Iran: Declared War On Israel? Will Israel Strike First?

[New Government]

First, let me make necessary disclaimers to preempt flames and snarky remarks directed at me personally....I have never been, and am not now, a supporter of Israel's foreign policy. Period. Far from it! But, I argue that Israel may have every right to ACT NOW against Iran.
----------------

Iran within the past several months has:

1. Announced on two different occasions that Israel should be wiped off the map.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

2. Announced their ability to enrich uranium for "energy" purposes. But also is a giant step toward the ability to produce a nuke.

3. Held a patriotic rally (complete with dancers presenting models of centrifuges to Ahmadinejad and religious leaders) that would make North Korea proud. Frankly, watching this on TV last week was creepy.

4. Iranian political and military leadership within the past few days have made reference to the "annihilation" of Israel.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation."

DU: Let's Think........No left/right - right/left fighting. Just THINK.

Israel has been relatively quiet after these Iranian threats and the news of the uranium enrichment capability. It appears Peres went off script once, but it was a break from what one observer called on TV Friday, "An unusually eerie silence from the Israeli military and political leadership."

Now the question: Has Iran declared War On Israel? Will Israel Act First?

A very easy argument could be made that these threats of "wiping Israel off the map" and "annihilation" are defacto declarations of war. These statements, and the nuclear developments, has seemingly united the left/center/right in Israel like nothing in recent history.

Could we blame Israel if they made the decision to act militarily? Really? A good case could be made that any action would not be "pre-emptive," but a response to clear Iranian statements of their plans to destroy Israel.

I can see a scenario where Israel uses conventional weapons to bomb strategic sites in Iran, halts action for a few hours to gauge the response, and if Syria were to make moves to become involved that Israel offer a clear nuclear ultimatum. Plain and simple: no more threats, a firm agreement on Israel's right to exist, a halt to Iran's nuclear program, no Syrian interference, and basically - whatever else they cared to ask. Without a clear agreement to the above, Israel could very well unleash hell on the Islamic world using nuclear weaponry as a defensive measure.

If someone were across the street from you and you knew they didn't like you - that's one thing. Though, when you see the neighbor taking action that could lead to easy destruction to your home and family - wouldn't that raise your eyebrows? Then, if they came out and stood at the curb and threatened you and your family with annihilation and said the plan was to wipe your house and family off the block, would you have had enough? If they had the capability to hit you instantly, without an ability to respond, would you not act IN DEFENSE? Not "pre-emptively" as the threats were clear as crystal as to the neighbor's intention.

I have thought about this long and hard. As stated above, I am NO FAN of Israel and their foreign policy. But, honestly, if they take action - in preservation and defense of their country - is there anybody here that could really blame them? Really? I know there will be the pacisists who would disagree on moral and religious grounds - and I respect that. But aside from that, after what we've seen and heard from Iran, Israeli action would be hard to criticize. After all, wait too late after they've basically told them their plans for their country - and it would be irresponsible for Israel to not defend their national interests.

The "eerie silence" from Israel could very well be the quiet before the storm. No need to talk, letting the action do all the talking necessary.

It could very well happen - sooner rather than later.

[Emit]

1. Now...

Just switch the words "Israel" (or maybe US/Israel) for "Iran" and re-read what you just wrote (with some leeway for specifics, but, you know what I mean).

Frankly, I feel like I'm caught right in the middle. :crazy: The threats fly both ways.

Edited to add, there have been a lot of threads discussing this issue. Here are a few I can recall:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=920737&mesg_id=920737

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=931394&mesg_id=931394

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=903527&mesg_id=903527

[Boojatta]

2. The goverment of Israel could request all countries in the world to

speak up and say how many Israelis they will allow in. Then the total can be computed and announced. If it adds up to 50% of the total number of Israelis, then at least 50% of Israelis will have an opportunity to leave Israel permanently.

Leaving Israel permanently might mean avoiding involvement in future wars, depending on which countries are willing to accept Israelis. Switzerland is unlikely to be involved in any wars soon. The US is involved in the war in Iraq, but so far nobody is being drafted. Egypt made peace with Israel, so perhaps they would be willing to accept some Israelis who would then avoid further involvement in wars in the Middle East.

[cali]

8. Bizarre little post

You seem to be suggesting that Israel should simply dissolve itself. As for Israeli going to Egypt, that's a literally insane suggestion.

[Boojatta]

19. If people have an opportunity to leave, then does that imply that they

will leave? If 100% of Israelis wanted to leave and 100% had an opportunity to go places that are at peace and likely to remain at peace, then Israel might dissolve itself. It would be up to individual Israelis to make their own decisions.

To leave, people need an opportunity to be accepted elsewhere, unless they can find a way to live somewhere not controlled by any government.

My point is that if Iran is making threats against Israelis, then some or all Israelis might have at least one option to avoid conflict, but that option depends upon the goodwill of the nations of the world.

[Emit]

3. From another point of view

On a related note, I just received this article yesterday via email, but actually, I think this sale already went through.

Anyway, just food for thought -- From the other side:

http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm

Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran:
Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel

Faulty Intelligence, WMD Hype and a New Trigger for War

On April 28, 2005 the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of the sale of 100 GBU-28 "bunker buster" guided bombs to Israel. Designed to penetrate hardened command centers located deep underground, the GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided bomb that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead and contains 630 pounds of high explosives.

The Israeli target for the GBU is no secret. For months Israeli intelligence, political and policy operatives in the US have been presenting a case that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons that threaten Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers.

American skeptics will recall similar statements by Ariel Sharon who made claims along with a network of American pundits that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been shipped into Syria at the start of the US invasion of Iraq. Although the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Team responsible for hunting WMD in Iraq officially announced on April 23, 2005 it found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction or transfer to Syria, proponents of conflict with Syria and Iran continue to push their case forward. Like misleading intelligence claims about Iraq, a GBU-28 sale could trigger an immediate, needless and bloody conflict, only this time between the US and Iran (see Exhibit 1).

~snip~

Recommendations:

The US must take a number of steps to defuse the budding crisis in the region. The US must:

1. Not sell Israel the GBU-28. To sell them is to all but guarantee their use, creating an unnecessary human and environmental disaster in Iran and the region;
2. Caution Israel not to engage in a nuclear first strike against Iran. Although Israel is capable of strategic submarine and air attacks against Iran, it should be sternly warned not to do so;
3. Bring Israel into the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If Iran sets out to build a nuclear capability, it will largely be to counter Israeli nuclear weapons. By moving Israel into the NPT and eliminating its stockpile of nuclear weapons, one of the major drivers of instability in the region would be eliminated.

The US Congress has 30 days to object to this sale. IRmep strongly encourages members of Congress to consider the factors outlined in this policy research note and reject the destabilizing sale of GBU-28s to Israel.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. delete posted in wrong place

[PublicWrath]

4. I can't see how military action on Israel's part could help matters

I agree that Ahmadinajad is bloodcurdling. Off the scale bloodcurdling.
Yet, on the other hand, "Israel must be wiped off the map" is said about every ten minutes in the middle east and often by authority figures.
I can't see how Iran could strike Israel and expect to survive it.
I think it might be macho posturing. The Israelis really have the most to lose by selectively pre-empting.

If Iran's nukes are really in infancy, the Israelis are better off waiting to see what diplomacy brings. There could even be a revolution in Iran, replacing fundy Ahmadinajad with someone who wants to get on with the west so Iran can advance economically. It would be imprudent to strike now, and I don't think the Israelis are going to do anything while the world is all stirred up about it. Too many other tempers in the world might be warmed up and watching closely. Best to let it slide and make it a surprise attack later, if an attack is necessary at all.

[Yupster]

26. Iran could strike Israel

by giving a bomb to a terrorist group in Lebanon and letting them slip it into the country.

They would survive that way.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. It's my understanding that the "President" of Iran...

is a figurehead position and the real powers are the other imams running the show. None of them have backed up the President, who they seem to think is a bit of a nutcase. But, he's their nutcase, so they let him rant on.

With the enormous US presence in the Middle East and plans for whoknowswhat, Israel is very sensibly keeping quiet right now, just as they didn't get involved in the first Gulf war. Israel has more immediate concerns than Iran.

[rucky]

6. I don't think the Israeli parlaiment can get it together for a decision

there's a leadership vacuum in Israel right now, and they're at a crossroads - if it goest Likud, then there will be a strike. If it goes Kadima, then I say there will be more careful examination which includes the option of preemption, but only after other options have been exhausted.

[oblivious]

7. Good Lord! The propaganda just keeps coming. Non-stop.

1. "Israel should be wiped off the map" (i.e. remaned Palestine) has been a favourite of Iranian leaders since the revolution. It is not a threat to attack for God's sake.

2. Iran has every right to enrich uranium under the NPT. It even postponed it for two years at the request of the E3 although it was not obligated to do so under the NPT. It's program has been entirely transparent since 2003 and the IAEA is so far satisfied that there is no evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

3. A patriotic rally as grounds for military attack? Are you insane?

4. References to the annihilation of Israel. He talked about Israel rotting from within, not being attacked from the outside.

This warmongering is getting sickening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. you are so right

the suggestion that an attack should be launched on the basis that a country might eventually become a credible threat when there is no evidence whatsoever that they are anywhere near that ability to be a credible threat--when its Supreme religious leader has already given a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances -- when a President who is NOT commander of the military -- says some terrible things -- but makes it clear over and over again that he does NOT condone any mass attack on civilians ---

I don't know if this is crazy or evil or what to call it.


"I won't be laughing at the lies when I'm gone" -- Phil Ochs

[Boojatta]

20. Credible?

its Supreme religious leader has already given a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances

Have religious leaders in Iran ever stated that Jesus was the second greatest prophet who ever lived?

If the answer to the above is "yes", then is that a fact about a message or is it a fact about an unknown person who influenced people while he was alive, but whose message has been lost?

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. Grand Ayatollah and Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei is the

the equivalent in the Iranian theocracy of the Supreme Court in America. His word is the final authority.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

[Boojatta]

33. "His word is the final authority."

Are all of his words written down and made available to the general public? Is it impossible for him to say things in private to government officials?

If twelve judges in 1930s Chicago had been chosen at random and put on the Supreme Court of the United States, then would that have caused them to become credible and beyond the reach of bribes?

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. in the Shiite religion a religious fatwa by the Imam is a public and

binding and final decision. It would not be possible in the Shiite version of Islam to give one decision and give another secret contradictory decision on the side. In the Shiite version of Islam a fatwa by the Imam is a very big deal and not taken lightly. It almost carries the weight of scripture.

[PublicWrath]

21. Thanks for the sanity flash. I've been taking a similar position on

Iran's threats. I think virtually all of the swaggering and fist-shaking at the US and Israel is done for home consumption. What scares me the most is that bush doesn't have any sense and certainly wouldn't filter Iranian big talk through the historical and cultural translation.

I guess I'm still more afraid of bush than Iran.

[ronnie624]

28. The OP is parroting propaganda

courtesy of the U.S. corporate "news" media.

Below is a link to a translation of the speech by the Iranian president that I believe the OP is referencing. I have read the speech in its entirety--twice--and I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it contains not a single threat against Israel. The linked website also contains a speech by Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei at the same function. Again, no threats against Israel.

Both speeches consist primarily of criticisms of Western hegemony in the Middle East through Israel.

I do so wish people would do a little research before "mistakenly" spreading misinformation.

<http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0604147740205359.htm>

[PublicWrath]

32. Maybe it's actually a ramping down of Ahmadinejad

Which would be nice.
I think the OP was referencing the stuff he said last year in a address to students in Tehran. At the "The World Without Zionism" conference.
It was pretty ugly. He's got an awfully big mouth. But perhaps he's been reined in a little. And his speech to the students wasn't an official policy statement. I wish I knew more about his history. The Iranians think he's a yokel, according to a factsheet OP'ed last night.

[ronnie624]

34. In no way do I support

a regime with a foundation in fundamentalist religion. I am a leftist to the core, but I would be very careful about trusting interpretations in Western media of statements by Iranian leaders. I wish I had time to provide links, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the corporate media engages in very selective and creative translations.

Good luck to you.

[PublicWrath]

36. Your point is well taken, my friend. n/t

[cantstandbush]

9. Well, Israel thinks the Palestinians shouldn't exist as a state either.

Israel just doesn't talk about wiping the Palestinains off the map, they engage daily in doing so using weapons and planes that the US has either sold or given them. They bulldoze homes, blow up businesses and infrastructure and continue to kill innocents, women and children, in the name of going after "terrorists" ore "militants." How is this not state sanctioned genocide? Sure there are Palestinian "militants" but who wouldn't try to kill their occupiers and the ones who make life so miserable for them? Wouldn't we be doing the same thing if we were occupied?

[cali]

10. One can never say for sure what

you'd do in any given situation, but, for instance, if the US was occupied by Mexico, I would hope that I wouldn't go across the border and blow myself up at bus stop or restaurant.

Israel should never have occupied the West Bank, and they should shut down the settlements and withdraw to the 1967 borders. Even so, that doesn't excuse random violence against civilians.

You state that the Israelis are engaged in wiping Palestinians off the map. If they were truly determined to do so, there would be far, far more Palestinian deaths. I think it's fair to state that Israel is engaging in terror against the Palestinians, but it works the other way around too.

Would you call the suicide bomber who killed 6 people and wounded 35 this morning at a bus stop in Tel Aviv, merely a militant resister of the Occupation?

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. no moral person can condone that kind of violence such as the

suicide bombing of a civilian bus.

But we heard about. When Palestinian civilians get killed. We seldom hear about it. It just too common. And its just not considered important enough.

[cali]

17. You're right.

The US press is shamefully lax about reporting Palestinian deaths. The European press does a much better job. However, it must be said that on the I/P forum here, posters have no problem finding and reporting what's happening to the Palestinians. In any case, that wasn't the point that I was trying to make.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. yes I realize that

unfortunately it is a rather select group of Americans who even know there is a legitimate complaint

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Oh, goody! Another "pre-emptive" war. Break out the flags and bodybags.

The saber rattling and threats keep on coming from all sides and the participants flex their musceles and bluster. All hoping that the other guy will back down.

Most adolescents eventually grow up but politicians, of all stripes, seem to be stuck at the mental age of teenage boys strutting their stuff.

The sad thing is that the people follow them, rather than ignore them.

[Deja Q]

13. Self-del

x

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebro

[seabeyond]

22. a person puts out a thread and then walks away. i can never do that

with a thread i start. how???? do people do that? i wonder. since poster isnt bothering with thread, i guess i wont waste time actually discussing htis with poster, letting him/her know the error in his/her op

[New Government]

23. We see the meaning of starting a thread differently

Hi seabeyond,

Actually, I didn't have a lot more to say than what I posted in my OP. I don't see anything wrong with a thread (discussion) starter being posted and the community discussing the thoughts in the OP without the participation of the original poster. DU is big enough for many voices to contribute and react without it turning into a debate and flame wars. I didn't expect to change any opinions and nobody is going to change mine. But all the different perspectives of a very difficult issue are interesting to read and digest whether I am chiming in with further remarks or not. That's the only reason.

[K-W]

24. Iran has a much better case against Israel than Israel against Iran.

First of all Israel is vastly more powerful than Iran with one of the best militaries on the planet, not to mention it is allied to the nation with the most powerful military on its planet with bases along two of Iran's borders and naval/air supremacy in the region. Iran poses no theat at all to Israel and doesnt have nuclear weapons nor does it have the ability to build them.

A few selective translations showing that Iran is no fan of Israel does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute a declaration of war. It is NOT the official policy of Iran to attack Israel, in fact Iran's official policy is one of regional peace and regional nuclear disarmenent. Unlike Israel and the US which favor a nuclear region and have attacked nations in the region.

They had a political rally? This is your justification for war?

Your invoking of statements from thier military leaders is rich. The military stated that if Iran were attacked, it would strike back. A clearly defensive statement that you are trying to spin as aggresskve along with the creative translations of the Iranian president (who does not drive Iranian foriegn policy) who believes that eventually Israel will face defeat.

Iran is on the defensive right now with both Israel and the US making LOUD threats. It poses no threat to anyone and any attack on it would constitute the crime of aggression.

[New Government]

25. Ahhh...The "peaceful" Iranians Meme

Please. Iran is a country ruled by rightwing Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs who believe GOD has given them the ability to enrich uranium! You may not like Israel, (I made it clear in my OP I am no fan either), but to read all these posts from "progressives" seeming to side with religious fanatics is almost amusing. To try to spin the Iranian blustering as no big deal is to make a very big mistake. Can anyone say "Chamberlain?"

[K-W]

27. It is a simple matter of fact that Iran has not attacked anyone.

I am making no claim about Iran being particularly peaceful.

The much more important point is that Iran is in no position to attack anyone.

That Iran's laeders are Islamic fundementalists has nothing to do with anything, being muslim, including fundementalist muslim, isnt a crime.

There is nothing at all amusing about progressives siding with Iran on whether or not the US should invade Iran and whether or not Iran poses a threat to the US because Iran is right on thsoe two issues. You can go on and on about how crazy those muslims in Iran are but that wont change the simple fact that Iran is not a threat to anyone. And standing for the truth is not odd for progressives. What is odd is why you would think progressives would be receptive to your fear mongering.

This has nothing to do with my feelings for or thoughts about Israel, its quite simple. Iran has not declared war on israel, Iran has not threatned Israel. Iran is not a credible threat to israel. Israel is however a credible threat to Iran and has talked openly about bombing Iran.

Nobody is spinning the Iranian 'bluster' as no big deal. The bluster is a clear indication that Iranian leaders think an attack is around the corner and a clear indication that the western media is very interested in publishing stories about Iranian leaders talking negatively about Israel and responding to US and Israeli threats.

Pointing out that Iran is on the defensive isnt to say that they are good, or that thier regime should stay in power, it simply stating the truth. If Iran had Israel's military and was the US ally, no doubt Iran would be the one making the aggressive threats and would be the one that posed a real threat to peace and security.

[ronnie624]

29. I always find your posts logical and compelling

but alas, the OP has already stated in another post that he has no intention of changing his mind. Apparently he is just one of those who sees nothing wrong with committing mass murder against women and children over ideological and religious differences.

[sandnsea]

31. And Stewie vowed to kill Lois

That's about how seriously I take threats from this nutball in Iran.

We need to work with the country of Iran because it's just good sense to do it. But nobody should be starting a war because of wild rantings of any foreign leader.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I don't see Iran about to declare war on any one.

Any more than I see the Iran hawks about to join the armed forces to protect the free world from Iran.