Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lone Cat**

murdog wrote:One-state solution is the only way imo.

(To Isreal-Palestine).

Iran will get a bomb if they want one. I don't think the Persians, after all these centuries, are going to risk annihilation by lobbing nukes at the mediterranean coast. Of course it will mean more nutjobs with nukes, but the world already has alot of that and will for some time. I just don't see how attacking these particular nutjobs will make things any better.

I believe they already had one.

**Huffy**

Mr Hyena wrote:

So what your saying is that YOUR prejudicial assumption is the problem with HIS article. Methinks the problem here is not the writer, but the reader.

So you deny the fact that Iran has said those things?

Certain members of the Iranian government have said things to this effect, however you also have to consider the issue from more than one viewpoint, simply by assuming that Iranians are nothing but america hating anti-semites is overlooking key political structures within the government and the dynamics of that region

**Mr Hyena**

And that makes it ok?

If that is the case...then aren't people looking at the Israeli Government through only one viewpoint?

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

Pacific wrote:Some interesting comments here, I would just like to add my own experiences to them.

Last year I went to Israel (Tel Aviv) on holiday to meet a good mate of mine (an Israeli). Picture this - basically a Mediterranean or South European town, with lots of cute little coffee shops, shopping malls, great beaches with hot women. But, the country is tiny, is sat in a valley, and is surrounded by countries who have gone on record to say they want the country destroyed. So its kind of like if you picked up Barcelona and whacked it in between Jordan, Iran and Lebanon. It could almost pass for such if you didn't have groups of 18 year old girls walking around with machine guns (doing their military service but accessorising at the same time) and searches for bombs before walking into the air-conditioned shopping malls. It's bloody bizarre. Everyone I spoke to, younger people or those my age, are absolutely convinced about the countries right to defend itself, which is fair enough if you look at it from their situation.

But, and this is the clincher I think, there is a MASSIVE divide in Israeli culture. You have 'sin city' (or Tel Aviv - their words) on the one hand, which is full of generally westernised people, fairly liberal (considering their circumstances) and generally not wanting the kind of stuff that we have just read about. I would liken the culture to Spain or maybe Italy. But then, you have the orthadox Jews, and this is where once again religion rears its ugly head. Basically all this 'claim the hilltops for our land to spread' is coming from the orthadox groups of the population (I should say men, because you NEVER see the women) and the heavy weight they carry in parliament. All the people setting up houses in the occupied territories, living in Gaza (I think you have to be slightly nuts to choose to live somewhere where a mortar could land on your house, when you have the option of living in a seaside apartment in Tel Aviv) and expanding into the 'Palestinian lands' are almost without exception orthodox Jews. The rest of the population (the majority, you see more orthadox Jews if you go to London than you do in Tel Aviv or most parts of Israel) frown on it, but the pendulum of power seems to swing backwards and forwards between the two groups - so you get years of relative peace, followed by the government being hard-headed like it is now.

So, don't get me wrong, I think the militants attacking Israel are in the wrong. But, it becomes impossible to forget that they have Israel next to them when there constant expansions into what they think is their own territory. It's ridiculous looking at the different areas in Israel, you have modern and western looking towns for the israelis, then look next to it and theres a crappy looking group of hovels owned by arabs, with dirty clothed kids hanging around it. So no doubt some of the aggression focused on Israel comes from resentment at the wealth of the country. I completely sympathise with with the people living in Israel, but they really need to get some kind of balanced government rather than having gun heads in charge like they have now - any aggression which happens now is making extra barriers to the other countries that ultimately they have to be neighbours with, and I worry it will ultimately end in tears for Israel as they are really such a small country despite their military power.

Aye, this is something I have picked up on in recent years. A few years back I was of the opinion Israel was the problem, being overly aggressive, although of course having a right to defend themselves, they often pushed it too far. However after looking into several pieces of written word on the situation, watching a few programs, once again it seems the root of any evil comes down to the 'hardcore' religious types. Who sadly make a bad name for themselves and an associated religion, be it Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

Whats really sad, and I am sure I would be called all sorts of nasty names for this in certain quarters of Israel and Iran, but when I see stories like the grown men screaming whore and worse at eight year old girls in Israel for wearing a uniform they don't like, I have to ponder, how similar they are to the hardcore Muslims they seem to hate, when it comes to degrading and dominating women, and enforcing their beliefs on others I see no difference in either group.

I do hope some kind of long time and communial peace can be found in the region eventually, but I have a sad feeling it might not happen in my lifetime.

**Pacific**

Mr Hyena wrote:
but they really need to get some kind of balanced government rather than having gun heads in charge like they have now

This probably won't happen until the arabs stop, you know, attacking. Its a vicious circle. The moment they stop and pull back, the moment the arab terrorists attack.

They have shown no desire for peace, not since the country was first founded. What makes you think they'll stop now?

Did you read the rest of my post though Mr Hyena?

Can you imagine what would happen if Mexicans started expanding the border of Mexico towards San Diego, saying it was their 'God-given right' to do so? I think that the response might be a little more than mortars and rocket attacks (well, there might be rockets, but I'm sure the topography of those expanded zones would alter substantially!)

A massive part of the problem is that Israel keeps, in the words of a previous Prime Minister, 'occupying the hilltops'. That the people doing this are a hardline (and some would say fundamentalist) minority does not make any difference to the arabs who had previously lived in the area. While a majority of a Israeli's might want the creation of a Palestinian state, the Isreali government will never allow it to happen because then any further encroachments into Palestinian lands would be seen as a breach of sovereign territory, which in turn would help the international community to act upon a legitimate grievance by that state.

So, while the Orthodox minority of Israelis keep holding so much power in government, this situation will continue to happen. Having visited Israel myself and with several good friends from that part of the world, I sympathise deeply with their situation, and I think like any pretty much any person on the planet they want the same thing; to live their lives peacefully, and to watch sports on a flatscreen TV.
But they themselves would be the first to admit that the way the government is behaving is doing nothing to help their situation.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Pacific wrote:*Every single post in this topic written by Pacific*

You express my stance in much better ways than I ever could. Stop it, you're making me feel bad!

**Bastion of Mediocrity**

Reading through this thread reminds me of why I so dislike extremism in all its forms. Nothing but trouble . . .

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
And then the same thing would happen all over again. European countries aren't exactly the best places to be sending them back to, right after what said countries did to them.

By said countries, do you mean "Germany"?

And every country in Eastern Europe, and Western Europe, and Southern Europe. Never heard anything about the Scandinavian countries though. When you have Swedish meatballs, you don't get mad at anyone.

**AustonT**

Mr Hyena wrote:

So what your saying is that YOUR prejudicial assumption is the problem with HIS article. Methinks the problem here is not the writer, but the reader.

So you deny the fact that Iran has said those things?

Do you deny that you tried to blame your own prejudice on someone else?

**Andrew1975**

When Iran runs around saying they want to destroy Israel at the UN and chants "Death to Israel and the US", all the while arming Iraqi insurgents can I really be blamed for my prejudice?

**Frazzled**

Andrew1975 wrote:When Iran runs around saying they want to destroy Israel at the UN and chants "Death to Israel and the US", all the while arming Iraqi insurgents can I really be blamed for my prejudice?

And Hamas, and Hezzbullah.

**Andrew1975**

On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during an interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.

Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

Just an update.

And Hamas, and Hezzbullah.

What about them?

**Frazzled**

Andrew1975 wrote:
On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during an interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.

Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

Just an update.

And Hamas, and Hezzbullah.

What about them?

Iran supports them.

**powerclaw**

I lived in Israel until 1997 and there where regular missile strikes from the north back then too. I don’t follow the world politics and I don’t know all of the details, but what I do know is that if some other country was being barraged by missiles there would be immediate and decisive action to stop it. It’s unfortunate that those opposing Israel use their own civilians as human shields and that the rest of the world thinks that for some reason they don’t have the right to defend themselves. The fact that Israel has managed to not only survive but also flourish (Pacific’s description of the towns is very accurate. Beautiful towns, friendly people, high standard of living) under the conditions that have been forced on them is amazing in itself.
I know for a fact that I’m biased in my opinions but as far as I’m concerned the rest of the Middle East is just embarrassed at how much better Israel has managed to become.

**Andrew1975**

Frazzled wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during an interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.

Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

Just an update.

And Hamas, and Hezzbullah.

What about them?

Iran supports them.

Oh, yes.

**AustonT**

Andrew1975 wrote:On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during an interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.
Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

GIANT TEXT FOR THE GIANT TEXT GOD.
anyway.
I'm pretty sure in the way back Iraq claimed it only wanted a nuclear powerplant for civilian purposes. That didn't stop Iran from bombing theirs ( and then Israel hit it too, they actually collaborated and shared intelligence)

**biccat**

But...it worked so well last time!

From September 2005:

The North's demands for a civilian nuclear program have become a sticking point, with Washington strongly resisting the notion, saying North Korea's record proves it can't be trusted with any atomic project.

**Andrew1975**

AustonT wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during an interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.
Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

GIANT TEXT FOR THE GIANT TEXT GOD.
anyway.
I'm pretty sure in the way back Iraq claimed it only wanted a nuclear powerplant for civilian purposes. That didn't stop Iran from bombing theirs ( and then Israel hit it too, they actually collaborated and shared intelligence)

Yeah i read that before I posted. Does anyone seriously believe that Iran only wants Nuclear power plants for peaceful purposes? Maybe they mean it will be peaceful after they nuc Israel.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Washington (CNN) -- The United States has moved to freeze assets of Iran's government and financial institutions, saying they had engaged in "deceptive practices," President Barack Obama's administration announced Monday.

An executive order signed Sunday by Obama freezes all assets of the Iranian government and banks held in the United States, according to John Sullivan, a Treasury Department spokesman.

Previously, recipients of Iranian funds covered by U.S. law were required to "reject" such transactions under sanctions first imposed in 1995, according to the Treasury Department.

"I have determined that additional sanctions are warranted, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran's activities," Obama said in a statement to Congress released by the White House.

Iran is under intense international pressure over its nuclear program, which the International Atomic Energy Agency has said may be designed to develop a nuclear weapon.

The new sanctions send Iran the message that "it will face ever-increasing economic and diplomatic pressure until it addresses the international community's well-founded and well-documented concerns regarding the nature of its nuclear program," the U.S. Treasury Department said in a fact sheet on the new sanctions.

Even prior to Monday's sanctions, dozens of Iranian companies, financial institutions and individuals were under Western sanctions related to the nuclear program. The United States has repeatedly sanctioned Iranian banks, companies and individuals over the nuclear program, most recently in January.

Also in January, the European Union announced a prohibition on oil imports from Iran and banned trade in petrochemical equipment and technology, diamonds and precious metals with the Middle Eastern state.

And the noose tightens. The problem I see is this makes Iran want the bomb even more becuase we don't treat north korea this way specifically because they have the bomb. But what choice does the US and it's allies have? We offered to help Iran with a peaceful nuclear production program if they would tone down their retheric, their response was basically that is was their right to have the program and they can spout out death to whomever they want.

**Mr Hyena**

The big problem is that Iran doesn't want the bomb for peace.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
And every country in Eastern Europe, and Western Europe, and Southern Europe. Never heard anything about the Scandinavian countries though. When you have Swedish meatballs, you don't get mad at anyone.

I mean, if we're just talking about antisemitism, why go anywhere at all?

Or, more properly, why not go to Asia where just being non-Asian was a problem?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:The big problem is that Iran doesn't want the bomb for peace.

I'm glad that, with your superfluous knowledge of Iran on a cultural and political level that you have been able to draw the conclusion that Iran is pursuing the bomb for not-peace.

Truly, you are guiding light of knowledge for us all.

biccat wrote:But...it worked so well last time!

From September 2005:

The North's demands for a civilian nuclear program have become a sticking point, with Washington strongly resisting the notion, saying North Korea's record proves it can't be trusted with any atomic project.

Are you under the impression that the only issue is whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons?

**murdog**

Mr Hyena wrote: The big problem is that Iran doesn't want the bomb for peace.

Or do they? Seems to me that it would be a powerful deterrent. Given that they are somewhat encircled by the US, whose goal is to remove the regime in Tehran and who cannot be matched conventionally, having nukes would probably be the best deterrent they could have.

**Mr Hyena**

Or do they?

Does nobody actually listen to what they say? Like how they want to wipe Israel off the map.

**dogma**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Does nobody actually listen to what they say? Like how they want to wipe Israel off the map.

The USA has apparently made energy independence a goal since Nixon.

And, well, here we are.

**Melissia**

Yes, well, we can't nuke ourselves in to energy independence.

**WarOne**

dogma wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Does nobody actually listen to what they say? Like how they want to wipe Israel off the map.

The USA has apparently made energy independence a goal since Nixon.

And, well, here we are.

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

U.S. energy independence relates to the goal of reducing the U.S imports of oil and other foreign sources of energy. If total energy is looked at, the U.S. is over 70% self-sufficient.

Source: http://www.ihs.com/products/cera/index.aspx

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:Yes, well, we can't nuke ourselves in to energy independence.

Well played.

**Filthy Sanchez**

It's all a very simple misunderstanding...

**murdog**

Maybe they say they want to wipe Isreal off the map, but how much of that is bluster, sabre-rattling and showmanship? How would they continue to rule Iran if they invite nuclear armageddon? The prime factor in all that Tehran does is regime survival - risking it all to destroy Isreal doesn't mesh with that.

**Mr Hyena**

murdog wrote:Maybe they say they want to wipe Isreal off the map, but how much of that is bluster, sabre-rattling and showmanship? How would they continue to rule Iran if they invite nuclear armageddon? The prime factor in all that Tehran does is regime survival - risking it all to destroy Isreal doesn't mesh with that.

Your willing to risk that on a whim?

**Frazzled**

murdog wrote:Maybe they say they want to wipe Isreal off the map, but how much of that is bluster, sabre-rattling and showmanship? How would they continue to rule Iran if they invite nuclear armageddon? The prime factor in all that Tehran does is regime survival - risking it all to destroy Isreal doesn't mesh with that.

You could say trhat NOW though.

Iran supports Hamas and Hessbullah finnaiclaly and via arms. The HHs routinely lob rockets into Israel killing Israelis. Israel has nukes now.
In effect they are attacking a nuclear power who could radiate them from stem to stern without reprisal.

If we're going down that road.
Iran actively supports forces in Iraq that were killing US soldiers and may be doing the same in Afghanistan.
We have more nukes than god and could radiate them from stem to stern without reprisal.

What do they do when they actually have a nuke?