Israel plans to attack Iran

[refuse_resist]

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up plans for a combined air and ground attack on Iranian nuclear installations if diplomacy fails to halt Tehran's atomic program, London's Sunday Times said.

The newspaper said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his inner cabinet had given "initial authorization" for a unilateral attack on Iran at a private meeting last month.

U.S. officials have indicated they would not stand in Israel's way if international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear projects fail, the paper said.

"If all efforts to persuade Iran to drop its plans to produce nuclear weapons should fail, the U.S. administration will authorize Israel to attack," the paper quoted an Israeli security source as saying.

Tehran, which has a stated goal of destroying the Jewish state, says its nuclear activities are aimed only at electricity generation but Washington and the European Union suspect Iran could use its program to make atomic bombs.

Iran has frozen nuclear enrichment while it tries to reach a negotiated settlement on its nuclear program with Britain, France and Germany.

Washington on Friday joined the drive to put pressure on Iran by offering it a start to World Trade Organization membership talks and access to civil aircraft and spare parts if it abandons its most sensitive nuclear activities.

The Sunday Times said Israeli tactics included raids by elite commando units and air strikes by F-15 jets using bunker busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

It said Israeli forces had been simulating attacks on a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the last few months.

Israel, which says Iran is very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb, played down the report.

Asked if there was a possibility that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear installations, Vice Premier Shimon Peres said: "I don't think so."

Israel is believed to be the only country in the region with nuclear weapons, though it has not confirmed or denied their existence.

Israeli warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in a daring raid in 1981 to prevent it from making atomic bombs.

Tehran says it is prepared to confront any threats and that it would protect its nuclear sites.

"We will defend our nuclear sites with all our strength and we are ready to ward off any possible aggression," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the semi-official INSA students news agency on Saturday.

Vice President Dick Cheney said in January that there was concern Israel might attack Iran if it "became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability."

(Additional reporting by Paul Hughes in Tehran and Elana Ringler in Jerusalem)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...mideast_iran_dc (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=35&u=/nm/20050313/ts_nm/mideast_iran_dc)

[T_34]

It wouldn't be the first time they've done it, they did it on Iraq, which Saddam thanked them for when he Scudded Tel Aviv.

[RedAnarchist]

Typical aggressive capitalists - its always attack and kill first, and diplomacy later, if they can manage it.

If Israel are allowed to attack Iran with the support of America, I hope America wont be hypocritically angry at any armed defensive response by Tehran.

[Paradox]

"If all efforts to persuade Iran to drop its plans to produce nuclear weapons should fail, the U.S. administration will authorize Israel to attack," the paper quoted an Israeli security source as saying.

That's IF Iran's program is actually aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Do you think that's what they're doing? And even if they were, the u$ is hypocritical, as always. Pakistan, an ally of theirs has nukes, Israel has nukes, etc. And don't you find it suspicious that after the amerikan backed candidate wins the election in Ukraine, the Ukraines come out saying they sold missles to Iran capable of using nuclear warheads and capable of reaching Israel? I don't want to start no conspiracy theory or nothing, but it is suspicious.

[SpeCtrE]

Let them just try it. Iran isn't Iraq...

But, as my professor put it... Maybe an earthquake within few months would do the Job for Israel.

[LSD]

Let them just try it. Iran isn't Iraq...

You do realize that we're talking about the Iraq of 1981. In the early eighties, Iraq was state of the art. Either way, if Israel did chose to attack Iran, I highly doubt that Iran would have a dove's chance in hell of stopping them.

But Iran's got to have been expecting this raid for twenty years, right? I mean, after the Osirak attack, they've got to have known that Isreal is willing to do it. So I'd be willing to bet that Israel hasn't quite got every nuclear research center Iran has.

In the end, it's pretty much inevitable that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, just like it was with North Korea. And while I'm pissed at hell at the US / Israel 's presumptive arrogant self-conception as the "peacekeepers" of the world, I am scared as hell of what an Iranian nuclear bomb will mean.

Iran is this close to a bouregois revolution, what happens when the break down starts and the fundamentalists start to see their power slipping? Maybe they launch a few bombs, you know, while they still can...

I don't know certainly if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but they probably are. So probably are a half dozen other countries around the world that aren't telling anyone. There hasn't been an atomic bomb used in war since the American genocides 50 years ago mainly because these bombs have been in the hands of rich countries with a lot to lose.

What happnes when they get into the hands of people with nothing to lose?

This is one of the gravest threats facing us today, not that the US will do anything about it, and attacking Iran is not the way to solve it. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, short of a massive social revolution in about 10 countries, there is no way to solve it.

The thing about technology is that once it's out there ....its out there.

[T_34]

You're such an Israel lover.

[LSD]

You're such an Israel lover.

:)

I see we've matured from the two word "Israel Lover" to the full sentence "You're such an Israel lover." With a period no less!!

Very impressive! Maybe if you can learn logic and reason next, you'll manage to graduate elementary school before the year is up!

Good luck!

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:47 PM
You're such an Israel lover.
Why is he? He is perfectly correct to be anxious about those kinds of possibilities. Plus, he stated quite clearly that "I'm pissed at hell at the US / Israel 's presumptive arrogant self-conception as the "peacekeepers" of the world, I am scared as hell of what an Iranian nuclear bomb will mean".

He's no "Israel-lover" as you put it, he's being logical about the situation. Its a shame that you cannot do the same.

[fernando]

Some of us are so fanatical and blinded by their 'hatred' for Israel/US...


But okay back to topic, will Israel truly attack or is this more of that macho talk which big boys always like to do?

[Ell Carino]

Ariel Sharon is a devil with no conscience...

I can see Israel attacking Iran, with U.S backing of course. If te UK has any part in this crime then i'ma be completely ashamed to call myself British. The whole governing of anything nuclear, whether it be for weapons or energy is complete hypocracy.

[James]

it isn't attack first: then diplomacy: the article states that attack would only come if diplomacy fails.

And it may be hypocritical for one "side" to not want the other "side" to have nukes: but that doesn't really matter.

Think about it, this is international relations.

Most of these states arn't as much influenced by their capitalist tendencies, as their "realism" tendencies (i.e. national interests being primary interest in international politics) - especially America. So of course they want to have the upper hand in the "conflict". No point in falling off your chair at this revelation.

+ + +

If their was a war... iran would have its ass kicked (as a state - the long term "winning the peace" would be hard).

+ + +

But so what?
If iran had americas power it would do the same.

On a side note... I'd rather have capitalist exploitation than iran's alternative exploitation (as "evil" as that may sound). Iran is no cuddly puppy.

+ + +

wowa, i've gone off on a rant. hence why the last section is totally irrelevant to the discussion!
sorry to all.

[Prol]

You have to be realistic. Isreal is the superpower of the middle east not Iran.

[Kyrill Kazakevicius]

Do you really think any country in the Middle East can afford to start a war at this moment? Don't bet on it. I mean, the US still have to figure out how to continue managing the Iraq-conflict, Israel won't attack Iran because they're in the middle of a peace process, so they have other things on their mind right now, and let's not forget about the situation in Lebanon.

[acg4_9]

first of all imagine a suiside bomber with nukes instead of ordinary TNT. that's iran+ imagine a terrorist but is called a peace maker that's israel + imagine bush or his party as the leader of the world = the next 20 year nightmare.
but remember that those three have intrest in more important things so wait until the lebanese iraqi syrian & palestenien issues are calmed down then watch the disaster.
the USSR was not defeated by war but by politics iraq wasn't occupied by war but the satanic sanctions yougslavia wasn't cut into pieces by war but by interfering in the local yougslavian policies imperialism has more than a face and more and more ways to act but us -unfortunatly- we only have tongues.
bless you che.

[Kyrill Kazakevicius]

Ok, listen, if Iran ever completes it's nuclear program (which isn't certain yet), firstly, they might not use it, and secondly, it wouldn't be comparable to a suicide bomber with TNT, you have to make a difference between ordinary islamic terrorist groups and an islamic state. Then, like I said, Israel has other things on it's mind right now. And even if all the conflicts will calm down, like you say, they won't be forgotten any time soon, so I don't think Israel is gonna get into a new conflict for quite a while.

[Asmoo]

Well guess what, Israel and America have already bombed a nuclear power plant in Iran in 1980, so there are no general concerns about attacking Iran, but the military and political situation has changed.Israel and USA won't risk an attack on Iran At least at the moment...

By the way - there is a slight difference between attacking a country and destroying its nuclear power plants - :blink:

[LSD]

By the way - there is a slight difference between attacking a country and destroying its nuclear power plants -

:unsure:

There is?

Is there a country on earth that wouldn't consider an attack on its nuclear plants an act of war? Don't you think that if, say, North Korea bombed the US' power plants, the US would respond?


Ok, listen, if Iran ever completes it's nuclear program (which isn't certain yet), firstly, they might not use it,

Granted.

But Iran will become the most unstable and the least secure nucelar country. Who's to know who will be rulling Iran tomorrow. Should a revolution occur, who's to say that the fundamentalists might not use that one last chance...and launch.


you have to make a difference between ordinary islamic terrorist groups and an islamic state

Do you?

Fantics are fanatics, be they Shia or Whahabist. I can't imagine a more dangerout thing than a religious fundmantalist with a nuke, state or not.

[workersunity]

fucking zionists, they will be the ones who truly burn in hell

[Dark Exodus]

Attacking Iran would be a bad tactical decision, they would certainly win the war but the losses would be much greater. This would be partly due to the fact that Iran actually has an army (albiet an outdated one) but also because of the insurgents-in-their-own-country movements that are currently present in Iraq which would be a much greater presence in Iran.

If Iran was enriching uranium (the only other country that has this kind of nuclear weapon is Pakistan, the others use plutonium) it would be very easy to detect since the gas centrifuge facilities that are most commonly used are very easy to see.

[colombiano]

I can admit that I am not well informed in regards to these two countries. However How will the topography of Irans landscape play into this? Iran is No Iraq it is a VERY mountainous and rigid country. ALso does anyone remember the "Human Waves " that were used against Saddam?

[Asmoo]

Asmoo wrote:
By the way - there is a slight difference between attacking a country and destroying its nuclear power plants -

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide wrote:
There is?

Is there a country on earth that wouldn't consider an attack on its nuclear plants an act of war? Don't you think that if, say, North Korea bombed the US' power plants, the US would respond?

Yes there is a difference, a slight difference as I already said. Iran's nuclear installations were bombed in 1980 pretending to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (same now). Iran did not respond, because 25 years ago the political climate was very different. And anyway that was just when Iran-Iraq war broke out, so Iran couldn't afford fighting Israel or the USA. Iran is not the USA and definitely not North Korea. So what I'm trying to get to is that Iran can't really react on an US air raid. What should they do? Send their troops to America? Attack Israel? See that's absurd! Iran is not in the position of attacking (So no military response on an air raid of the US). Israel won't attack Iran, because Iran has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv, so what they can do is to send the US ahead. The only thing Iran is able -military- , is to defend itself in Iran (for how long?) - not in the USA and not in Israel.

So my point is: An US air raid (because an Israeli one is out of question) on nuclear installations in Iran won't inescapably lead to a new war. But let's state it like this, it wouldn't be very smart would it?

A political-military stalemate situation...

I already said it but I think I have to repeat myself: The USA have to change the situation in middle-east in order to attack Iran. see--> "Greater Middle East" and my post in "Is America going to attack Iran?" By the way I think these two topics should be jointed.

[iffiness]

When you talk about Iran and Iraq you mention it but you dont empahsis it. These are islamic countries dedicated to god. Now i have muslim friends, very nice people but unfortunatly some sucide bombers have given them a bad name (i thought i put that in, i have a lot of respect for islamic religion). America, Israel wont attack Iran because they will LOSE. i say lose because wat they gain by a military victory will cost them so many lives and thus wat the gain will cost too much. We forget these people are fighting for an ideaology, much like Americans but they have so much more to lose than the Americans do. They will fight until either until they are all dead or the enemy has left or is all dead. They will not surrender. The idea that Iran is this close to capitalist revolution, i think you are very mistaken, Islamic religion is engrossed in that society their is no chance of a revolution their for atleast the next decade or 2. You see we dont understand these people, we are "revolutionaries" in the ideological sense we are dissatsified with what we have been given by capitalist we are seaching for something better but we are people who have something to lose, we have our families the life we have created, i may be speaking for myself. But in any case these people have nothing to lose but their religion which will be taken away from them if America invades, when a suicide bomber does what he does he does it cause he has no other viable options. He has nothing, he has nothing to gain by staying alive but he believes (wrongly) that he will go to heaven if he dies for his god. These people will never surrender. It will be a never ending war for America, Israel. But i garantuee you all they will not attack Iran. Its too dangerous for Israel and too dangerous for America.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by Ell [email protected] 27 2005, 01:51 PM
Ariel Sharon is a devil with no conscience...

I can see Israel attacking Iran, with U.S backing of course. If te UK has any part in this crime then i'ma be completely ashamed to call myself British. The whole governing of anything nuclear, whether it be for weapons or energy is complete hypocracy.
The U.K government has already stated it would not support an attack on Iran remember that diplomatic efforts are being led by the U.K France and Germany.

[Colombia]

Like I mentioned countless times.

And this is bad how?

[Intifada]

And this is good how?

[Shaque]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2005, 07:10 PM
Fantics are fanatics, be they Shia or Whahabist. I can't imagine a more dangerout thing than a religious fundmantalist with a nuke, state or not.
What about Bush?

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Shaque+May 28 2005, 05:30 PM--> (Shaque @ May 28 2005, 05:30 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 30 2005, 07:10 PM
Fantics are fanatics, be they Shia or Whahabist. I can't imagine a more dangerout thing than a religious fundmantalist with a nuke, state or not.
What about Bush? [/b]
good point.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 06:05 PM
And this is good how?
The overthrow of a religious fundamentalist nation.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

"If all efforts to persuade Iran to drop its plans to produce nuclear weapons should fail, the U.S. administration will authorize Israel to attack," the paper quoted an Israeli security source as saying.
Nice of the U.S. the grant Israel permission to attack.

Heaven forbid any country does anything without the U.S's expressed, written consent.

Israel makes such a great lapdog.

Good boy! Want a Scooby snack? Now roll over, play dead.

No, I just said play dead. Oh, well. Somebody want to clean this up before it starts to fester and smell up the place.

[El_Revolucionario]

Iran has three times the population of Iraq, and three times the land area of Iraq.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Colombia+May 28 2005, 10:52 PM--> (Colombia @ May 28 2005, 10:52 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 06:05 PM
And this is good how?
The overthrow of a religious fundamentalist nation. [/b]
Actually, iran has a secular parliment and democracy.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by Clenched Fist+May 29 2005, 05:23 PM--> (Clenched Fist @ May 29 2005, 05:23 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:52 PM

[email protected] 31 2005, 06:05 PM
And this is good how?
The overthrow of a religious fundamentalist nation.
Actually, iran has a secular parliment and democracy. [/b]
Exactly. Iran is one of the more 'democratic' Islamic societies, compared with Saudi Arabia. The current President is a reformer. Women can vote in Iran, and they don't have to wear the burkas. People have a misconception of Iran, it's not the same as it was in the '70s and '80s.

[Colombia]

Let us turn to the subject of women in Iran.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objec...1B45&dsection=4 (http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=5BC9D9EA-B51C-442A-84799C5E74121B45&dsection=4)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/d...0256F85004F9623 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/document.do?id=1C2BD62C13D0F71F80256F85004F9623)

If a man thinks his wife is cheating on him in Iran, he may kill her with no problem. Women also cannot run for top executive offices in the government and suffer discrimination every day.

Iran may have democracy as you say, but the democracy is sure not for the women.

[Maynard]

To describe Iran as democratic or secular is a bit of a stretch, I would suggest you look up the Iranian Guardian Council who decided whether laws passed by parliament actually become laws, making the parliament somewhat meaningless

Israel won't attack Iran, they want to give the impression that they can and will but they won't, I don't believe for the foreseeable future at least. It is far more likely there will be as LAD pointed out, a bourgeois revolution, which Israel and the United States will try to influence.

[El_Revolucionario]

Of course, women suffer discrimination in Iran and the Guardian Council sucks. I was just saying that compared to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is a million times worse, and I don&#39;t see the U.S. beating the war drums against Saudi Arabia. <_<

Iran is being reformed, slowly but it is.

[Maynard]

I was just saying that compared to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is a million times worse, and I don&#39;t see the U.S. beating the war drums against Saudi Arabia.
You are right there. The Saudi Arabian regime is absolutely disgusting and of course, it is hyprocracy for the United States to go out of its way to make sure that it is protected but I don&#39;t think we want to get into moral relativism, where we attack Israeli Policies or US Policies, by "defending" nations like Iraq or Iran or by stating that there is worse, therefore, nothing should be done. The left should never stand for the status quo, in any place, therefore I believe we should support the overthrow of the religious fundamentalists in Tehran and Saudi Arabia, by those on the left.

[El_Revolucionario]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:51 PM

I was just saying that compared to Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is a million times worse, and I don&#39;t see the U.S. beating the war drums against Saudi Arabia.
You are right there. The Saudi Arabian regime is absolutely disgusting and of course, it is hyprocracy for the United States to go out of its way to make sure that it is protected but I don&#39;t think we want to get into moral relativism, where we attack Israeli Policies or US Policies, by "defending" nations like Iraq or Iran or by stating that there is worse, therefore, nothing should be done. The left should never stand for the status quo, in any place, therefore I believe we should support the overthrow of the religious fundamentalists in Tehran and Saudi Arabia, by those on the left.
As would I -- but I would never support an imperialist invasion by the U.S.

[ErikuSz -sXe-]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 06:37 PM
Iran is being reformed, slowly but it is.
A lot of students are involved in this proces.
A war would defenitly put an end to this though.

[bolshevik butcher]

Exactley, the right of self determination should be upheald, this generation of iranians will probably be much mroe secualr than the previous, and iran is much more dmeocratic than most places in the arba world.

[JC1]

If allowed to drift , Iran will move from a non-democratic Meiji Esque Regime to a
Democratic Style Bourgoise Dictatorship.

[Intifada]

The overthrow of a religious fundamentalist nation.

Replaced by what?

Another Iraq?

No thank you.

Iran is a reactionary state, but supporting a US imperialist-led invasion of the country is not a viable solution.

I&#39;d rather see gradual reform through the Iranian people themselves, than another invasion by Bush and his cronies.


Iran may have democracy as you say, but the democracy is sure not for the women.

Do you support an invasion of Israel?

They may have a democratic system in place, but ask Arabs about that benign system.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:58 AM
LONDON (Reuters) -
The Sunday Times said Israeli tactics included raids by elite commando units and air strikes by F-15 jets using bunker busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.
AP article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4967530,00.html)

The Bush administration has authorized the sale of as many as 100 large bunker-buster bombs to Israel. One expert said the move should serve as a warning to Iranians with nuclear ambitions.

What else is Israel for, after all, if not aggression by proxy?

LSD wrote:

Fantics are fanatics, be they Shia or Whahabist. I can&#39;t imagine a more dangerout thing than a religious fundmantalist with a nuke, state or not.

The current Iranian regime has been around for 26 years and hasn&#39;t been any more aggressive or irrational than other capitalist regimes. Hasn&#39;t even started any wars, though it came close against the Taliban at one point.

El Revolucionario&#39;s statement is true....relative to Saudi Arabia, as he said. Heck, in some ways women may be better off, in terms of access to education and employement for example, under the Iranian regime than in US-occupied Iraq.

[Lefty]

On one hand, I&#39;m not especially up in arms about people, no matter how sinister and Zionist and evil, getting rid of crazy religious fanatics that are building nukes.

On the other hand, I find it difficult (and quite immoral) to support a preemptive attack on a country, no matter how sinister and zealous and evil.

Before you flame me for being a Zionist fuck or whatever, ask yourself this, generic ignorant ANARKIST #12: What exactly do you have to gain by letting Iran have nukes? Seriously, how is supporting Iran&#39;s nuclear program at all revolutionary? They&#39;re some crazy, oppressive fucks, and in my opinion it&#39;s prooooobably for the good of the general populace of the world if they don&#39;t have the ability to take out entire metropolises in one fell swoop.