Will Israel Vs Iran start world war 3?

I dont think its a case of "if", more a case of "when". And that when could well be before Nov 6th and the US Presidential Elections. Clearly Netanyahu doesnt believe that Obama will move away from dialogue with the Iranians so an attack before the election will force Obama's hand - does he renounce the attack and risk losing the huge Jewish vote in the key swing states or back Netanyahu in order to secure those votes (and possibly risk losing others).
The Israelis are possibly the most paranoid people on the planet - geographical location is part of that and some of the rhetoric we have heard coming out of Iran has feulled it. Though I wonder just how much of that was mis-communicated or lost in translation. Certainly the "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" quote attributed to Ahmadinejad seems to fall into the latter category. I wonder how much of this Iranian sabre rattling - and there certainly seems to be some of it - is to garner support within the Arab for their move to get hold of the bomb? It would change the whole balance of the region if they were. And it seems the hawks in Israel are paranoid about that and what it would hold for the future and are going to act.
What the attack would involve is the interesting part. Certainly not a ground assault into Iran - it would/will a war without ground troops. Without US bunker-buster bombs, many are sceptical that they could effectively wipe out all of the Iranian nuclear capability - they could certainly damage it and slow it down, but in the process they would lose the moral high-ground they are currently perceived to occupy, put a huge strain on US relations and encur international wrath for their actions - not to talk of the Iranian response. It is true it seems that there are many Iranian missiles within range of Israel in the border regions and these could be aimed at Tel Aviv and other such towns and cities. But - and this is key to how this could escalate or fizzle out - would the Iranians push for all out war and bombard Israel with missiles which could lead to a severe bombardment of Iran on a possibly nuclear scale, or would they retaliate with a token gesture, take the moral high ground and the international support they would now widely receive before going back and rebuilding their nuclear programme. The Iranians are not fools - they know Israel on their own cant take those installations out and that the US dont want another war. An Israeli attack will achive something short-term, but international support will then row in behind Iran as long as their response deosnt involve wide-scale destruction of Israeli towns and cities. It will cost them a lot, but for the moral high-ground it may well be a price worth paying.

One interesting article I read yesterday surrounded the idea of Israel detonating a high-altitude nuclear warhead over Iran that would create an EMP. This would take out everything from watches to generators. There was even specualtion that they could detonate such a device over the whole region! Their military etc are safe-guarded against such a device and they could restore power within days. Such an attack would cause total chaos inside Iran - no communications, power etc. It would also pave the way for them to fly whatever missions they wanted into Iran. Far-fetched? You might think so - but according to reports, the sale in technology etc to protect systems from soemthing like this has sky-rocketed in recent months across the region.

The Israeli wrote: »

If it wasn't about Iran, I might have agreed with you, but because Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas and is probably the one who has ordered the terror act against tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria and tried to do the same in India

Israel protects extremist settlers in the West Bank, and is probably behind various terror attacks in Iran. Strange how you suddendly forget the terror attacks in Iran all of a sudden, and your own countries support for terrorists in the West Bank all of a sudden.

The Israeli wrote: »

says all the time the Israel is cancer which is soon will be removed and stuff, it feels pretty dangerous just to accept their nuclear policy.

Cancer you say.....

The Israeli wrote: »

It's like in with cancer: an amputation of a small organ for preventing the chance of a spreading cancer to the brain.

Some pretty amazing hypocrisy, considering that your the one making comparisons to cancer.

Also, care to provide proof that Iran is saying that Israel is a cancer to be removed all the time. I asked this earlier when you made the following claim:

The Israeli wrote: »

The Iranian regime is telling day and night (and very often recently) how Israel shouldn't exist and that its end is near. I'm not willing to live in fear of what if a maniac would fulfill its threats..

So care to provide evidence of Iran saying there out to destroy Israel on a regular basis. According to you, this seems to happen daily. So I am sure you can easily show these regular statements being made almost every day. So how about some examples from the last week then.....

The Israeli wrote: »

Just search on youtube something like "ahmadinejad israel speech" and similar combinations to see what is the worst case scenario if Iran has atomic weapon. It's their only way to fulfill it.

Youtube is well known for objective and factual information, or more accurately its known for cat video's. To be fair, if the Youtube channel is from a proper source, you can get good informaion, but I am sure you will find competing video's in regards to that speech easily.

Also Ahmadinejad has very little power, the Supreme Leader is the guy who can launch a war. Ahmadinejad has also ran into some trouble with the Supreme Leader recently as well, so has even less power these days. However, you seem to be unaware of basic facts about Iran, seeing as you suggested that they would be friendly enough to Al Qaeda (a group with a murderous hatred of Shia's) to give them as nuclear weapon.

Also for Ahmadinejad's speech, he did not say what you claim:

Hitchens Hacker And Hitchens

--SNIP--
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
--SNIP--

The Israeli wrote: »

You mean Iranian nuclear scientists in attempt to avoid the forthcoming war (in this case they aren't very different from military personal in my view) as compared to dead Israeli tourists that have been killed for achieving mm.. what?

There nuclear scientists working on a civilian program, and as such civilians no different than Israeli tourists. There is no evidence of a active WMD program. So they most certainly are not a military target. If you choose to define them as such, your are in effect making excuses for terrorism.

The Israeli wrote: »

Now Iran is showing the middle finger to the world.. Well, to the western world at least, and you applause.
[/I]

So, when exactly will Israel be inviting the UN/IAEA to inspect its own undeclared nuclear weapons program ?

Duiske wrote: »

So, when exactly will Israel be inviting the UN/IAEA to inspect its own undeclared nuclear weapons program ?

And Israel is threatening on the existence of what countries and supply what terror organizations?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That's just sidestepping the issue given that your argument is predicated on Iran having a nuclear weapons capability. We have provided evidence that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. You have yet to provide any material to prove your assertions. A war against Iran is going to be messy in many ways, it will further destabilise the ME, it will likely cause an escalation in international tensions, it will result in nuclear pollution and then there are the ethical costs, which are often abstracted or simply ignored in the build up to war, the human suffering and loss of lives in the immediate present and future from the strikes and the resultant fallout. An internal destabilisation of the regime is cleaner and would achieve the same end.

Well, if there were evidences it would have been much easier, right..
The strongest clue that the world has is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9130082/Iran-trying-to-remove-evidence-that-it-tested-detonators-for-nuclear-weapons.html

It's not a proof, I know, but let's not forget that Iran is keeping many secrets. When and if there will be evidences it will be too late.
Iran is acting to move its nuclear production in deep underground protected bunkers. After that, an air assault wouldn't be effective.
As I wrote a few pages back it's more then enough to be assertive with Iran:
1) Iran isn't letting other nations to enrich Uranium for itself.
2) Iran is willing to destroy its economy and let their people suffer for it.
3) Iran is threatening unstoppably on Israel and supports terror.
4) Iran is increasing the enriching speed despite of having enough material for nuclear power stations and research.

Too many red lights. Luckily, just enough people see them.

The Israeli wrote: »

Well, if there were evidences it would have been much easier, right..
The strongest clue that the world has is this:

Parchin is a military site, the IAEA under the NPT do not have a right to access it. It being a miltary base, there could be any number of reason for what they were doing. For instance, senstive military secrets, that may be used by the US or Israel, who both seem to want to attack. That is a perfectly plausable reason.

Also, the IAEA were allowed to inspect that site before, and didn't find any evidence then. So the claims imho are farcical, and shows that the IAEA are either incompetent or liars.

If Iran was hiding something, then they could tell the IAEA to take a hike, as they don't have to let them on military site as per the NPT. The fact that they are allowing foreigners access to a military site at all, is an indication that they aren't up to no good imho. I doubt the US would allow the IAEA to inspect there military bases, nor would Israel.

Also, the accusations date back from 2003.... which is hardly evidence of an active WMD program if true.

Again, same old hyped up propoganda imho.

The Israeli wrote: »

1) Iran isn't letting other nations to enrich Uranium for itself.

They have a right to enrich under the NPT, and they were willing to do this under a deal with Brazil and Turkey, that the West messed up.

The Israeli wrote: »

2) Iran is willing to destroy its economy and let their people suffer for it.

Its the countries putting sanctions on Iran that are the cause of that. The Iranian government would see themselves as standing up to bullies. BTW, they have offered to compromise, most notable the Brazil and Turkey deal scuppered by the West. So they aren't quite as unreasonable as some make them out to be.

The Israeli wrote: »

3) Iran is threatening unstoppably on Israel and supports terror.

Iran is not threatening Israel "unstoppable", and you have been asked multiple times for proof of this, and only mentioned one instance, which was mis-translated. You are being untruthful, but repeating this lie over and over again.

As for Iran sponsoring terrorism. You will find that India, Pakstian, the US and Israel are all guilty of that as well. This is not to excuse Iran, but it can hardly be seen to disqualify them from nuclear energy, when other countries with actual weapons have sponsored terrorism as well.

The Israeli wrote: »

4) Iran is increasing the enriching speed despite of having enough material for nuclear power stations and research.

There still no where near enriching to levels needed for nuclear weapons.

Nodin wrote: »

Occassionally Lebanon. The creation of a Palestinian state.

The "south lebanese army" and the Christian falangists, when it suits.

You mean the south Lebanese army that had kept southern Lebanon Christian and not under Hezbollah control?

And Israel is threatening on the existence of what countries and supply what terror organizations?

Israel doesn't need to fund foreign terrorist organisations. MOSSAD is a terror organisation in itself.

(Blowing up Iranian scientists in their cars in the middle of crowded streets and then releasing statements going "Oh well, we shan't say he didn't deserve it..." lol)

Nodin wrote: »

No, this bunch. Big on terrorising civillians and shooting peacekeepers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_Army

But I suppose they're "different" again.

Better at least than your "beloved" Hezbollah, and at the time Israel and them had a mutual benefit of keeping radical Islamic fighters out of the southern Lebanese border. It's not a perfect world.