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.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Well Iran says it wants Nuclear programs for peaceful reasons. I wasn't referring only to nuclear weapons programs. So if you play ball you can have your nuclear program.

They say that, but few others do, and it probably isn't. Its more complicated than "play ball v. not play ball" because the distinction, in IR, is never binary. That said, the desire for nuclear weapons doesn't indicate a desire to make war, per se.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you are unstable the world worries about who will eventually get your programs, therefor they don't want you to have them.

By world you mean "Western World", the rest are less prone to care. After all, that Western nuclear monopoly doesn't necessarily favor them.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Iran wants to and is able to, but they are paying a pretty hefty price for it. Now of course that is only more of an incentive to have one though.

Its not like the Western world was going to warm up to the Guardian Council if they didn't have a nuclear program. They might not be so aggressive in opposing them, but then again they weren't going to give back the nuclear technology that the West gave the Shah.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Would we be so upset if 3000 military contractors (Blackwater) got killed though?

Probably not, but I suspect that they would be thought of as soldiers/mercenaries more than civilians. There is a storied history of the differentiation in the West, and even under the GC.

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:They could have gone back to their European countries of origin, which is where the Holocaust victims came from in the first place.

As sad as it might seem... those countries didn't want them back.

**Ketara**

dogma wrote:

They could have gone back to their European countries of origin, which is where the Holocaust victims came from in the first place.

Israel exists because of Zionism, which in large part garnered greater popularity and support because of the desire to prevent another Holocaust from ever occurring. The Jews weren't put there by any stretch of the imagination, its where they wanted to go.

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"?

dogma wrote:

No one in Europe was, but then neither was anyone in the Middle East.

My point is that "The Jews needed somewhere to go." isn't really supported by the notion that Europe, collectively, would refuse to have them.

Hate to say it Dogma, but you're not actually really very correct here. You may be correct in the sense that there was no collective document/treaty signed by all the powers denying the Jews the right to go home and live happily ever after, but most countries refused to have the 'Jews' as a block unit, en masse, resettled within their confines individually, and in some countries, the Jews returning was simply untenable (check out the Polish pogroms post-war, or the cases of Jews returning to France and being unable to recover their property, or children). Nazism let the can of worms known as anti-semitism out in the countries they conquered, and those fears of/anger towards the Jews often remained even after Hitler's regime fell. (See here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Eastern_Europe,_1944%E2%80%931946 )

There were efforts made by the US to give Jewish emigrants to the US priority, Truman in particular ordered that widows and orphans be given preference in emigration quotas, and the amended Displaced Person Act of 1950 also made it easier to emigrate to the States. However, that's five years post war. What we find is that immediately post war, there's a lot of Jews hanging around in the ruins of the camps, without a penny to their name, a place to go, or a way of supporting themselves. And no-one really knew what to do with them.

Zionism did begin to rear its head amongst the survivors, but one of the main driving reasons behind that was the lack of other destinations or possibilities. Combine that with the reinforcement of their beliefs for many Jews, and the Jewish fixation on Jerusalem and the holy land ('Next year, in Jerusalem!'), and Palestine seemed the obvious choice out of few alternatives. The British were far from thrilled at the prospect of a load of Jews descending en masse on Palestine, and it took as much international pressure from the US as could be brought to bear to even make them consider the prospect. There were several rather annoyed exc hanges between the US and Uk Governments on the issue. Then the French waded in to support the US, partially because they enjoy annoying the British, and partially because they didn't want all these Jews coming back to France, and Britain reluctantly began to give ground. But rather than take the Jews into British controlled territories themselves, the British were content to let them sit in camps off of Cyprus for a considerable time:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_internment_camps

**Mr. Burning**

Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:They could have gone back to their European countries of origin, which is where the Holocaust victims came from in the first place.
As sad as it might seem... those countries didn't want them back.

Sad but true. There are inumberable accounts of Jewish families going back to their homes only to find apathy and hostility to their return. Anrti semitism is still rife in europe and there is no NASDAP membership to excuse it.

**Pacific**

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.

**Melissia**

Yeah, the orthodox Jews kinda have a bit too much power...

People have called me a Zionist before because I believe in Israel's right to defend itself, which is horsegak. I don't care about Zionism, it's just that part of a government's duties are to defend its civilian population.

But then I'm called anti-semite because I believe that the Jewish settlers in Palestine are nothing more than bandits, going out and stealing and murdering to take land and homes that don't belong to them.

Which leaves me a question-- So which am I then, an anti-semite or a Zionist? Neither one of course, but that doesn't stop the names being thrown around...

**Huffy**

Melissia wrote:Yeah, the orthodox Jews kinda have a bit too much power...

People have called me a Zionist before because I believe in Israel's right to defend itself, which is horsegak. I don't care about Zionism, it's just that part of a government's duties are to defend its civilian population.

But then I'm called anti-semite because I believe that the Jewish settlers in Palestine are nothing more than bandits, going out and stealing and murdering to take land and homes that don't belong to them.

Which leaves me a question-- So which am I then, an anti-semite or a Zionist? Neither one of course, but that doesn't stop the names being thrown around...

I fall into this camp^

To be honest, I feel that there will never be a good ending to this story. Having known several Israelis and Palestinians/Arabs....There is so much hate in there that it can only end with one side or the other being destroyed. And on a personal note, I don't think it's a conflict Israel can win in the long run(100 years or so)

**Mr Hyena**

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?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

It's worth remembering that being critical of the Israel government does not make a person anti-semitic. In the past I've had to convince people on this forum that just because I criticise the US government doesn't make me anti-american. God knows I've got reason to after sitting through Jimmy Carter's inauguration speech!!!!

Anyway, back OT. I've decided to post this article from a thread I started last year about why Iran SHOULD have the bomb. This is to stimulate the debate a bit more.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America's Nato ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refuelling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to "attack Iran" and "cut off the head of the snake".

Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.

The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.

If that wasn't worrying enough, your country seems to be under (covert) attack. Several nuclear scientists have been mysteriously assassinated and, late last year, a sophisticated computer virus succeeded in shutting down roughly a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. Only last weekend, the "pioneer" of the Islamic Republic's missile programme, Major General Hassan Moghaddam, was killed – with 16 others – in a huge explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base 25 miles outside Tehran. You go online to discover western journalists reporting that the Mossad is believed to have been behind the blast.

And then you pause to remind yourself of the fundamental geopolitical lesson that you and your countrymen learned over the last decade: the US and its allies opted for war with non-nuclear Iraq, but diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea.

If you were our mullah in Tehran, wouldn't you want Iran to have the bomb – or at the very minimum, "nuclear latency" (that is, the capability and technology to quickly build a nuclear weapon if threatened with attack)?

Let's be clear: there is still no concrete evidence Iran is building a bomb. The latest report from the IAEA, despite its much discussed reference to "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme", also admits that its inspectors continue "to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at [Iran's] nuclear facilities". The leaders of the Islamic Republic – from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – maintain their goal is only to develop a civilian nuclear programme, not atomic bombs.

Nonetheless, wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes? The US government's Nuclear Posture Review admits such weapons play an "essential role in deterring potential adversaries" and maintaining "strategic stability" with other nuclear powers. In 2006, the UK's Ministry of Defence claimed our own strategic nuclear deterrent was designed to "deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means".

Apparently, what is sauce for the Anglo-American goose is not sauce for the Iranian gander. Empathy is in short supply. As leading US nuclear policy analyst George Perkovich has observed: "The US government never has publicly and objectively assessed Iranian leaders' motivations for seeking nuclear weapons and what the US and others could do to remove those motivations." Instead, the Islamic Republic is dismissed as irrational and megalomaniacal.

But it isn't just Iran's leaders who are unwilling to back down on the nuclear issue. On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Their protest may have been organised by the authorities but even the leaders and members of the opposition Green Movement tend to support Iran's uranium enrichment programme. According to a 2010 University of Maryland survey, 55% of Iranians back their country's pursuit of nuclear power and, remarkably, 38% support the building of a nuclear bomb.

So what is to be done? Sanctions haven't worked and won't work. Iranians refuse to compromise on what they believe to be their "inalienable" right to nuclear power under the Non-proliferation treaty. Military action, as the US defence secretary Leon Panetta admitted last week, could have "unintended consequences", including a backlash against "US forces in the region". The threat of attack will only harden the resolve for a nuclear deterrent; belligerence breeds belligerence.

The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes. If a nuclear-armed Iran is to be avoided, US politicians have to dial down their threatening rhetoric and tackle the very real and rational perception, on the streets of Tehran and Isfahan, of America and Israel as military threats to the Islamic Republic. Iranians are fearful, nervous, defensive – and, as the Middle East map shows, perhaps with good reason. As the old adage goes, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

**Mr Hyena**

Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

This is the problem with that article. It assumes we're terrorists.

**AustonT**

Melissia wrote:Yeah, the orthodox Jews kinda have a bit too much power...

People have called me a Zionist before because I believe in Israel's right to defend itself, which is horsegak. I don't care about Zionism, it's just that part of a government's duties are to defend its civilian population.

But then I'm called anti-semite because I believe that the Jewish settlers in Palestine are nothing more than bandits, going out and stealing and murdering to take land and homes that don't belong to them.

Which leaves me a question-- So which am I then, an anti-semite or a Zionist? Neither one of course, but that doesn't stop the names being thrown around...

You are a Zionist Anti-Semite, obviously. It's the same kind of extremism and labeling that surrounds other things. If you don't want the bible taught in public schools you are a godless socialist. If you don't go to OWS and shower on a regular basis you are a corporate lackey. There's just no winning with some people. With real Zionists and real anti Semites there really is just no winning.

**Andrew1975**

They say that, but few others do, and it probably isn't. Its more complicated than "play ball v. not play ball" because the distinction, in IR, is never binary.

Its is never binary, true, but neither is playing ball. Iran does not get along with the west at all.

That said, the desire for nuclear weapons doesn't indicate a desire to make war, per se.

No, that's true too. But Iran has pretty much let it be known what they would do if they got the bomb.

By world you mean "Western World", the rest are less prone to care. After all, that Western nuclear monopoly doesn't necessarily favor them.

Well the UN is not too happy about it. You could counter with the UN being run by the west, but that is not 100% accurate.

Its not like the Western world was going to warm up to the Guardian Council if they didn't have a nuclear program. They might not be so aggressive in opposing them, but then again they weren't going to give back the nuclear technology that the West gave the Shah.

No they wouldn't warm up to them because they don't play ball. It's always been the same message from Iran. Why would we warm up to someone who refers to us as the great Satan? Play ball and tone down your rhetoric and maybe they will let Iran have Nuclear energy without a big hassle.

On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

Trying to convince the world you should have Nuclear capability. You're doing it wrong!

**Huffy**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

This is the problem with that article. It assumes we're terrorists.

Since when does being an Iranian mullah make you a terrorist?

**Mr Hyena**

Huffy wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

This is the problem with that article. It assumes we're terrorists.

Since when does being an Iranian mullah make you a terrorist?

Since declaring the Holocaust as a lie and desiring to Jihad the jewish and the 'Great Satan'

**Andrew1975**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Huffy wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

This is the problem with that article. It assumes we're terrorists.

Since when does being an Iranian mullah make you a terrorist?

Since declaring the Holocaust as a lie and desiring to Jihad the jewish and the 'Great Satan'

Since providing support to the insurgents in Iraq.

**AustonT**

Mr Hyena wrote:
Huffy wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.

This is the problem with that article. It assumes we're terrorists.

Since when does being an Iranian mullah make you a terrorist?

Since declaring the Holocaust as a lie and desiring to Jihad the jewish and the 'Great Satan'

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.

**Lone Cat**

Ketara wrote:
dogma wrote:

They could have gone back to their European countries of origin, which is where the Holocaust victims came from in the first place.

Israel exists because of Zionism, which in large part garnered greater popularity and support because of the desire to prevent another Holocaust from ever occurring. The Jews weren't put there by any stretch of the imagination, its where they wanted to go.

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"?

dogma wrote:

No one in Europe was, but then neither was anyone in the Middle East.

My point is that "The Jews needed somewhere to go." isn't really supported by the notion that Europe, collectively, would refuse to have them.

Hate to say it Dogma, but you're not actually really very correct here. You may be correct in the sense that there was no collective document/treaty signed by all the powers denying the Jews the right to go home and live happily ever after, but most countries refused to have the 'Jews' as a block unit, en masse, resettled within their confines individually, and in some countries, the Jews returning was simply untenable (check out the Polish pogroms post-war, or the cases of Jews returning to France and being unable to recover their property, or children). Nazism let the can of worms known as anti-semitism out in the countries they conquered, and those fears of/anger towards the Jews often remained even after Hitler's regime fell. (See here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Eastern_Europe,_1944%E2%80%931946 )

There were efforts made by the US to give Jewish emigrants to the US priority, Truman in particular ordered that widows and orphans be given preference in emigration quotas, and the amended Displaced Person Act of 1950 also made it easier to emigrate to the States. However, that's five years post war. What we find is that immediately post war, there's a lot of Jews hanging around in the ruins of the camps, without a penny to their name, a place to go, or a way of supporting themselves. And no-one really knew what to do with them.

Zionism did begin to rear its head amongst the survivors, but one of the main driving reasons behind that was the lack of other destinations or possibilities. Combine that with the reinforcement of their beliefs for many Jews, and the Jewish fixation on Jerusalem and the holy land ('Next year, in Jerusalem!'), and Palestine seemed the obvious choice out of few alternatives. The British were far from thrilled at the prospect of a load of Jews descending en masse on Palestine, and it took as much international pressure from the US as could be brought to bear to even make them consider the prospect. There were several rather annoyed exc hanges between the US and Uk Governments on the issue. Then the French waded in to support the US, partially because they enjoy annoying the British, and partially because they didn't want all these Jews coming back to France, and Britain reluctantly began to give ground. But rather than take the Jews into British controlled territories themselves, the British were content to let them sit in camps off of Cyprus for a considerable time:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_internment_camps

That's the shame for french people. while majority of them cried out for freedom after Germany conquered their homeland. a considerable amounts of frenchmen chose to follow the dark path of Fascism of their bloodthirsty master. with or without Petain's gunpoint. are you saying that Fascism/Nazism spreaded in the same way the French Revolution ideology had been carried along with Napoleon's conquest?

The reasons Brits detaines Jews in cyprus for a considerable amount of years is because they expected they will fight wars against arabians outright (or Arabians will taunt them to fight wars). and they are unable to undo the mistakes Romans did in Levant. i donno if Brits has any plans to prevent the two races to fight wars against each other? but... there were the same Sicarii echos organizations existed in 30s-40s. killing Arabians and some Brits officials alike. (the leader might think Brits are Romans and Arabians are Herod's goons)

Maybe another reasons that foster Nazism thinkings in 40s and beyond was of that the ugly fact that Jews had founded an organized crime! pretty much same way as Chinese triads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime#Jewish-American_organized_crime_and_Israel

**murdog**

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.

**Andrew1975**

The thing is that is doesn't matter what the world thinks. Israel does not want Iran to have the bomb, and Israel has shown that they have ways of stopping their enemies from attaining the bomb. The issue will be dealing with the fallout of Israeli strikes on Iran.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:The thing is that is doesn't matter what the world thinks. Israel does not want Iran to have the bomb, and Israel has shown that they have ways of stopping their enemies from attaining the bomb. The issue will be dealing with the fallout of Israeli strikes on Iran.

Which is why it matters what the world thinks.

Also, Israel's ability to directly prevent Iran from having the bomb is limited. Syria is right next door, Iran is not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:You may be correct in the sense that there was no collective document/treaty signed by all the powers denying the Jews the right to go home and live happily ever after, but most countries refused to have the 'Jews' as a block unit, en masse, resettled within their confines individually, and in some countries, the Jews returning was simply untenable (check out the Polish pogroms post-war, or the cases of Jews returning to France and being unable to recover their property, or children).

Oh, I don't mean to claim it was a case of happily ever after, I mean that regardless of what was done with the Jews the result wasn't going to be good.

As you point out below, even Britain, the country eventually responsible for the Mandate territory, required extensive pressure from the US in order to accept their presence. The point is that they didn't need anywhere to go, the point is that powerful people wanted to send them somewhere. Most nations seemed happy to let them rot.

**Andrew1975**

Which is why it matters what the world thinks.

Also, Israel's ability to directly prevent Iran from having the bomb is limited. Syria is right next door, Iran is not.

Yes in the fallout it will matter. Seeing as Iran is even more isolated than Israel though, I don't think Israel has too much to worry about. It may just be my opinion, but I think most people given a choose would choose Israel over Iran. More to the point Israel has more powerful allies than Iran and enjoys a more favorable position in the UN. Not that Israel really needs help, they have always been able to handle themselves.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:Seeing as Iran is even more isolated than Israel though, I don't think Israel has too much to worry about. It may just be my opinion, but I think most people given a choose would choose Israel over Iran. More to the point Israel has more powerful allies than Iran and enjoys a more favorable position in the UN. Not that Israel really needs help, they have always been able to handle themselves.

When people attack them. Projecting force is a whole different matter.

But, as far as fallout goes, its not a matter of picking sides so much as becoming increasingly wary of hitching the cart to Israel.

I've had numerous conversations about this, but the thrust of it is often:

US citizen X: We must support Israel.

Me: Why?

US citizen X generally follows up with one of a number of responses, but the common ones (abbreviated) are:

1: You're antisemitic. (Not true, by necessity, on its face. Asking a question about why we should support a particular state is not antisemitic.)

2: They're the only civilized people in the Middle East. (A better argument, but still bad because it basically hearkens to the Greek understanding of civilization, which was "Greek". This is basically a claim that being the most Western, makes Israel the best ally, which isn't necessarily true.)

3: We've always supported them. (Obviously not a great argument, as something being smart in the past does not make it smart in the future.)

4: The Israelis are more morally upstanding than the other nations in the region. (The comparison isn't really valid, as we aren't choosing who to support, but whether or not we want to support Israel. Moreover, I consider moral fiber to be secondary to states' interests, though many will disagree. A good argument in general conversation, but not if you're talking to policy people.)

**Melissia**

Generally the best reason for a state to defend Israel is because Israel is a good trading partner. But the same could be said of many of the other Middle-Eastern states.

**Andrew1975**

Yeah, I hear those same reasons all the time. I'm not a traditionalist, I'm more of a none interventionist. I have no particular love for Israel, except that I do love that they seam to be able to take on all comers and whip ass. If I had to choose between Iran and Israel it's an easy one. But my opinion doesn't really matter, what does matter is that on a international stage Israel is going to get more support than Iran and the support that Iran will get will be sabre rattling at the most and vetos votes from Russia and China on any UN resolutions.

The public support Israel would get might not be much either if they strike Iran's Nuclear facilities, but if Iran then attacked I believe Israeli support would show up. It would be interesting to see how Israel goes about it. Airstrikes are probably out, but Israel is quite adept at espionage as they showed by taking out the scientist. If Israel goes the clandestine route it would be interesting to see how Iran responds.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:But my opinion doesn't really matter, what does matter is that on a international stage Israel is going to get more support than Iran and the support that Iran will get will be sabre rattling at the most and vetos votes from Russia and China on any UN resolutions.

They'll get more support from the West, but they're not the only countries that matter anymore.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Airstrikes are probably out, but Israel is quite adept at espionage as they showed by taking out the scientist. If Israel goes the clandestine route it would be interesting to see how Iran responds.

No one is sufficiently adept at espionage to destroy a well established nuclear program.

**Andrew1975**

They'll get more support from the West, but they're not the only countries that matter anymore.

Absolutely, but who when you put support on a scale it is still going to go Israels way.

No one is sufficiently adept at espionage to destroy a well established nuclear program.

Depends on your definition of espionage. 911 was basically espionage. You don't have to destroy the whole program, just one of it's many parts.

**dogma**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Depends on your definition of espionage. 911 was basically espionage. You don't have to destroy the whole program, just one of it's many parts.

Well, no, that's not the problem. Destroying one of many parts doesn't necessarily do anything, this has been a huge part of the debate over a military option.

And the comparison of flying a plane into a civilian facility to attacking a fortified military facility is far from one-to-one.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Just theroetically, as someone who doesn't know: If Israel nuked the Iranian nuclear facilities, could the resulting radiation be blamed on the facilities themselves?

**dogma**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just theroetically, as someone who doesn't know: If Israel nuked the Iranian nuclear facilities, could the resulting radiation be blamed on the facilities themselves?

Depends on bomb type.

But generally, sure, anything is possible.

A thing need not be true to be convincing.

**Mr Hyena**

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?