Iran parades new missiles daubed with threats to wipe Israel off map

[drdon326]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1047804,00.html

Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.
At the climax of a military parade marking the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map."

.............................................................

"Israel must be wiped off the map." .....nice message.

Hopefully the IAF already has their targets.

[stopthegop]

1. already has their targets....

seems likely...they tend to be good at self-defense

[Gimel]

26. A distraction

This phoney missiles are just a distraction from the nuclear program they are developing weapons to dominate the region, and with the help of the other Islamic terror groups, to dominate the world.

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Israel must go occupy Iran immediately

Sharon actually ordered the bush regime to attack Iran some time ago, since this has not been done, Israel will have to do it, just as soon as they get through annexing part of Iraq and most of Syria.

[stopthegop]

4. does it hurt to hate an entire nation that much? n/t

.

[drdon326]

5. Nah....he enjoys it.

n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Your assumption is so creative that its inaccuracy is irrelevant

If Israel allows itself to be used as a repository for US weaponry that could be a threat to Iran, it would be irresponsible of Iran to not take whatever measures are necessary to defend its citizens.

The view that all nations are the property of the US and as such are allowed to exist by its grace and favor, while popular with bush regime loyalists, is not widely held globally, and the argument could be made that true hatred for Israel is best expressed by those who would condemn it to the short and violent life of a pariah pseudo-state cum gangsta paradise.

[stopthegop]

8. that arguement could be made,

but it's gibberish...considering Israel the agressor nation is blind to reality...

have a good evening

[MariMayans]

46. it would mean..

that someone actually took the time to read a few books and didn't believe everything that the TV told them.

[mitchtv]

3. IAF, military target?

with so many apartment buildings in palestine still standing?

[Maple]

6. The US and USSR

have done the same thing.

The USSR never did any of the actual attacking.

Most countries don't...it's just bravado.

But apparently it's only wrong when it's a country you dislike.



Edited for clarification.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Iran must be desperate to shore up their regime

They must fear the revolution because they are begging Israel to attack at this point. Perhaps they could just pay the IDF sort of like out of Catch-22.

They certainly have given Israel every cause in the world to prevent an Iranian nuclear reactor from going online.

[Herschel]

13. You see, my friend

There are those who would object to Israel striking even when a direct threat is made on her.

[bemildred]

10. So what's to be done about it?

My guess is nothing at all will be done about it.

The US is too busy with Iraq as it is, and already anxious about
Iran and Syria meddling with our pacification effort. Bombing Iran
isn't going to help with that. The vision of Iranians and Iraqis
fighting together to kick us out would not be appetizing at all.

I don't see, just off-hand, how Israel is going to get cleanly in
and out for any attack, assuming one has suitable targets, and at
this point one must assume that there WILL be retaliation; and gee,
that could lead to most anything.

Nobody else will be motivated. The missiles don't have "We will
crush the French" scrawled on them.

It's interesting that apparently "Death to the Great Satan" and all
that is still considered stirring political rhetoric in Teheran.

Another triumph for Shrub's dick-waving foreign policy.

[Darranar]

11. I don't think it matters what is done about it...

because I think that this is just unimportant rhetoric.

[bemildred]

14. I figure the missiles matter.

And the nuclear power station matters.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. I agree

And I don't see how Israel can allow the nutballs in Tehran to get nukes as well.

[sushi]

83. Like Israel

Iran needs nukes to defend itself when attacked. Now that bullying and unilateral attacks are 'in' all nations should have nukes for self-defense! Too bad poor countries can't afford them.

[The Magistrate]

17. Yes, They Do, Sir

It is hard to be sanguine at the prospect of this particular bunch in possession of both nuclear devices and the means to deliver them securely at a distance.

It is not likely much can be done about it, though.

[bemildred]

20. That was my take.

Had the USA not got itself wrapped up with a tar-baby in Iraq,
and had the USA some foreign policy types with a few brains and
a bit of subtlety, things might have been done.

The larger point is that overall arms control must be by consent,
it is not feasible to force everyone to disarm against their will,
and "War to end all war" has already been tried without great success.

Hence one must do more than try to bully everyone else into line,
if one wishes to achieve and maintain arms control. Making threats
just makes the problem worse, not better. It's like a fellow who
makes a habit of walking down the street all the time waving his
gun around and threatening his neighbors, and then he is surprised
when all his neighbors buy shotguns.

[Darranar]

18. The missiles matter...

all weapons matter. Especially when they're in the hands of tyrannical governments run by crazy fundamentalist fools.

My point was that these threats don't matter. If half the threats made in this world were acted upon, this world would be a different place.

[bemildred]

21. Talk is cheap, can't disagree with that.

[Gimel]

28. Of course not

They have oil, and as we all know, it's all about the oil. Whoever is energy hungry will attack Iran. Then they will have the bonus of oil. It's just Iraq all over again. /sarcasm tag

[IndianaGreen]

12. Sorry drdon, but we already invaded Iraq for the sake of Israel

and we can only handle one invasion per decade!

If Israel wants something done about Iran, Israel better don't count on American blood being shed.

BTW, when are we going to disarm Israel of her WMDs, including the plutonium and anthrax they stole from us?

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. WMDs

We all know it's a club. Once you gain membership, you are in -- permanently. That's why Israel has to stop Iran now.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Israel isn't a member of the club...

Remember? They deny having nuclear weapons because they don't want to have to undergo all those silly inspections and stuff. Also, it's not up to Israel to stop any nation unless that nation launches a direct attack on Israel. Much like the US not being the world-cop despite what the Bush administration believes, Israel isn't a regional-cop either....

WMDs don't give any state permanent membership of the club. If that was the case the USSR would still be there and would never have decided they were sick of playing the Cold War game...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. It IS up to Israel

Israel is still at war with much of the Arab world. Iran, especially, actively supports terror acts against Israel. Since the UN has been proven to have no teeth -- can't deny THAT one -- and since the problem is one of Israel's national security, then it IS there job.

WMDs give you membership as long as your nation exists. I don't know of any nation that has given them up entirely.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No, Israel shouldn't be a regional cop...

And it's not still at war with much of the Arab world. The wars between Israel and the Arab states are all in very specific periods of time in the past, and right now there's no war. Besides, as the Magistrate pointed out in another thread, the IDF has its hands full right now with building the wall and would be sorely stretched to launch a full-scale invasion of Gaza. So, what could it do to Iran? Lob a few nukes at them? And the reason the UN hasn't got the teeth is because time and time again the US doesn't allow it to. Also, what problem do you have with diplomatic attempts to resolve issues? Why must everything be reacted to with violence?

I'll repeat it for you again. Israel isn't a member of the 'club' when it comes to nukes. To be a member of the club a state would have to declare that it has nuclear weapons or the intention and capability to obtain them. Israel isn't even a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty....

I've got a question. If Jordan were to signal its nuclear intentions, what would yr reaction be? Would you approve of such a move or disapprove of it based on the fact they're an Arab state and therefore not entitled to the same concerns about security as other states?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Nukes and more

Israel managed to shut down Iraq's nuclear plans years ago with a fairly minor attack. I think it could manage much the same again -- whether by air or by small assault force. I am certain I would not allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons were I in charge of Israel.

I don't see the big debate over Israel being part of the club. It's all marketing.

As for Jordan or anyone else, I would be opposed. Nuclear weapons should be limited as much as possible. We can't stop those who have them, but should keep the club from growing.

[Gimel]

55. Israel's not a member

of the regional club, either. The 22 Arab nations have a power council, and Israel is never invited. Israel isn't the cop of the region, not by any means, but neither can it afford to forget that the Arab states consider it persona non grata.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I think you may be confused...

There are no regional clubs when it comes to nuclear weapons and no-one said in this thread that there was. There's only the big one that all states who admit they possess nuclear weapons or declare their intentions to develop them are in. The club that was being discussed was that one, though I think Muddle was referring to ANY nation that possesses nuclear weapons regardless of whether they declare themselves as a nuclear weapon state or not. So, if you want to talk about nukes, go for it. If not, I don't see what relevance yr post has to what was being discussed...

Violet...

[Gimel]

80. Your club

If you insist on discussing only YOUR club, go ahead. The regional club which exists is non-nuclear. I never said that it was. So you misunderstood my message entirely.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. I didn't misunderstand it...

It just didn't appear relevant to what was being discussed, which was the 'club' whose members are nuclear states. If you want to go off on some tangent about something else, I'd be surprised given yr habit of informing others they're off-topic, but if you really want to, go for it. It's just pretty pointless in the context of the discussion that was happening...


Violet...

[Gimel]

53. Unconfirmed threat

As the number of threads and posts on this issue attest to, the unconfirmed threat can lead to more anxiety than a known threat. If Iran feels threatened by Israel's military might, and its alliance to the US, it's flexing of it's muscle seems unwise, to say the least. Why the bravado, unless the nuclear program it is developing is more than just for peaceful energy consumption.

Is there a need for nuclear energy in this oil-rich nation? The artifical club doesn't exist, except as a badge of power. Russia certainly has it, although with arms control, the same as the USA. The collapse of the Soviet Union (the USSR no longer exists) predated the arms agreement. That collapse lead to the capitulation, not a "sick of playing the Cold War game" theory.

Russia is an oil producer and exporter. That gives it higher credentials today than its nuclear arms program.

[The Magistrate]

19. No, My Hoosier Friend

United States forces did not invade Iraq for Israel. They were directed to do so for the sole purpose of corrupting the political process in our own country. The thing was done to distract the people from the economic woes inflicted on them for cronies' profit by the criminals of the '00 Coup; to render difficult criticism by mainstream political figures of the criminals of the '00 Coup; to bind more closely to the criminals of the '00 Coup that portion of the people who, through attachment to traditional symbols of patriotism and religiousity, vote for reactionary candidates, though they would better serve themselves by voting for ptogressive ones.

As it has turned out, fortunately enough, because of their ignorance and overweening pride, they have wrought for themselves not an armor of triumph, but an albatross of quagmire, by their misuse of the country's armed forces.

[UserNamesAreFree]

27. I don't doubt they saw political gain

But was it the sole reason? I believe it may well have involved control of Iraq's oil. Setting up a "democratic" Iraqi government, presumably friendly to the West, opens the pipelines, I would think.

Iraq's total inability to resist American forces and the lack of WMD discoveries pretty much discredit the "war on terror" rationale, I would agree.

[The Magistrate]

32. Subsidiary Motives, Sir

Do not much impress me. Iraqi oil could have been restored to market by a simple U.N. decree; indeed, between the relaxation of sanction for civilian supplies, and the well-oiled smuggling being conducted, Iraqi oil was in fact on market already. Direct control of the oil is highly over-rated; the stuff is worthless if not sold, and the price to the producer is a small fraction of the total cost, which is mostly due to shipping and refining. Compare the income of the oil producing states to the income of the major oil companies, and this becomes clear.

The over-riding concern of the criminals of the '00 Coup is domestic politics, for only by manipulation of this can they continue in position to loot the public treasury, and impose their reactionary agenda on the country. They really have no other concerns, though they may mouth various things they feel might be useful to their purpose at times.

edited for typos discovered after sufficient coffee...

[UserNamesAreFree]

33. Frightening

If we have leadership willing to send people to die and kill others, all for political purposes. But if that's the case, it would be deliciously ironic if Iraq was Bush's political downfall...

[Gimel]

56. Regional power

No doubt that Saddam was a regional power monger. He coveted more land and attacked Israel and Kuwait in 1990. If Bush invaded for domestic reasons, the time was ripe after the 9/11 attacks, although a direct link to Sadam as a harborer of terrorists was never confirmed.

The US power structure was unwilling to let another world power develop with it's antagonistic attitude towards the USA and the West in general. That's why he got the support he did.

[The Magistrate]

57. A Small Clarafication, Ma'am

Hussein's hey-day, which you have accurately summarized, was long past by the turn of the century. His military and economic power was effectively hamstrung, and on any competent reading of the circumstance, he was no more than a nuisance, and certain to remain no more than a nuisance till he died in office. Indeed, it was precisely his powerlessness that made him so attractive a target: North Korea, and even Iran, present far greater threats to the United States and their own regions, but they have a greater capability to defend themselves, and so were left alone.

Popular support for the action, in the United States, was rooted in two basic things. First, it has long been felt by a sizeable proportion of the populace here that it was a great mistake not to have pursued the first war in '91 clear to Baghdad: indeed, the failure to do so is one of the leading reasons the elder Bush lost his bid for re-election. Second, the populace remained maddened by desire for vengeance over the September attacks, and draws very little distinction among Near Eastern and Islamic peoples: what was wanted by many was a pile of dead Arabs, and any pile would do; no one was too particular about it. Given these under-pinnings, it was easy to bring the focus of this desire for vengeance onto Hussein and Iraq, through insinuations of a connection to the September attacks, and blatant lies about his military capabilities.

[Gimel]

60. Your comments are appreciated, Mag

Saddam's powerlessness was enforced, and yes, that seems to be a part of the attractiveness, to get an easy mark. Still don't have him in the bag, however. He did seem to most to be a villainous character, and remaining in power would allow him to rebuild. He's even listed by Forbes as having more wealth than the Queen of England.

Perhaps the states like Iran and North Korea were also doing a bit better for their people. At least they don't seem to have the scape-goats that Saddam had, with gassing a portion of his people, etc. With a record like his, I have serious questions about the wisdom of his remaining in power at the expense of the majority of Iraq's population. All this made him a convenient mark for Bush to capitalize on. The war on terror has not concluded, so he was picking off the easiest target first, and perhaps one that has more consequences, due to Saddam's wealth.

[The Magistrate]

61. North Korea, Ma'am

Is among the worst places on the planet with a functioning government: Burma may press close enough to keep it honest, but it is a ghastly place. Real starvation, drop dead in the street starvation, not the sort of caloric deprivation people like to caterwaul about in certain cases, is a commonplace, and accounts of prison practice are enough to make the most cold-hearted creature weep.

Iran does not do too badly in terms of creature comforts, and its persecutions are of more miniscule groups, chiefly Ba'hais, viewed as blasphemous heretics, and political dissidents, as the Islamic Republic is less and less popular with the urban population and the youth of the country.

That Hussein is a villain is beyond argument, and the end of his regime may yet prove of benefit to the people of Iraq. But his villainy had no part in the motivation for his overthrow by our current administration, though it was of some use in selling the populace on making him a target. It is likely, when all of this is over, that Iraq will emerge under fundamentalist Islamic rule, unless some new dictator, every bit as iron-fisted as Hussein, is installed.

[Gimel]

62. Granted

All that you say, I agree is correct.

[The Magistrate]

63. Thank You, Ma'am

Any appearance of quarrelsomeness is much regretted. Things have gotten rather heated up in Breaking News, and my mood today is particularly ruthless:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=132162

[Darranar]

35. But what's the objective of their domestic policies?

What's the motivation behind those worthless programs and tax cuts?

[The Magistrate]

36. Nothing Too Deep, My Friend

More for themselves, less for those not like themselves, and a foreclosure of any chance that happy state might alter. Beyond that, only a return to what they imagine were the happy times of their youth, when men were men and women and the rest all knew their place, and that grand fellow in the sky took care for the U.S. of A.

These are shallow people, after all; not really much to them beyond cunning and greed.

[Darranar]

37. An interesting perspective...

to which I basically agree.

I do think, however, that to attain "more for themselves," they would take drastic foreign policy measures, not all of which for purely political gain. In the example of the Iraq war, political gain was certainly a factor, but I also think that securing of Iraq's oil was perhaps a bigger factor, and scaring the Arab world into compliance with US agenda was a third factor.

[The Magistrate]

38. Unnecessary, Sir

The Arab World is incapable of coherent opposition to anyone's agenda: it has no real power, not even economic power. The oil is worthless unless someone buys it, and the governments that pump it all are wracked in debt, and could not afford themselves to shut off the spigots. Actually owning the oil field would not add too much to the profit, as cost to producer is a small percentage of the overhead. As you can see, in this case, anyway, control of the field has greatly increased costs and shut off the flow of product.

"Never ascribe to malice what stupidity will suffice to explain."

[Darranar]

39. This is how I see it...

a company that has direct access to oil fields can remove many of the middle men, therefore avoiding a lot of the raises in price involved in the process.

In addition, Iraq's oil reserves are a great way for the US to somewhat avoid OPEC, since they have a nation that will be ruled by their puppets and will regulate the costs of oil sold to the American oil companies.

[The Magistrate]

40. Understood, Sir

But it is not that simple. About the only costs saved would be in-country transportation, and possibly royalties to the government of the place. These would be part of the price paid at the port. The companies already own the refineries and tankers and marketting networks. There would be a small increase in profit, but nothing worth any great exertion: a good supply squeeze would serve as well, and be much easier to arrange.

Iraq alone would be an inadequate counter to a true OPEC embargo, but there will not be one, anyway: the countries of OPEC cannot afford to stop pumping and selling oil, for they are mortgaged to the hilt. OPEC has a hard time even getting its members to adhere to quotas aimed at slightly raising the price of oil, that would appear to be to the benefit of every member.

[Darranar]

41. OPEC...

has actually been rather successful at times in efforts to raise oil prices. Iraqi oil, though not enough alone, would drive down the price somewhat since it would not be regulated by OPEC. It will certainly aid Bush's efforts to avoid pursuit of real alternative energy sources.

[bemildred]

42. His point is that, as with a corporation,

it is control and not ownership that matters.

It's always better to gamble with other peoples money,
or oil as the case may be, there is less risk in it.

[Darranar]

43. But if you own it...

you generally control it. The US did not own or control Iraq's oil before the war.

[bemildred]

44. Certainly.

But it is common, and better, to control it without owning it.

Why, for instance do you think the US is annoyed with Mr.
Chavez in Venezuela? Venezuela has always owned its oil, but
Mr. Chavez has interfered in the US' control of it, shipping it
to places we disapprove of, demanding a large price, and so on.

It would have been the easiest thing in the world to get more oil
from Iraq at congenial prices, far better than what it will cost
us now.

[Darranar]

45. But it still would have been under Iraqi ownership...

which means that Saddam could regulate its price, and likely would have done so. I don't see how it is possible to completely control oil without owning it.

[bemildred]

47. Saddam was our best buddy.

It was we who decided not to be friends any more,
and even when no longer friends he was anxious to sell as
much as we would let him, he needed the money. Are you aware
that he was selling us oil right up until the war started?

We were using him to fill in for the lack from Venezuela caused
by the several coup attempts made down there.

I am saying that "to completely control oil" is overrated, all
one needs is sufficient control, it's much cheaper and for all
practical purposes, just as secure, no messy problems with
colonial subjects and all that sort of thing.

[Darranar]

48. Yah, I knew that he was selling us oil...

up to the beginning of the war. It wasn't much of a surprise to me.

If you own the oil, you control the prices. Yes, the oil has to be sold, but the demand for oil is so high that it would have been.

Government spending doesn't matter much to the Bush Administration. Contrary to the impression they made during the campaign, they are big spenders. Since it isn't their money, why should it really matter to then whether it takes a couple hundred million to control the oil or 87 Billion?

[bemildred]

49. Well, I'm not saying they don't think that way,

I'm just saying they are being stupid. You will admit they
are in a tight spot now? Unnecessarily?

[Darranar]

50. Yes, I admit that...

Tight spots are rarely neccesary. Especially when it is right-wing crazies in that tight spot.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. There were a few motives for invading Iraq...

Not one, but several. So I think both Indy and you are right, but just talking about separate motives, both of which are secondary to the biggy, which was oil, the spread of US hegemony, oil, a belief that the entire world must either live by US interests and values or become one of the next targets on the *Axis of Evil* (how's that for mindless rhetoric akin to the rhetoric from Iran on their missiles?), and oil. Creating an external threat to try to unite a population and divert attention away from domestic issues is seen by those guys as a way to keep order in the US itself, and it's the timing that makes it a motive in this case, even though the neo-cons had been braying to have Saddam ousted by the US ever since the end of Gulf War I. And one of the other secondary motives was Israel. The neo-cons were even saying this openly as far back as 1999, and seeing how the Bush administration is following the neo-con roadmap to global domination, it makes no sense for anyone to say that Israel wasn't one of the motives...

You've probably seen this before, but this is from their open letter to Clinton in 1999. Of course the Everything Arab Is Evil brigade here will be aghast at the thought of there being moderate Arab states that are US allies ;)

"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Violet...

on edit: forgot the link...

[Darranar]

34. That's my view as well.

n/t

[drdon326]

22. Sorry, INDY....

You stole that from Pat Buchanan....shame on you.

[Darranar]

23. Pat Buchanan or LGF?

I think I prefer the former when it comes to US foreign policy, though both are generally incorrect.

[Jackie97]

51. I do love the "Guilty until proven innocent" stance.

"The IAEA has imposed a strict deadline, saying Iran must prove it has no nuclear weapons programme by October 31."

We're the accusers, but somehow the burden of proof is on their soldiers?

Folks, this is why some in Iran want to "crush" the United States and "wipe Israel off' the planet. It's because the two countries (or at least the US) probably want to do exactly that to them.

They're afraid that the US will come in with best buddy Israel by their side (and possibly waiting for their share in resources like they got with Iraq's oil). They're afraid that the US will drop bombs on their country, crush them beneath their feet, and culturally wipe them off of the face of the planet once we take over. We have threatened to do this to them first (with Israel almost always cheering us on with this type of stuff). Isn't it only natural for them to want to do it to us before we can do it to them?

I'm not defending those in Iran who do this stuff. I'm really not. The last thing I want is to be bombed, but we need to be realistic about what's going on here.

[The Magistrate]

52. If Recollection Serves

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently detected isotope residue indicating the sort of enrichment of uranium required required for weaponry, not usual civil reactor use. That agency is an arm of the United Nations, not of the current U.S. administration. Iran has signed a treaty foreswearing nuclear weapons development with the I.A.E.A. is charged with enforcing.

[Jackie97]

58. If that's true.....

then I still see no proof of actual WMD's.

Also, I have to say that it might still be material meant for something other than weaponry. We don't know all of the details to this, do we?

[The Magistrate]

59. No, We Do Not

The processing of uranium for weaponry does leave distinguishing traces, though, which the I.A.E.A. claims to have detected.

My leading point was simply that this accusation does not really originate from the current U.S. administration, but from a more credible source.

My own view is that the Iranian government is seeking atomic weaponry, if they do not have it already. There are many reasons they would desire such weaponry, ranging from the apparent immunity to invasion it confers to considerations of pride and prestige.

One facet of the tremendous blunder that was the invasion of Iraq is precisely this conversation: the U.S. administration having lied so blatantly concerning Iraqi nuclear programs, there is no reason for anyone to attach any particular belief to anything they say on the subject concerning any other country.

[Jackie97]

66. Thank you.

At least we agree on something.

"One facet of the tremendous blunder that was the invasion of Iraq is precisely this conversation: the U.S. administration having lied so blatantly concerning Iraqi nuclear programs, there is no reason for anyone to attach any particular belief to anything they say on the subject concerning any other country."

I have to say that I normally expect somebody in your position to still be defending the US after what they did and claiming that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction (or transferred them to Syria, which we supposedly need to invade now). You don't seem to be doing that, which I have to say that I respect.

[The Magistrate]

67. My Opposition To The Invasion Of Iraq, Jackie

Was loud and detailed, conducted mostly up in the Breaking News forum. In No. 63, above, addressed to Ms. Gimel, is a connection to some recent efforts that sum up my points well, that you might enjoy.

It seems to me we are in agreement on many things, even in the matter of Israel v. Palestine.

[Fight_n_back]

54. Criticizing Iran's nuclear program

is just a way to shut off debate about the way Israel treats blah,blah, blah

You are anti muslim and the Gaurdian is a right wing rag, yadda, yadda

[Herschel]

64. ISRAEL MULLS MISSION AGAINST IRAN'S NUKES

For the first time, Israel's military has raised the prospect of an operation to destroy Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

Senior government and military officials, alarmed by the failure of the international community to move against Iran, have issued warnings that Israel would consider unilateral action to stop Teheran's development of nuclear weapons. The clearest warnings yet came on the eve of another effort by the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate suspected Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The suspected violations include the unauthorized enrichment of uranium.

"The fact that a country like Iran, an enemy and which is particularly irresponsible, has equipped itself with nonconventional weapons is worrisome," Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said. "The combination in this case of a nonconventional regime with nonconventional weapons is a concern."

cut

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/september/09_26_1.html

The world may again owe thanks to Israel.

[Darranar]

65. "Owe thanks..."

for provoking a nation in an already unstable Middle East? Iran's nuclear program will not be destroyed in a single sir strike, or even several.

[Equinox]

68. Of course there's the matter of decoys....

:eyes:

[MariMayans]

69. they could blow the reactor

This would be incredibly dangerous for the people in the area and depending on what sort of scenario took hold and which way the wind was blowing possibly dangerous for Israel.

The only thing standing in the way of that is that Iran learned it's lessons from last time and has rung the entire country with advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile batterys.

[bemildred]

70. Risky business.

I think Ya'alon is blowing smoke, at this point.

[The Magistrate]

71. It Would Be Interesting, My Friend

To have some real technical data on Israeli ballistic missile capability. It does seem unlikely to me that airplanes could be relied on to get there, but whether missiles could be relied on to hit precisely enough is beyond my knowledge.

[bemildred]

72. Yep.

Or the sub launched cruise missiles.
I would think that better than a ballistic missile in the
"hair-trigger" Middle East. If they have the range; I'm not
sure I'd want to take a sub into the Persian Gulf.

Then of course one has to know where to send it. I'm a bit
skeptical that hitting the reactor would stop the quest for a nuke
in any case, my understanding is they've spread things around
and have their own Uranium source, although that's all hearsay.

The use of aircraft sounds very risky without suppression of air
defenses, its long range, you have to go NOE to avoid SAMS, just
a lot of issues to get just right or you get clobbered.

Much the same issues come up with an attempt to get ground forces
in there.

[Aidoneus]

73. the Jericho-II should be able to..

...As the most capable military power in the region, Israel fields both short-range Jericho I (500 kilometer with a 500 kilogram payload) and medium-range Jericho II (1,500 kilometer) missiles. Both missiles use solid propellant and are nuclear-capable. Israel's successful satellite launches using the Shavit SLV suggest that Israel could quickly develop missile platforms with much longer ranges then the Jericho II. Israel has little need to develop a longer-range missile system, however, because its current capabilities are adequate to provide a strike capability to its potential adversaries. The single-stage Jericho I missile began development in the 1960s with French assistance and was first deployed in 1973. The two-stage Jericho II began development in the mid-1970s and was first deployed in 1990. The extended range and 1000 - kilogram payload of the Jericho II makes it a likely nuclear delivery vehicle. Both missiles are land- and rail-mobile. Israel is believed to have deployed 100 Jericho missiles. It continues to test the Jericho II, with the last test occurring in late June of 2001....

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=2728

Iran seems to have been considerate enough to build facilities within range of the Jericho-II, if it came down to it.

[The Magistrate]

74. The Question, Though, My Friend

And one to which there will not be an honest answer in any public print, is how tightly to the aiming point the thing can be relied on to strike. If this is more than a couple of dozen yards, the thing cannot be relied on to do the work with conventional warheads, and we can assume no one would be so impetuous as to use a nuclear device.

[bemildred]

76. Yes, and there is that.

Most of the stuff I am aware of gets you within
thirty meters or so, maybe they can do a bit better now.

[bemildred]

75. I thought that would do it, but I thought

they might have some reluctance to use it.
You might spook someone and get some unwanted
replies.

[UserNamesAreFree]

77. Does Israel have the capapbility

of taking these out if they choose? Iran is at a bit of a distance and has some decent military capapbility from what I understand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. I hope they can and I think they need to

nt

[UserNamesAreFree]

82. When it comes to the nuke club

I wish no one were a member. We can dream, can't we?