http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull

The question here: Is a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuke facilities justified? Take into consideration the recent statements of the Iranian president regarding Israel.

Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear facilities in '81; the program never really recovered.

And Russia will help them deliver them:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

I have no grasp on the history between Iraq, Iran, Israel, and all the other countries that are home to people named Muhammad and El Zarqawajeeri....but I do know this: If somebody detonates a nuke over there, we're all fucked if it compromises the oil supply.

Iran is a sovereign nation, so I really don't see how it's anyone's place to tell them they can't have a nuclear program.

At the same time, Iran with nukes is pretty scary, especially when factoring in the oil supply, as mentioned by Bammer. It's got to be a million times scarier for Israelis.

Well, they DID sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which I assume (but don't know for sure) puts the IAEA in a place to tell them they can't have a nuclear program.

And it's position is . . . "stop, or we'll say stop again?"

And if it refers the matter to the UN Security Council, how will Russia, China, and France vote?

del

Who is uncertain Israel has nuclear weapons? They have not only nuclear, but biological and chemical weapons as well. I agree definitive proof does not exist regarding North Korea.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Isrhist.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

I think the lesson learned from Iraq is if you want to avoid being invaded and occupied you'd better have the most powerful deterant on the planet which is a nuclear arsenal.

In that case, what would happen to the oil supply? Does Tel Aviv have oil? How many people live there?

israel=united states

Saddam expressed a motive to bomb Israel. I think the first place Iran would bomb would be Israel.

We should invade and install a "democracy."

Explain.

The same treaty requires the US to dismantle its own bombs. This won't be happening anytime soon.

Explain.

I really want to understand this opinion.


--------------------------------

U.S. Army report: Israel can't stop Iran nukes



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, December 5, 2005
WASHINGTON — Geopolitical limitations render Israel's air force militarily incapable of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program according to a new report published the by U.S. Army War College.

The report asserts Israel lacks the military capability to locate and destroy Iranian nuclear assets. The report said the Israel Air Force cannot operate at such long distances from its bases.

"The Israeli Air Force has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-à-vis the other Middle East air powers, but Israel has no aircraft carriers and it cannot use airbases in other Middle East states," the report entitled "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran," said. "Therefore its operational capabilities are reduced when the targets are located far from its territory."

[On Sunday, Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz warned that diplomatic pressure would not stop Iran's nuclear weapons program, Middle East Newsline reported. Halutz was one of three senior Israeli officials who warned that Iran would soon be able to turn into a nuclear power.]

In an article authored by Shlomo Brom, former head of air force strategic planning, the report said Israel's deep-strike air capability was based on the F-15I and F-16C/D aircraft. At a range of more than 600 kilometers, Brom said, Israel could not sustain an air campaign. Iran is about 1,000 kilometers from Israel.

"It is possible to determine that at long ranges — more then 600 kilometers — the IAF is capable of a few surgical strikes, but it is not capable of a sustained air campaign against a full array of targets," the report said.

An Israeli air attack on Iran must also include such support aircraft as air refueling, electronic countermeasures, support, communication, and rescue, the report said. The mission would also require precision intelligence.

Brom said Israel's intelligence and military community was divided over the Iranian threat. He said military intelligence regards Iran as determined to destroy Israel. The Mossad and National Security Council see Teheran as preoccupied with national defense and regime survival.

"While the first school assumes no political pressure can force Iran to stop its military nuclear program, the other school believes that political pressure can be effective in at least delaying the nuclear program significantly," the report said. "The second school believes that a nuclear Iran with a different regime will not pose a high risk to Israel and can be easily deterred."

The report said the Bushehr nuclear power plant was vulnerable to attacks but does not constitute a key element of the military nuclear program. As a result, the destruction of Bushehr would not have a significant effect on Iran's military program.

Brom said Iranian nuclear assets are located between 1,500 and 1,700 kilometers from Israel. The report expressed doubts whether such Israeli allies as India and Turkey would allow Israel to launch a military strike from their territory.

"This means that the Israeli attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly 1,500-1,700 kilometers to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back 1,500-1,700 kilometers," the report said.

The Israel Air Force has 25 F-15I and 137 F-16C/D fighter-bombers. The air force has already received more than 20 F-16Is, with longer range on the F-15I, but the report said the F-15I aircraft contains greater capabilities at long ranges.

The report said the F-15I has an operational radius of 1,270 kilometers. The F-16I has an operational radius of 2,100 kilometers while that of the F-16C/D is 925 kilometers.

But the report said the real operational radius was shorter because the planes would have to fly at low altitude to avoid radar detection. Brom said the Israeli aircraft could avoid Iranian air defense but would be detected.

"In any case, any Israeli attack on an Iranian nuclear target would be a very complex operation in which a relatively large number of attack aircraft and support aircraft — interceptors, ECM [electronic counter-measures] aircraft, refuelers, and rescue aircraft — would participate," the report said. "The conclusion is that Israel could attack only a few Iranian targets and not as part of a sustainable operation over time, but as a one time surprise operation."

No it doesn't. It just says we can't sell our bombs to other countries. Hence "non-proliferation".

No, no, no. Don't you understand? Only negotiating and engaging in diplomacy with the leaders of Iran -- who happen to openly advocate the destruction of Israel -- and only through the effective governing world body, the United Nations, can we solve this problem. After all, the member countries of the United Nations do not act for their own, selfish interests but for the greater good of the world community. Better yet, they are not influenced by the corrupting forces of money and power. This makes the United Nations as relevant now as it has ever been in its 60 year history. Stupid.

So you think we should invade Iran and install a democracy?

No. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of advocates of more aggressive aproaches with Iran and North Korea, saying we should have focused on those two countries instead of Iraq when, meanwhile, the United Nations woud have solved the Iraq problems (however legitimate you may think they were) that had been festering since 1990 when it's embroiled with scandal and is failing miserably along the Syrian, Iranian, and North Korean fronts.

There was an awesome thread about Iran that Nick started that didn't get imported over with the new incarnation of the board in October of 2004. I quoted a great Chicago Tribune expose on Iran and the cultural revolution that is underway in the country. Iran will take care of itself in terms of installing a democracy. As far as negotiating the nuclear threat, sadly I believe the only way to obviate it is through the use of airstrikes similar to what Israel did with Iraq in the early 80's. The U.S. must NOT take part in it, though. We have more allies than people think in the Iranian youth. They are dying to be "westernized." The good thing is that something ridiculous like 70% of Iran's population is composed of people 30 and under. Again, they will take care of themselves.

What do you think?

Haven't been keeping up with things in Iran, have you?
A lot has changed in a year.
That's some extreme wishfull thinking on your part.
Had Rafsanjani won the election, things might be different (it's doubtful, though). Ahmadinejad has blood on his hands, he's close to the ayatollahs, he speaks constantly about a "worldwide Islamic revolution". There is zero chance of democracy in Iran for the forseeable future.
I predict a bloody government crackdown within the next year (it's probably going on right now).

No. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy of advocates of more aggressive aproaches with Iran and North Korea, saying we should have focused on those two countries instead of Iraq when, meanwhile, the United Nations woud have solved the Iraq problems (however legitimate you may think they were) that had been festering since 1990 when it's embroiled with scandal and is failing miserably along the Syrian, Iranian, and North Korean fronts.



First, you asked what I think, and I should say I agree with much of what you have written in your last post.

My opinion re: N. Korea and Iran was, and I think many others have a similar opininon, is not so much that we should have taken a harder line approach to them and left Iraq up the UN, but that when viewing the arguements for the current Iraq war, specifically Saddam's possesion of WMD, supposed connections to terrorism, and torture and tyranny of his people, most people look at N Korea and Iran and say, "Uhmmm, these two meet all of those criteria and there is no grey area on any of the documentation of their meeting said criteria, so why are we attacking Iraq?" And the arguement can be made that it is strategic, to provide us a stronger base and defense against aggression in that area of the world, but when it is dressed up as a war for democracy and pushed on the people through fear mongering, the campaign becomes at best a necessary war being fought under false pretenses and at worst a huge blunder draining untold billions of dollars and human life.


(I'm going to go ahead and submit that wasn't the most cohesive arguement so go ahead and pick it apart if you want to. And I'm not saying that sarcastically; fill in the holes you find.)


Iran will take care of itself in terms of installing a democracy. As far as negotiating the nuclear threat, sadly I believe the only way to obviate it is through the use of airstrikes similar to what Israel did with Iraq in the early 80's.

I hope you are right about Iran working toward democracy. Not sure if Israel striking at Iran is the best strategy, though as you pointed out the precedent has been set with the Iraqi strikes in the 80's. If they do, they better get it right or we may very well see a nuclear exchange in the Middle East.