword) incident yet you try to identify them with one or more!

The time of the stupid masses is over, propoganda of the almost literate is dead.

Dotsie~tmp

meditraitor wrote: »

Progressed? The ideals you speak of with such vigour are built on foundations of genocide and to hold these up as moral guides is beyond rediculous, the point you made was built on rocky foundations.... I only pointed them out.

Holding the past up to modern standards is a moot exercise. It tells us how far we have come yet nothing of the future. And we have come far. As for moral guidelines I have this to say. No culture or society is moral. That is an ideal and ideals do not exist. All we can do is hold up two or more competing ideologies and make a judgment. Now your judgment and mine may differ. But we live in a place where I wont kill you because of it. Iran isn't one of those places as many of their young people recently found out.

Geopolitics is ugly. Its where the rights of the individual stop and statistics begin. A different set or morals apply sadly. If this was 1937 you would be arguing for appeasement. Well consider this. It may be 1937 again.

Jaafa

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Holding the past up to modern standards is a moot exercise. It tells us how far we have come yet nothing of the future. And we have come far.

If this was 1937 you would be arguing for appeasement. Well consider this. It may be 1937 again.

I see a contradiction here.

Dotsie~tmp

Jaafa wrote: »

I see a contradiction here.

Life is full of contradictions . An attack on the reactor is out of the question now it seems. The fuel is being loaded.

Jaafa

Indeed. But the original question remains. And remains unlikely I think.