Israel planning Iran attack

[JohnLocke]

Israel planning Iran attack
Sunday, December 21, 2003

Israel is considering a military strike to destroy the nuclear programme of Iran, now regarded as Tel Aviv's number one enemy.
The Israeli daily Haaretz cited defence minister Shaul Mofaz as telling Israel radio's Persian service last week that if a decision was made to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, "necessary steps will be taken so that Iranian citizens will not be harmed."
Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, Israel has come to regard the Islamic government in Tehran as its number one enemy.
This is despite Iran's acceptance of a tough new international inspections regime for its nuclear facilities last week.
Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad overseas intelligence service, told MPs last month that Iran's nuclear programme posed the biggest threat to the existence of Israel since its creation on the land of Palestine in 1948.
Dagan said Israel had discovered in recent months that Iran was close to finishing construction of a uranium enrichment plant in the central Kashan area, which could eventually give it the capacity to build around a dozen nuclear bombs.
The Iranian-born Mofaz said in a speech at a security conference near Tel Aviv that Iran was "a terror-supporting country."

www.english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/76332C2C-23BA-4FEA-A707-F12FE9534CD3

[bluesoul]

1. Israel would be making

a BIG mistake. I hope they're not that foolish even with Sharon in charge...

[JohnLocke]

2. Why would this be a "big mistake"?

[bluesoul]

3. Consequences of such

actions! What would that stop Iran or any other country of retribution? Do they think they would get away with it? Or does Sharon want more wars with more countries involved? I am amazed you do not see the problem with this. Ah well...

[JohnLocke]

4. "What would that stop Iran or any other country of retribution?"

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you clarify, please?

[bluesoul]

6. Well striking back

What do you think I ment. Or even using neighbouring countries to launch attacks. Do you really think Israel would want more hostilities and even wars with other countries? Is it in their citizens interest?

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. As opposed to the consequences of Iran getting the bomb?

I think Israel has every reason and right to do so based on Iran's actions and support of terror against Israel.

[bluesoul]

9. There is a big difference Muddle

between getting something and actually using it against another country! When did Iran ever use it on anyone? Even better, what other country then the USA did actually EVER use it against another one? I will say there is some irony in the fact that there is so much warnings coming from the (only) country that did actual use it...

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. No irony at all

It is a weapon, that's all. The technology exists and many nations have nukes or the possibility of getting them.

Now, as for Iran, based on their past actions, they can't be trusted to either not use it or not give one to their little terrorist buddies.

[Blitz]

13. Maybe you missed this

A prominent Iranian official (the former Iranian President) has publicly advocated using nuclear weapons against Israel:

Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

How much clearer can this be? How can Israel possibly wait around for this to happen?

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP32502

By most estimates, Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. And yet, they have never so much as publicly threatened to use them against their many enemies. Does anyone seriously believe that Iran or Syria would have sat on such a weapon for a year, much less a decades before succumbing to the temptation to use them for blackmail, actually use them or provide them to one of the many organizations that would use them?

The world owes Israel its eternal gratitude for slowing Iraq's nuclear ambitions while the rest of the world sat on its hands (it was later found out that Iraq was VERY close to getting the bomb when Israel struck). The world is thanking Israel by condemning them, preemptively, for thinking about once again doing the right and courageous thing to prevent an unstable and largely fanatical regime from getting a nuclear weapon which they will most likely put to terrible use.

The bottom line? Israel has absolutely no choice in the matter. Its enemies, through words and deeds, have demonstrated that they will happily destroy Israel and every man, woman and child in it if they are given but half a chance to do so. The possibility of terrible revenge after the fact would be very cold comfort indeed. If Israel has reason to believe that Iran or any other radicalized Islamist nation is close to getting nuclear weapons, it must take decisive action in what can only be regarded as a situation of defensive necessity.

[drdon326]

14. I'm always...

amazed a the lengths people will go to defend
reactionary, oppressive , totalitarian regimes.

[legin]

18. Me too, drdon326

Me too.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. A few problems with what you posted...

By most estimates, Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. And yet, they have never so much as publicly threatened to use them against their many enemies.

Wouldn't it be a tad difficult to publicly threaten to use weapons that Israel hasn't publicly admitted exists in the first place? ;)

The world owes Israel its eternal gratitude for slowing Iraq's nuclear ambitions while the rest of the world sat on its hands (it was later found out that Iraq was VERY close to getting the bomb when Israel struck).

Not more of this 'Israel saved the world' stuff again? Did you think for a moment that the universal condemnation and US sanctions happened for one reason because of the blatant violation of the sovereignty of another state? Oh yeah. And the fact that Israel violated the security of at that time what was another buddy of the US. Pre-emptive or preventative attacks on other states based on one state's assessment of what *might* happen in the future is a violation of international law and one of the reasons I was so opposed to the invasion of Iraq. There was nothing right or corageous in bombing Osirak, and there was nothing done that the world should have been grateful for. And I'd be interested to see if you have anything credible to back up yr claim that it was later found that Iraq was VERY close to getting the bomb. I read that Osirak wasn't even producing plutonium and wasn't capable of doing so. Also, if there's some logic at work that if there's even a faint suspicion of 'the enemy' developing nuclear weapons, wasn't the US incredibly lax at that point in the Cold War back when they had ICBMs and were aware that the Soviets were working their butts off to develop their own delivery systems for intercontinental missiles? Shouldn't the US have unleashed their superior power on the USSR and put a premature end to the Cold War?

If Israel has reason to believe that Iran or any other radicalized Islamist nation is close to getting nuclear weapons, it must take decisive action in what can only be regarded as a situation of defensive necessity.

Since when was Iraq a 'radicalized Islamist nation'? And seeing Israel's a member of the UN, it'd make more sense for Israel to take any real concerns over any real future threats to it's security to the Security Council. What you are promoting is that Israel be unlike any other state and lash out at will whenever and wherever it feels like it on the flimsiest pretext. If every state did that, there'd be complete chaos...

Violet...

[FreakinDJ]

5. Good chance it will happen

They have "Priors"

Would be the first time the US says "Bad Isrial" "No dognut for you"

and then send them a few more milion for aid

[drewb]

7. and then send them a few more milion for aid

don't you mean billion???

[newyorican]

11. riposte

Israel will "dig own grave" if it attacks nuclear sites: Iran

Israel will "dig its own grave" if it attacks Iranian nuclear sites, the head of the Iranian air force General Seyed Reza Pardis warned Monday, reacting defiantly to threats by the Jewish state.

<snip>

"The Israeli regime's war minister must know that if ever these threats become reality, no place in Israel will be safe for the leaders of the country, and the Zionist regime will pay a particularly high price," Iranian Defence Minister Ali Chamkhani was quoted as saying by student news agency ISNA Monday.

<snip>

Earlier this year, the Iranian air force took delivery of several domestic-built Shahab-3 missiles, with a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers (between 800 and 1,000 miles), putting Israel within striking distance.

<snip>

However, Iran last week won plaudits from the international community by signing the additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that opens the way for snap UN inspections of suspect sites.

Iran says Israel should now follow its lead and bring its own nuclear facilities under international oversight.

Early this month in an interview published in Haaretz, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei urged Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal, warning it fuelled a regional arms race.

</snip>

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031222144458.v3wm7rh9.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. It seems either way

"o place in Israel will be safe for the leaders of the country," or for its citizens if Iran gets the bomb.

[bemildred]

15. This is getting to be a weekly thing.

At least this isn't a "secret" plan this time.

[MikeGalos]

16. Well, it does seem line once a week

al-Jazeera announces that they know all about Israel's latest "Secret Plan" and somebody posts them here as though al-Jazeera were actually a credible source on Israel...

Must be a ratings period thing.

[bemildred]

17. Some others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=30844
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=32083
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=33935
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=33618

There are lots more in the same vein.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Al Jazeera

Actually, they post them as though al Jazeera were a credible source on anything.

It's not.

[bluesoul]

21. And Jpost

is?