Israel considers pre-emptive attack on Iran

[Nox]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/israel-considers-pre-emptive-attack-iran-120523454.html

Wow...

World War 3 incoming

EDIT: This is the real shit


a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move

[Smyg]

Or just a regional war. Which is pretty fucking bad too.

[Seth]

I'll just leave this here.


Netanyahu Pushes Cabinet to Back Attack on Iran (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/01/netanyahu-pushes-cabinet-to-back-attack-on-iran/)

State Department Fears Israel May Attack Unilaterally

by Jason Ditz, November 01, 2011

| Print This (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/01/netanyahu-pushes-cabinet-to-back-attack-on-iran/print/) | Share This (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20) | Antiwar Forum (http://antiwar-talk.com/)
Israel is often said to be a nation with an eye constantly on its next war. But with an invasion of the Gaza Strip apparently already in the offing (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/11/01/2011/11/01/escalation-israel-greenlights-invasion-of-the-gaza-strip/), the nation seems to have its eyes on more than one future war, with an attack on Iran also being pushed.
http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/israel.jpgTop Israeli officials familiar with the situation say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has redoubled his efforts to convince the rest of his cabinet to back an attack on Iran (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214), and that he has finally won over hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to his side.
Ministers insisted no decision has been made yet on the attack, but with Defense Minister Ehud Barak already on board, the effort to muster a majority of the cabinet seems to be going quite well. Other ministers also agree on the attack in theory but have expressed a preference that the Israeli government convince the US to attack instead.
The decision might come sooner than we expect too, as Western analysts say that winter cloud cover would make an Israeli attack extremely inconvenient for several months and might convince them to launch in the next few weeks in an effort to beat the weather.
The US is also said to be extremely concerned about a unilateral Israeli attack (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4141689,00.html) and is channeling that concern into pressing for more and more sanctions against Iran, with officials believing that new sanctions would convince Israel that the international community is sticking it to Iran sufficiently that a full on military attack can wait a few more months.

[socialistjustin]

It's going to happen sooner or later as the US won't attack Iran because it would be wildly unpopular. Regional wars are fun!

[Seth]

Regional wars are fun!

Go fuck yourself.

[La Comédie Noire]

Just like how that thing in the Balkans was just a regional war...

[MattShizzle]

Isn't Iran a bit far for Israel to be able to get to? Other than by a special forces type landing.

[socialistjustin]

It was sarcasm.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Israel has got ot be ruled by morons or something,I mean,how on earth would they expect to "win" a actual war with Iran? They would be hard pressed to even get ground forces over there in large enough quantities to seize something of "importance."

What would they hope to gain by attacking/invading Iran?

[Joseph S.]

You might just wonder why the hell Israhell is so impopulair in the region making statement's like that.
:rolleyes:

[piet11111]

Isn't Iran a bit far for Israel to be able to get to? Other than by a special forces type landing.

Air refueling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1mulVdQ2x8

[Nox]

Isn't Iran a bit far for Israel to be able to get to? Other than by a special forces type landing.

Israel is basically a terrorist organisation that is in posession of nukes.

Hope that answers your question.

[rundontwalk]

If Obama allows the US to be dragged into an Israeli-Iranian war in any way, he should be impeached pronto.

[Nox]

If Obama allows the US to be dragged into an Israeli-Iranian war in any way, he should be impeached pronto.

Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

[kid communist]

This is bad,REALLY bad:scared:We better not go to war

[tir1944]

They're going to to invade Iran but attack it from air and destroy its nuclear and/or military command/SAM facilities/sites.
Just like they did in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

[rundontwalk]

On the plus side:

Palestinian independence might come sooner than expected. Being a Hezbollah + Iran + Hamas (they're not going to sit out the action) three sided war is going to pretty much seal the deal on that front.

[tir1944]

There will be no "front" because Israel doesn't share a border with Iran,so any possible attack from Iran must go through Iraq which would also mean a full-scale war with NATO.
And the IDF will use any possible uprising in Palestine as an excuse to start a total war against the Palestinians,something which i'm afraid would not end up well for the Palestinians.

[rundontwalk]

There will be no "front" because Israel doesn't share a border with Iran,so any possible attack from Iran must go through Iraq which would also mean a full-scale war with NATO.
And the IDF will use any possible uprising in Palestine as an excuse to start a total war against the Palestinians,something that i'm afraid would not end up well for the Palestinians.
I mean in the sense that the Israelis are going to have their forces spread out in three different places. Lebanon, Occupied Territories, Iran...I don't see how this is even doable.

[Per Levy]

On the plus side:

Palestinian independence might come sooner than expected. Being a Hezbollah + Iran + Hamas (they're not going to sit out the action) three sided war is going to pretty much seal the deal on that front.

what threesided war? iran will be bombed from air, hizbollah might do some retaliation attacks but that wont do much and wht should palestine do? it doesnt has an army and hams and plo dont have much to hurt the israel military.

[Rafiq]

Israel is basically a terrorist organisation that is in posession of nukes.

Hope that answers your question.

As is Iran.

[Bostana]

I don't think WW3 but somewhat of a major war. And I can't really blame Israel. I mean Iran has really pushed Israeli buttons sense the start. If Such a thing Would happen It would probably involve the U.S. and maybe some Middle Eastern Countrys.

[Bostana]

Israel is basically a terrorist organisation that is in posession of nukes.

And Iran isn't? Plus Iran is a Theocracy that forces religion on people.
That's Called Fascism!!!!

[Rafiq]

On the plus side:

Palestinian independence might come sooner than expected. Being a Hezbollah + Iran + Hamas (they're not going to sit out the action) three sided war is going to pretty much seal the deal on that front.

How disgusting of you.

Sharia law is worse than Israeli occupation.

[tir1944]

I mean in the sense that the Israelis are going to have their forces spread out in three different places. Lebanon, Occupied Territories, Iran...I don't see how this is even doable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

Again,Israel isn't going to send ground troops against Iran.
The IDF will struck Palestine with its full might though,and it's possible that this time they actually start with the "final solution" of the Palestinian people.


Sharia law is worse than Israeli occupation.
What are you talking about?

[X5N]

I'm pretty sure that the U.S. aiding Israel in such a stupid move is going to be the final push I need to move to Canada or Iceland.

[Per Levy]

And Iran isn't?

true, but i dont think iran has nukes yet.


Plus Iran is a Theocracy that forces religion on people.
That's Called Fascism!!!!

no that still is theocracy and not fascism.

[rundontwalk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

I'm thinking of that war.

Israel couldn't win it and that was only dealing with Lebanon.

[piet11111]

Iran has ballistic missiles (scuds and more modern self developed stuff) that can hit Israel.

[Per Levy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

I'm thinking of that war.

Israel couldn't win it and that was only dealing with Lebanon.

yeah the israel army didnt "win" against hizbollah but in the same time it killed over 1000 people in the process of fighting hizbollah, hat do you think will happen in a war with iran? israel might not win but it wont loose either and the casulties will be high.

[Bostana]

true, but i dont think iran has nukes yet.
I think they do only
Here read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


no that still is theocracy and not fascism.

"A Theocracy describes a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion."
Sounds like Fascism. They force religious laws on people. Fascism!!!

[tir1944]

Iran has ballistic missiles (scuds and more modern self developed stuff) that can hit Israel.
Yes and Israel has developed anti-ballistic weapons.
Besides,Saddam fired dozens of Scuds on Israel back in '91 but these didn't cause much damage...

[tir1944]

They force religious laws on people. Fascism!!!
Actually Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany didn't "force rel. laws on people".
Nazis were actually somewhat anti-clerical.

[rundontwalk]

yeah the israel army didnt "win" against hizbollah but in the same time it killed over 1000 people in the process of fighting hizbollah, hat do you think will happen in a war with iran? israel might not win but it wont loose either and the casulties will be high.
A draw could be useful in getting everyone to calm the fuck down. Israel would be less tempted to try something like an attack on Iran again, for example.

And I still think Israel would lose.

(btw, does anyone have any idea of what Syria would do?)

[Bostana]

Actually Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany didn't "force rel. laws on people".
Nazis were actually somewhat anti-clerical.

I know Nazis were anti-religion.
No your right they didn't but Fascism is forcing certain ways on people.

"Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

[Smyg]

I hate it when people mislabled oppressive and authoritarian regimes as fascist. Please go do some learning.

[rundontwalk]

And Iraq for that matter. You know that country America thought would should be invaded to spread Iran's sphere of influence for some reason.

[tir1944]

Syria won't do anything because Assad is barely keeping the country together as it is.
One wrong move and he'd have a Libya scenario in a matter of days.


And Iraq for that matter. You know that country America thought would should be invaded to spread Iran's sphere of influence for some reason.

I don't understand...

[rundontwalk]

I don't understand...
The people currently running Iraq have close ties to Iran. And something tells me they would support Iran over Israel.

Iraq being important because of air space, and etc. The Israeli planes are going to have to fly over something to hit Iran.

The Saudis would support Israel which could make things even more fun. Bringing the most important country in the ME into the conflict.

[~Spectre]

If it does go down, Iran will respond with missiles from Iran itself, Syria, and Hezbollah. In addition, they can probably have Iranian agents execute actual terrorist attacks against Israeli targets, both in Israel, and around the world. Then the question becomes if Israel will escalate. Likely, the United States will strong arm Israel into tolerating an initial missile barrage and then working a ceasefire.

The real danger I see would be if Israel refuses to ceasefire, uses it not only as a pretext for a full campaign into Lebanon, but continues to try to fly through Iraq and Saudi Arabia, potentially destabilizing the situation irreparably.

[Per Levy]

A draw could be useful in getting everyone to calm the fuck down. Israel would be less tempted to try something like an attack on Iran again, for example.

and thousends of people will be dead, a big chunk of iran, lebanon and the palelistine areas willbe bombed and destroyed, and that is worth it so everyone can calm down?


(btw, does anyone have any idea of what Syria would do?)

nothing, the syrian goverment is way to occupied in killing of opposition forces, besides why would syria get involved in such a conflict? it can only lose in it.

[tir1944]

The people currently running Iraq have close ties to Iran.
Source please?
Thanks.

[piet11111]

Yes and Israel has developed anti-ballistic weapons.
Besides,Saddam fired dozens of Scuds on Israel back in '91 but these didn't cause much damage...

These anti ballistic weapons systems still need to prove themselves.
Iraq fired 42 scud missiles against Israel Iran would obviously try a little harder then that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm pretty sure that the U.S. aiding Israel in such a stupid move is going to be the final push I need to move to Canada or Iceland.
Stay and fight.



Anyways.


This has been going on for years. I doubt it will actually happen and I hope it doesn't happen but if it does I cant imagine Israel could actually win without nuclear weapons if Iran retaliates

Syria just stated it would set the region on fire if it were invaded or bombed by NATO too.

Who knows what could happen. I dont think Iran would invade Iraq though because of this.

[tir1944]

Iran attacking Israel with scuds will only damage Iran because NATO would then have a perfect excuse to start showering Tehran with bombs...

[Bostana]

The people currently running Iraq have close ties to Iran. And something tells me they would support Iran over Israel.

Iraq and Iran Hate each other that's why they went to war. Where do you think Saddam first used his Mustard Gas. And that's another thing, Saddam lied to keep Iran at bay because he knew that if Iran found out that they really didn't have his Mustard Gas then Iran would probably take over Iraq.

[rundontwalk]

Source please?
Thanks.
Maliki spent 8 years in Tehran in exile. And that's just one example.

http://www.islamicdawaparty.com/?module=home&fname=leaderdesc.php&id=78

[Per Levy]

The people currently running Iraq have close ties to Iran. And something tells me they would support Iran over Israel.

Iraq being important because of air space, and etc. The Israeli planes are going to have to fly over something to hit Iran.

so iraq wich has suffered so much under the war and the occupation will really take a side in a conflict like this? and not to mention, iraq is occupied by american forces.


The Saudis would support Israel which could make things even more fun. Bringing the most important country in the ME into the conflict.

i guess you probally mean the "fun" part as sarcasm, but still this is not fun and a more and more widespread war is also not fun.

[~Spectre]

nothing, the syrian goverment is way to occupied in killing of opposition forces, besides why would syria get involved in such a conflict? it can only lose in it.

Because a conflict with Israel is a good way to get people to rally around the government. Egypt recently experienced this.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Speaking of Maliki, it seems the US has let less friendly leaders emerge in Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce tensions in the region. I mean, Karzai occasionally says 'fuck you' to the US.

[Per Levy]

Iraq and Iran Hate each other that's why they went to war. Where do you think Saddam first used his Mustard Gas. And that's another thing, Saddam lied to keep Iran at bay because he knew that if Iran found out that they really didn't have his Mustard Gas then Iran would probably take over Iraq.

sadam is dead, his regime is no more. and it is true iran has a lot of influence on iraq thanks to(ironicly) the bush/obama administration. things change you know.

[rundontwalk]

so iraq wich has suffered so much under the war and the occupation will really take a side in a conflict like this? and not to mention, iraq is occupied by american forces.



i guess you probally mean the "fun" part as sarcasm, but still this is not fun and a more and more widespread war is also not fun.
Iran is vastly more important to Iraq than Israel is to Iraq. They wouldn't allow Israel to use their air space to bomb Iran. I'm not sure what role the American occupation will play, but I believe Iraq has control over Iraqi airspace now. At least in theory.

[Nox]

Fuck Benjamin Netanyahu. Fucking idiot.

[Bostana]

sadam is dead, his regime is no more. and it is true iran has a lot of influence on iraq thanks to(ironicly) the bush/obama administration. things change you know.

The government mite have close ties, but what do the people of the two countries think of each other?
However I guess they would unite under one common enemy. Israel.

[rundontwalk]

sadam is dead, his regime is no more. and it is true iran has a lot of influence on iraq thanks to(ironicly) the bush/obama administration. things change you know.
One of but many reasons why George W Bush is and was a complete moron.

[Per Levy]

Because a conflict with Israel is a good way to get people to rally around the government. Egypt recently experienced this.

we are speaking of war here, syria has a border with israel and it will be attacked not only by israel but probally by the us/nato forces as well if it should come to a war.


Speaking of Maliki, it seems the US has let less friendly leaders emerge in Afghanistan and Iraq to reduce tensions in the region. I mean, Karzai occasionally says 'fuck you' to the US.

and still karzai is only a puppet and not much more, sure he is a bit more feisty latly but thats only because he knows if the occupations forces leave he is kinda fucked. so why not show some spine from time to tie right?

[tir1944]

At least in theory
Correct.Except that they have no means of stopping the Israelis from flying over their territory.

[piet11111]

Iran attacking Israel with scuds will only damage Iran because NATO would then have a perfect excuse to start showering Tehran with bombs...

Since when does NATO need an actual excuse they just fabricate one when needed.

I think Israel is afraid of the S-300 system that Iran purchased making an airstrike against Iranian nuclear facility's almost impossible.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2267822&postcount=55

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

[rundontwalk]

The government mite have close ties, but what do the people of the two countries think of each other?
However I guess they would unite under one common enemy. Israel.
Most definitely. Maliki owes his job to Iran, for example.


Maliki kept his job last year only with the political help of an Iranian-backed Shi’ite group. Iraq depends on Iran for about 10 percent of its daily electric power - one of Baghdad’s most tenuous resources.

source: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-07/news/29748248_1_iraq-baghdad-arab-allies

There is no way Iraq wouldn't side with Iran. Not seeing it.

[Iron Felix]

A war between Israel and Iran would be a catastrophy for the region. The already fragile relations between Pakistan and America will be completely fucked, which will turn Afghanistan into more of a bloodbath than it already is. It would piss off China and Russia(Russia will aggressively sell arms to Iran). Assad can declare war on Israel(which would save his ass since that would unite his country since Syrians are fierciely anti-Israel and want Golan Heights back), relations between Egypt and America will collapse as well and you might even see an Egyptian attack on Israel(without Mubarak they're now fiercely anti-Israel). If Iraq supports Israel and America it will probably collapse and might finally split into 3 parts. Islamic terrorism will rise to incredible heights too. A complete clusterfuck. Israel is just digging it's grave.

[~Spectre]

Iraq and Iran Hate each other that's why they went to war. Where do you think Saddam first used his Mustard Gas. And that's another thing, Saddam lied to keep Iran at bay because he knew that if Iran found out that they really didn't have his Mustard Gas then Iran would probably take over Iraq.

Because Saddam lead a Sunni block in a country that was majority Shia. In addition, Saddam was fulfilling his role as a U.S. puppet in that war.

[Iron Felix]

Iraq's Shia majority is overwhelming pro-Iran.

[rundontwalk]

So in conclusion:

This would be a glorious clusterfuck, the likes of which we haven't seen for some time. And any Israeli minister who doesn't think like that should probably be exiled to Fiji or something.

[Bostana]

I think the main reason why these two countries would wan't to go to war with each other is because of religion. I know it's a shocker but think about it Israel or the Jews in particularly own the "holy land" Well of course Muslims didn't take to kindly for some non Muslim people to take their "holy land" So in order to prevent this war broke out Israeli war for Independence. In which 11 Islamic armies tried to stop Israel from becoming an official country. Miraculously the Israeli army won. That didn't stop the terrorizing of Israel though. All of Israel's wars are started by Islamists trying to take it down and regain their "holy land" from the Jews. These Muslims aren't going to stop simply because Israel has more help. The only time the Islamists will stop is when Israel is completely destroyed. The Islamists think they are doing the will of their god so they will never stop.

[Bostana]

Because Saddam lead a Sunni block in a country that was majority Shia. In addition, Saddam was fulfilling his role as a U.S. puppet in that war.

I can agree.
But I think the U.S. was Saddam's puppet when they went to war with each other, the U.S. had to pick a side. Hating Iran more than Iraq the U.S. sided with Saddam. Saddam was allowed by the U.S. to use his Mustard Gas on Irani soldiers. Are you sensing the hypocracy here?

[Smyg]

Yo're making no sense. The US... Saddam's puppet? What?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Saddam was a nationalist but at times he played the role of a comprador bourgeois nationalist.

[Iron Felix]

Also keep in mind that Israel may use tactical nukes.

[blackandyellow]

Destroying nuclear facilities has happened before. Iran tried to destroy Iraqs (and failed), then Israel destroyed Iraqs. I dont know where people are getting the idea that WW3 is coming or that this signals the end of Israel. Its probably a risky move with potentially bad consequences for Israel, but some of the stuff in here is rediculous. Iran and Israel dont share a border either, so I dont see how this would turn into a land war (or some sort of report of Lebanon in 2006). Even if Iraq is pro-Iran, the country is still full of American troops - they arent going to allow Iranina troops through the country to attack a US ally. Nor will Turkey, a NATO country allow it, despite its increasing hostility with Israel.

[blackandyellow]

Saddam was a nationalist but at times he played the role of a comprador bourgeois nationalist.

In other words, his foreign policy wasnt consistent, and your party's ideology uses these meaningless terms to justify its politics.

[Bostana]

Yo're making no sense. The US... Saddam's puppet? What?
As in Saddam used America so that way he can use his Mustard Gas and win the war.

[Rusty Shackleford]

In other words, his foreign policy wasnt consistent, and your party's ideology uses these meaningless terms to justify its politics.
rabble rabble rabble. no his policies were not consistent. neither were qhadaffis or maos.


also the terms are not meaningless. not all capitalists are the same. they are all exploiters, yes, but they are not all imperialists.

[blackandyellow]

But how did the character of Saddam's regime change in the early 1990s, to require these terms? As far as I can tell, the USA felt he got a bit too big for his boots and the Cold War was over - and even then they didn't care if he was gone, they just wnated him a bit weaker.

[Rafiq]

Actually Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany didn't "force rel. laws on people".
Nazis were actually somewhat anti-clerical.

That Pope fellow must have been fooled the whole time, then. :rolleyes:

[Rusty Shackleford]

But how did the character of Saddam's regime change in the early 1990s, to require these terms? As far as I can tell, the USA felt he got a bit too big for his boots and the Cold War was over - and even then they didn't care if he was gone, they just wnated him a bit weaker.
There was that whole Iraq wanting to reunite with Kuwait thing which pissed the US right off.

[Bostana]

That Pope fellow must have been fooled the whole time, then. :rolleyes:

I don't really think the Pope was in on Nazism because hitler sent to kill over 12,000 Polish Catholics.

[Smyg]

Technically, he was in on it.

[Cencus]

No one seems to be asking why this has been leaked to the media. If Israel was seriously about to attack anyone do you truely believe government ministers would be talking about it to the press, they'd just do it and let the press know after.

The real question should be "who is this a message for?". It may be it's a message for the Iranian government to try & bully them back to the table regarding their nuclear weapons programme. More likely it's for domestic consumption, keeping the hardliners on side and distracting from the recent gains the Palistinians have made via the UN. Or possibley The US is the target either trying to get some extra dosh or some other bollocks. It's the sound of sabres rattling not a serious threat in my opinion.

[Bostana]

Technically, he was in on it.

He did sign some sort of treaty yes

[blackandyellow]

There was that whole Iraq wanting to reunite with Kuwait thing which pissed the US right off.

That isnt a change in the nature of the Baathist regime though. Iraq acted upon the territorial dispute with Iran over Shatt al-Arab with Iran also, however at a time when you would label Saddam as 'comprador'. Besides, the US gave (false) tacit approval to Iraq to attack.

Are you to argue the nature of a regime depends on the foreign policy changes between states?

[Rusty Shackleford]

That isnt a change in the nature of the Baathist regime though. Iraq acted upon the territorial dispute with Iran over Shatt al-Arab with Iran also, however at a time when you would label Saddam as 'comprador'. Besides, the US gave (false) tacit approval to Iraq to attack.

Are you to argue the nature of a regime depends on the foreign policy changes between states?

Class character doesn't change due to policy but nature does.

they are not one in the same.

[blackandyellow]

I don't really think the Pope was in on Nazism because hitler sent to kill over 12,000 Polish Catholics.

Nazism is a bad example. Eastern European fascism was often tangled up with the Catholic church though. This is stupid though, I don't think anyone who has studied fascism would claim it is enforcing religious law or something like was originaly suggested in the thread. If a religion plays big part in national identy, it is usually envoked by fascists, but religion doesnt have to be an major part of fascism.

[blackandyellow]

Class character doesn't change due to policy but nature does.

they are not one in the same.

So the character of a regime can be defined by the twists and turns of international politics? Nature in what sense? AFAIK, not much changed internally.

[~Spectre]

Iran responds:


Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- Iran issued a warning to Israel on Wednesday, with a top military figure saying Iran will "punish" any threat.
"The United States is fully aware that a military attack by the Zionist regime on Iran will not only cause tremendous damage to that regime, but it will also inflict serious damage to the U.S.," said Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, commander of the joint chiefs of staff, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.
"We, as the military, take every threat, however distant and improbable, as very real, and are fully prepared to use suitable equipment to punish any kind of mistake," he added, according to a CNN translation of his remarks.
Another semi-official Iranian news agency, ISNA, published a story in English quoting Firouzabadi as saying, "The U.S. officials know that Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the U.S. seriously as well as Zionist regime."

[eyeheartlenin]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/israel-considers-pre-emptive-attack-iran-120523454.html

Wow... World War 3 incoming .... EDIT: This is the real shit

With all due respect to people who are concerned about this subject: Maybe the operative word in the headline is "considers."

At least a couple of times over the past few years, I have heard that the Israelis were going to attack Iran, and I once put that on the web myself, after reading it somewhere.

I am reminded of a supporter of Chávez, Eva G., a lawyer, who repeatedly predicted, some years ago, that the US was planning an attack on Venezuela; every month she discovered a new threat to Venezuela from Washington. I am still waiting for that attack to happen, too.

[Ocean Seal]

Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?
Sadly assassinations don't change shit.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Sadly assassinations don't change shit.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqicQhLFUVaSESQmheSdTItP_AO6n8l BJrlSYjARUeO4Y5XwQe
"Vat a nise day für a rride, ja?"



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/family/lenin-y_alexandr.jpg
"Assassinations won't change anything, ever?"

[Bronte]

This is what happens when deadly, Religiously rabid theocrats are visited upon a State. Unfortunate, but War with such idiocy may occasionally be necessary to stop the oppression of the body politic.

If the common man in Iran is freed to work against the theocratic Capitalist megalomaniacal fanatics that occupy a good part of the Middle East through this, then maybe blow-back from any hostilities between Israel and Iran would be a good thing.

[Geiseric]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqicQhLFUVaSESQmheSdTItP_AO6n8l BJrlSYjARUeO4Y5XwQe
"Vat a nise day für a rride, ja?"



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/family/lenin-y_alexandr.jpg
"Assassinations won't change anything, ever?"

No assassinations don't really change much, i'm sure the russian revolution could have happened without Lenin, trotsky, kamanev, stalin, or any single bolshevik. If the entire leadership is killed somehow, that obviously will matter tremendiously, however if you think WW2 would have been over if say hitler got killed, you fail at materialist analysis. the iranian and israeli leadership are only representatives of the classes they serve. The people they serve (capitalists)aren't desperate enough for profit to go to war.

[~Spectre]

Israel issues a nuclear threat:

JERUSALEM — Israel on Wednesday successfully test-fired a missile said capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran, fanning the public debate over reports the country’s top leaders are agitating for a military attack on Tehran’s atomic facilities.
http://www.suntimes.com/8565077-417/israel-could-nuke-iran-with-newly-tested-missile.html

[Sendo]

With all due respect to people who are concerned about this subject: Maybe the operative word in the headline is "considers."

At least a couple of times over the past few years, I have heard that the Israelis were going to attack Iran, and I once put that on the web myself, after reading it somewhere.

I am reminded of a supporter of Chávez, Eva G., a lawyer, who repeatedly predicted, some years ago, that the US was planning an attack on Venezuela; every month she discovered a new threat to Venezuela from Washington. I am still waiting for that attack to happen, too.

I echo this sentiment. While these plans are mulled and rulers drool over the potential invasions, nothing will happen without political capital. The US would be unable to back this up right now given the domestic situation. Nixon of course bombed Indochina to the stone age, but he knew he couldn't drop nukes. One nuke and nothing else would have done far less damage short and long term, but you can't hide a mushroom cloud and that would have been the last straw for middle America. Likewise, with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, alongisde the OWS movement, don't expect too much.

These are humans, remember. Think of a time you were flirting with someone at a costume party and "jokingly" talked about hooking up in character. You were testing the waters. That's what these people do too. They could be doing that right now. In any case, it will take time to get rolling. Even the sanctions-ravaged Iraq had a months-long lead up before it was invaded.

[DDR]

Seems that the British are jumping in the wagon:

http://yfrog.com/z/nut5sej

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

[Rusty Shackleford]

No assassinations don't really change much, i'm sure the russian revolution could have happened without Lenin, trotsky, kamanev, stalin, or any single bolshevik. If the entire leadership is killed somehow, that obviously will matter tremendiously, however if you think WW2 would have been over if say hitler got killed, you fail at materialist analysis. the iranian and israeli leadership are only representatives of the classes they serve. The people they serve (capitalists)aren't desperate enough for profit to go to war.
super serious response to semi-serious post.

im aware of the causes of WWI and im aware of the fact that 2 tsars getting capped didnt change shit.

[Geiseric]

Thought you were being serious in a jokingly way >.> oh well. anyways, JFK being assassinated didnt really change anything.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Thought you were being serious in a jokingly way >.> oh well. anyways, JFK being assassinated didnt really change anything.
i guess i was trying to refure the absolute that assasination does nothing at all but i was not arguing that it changes much, or is a driving force in history.

Franz's death was just a causus belli in a simmering interimperialist conflict.
Lenin's brother was an assassin/narodnik which had some influence on him.

other than that. the attempted assassination of that homestead boss killed public support for a labor action in the 1880s.

[RedSonRising]

I doubt (and hope) the Israeli cabinet isn't fanatical enough to do this. I don't see how it can survive such a regional clusterfuck, and I don't see how the US would support them at this particular time given their own military issues, as well as Israel's domestic issues with austerity protests.


Also, how the hell does Castro keep seeing these things coming so self-assuredly a good 5 years in advance?

[SHORAS]

Various press and talking heads have said so and so will attack Iran for the past 30 years. That's not to say at some point it won't happen it's just that this is a periodic thing. People in Iran won't be worrying more than usual. Actually I heard that if you start going on about the US attacking Iran you get labelled as a CIA provocateur or similar.

[Rusty Shackleford]

there probably wont be a point in time, ever, where the Islamic government will get along with the west in a non-confrontational or fully polite manner. Either the Islamic government will fall, which doesn't look likely - or imperialist nations and their puppets will attack them. But, its probably not going to happen this year.

This might be worth reading as well.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7A23K520111103)

[Bronte]

How can you guys fight for Iranian Muslim rights against war, when Muslims often oppress women, and threaten homosexuals, and other minorities?

It isn't Israel's fault that Hamas is hurting it.

People need respect for the Constitution of Secularist Politics in Iran, rather than use Politics as an excuse to turn wars between Israel and Iran into war beween Judaism and Islam.

[Tommy4ever]

How can you guys fight for Iranian Muslim rights against war, when Muslims often oppress women, and threaten homosexuals, and other minorities?

It isn't Israel's fault that Hamas is hurting it.

People need respect for the Constitution of Secularist Politics in Iran, rather than use Politics as an excuse to turn wars between Israel and Iran into war beween Judaism and Islam.

What?

[dodger]

This is what happens when deadly, Religiously rabid theocrats are visited upon a State. Unfortunate, but War with such idiocy may occasionally be necessary to stop the oppression of the body politic.

If the common man in Iran is freed to work against the theocratic Capitalist megalomaniacal fanatics that occupy a good part of the Middle East through this, then maybe blow-back from any hostilities between Israel and Iran would be a good thing.

Bronte you could ask any one of the 750,000 Iraqi war widows or offspring how much 'upside'. Nearer home ,whether suffering bereavement or those simply counting the material costs of war, the PRICE is too high......

Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat ( General Wesley k Clark)......Only too happy to share (his) intentions in the 2001 edition suddenly becomes more modest and reticent in the 2002 reprint edition, the offending paragraph was removed. Page 130 below

"In the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan ..." (p. 130.)

You.... me.... all of us......both cannot in all honesty be tempted to call this anything but premeditated carnage and plunder. I will leave cleverer people than me to point out the Geo/political implications or when and where the chips might fall or land.

[Bronte]

You.... me.... all of us......both cannot in all honesty be tempted to call this anything but premeditated carnage and plunder. I will leave cleverer people than me to point out the Geo/political implications or when and where the chips might fall or land.

Comrade, you seem to have confused cause and effect.

I do not wish to have appeared flippant about the disgusting, paltry, and insane elements of warfare, and the violations of humanitarian rights that have all too often become a hallmark of the Israeli-Iran conflict.

However, with that throat clearing out of the way, I would like to paint for you the fate of Workers in Iran. Their oppresors are Status Quo hangers-on from a previous feudal system- the Shah, where Faith divinely allows for the culling of the socioethical revolution of the masses, where change from the Worker's slavery for the corrupt and rotten megalomaniacs, who have driven the Iranian man into the ground over fifty years, where Workers are turned into suicide bombers... how can you allow the powers that be not to lockdown this abuse of the Workers that are trying to create a revolution in Iran?

The Imperial Guards who rule Iran are a carry-on from the days when Iran executed the Worker's Unionists, and Worker's Parties, who one of these days could, if their authority gets removed forcibly by Israel, turn Iran into a Socialist Republic, run under the people, for the people- Israel could break the Iranian man out of his chains and allow him to socialize and influence radical Workers in Iran. If a few thousand people have to die to effect socialism, that's unfortunate, but leaving an Iran to the Unions would allow for a true Socialist Democracy in the Middle East, a start to the Arab Spring that everyone would follow, it would be great deliverance for socialist democrats.

We need these comrades to overthrow their Theocrat Oppresors if this is to happen. It may take an Israel-Iran war to effect this.

If that is so, then so be it.

[~Spectre]

We need these comrades to overthrow their Theocrat Oppresors if this is to happen. It may take an Israel-Iran war to effect this.

If that is so, then so be it.

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Defence-Murder-Richard-Seymour/dp/1844672409

[Bronte]

Comrade, you misunderstand what I believe the point of the Arab Spring, historical interventionism, and the point of American Imperialism with that book.

There exist inalienable incidences where Workers are being injured, poisoned, in my opinion, by a right-wing Theocracy one-thousand times more toxic than interventionist policy is to Arabic Nations.

Staying put when workers are having their daily lives messed up by Islamic Fascist mouth-pieces for Capitalistic-Imperialism is not something that can happen indefinitely. The Middle Eastern Social-Workers movement needs funding to remove the corrupt, misogynistic and dictatorial Capitalist Theocratic Puppets Leaders; people like Ahmadinejhad, the Ayatollah Khomeni and other vicious pro-Capitalism "Leaders".

Socialism will grow once these leaders are wiped out.

Are you honestly suggesting that the means of Middle Eastern War do not justify the end result of the Middle East being finally in the hands of a Workers Republic?

You have to be a serious Socialist on these issues, and merely standing back from War all of the time for everybody is not a serious dialectic stance on the Middle East, which we need now, comrade.

[~Spectre]

There exist inalienable incidences where Workers are being injured, poisoned, in my opinion, by a right-wing Theocracy one-thousand times more toxic than interventionist policy is to Arabic Nations.


1. Iran isn't an Arabic Nation. Learn some shit before spewing off about "Islamofascotheocrats!!!"

2. Are you off your rocker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[Bronte]

1. Iran isn't an Arabic Nation. Learn some shit before spewing off about "Islamofascotheocrats!!!"

Well, okay, but their trade in illegal nuclear weapons and underground silos and instruments of oppression of the Islamic man is done with the blessing of other Arabic nations like Egypt.


2. Are you off your rocker?

Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

...Which nowhere near totals the casualties inflicted under Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

[Geiseric]

Comrade, you misunderstand what I believe the point of the Arab Spring, historical interventionism, and the point of American Imperialism with that book.

There exist inalienable incidences where Workers are being injured, poisoned, in my opinion, by a right-wing Theocracy one-thousand times more toxic than interventionist policy is to Arabic Nations.

Staying put when workers are having their daily lives messed up by Islamic Fascist mouth-pieces for Capitalistic-Imperialism is not something that can happen indefinitely. The Middle Eastern Social-Workers movement needs funding to remove the corrupt, misogynistic and dictatorial Capitalist Theocratic Puppets Leaders; people like Ahmadinejhad, the Ayatollah Khomeni and other vicious pro-Capitalism "Leaders".

Socialism will grow once these leaders are wiped out.

Are you honestly suggesting that the means of Middle Eastern War do not justify the end result of the Middle East being finally in the hands of a Workers Republic?

You have to be a serious Socialist on these issues, and merely standing back from War all of the time for everybody is not a serious dialectic stance on the Middle East, which we need now, comrade.

You're assuming that once the Ayatollah has been removed by Israel, there will be a magical workers revolution that isn't suppressed by Israel itself. That is a rediculous claim, Israel will imperialise the shit out of Iran or any other country they invade. That's the point of modern wars, imperialism. Soon after Israel invades, it would only be a matter of time before capitalists from everywhere bring their factories to Iran in order to use the labor pool they have there and will be selling Iran everything they need for reconstruction after a devastating war between two industrialised first world countries.


ON TOP OF THAT China and Russia would probably side with Iran, and the U.S. and NATO would side with Israel. We would be looking at another world war, without a doubt.

Anyways, your thinking reminds me of the revolutionary defensism of some Mensheviks after the revolution in Russia.

[dodger]

Comrade, you seem to have confused cause and effect.

I do not wish to have appeared flippant about the disgusting, paltry, and insane elements of warfare, and the violations of humanitarian rights that have all too often become a hallmark of the Israeli-Iran conflict.

However, with that throat clearing out of the way, I would like to paint for you the fate of Workers in Iran. Their oppresors are Status Quo hangers-on from a previous feudal system- the Shah, where Faith divinely allows for the culling of the socioethical revolution of the masses, where change from the Worker's slavery for the corrupt and rotten megalomaniacs, who have driven the Iranian man into the ground over fifty years, where Workers are turned into suicide bombers... how can you allow the powers that be not to lockdown this abuse of the Workers that are trying to create a revolution in Iran?

The Imperial Guards who rule Iran are a carry-on from the days when Iran executed the Worker's Unionists, and Worker's Parties, who one of these days could, if their authority gets removed forcibly by Israel, turn Iran into a Socialist Republic, run under the people, for the people- Israel could break the Iranian man out of his chains and allow him to socialize and influence radical Workers in Iran. If a few thousand people have to die to effect socialism, that's unfortunate, but leaving an Iran to the Unions would allow for a true Socialist Democracy in the Middle East, a start to the Arab Spring that everyone would follow, it would be great deliverance for socialist democrats.

We need these comrades to overthrow their Theocrat Oppresors if this is to happen. It may take an Israel-Iran war to effect this.

If that is so, then so be it.

THEN SO BE IT, IF THAT IS SO.......then would I have to discard many centuries of my history. I have to tell you dear Bronte that 10,000 Theocratic Opressors are NOT worth one Britons testicle. Empires mean domination and exploitation at home and abroad. Reaction abroad breeds reaction at home. Empire brought no gain to the great majority of Britons in the past and brings no gain to Americans now. While the US has extended its reach across the world, American workers have had no real wage growth for 30 years. I cannot but observe that both USA and ISRAEL have....THEOCRATIC OPPRESSORS....crawling out of their own woodwork. Why go to Iran? Spectre has taken the time and trouble to post a link, a book, I thank him,it is a reminder I must finish it when I return home. You may have read it already bronte, if you have , you certainly never learnt anything from it. Or tell us again about your own history, who exactly installed the Shah on his throne? Who gave refuge and bundled the Ayatollah on to an Air France plane to begin his march? Do you seriously expect us to fling our bodies under that Juggernaut, give our precious lives for their plunder. It is beyond all good reason. Meanwhile I shall take your advice and delve deeper what might be the implications of "cause and effect" The brother Iranian transport workers I spoke with, sorely oppressed were not expecting a fairy godmother in the shape of OBAMA. They felt keenly that salvation could only come about from their own modest efforts.

[~Spectre]

Well, okay, but their trade in illegal nuclear weapons and underground silos and instruments of oppression of the Islamic man is done with the blessing of other Arabic nations like Egypt.

WTF are you talking about? The biggest nuclear traders are the Americans, and their associates in Israel and Pakistan. Iran doesn't even have their own nukes yet.


...Which nowhere near totals the casualties inflicted under Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
1. False.
2. Saddam was imposed on Iraq by the yankees you fucking numpty. Sanctions imposed by the west killed hundreds of thousands of children. Attacks on Iraq by Israel caused Iraq to pursue nuclear weaponry.

Seriously. what in the FUCK are you talking about?

[~Spectre]

Let's not forget the great labor environment that the U.S. created in post-Saddam Iraq:


Since 2003, dozens of union activists trying to build a new labor movement for Iraq have been kidnapped and killed. The most infamous instance was the brutal murder of international affairs representative Hadi Saleh, gunned down in Baghdad in January 2005. He had just returned with other Iraqi labor leaders from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) World Congress in Miyazaki, Japan, the first time Iraqi unions had ever participated in this gathering of the world’s trade unions. These assassinations and kidnappings are ongoing. No Iraqi labor federation is immune, and no Iraqi workplace is safe.

During the first few weeks of 2007, Iraqi workers and unions were increasingly targeted in attacks on their leaders and headquarters. By the end of January, at least three Iraqi union leaders were dead and scores more injured. On March 27, Najim Abd-Jasem, general secretary of the Mechanics Workers’ Union and a co-founder of the Iraqi Trade Union Federation (now the General Federation of Iraqi Workers), was kidnapped in Baghdad. His body was found three days later, showing clear signs of torture.

http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=623

Someone restrict that fucking Hitchens clone.

[Psy]

Yes and Israel has developed anti-ballistic weapons.

That are placebos as they are unrealistic since it is so much easier to engineer ways around anti-missile systems then it is to anti-missile systems to work. For example the USSR in the 1960's figured out you could trick ICBM tracking just with balloons that reflect radar like real warheads, these decoy warheads can easily be pack-in a ICBM along with the real warheads. To date there is no solution to solve the 1960's decoy system to trick radar systems looking for warheads. What does this means for Iran, they just pack in more decoys then Israel has missiles to intercept the warheads thus odds are enough warheads will hit their target to wipe Israel off the map as a nation state.

Then there is chemical warheads, the enemy thinking they are nuclear hit them with their inceptor yet the chemicals falls towards the ground contaminating everything it comes into contact with. Prematurely detonating a chemical warhead just causes the chemicals contaminate a larger area as they spread out more.



Besides,Saddam fired dozens of Scuds on Israel back in '91 but these didn't cause much damage...
WWI forces didn't have Scuds and killed plenty of people with chemical weapons.

[blackandyellow]

You're assuming that once the Ayatollah has been removed by Israel, there will be a magical workers revolution that isn't suppressed by Israel itself. That is a rediculous claim, Israel will imperialise the shit out of Iran or any other country they invade. That's the point of modern wars, imperialism. Soon after Israel invades, it would only be a matter of time before capitalists from everywhere bring their factories to Iran in order to use the labor pool they have there and will be selling Iran everything they need for reconstruction after a devastating war between two industrialised first world countries.


ON TOP OF THAT China and Russia would probably side with Iran, and the U.S. and NATO would side with Israel. We would be looking at another world war, without a doubt.

Anyways, your thinking reminds me of the revolutionary defensism of some Mensheviks after the revolution in Russia.

Why are you talking about Israel occupying Iran? Its so rediculous

[IndependentCitizen]

World war 3 is imminent, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama?INTCMP=SRCH

There is another article that was suggesting the UK is too, writing contingency plans on an attack on Iranian nuclear installations.

It amazes me how they go on and about the global economy's state, yet persist on military intervention..

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear?INTCMP=SRCH

UK is looking into imperialist action....yet again.

[Geiseric]

Why are you talking about Israel occupying Iran? Its so rediculous

I'm talking about a theoretical situation that other guy laid out.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_iRH4mgHegEdJML8jEcVWt-o4Qg?docId=d7029c8c29a7470997ec04b7cc35706b


JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's president says the international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program than a diplomatic one.
The remarks by Shimon Peres to Israel's channel 2 TV Friday were unusual because he is known as a dove and optimist.
Peres said world leaders need to "fulfill their promises" to stop Iran "whatever it takes." He said, "There is a long menu as to what can be done." He did not elaborate.
The interview comes days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to be seeking ministers' support for a strike against Iran.
Israel, the U.S. and other nations suspect Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program only has peaceful aims. Negotiations and sanctions have failed to resolve the standoff.

[Rusty Shackleford]

UPDATE: Haaretz claiming IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency/Association/Asshats) has proof of Iranian nuclear weapons program. (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/iaea-to-reveal-iran-building-nuclear-weapons-at-base-near-tehran-1.393920)

If the IAEA does in fact make a statement that supports Haaretz's claim, then there is a high probability of it being used as a casus belli to bomb Iran's powerplant.

I dont know if this will actually be it. I still dont think anything is going to happen. but its starting to become something that i cant keep off of my mind. I mean, after the foiled 'plot' the US pulled out of its ass and tied to Iran and Israel test firing a Nuclear capable ballistic missile and now this... it might be it. I'm honestly terrified of the thought of another war on such a scale.

[A Marxist Historian]

They're going to to invade Iran but attack it from air and destroy its nuclear and/or military command/SAM facilities/sites.
Just like they did in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

That is the plan, no question about it.

When Netanyahu floated this idea when Bush Jr. was Prez, he forbade it, something the US can do extremely easily. Israel *can't* strike Iran from the air without the U.S. at least looking the other way. Bush Jr. informed Netanyahu that Israeli planes attempting such a raid through all that air space controlled by the U.S. without American permission would be, if absolutely necessary, shot down.

Is Obama less able to enforce American wishes on Netanyahu than Obama, due to his precarious political position as a black president? Quite possibly.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I think they do only
Here read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction



"A Theocracy describes a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion."
Sounds like Fascism. They force religious laws on people. Fascism!!!

The perfect example of why Wikipedia is crap. No, the Iranians, unfortunately, don't have nuclear weapons.If they did, the Israelis wouldn't dare start a war, and the world would be a vastly safer place.

Nor is it certain that they want to have them, as that would set off an expensive Middle East arms race, and Iran has economic troubles already. Rather, best indications are that they want to have what say Germany and Japan have, namely the ability to crank out nukes if they actually need them in a matter of weeks. The U.S thinktanks call that "turnkey capacity" or something like that, and concede that that is the true Iranian objective, which from their POV is almost as bad.

The Iranians *do* apparently have medium range missiles that could be fitted with nukes and reach Israel, so they, unlike the North Koreans, do have solid delivery capacity if they ever do actually make a few nukes.

Israel is a small country and could be easily obliterated by just a couple of missiles, which is why this freaks the Israelis out so much. Their own fault for developing nukes in the first place for no good reason.

-M.H.-

-M.H.-

-

[A Marxist Historian]

I know Nazis were anti-religion.
No your right they didn't but Fascism is forcing certain ways on people.

"Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

*Some* Nazis were anti-religious, notably Himmler.

Hitler himself was a believing Catholic, which is one reason why the Pope cooperated with him so eagerly, even though he pushed uncooperative priests around a lot.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

No one seems to be asking why this has been leaked to the media. If Israel was seriously about to attack anyone do you truely believe government ministers would be talking about it to the press, they'd just do it and let the press know after.

The real question should be "who is this a message for?". It may be it's a message for the Iranian government to try & bully them back to the table regarding their nuclear weapons programme. More likely it's for domestic consumption, keeping the hardliners on side and distracting from the recent gains the Palistinians have made via the UN. Or possibley The US is the target either trying to get some extra dosh or some other bollocks. It's the sound of sabres rattling not a serious threat in my opinion.

Exactly! It is possible that Netanyahu might be desperate enough to do this given all the internal unrest in Israel, which he needs to suppress to keep his position. He is a highly irresponsible politician, whose interest in his own position is greater than his loyalty to Israel's best interests. Which is why even the *ultra-reactionaries* in his Cabinet have been voting this crazy notion down in cabinet meetings till lately.

More than likely this is indeed all stage managed to frighten the Iranians. Trouble is it won't work. And scams like that, when they don't work, sometimes the scam artists feel like they have to follow through on their threats to avoid looking like fools...

Now, invading Gaza again, that sounds very plausible ... except that this time around, that could upset the applecart in Egypt, which is next door after all. With no Mubaraq around, that might not be as safe for Israel as it was last time.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Also keep in mind that Israel may use tactical nukes.

That I doubt, because if they do, sooner or later some Arab country or other will use tactical nukes on Israel. Maybe their Saudi friends. Wouldn't take too many to make the place uninhabitable. In any case, then *all* Arab countries would have crash programs to develop nukes, and Israel would be surrounded by nukes on all sides.

Even for the Israelis, nukes are best as a deterrent. Once you use them, that legitimates using them on you.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Well, okay, but their trade in illegal nuclear weapons and underground silos and instruments of oppression of the Islamic man is done with the blessing of other Arabic nations like Egypt.



...Which nowhere near totals the casualties inflicted under Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

This guy isn't off his rocker, he is a Zionist pro-imperialist provocateur who hates Muslims, disguising himself as a leftist. He should be restricted.

The idea that the death toll inflicted by Hussein and Al-Quaida on Iraq even *comes close* to that inflicted on Iraq by the US would be hilarious if it weren't such an absolute total vicious lie.

Hell, forget the war. The total number of Iraquis killed by Bill Clinton's terrorist starvation blockade on Iraq in the '90s dwarfs the number murdered by Saddam.

-M.H.-

[Nox]

This guy isn't off his rocker, he is a Zionist pro-imperialist provocateur who hates Muslims, disguising himself as a leftist. He should be restricted.


Indeed. It's impossible to be a Zionist and a genuine leftist, it's like being a fascist and a genuine leftist, the two are incompatible.

[Rusty Shackleford]

IAEA just declared Iran has a nuclear weapons program. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-report-cites-secret-nuclear-research-by-iran/2011/11/08/gIQAS3MS1M_story.html?wprss=)

China paper warns of looming conflict. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/china-iran-nuclear-idUSL4E7M908G20111109)

[Aurora]

I thought Israel was going to war with Iran a year ago when they were pushing propaganda about Iran having nuclear weapons and when Israel negotiated the use of Saudi Arabia's airspace.
Does anyone know if they still have use of Saudi airspace? I suspect they do.

Anyways such a conflict whilst usually bolstering nationalist sentiment may in times of an economic crisis lead to increased activity against the Israeli state from within Israel. Especially when this war will be more prolonged than the usual massacre in Gaza.

[danyboy27]

i have been hearing rumors of military intervention in iran for already a decade, but something tell me that this time its more serious than usual.

Its gonna be fucking bad, there is no way iran will just stand idle while israel bomb the shit out of them, the repercussions for such actions will be global, the region will burst in flame, food and oil price will soar, there is no way israel or the west could get anything positive out of this.

[A Marxist Historian]

i have been hearing rumors of military intervention in iran for already a decade, but something tell me that this time its more serious than usual.

Its gonna be fucking bad, there is no way iran will just stand idle while israel bomb the shit out of them, the repercussions for such actions will be global, the region will burst in flame, food and oil price will soar, there is no way israel or the west could get anything positive out of this.

It seems hiighly unlikely to me, but Israel went through a major social crisis this summer, with a lot of the working class out on the streets doing their own sort of "OWS." Perhaps the ruling class might be desperate enough to take huge risks to restore national unity.

-M.H.-

[the Leftâ„¢]

Where's Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

Are you fucking serious?

[Klaatu]

This should be settled gladiator-style.

Netan-Yahoo should challenge Ack-ma Jean-a-dad to a sword-fighting duel. Winner: take-all, Loser: headless. ;)

[Belleraphone]

War with Iran? At this rate the promised land will be a big piece of glass.

[danyboy27]

Its official, the canadian governement is preparing the ground for an attack against iran.

I am currently listening to a interview on the cbc with a general about the possible scenario against iran. trought the interview there was dramatized false newsflash about how such an action would be seen trought the media.

Those bastards, they are really gonna do it this time.

[RadioRaheem84]

Iran is not Iraq, it's not restrained by Western powers. Iran will retaliate and retaliate hard.

I was also under the impression that half the ruling class in Israel is not convinced that attack is necessary. It's really the right wing of the Likkud.

[danyboy27]

Iran is not Iraq, it's not restrained by Western powers. Iran will retaliate and retaliate hard.

I was also under the impression that half the ruling class in Israel is not convinced that attack is necessary. It's really the right wing of the Likkud.

damn right iran is not iraq. but unfortunately, those folks seem to have lost their damn mind.

2 month left before the end of 2011, that famous deadline for stopping the iranian nuclear developpement.

Merry fucking Xmas.

[bcbm]

i wouldn't be so sure about an attack, i don't think there is the political will to pull it off right now especially with russia and china likely to stick close to iran and any attack on iran would seriously affect oil prices and thus send a major shock to the currently very fragile economies of the west

[the last donut of the night]

i wouldn't be so sure about an attack, i don't think there is the political will to pull it off right now especially with russia and china likely to stick close to iran and any attack on iran would seriously affect oil prices and thus send a major shock to the currently very fragile economies of the west

yeah this. also after the financial crisis commodities have gained a new importance in the markets; i doubt the US would be fully behind this attack even if israel commenced it. shit's too bad for them to shell out billions on a new war

yeah but i hope this is the case. if not, get ready for some major shit

[danyboy27]

i wouldn't be so sure about an attack, i don't think there is the political will to pull it off right now especially with russia and china likely to stick close to iran and any attack on iran would seriously affect oil prices and thus send a major shock to the currently very fragile economies of the west

China and russia didnt do much when NATO bombed the shit out of libya, i expect them to do pretty much the same thing again.

It dosnt really matter if the U.S decide to help israel or not, the second an israeli missile touch the iranian soil, the shit will hit the fan at great speed.

The iranian governement have been expecting that kind of event for decades now.

[the last donut of the night]

China and russia didnt do much when NATO bombed the shit out of libya, i expect them to do pretty much the same thing again.


libya is one thing and iran is another. china, russia and iran are close trading partners, so...

[SHORAS]

i have been hearing rumors of military intervention in iran for already a decade, but something tell me that this time its more serious than usual.

Its gonna be fucking bad, there is no way iran will just stand idle while israel bomb the shit out of them, the repercussions for such actions will be global, the region will burst in flame, food and oil price will soar, there is no way israel or the west could get anything positive out of this.

Starting to sound a bit like North Korea and their 'sea of flame'. Could you be any more dramatic:laugh:

[socialistjustin]

Apparently Shimon Pires said that this should a possibility. He's considered sane so shit could go down if guys like him are saying that everything is on the table.

[Klaatu]

In thinking that the other country will attack first, we attack first.

Well guess what: the attacker is going to be the loser. (That's usually how things play out historically)

[~Spectre]

The U.S. Secretary of Defense warns against attacking Iran:

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says military action against Iran could have unintended consequences. The warning came at a press conference Thursday.

You’ve got to be careful of unintended consequences here and those consequences could involve not only, not really deterring Iran from what they want to do, but more importantly it could have a serious impact in the region and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region," said Panetta.

Panetta said the U.S. and its allies should instead toughen economic and diplomatic sanctions on Iran to change its behavior.




http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Defense-Chief-Warns-Against-Military-Strike-on-Iran--133659028.html

[~Spectre]

Former Irgun member, and former member of the Knesset, Uri Avnery, says Israel will not attack Iran:


"Hold Me Back!"
Why Israel Will Not Attack Iran
by URI AVNERY
EVERYBODY KNOWS the scene from school: a small boy quarrels with a bigger boy. “Hold me back!” he shouts to his comrades, “Before I break his bones!”

Our government seems to be behaving in this way. Every day, via all channels, it shouts that it is going, any minute now, to break the bones of Iran.

Iran is about to produce a nuclear bomb. We cannot allow this. So we shall bomb them to smithereens.

Binyamin Netanyahu says so in every one of his countless speeches, including his opening speech at the winter session of the Knesset. Ditto Ehud Barak. Every self-respecting commentator (has anyone ever seen a non-self-respecting one?) writes about it. The media amplify the sound and the fury.

“Haaretz” splashed its front page with pictures of the seven most important ministers (the “security septet”) showing three in favor of the attack, four against.

* * *

A GERMAN proverb says: “Revolutions that are announced in advance do not take place.” Same goes for wars.

Nuclear affairs are subject to very strict military censorship. Very very strict indeed.

Yet the censor seems to be smiling benignly. Let the boys, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense (the censor’s ultimate boss) play their games.

The respected former long-serving chief of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, has publicly warned against the attack, describing it as “the most stupid idea” he has ever heard”. He explained that he considers it his duty to warn against it, in view of the plans of Netanyahu and Barak.

On Wednesday, there was a veritable deluge of leaks. Israel tested a missile that can deliver a nuclear bomb more then 5000 km away, beyond you-know-where. And our Air Force has just completed exercises in Sardinia, at a distance larger than you-know-where. And on Thursday, the Home Front Command held training exercises all over Greater Tel Aviv, with sirens screaming away.

All this seems to indicate that the whole hullabaloo is a ploy. Perhaps to frighten and deter the Iranians. Perhaps to push the Americans into more extreme actions. Perhaps coordinated with the Americans in advance. (British sources, too, leaked that the Royal Navy is training to support an American attack on Iran.)

It is an old Israeli tactic to act as if we are going crazy (“The boss has gone mad” is a routine cry in our markets, to suggest that the fruit vendor is selling at a loss.) We shall not listen to the US any more. We shall just bomb and bomb and bomb.

Well, let’s be serious for a moment.

* * *

ISRAEL WILL not attack Iran. Period.

Some may think that I am going out on a limb. Shouldn’t I add at least “probably” or “almost certainly”?

No, I won’t. I shall repeat categorically: Israel Will NOT Attack Iran.

Since the 1956 Suez adventure, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an ultimatum that stopped the action, Israel has never undertaken any significant military operation without obtaining American consent in advance.

The US is Israel’s only dependable supporter in the world (besides, perhaps, Fiji, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.) To destroy this relationship means cutting our lifeline. To do that, you have to be more than just a little crazy. You have to be raving mad.

Furthermore, Israel cannot fight a war without unlimited American support, because our planes and our bombs come from the US. During a war, we need supplies, spare parts, many sorts of equipment. During the Yom Kippur war, Henry Kissinger had an “air train” supplying us around the clock. And that war would probably look like a picnic compared to a war with Iran.

* * *

LET’S LOOK at the map. That, by the way, is always recommended before starting any war.

The first feature that strikes the eye is the narrow Strait of Hormuz, through which every third barrel of the worlds seaborne oil supplies flow. Almost the entire output of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Iraq and Iran has to run the gauntlet through this narrow sea lane.

“Narrow” is an understatement. The entire width of this waterway is some 35 km (or 20 miles). That’s about the distance from Gaza to Beer Sheva, which was crossed last week by the primitive rockets of the Islamic Jihad.

When the first Israeli plane enters Iranian airspace, the strait will be closed. The Iranian navy has plenty of missile boats, but they will not be needed. Land-based missiles are enough.

The world is already teetering on the verge of an abyss. Little Greece is threatening to fall and take major chunks of the world economy with her. The elimination of almost a fifth of the industrial nations’ supply of oil would lead to a catastrophe hard even to imagine.

To open the strait by force would require a major military operation (including “putting boots on the ground”) that would overshadow all the US misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can the US afford that? Can NATO? Israel itself is not in the same league.

* * *

BUT ISRAEL would be very much involved in the action, if only on the receiving end.

In a rare show of unity, all of Israel’s service chiefs, including the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet, are publicly opposing the whole idea. We can only guess why.

I don’t know whether the operation is possible at all. Iran is a very large country, about the size of Alaska, the nuclear installations are widely dispersed and largely underground. Even with the special deep penetration bombs provided by the US, the operation may stall the Iranian efforts – such as they are – only for a few months. The price may be too high for such meager results.

Moreover, it is quite certain that with the beginning of a war, missiles will rain down on Israel – not only from Iran, but also from Hizbollah, and perhaps also from Hamas. We have no adequate defense for our towns. The amount of death and destruction would be prohibitive.

Suddenly, the media are full of stories about our three submarines, soon to grow to five, or even six, if the Germans are understanding and generous. It is openly said that these give us the capabilities of a nuclear “second strike”, if Iran uses its (still non-existent) nuclear warheads against us. But the Iranians may also use chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.

Then there is the political price. There are a lot of tensions in the Islamic world. Iran is far from popular in many parts of it. But an Israeli assault on a major Muslim country would instantly unite Sunnis and Shiites, from Egypt and Turkey to Pakistan and beyond. Israel could become a villa in a burning jungle.

* * *

BUT THE talk about the war serves many purposes, including domestic, political ones.

Last Saturday, the social protest movement sprang to life again. After a pause of two months, a mass of people assembled in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square. This was quite remarkable, because on that very day rockets were falling on the towns near the Gaza Strip. Until now, in such a situation demonstrations have always been canceled. Security problems trump everything else. Not this time.

Also, many people believed that the euphoria of the Gilad Shalit festival had wiped the protest from the public mind. It didn’t.

By the way, something remarkable has happened: the media, after siding with the protest movement for months, have had a change of heart. Suddenly all of them, including Haaretz, are sticking knives in its back. As if by order, all newspapers wrote the next day that “more than 20,000” took part. Well I was there, and I do have some idea of these things. There were at least 100,000 people there, most of them young. I could hardly move.

The protest has not spent itself, as the media assert. Far from it. But what better means for taking people’s minds off social justice than talk of the “existential danger”?

Moreover, the reforms demanded by the protesters would need money. In view of the worldwide financial crisis, the government strenuously objects to increasing the state budget, for fear of damaging our credit rating.

So where could the money come from? There are only three plausible sources: the settlements (who would dare?), the Orthodox (ditto!) and the huge military budget.

But on the eve of the most crucial war in our history, who would touch the armed forces? We need every shekel to buy more planes, more bombs, more submarines. Schools and hospitals must, alas, wait.

So God bless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Where would we be without him?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/03/why-israel-will-not-attack-iran/

[North Star]

I'd trust Uri. Bibi is in such a tenuous position between the West and the Religious Right in his own coalition so he's trying to get attention, get the Americans to give him stuff. I don't think attacking Iran will bolster patriotism within Israel either. The Tent City protestors will see it as a distraction especially if there is no evidence of a nuclear program uncovered by air strikes. It could further destabilize the country internally too. The IDF and Shin Bet are also against it. It's so stupid. Hezabollah, and Islamic Jihad would be launching rockets within minutes. Assad might even get involved because well what else does he have to lose? Better for him to go down fighting the Zionist valiantly then being deposed by his own people. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if he could deflect some of the protestors' anger on to Israel.
Obama hasn't had some epiphany that the Palestinians deserve a state. Even W. called for it. The Zionist Lobby never controlled US policy. US aligned with Israel to use Israel as a policeman against pro-Soviet Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Israel is also more reliable than the pro-US Arab states too. However, regional power shifts are negating the US need for such a strong relationship with Israel. The intense pressure from Christian Zionists and AIPAC remain but more and more US intellectuals both liberal and conservative are beginning to question the point of the relationship. The book the Israel Lobby was written by two right wing realist political scientists. They analyzed the situation as anyone interested in maintaining American hegemony would and found the relationship was not as important as it was before. The Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Kuwait) are willing to make peace with Israel. They have dropped any religious opposition to Jews in Jerusalem. They cannot make peace because it would be another nail in their coffins. Their citizens would hate it and see them as selling out. The market has trumped religion. The wealthy oil states haven't dealt with the severe effects of the recession, capitalism is still transforming those societies in an ever so slightly progressive manner. It will be slow because these regimes rely on religious legitimacy but it is happening. There could very well be revolts in Saudi Arabia, but expect them to beliberal democratic in character. There are many poor Saudis, but capitalism has not completely broken down there and there is still a thriving middle class that wants liberal rights. It's still a victory because political freedom will have been achieved. The ruling classes of the "moderate" Arab regimes want to do business with Israel, and share Israel's fear of Iran. The Saudis are not against an Israeli air strike on Iran as long as they are not pulled into the fallout. The strong Turkish reaction to Israel is shaped by Turkey's considerable economic development. They were once on the periphery but now have the wealth and power to take a more active role in the Middle East. When Erdogan criticizes Israel over Gaza it's hypocritical because of the Kurdish question in Eastern Turkey. However Turkey is simply trying to take Israel down a peg to become an equal or junior partner in maintaining order, not the focal point. If Iran and Syria can be neutralized you would have a rather stable Middle East because frankly, the Gulf States are not going to pressure Israel that hard over an end to occupation. Precisely for that reason, I believe that there will be no strike. It's not worth it, the Islamic Republic will collapse over its own contradictions and even if Assad hangs on to power he will have to sign some sort of agreement with the Syrian opposition brokered by the Arab League which will loosen the ties with Iran otherwise the Arab League will let the conflict continue till Assad is gone. At that point the only challenge could be the Middle East's revolutionary masses, but the ruling classes in Tunisia and Egypt seem to have a grip on the situation for now. With Ghadaffi gone, Syria in turmoil and a secret Saudi-Israel axis I think revolutionary prospects in the Middle East are not as strong as some think. The weak points in the chain have shifted. Uprisings by Palestinians (and Israeli Jews for that matter given that Bibi really hasn't done anything to address their concerns and continues to pander to the religious right) as well as in Iran could reignite the revolutionary potential there.

[danyboy27]

Starting to sound a bit like North Korea and their 'sea of flame'. Could you be any more dramatic:laugh:

Its hardly an overstatement. Iran only distributed a small amount of weapons to the iraqi insurgents back in 2006 and scores of american soldier died has a result.

If the iranian governement would decide has a repraisal for the airstrike to distribute a shitload of weapons to various groups trought the middle east, the situation would become dire relatively quickly.

[SHORAS]

It's a distraction into 'anti-war' protests, fruitless worry about basically things you have no control over (the PM's and Presidents of various states) when we are starting to see the emergence of class based struggle all around the world. 'Anti-war' doesn't stop wars only class struggle does.

[ckaihatsu]

I found these news blurbs to be quite revealing -- taken together they indicate that Britain is taking the lead on the saber-rattling, with the U.S. war machine diplomatically on-board but also expressing its own reservations:





Israel may launch strike on Iran as soon as next month 09 Nov 2011

Israel will launch military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon as soon as Christmas, intelligence chiefs have warned. Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that Israel will attempt to strike against the nuclear sites 'sooner rather than later' – with logistical support from the U.S. A senior Foreign Office figure has revealed that ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action, adding: 'We're expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2059462/Israel-launch-strike-Iran-soon-month-prevent-development-nuclear-weapons.html


Pentagon warns against attacking Iran 10 Nov 2011

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned against "unintended consequences" of any military attack against Iran over the country's nuclear program. The Pentagon chief said on Thursday that the strike could have a "serious impact on the region and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," AFP reported. He made the remarks after Israel's recent rhetoric against Iran and its test-launch of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

http://www.legitgov.org/Pentagon-warns-against-attacking-Iran


With the world economy in a prolonged lull this is probably the best the capitalist establishment can do for the sake of 'legitimacy' and 'momentum'....

[danyboy27]

Canadian defense minister peter mackay is on its way to discuss about the iranian nuclear program with its israeli counterpart in the coming week.

I might be wrong, but i would guess they will strike between november and december. If nothing happen within this timeframe the whole project will be put on the shelf for a while again.

The israeli governement right now is scrambling like crazy to meet various world leaders to discuss the issue. Basically they are trying to sell their wars worldwide.

I dont think its gonna be a merry xmas this year.