Iran and Israel at War

[Lemur]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[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?

[FactionHeir]

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

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

[Fragony]

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.

[FactionHeir]

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

[Fragony]

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

[Tribesman]

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

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 tenso 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?

[Lemur]

[...] 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?

[Tribesman]

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

[Beirut]

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 with Iran far more than Iran has 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.

[KukriKhan]

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

[King Jan III Sobieski]

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

[Ice]

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

The two almost have nothing similar.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[FactionHeir]

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.