Israel Ready to Strike Iran

[julialnyc]

(from another blog)

Well, if we're tied up in Iraq, let's get the Israelis take care of Iran....

War Games anyone? ... Russian Roulette or ...Armageddon?

------------------------------

Israel Ready to Strike Iran
By Leslie Wetzel
Talon News
July 20, 2004

TEL AVIV, ISRAEL (Talon News) -- Israel has conducted military exercises for a preemptive strike against several of Iran's nuclear power facilities and is ready to attack if Russia supplies Iran with rods for enriching uranium, Israeli officials told reporters.

Israel has for a long time assumed the right of preemption. Preemption refers to the right to attack, and even make war with Arab states that are developing nuclear weapons.


http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0720_israel_iran.shtml

[Dookus]

1. well that will be...

"interesting".

[evil_orange_cat]

2. Israel took out an Iraqi nuclear plant in the 80's IIRC...

and then, Saddam had the third largest military in the world... it didn't lead to war then, and the stakes were higher. Plus, what is Iran going to do about it? Israel has nukes, they don't... and Iran has virtually no conventional capabilities either.

Plus, I happen to think preventing an Iranian nuclear program would be a good thing.

I'll root for Israel if they decide to do this. :thumbsup:

[julialnyc]

6. I thought they had Nukes

or they think it is possible they acquired them. That is really scary for many many reasons.....I'm sure it is VERY SCARY for our troops

[Dookus]

7. wow...

a real pre-emptive warrior here on DU!

Tell me, morally, why should Israel be allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Because They Are Less Likely To Use Them On Us?

NT

[Dookus]

10. ahh

so it's OK if they use them on the unwashed, though?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Only In Self Defense?

NT

[Dookus]

14. but here's the conundrum...

is a pre-emptive attack on another sovereign nation "self-defense"? If so, you have to support the Bush doctrine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Like Our Nominee Support The Policy Of Pre-emption

Bush has made an abortion out of the policy but the policy still has merit....

[Dookus]

16. But

why should Iran be prevented from developing the tools necessary to defend itself?

Why should the US and Israel be the only countries allowed to decide the defense policy of other nations?

Iran hasn't done anything to Israel, just like Iraq didn't do anything to the US.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Well ... We Have A Little Thing Called The Carter Docrtine....

which states that the Persian Gulf region is of strategic value to the United States and the United States is committed to use military force to ensure that no hostile nation gains control of that region...


Iran has the right to defend itself according to Article 51 of the United Nations charter but a nuclear Iran is a threat to the United States and Israel...


And Iran has attacked Israel through proxies namely Hezbollah....


I'm sorry; if there has to be a military superpower then I want America to play that role...

[Dookus]

19. Sorry

I don't buy the idea that a country is a de facto threat to the US or Israel because they want to defend themselves.

Why is it hard to understand that Israel is more of a threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel? Absent any overt aggression against its neighbors, Iran - like all nations - has a right to defend itself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. "Iran-like all nations -has a right to defend itself"

Then was John Kennedy wrong to demand that the Soviet Union remove it nuclear missiles from Cuba?


Was Clinton wrong to contemplate an invasion of North Korea if they didn't abandon their nuclear program?

If all nations have the right to defend itself can France, the UK, Russia, Pakistan sell their nuclear missiles to whatever nation they want?

[Dookus]

22. red herring

Soviet nukes in Cuba was not for Soviet self-defense.

And yes, they should sell to whomever they want. I simply don't buy the argument that only the "good guys" (defined by us) should have nukes. I wish no nation had them, but we don't have the moral authority to decide who the good guys are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. The Nukes Were For Cuba Self Defense

I think Cuba was more threatened by America than America was by Cuba


Does the Bay Of Pigs ring a bell?



Don't you agree.....


So .... it's not a red herring...


It has nothing to do with moral authority..... Nations act in their self interest.... And it's not in our interest to see the nuclear club grow larger.......


If nations can sell their nukes , can they sell their chemical weapons as well... The Russians like the Americans have a shitload of chemical weapons left over from the cold war... Should they be able to sell them to Al Qaeda?

[Dookus]

26. I said

that nukes in Cuba were not for Soviet self-defense.

I think we agree that weapons proliferation is not a good thing. But I don't believe that the US and Israel are the only nations that should be allowed to decide which nations are worthy.

If Israel attacks Iran, it will deserve whatever results come from it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Besides Bad Press I Really Don't See Much Happening...

I'm not advocating an attack...


I just know it's not in the United States interest for Iran to have nukes....


I can understand their motivation without endorsing their actions....

[GreenArrow]

23. it has about as much merit as a piece of toilet paper

it should be used once, then thrown out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. You Can't See Any Situations Where Preemption Is Justified?

What if your enemy is mobilizing it's troops on your borders?


What if you have hard evidence that a nation state is supplying terrorists with chemical weapons?

[GreenArrow]

36. quick answer, no

If my enemy is mobilizing his troops on my borders, I would open diplomatic channels telling him in no uncertain terms what would happen to him if he chose to trespass. In fact, that message would have been conveyed before if there were any indications that the enemy was massing. I don't really consider the scenario pre-emptive, though.

Apply the doctrine to individual, personal behavior, and it's clear that it is little more than vigilantism and thuggery, driven by ignoble motivations, usually relating, I would guess, to fear and power issues.

I can't answer the second question, because I don't believe in any such thing as terrorists, at least as they are popularly defined. In today's climate, the men who dressed as indians and threw tea into Boston harbor would qualify as terrorists. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys would qualify as terrorists. The French resistance certainly would have qualified as terrorists.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. What If Your Enemy Continued To Mobilize?

I can certainly think of preemption in interpersonal relations...


If someone was about to strike me I would be well within my rights and true to my moral compass to strike him first....


I think we can agree on terrorists...

Were the guys repsonsible for 9-11 terrorists?

[teryang]

41. Yes and their still in the executive branch

anticipating threats is based upon divining intentions, divining intentions is little removed from fabricating a pretext to assualt others. Isn't that what we have all been talking and hearing about for two years?

[GreenArrow]

42. I prefer the Bruce Lee approach

the art of fighting without fighting. See "Enter the Dragon" for details.

Someone may appear to be about to strike you, but how do you really know he will follow through? If you are squared off and your opponent is coming towards you, the situation is no longer one of pre-emption, but rather, self defense. If your opponent has promised to kick your ass, and you see him sitting alone, and sneak up behind him, and crack him over the head with a chair, you may have pre-empted his promised attack, but you may also have created a situation where he will make a serious effort to return the favor, or if you have immobilized him to the point where he is no longer able to keep his original promise, you may incur the wrath of his various seconds, who will no doubt be willing to use pre-emption on you. It's a door better left unopened. And you never know, your opponents original threats might have been nothing but hot air. Or alternate solutions might have been reached.

The guys who did 9-11, whoever they were or are, are something well beyond the garden-variety boogeyman label, terrorist. Terrorist, since it can be defined so broadly, is really a useless sort of word. I don't like to use it; it doesn't contribute to clear thinking.

[PeaceForever]

11. Violence is never the answer

The answer to your question of "what are they going to do about it?" is likely to be invade Iraq. The hardliners in Iran would have their backs against the wall since there is so much domestic opposition to them in that country, so they'd have little other choice.

I know people like to pretend that the US military is invincible and has magical superpowers, but the fact is, it may not have the manpower to stop such an attack.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

If Iran Invaded Iraq They Would Be Committing Suicide

It would be the greatest mismatch since Marvis Frazier got in the ring with Mike Tyson...

[PeaceForever]

29. That's dangerous thinking

The US military is not invincible. It doesn't have magical powers.

Remember that the majority of Iraq's population is Shiite, and they would support the Iranians.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Realize America Is Not Omnipotent

and Iran could stir up trouble among sympathetic Shiites but a conventional assault on American troops like what occurred during the Iraq-Iran war would be the greatest mismatch since Mussolini invaded Ethiopia...

[julialnyc]

31. They would REALLY HURT US!

Our over-extended military can't afford to get in the middle of an Israel/Iran dispute. Our men and woman are serving tours of duty that are way too long. This
1. Would mean the draft
2. Would be very difficult....if we backed Israel all the Islamic fundamentalist countries would back Iran.

Plus Preemption has a very clear meaning (I forgot it, but can look it up...Wes Clark once explained this). The Cuban Missile crisis was a call for pre-emption (because they were aimed at us. Bush has made the term so loose. There is no second guessing...or "we have reasons to believe" in preemption.

Wes Clark and Howard Dean understood this and understood the disaster Iraq would become when we fight a war without proof. Many people die and now we are the enemy in the Middle East. Now, I know we got rid of an awful man, but in there eyes we have killed thousands of fellow Muslims. War with USA and Israel vs. Iran with TONS of support would be a disaster. It would make Falluja look like nothing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. How Could Iran Attack Israel...

They would have to traverse the desert to do so...


Some folks are conflating preventative war and preemptive war... The latter can be justified while the former can't...


If there is a demonstrable threat which is imminent a nation is justified in acting...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Dupe

[AngryAmish]

51. Violence is many times the answer

It just depends on the justness of the question. For example Rome had questions about Carthage. The Third Punic War answered that question rather definitively.

[PeaceForever]

53. It took me a second to realize you're being sarcastic.

The Third Punic War was a perfect example of how war is just useless killing and the "winner" really doesn't gain a thing. It's a shame humanity still hasn't learned its lesson.

[AngryAmish]

56. I was in no way being sarcastic

The Third Punic War was not just useless killing from the Roman point of view - remember Cicero's speeches?

The Third Punic War was genocide pure and simple. However, Rome did not have a rival in the Mediterranean for a thousand years.

As I said, it just depends on the evilness of the question. Third Punic War really answered the question for Rome.

[Spoon]

24. They have one of the more robust armed forces in the region:

Manpower
Active: 540,000
Reserves: 350,000

Army (350,000)
5 Corps HQ
4 Armored Divisions with 3 Armored 1 Mechinized Brigade, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
6 Infantry Divisions with 4 Infantry Brigades, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
2 Commando Divisions
1 Airborne Division

Navy (18,000) (edit: a joke)

Air Force (52,000)
including 15,000 Air Defense

Equipment
1,565 Main Battle Tanks
2,085 Towed Artillery Pieces
17 Scud Launchers with 300 Scuds
450 Modern Combat Aircraft including Mig29 & F14
200+ SAM

Sources: www.fas.org & www.globalsecurity.org

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Iran Like Iraq Is A Paper Tiger......

NT

[fujiyama]

47. While I doubt

Iran would be a huge force against Israel, I wouldn't underestimate or dismiss Iran's capability.

I think they've been working on ballistic missile capability and have had various tests in the last few years. I think they were buying missile technology from China (probably slikworms). I'm pretty sure they have missiles capable of hitting Israel.

Granted Israel has the ARROW system, and from what I've heard it's like a missile shield. I'm also guessing there are some that would be very interested in seeing how it would hold up.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that Iran's military is in much better shape than Iraq's was in 1980, or even 1991 when they fired those scuds into Israel.

[xchrom]

3. and to think conservatives think of themselves

as defenders of civilization.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Hope They Wait To After Our Convention

NT

[Malva Zebrina]

5. right, once you get them, it is only right that you bomb the hell out of

other countries who want the same.

Especially those countries that have been fingered by the great Americam military machine that can drop huge bombs on any little country it please. That they must also try to defend themself, is out of the question. If they get the nukes--nuke em.

and that is called pre-emption--

I call it something else.

[teryang]

8. Misrepresentations and disclosure

The turks will not allow Israeli aircraft to overfly their territory. This is a cover story. Israeli aircraft will overfly Jordan and Iraq and receive American assistance, maybe even arming and refueling on the ground in Iraq at American bases.

A second alternative would be to paint out American markings and have American aircraft conduct the attacks and nominally attribute them to Israel.

A tactical route through Turkey is absurd.

The disclosure is the admission that Israel targets the intelligentsia of its "strategic enemies" for assassination. I interpret this as a virtual admission that Israel is behind the systematic series of hundreds of murders of professors and scientists in Iraq.

Ultimately, the ready resort to force by Israel and America preemptively will result in massive covert retaliation sponsored by a great power.

[Dookus]

18. Why would Israel need to fly over Turkey to reach Iran?

[teryang]

40. Well

The distances are substantial for tactical attack aircraft particularly the round trip enroute with external ordnance. Very fuel consuming. The most convenient route over Saudi Arabia to Bushehr is not available politically.

Another convenient route over Jordan and Iraq is available but in order to provide political cover for Jordan and the American forces, they are making up a story about overflying Turkey.

[julialnyc]

50. Frightening

N/T

[FrenchieCat]

20. Here is a better known source for the same story -

Since "Talon News" is unknown to many, here is the same published in the Jerusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090121780879

[FrenchieCat]

28. Wes Clark predicted this recently.......

Clark really really understands what is going on. I hope the Kerry team will give him his proper dues...

this is Blogger PinB's recollection of what Wes Clark had told him and some others about Iran just a couple of weeks ago..... the day Edwards' was announced as Vice President.

"The last thing I remember him talking about in this context was what the issues would be leading up to the election. He said he had been watching the world scene closely and for the last two years had been convinced that the real issues will be Iran and Korea, that Iraq will just be "the backdrop" of the election, not the main issue. He said we had an opportunity to have a treaty with Korea 3 months ago. That Colin Powell had it dangled in front of him "like an apple to be plucked". (Gestured by using my gift as the apple and raising it into the air as if he were about to pluck it from a limb.Forgive me this digression, but I got such a kick out of that.) He said Powell didn't pluck it because they will wait until mid October or so and then make their move to create a big splash. He also said that things in Iran would heat up throughout the summer, with Israel possibly threatening to go in to straighten things out if the US won't. This could all serve to black out the democrats getting any press or serious consideration leading up to the election. He said we needed to have a plan for that, and I can only assume he is sharing these thoughts with Kerry & Co.

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2004/7/8/112052/4756

[bluestateguy]

35. Iranian nukes are more of a threat to Israel than us

If Iran is close to or has nuclear weapons Israel is well within their rights to take out the facilities that produce those weapons. An invasion, overthrow of their government and occupation would be way out of bounds, however.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. See... If We Didn't Invade Iraq Under False Or Mistaken Pretenses

we could have dealt more effectively with this problem...


I don't think it's a simple matter of Israel taking out these facilities.....

[bluestateguy]

38. You're right

Now, I'd be inclined to disbelieve any Bush Administration intel on Iran.

[Dookus]

43. No

Israel is not "within its rights" to attack another country that hasn't attacked it.

This idea that the "good guys" have the right to attack the "bad guys" is dangerous and immoral.

48. United States nukes are more of a threat to Iran than to Israel

If the United States is close to or has nuclear weapons Iran is well within their rights to take out the facilities that produce those weapons. An invasion, overthrow of our government and occupation would be way out of bounds, however.


Your words, with different actors.

[liberalpragmatist]

44. Gee, that's a great way to start a CIVILIZATIONAL WAR

Or, at the least, you know, just another war between Israel and the Arab World plus Iran.

[JohnDoe1]

45. Let Them

Let Israel go public about this. Then, the US could threaten retaliation against Israel if they act. This would make us look a lot better in the Arab world.

[Progressive420]

46. YEA maybe in a dream World

the US would never threaten Israel it would never happen not even with a democratic administration

[GreenArrow]

49. Russia...

what would it think of this?

[Larkspur]

52. Iran has a right to shoot down Israeli or American fighter jets

in its air space.

What will happen if they do?

Israel is strong militarily but not incapable of making mistakes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. If There As Competent As Their Middle Eastern Brethren The Chances Are

Slim....

[Nicholas_J]

54. Uh Oh...

Halliburton better move out all of its drilling equipment, as Halliburton is doing all of the oils extraction and pumping and piping to tanker stations for the Iranian Government.

WHich actually means that Halliburton is helping Iran earn the money, that is being used to finance the Shi'ite Insurgency in Iraq, whho are killing American troops.