Will Israel Have A Choice

[Deepwater6]

The IAEA has presented a case that Iran is working toward a weapon with it's nuclear program. The Israeli government has not taken the military option off the table. If one puts aside their love or hate for Israel or Iran and looks at the situation purely from the stand point of two countries that see an attack on them imminent, where can the situation go from here?

 

In my opinion, this situation is the most dangerous one in the world right now. Israel believes that the Iranian government has fanatical elements. If these elements do get a nuclear weapon will the moderates in Iran be able to stop them from using it on their sworn enemy?

 

Prudence would call for Israel to try and destroy this program before the weapon comes about. The computer virus seemed to have bought Israel some time, but that extension is quickly running out. Taking out the program would need weapons heavy enough to break through bunkers that Iran has placed the program and associated materials in.

 

Once Israel thinks or knows Iran is about to get the weapon will they have any other choice other than to destroy it? Will they wait for America's nod first? What will Russia's response be to an Israeli premptive strike? How would Russia and the U.S. respond to a rogue nuclear attack on Israel originating from Iran?

 

The article below describes how Russia stated it will not endorse a new round of sanctions against Iran in light of the new evidence.

 

I'd appreciate anyones opinions on this. Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15659311

[Qfwfq]

If one puts aside their love or hate for Israel or Iran and looks at the situation purely from the stand point of two countries that see an attack on them imminent, where can the situation go from here?

 

In my opinion, this situation is the most dangerous one in the world right now. Israel believes that the Iranian government has fanatical elements. If these elements do get a nuclear weapon will the moderates in Iran be able to stop them from using it on their sworn enemy?

Iran would need to be stark raving berserk to just up and nuke Irael, unprovoked. Ahmadinejad is an extremist but he is a shrewd man and has demonstrated strategic ability. He is good at stirring up debate and playing a game. Methinks he wants his country to be just like India and Pakistan, who have political clout due to their nukes. Have those two nations attacked each other more, since having nukes?

 

I agree it's a scary game, it was even scarier in the cold war days with USA vs. USSR and I don't think it is a good idea for either side to attack the other, except for the fact that Israel would have far greater chances of getting away with it as usual.

[CraigD]

Iran would need to be stark raving berserk to just up and nuke Irael, unprovoked. Ahmadinejad is an extremist but he is a shrewd man and has demonstrated strategic ability. He is good at stirring up debate and playing a game. Methinks he wants his country to be just like India and Pakistan, who have political clout due to their nukes.

I agree. This quote, from the BBC article, reinforces my intuition that Ahmadinejad understands well that direct aggression against countries supported by the US and its allies, especially with nuclear weapons, would be folly:

Addressing the US he [Ahmadinejad] added: "We will not build two bombs in the face of your 20,000. We will develop something that you cannot respond to, which is ethics, humanity, solidarity and justice.”

Rhetoric aside, the “2 to 20,000” comparison is apt.

[Qfwfq]

Rhetoric aside,

and very shrewd rhetoric indeed. Just like when he had the audience in NYC boohing him for something many of their opponents (and his foes) would give their eye teeth for.

[Deepwater6]

Ahmadinejad Is the president and the main mouth piece for the country, but I was under the assumption that the religious leader (who's name escapes me right now) was really in control? In fact at some point there was a bit of a power struggle with something akin to cabinet level people of Ahmadinejad's being dismissed. Isn't the religious group the one that should be focused on?

 

I do agree with both of you, Iran as a whole would know nuking Israel un-provoked would mean utter doom, but the elements in Iran that promote suicide bombings in Iraq and the West Bank are the ones that concern me.

[Deepwater6]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15688042

 

 

This article is Leon Panetta down playing a military strike on Iran's nuclear program. He thinks it would only delay it by three years.

[Qfwfq]

(who's name escapes me right now)

Khamenei.

 

was really in control?

Ahmadinejad is the executive, Khamanei is the "Supreme Leader" and, although the used terms are different (and the ideological principles), as far as I can make out it is fairly along the lines of many countries with a prime minister and a head of state being distinct roles.

 

I do agree with both of you, Iran as a whole would know nuking Israel un-provoked would mean utter doom, but the elements in Iran that promote suicide bombings in Iraq and the West Bank are the ones that concern me.

They don't need a nuke for that, in fact it is what they do against countries with far greater military strength. I don't see why a nuke would make them use more of such tactics. In a cynical sense, those governing Israel and the USA are presumably less concerned by sporadic terror victims than by having to reckon on Iran being in the A-bomb club. The former is a great public policy excuse to harass Iran as well as Palestinians, the latter is something that calls for paying them due respect.

 

Cynical and scary but, unfortunately, I reckon it's the way it works.

[Rade]

Once Israel thinks or knows Iran is about to get the weapon will they have any other choice other than to destroy it?

No, at that point of having such knowledge (although I think they will wait until such time that the weapon is finished), Israel will have no other choice other than to destroy the weapon. Iran has already stated that one reason they seek to get such a weapon is to use it against Israel. This does not mean Israel will attack in such a way to destroy or occupy Iran, this they will chose not to do. No, they will target the attack to destroy the weapon only, minimize human loss. They will not ask for any advice or consent from any other nation. After this event we will wait to see what response Iran and other counties take against Israel. Yes, it could trigger the World War 3, very disturbing. We can only hope that Israel takes action based on knowledge and not hate. If so, the choice they take will be justified morally, if not, then not.

[Qfwfq]

Iran has already stated that one reason they seek to get such a weapon is to use it against Israel.

Ahmadinejad has stated many things in the past. He is playnig a game.

 

The thing you say that I do agree with is that an Israel-Iran confrontation could evolve from a mere proxy one to one between USA and Russia, with chances of dragging in NATO, China and whatever. At that point truces such as India-Pakistan might end. Who knows how it could end up. The name Teheran is beginning to ring a bit like that of Sarajevo, where one measly little pistol shot was fired nearly a hundred years ago...

[Deepwater6]

The article below is from ABC News. It describes Russian doubts about the IAEA nuke report.

 

 

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/russian-doubts-of-the-iaea-report-on-irans-nukes-todays-qs-for-os-wh-11122011/

[Deepwater6]

This ABC article describes Obama's effort to get China ans Russia to increase pressure on Iran. It also describes how some Republicans feel we should be making better preparations with Israel for a military strike on Iran.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/under-gop-fire-for-iran-policy-white-house-defends-strategy-of-pressure-and-pushes-russia-and-china-for-even-more/

[Deepwater6]

What strikes me as funny about this article is the list of Arab countries who want to contain Irans ambition to aquire nuclear weapons. Which is the same objective that Israel has, maybe they more in common than they care to admit.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15741989

[JMJones0424]

Keep in mind that Iranians are not Arabs. Also, remember that the ruling Sunni class in many Arabic countries have to contend with a (regionally sizeable) Shia minority that have historically been courted by Iran to disrupt their governments through outright insurrection and terrorism. It should come as no surprise that the Saud family, Bahrain, and other important Arab allies would be just as concerned as the Israelis that Iran is close to becoming a nuclear power.

 

Ultimately, in my opinion, it is highly unlikely that Israel will attempt any direct military action against Iran to destroy their nuclear program because they have neither the means (unless the receive support from the US, which is not likely) nor the likelihood of doing more than delaying the inevitable. Because there is insufficient worlwide support for preventing Iran from doing so, once Iran does build and successfully test a nuclear weapon, it is highly unlikely that they would use it, as it is far more valuable in the arsenal than it is in the battlefield. Nothing would solidify world opinion against Iran more effectively than an offensive act by Iran using a nuclear weapon against Israel or any other target.

[Rade]

Some of the GOP candidates indicated on TV debate that they would attack Iran directly as soon as they learned Iran was near completion of the weapon, not wait for Israel to act. Maybe Obama would do the same at that moment in time when given the facts ? So, I find it very unlikely Iran would not be attacked by either US or Israel or both if they go forward with plans to build the nuclear bomb. To destroy a few buildings where the bomb production is located is easy in this day and age of remote warfare. No other country in the world will give a hoot, as long as the attack to destroy the bomb production areas is limited and measured.

[Qfwfq]

No other country in the world will give a hoot,

How about Russia, just to start?

[Deepwater6]

The circumstances are a little different true, but I don't hear any candidates talking about taking out North Korea's nuclear weapons? They have attacked one of our staunchest allies on land and are suspected of sinking a ship recently, but not a word about them. They attacked this country where US troops are currently stationed. Is it because Iran openly threatens Israel and North Korea doesn't? I think the tail is wagging the dog here.

[Qfwfq]

The circumstances are a little different true, but I don't hear any candidates talking about taking out North Korea's nuclear weapons? They have attacked one of our staunchest allies on land and are suspected of sinking a ship recently, but not a word about them.

Although Kim Jong Il boasted a nuke test, there were serious doubts about it and China would be unnerved by your country attacking it. I'm sure your country is protecting its ally from actual invasion; perhaps it would even intervene for a more plain and serious attack than the recent events.

 

So, it is a very tricky game for N. vs. S. Korea, it is only a bit less tricky with Israel vs. Iran.