Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper

[oberliner]

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters".

Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-01-06T232231Z_01_L06759405_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-3

[Bobbieo]

1. Ties in with Bush's Divine Strake!

[Poll_Blind]

2. Report: Israel planning nuclear attack on Iran

From Sunday Times via Ha'aretz:

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israel Defense Forces sources, the paper said two Israel Air Force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters."

--snip--

The newspaper said the Israeli plan envisaged conventional laser-guided bombs opening "tunnels" into the targets. Nuclear warheads would then be used fired into the plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce radioactive fallout.

--snip--

However it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene. Disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, the paper added.

--snip--

  Laser-guided bombs to open tunnels then nukes into the tunnels? Is that more or less difficult than, say, putting two proton torpedoes down a thermal exhaust port that leads directly to the reactor core on a moon-sized battle-station?

  "However it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene." Look what you made us do! You made us nuke Iran!

  I think it's time for a quick trip down to the store and pick up a beer. Jeeze. Ha'aretz, not always, but usually vets this sort of horse before putting it in the race on the front page. Wonder what Mr. Schiff will have to say about it, if anything.

As far back as I could easily find, seems about right according to my recollection:
(2003) Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Wonder if this is what the surge is really for

You just gotta wonder if there is a link between the two.
Bush and Cheney want war with Iran so bad and they are linked at the hip with Isreal and both countries are trying to do regime change, ect. ect.

[Poll_Blind]

5. It would be Thermopylae if the U.S. tried to attack Iran from Iraq.

  I'm not 100% if that's what you're saying but there's no way we could roll the troops into Iran from Iraq. What you also may be suggesting, and what seems more reasonable if the two were linked, is that the extra troops would help hold what little there is of Iraq under control during the attack by Israel. I can only imagine how wildly that would exacerbate the situation in Iraq and neighboring countries.

  I can't imagine that any attack would ever be more than a "flashy" U.S., Israel or joint U.S./Israel "pinpoint" attack on Iranian facilities from the air, conventional or otherwise. Neither country has the ability to invade to force a regime change. To try something on the ground might work for a while but we'd get slaughtered and probably lose Iraq at the same time.

  I know the Israelis would much rather the U.S. do a strike for them but the U.S.'s clout began and ended with the Iraq war. So many things, real and intangible, spent. We stayed late at the table and lost our shirt. Israel is going to have to pony up if they want anything done unless they can blackmail^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H convince the U.S. to do a joint conventional air-strike with the alternative being Israeli nukes.

PB

[FogerRox]

4. Since Saudi Arabia appears to be in the Nuclear family

Maybe Isreal should ask SA permission.....

[Poll_Blind]

6. Just because Saudi has ICBM's does not mean it has nukes. Is there...

...any more that you're going on than the fact they have ICBMs? If so, I'm interested. Israel would be the first to holler real loud if they thought The Kingdom had atomics, regardless of how much influence Saudi has with the U.S.

PB

[FogerRox]

7. Who do you think paid 5 billion to AQ Kahn for the little project?

Who told Cheney- we fund the Sunnis in Iraq.

SA has had ICBMs since 1988, but the new ones are from Pakistan.... the friend of the Neo Cons. Iran is surrounded.

Of course I am taking the many back stories and a bunch of conjecture, but it does paste together neatly. THe Bush Invasion of Iraq has upset a 50 yr old Mid EAst balance. There are considerable forces trying to fix it. I offer just one scenario.

[Flabbergasted]

8. If Fox news is verifying this story we can expect a nuclear attack

Aren't any other weapons capable of blowing this facility...?

Report: Israel Planning, Training for Low-Level Nuke Strike Against Iran
Sunday, January 07, 2007


Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, according to a report in the Sunday Times of London.

The paper cites several Israeli military sources saying that two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the story.

"We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that "the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions" and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

According to the Sunday Times, under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242243,00.html

[truthisfreedom]

9. it's already been proven that this type of nuke produces even MORE radioactive fallout than

conventional nukes.

[NoPasaran]

25. When, where and how was this "proven"?

[TheMadMonk]

31. Any ground burst nuke will.

Nukes produce a huge flux of neutrons which transmute stable atoms in the soil into radioactive ones and then scatter them across the landscape.

There are two reasons major that conventional nukes are used as airburst weapons. One, the physical damage done to surface installations (ie cities) is much greater, and two, the quantity of fallout/residual radiation is much, much lower.

Unless a nuke exploded underground is 100% contained, (something not possible with any existing or conceivable penetrator bomb) irradiated soil will be spread over the local area. The one small saving grace is that the plume of debris won't rise high enough to be carried long distances by upper atmosphere winds. However the locals get a larger dose.

[zanne]

10. So this is how Georgie gets into Iran.

Of course, we'll have "no choice" but to attack Iran after that.

Edited to add: God, I hate that man.

[durtee librul]

11. Yep, just like Shock and Awe I bet.....

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

[annabanana]

13. Quick and easy. . . no downside. . . flowers & candy

surgical strike. . .

How can such stupid people get such power?

[pwb]

12. say goodbye to the green zone if they do..

israel is pissing me off alot lately.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

29. Netanyahu is resolved that we're going to have a nuclear war.

He is on Glenn Beck every fourth minute talking about how out of control the Nation of Islam is. I'm convinced that if we'd just leave them all the hell alone we'd all be better off.
Duckie

[Don_1967]

14. If this is true then there

would be no reason for the U.S. to attack Iran.Let Israel and Iran settle this leave us out of it.

[high density]

15. This is the same old regurgitated BS

"According to a report..."

Israel has been campaigning for this crap for years now.

[AzDar]

16. Maybe this is the excuse Dubious George needs to 'pull-out' of Iraq...

NOT because of his monumental strategical failures,of course, but because the troops are desperately needed for war with Iran.
The excuse that saves his ass on BOTH fronts...

[Dogmudgeon]

17. It's smoke and mirrors

First, it's a distraction during a week that looks to be disastrous for Team Bush. The Democrats will be presenting their agenda, enacting the first of the Hundred Hours' legislation, making Bush look bad.

Second, this is a "leak" of old, old information. Why re-leak it now? (See "First ...")

Third, with the ongoing disaster in the mid-east, Bush will be looking to shore up his support. What better way than to float some more rumors of trouble?

When the shit does hit the fan, we won't have more than an hour's advance warning, if any at all. This story screams "Disinfo!"

As with any story of this kind, read carefully. This isn't an era in which we should let our guard down, but rather, we should be asking "cui bono?" (who benefits). Sure, Iran is still being run by a bunch of dangerous lunatics. So much like the rest of the world!

--p!

[liberal renegade]

18. ain't gonna happen

they don't have the balls.... smoke and mirrors brought to you by karl rove.....

[LeftCoast]

19. Fox isn't verifying. They're reporting about the report.

So far the Sunday Times seems to be the only paper claiming this.

[NoPasaran]

27. Coincidentally, our friend Rupert Murdoch

Owns both Fox and the Sunday Times

[Junkdrawer]

28. I think it's all part of a campaign to get Iran to back down...

And I doubt it will work. So far, Iran has called all bluffs.

[NoPasaran]

30. Well, if Iran continues on its present course

I hope Allah has plenty of virgins or white raisins or whatever door prize "martyrs" get in Paradise, because there are going to be a lot of them.

[martymar64]

122. If Israel nukes Iran . . .

then they will become pariahs the world over. No country in the world, not even the US, will support them then, their people will be forever cursed and Israelis and Jews abroad will be subject to attack. Nations across the globe will enact sanctions against everything Israeli. Such an atrocity would spell the end of Israel because it would justify any attacks, nuclear, biological or chemical on that tiny state. Iran will survive, it's huge country. Israel, not so big.

If that is what you wish for your people, then go right ahead and support the use of nuclear weapons.

[Lurking Dem]

123. Point of order

This is the 3rd post of yours I have read today (1 was deleted) where you seem to conflate or confuse supporters of Israel, Israelis, and Jews.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

126. Why would Jews be open to attack based on the actions of Israel?

What do Jews living in the US or Europe have to do with the actions of the Israeli government?

[martymar64]

127. Because people that don't distinguish between the two exist

and they take actions against those they see as convenient targets. For example, the wave of killings of Arabs and other South Asians that occurred in the wake of 9-11 that had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. In those cases, the victims were innocent, just as the vast majority of Jews in Europe and the US are in this case.
Another example is when the the Oklahoma City bombing happened on the Federal Building by McVeigh. Those people killed, what relationship did they have to Waco or Ruby Ridge? None. But they died just the same. The people that take revenge don't care, they just see a target. It isn't right or fair, but it is reality.

If someone in your family died as a result of fallout from one of these nukes, wouldn't you want revenge?

[martymar64]

125. response - part 2

As far as my other posts go, I in no way conflated or confused Isael supporters and Jews. I stated in one that I as an American don't want my tax dollars to be wasted by fueling the agents of terrorism or oppression by EITHER side. As a country, we have committed enough genocide, for example, the Native Americans. We don't need to be party to more. The only way the I/P situation will have peace is through a real settlement that allows the Palestinians justice and Israelis security or through genocide. And if genocide happens, you and I both know that the Palestinians will be on the receiving end of that scenario. The WB and Gaza are already walled-off ghettos, genocide is the next logical step.
Again, I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that's reality.

[Lurking Dem]

128. "YOUR people"

and "You learned your lessons from YOUR former oppressors" speaks volumes.

I did not comment on the previous post, nor the gist of yours which was patently ridiculous, hence the title of my post "point of order".

You don't know squat about me or my feelings toward Muslims so don't presume. I thought maybe you were unaware of your conflation but apparently you are not and your belief that Israelis are committing "genocide", or plan on it, is laughable.

[martymar64]

129. Laugh all you want

It doesn't change the facts on the ground. Look at how many Palestinians have died versus Israelis. The numbers don't lie.
If you don't identify with the Israelis and condone what they are doing to the Palestinians, then you have my apologies.
As far as the genocide question, try another term, "ethnic cleansing". Look at the actions of the settlers that physically assault Palestinians as they attempt to go to school, attempt to harvest olives from their own groves, etc. When those assaults happen, the IDF simply says they will "investigate". This bears an awful resemblence to the American South in the depths of Jim Crow and in the West when the Native Americans were being decimated upon the slighest pretext. Look at how the GOI walls off every Palestinian village, making their lives as miserable as possible, evidently in the hopes that the Palestinians will leave on their own. Wasn't the old Zionist slogan "From the Nile to the Euphrates"? Have you ever read "The Logistics of Transfer" from the Gamla website. All of those point to an intent towards ethnic cleansing. Even Israeli leaders such as David Ben Gurion and Ehud Barak have sid that if they were Palestinians, they would resist because the Palestinian land is being outright stolen from them. If you wish to dispute any of these assertions, I'm all ears.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. Think I'll go dust off my old copy of "Alas, Babylon".

It always bothered me that it was indicated that a nuclear win was "winnable".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alas,_Babylon

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[high density]

24. I'm not a moderator

But this thread obviously did not meet LBN specifications.

[Junkdrawer]

26. The following thread had 103 replies and 13 recs...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2678205&mesg_id=2678205

[ellisonz]

121. Jesus.

I didn't even see that. I think there must be have been 4 or 5 threads on the inital article and a 1 or 2 on the denial.

:puke:

[hlthe2b]

22. If Israel did this, I believe it would result in the END of Israel...

Some will argue the "ends justify the means" but I don't think the majority of the world--certainly not the Arab world- will.

[LouisianaLiberal]

23. Sounds like Wohlstetter and "staggered deterrence".

From an old article about the influence of Strauss's thought:

In and out of the administration, Richard Perle would encounter Paul Wolfowitz, both of them working for Kenneth Adelman, another detractor of detente policies, or Charles Fairbanks, Under-Secretary of State. In strategic matters, their intellectual mentor was Albert Wohlstetter. Researcher at the Rand Corporation, Consultant to the Pentagon, and besides, a great gastronomic specialist, Wohlstetter (who died in 1997)is one of the fathers of American nuclear doctrine.

More precisely, he is the source of the rethinking of the traditional doctrine, known as "mutually assured destruction'' (MAD), the basis of deterrence. According to this theory, since both of the two blocks had the power to inflict irreparable damage on the other, those in power would hesitate to unleash nuclear arms. For Wohlstetter and his students, MAD was at once immoral - because of the destruction that could be wrought on civilian populations-and inefficient: it finished in a mutual neutralization of nuclear arsenals. No sane statesman, and, in any case, no American President, would decide for "reciprocal suicide''. Wohlstetter proposed instead "staggered deterrence'', i.e. acceptance of limited wars, eventually with tactical nuclear weapons, with "smart'' high-precision weapons, capable of targeting the enemy's military dispositions and installations. He criticized the joint nuclear arms control policy with Moscow. According to him, it would amount to tying up the United States' technical creativity in order to maintain an artificial balance with the USSR.

Ronald Reagan listened to him and launched the "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), baptized "Star Wars'', ancestor of the Anti-Missile Defense System, advocated by Wohlstetter's pupils, who became the warmest partisans of a unilateral renunciation of the ABM Treaty, which, in their eyes, impeded the United States from developing its own defense systems. And they convinced George W. Bush.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042003H.shtml

[xchrom]

32. kicking your reply.

it's very, very important to the history of modern hawks -- america's ''right'' to use war as a tool to control and manipulate populations around the world.

beyond that -- i don't think it's israel who will bomb iran -- if it happens -- it will be the u.s. both political parties in the u.s. are chockablock full of adherents to straussian thinking.

[sarcasmo]

33. Are these mini nukes like bunker busters where they go deep underground

before they explode?

[gatorboy]

34. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

<snip>

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

[Erika]

35. How did Israel get nukes?

Did the U.N. approve? How about the blow back?

[ellisonz]

37. In short:

France assisted Israel in constructing a reactor in the mid-late 1950's. Some unranium naturally occurs in Israel. They have also obtained materials and expertise from apartheid South Africa and material from other African states. Israel is not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have somewhere between 70-200 weapons, including hydrogens weapon.

On Iran: They might be able to produce a weapon or two sometime in the next 2-5 years. That doesn't mean they'll be successful in building a weapon with significant yield.

For some sources see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3045007

or wikipedia.

[TomClash]

69. And . . .

the Israelis stole enriched uranium from the US facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania in the 60s. That's not the only incidence of Israeli nuclear theft.

[rman]

77. I think the blowback is part of the reason why

Why pass an opportunity to create a perfectly good enemy?

Have the Hawks and the intel agencies ever learned anything from blowback, even though it is very predictable?

[ellisonz]

36. Fearmongering...

It's not going to happen, the Israelis are not that dumb or evil.

:puffpiece:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Interesting...

...did you also wonder about the "evils" of the North Koreans, Iranians, and Iraqis? Or did you see it for the bullshit it was?

[Erika]

41. Why were these countries subjected to the approval of the U.N.

for nuclear capabilities when Israel was not? Bias?

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Again...nothing to do with what I wrote.

Israel is NOT a member of the NPT.

[Erika]

44. Hiding behind the NPT isn't exactly a brave thing

Or maybe you can educate me, Did Iraq, Iran, and North Korea sign it? But if Israel did not sign it they are free from U.N. control?

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Has nothing to do with being "brave."

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There are 188 sovereign states party to the treaty. However, two (India and Pakistan) out of eight confirmed nuclear powers (i.e., those who have openly tested nuclear weapons), and one unconfirmed nuclear power (Israel) neither signed nor ratified the treaty. One further nuclear power (North Korea) ratified the treaty and then later withdrew. The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. In New York City, on May 11, 1995, the parties to the treaty decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

From what I am reading, the UN has nothing to do with this, so your last question is moot.

[Erika]

46. Interesting that countries like Iraq were invaded for

the suspicion of nuclear activity while Israel was given the capability without question. Bias?

[Behind the Aegis]

47. Do you have a point to this sub-thread?

It has NOTHING to do with what was originally asked. I don't see what your point is. Bias?

[Erika]

50. You don't? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

51. No, I don't see your point. Which is why I asked.

[Erika]

53. Do you think Israel was given special privilige

based on it's religious closeness?

[oberliner]

55. How would that explain India?

In July 2005, it was officially recognized by the United States as "a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology".

It has not signed the NPT.

[Erika]

58. Good question

Thanks. It seems there are lots of factors.

[Behind the Aegis]

57. No.

On their status as an ally and democracy, more than likely. As for religion, I don't see that as a factor.

[oberliner]

54. India has developed nuclear weapons as well

They have never been members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The US seems to view India and Israel similarly in this regard.

[Erika]

56. Pakistan also has nuclear capability

So why the negative attitude towards the others?

[oberliner]

59. Because the US thinks those others may use the weapons

against the United States or its allies?

The whole nuclear weapons issue is filled with hypocricy. There is this nuclear club of numerous countries that never even seem to want to discuss the idea of giving them up themselves.

It still frightens me just how many nuclear weapons might be floating around from the former Soviet Union.

[Erika]

60. Yep. It's scary indeed. n/t

[William769]

76. Israel doesn't have a lunatic for a leader either.

:eyes:

[ellisonz]

48. NK has been on and off, they use it as a bargainning chip. It's a diplomatic game for them.

Yes. Israel is free from IAEA purview, although there were US inspections in the early 60's. Iran is party to the NPT but does not cooperate. Iraq was also party to the NPT but did not cooperate because it was a valuable political bluff for Sadaam to make people think he still could make weapons when he could not. The truth is that the NPT although it has tremendous flaws is a valuable glue for world stability, without it there would be many more nuclear powers. The ironic thing about Iran and the NPT is that even though they claim to be honoring it by "seeking peaceful nuclear energy" they severely restrict IAEA purview. I think the Israelis should sign it, but I understand why they don't.

[dos pelos]

64. Probably right,however there is this to consider......

Bush and Co are in a corner.While Democrats are busy backslapping each other over their return to power and writing milquetoast "warning" letters to the president,Bush has cleared the field of generals unwilling/unable to do his bidding.It is not impossible that a newly elected democrat majority,still accustomed to prostration before the escalation of the war may be blindsided,run over by a tide of events in Iraq and Iran which have been engineered by the current administration.It's tea time at the ladies club,writing mild admonishing letters,posing for photo ops with the gavel in hand,while Bush and the boys prepare to run you over with a mack truck.Escalation way beyond "surge" is coming.Looks like Pee Wee herman vs George Foreman to me at this juncture.What happens domestically may be ugly too.They'll try to do what they know,reaction,repression with the volume turned way up.The people have said enough.There is this time,now,to stop these fuckers.No more funding for this shit.Pull the plug on these bastards.

[ellisonz]

66. Welcome to DU!

1. You give W and Cheney way too much credit.
2. Please don't launch personal attacks against the Democratic leadership, they're good people doing their best in tough times. Check out some of the threads in the lobby.
3. Events don't happen on their own; men make history, not the other way around.

I had a math teacher in middle school who's rule was the following: Never ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.

I've got news for BushCo their mack truck hit an IED on Nov. 7.

:dem:

[TomClash]

68. Americans are no less dumb or evil

And our government has created a doctrine of preemptive war, killed 300,000 in the bombing of Tokyo, used depleted uranium and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We'll see.

[Erika]

38. So Israel thumbed their noses at the U.N.?

But the rest of the ME can't?

[GreenZoneLT]

49. Israel's official policy is Nunya Bidness

They didn't sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so the U.N. has no legal grounds to sanction them. It's the world's least-kept secret that they have a sizable nuclear arsenal, and have had since the '70s. Iran, on the other hand, is a signatory.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/

It's a reasonable argument to say that technically, the Shah ratified the treaty, but the revolutionary government cooperated with the U.N. until Ahmadenijad took office.

Pakistan and India are the other two non-signatories, and both are members of the nuke club.

If that Times story is accurate (remembering that the Times also once reported that HIV doesn't cause AIDS), then it's a hell of a security breach. Probably a deliberate leak by Arabists in the British Foreign office, who got their info from Israeli doves. This sounds like a pipedream of the most hawkish elements of the Israeli military; you'd think after the disastrous Lebanon invasion that Olmert would pay them less heed.

This also could be a deliberate leak by Olmert, hoping it will scare the Iranians back into compliance with the IAEA. If it were really going to happen, it's doubtful it would have wound up in a British newspaper (particularly a Murdoch paper) ahead of time.

[Erika]

52. Israel has the best of both worlds

They can have the nukes they want and tell everyone else to kiss off.

[GreenZoneLT]

63. That doesn't make any sense

Israel is a nuclear power that hasn't signed a treaty saying it can't be a nuclear power. That's a perfectly reasonable stance, particularly considering they've frequently been attacked by neighboring countries (who vastly outnumber them).

You could say the same about the U.S., Russia, China, France and the UK, who are the five signatories of the NTP who are allowed to have nuclear weapons under the treaty (with a vague promise to negotiate reductions in their number).

Someone pointed out in a separate post that this newspaper printed a virtually identical story in 2005, and that the reporter who wrote it also published a weird piece of fantasy claiming Israel was developing an "ethnic bomb" that would kill Arabs but not Jews. The reputation of the Sunday Times has not improved under Rupert Murdoch's ownership.

[NobleCynic]

42. I'm not absolutely certain this is news

There is a difference between drawing up plans and actually following through with them.

Any responsible military draws up plans for the defense of country should it become necessary. They no doubt will have these plans in place to be used in a moment's notice. The real question is whether or not such a strike will be ordered. But it is only natural for such plans to exist.

[magellan]

61. Not to nit-pick

...but I will anyway. You do realize that the rationale of it being "natural to have plans in place" is the same one used to defend Bush**'s fait accompli arranging of the Iraq invasion during the same long months he was telling us he would do everything to avoid war, don't you?

This report could be disinformation. On the other hand, there's been a steady drumbeat against Iran coming from our government and Israel for over a year. Considering what these madmen have already done, it's foolish to think anything they plan is innocuous and arises purely from a "be prepared" defensive posture.

[NobleCynic]

62. I see your point.

The drumbeating for war is a problem. Having a plan to carry it out is responsible should there be peace or war. Still, you are completely correct in that we should be concerned that we are now hearing the same rhetoric that was used against Iraq before the invasion being applied to Iran.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. I know we don't normally say posts in GD are dupes

but when you just post the article already posted in numerous other threads, in both GD and LBN, with no comment at all of your own, what do you really think you're achieving, apart from filling up the first page of GD with the exact same story, repeated over and over?

[ellisonz]

67. Not only that...

The "journalist" in question has been demonstrated in other threads to be a fraud. He submitted near identical articles twice in 2005 and this British paper printed them; not a credible source.

[Subdivisions]

71. Could you please elaborate for those of us who are

not familiar with this "journalist" or the cited fraud?

[ellisonz]

74. Yes.

The journalist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3061357
Discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2678611

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. How is that 'fraud'?

The articles, like this one, said Israelis had plans they could use to bomb nuclear sites. As many people have said, it would be surprising if Israel didn't have such plans. The use of nuclear weapons to do it may be a new aspect (though, of course, it was reported that Bush had plans including that, and people didn't suddenly denounce Seymour Hersh as a 'fraud').

[ellisonz]

75. Definition:

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

There is a major difference between military contingency planning and actual political-military planning for executing the said act. Seymour Hersh isn't a fraud because he has a record of doing credible journalism. The authors of this article fit the definition.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

70. What fucking insanity on the part of Israel

Why do they want to hit Iran? What, because Iran has barely enough power plant grade material to fit into a thimble? Fucking idiots are more than willing to start WWIII over this nonsense. Idiocy, and sadly the US will play along, and the rest of the ME will feel the need to jump in, and away we go.

[salin]

73. In LBN now: Israel denies Iran nuke attack

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2678611

[Tom Joad]

79. It should be noted that the Sunday Times first revealed to the world

and to the Israeli people, Vanunu's documentation of Israel's vast nuclear arsenal.
They tell the truth.

[ellisonz]

80. In 1986 before Murdoch bought the paper...

Not that any of this matters. The editors have also changed of course....this is the current one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Witherow

[oblivious]

81. I doubt any country willing to commit the supreme crime against humanity cares about using nukes.

Aggressive war against a sovereign nation is already the supreme crime against humanity.

[shadowknows69]

82. Um, I don't know the validity of this source but....SHIT

<http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-20813.html>

Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran over Turkey - paper

The New Anatolian / Ankara
08 January 2007


Font Size: default medium large

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons and
three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out including one over Turkey, the Sunday Times said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters". Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.

On the claim that one of the possible routes of Israeli attack will be over Turkey, there was no immediate reaction from the Turkish authorities on Sunday.

Turkey is the only majority-Muslim nation that has strategic political and military relations with Israel. Tel Aviv and Ankara signed two strategic agreements, on defense industry cooperation and military cooperation, in 1996, and they have been holding critical annual meetings, especially on regional threats analysis, since that date.

Turkish Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun held key talks with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv late last month on the recent developments in Middle East and the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region.


'more'

[Redstone]

83. Stop. Just fucking stop. This has been discredited already.

And has been beaten to death here as well.

Redstone

[shadowknows69]

84. I didn't realize this.

just trying to be a good infohound. It came up on my homepage news clippings.

[karlrschneider]

85. Not to bitch, but you might have looked through posts the last day or so.

It's been pretty well done to death...

[Redstone]

87. That's OK, my reply was nothing personal against you. But we fought that battle

last night, and those "news" reports have already been discredited.

The whole story is bullshit, though who started the bullshit and why remains unknown.

Redstone

[bahrbearian]

86. I haven't seen where its been debunked.

[Redstone]

89. Yeah, those damn JEWS are clever, aren't they? They control the media, you know,

so of course you'd have not read any ot the several thousand "debunking" stories about this, would you?

Redstone

[bahrbearian]

92. Link Please

Link Please,,,Several Thousand Baaww Haaww Haw

[Redstone]

101. Baw and Haw all you want to; if you want to know, just use the search function.

I'm not going to do it for you.

Redstone

[RiverStone]

95. Here for one...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1574846,00.html

[The Stranger]

109. So a denial constitutes a "discrediting" now? Don't think so.

[TomInTib]

88. Come on, friend, don't be naive.

There are plans for all contingencies.

The Israeli military would be incompetent to not have plans regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Planned implementation of these plans, however, is another story entirely.

Planning to do it is nowhere near the same as planning to do it tomorrow (or Thursday or whatever).

Trust me, we have plans for the same situation.

[Redstone]

91. I tried to say that exact thing last night. But nobody listened.

Of COURSE a country has to have contigencies for EVERY POSSIBLE THING.

Maybe people will listen to you, if they won't listen to me.

The pain is too much right now, so I'm off to walk around in circles for a while (yes, I really do that)...See you next time.

Redstone

[ellisonz]

117. I feel your pain.

:hug:

[progdonkey]

96. I'd be surprised if the Pentagon...

didn't have a full-scale plan for how to best take out Canada, or Greenland, or whatever. It may sound strange, but in the .00001% chance that such an action is needed, it'd be stupid not to have already war-gamed the hell out of every scenario. I mean, that's the military's damn job.

[TomInTib]

99. There are plans for everything, progdonkey

Everything.

And more than one plan for most.

Except Iraq because the idiot civilians made the 'plans' for that cock-up.

[Redstone]

103. What you said.

Redstone

[TomInTib]

105. I thought that...

you were outside walking around in circles (won't that make one leg shorter than the other?).

I have sorely missed our communications, Redstone, and I will try to do better.

Tom

[The Stranger]

106. The report discusses training, not just planning, correct?

[pretzel4gore]

108. there shouldn't be...

in the olden days (ok, only a period of a 100 or so years, among a limited group of european powers) the very idea that another nation was in any way preparing plans of action even theoretically, were considered 'acts of war' by all....mobilizing/cancelling leaves etc caused automatic similar steps in the other powers....it just was not allowed. the treaty ending the 1st wotrld war, for instance limited by law germany's army size, or number/size of its battleships (that germany was able to field such a tremendous military for hitler is one of those strange details historians still hurry past, like iraq's '4th largest army in the world' nonsense repeated ad nauseam in media prior to 1st gulf war- and conveeeniently forgotten about ever since)...the 'cold war' in effect made routine the 'state of readiness' in nuclear power armed forces, at staggering cost (probably 1/2 of the total of all human produce/effort/energy ie the global gnp, since adam/steve has been spent on military iow wasted!)
it should be criminal for any country to have warplans prepared against any other-only defense planning should be allowed. maybe bush's insane excesses will make sensible people realize that militarism is vandalism in a nuclear age

[mmonk]

90. Israel denies plans to strike Iran

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16509109/

snip

However Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report, saying: “if diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably.”

snip

Ephraim Kam — a former senior intelligence official now at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies — also suggested the report should not be taken literally. “No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times,” he said.

[Telly Savalas]

93. But I heard the Isrealis were going to give illegal immigrants from Mexico

GPS devices so they won't get lost in the desert trying to sneak into the U.S.

[bahrbearian]

94. From your link

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office declined to comment on the report. Declining to comment is not a denial.

[progdonkey]

98. see TominTib's comment above...

Of course they have a plan to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, but that doesn't mean they're planning to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

That's why they're not going to flat out say, "We haven't considered how best to take out Iran's nuclear facilities," because it would either be a lie, or it would be telling the Iranians "Attack us! We have no idea how to stop you!"

[mmonk]

100. Also from the same link

snip

"Some view Israeli officials’ occasional implied threats as a means of pressuring the world community to take action, building on the recent United Nations Security Council decision to impose some economic sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment."

snip


While they may strike sometime in the future, I do not believe thay are planning an imminent one (though some may want a strike). The US seems on a quicker timeline to try something on behalf of a faction in Israel. However, there's no way to really predict.

[The Stranger]

107. So now a denial constitutes a "debunking" -- according to the posters on this thread?

And who is being naive, tell us again?

[magellan]

110. Where there's smoke there's fire

It may point to nothing more than serious than Israel having "contingency plans"; few would deny any country has the right to put such plans in place.

My concern is that this is the same rationale used to defend Bush** against the revelations of the DSM, which proved the Iraq invasion was in the works long before he admitted to it and was in fact a fait accompli.

[Divernan]

97. It was reported in Sunday's London Times, but Israel denied it.

I am confident that a paper of the quality of the London Times would have carefully vetted their story before printing it, and the Times did cite Israeli military sources (that's multiple sources). So it sounds reasonable to conclude that someone in the Israeli military is alarmed by this and leaked the info - not the first time this has happened. Now the Israelis are denying it. Whether or not the original leaked info was true, the Israelis are now on record that they have not planned this and want the problem to be resolved diplomatically.

On edit: Note that the Israelis denied drawing up secret plans - which is different than admitting, well yes, we had plans but they were strictly contingent. Also, the original story stated that two Israeli squadrons were training to carry out these plans. So as the original story went, these plans were not just something hypothetical on paper - they were in the works.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2536136,00.html
The Times January 08, 2007

Israel denies nuclear strike plan
David Sharrock

JERUSALEM Israel denied that it had drawn up secret plans to attack and destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment plants with nuclear weapons. Mark Regev, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said that Israel wanted the issue of Iranian nuclear ambitions to be resolved diplomatically.

The Sunday Times reported that two Israel air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz, south of Tehran, using low-yield nuclear “bunker busters”. Two other sites would be targeted with conventional bombs, the report claimed, citing Israeli military sources.

Responding to the claims, Mr Regev said: “The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions.” Ali Hosseini, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said that the report made clear that Israel was the main menace in the region.

[oberliner]

113. Same reporter in the same paper claimed Israel was developing an "ethnobomb"

That would be capable of killing Arabs but not harming Jews.

Same reporter in the same paper also ran two stories in 2005 saying that plans were in the works for an imminent attack on Iran by Israel.

No Israelis are now "on the record" for anything as the article does not cite any actual sources for this report.

The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch for what it's worth.

They are certainly not known for how well they vet their stories as another claim to fame of that newspaper is the publication of the "Hitler Diaries" which proved to be fake.

Note that every other report about this topic is just a story about the story in The Times. No other news outlet has any other information on this story other than what was printed in that paper.

[Tom Joad]

114. Same Newspaper reported that Israel had nuclear weapons.

It told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons when Vanunu provided documentation.

[oberliner]

115. And that article had a named source and first-hand documentation

That article was the result of a direct on-the-record conversation with Mordechai Vanunu who provided the newspaper with detailed information and photographs.

This story cites only un-named "Israeli military sources" and is written by a reporter who wrote two stories in 2005 claiming Israel was readying forces to strike Iran and one story in 1998 claiming that Israel was developing an "ethnic bomb" designed to kill Arabs but not harm Jews. (as mentioned above)

[ellisonz]

118. In 1986 before Murdoch bought it...

and presumably gutted whatever journalistic ethic the editors had.

C'mon.

[TomInTib]

102. See #6, shadowknows69

And never hesitate to post items such as this.

I believe that my friend Redstone may be having a rough night, tonight.

Tom

[Redstone]

104. That I am. But you came along, and said what I was trying to say.

And I thank you for it.

Blue 32 out.

Redstone

[crickets]

111. Information discrediting the story posted

to the Propaganda Debunking Group. Thanks to everyone who posted links to various threads and news stories.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=284x294

[uppityperson]

112. Independent has it today also

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132596.ece

Israel has drawn up secret plans to use low-yield nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, it was claimed last night.

According to a report in The Sunday Times, two Israeli air force squadrons are training to use nuclear "bunker busting" bombs to demolish Iran's heavily guarded enrichment programme. Israeli military commanders are said to believe that conventional strikes may not be sufficient to wipe out Iran's enrichment facilities, some of which are built beneath 70ft of concrete and rock.

Under the plans conventional laser-guided bombs would open tunnels into the targets and then mini nuclear weapons would be fired, exploding deep underground. The nuclear-tipped, bunker-busting bombs would only be used if a conventional attack was ineffective, or if the US, which also wants to halt Iran's nuclear programme, fails to act. The leaking of the "plans" may well be designed to apply pressure on the US.

Israel has already made it clear that it does not want to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It fears for its own safety after the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

Israel is said to have identified three prime targets south of Tehran, including Nantanz, where facilities are being installed for uranium enrichment underground. Israeli pilots are believed to have flown to Gibraltar recently to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to Iran.

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said last night that Israel preferred to use diplomatic means to end Iran's nuclear enrichment programme. "We have an unchanged policy position on the Iranian nuclear issue. Israel prefers this issue to be resolved through diplomatic channels," he said. "We cannot comment on any other scenario.

[oberliner]

116. According to a report in The Sunday Times

All this article is doing is reporting on the same story in The Sunday Times.

Their source for the information is the story in The Sunday Times.

There is one story in The Sunday Times. Everything else posted thus far have been stories about that story.

[ellisonz]

119. The BBC picked it up too, I do not believe the Guardian has...

Israel 'plans Iran nuke strike'

Plans for an Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian uranium enrichment plants are reported on in Sunday's papers.
The Sunday Times claims Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

What the paper calls senior sources say such action would only be taken if a conventional attack was ruled out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6238373.stm

Not exactly a stirring endorsement of the story wouldn't you say?

[ellisonz]

120. Addition.

The Guardian picked it up, but worse, buried in another article, similiar content to the BBC.