Israel 'would bomb Iran nuclear plant'

[Karmadillo]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_814399.html

Israel has made plans to bomb an Iranian nuclear power plant if it begins producing weapons grade material, it was reported today.

Military commanders have mapped out a route Israeli fighter jets would take to destroy the Bushehr reactor on the Persian Gulf, officials told the Washington Times.

Russia has been helping Iran to build its first nuclear plant for eight years in a deal worth about £500 million to Moscow.

Both countries say it is purely for civilian purposes.

more...

[donsu]

1. see the Sharon arm of the bloody hands bushgang at work

could we name this plan of Sharon's the "Asking For Trouble" plan.

[tlcandie]

2. There is nothing to say .. nothing .. Korean will soon be nuked by

US and Israel will bomb Iran. Well, I guess they can then mark off two from their 'axis of evil' list.
BOMBS AWAY! :nuke:

It IS coming folks.. better hunker down.

[mmm]

3. Iran needs those warheads

perhaps they can buy some from NK before Bush rapes
their country. My fingers are crossed and my prayers are with them.

[StopThief]

32. Or. . .

They could simply give up their nuclear ambitions. It's a tough call. Sit back and rake in oil money while nobody harasses you for abusing the population, or get bombed for building something you don't need.

[Forkboy]

37. Maybe they feel they need it so they don't get bombed

who decided that one country gets to decide what another country feels it needs.

I dont feel that people need guns...can I bomb them?

[termo]

41. ten of thousands of snipers with night visions

and TOW missiles should be enough and less expensive to discourage a US invasion.

they should also work on fuel air explosive and deplated uranium ammo which are conventianal.

[leftist_rebel1569]

4. oh god...

I'd be willing to bet they'd find some other BS reason to bomb it within the next year or two or so...

Let's hope that doesn't happen...

[DeaconBlues]

5. Why wouldn't Israel do this?

They did this before, in Iraq (as the article says). There is plenty of blame to go around regarding the Mideast situation, but everyday I begin to realize more clearly why Israel is hated.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Israel is hated because it is determined to survive.

[DeaconBlues]

9. Israel does have the right to survive

but it doesn't have a right to subjugate millions of people that live in territories that Israel obtained through invasion. And it doesn't have the right to bomb other countries because they have the unmitigated gall to develop technology (which may or may not be used for weaponry) that Israel already has.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Enemies

Well, since Iran sponsors terrorists against Israel, it pretty much gives them carte blanche to strike back whenever. Given that, and the prospect that Iran might give terrorists those nukes, I wouldn't blame them if they blew the nuke plant to hell.

[Flubadubya]

45. Exceedingly similar rationale for our attacking Iraq...

Yes, indeed. Let's just have everybody attacking anyone they please for whatever reason they deem justifiable. Muddle, you're really on the right path here. Maybe you should get a job with the Bush administration in the diplomatic corps.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Not similar at all

And, as you know, I opposed the Iraq invasion strongly.

Israel is in a slightly different situation. It's still technically at war with Iran. Why would it allow that enemy to get nukes and pass them off to their terrorist clients?

[userdave2061]

19. Dusting off my history books

I find that it was Israel that was invaded by several Arab coutries determined to push them out of the middle east. Their current struggle against those that still seek Israels complete destruction is one that we should get behind.

Iran needs nukes like a fish needs a bicycle.

[Malikshah]

26. Uh...

Continue dusting there, neighbor.

1948--Plan Dalet (Plan D) begun after the UN vote but prior to the British withdrawal--succeeded in terrorizing Palestinian villagers. The war was on--then--the Arab countries attacked (btw--combined forces of Arab countries never matched those that Israel had--check the facts out)

1956-- Operation Musketeer--Israel Britain and France cockeyed plan to punish Nasser for nationalizing the Suez canal--Israel was to invade--which would then bring in the "shocked" British and French who would take back the canal and set things in order. Ike put the kybosh on that little escapade.

1967-- Israel struck the forces of Egypt etc. following the sabre rattling of Nasser & Co. (Pre-emptive strike anyone...) Dayan later states that there was no dire threat--but provocation was the green light

1973-- Egypt and Syria joint surprise attack--not to destroy Israel but to bring the issue back to the front burner (diaries and documents of those involved bear this out)

1979, 1982-- Lebanon Operation Peace for Galilee Beirut a shambles, use of phosphorous weaponry, Sabra & Shatila, later Qana bombing

Israel has been threatened--yes--the rhetoric and guerilla attacks have taken place, yes-- the hijackings, and in the 1990's the suicide bombings began and have continued to today yes

There is much more to this history than you have let on.

NO ONE PEOPLE HAS A MONOPOLY ON MORALITY
NO ONE PEOPLE HAS A MONOPOLY ON VICTIMHOOD

The sooner folks realize this, the sooner all sides can make progress.

This previous post is simply stoking fuel to the fire

[The Magistrate]

33. Your History, Sir, Is Flawed In Some Particulars

The United Nations voted to partition Mandatory Palestine late in 1947. There was already at the time a steady conflict between Arab Nationalist irregulars and Zionists in Palestine, which intensified greatly after the vote, accompanied by widespread outvreaks against Jews in neighboring Arab countries. From around the turn of the year, the Arab Nationalists gained the upper hand in Palestine with a campaign against the communications between the various Jewish centers, known sometimes as "the war of the roads". At this time, they both outnumbered and out-gunned Zionist forces, and were generally un-molested by English police. Zionist forces received their first sizeable supply of rifles and machine-guns, courtesy of the Soviet Union via Czechoslovakia, late in March, and lauched a counter-attack that April, with about 9,000 reasonably armed and trained men, that succeeded in restoring communications into the Galilee and Jerusalem. The Arab nations, on instructions from the Arab League, invaded two days after Israel declared independence, and did so with a superiority in numbers, and a great superiority in aircraft, armor, and artillery. Israeli forces increased in number, and quality of armament, as the war continued. Israeli generalship, and fighting moral, was better than that of their combined opponents.

Your summary of the Suez campaign is reasonably accurate, as is your summary of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Your summary of the circumstances of '67 is not quite so good, nor is your summary of '73, but these can be saved for a later time.

[Malikshah]

49. Your reputation precedes you, Magistrate

For the purposes of this board, I did not wish to go into specific details, as it would have taken a few hours to delineate the numerous sources.

I disagree with your conclusions regarding number that youhave quoted as well as the timelines regarding 1947 to 1948. I agree that I was incorrect regarding the vote-- 1947 is correct--it would be useful for readers to check out the majority/minority opinions on said vote as well. I was inaccurate in my statement, however, as I was referring more to the true onset of the war beginning prior to the May Declaration by Ben Gurion & Co.

The numbers for the war--all the way through to the armistices although they did not create an actual cessation of battle between Israel and the individual countries--these numbers need to be addressed more thoroughly. Shaim's calculation, although not without controversy, is a more accurate description than has been given over the decades since the 1948-1949 war.

With regard to the 67 war--again--one needs to go and look at what the various participants said and did (all of it--not just bits and pieces as has been done by scholars from boths sides)--to get a true assessment.

Best,

Malikshah

[Julien Sorel]

36. You need some new history books there.

[Rhiannon12866]

21. You've called it as it is, DeaconBlues

Yes, Israel not only continues to subjugate those who live in the territories, but is now aiming missile strikes at densely populated areas such as Gaza, aiming to assassinate individual leaders from terrorist groups, such as Hamas. Unfortunately, innocent civilians are killed, as well, and they often miss. When I heard the term ``targeted killings,'' my blood ran cold. This will only lead to an escalation of the violence and a complete derailing of the ``road map.''

Yes, Israel does has the right to survive. I also agree that they do not have the right to bomb any other country that aspires to their level of technology. They seem to be taking a page from Bush*s playbook, if they launch an unprovoked strike. They know that they have the unqualified support of the U.S.

The important thing to remember in all this is when it is reported that Israel plans to launch strikes on people living within its borders or its neighbors, they are talking about the government and not the people. The majority of Israeli citizens are sick to death of the violence and of living in fear. They desire peace as much as the Palestinians. Both groups have been given hope too many times, just to see it snatched away.;(

Welcome to DU, DeaconBlues!:toast:

[dfong63]

10. of course, the "hatred" has nothing to do with the theft and destruction

... of millions of people's homeland, does it? or the brutal and unrelenting oppression, the assassinations, and the racist laws within Israel itself? no, of course not! </sarcasm>

[sujan]

13. israel is hated because it does this

[rustydad]

20. Hated?

Israel is not hated because it chooses to survive, not in todays world. It is hated because no nation on the planet uses the "double standard" as does Israel. Israel has had the "bomb", lots of them, for decades against the wishes of the world. If Israel feels the need to be armed with the "bomb" why shouldn't Iran, or NK, or Pakistan, or India, or China, or Russia, yada yada. Bob

[madrchsod]

6. the iranians do have

the best of the chinesse air defence systems . it would be interesting if the idf could get thru in numbers. course if they drop a nuke all bets are off.. i guess it`s ok for israel to reject any inspection of their nuke prodution and declaring even if they have tactical nuke weapon systems...

[0007]

8. If this ever happened you

could say "good bye Israel " Is this post a joke or what?

Sharon should retire. It woudl save a lot of lifes.

[dfong63]

11. would netanyahu be any better?

Sharon should retire. It woudl save a lot of lifes.

sadly, Sharon isn't even the worst of the lot.

[0007]

18. Are you part of joke also?

I've had much repect for Israel, but today I've changed because it appears that Israel has changed gods. Why are they being
so hateful and living in the past?

[Rhiannon12866]

22. No, he definitely would not

He was educated in the U.S. and is a favorite of the conservatives in the press and the neocons in the U.S. government. He was the favorite, rather than Sharon, until the promising peace negotiations between Barak and Arafat, brokered by President Clinton, fell apart. Sharon had a hand in this and was swept into office.

Sharon is definitely not the worst, but his Likud party does not have a majority in the Israeli Parliament. His government is a coalition. In order to remain in power, his party was forced to form an alliance with the hard-liners. This group does not favor peace, so peace will continue to be elusive while Sharon's coalition remains in power.

[Kbowe]

12. Why does Israel receive a pass from the world for its terrorism?

I just don't understand this. Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq in 1986 and there were nothing said or done about by the world community. At that time Iraq was not threatening anyone. Is the west saying that no ME country except Israel can have nuclear plants for energy or other uses?

[sujan]

14. because of the US

'you're with us or against us'

[Rhiannon12866]

51. You called it

Israel receives unqualified support, as well as generous monetary aid, from the U.S.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. At war

Iraq and other Arab nations were still at war with Israel.

[rustydad]

23. Still at war?

By what definition do you say they were at "war"? Is there a measure for that term? Is it like "war on drugs"? or "war on terrorism"? or "war on poverty"? or "war on yada yada"? Sure Israel has enemies, in fact Sharon and the Israeli war government makes damned sure they have and always will have enemies. Else they might lose their jobs. The future of the ME is much like our history with the Soviet Union. It was called MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Of course the distances over land are closer so accidents more likely. Yet we and the Soviets always had Boomers off each others coast with missile flight distances very short. I say that once one side gets the "bomb" the other side must also in order to maintain symmetry of force and deterrence. Bob

[The Magistrate]

31. As A Matter Of Record, Sir

The war in 1948, in which the Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon engaged with the declared state of Israel, ended with an armistice, not a peace and declared cessation of hostilities. Egypt eventually signed a peace treaty after the war in '73; Jordan did so shortly before the death of King Hussein. None of the others mentioned have yet done so. With the exception of Lebanon, which has collapsed into a sort of Syrian possession, these states continue to maintain a belligerent status. Yran did not join the roster of enemies until after the overthrow of the Shah, and the creation of the Islamic Republic.

[Rhiannon12866]

34. Thank you, again, for the history lesson, Magistrate

As usual, with a few succinct words, you have put the facts on the table and most of the rest of this discourse to shame.

You did not express your opinion about Iran, however.

I think that to take on Iran would be suicidal, and that goes for either Israel or the U.S.

Anyone who advocates war with Iran should have a long talk with Saddam Hussein. The Iran-Iraq war went on for years and the casualties were astronomical. Because Iran is so populous, they just kept coming, in wave after wave. There are huge mass graves.

Americans are continuing to die in Iraq, despite the fact that we bombed them back to ``the stone age'' during the ``first'' Gulf War. Armed resistance and attacks on U.S. and British forces are becoming stronger and more organized in Iraq. Why would anyone want to pit their young men and women against a considerably superior force? How would a much smaller force, like Israel's, fare any better? They lack the manpower.

The only reason that Saddam managed to survive at all, against Iran, was with the help of the U.S. He was considered more of an ally then and obtained weapons from the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Would the U.S. then join Israel? This is a scenario that nightmares are made of. Our resources are already stretched too thin. We still have forces in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia. We have called up reservists to occupy Iraq.

To attack Iran, at this point, would force neighbors in the region to take sides and could well ignite the entire region.

BTW, Magistrate, congratulations on your star. This must make your travels on DU much easier.:-)

[The Magistrate]

47. Down In The Dungeon, Mem'Sahib

There has been some comment here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=9165#9314

It would be difficult for me to condemn the act, if Israel did perform it, with any great fervor: the reasons it might be done are understandable, even compelling from a narrow military point of view.

It does not seem to me, though, that it would be a particularly wise thing to do. The possibilty of unintended consequences looms large, even in case of success.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. because the words Arab and Terrorist go together in our minds

and Israel is a "land without a people for a people without a land".... it's all in the advertising.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Septemberish, Octoberish, 2004?

[Junkdrawer]

24. Iran has hardened the facilities for just this contingency...

Google: iran nuclear underground

Here's one article:
A nuclear fuel production plant and research lab Iran is constructing will be underground, the State Department said.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher said satellite imagery showed that some structures at the Natanz plant in central Iran already are being covered with earth.

"Iran clearly intended to harden and bury that facility," Boucher said. "That facility was probably never intended by Iran to be a declared component of the peaceful (nuclear) program."

Instead, he said, "Iran has been caught constructing a secret underground site where it could produce missile material."


More...

http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/fuelproductionplant13december.htm

I remember this was one of the justifications for the US "Mini-Nukes".
Would Israel dare use nukes?

[NickB79]

25. Hypocrisy?

Doesn't Israel already have ~100-200 nuclear bombs? Yet they threaten to bomb any nation that develops nukes of their own? And it seems even their logic is off: the nukes Iran is developing are more likely as a defense against the US more than an offensive weapon against Israel.

Other than the logistical problems of penetrating Iranian airspace without benefit of US stealth technology, and the problems of bombing a hardened, buried target, what would then stop Iran from responding it's own military strike? Furthermore, does this proposed route Israeli jets would take run over US-occupied Iraq? If so, wouldn't this make the US partly responsible and open themselves up to threats of retaliation by Iran in Iraq? Does Iran have ICBM's or long-range Scuds capable of reaching Israel? I don't think you want to screw with Iran.

[2cents]

27. I have my doubts about this one

By that I mean - if the Iranian plant was as credible a threat as Sharon would have us believe he would have taken it out, without warning, and not wait until after it goes active.

Sharon's tough talk strikes me as just that - talk.

[esse_quam_videri]

28. Yahweh vs. Allah,

what a sad state of affairs. Religion, you can't live with it, and you can't live with it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. This isn't about religion, it's about power hungry fascists

Sharon and the PNACers, that is. And the Likud plan IS the PNAC plan as those fucking traitorous pieces of shit Perle and Wolfowitz wrote both.

[Fovea]

29. If Sharon does this

It will start the countdown to global war.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. You mean like it did when the bombed Iraq?

Not.

[NickB79]

39. Hardly an accurate comparison

When the Iraqi reactor was bombed in the 80's, there wasn't a leaderless country of 20 million restless, angry Muslims next door suffering due to the Western world's actions. The area is MUCH more volatile right now; any additional military action that takes place in the ME now could be like a spark in a coal mine. Much of the Arab world already despises Israel; another aggressive attack like the one suggested would be suicidal for Israel. Even if Iran couldn't retaliate directly with mid-range ICBM's, they could supply enough material and monetary support of terrorist groups operating in Israel to maintain DAILY suicide attacks there. Furthermore, with the support the US gives Israel, US troops would soon be targetted even more as an indirect way to strike back at Israel through it's allies (who have conveniently provided plenty of US targets on the streets of Najaf, Baghdad, Fallujah, etc).

Israel really seems eager to get a chance to test out those nukes they've built and hidden, based on this saber-rattling. And if they follow this course, they very well get their chance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Volatile yes,

But how much MORE volatile if the Iranians get nukes?

I wildly agree that, "Much of the Arab world already despises Israel." So, what have they got to lose. Let those who despise Israel get nukes and THAT will destabilize everything.

Israel isn't the one rattling the saber here. If Iran gets those nukes, the terror groups it openly supports would be the ones to benefit.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. You really believe that war with Iran would be an easy victory?

Think again. This is not Iraq, which the U.S. bombed back to the stone age during the ``first'' Gulf War. Their infrastructure was completely destroyed and 12 years of U.S.-led U.N. sanctions left once-prosperous Iraq at third-world status.

This is not true for Iran. Iran is much more populous than Iraq. If you think that a war with Iran would be an easy victory, just ask Saddam Hussein. His war with Iran went on for years, with horrific numbers of casualties. The only way he managed to survive at all was by obtaining weapons from the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Saddam was then considered a U.S. ally.

Iran once had democracy. It was snuffed out, thanks to U.S. interference. The U.S. helped establish the Shah and his brutal, repressive regime. Iran has not forgotten and will not put up with this again. New elections are coming up. Iran is well on its way to establishing a democracy once again, if left on its own.

This article explains how the U.S. replaced a democratic Iran with a brutal dictatorship:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0810-06.htm

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. No

Nor do I think this would cause a war. I would cause a great uproar, but so what? Iran already openly backs terror against Israel. Let them pay for THAT foolish choice. Let's not allow them to make worse decisions.

[Nottingham]

35. Bombing Bush...ehr Nuclear Plants

How Ironic! :bounce:

[goforit]

50. Hmmm.......Poppy Bush....Where are you darling?

Have you been funding this project since the the Shaw of Iran?

Handing over nuclear technology for how long?

And now your baby boy is placing them on the "Axis of Evil" list.

And you are forcing Israel to do your dirty work.

Enjoying your "Cowboy and Indian" games?

Why did you not visit ground zero once?

Did you even blink when the towers fell?

Was this all a joke to you?

Is your relationship with the Royal Saudies deeper than what
is at face value?
Are harems intriguing to you?
Is this all about your sexual escapades?

Is this all about keeping your wallet overflowing with military
profits?

Hello.....are you there?

[CornFused]

46. I just think

it's so weird that US get to decide who can have N Bomb while they has bazillions of war head. and Israel is on the band wagon with US. "No no you can't have that because if you have it we won't be able to beat you in battle." kid of. Or "No no you can't have it because you are bad people." And being the only country which used N bobm against civilian population. Also being the first country that targeted civilan pouplation in the history of warfaire (by bombing).

it's also weird that Israel told the world about its plan to bomb the N plant. Why would they do that?

Bands Against Bush
International Day of Action
On October 11th 2003
All over the US and Europe
http://bandsagainstbush.com/