Do you think that Iran would nuke Israel?

[Th1onein]

I was talking to a friend of mine today, whose opinion I normally respect. He told me that Iran was probably not just enriching uranium for energy purposes, but that I shouldn't "kid myself," they were doing it so that they could have nukes and as soon as they got them they would nuke Israel and start WWIII. What do you guys think? Is he right? Wrong?

[grottieyottie]

1. Iran

Iran has never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations and have not invaded another country in over 250 years.

Can we say the same for the US, UK and Israel?

[Erika]

5. Iran is too close to Israel for nukes

Israel is the same. If they nuke one another they both pay. Do Bushbots even know this reality?

I hang my head in shame that the U.S. is the only one to unleash nukes on civilian populations. We also had no credible reason to invade and occupy Iraq other than corporate globalism profits.

[cantstandbush]

60. I don't think Iran would nuke any other country unless attacked.

The only nations that would use nukes against any other nation are the one that already did (USA) and her close allies (UK and Israel).

[melody]

2. If I was wearing paper shoes, I wouldn't step on a rattlesnake

Iran's in no position to nuke anything for quite some time. Even if they did unleash some low level weapon, Israel would barbecue them in response.

[cyanide]

94. you're wrong

Israel is a small country even a small nuke would make the country a cesspool for eons.

A jet can fly across it in like 20 minutes going slow .

[melody]

99. No, I'm not :)

Look at the failure rates in lower level weaponry.

[paul_fromatlanta]

3. The Iranian President is certainly trying to make us believe he would

What I dont get is why. Suppose you were working on a weapon that could destroy your mortal enemy - would you brag about it two years before its finished?

[Erika]

6. Iran's proximity is too close to Israel

Both would suffer.

[paul_fromatlanta]

13. You're right.... But Iran will suffer worse so I don't see why he is tryin

trying to provoke a war with somebody he knows is willing to go to war and whom he cannot hope to defeat.

[Jakey]

56. "Suffering"....

...appears to be rather in vogue in the radical Islamist mindset (see Tel Aviv yesterday). Are you willing to bet that that level of fanaticism wouldn't be employed on a national scale by current Iranian leadership? It appears that world consensus isn't so sure. Are you?

[pitohui]

10. you don't play poker do you?

of course you have to front and represent

the 2 middle eastern countries which never make anything of themselves and which have no weapons are now invaded

it is the duty of the leader of any nation to defend his people

part of defending the people is talking large abt what you will do in revenge

it's called MAD

christ am i ringing a bell yet?

google MAD (mutual assured destruction) and get back to me if you still have questions

and by the way if you have an account on any poker playing website please pm your user name sooonest so i can teach ya how to play

[paul_fromatlanta]

11. Bluffing is very dangerous if you cant afford to get called

[Erika]

15. So tell us how about nuclear affects if one of the other

countries (Iran and Israel) nuked the other.

[paul_fromatlanta]

17. Any detonation of any nuke would be a catastrophe. but Iran has no nukes

So I don't understand why the President of Iran seems to make a new speech about annihilating Israel every other day. Right now there is almost no public support for war with Iran in this country - its almost as if he wants to change that.

Of course Iran is the country that used human wave attacks of children in their last big war so maybe he is willing to sacrifice on a level that I just can't comprehend.

[Erika]

21. Let them have their own civil war

I am tired of paying for the warring ME. We ship 13 mil a day to Israel, pay for their universal health care, and support them military wise. Their lives are better than our own, paid for by our taxes.

If they can't make peace with their neighbors, it's their problem.

[paul_fromatlanta]

25. I care about all the people over there - I would so like to avoid more war

but I dont have much hope of it...

[Erika]

28. Why not tell W to think peace not war

Gandhi did.

[paul_fromatlanta]

29. Do you think the President is listening? The only way the attack doesnt

happen is if Democrats get control of congress and won't authorize force under the war powers act and the President accepts that.

Which is to say I think we are going to war with Iran.

[Erika]

34. Sorry, the forces and $ aren't there

Does he wish us living in mud huts while he uses our money for his imperial building.

We've gone past that.

If he wishes to declare another war, send the Republicans and fund it by the huge taxe cuts to the rich. The rest of us have lost interest.

[Th1onein]

65. We pay for THEIR universal health care?

Do you have a source for that piece of information? I would dearly love to show it to one of my neocon acquaintances. Knowing the state of health care in this country, this really, really pisses me off. Why should we pay for Israel's health care when we are leaving our own to die?

[Coastie for Truth]

69. They pay an incredibly high tax (worker and employer)

for universal health care. Like most of the industrialized world (except the US- but including Canada and England) See, e.g.,

1. Schmid, The Israeli Long-Term Care Insurance Law: selected issues in providing home care services to the frail elderly. Health Soc Care Community. 2005 May;13(3):191-200.

2. Urkin, Family health centers in Israel: to change or not to be,
Harefuah. 2004 Dec;143(12):873-5, 910. Hebrew.

3. Porter, The development of primary care in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J. 2004 Dec;6(12)-723-7. Review.

4. Gross, A consumer-based tool for evaluating the quality of health services in the Israeli health care system following reform.
Health Policy. 2004 May;68(2):143-58.

5. Gross, Evaluating the effect of regulatory prohibitions against risk selection by health status on supplemental insurance ownership in Israel. Soc Sci Med. 2004 May;58(9):1609-22.

6. Heymann, Systematic Inventive Thinking: a new tool for the analysis of complex problems in medical management. Isr Med Assoc J. 2004 Feb;6(2):67-9.

7. Bentur, Satisfaction with and access to community care of the chronically ill in Israel's health system. Health Policy. 2004 Feb;67(2):129-36.

8. Gross, Implementing health care reform in Israel: rganizational response to perceived incentives. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2003 Aug;28(4):659-92.

9. Rabinowitz, Perceived need and receipt of outpatient mental health services. Factors affecting access in Israeli HMOs.
J Ambul Care Manage. 2003 Jul-Sep;26(3):260-9.

10. van der Wen, Risk adjustment and risk selection on the sickness fund insurance market in five European countries.
Health Policy. 2003 Jul;65(1)-75-98. (Israeli data included)

11. Shmueli, Risk adjustment and risk sharing: the Israeli experience. Health Policy. 2003 Jul;65(1):37-48.

12. Isreali, Updating the basket of health services, Harefuah. 2003 Feb;142(2):100-2, 159.

13. Shmueli, Israelis evaluate their health care system before and after the introduction of the national health insurance law. Health Policy. 2003 Mar;63(3):279-87.

14. Powlikowski, How comprehensive are the basic packages of health services? An international comparison of six health insurance systems. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Jul;7(3):133-42. (Isreali data included)

15. Hart, Abstract Reform of the health care service system in Israel 1995-2000. World Hosp Health Serv. 2001;37(3)-9-11, 40, 42.

16. Elhayany, Effects of a fundholding discontinuation. An Israeli health maintenance organization natural experiment. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001 Dec;19(4):223-6.

17. Shvartz, Health reform in Israel: some aspects of seventy years of struggle (1925-1995). Soc Hist Med. 1998 Apr;11(1)-73-88.

18. Shmueli, Risk-adjusted capitation. The Israeli experience.
Eur J Public Health. 2001 Jun;11(2):182-4.

19. Saltman, EJPH Policy Forum: risk adjustment strategies in three social health insurance countries. Eur J Public Health. 2001 Jun;11(2):121.

20. Gross, Implementing managed competition in Israel.
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Apr;52(8):1219-31. Review.

and there are about 40 more such articles. They just popped up on the NIH PubMed search engine.

The US does not pay for it -- the Israeli taxpayers do -- and like Scandanavia and Canada and the UK - they pay very high taxes. VERY HIGH.

[anitar1]

36. So tell me about the human waves of children. n/t

[paul_fromatlanta]

39. After the Shah of Iran was overthrown Saddam saw an opportunity

percieving the Iranian army to be weakened since many officers were loyal to the Shah and the u.S. has cut off parts sales.

Iran fought back with waves of boys leading the army and taking the brunt of the attack.

Here is a quote for Wikipedia

>>Human waves were also rampant in the Iran-Iraq War. Iran was the primary user of these tactics, as it had the less technologically advanced and more poorly-trained army. In some cases the troops had virtually no training. Iraq responded with biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack

[K-W]

22. No he isnt.

The western media is trying to make you think he would.

He has made vague comments about Israel being defeated and he deosnt drive Iranian policy. Any serious anaylsis of Iran makes it clear that Iran is not the national suicide bomber one might imagine based on the western press.

[paul_fromatlanta]

23. Do you have some alternative translations I should look at?

I'm certainly open to other sources

[K-W]

30. Not at hand.

I know on the DU thread I saw about his latest Israel comment there was a link to the Iranian translation which while obviously negative towards Israel and predicting a bad future for Israel was hardly a direct threat.

Regardless, even if the president of Iran was interested in attacking Israel, the military and the clerics would never go for it. And outside of a few quotes that are most likely vague comments translated as direct threats, there is no indication that there is any serious desire in Iran for a war with Israel, in fact quite the opposite.

Meanwhile Israel does openly discuss bombing Iran, the US does openly discuss bombing/invading/nuking Iran. "All options are on the table". There is nothing like this coming out of Iran. Iran's military is creating its plans to defend themselves, not plans to wage an aggressive military campaign.

[paul_fromatlanta]

33. Well thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye out. n/t

[Erika]

35. Yep n/t

[kywildcat]

44. Thank you for saying this-I wonder how much longer

people will buy the American media lies.

[Tesha]

52. Ummm, as long as the TV stays on and the beer stays cold? (NT)

[kywildcat]

90. and they can still charge gas on their credit cards.... nt

[ClintonTyree]

50. Why is Bush rattling his saber all the time?

Same reason, small cock syndrome. It's just a big pissing contest, who can out-bluster the other. Bush is the hands down leader in bullshit flinging.

[paparush]

59. He's going to go blind from rattling that saber all the time...

thats my new euphymism...rattling the saber...

[PublicWrath]

76. Good one! n/t

[Jakey]

58. What we have here...

is, IMHO, yet another failure of western culture to identify and recognize the trappings of a centuries old patriarchical culture driven to uphold it's traditional sense of the all-powerful male. I would be interested to read some informed discussion on that postulate from anyone intimate with the subject.

IMHO, Saddam Hussein suffered from the same malady, and he rode it out of town on a rail.

[Bridget Burke]

84. Why don't you post your informed discussion first?

Including why western culture can't understand "a centuries old patriarchical culture driven to uphold it's traditional sense of the all-powerful male."

Somehow, I doubt that Bush & Co have any problem understanding the concept.

[Jakey]

85. Unfortunately...

my knowledge of Arab/Islamic culture is Lawrence of Arabia deep. I don't believe, however, that my characterization is far off the mark.

Somehow, I doubt that Bush & Co have any problem understanding the concept.

Hmmmm. Perhaps you're correct and Bush & Co are manipulating that "weakness" to their own ends. It has certainly unleashed a rather ill-advised level of rhetoric from the Iranian leadership which, I believe, has eroded their standing in the international community.

[Bridget Burke]

86. You misunderstood me.

I meant that Bush & company ARE results of "a centuries old patriarchical culture driven to uphold it's traditional sense of the all-powerful male." Would you exclude Condi?

Bush has certainly done nothing for OUR "standing in the international community."

[Toots]

64. You enter into negotiations from a point of strength

Negotiations require compromise. You have to have something to give up. That is the way the Federal Government works. It always suggests the worst possible outcome so you will be happy with just a bad outcome. :shrug: Iran will not attack anyone first. They very well may strike back with nukes if attacked though.

[DaDeacon]

72. Think about this ...

If you see a group of men raid your neighbors house and come out side looking around trying to figure where to go next do you say:

a) "Oh please not me I am unarmed!"
b) "You guys wait there I'm going to the store to get a gun I'll be back in two hours!"
c) "Don't even look over here, if you even think about entering my home a world hurt is going to meet you at the front door!"

they are saying the kinds of things to make you think twice about attacking!

[oddmanout]

4. He may be right

Sadly Iran has vehemently called for the "Total Annihilation" of Isreal...The access to nuclear weapons (even crude ones) would allow them to accomplish this. It is a true nightmare scenario....

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Spinoza]

82. Combined foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan

is almost identical to foreign aid to Israel. For 2004, Israel received 2.62 billion; Egypt 1.87 billion and Jordan .56 billion. (Egypt plus Jordan 2.43 billion vs Israel 2.62 billion.)
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf (pg CRS 13)

Additionally, the U.S. has given approximately $85 million per year to Palestinians since 1993 though this was not officially foreign aid.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45198.pdf

Israel's 2005 GNP is estimated at $140.1 billion. Annual U.S. aid, even at $3billion, represents about 2 percent of the Israeli economy. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
I suspect Israel would still provide free health care even without U.S. foreign aid.

But I think we can agree. Lets stop all foreign aid to Middle Eastern countries.

[AbeTheBabe]

7. Iran

Unfortunately, it's hard not to take what Iran's president is saying seriously, when he makes comments like, "Israel's days are numbered" and "Iran will wipe Israel from the face of the earth."

[Erika]

12. Iran is a tiny nation who could destroy us by withholding oil

sales. Of course, we don't know how many oil wells that the Bushs own.

[cali]

46. Wrong.

Iran is by no means a "tiny" nation. Not in size, not in population, not in terms of gross domestic product. Iran has a population of close to 70 million people and is larger than the state of Alaska. It's rich not only in petroleum but in other natural resources. The average life expectancy is over 70. Iraq, by contrast is territorially much smaller and has a population of approximately 27 million.

As for your remark upthread:

" They would kill each other with this close proximity
which might be a good thing. We send 13 mil a day to Israel, support their universal health care, and arm them militarily. For what? Let the ME have their own civil war and face the consequences of their actions."

A good thing? More shocking ignorance. A war between Iran and Israel would, in all likelihood, engulf the region, if not the world.

[K-W]

20. Out of context translations should be taken with a grain of salt.

Or more accurately two grains of sale, one for the context another for the translation.

Iran has not declared its intentions to attack Israel outside of a response to an attack on Iran. Iran is not threatning aggressive action, Israel and the US are.

[pitohui]

8. your friend is batshit crazy

that is just silly

iran and israel had hiroshima style atomic weapons in the 80s if they wanted to die killing ea. other they'd be gone

[BlackHeart]

48. Do you have a source for that?

I'd be interested in seeing it.

[longship]

14. What, does he mean in 10 years?

160-some centrifuges isn't going to enrich oralloy enough to use in a bomb, at least not for years and years. In order to enrich bomb grade oralloy quickly it would take tens of *thousands* of cascaded centrifuges. An enrichment plant that big isn't going to be able to be hidden, no matter what. What is Iran going to do? Bury it? Can you imagine how much attention the excavation alone is going to attract?

No matter what ChimpCo says, Iran is years away from any ability to build a nuke.

[Erika]

16. Plus, the affects of nuking your own backyard. n/t

[K-W]

18. Even if they could, only in self defence.

Because as much as we like to call thier leaders crazy (as we did with the soviets, chinese, etc) Iranian leaders are interested in keeping power, not in getting themselves killed.

[Peter Frank]

19. Of course not...

Would Iraq have nuked Israel? Same question & same answer -- of course not.

Welcome to the escalation of the same old shit that got us into the Iraq war.

The "Axis of Evil" seems to always spin.

[anitar1]

38. And Israel likes to spin too. Israel and the US are like

the Bobbsey twins.Always working together.

[frankly_fedup2]

51. Who else have they got? Are we just to desert them? They are

surrounded by 24 Arab countries who do not even want to recognize their existence.

These countries recognize a Palestenian State when there is no such thing as a Palestenian. They are Arabs like the other people in the middle east. The word "Palestenian" was not even a word until the last century. They used the word "Palestine" to create a name for a group of Arabs who are Egyption or Jordanian. They claim to have been "Occupied" for over 60 years . . . unheard of.

Attack if you must, but just giving my opinion, which everyone has a right to give as well.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Two points.

Firstly, while I agree that Iraq would probably not have nuked Israel if it had nukes, we don't know that for sure, because as was fairly comprehensively demonstrated it didn't.

Secondly, the big difference between Iraq and Iran is that Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator, whereas Iran is a theocracy. Saddam was motivated largely by self-interest, not principle, but the same is probably not true of the Council of Guardians, which makes them potentiall more dangerous.

[tocqueville]

24. it's a lose-lose gamble

In event of a first strike from Iran, Iran has "better" wipe out Israel completely. They could do it with let say 10 nukes (assuming they have H-nukes of about 150 kt, which they won't have for years). With only 4 they could kill about 2/3 of the Israeli population. But the trick is to destroy the Israeli retaliation capacities first.

The Israeli submarines could retaliate and it's unknown what they could send away but, probably some nuclear loaded cruise missiles at best (it's unclear if they have any). If a first strike against Israel destroys the land-based retaliation possibilities (airforce/missiles), the attacking country could suffer only a minor retaliation. Anyway even if some planes and (not yet ready) Jericho II missiles survived and retaliated, the damage would probably be "suicidal" for the planes and not decisive for the destruction of Iran, due to the size and population of the country, even if the highest population density is on the west-side. The question is can 6 million on an area the size of New Jersey beat 70 millions on an area somewhat smaller the size of Mexico.

Now the question is, would the US do what the Israelis wouldn't any longer be capable to do. I doubt it. It would be pointless in a strategical sense.

Israeli nuclear deterrent is efficient when you have the monopoly in the region. If you don't have it, the size of the country plays very much against it. After 10-20 years Palestinians could "retake" a low-radiaoctive area.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=so02norris

Maybe the only chance for the Israelis is to strike first. On the other hand if they did, you can be sure that Egypt and Saudi Arabia would retaliate somewhat later probably by buying the technology in Pakistan. The Israelis fate is probably sealed in the long run, unless there is a radical change of policies, both in Israel and the US.

[Erika]

26. Maybe they ought to talk peace

rather than the "bring em on" policy of W who has never faced a hardship in his life.

[tocqueville]

32. That their only chance

but the Irani leadership is on the Muslim variation of Armageddon trip (very much alike the US fundies) and Olmert said today that they were subject to a "declaration of war" and that they were weighing wiping out the newly elected Hamas government by force...

so prepare for the worse

[anitar1]

40. Israel will complete the destruction before long. If they do

not bomb them all to death, they will starve them to death. I fully expect it. Of course, they will continue the "peace talk" spin.I have been listening to plans for peace talks more years than I can recall. There will never be peace there.

[PublicWrath]

27. I kind of doubt they would nuke Israel.

It would be suicide.
I,too, doubt very much they are enriching uranium for energy, though.
I think it's national pride and also to validate the crappy government. The people of Iran pretty much hate the regime. Perhaps the government wants most of all to impress the people of Iran.
Also they'd like to feel secure from the big, bad US. They don't want to be invaded for oil. They want nukes. It's like having a great big dog.

Crazy religious fanatics are capable of anything, especially the "hurry, doomsday" variety, like their president is said to be. If he really is the guy who was in the group holding US hostages back in '79-'81, it gives me an extra creepy feeling. But I'm not sure that Ahmedinejad (sp?) is really in charge of big decisions. There's always a chance that the president of Iran will change before they even have a functional nuke. Or even the government of Iran. Then we might have somebody saner to negotiate with.

But to tell you the truth, I don't like Iran having nukes either.
Much better that we'd handled this before they started enriching. And not been occupied with No WMD's Iraq while this project was cooking.

[Erika]

31. The people of Iran elected this guy buy a broad margin

Crazy doomsday fanatics are worrisome. Especially W. The far right wing thinks he is the voice of God. Even the radical ME don't make that claim of their leaders.

[PublicWrath]

41. Earlier there was an original post with a ME expert's roundup of facts

on Iran and he said the common opinion of Iranians is that the guy got in with a fraudulent election. I don't know. It's tense, alright. What bush might do in his insanity is perhaps more dangerous than anything else. Did you happen to read on DU about the "Divine" series of big bombs we're making? Divine Fury, Divine Fist, Divine Hellcat. Scares the pants off me. Reminds me of one of the Planet of the Apes movies; post-apocalyptic mutants worshipping an atomic bomb. Literally.

I used to think bush's religious convictions were just PR for the fundies,
but so many people who have been in close contact with him have called him a religious fanatic. The other night somebody on Msnbc quoted a source who said bush told him: Iraq is a mess for somebody else to clean up. But I'm committed to dealing with Iran before I leave, because nobody else has the stuff for it. (words to that effect, anyway) I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Neil Lisst]

37. With greater power comes greater responsibility. I like to think Iran

would rise to the sanity required of those who possess such a terrible weapon. It casts a duty of restraint, and I think Iran can do it, if Russia, China, and Pakistan can.

[Jakey]

68. Iran's future "sanity"?

I like to think Iran would rise to the sanity required...

I suppose you'd also like to think that it will rise at the same rate as their stockpile of enriched uranium. I'd "like" to be able to think that way as well, but prudence precludes it.

[SidDithers]

73. Stockpile of enriched uranium?...

WTF is that?

Sid

[Jakey]

74. Please substitute...

whatever it is they're trying to stockpile much to the consternation of the civilized world.
Now...do you have a comment on the relative sanity of the current Iranian leadership?

[SidDithers]

93. How much have they got...

and at what level of enrichment?

Sid

[Jakey]

95. Sanity? There appears to be some question n/t

[SidDithers]

97. Enriched uranium...

how much and what level of enrichment?

Sid

[Jakey]

98. Irrelevant to the thread...start your own n/t

[Neil Lisst]

78. They're no less sane than George W. Bush

And they're no less sane than the North Koreans or the Pakistanis.

[Jakey]

80. Now there's a comforting thought...

...And they're no less sane than the North Koreans or the Pakistanis.

From your lips to Allah's ear.

[Neil Lisst]

81. I'm glad you're reassured

[pa28]

42. "Israel must be wiped off the map". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I'm not saying Iran will use nukes . . . but for the most part I would agree with your friend's caution.

The real question for me is Bush's credibility. He's proven he'll start a war when diplomacy, containment or time might do just as well.

[noneofmybusiness]

45. "wiped off the map" is an idiomatic phrase

"wiped off the map" is an idiomatic phrase (Peculiar to or characteristic of a given language)
There is no guarantee that it holds the same figurative meaning in Arabic as it does in English.

Since Israel was just drawn on a map originally, isn't it possible Ahmadinejad literally meant the map should be redrawn?

I'm not saying he doesn't want to destroy Israel, but I find it frustrating that it's so hard to verify the intentions of people like Ahmadinejad when there is so much spin in our media and journalists seem to all latch on to a particular quote or piece of terminology without ever questioning the origin or translation.

As for whether Iran would attack Israel if they had any means to do so? This is hypothetical. Any country would try to take over the world if they had the means - because every country has crazy neocons.

In reality there is only one country with the means to take over the world and they are giving it their best shot.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. If you look at the context...

...it's very clear that it is intended as a threat.

[megatherium]

54. Reading the official Iranian transcript of his recent speech,

it sounds like the Iranians are saying it will be the Palestianians, who are being oppressed by the Israelis, that will bring the Zionist regime down (their language). If there is any threat in there, it is the threat of Palestinian attacks, i.e., terrorism (by Hezbollah presumably) -- not a nuclear attack. The Iranian leadership might chat with that hidden, 1300-year-old 12th Imam, but I don't think they're really insane. If they got a nuke, they would fund Hezbollah and its activities with impunity. Just like the US/USSR cold war, when both sides used proxies to make each other miserable.

[Spinoza]

83. The 5.2 million Jews

in Israel are overwhelmingly composed of refugees and the children and grandchildren of refugees. I read somewhere (sorry, I can't locate a link) that over 50% of Israeli Jews have relatives that perished in the Holocaust. Somehow, I can't really blame them if they take more seriously than you do the phrase "wiped off the map". Probably, they are not as sensitive as you are to POSSIBLE language nuances and take the words at face value. Just a thought.

[DemonFighterLives]

61. Bush has never tried diplomacy

Condi issues more threats than the Iranians ever did.

[Jacobin]

70. This was in response to AIPAC

saying the same thing about Iran.

So, its okay for Israel to threaten to destroy Iran, but Iran can't defend itself.

I see

[doc mercer]

43. Israel

Israel is the 800 lb gorilla in the Middle East .... One VX tipped missle from Hezbollah
and Israel will nuke Damascus with no questions asked

Iran knows what they are doing with their bed partners including China, Russia, Hamas
and Hezbollah in S Lebanon

"Interesting" year ahead

[xchrom]

49. the phrase ''axis of evil'' has backed iran into a corner.

this is what iran is reacting against in the strongest terms possible.

do i think they will nuke anybody? no.

but the u.s.a. oughta get a president with a clue.

[depakid]

53. I'm sure Isreal's neighbors would be very pleased

not to mention all of the dead Palestinians.

Even the Mullahs aren't that stupid.

[av8tor05]

57. Never underestimate what a nut-case will or will not do.

If someone told you that some German leader would kill six million of his own citizens all the while needing the manpower to sustain his military you would say it would never happen. If someone told you a Soviet leader would kill millions of his own you wouldn't believe it. If someone said Japan would attack the United States and get them into WWII you wouldn't believe them.

Just remember, Amajenedad IS THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. He is fully supported by the mullahs. They do not have three equal branches of government for balance. If he is nuts, Iran is nuts.

If AND when they get nukes, look out. We will be drawn into a nuclear exchange.

Just remember in 1948 the "experts" said the Soviet Union was 10 years away from nuclear weapons. They tested their first bomb in 1949. I do not trust "experts."

[Xenotime]

62. If they did...

would the world be pissed?

[Lurking Dem]

63. Nice edit.

[Jim Warren]

66. Dunno but

Sy Hersh's take is no. He seemed to think their response to aggression would be economic retaliation toward the west by taking out the oil infrastructure of Dubai and Qatar, for starters, pushing gas to $8-$10@gal. Iran probably feels the US is at the tipping point of economic collapse, and I can't say they are wrong about that.

[MadHound]

67. Only if they wish to committ national suicide

Iran knows fully well what the consequences of nuking Israel would be, the instant and utter destruction of their country. Iran may rattle the saber on occaission, but they aren't fools.

[seabeyond]

71. it is comments like your friends that have us invading countries

on what we think might happen. lets start arresting people that live in enviroments where they tend to go to drugs or crime, because lets not fool ourselves it COULD happen

if it happens, then we can step in. but to bomb and invade a country cause we are guessing what they will do is absurd and wrong

the times i heard iran mention bombing isreal was with the if america attacks us.......

we seem to totally ignore the fact that we attack people and expect them to what.... thank us, take it, allow it because.... we are the u.s. fuck that shit

on edit: i have heard from reliable source ten years before bomb. bushco is ratcheting up the threat just as they did in iraq. iraq was ten yrs and then, 4 months. well i am going to trust the ten years. there is a lot of thing that can be done, besides dropping a nuclear bomb on iran, in ten years

[TheBaldyMan]

75. Do you think Israel would nuke Iran ?

come on, this is another inflammatory thread.

Iran is an NPT signatory unlike Israel. Iran does not have nuclear weapons unlike Israel. Iran is willing to open it's nuclear program to full IAEA scrutiny unlike Israel.

Iran has said repeatedly that the use of nuclear weapons is unislamic.

Your question is meaningless and your friend is scaremongering. It sounds like you are trying the old 'smoking gun coming in the form of a mushroom cloud' blivet from Dubya.

[mmonk]

77. They will if they are attacked by us.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. But for the sake of argument, if Iran

if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Chief of State and Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

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 eyebrows and glaring."

[LSK]

87. hell no!!!!!!!!!!!

For the same reasons that the US and USSR didnt nuke each other.

[Taverner]

88. I do think they would, yes

But we let this happen. The Bush admin has polarized the Islamic world against us - and it would have never happened if Bush didn't act like an insane cowboy...

[Malikshah]

89. I want some of what your friend is on.

Wow-- all these "I heard that" "A friend told me" "It's been said" threads lately.

Please folks-- try to be just a *bit* more subtle.

[SmokingJacket]

91. The propaganda has been catapulted.

I heard the same from a freeper relative this weekend. Clearly, it's the latest talking point.

[killbotfactory]

92. Not unless they have a death wish

And don't mind their country being turned into a wasteland. They would most likely just use them for deterrent, and if they wanted to start shit with Israel, use a proxy like Lebanon. It's what the US and USSR did during the cold war.

Of course, one of the things about nukes is that you have to appear crazy enough to use them. Mody sane, or even half-sane, people would never start a nuclear exchange.

[YouthInAsia]

96. I thinnk Iran knows well and good that they would be wiped off

the face of the earth (by US) if they, themselves, nuked IRan. But if they did make a nuke device, I could see them giving it to a terrorist group to use in israel. but that day, if it even happened, is YEARS AWAY.