Report: Iran has 600 targets for missile strike in Israel if attacked

[Purveyor]

Source: Haaretz

The Qatari newspaper Al Watan on Sunday quoted diplomatic sources in Damascus as saying that Iran has marked 600 targets in Israel for missile strikes in case it is attacked.

The report said the targets are within reach of Iranian missiles and would be completely destroyed if Israel should attack Iran or participate in an American attack on the country.

Iran's warning refers to talk in Israel and the United States of a possible military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from attaining nuclear capability.

Various channels delivered the Iranian message, which also warns against an attack on Syria.


Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881985.html

[still_one]

1. and vice versa, if Iran launches an attack first they would be destroyed /nt

[sweettater]

3. they won't

[Bucky]

22. They won't because Iran's game is about 50% bluff

They're almost certainly exaggerating their counter strike capability. That's a hallmark of all authoritarian regimes--even authoritarian democracies like Iran. Iran is doing a mammelian territorial display, trying to scare Israel off its turf just like a growling dog in your neighbor's front yard. They always bark before they bite.

But here's the difference. Let's say Iran can only land 200 missiles on targets in Israel in retaliation for a US strike. This would be a signal for a regional war against Israel--all the Arab fundamentalists will attack Israel and most of the moderate factions in the Arab world will have to join in or risk losing street cred with the populace.

Bush's needless sabre rattling is pushing the region closer and closer to an uncontrollable conflict. Brinksmanship can work if you know your opponent and only continue near-hostilities for a short period of time (cf., the October Missile Crisis, the Yom Kippur War, or the Suez Canal crisis). A sustained period of threatening behavior only leads to eventual bloodshed. I'm no fan of Iran's government, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a war less necessary to fight.

[sutz12]

2. ....and I'm sure we have 6000 targets in Iran.

My dick is bigger than your dick. Gotta love all of the macho posturing going on. Shit, one war drove al Qaeda recruiting through the roof. Another one should make it astronomical. We can keep this war going for 100 years if we work it right. :shrug:

:sarcasm:

[lakeguy]

4. the great christian muslim war has lasted over 1000 years...

whats another 100? i put my money down for another 1000, unless mother earth cuts us short.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. The Mayan calendar might cut it short.... if 2012 is the cutoff point,

they might want to hurry up a tad... just sayin'.

[Bucky]

23. I know you're just kidding, but seriously, the Mayan calendar doesn't say that.

The Mayans had several calendars based on different heavenly bodies; the Venus calendar was probably more important that the solar calendar. The solar calendar had two cycles--one of 260 days and one of 365 days--which both culminated at 52 years intervals, thereby starting the next round. The year 2012 is just the ending of the current count, but there's nothing special about it nor any reason to assume the world will end in 2012. The Mayans panicked every 52 years as each calendar year ran out because that was the time they'd find out if the gods would continue the world or not. But we know 2012 is not going to be the end of all creation because we've read revelation and know that the End Times won't arrive until at least five more members of the Bush family can claim dominion over Babylon.

[CJCRANE]

6. The Great Wars

happened within Christendom.

Muslim nations haven't been able to attack christian ones for centuries.

[Socal31]

46. Or the "football" is opened for one reason or another.

That would cut it rather short, I would say.

[HereSince1628]

7. Things must be really bad in Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan

It's time to turn the world's gaze elsewhere.

[Parmenion]

8. Israel Should Believe Them

I remember a few years back an Israeli Intelligence report leaked to the public announced that Hezbollah had over 10,000 Katyusha Rockets and lots of people said this was a ridiculous figure.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. "...or participate in an American attack on the country"

Translation: Any attack by American forces will result in an attack on Israel, just like the first Gulf War. This should please a few people.

[High Plains]

10. Any attack by American forces will be a collaborative effort

involving Israel. Unless Israel convinces us to do their dirty work for them.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. How?

[IndianaGreen]

16. US controls airspace over Iraq, an airspace that the glorious Israeli air force

will have to traverse to get to Iranian targets. Iran won't be the piece of cake that Iraq was.

The reality is that all of Israel's might cannot knock off Iran's nuclear installations, unless Israel were to use nukes, an option that Israel will not exercise except under the most extreme peril.

Bush has no such qualms about using nuclear bunker buster bombs, and he is actually itching to use them, according to Seymour Hersh.

Any attack on Iran will have to involve the US as a major player. An attack lasting several weeks will be a failure. The West will be brought to its knees by the inevitable disruption in Persian Gulf oil production that an Iranian retaliation will bring. Our troops in Iraq will find themselves under merciless attack by the Shia majority.

But why bother debating this? Bring it on! There are scores to be settled, and nothing settles scores better than a crazy war that no one will be able to stop. I hope all those that believe in the Bible are happy with their Armageddon, except it will not end like the one in that book of myths of theirs.

The Iraq-Iran war lasted 10 years, and WMD were used throughout it by both sides. Is this what we want to leave for posterity, another long war in which there are no winners, only piles of the dead?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Sorry, IG that doesn't cut it.

I asked "how" to this question: "Any attack by American forces will be a collaborative effort involving Israel."

[IndianaGreen]

19. I am sure you are aware of Avigdor Lieberman's remarks about Bush giving Israel the green light

to attack Iran.

For the benefit of those DUers that don't know, Lieberman (no relation to our Holy Joe) is an extremist and a member of Israel's cabinet. In a story posted in the Israel/Palestine Forum, he is quoted as saying that Israel received Bush's blessings to proceed with an attack on Iran.

Consider this in the context of another story involving William Krystol, the guru of neocons, who said that Bush will attack Iran before long.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. It was quoted in one place.

An uber right-wing paper. And, it still doesn't answer my question! I wasn't talking about direct Israeli involvement, I asked how any American action "will be a collaborative effort involving Israel."

[IndianaGreen]

24. "Any" American action? Israel does not have to be a party to a US attack on Iran.

I asked how any American action "will be a collaborative effort involving Israel."

There doesn't have to be a collaborative effort, or even collusion with Israel, for the US to attack Iran. The evidence suggests that there has been, at a minimum, a great deal of consultations between the US and Israel regarding Iran. The people are not privy to these details. Even though our sons and daughters will be the ones that will pay the ultimate price of such folly as an attack on Iran, we are not included in the discussions, our opinions are not wanted.

Surely there will be a post-mortem if such an attack were to occur, to pinpoint blame on those responsible for such a horrible blunder. A similar post-mortem is required of the Iraq War, and there too, blame must be assigned on those that supported and advocated a US attack on Iraq.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. You still didn't answer the question, but at least you tried.

"There doesn't have to be a collaborative effort, or even collusion with Israel, for the US to attack Iran."

Exactly! Which is why i asked the other poster "how?" in regards to HIS assertion: "Any attack by American forces will be a collaborative effort involving Israel."

[Tempest]

31. Intelligence sharing is how

It would be ignorant to think the U.S. and Israel won't share intelligence on Iran before an attack by either side.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Which still doesn't answer the question asked.

"Any attack by American forces will be a collaborative effort involving Israel." That implies more than just sharing intelligence.

[Tempest]

36. It answers the question, you just refuse to accept it

col·lab·o·rate
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates

To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.


"in a joint INTELLECTUAL effort"


It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. No, it doesn't. You just don't seem to understand the question.

"Any attack by American forces will be a collaborative effort..."

We are not talking a symposium, recital, or poetry reading. Read the first part of your definition again: "To work together". For ANY attack by American forces to be collaborative with Israel, Israel has to partake in the attack or, in the very least, the planning. Being made aware of plans is not 'collaboration.' The OP (of the comment) made added the qualifying caveat of "any" in regards to an American attack on Iran. It was that word, much more than the word "collaborative," which spawned my very simple question "How?" It should have been obvious I was taking issue with the word "any", as it was the word I highlighted when Indiana Green first attempted to answer the question. You both failed to answer the question.

[Tempest]

40. You must get dizzy from all the spinning

If they are sharing intelligence which will be used in an attack, that is "working together" and a collaborative effort.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. you said "an", the OP said "any"

I would say it it you who should be tired. You danced and danced around the question. However, your answer is much like the OP's, it is based on speculation and opinion but your's differs because it is predicated on an "if, then" statement, which is not what the OP said.

[Megahurtz]

43. The AIPAC is sure Pushing Hard for an Attack on Iran.

And they're working closely with the Bush Administration.

http://www.stopaipac.org/policies.htm

That ought to answer your question.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. It doesn't.

But, I am not surprised.

[Pavulon]

21. Hersh, and your assessment are off

unless he has access to the operational plans the military would use if there was a release of nuclear weapons to them? Unless he has a source with a name it is a joke.

People are pretty ignorant of the way nuclear war works.

The US has a stated policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. The b61 mod11 is a thermonuclear weapon. Using it would make a hell of a mess. It is not precised, and would be a very dirty (radiological) weapon.

We have no reason to start a war with Iran. Iran has no reason to start a war with us. IF Iran started a war conventional or other it would not take 10 years to pan out. No insurgents or occupation, just massive strategic bombing. Think tokyo in 44, every dam, power plant, petro facility would be gone. Just an open war killing many hundreds of thousands of people. Any massing of people to attack would flip the war from an insurgent war to a non discriminate use of force. Areas would be declared hostile and attacked with conventional munition. Very bad for all involved.

Iran is aware it HAS NO DEFENSE against this. The US has no reason to start this. All parties are better off with the status quo.

BTW Iran is a net importer of refined fuel, our top 3 suppliers are canada, mexico, and Venezuela.

[Tempest]

32. You need to update your message

"The US has a stated policy of no first use of nuclear weapons"

You need to change that to "had a stated policy of no first use".



The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

http://tinyurl.com/bvxfd

[aquart]

12. But...but ...but...Israel wants this. It's Israel's idea!

At least, that's what they keep telling me on Democratic Underground.

[HuffleClaw]

13. sure has been a lot of anti-iran propaganda lately

as is the case whenever the administration is in trouble

[ckramer]

14. So Iranian can put Israel back to 1970's?

and US can put Iran back to 1950's?


Given the tiny area of Israel, the best solution is humble down.

[Ian David]

15. Bush's plan is proceeding just as he wanted it to

[sutz12]

18. Ahem....Cheney's plan....Bush couldn't plan a kegger without help. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. So, duh, don't attack them!

There is NO reason to attack Iran other than the neocons' imperial ambitions and oil-soaked greed.

Note that the Bushies are willing to negotiate with North Korea, which is so much more repressive than Iran that it's not even on the same scale. But then, North Korea doesn't have any oil.

[EXANTIREPUB]

28. BUSH AND CHENEY HAVE PLANNED THIS ALL ALONG

IF YOU ANALYZE ALL THE PROPOGANDA THAT BUSHCO HAS BEEN PUTTING OUT THE LAST FEW MONTHS OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE TRYING TO BUILD A CASE FOR WAR
AGAINST IRAN. THEY NOW HAVE A THIRD CARRIER TASK FORCE HEADED TO THE PERSIAN GULF. ALSO THEY HAVE MOVED A LOT OF FIGHTERS AND
B1B BOMBERS INTO IRAQ. ALONG WITH THE SENATE RESOLUTION THAT JUST PASSED THAT BASICALLY GIVES BUSHCO THE GREEN LIGHT TO ATTACK IRAN
BECAUSE IT CLAIMS THAT IRAN HAS COMMITTED ACTS OF WAR AGAINST THE U.S. IN IRAQ, IT SURE LOOKS LIKE BUSH WILL ATTACK BEFORE THE END
OF THIS YEAR. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT HALF THE JIHDISTS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE COMING FROM SAUDI ARABIA. THEY HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE
UP BECAUSE THIS WAS THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG. FUCK THESE WARMONGERS!

[truckerb1968]

29. What makes you think there will be an end to the Bush, Cheney madness.

If they are stupid enough to attack Iran, and they are, Bush and Cheney will in not relinquish office. Be prepared for Martial Law, I have been saying this for three years and sure hope I am wrong.

[Megahurtz]

45. I've Had Nightmares About That.

I hope they won't come true.

[lovuian]

27. WWIII is coming unfortunately times are getting crazy

Iran knows who is behind this whole attack and Saudia Arabia England there is a list

they know

[MiserableFailure]

30. And they're just crazy enough to use them

Israel had better watch its steps carefully. If they don't want to suffer casualties then they should not allow US forces to use their bases for attacks against Iran.

[Tempest]

33. What's crazy about using them if they are attacked?

I sure as hell would if my country was attacked.

Fuck that sitting around doing nothing bullshit.

[MiserableFailure]

34. there'd be nothing crazy about that

i was saying they might just use them anyway

[Tempest]

37. Not preemptively

Iran is smarter, and saner, than westerners give them credit for.

[roamer65]

38. I think this is it, folks...

We're staring the abyss of a world war right in the face.

[TexasLawyer]

42. so, maybe Iran should be left alone