Iran and Israel at War

Assuming this is true:

Quote:

---

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

:book:

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Assuming this is true:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-ex-spy.html


...And assuming that Israel does indeed act accordingly due to the forthcoming U.S. elections and probability of an Obama victory, how will this play out?

My prediction:


Israel initiates first strike, targeting Iranian airbases, SAM sites, and known nuclear sites.

Iran responds immediately with surface-to-surface missle fire into Israel.


Then it gets tricky.

Scenario (a): Iran is forced to concede its loss faced with the possibility of U.S. intervention on both its eastern and western borders. While Iran would love to spearhead a regional ground war and cut off oil supplies, it can't because of the the very real threat of a sustained and undefendable air campaign from the U.S. Russia complains loudly. China complains loudly. The conflict ends before the Presidential election and Barak Obama is elected due in part to his anti-military action rhetoric. The U.S. and Israel retain a damaged reputation, but the U.S,. reputation improves immediately following Barak Obama's election.


Scenario (b): Iran not only engages in surface to surface missle bombardment of Israel, but also cuts off oil supplies to the west. No ground offensive from any nation. The cost of oil skyrockets to over $200 a barrel, causing gas to reach $7 a gallon. Inflation explodes internationally, and national economies buckle. A global recession begins. Barak Obama is elected, with the American public blaming Bush for the economy and continued war.


Scenario (c): Iran attempts to coordinate a ground war. Jordan abstains. Egypt abstains. Elements of Hizballah are heavily involved as are Iranian regulars. Hamas leads another uprising. Syria provides supportto Iran, but no troops. Iranian military elements are quickly destroyed by a joint U.S. Israeli counter offensive. Iran, Venezuela, and perhaps a few other OPEC nations cease oil exportation. Oil reaches well over $200, perhaps $300. The United States begins bombing inside Iran. Economic conditions reach a crisis in the United States as inflation causes $10 a gallon gas and skyrockets the price of food and other essentials. Anger is directed at IRAN, and McCain is elected President because of American confidence in his war experience.



What are your thoughts?

:book:

---

not going to happen

Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him

Not sure if you mean the population is behind Mr A or the nukes, im pretty sure most Iranians want nuclear weapons.... can't blame them myself...

Iran already has major gassoline shortages and they can't refine the oil theirselves, tanks don't run on prayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

not going to happen

---

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Wow. Impressive and well-articulated argument. You are truly a scholar and I have been enlightened by your contribution.

:clown:

---

Well, this thread deserves such a response.

Edit:

I'll humor you.

Israel's air force doesn't have the ability to do what you just said. Now they could use missiles strikes, but I'm betting that's going to be less effective than an air strike. The Iranians will see these missiles and will fireback. Both sides will suffer massive causalities probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Israel will not start a war that will cost millions of lives of their own citizens. Not only that, but Iran will throw everything they have at Israel suicide bomber wise.

a) will never happen

Iran will retaliate if attacked

b) seems plausible, but you forgot the suicide bombers

c) won't ever happen- Iran knows they will get crushed

Just because some ex nut is talking about blowing up Iran's nuclear program, does not mean all out war. It's fairly easy to see.

Israel hits Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran throws a fit. Done.

A single hit works in everyone's best interest. Israel is happy, America is happy, and Mr. A's power is firmly re-established.

Iran won't cut their oil, as they need the cash just as much as we need the energy. There certainly won't be any prolonged war.

It's not currently possible for Israel to conduct such a first strike, but if it were, I suspect PJ is near the truth. Iran would not react except through her proxies.

However, before basing any discussion on the ex-Mossad agent's wind-up (hasn't America tired yet of being scared into foolishness by nutters with agendas?) let's ask ourselves a question:

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

:wall:

Using a person not in a government agency, but still with gravitas is a way of sabre rattling with plausible deniability.

I imagine (maybe I'm wrong) that Iran has a decent amount of AA missiles probably from Russia or China. So using F-16 / F-15 attacks would be very expensive in resources and manpower. saturating air defences with planes works - as long as you accept high attrition rates.

Firing missiles from Israel would be cheaper in many ways but probably less accurate.

Surely Iran has as far as possible planned for the eventuality that the plants must be able to withstand several air to ground missile strikes?

A ground war is non-sensical as it plays to Israel's strengths: tanks would be picked off at range by missiles, planes and drones. The unsupported troops then have to withstand cluster bombs, enemy tanks and troops. This even ignores the logistics of having the supply train mauled every inch it goes forward.

Iran IMO has two options and they are rather "boom or bust"

Do practically nothing, but increase funding to Iraq / Afghanistan forces (bleed America / allies) and utilise suicide bombers and rockets (hurt Israel).

Germ / chemical weapon attack - missiles laden with VX / sarin etc etc in a attempt to break Israel's back before it can react.

In the second instance there is a slight chance that others such as Syria might also launch a missile attack as well...

The first is the 99% option, the second is the "fingers crossed the nukes leave more of us intact than the nerve gas leaves the intact".

China will sell arms to whoever has cash / oil for them. Russia will sell for cash.
America give so much aid to Israel it can not make a difference in the first scenario, and in the second there's little to do ecept send in the cleanup crews.

~:smoking:

Oh, a further option: Link

Smash the nukes then fight a war.

Israel might need to destroy the missiles with planes before destroying the threat in case the missiles are launched as soon as planes invade their airspace.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I think you're giving Iran too much unanimity in actions. Sure Mr. A wants some nukes, but the population of Iran isn't united behind him. Mr. A seems to be losing his grip in Tehran, the support of his Parliament, and the support of the people. Just take that into account.

---

Perhaps. Problem with that is, that Iran still is a theocratic dictatorship - the last word isn't that of 'democratically' elected representatives, but autocratic clerics.

How about instead of targeting the nukes, A-S Mr A and the Supreme Leader instead?

If we look at history, it's clear to see that the countries that most support an attack on Iran in the name of maintaining international peace are the same people who are starting most of the wars and doing most of the killing.

Forgive me for playing Ahmadinejad's advocate (why can't people spell his name?), but if we look at the US and Israel, for example, we see that both countries, nuclear powers, have recently attacked other countries, dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs on heavilly populated areas, killed countless thousands of civilians, and yet maintain, with great anger and vehemence, that they are the protectors of peace while Iran is naught but pure evil. If I may I ask; in the last ten-years, how many wars has Iran begun? How many countries have had their civilian areas subject to mass bombing raids by the Iranian Air Force? How many thousands of civilians has Iran killed?

I'm no great fan of Iran's leadership or form of government, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone's leadership or form of government. I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but then again I'm no great fan of anyone having nuclear weapons. And assuming Iran gets The Bomb, why is it assumed they will instantly use it when using it will surely bring about their total destruction? Whether we like them or not, Iran, poop agitators and human rights violators that they are, have behaved with more restraint and, dare I say, civility than some of the people accusing them.

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

---

Yes, I'm sure they do love their children, as much as we love ours. It's not the average person that's to worry about, it's these insane fools currently in power, i.e. Bush, Ahmadinejad, Putin, etc.

When I reference Mr. A's support, it's in a general sense. He has moderately size support, but it's not a majority. So if Mr. A does act in some undue fashion, and some might just say no and begin a coup.

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy. The US bases are closer, so they get more air cover, less ground to cover, and more gear can be taken. Israel could strike the Syrian nuclear site because they knew Syrian didn't have the guts for war. With Iran, they have the guts, but it's just how their triggered which is going to be the difference.

Also, Beirut, I just don't want to spend time looking up the name, then pasting it in appropriate spots.
To try and answer your question, it's more that Iran seems set upon throwing Israel into the wastebasket. To those who've held the bomb (and some who've actually used it), it's about preventing new members from coming in (what's the use of power if everyone has it?), the possibility of also stopping a genocidal madman, icing on the cake.

It's also that Iran has contacts with Hezbollah, and might smuggle such a weapon into Hezbollahs hands?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even if they possessed a nuclear weapon, why on God's green earth would Iran use it? (When reflecting, please bear in mind that Iranians, like Russians, love their children too).

---

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

Keeping Iran away from the nukie-nukies would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I would also tender the idea that Israel (or US) might insert Special Forces and take the Iranian Nuke stuff before they could weaponize it. Get the doctors, etc. It's more feasible than the previous attempt on the U.S. Embassy.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I'm sorry, I had to indulge my inner Tribesman. My bad. :wink:

(You do realise the "Iranian Nuke stuff" doesn't fit into a carrier bag, don't you?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

The nuclear club contains countries with horrendous and even psychotic international and human rights records, yet none of them were attacked when they got The Bomb or even lots of The Bombs. Why is Iran so special?

---

The US has never liked admitting others into the nuclear club. Not Britain, not France, not Israel. Britain and France were big-name allies whom the American public would never in a million years agree to attack. The USSR and China were too big to bully. Israel, India and Pakistan took the world by surprise with their revelations (or hints of, in Israel's case). North Korea and Iran, in normal circumstances, would be small enough for the US to push around if they didn't have nukes, so steps are taken to ensure they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

---

We don't have any reason to believe that they would be. In fact, all the evidence is that whilst Iran certainly supports terrorist groups, they have no interest in arming them with anything other than conventional weaponry.

Iran already has access to fairly serious biological and chemical weaponry. Why hasn't a suicide bomber detonated a nerve gas bomb in Tel Aviv? Same reason that Pakistan's nutcases haven't been given a "suitcase" nuke to rearrange Delhi. Because the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

They are a regional player utilising proxies to fight for their political ends - just as the United States does (another of the few countries with a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups). They have no interest in a one-way ticket to oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Keeping Iran away from the nukie-nukies would be a good thing.

---

I don't disagree, but the best way to do that would be through removing them from Israel and Pakistan - and France, the UK and North Korea. Since that's an unlikely scenario, the Iranians will get their strategic balance one way or another, sooner or later.

Eventually, the USA will get the clue that her enemies in the region are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq and Iran. The former are where the Islamicist looneys are produced and succoured. Indeed, just as happened in the aftermath of 9-11, Iran - which has its own terrorist problem, by the way - could develop into a really strong partner out there. Especially if we shut up and let Ahmadinejad face an election next year where he has to run on his domestic record.

After much thought and weighing all the various considrations of this question as put I really cannot see the possibilty of any answer apart from bollox

Quote:

---

Unlike most other countries,

---

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unlike most other countries, Iran has a long and storied history of supporting terrorist groups, supplying them with money, weapons and training. Hezbollah has direct ties to the Iranian government, and is responsible for some outrageous stuff. We don't have any reason to believe nuclear weapons would not be passed from Iran to Hezbollah, or another proxy group.

---

While I do not doubt there is some validity in your statement, I do not believe you can just state it without at the same time admitting that the U S of A does the same thing: Support terror organizations, rebels to destabilize "hostile" governments, groups to cause a ruckus in other countries.

Those rebels that are then caught, possibly tortured and then killed are then quoted as Human Rights Violations and harsh treatments of citizens rather than what it actually is: Treason. Punishable by death in the states as well last I heard.

Except of course if you say "why do you hate freedom" or "if the USA supports them, they are no longer a terrorist organization".

In fact, when news first broke of those Anbar councils, the MSM was reporting about it as the US (Military) with blessing from the government supporting insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. But as they seemed to become useful enough, the way they were portrayed changed too. Now they are called "freedom fighters" and "anti insurgents" or "Support groups".

Needless to say, that is similar to what happened back in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well bugger me Lemur , when your government doesn't support arm and train frigging terrorists perhaps you can shout the odds about Iran doing it

---

Since when did hypocrisy become a cardinal sin? I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained. Furthermore, I am insulted, gravely insulted that you would say "bollox" to me without using at least ten smileys.

Banquo, you make excellent points. I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Because the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

---

Or maybe they are evil nor insane, but I still think having nukes there is a bad idea.

If they are neither evil, nor suicidal nor insane, then why do you still think it to be a bad idea when so many other nations have them?
Just a gut feeling?

Quote:

---

but I still think having nukes there is a bad idea.
Today 17:32

---

That may well be , but kim il elvis has just shown that having nukes means you can act the maggot and get away with it

Quote:

---

I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained.

---

Bollox , have your ten:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:so now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern feckwits . Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

Here's an article that was just published regarding US government funding of terrorists with Iran and kidnappings of Iranians within Iran to "interrogate" them in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reuters

U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran
Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:34am BST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centres around a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.

"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."

Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.

Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million (200 million pounds), was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.

These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.

But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the article said, citing current and former officials.

Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.

Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.

The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.

None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.

The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses.

---

Bolded for emphasis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

If they are neither evil, nor suicidal nor insane, then why do you still think it to be a bad idea when so many other nations have them?
Just a gut feeling?

---

Well it's kinda unstable there isn't it.

@Tribes, but King Jung is more or less a fixed idea, in the middle east someone is always trying to overthrow someone. I expect Kim Jung to act rationaly but all that's going on in the sand, less sure.

Its unstable because of outsiders trying to make it unstable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[...] now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern ********. Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

---

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?

DA, you really need to be less leading with your titles. The first thing I did this morning was turn on the Guild, and this was the first thread I saw. I damn near had a heart attack, thinking that an official state of war had been declared.

Come to find out, you're talking about a rumour of a possibility of a theoretical war.

:stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Its unstable because of outsiders trying to make it unstable...

---

Sorry sir this is world politics, honesty is at the end of the hall, first door after the printer

Is that where I can find Obama? :grin:

Quote:

---

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency [..]

---

Oops.. :balloon2:

The Messrs Shavit of this world never, ever retire from Mossad. And they never, ever openly discuss genuine Israeli foreign and military policy issues.

Have a nice day with the article though.

Not sure Factionheir but that's the very printer that gave him his complexion ;)

So, any comments on my article?

Well Lemur , to answer your question with a question .
How many feckwit genocidal maniacs have they supported ? how many murdering terrorist gobshites have they helped?
If the answer is not quite as many as other places then perhaps the claim that they ain't as bad as the others may hold water ...but it looks like you is holding a sieve on this one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

So, any comments on my article?

---

No comment but if you are Seymour Hersh as in ' my article' someone probably wants a word with you :laugh4:

Damn, i've been busted. Time to hide. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

---

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

They use proxies to continue the feud, because the last thing most of these governments want is a solution to the Palestinian problem. Israel continues the feud because it benefits enormously from subsidies. The West keeps excusing Israel from its international obligations because we're self-hating Gentiles. Everyone is happy, and the casualty rates kept acceptable to the purpose. Waving willies is part of the game.

Iran wants to be the regional power. The Arab nations are uneasy about this, especially since the invasion of Iraq has already tilted the balance very firmly toward Iran. If we stopped demonising the Iranian Republic and took advantage of their desires, we might find a valuable ally to help stabilise Iraq, offset the fundamentalist Wahabism of the Saudis and help guarantee Israel's borders. We managed to do a deal with the Egyptians to this end, despite their history of violence towards the State of Israel. As I noted, Iran was very supportive of the coalition offensives against the Taliban after 9-11 - hardly Islam United, was it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be.

---

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

States are unlike individual people. States are not happy or depressed, they are not suicidal or buoyant. States serve aggregate interests, and they do this well or not. They make mistakes, but they do not go mental. States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.

None of the so-called 'madmen' summoned by the White House in the past twenty years has been really mad. Kim, Moammar, Slobo, Saddam, all were rational by White House criteria, that is: if it is considered rational to go to war halfway around the world on the basis of false reports and kill tens of thousands...

Really, this talk of 'mad' leaders who 'can not be trusted with nukes' is so counterproductive, it isn't even the start of a notion that could lead to a sound policy.

EDIT
* and that's a compliment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?
States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.
EDIT
* and that's a compliment

---

Well, enjoy it while it lasts :p

And it seems our current politician are driving us to the abolution of our state :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

---

Plenty. They are not around anymore, which is probably owing to their suicidal nature.

While I agree with your assesment that states should not be described in antropomorphic terms, I do think that you place too much confidence in the rational behaviour of states. Especially of states run by dictators - where the line between 'person', acting with all the irrationalities and whims of the human character, and 'impersonal state' can be very thin indeed.

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo

But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

---

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.


FactionHeir, thanks for your interesting article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

---

Let's hope we don't go far in the same direction with generic terrorist threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?

---

History is clear - the US has :daisy: with Iran far more than Iran has :daisy: with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

History is clear - the US has :daisy: with Iran far more than Iran has :daisy: with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

---

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

That's the thing, in my opinion. The Cold War was risky enough - I'd rather not think of lots of little Cold Wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

---

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due. :sunny:

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

Israel will smack down Iran's nuke program. They did it to Saddam 20+ years ago...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC} King Jan III Sobieski

Israel will smack down Iran's nuke program. They did it to Saddam 20+ years ago...

---

The two almost have nothing similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due. :sunny:

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

---

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

The two almost have nothing similar.

---

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.

---

How delicious. No-one has implied my neo-con tendencies for some time now. :wink:

I believe that the natural state of Mankind is to be free. So yes, remove these governments and the nations of the Middle East will tend towards their natural state.

Your straw man is to suggest that I would encourage outsiders to effect this change, rather than to allow those people to discover liberty themselves.

Quote:

---

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

---

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

---

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was? (Ignoring the interesting surface to surface goodies Israel recently aquired and the near certainty that they have assets in country that greatly reduce aiming difficulties.)

Panzer , a bookmaker would wet himself laughing if anyone ever considered placing a bet at those odds.

Quote:

---

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was?

---

The assesment was that if they are willing to risk their entire usable strike capacity and get lots and lots of co-operation from a wide range of unfriendly nations they may just about be able to try it with a very very high risk of total failure .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

---

Looks quite like it. Sad really. Another disaster waiting to happen.... but that's what the war party is all about, eh? :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

---

Democracies can be just as irrational as autocracies. All are given to mistakes. However, no state in history ever wanted 'to end it all'.

The situation that came closest to having a madman in control of a nuclear arsenal would be the democratically elected Richard Nixon in his final years in office. He was paranoid, permapissed and extremely angry.

Come on, Louis; either you agree with me, or you must be barking mad. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

:bow:

---

Sobriety has me by the throat once again but I still cling to the omellet.

I feel that any war with Iran will be a manaufactured war and the manufacturers should do something that makes them face the consequences of their actions and not dawdle in half-measures that will do nothing but leave the situation hanging about our necks for another twenty-years. They need to either make real peace or make real war and have the cohones to live with what they did.

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

If peace - then real peace. Peace that requires hard effort, communication, conciliation, and concessions. Both sides will have to lose something in order to win something. Let Obama sit with Ahmedinejad and have a cup of coffee. Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran. Hire Pink Floyd to redo the Pompeii concert in the middle of the desert. Have the powers that be do something, anything other than blustering and threatening and standing in the corner with their hands over their ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la... I can't heeeeeear youuuuu." Communicate, communicate, communicate. The Persians are an ancient people, they know how to haggle, they know how to make a deal. So, make a deal.

Real war or real peace. Ghengis or Ghandi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran.

---

Now total and eternal annihilation of every man, woman, child and their hamster is one thing, but that is plain nasty.

We are of similar mind then, Beirut. Down here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have this thing called a constitution, that spells out how war is declared, and by whom, etc. Sadly, the 2001 crop of our leaders ignored those provisions and made stuff up so we could wage sort-of war on the sort-of cheap, without disturbing the everyday life of our citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

---

So? Comparing Iraq and Iran, but saying the IAF is 20 more years advanced does not balance the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Sobriety has me by the throat once again but I still cling to the omellet.

I feel that any war with Iran will be a manaufactured war and the manufacturers should do something that makes them face the consequences of their actions and not dawdle in half-measures that will do nothing but leave the situation hanging about our necks for another twenty-years. They need to either make real peace or make real war and have the cohones to live with what they did.

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

If peace - then real peace. Peace that requires hard effort, communication, conciliation, and concessions. Both sides will have to lose something in order to win something. Let Obama sit with Ahmedinejad and have a cup of coffee. Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran. Hire Pink Floyd to redo the Pompeii concert in the middle of the desert. Have the powers that be do something, anything other than blustering and threatening and standing in the corner with their hands over their ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la... I can't heeeeeear youuuuu." Communicate, communicate, communicate. The Persians are an ancient people, they know how to haggle, they know how to make a deal. So, make a deal.

Real war or real peace. Ghengis or Ghandi.

---

Dear god I think I may agree with Beriut for once. The middle of the road is no where to walk, you walk on either of it's exremes. Sherman was right, But I believe Niccolo Machialli put it best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niccolo' Machiavelli

For it must be noted, that men must either be caressed or else annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.

:

And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion and the name of liberty and of its ancient usages, which are forgotten neither by lapse of time nor by benefits recieved; and whatever one does or provides, so long as the inhabitants are not seperated or dispersed, they do not forget that name and those usages, but appeal to them at once in every emergency.

---

It does not require an entire state to be suicidal for a nuclear or nuclear waste attack to occur on isreal. All it takes is one revolutionary guard captain stationed at a nuclear plant to turn a blind eye. Iran with nukes is going to be a bad thing, something Isreal understands.

Just look how easy it was for nuclear waste to go missing from a russian plant, travel thousands of miles and make it's way into brittain. A nuclear attack committed in covert by someone who should be called nothing less then a terrorist themselves happened, easily. If nuclear waste can not only go missing but be pluasibly denied by russia, iran will probably try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

---

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

---

If you would, could you give me a defination of the arab that is the target of your war?

Going to war against a target that is so shapeless with an inmeasurable size as a race. Sounds like a good way of losing, horribly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Tecumseh Sherman

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.

---

Maybe you should read more about sherman before completely agreeing with him. War should be pursued only as a last resort. But if it does occur, it should be as swift as possible, becuase war is the ultimate form of suffering. Pursuing war for the sole purpose of imposing worse cruelties on "fanatics" will backfire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Thank you. Put an end to these incredibly restrictive ROEs. Shock and Awe was ridiculous. Destroy the freaking country and rebuild it the way you want it. The arabs have to know they're completely beaten, just like fanatics of the past. Bring them to their knees, then be merciful.

---

They aren't arabs :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They aren't arabs :beam:

---

We aren't in a war against Iran... yet. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

We aren't in a war against Iran... yet. ~;)

---

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

It does not require an entire state to be suicidal for a nuclear or nuclear waste attack to occur on isreal. All it takes is one revolutionary guard captain stationed at a nuclear plant to turn a blind eye.

---

Really? So why hasn't it happened to Pakistan, where the security services are infested by al-Q'aeda and Taliban sympathisers? Much, much more likely than Iran. I suspect even rogue states take very good care to ensure they don't get blamed for a nuclear attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Just look how easy it was for nuclear waste to go missing from a russian plant, travel thousands of miles and make it's way into brittain. A nuclear attack committed in covert by someone who should be called nothing less then a terrorist themselves happened, easily. If nuclear waste can not only go missing but be pluasibly denied by russia, iran will probably try.

---

Very different. Not only state organised (allegedly) but an amount of non-explosive radioactive material very easily smuggled. I don't see Britain threatening a retaliatory Trident strike in return, do you?

It is true that almost any fool with access to a hospital waste bin could make a dirty bomb and scare any western city centre witless. Why haven't we seen it happen?

Why would they westerners are already scared, more would transform it to hate.

Quote:

---

Why would they westerners are already scared

---

Don't judge westerners by your standards Frag , most people don't have your fetish about Muslims under the bed who are out to get them

You wouldn't think the loosely affiliated fundamentalists that make up Al Qaeda would be able to formulate a policy like that and carry it out, it only takes a few people to carry out the attack and if they were to do it like BG said they wouldn't even be reliant on anyone for the explosives...

Although your argument does make sense for the organisation as a whole...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't judge westerners by your standards Frag , most people don't have your fetish about Muslims under the bed who are out to get them

---

Well overdoing it could make them me (as you see me ;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

---

I was just pointing out that I was refering to the Iraqis when I said arabs. I agree with your points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Really? So why hasn't it happened to Pakistan, where the security services are infested by al-Q'aeda and Taliban sympathisers? Much, much more likely than Iran. I suspect even rogue states take very good care to ensure they don't get blamed for a nuclear attack.

---

Iran has a long standing national tradition of wanting to destroy isreal. A major difference for them and pakistan. You also have al-qaeda and the taliban currently preoccupied with fighting in afghanistan and trying to takeover the government in pakistan. There's also the little note of Iran already supplying, with both weapons and funding, terrorist groups.

Pakistan and Iran are both very worrysome places, and pakistan truly highlights some of the dangers of iran getting nukes. If the taliban, and with them al-qaeda, take control of pakistan they will have access to nukes. Iran is far more stable then pakistan but who is to say that is forever it is a theocracy after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Very different. Not only state organised (allegedly) but an amount of non-explosive radioactive material very easily smuggled. I don't see Britain threatening a retaliatory Trident strike in return, do you?

It is true that almost any fool with access to a hospital waste bin could make a dirty bomb and scare any western city centre witless. Why haven't we seen it happen?

---

How is this so "very different" then the iranian government supplying one of their terrorist groups with nuclear material. If anything it will only give them more deniability in the act. The fact that it occured in a first world country shows how easily in can be transported undected. Last I checked most radioactive material besides a warhead is non explosive.

You are also completely correct you don't see britian doing a thing, the fact that it's only (allegedly) state organized is also important. It can't be proven that the state allowed this to happen. This gives Iran full pluasible deniability in a dirty bomb attack by hamas or another supported group. This is why Isreal is looking into a preventative strike. Because it can happen and because they will be left with no means to retaliate once it has.

Hospitals only have small amounts of radioactive cobalt. It's also far less potent then speant nuclear fuel. Why hasnt it happened, who knows it could, probably will in our lifetimes. There's alot of crazy people out there, doesnt take a fundi middle eastern terrorist to pull that one off. IIRC there was quite a big fuss over here about just this awhile ago.

Quote:

---

Iran has a long standing national tradition of wanting to destroy isreal. A major difference for them and pakistan.

---

Errrrr... is that the Pakistan that has never recognised Israel and says they will never recognise anything until the regime in Jerusalem is gone ?
Or is it a different Pakistan you are thinking of :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Why should we be in a war with them anyways. Isreal's posturing has solved our need for involvment. We should step back, continue to aggressively posture and support our ally, just not militarily. Let Isreal take out the Iranian nukes and take the heat for it.

Complete peace with iran is impossible as long as we support isreal. War with iran while possible would be long and for the short term financially straining. We should step back let Isreal deal with them, but ensure Isreal accomplishes it's goals.

---

I argee with you on the top part.


But Let Them Do what they please.Everybody been holding them back way to long. There will be no peace there untill Isrealies destroys Iran and her toublesome neghiobrs.

There will be no peace there untill Isrealies destroys Iran and her toublesome neghiobrs.

I think the problem with that is the non troublesome neighbours may become troublesome neighbours, by the end of that road your wiping out a continent..

The Israeli air force has already shown what it can do to double-digit Russian SAMs and integrated air defences, you have merely to look up Syria's nascient nuclear weapons program, or should I say extinct program.

No, the difficulty lies in the number of sites to strike this time as well as the uncertainty of Israeli's ability to "bunker-bust". Noone's shown the ability to bunker-bust the type of facilities that Iran has developed, at least not to the level of destruction necessary to totally destroy an atomic program which has obtained the theoretical expertise necessary to develop a weapon. That requires a decapitation of knowlegeable personnel too.