We Invaded the Wrong Country!

[Ed]

You think? The US will be implicated in the attack, and quite rightly so - they can hardly claim not to have noticed the raid happen. The US is present right next door to Iran, and already have enough problems to contend with. Israel as a cat's-paw of US imperialism will gain credibility amongst Muslims - a few Hail Mary's won't atone for that. There's a limit to US commitment to Israel, AIPAC notwithstanding. Unless the tail really does wag the dog, Israel needs to take care.

I agree with your analysis except that, and this is important I think, I don't believe that the attitude toward the US vis a vis Isreal could get any worse. That in and of itself could be somewhat liberating for the Isrealis (and the US). I think that the fevered dreams of the arabs and the left on this score might be a self fulfilling prophecy. In the mind of the world there is nothing to protect, image wise. That is dangerous. I hear reports of funding continuing for HAMAS "for a while". Isreal might (rightly) look on this as more perfidy and be disinclined to have protected pets on one side and a growing threat on the other. And, if they are going to do it, now, while confusion reigns, is better than later.

I can't see the Brits invading Palestine again, they've been very forgiving of the murdering zionist terrorist bastards who created Israel. France, admittedly, has the least-zionist large Jewish population in the world, but they're fully-committed in Syria and Lebanon. The Germans are wracked by contrition; the Austrians, on the other hand, I will never trust, but neither does anybody else. Poles ditto, and no influence anyway. The Mediterranean members don't have much pull either. So, all in all, I wouldn't worry too much about being stabbed-in-the-back by the EU.

Turkey and Egypt are another matter.

That said, I think that, if things go on, HAMAS will become the norm and Isreal will be tut-tutted against when they respond to rocket attacks. Sorta the same situation as they have today.

I am not sure if it is for the best but an attack on Iran, by Isreal, wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Vagabond]

Estimates place them as being years away from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I've heard anywhere from several years to a decade.

Ah, and these are the same estimates that claimed Iraq was 6 months at most from getting a nuke, when they had no nuclear program whatsoever.

It's not that difficult to build a nuke, the main difficulty is getting plutonium which they can get with a reactor, which they have and are now using without any scrutiny. If they didn't think they were months at most away, they wouldn't have done what what they just did, at least not now. It doesn't do anything for them, unless they get a bomb.

 

[WildCat]

Leaving aside the subject of what most 'Murricans thought they were going to war for, which of the reasons have proved valid (I would trawl through the Joint Resolution just as most 'Murricans haven't if I could be arsed, but I can't).

If you won't read it, you'll never know... oh well, everyone has their meme to protect.

 

[Ed]

International atomic inspectors said last night that Iran had obtained designs to build the core of a nuclear weapon as the world's major powers agreed unanimously to report Teheran to the United Nations for possible sanctions.
In a show of unity unseen since before the Iraq war, the foreign ministers of America, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany said that they "shared serious concerns about Iran's nuclear programme".

They decided that tomorrow's emergency meeting of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will refer Iran to the UN Security Council.
Ali Larijani, Iran's chief negotiator, said such a move would mark "the end of diplomacy" and threatened to scale back nuclear inspections.
But Iran will come under further pressure after the release last night of an interim report by the IAEA deputy chief, Olli Heinonen, who said Iran was hampering his investigations into the strongest evidence so far that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons.
He said Iran had a 15-page document "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components". Inspectors had been allowed to see it, but not copy it.
"Iran has declined the agency's request to provide the agency with a copy of the document, but did permit the agency during its visit in January 2006 to examine the document again and to place it under agency seal," said the report.
Iran has in the past said a design to turn uranium into hemispheres - a shape used only for nuclear weapons - had been obtained inadvertently from the nuclear black market that supplied its uranium enrichment facilities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/01/wiran01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/01/ixnewstop.html

This sorta stuff suggests that they are pretty far along. Also the agreement between the Security Council states.

 

[Luke T.]

Dream on.

Kadima still looks good to go. Why stir the stew when the meat's in your portion? Consider all the things that could go wrong - and let's not forget this would be a raid, not an invasion. Planes might be lost. Bombs might go astray and kill innocent folk. Targets might not be destroyed. Iran might triumphantly reveal the existence of other sites, not targeted. And then there's the US reaction. I doubt they would clear Israel to act, and if Israel acts without US clearance they risk getting targeted by a significant military force. Let alone the political and diplomatic repurcussions vis-a-vis the US, which has a major presence between Israel and Iran, and troubles enough. Unless the Israelis think they have the US in the cricket position (aka by the balls) they ain't gonna try it.

I've been predicting this for some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor for the same reasons in 1981. No loss of planes. Target destroyed.

Except that reactor wasn't online. No nuclear fuel.

 

[Vagabond]

I've been predicting this for some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Israel bombed an Iraqi reactor for the same reasons in 1981. No loss of planes. Target destroyed.

Except that reactor wasn't online. No nuclear fuel.

What I have heard is the current setup is too far below ground to be destroyed by any conventional attack. Also as you point out, it's exceeding dangerous to try and take out a working reactor. You could just set the thing off or flood the atmosphere with radiation like Chernobyl which will spread over other countries including probably China and India who might not take it lightly.

 

[Tricky]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how can the US, without hypocrisy, demand that other countries not have nuclear weapons? What has the US done to show that they can be trusted not to use nukes when highly provoked?

As much as I dislike things in Iran, I cannot see how we can say, "Do as I say, not as I do," and expect anyone to respect us for it. The US should be working towards total elimination of nukes, including their own, if they expect to have any bargaining leverage. After all, there is only one country that has ever used nukes against a highly populated area.

 

[Cain]

Ah, and these are the same estimates that claimed Iraq was 6 months at most from getting a nuke, when they had no nuclear program whatsoever.

No, that was threat inflation from the White House. The ten year time-frame comes from the National Intelligence Estimate (and it's disputed by the administration).

It's not that difficult to build a nuke, the main difficulty is getting plutonium which they can get with a reactor, which they have and are now using without any scrutiny. If they didn't think they were months at most away, they wouldn't have done what what they just did, at least not now. It doesn't do anything for them, unless they get a bomb.

I cannot take this too seriously as it is not based on empirical evidence. There was also this whole idea that Saddam has WMDs and so of course he's going to allow weapons inspectors in because the goodies are HIDDEN away (possibly moved to Syria, right)!

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how can the US, without hypocrisy, demand that other countries not have nuclear weapons? What has the US done to show that they can be trusted not to use nukes when highly provoked?

As much as I dislike things in Iran, I cannot see how we can say, "Do as I say, not as I do," and expect anyone to respect us for it. The US should be working towards total elimination of nukes, including their own, if they expect to have any bargaining leverage. After all, there is only one country that has ever used nukes against a highly populated area.

Even the young Iranians who resent the government take this line.

And Ed, where have you heard a year or two?

 

[webfusion]

This was explained before..

Vagabond, I think someone already pointed out to you that NATANZ and ISFAHAN are sites that can be neutralized with bunker-busters (conventional) and there is not currently any radiactive material in these centrifuges.

Without the enrichment capabilites of these sites, there is no possibility of Iran going beyond non-energy utilization of the plutonium. In other words, Iran can still run her nuclear power plants, but be unable to process the fuel to the level needed for weapons.

Israel needs to destroy the NATANZ and ISFAHAN facilities prior to the delivery of nuclear materials. During this current period, the sites are not in operation, and do not have radioactive dangers to consider.
The Russians are due to make delivery of the first fuel shipment to NATANZ, as promised, in early April (they postponed it from last October, at the specific request of the Israelis, who felt that Iran might be persuaded to accept the processing of the fuel in Russia, along with strict supervision of the quantities made available. But, now Iran has rejected all that! As we know, Iran has publicly made the world aware of the moves to bring the NATANZ program to life).
I say March 20th is a likely target date for the raid on NATANZ, since it is one week before the Israeli elections, providing the maximum Headlines and offering Ehud Olmert a huge benefit in his election campaign, perhaps going beyond 50-seats.

(see: Menahem Begin, 1981)

 

[Vagabond]

Nobody pointed out anything of the kind and in any event it is irrelevant. My point was, is and continues to be there is NO logical reason for Iran to be doing this, or more precisely doing this now if they didn't think they could get a bomb soon. Why just make themselves a target for sanctions or attacks for no gain? What if they have a deal with somebody to perhaps give them so much plutonium for half that much back enriched. Or maybe even promised them a finished bomb for their services?

Does Israel even have any bunker buster bombs? Or planes big enough to carry one? They don't have any heavy bombers that I know of.

 

[Mycroft]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how can the US, without hypocrisy, demand that other countries not have nuclear weapons? As much as I dislike things in Iran, I cannot see how we can say, "Do as I say, not as I do," and expect anyone to respect us for it.

When the country is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, as Iran is, then we don’t need to hold them to our example, we only need to expect that they will do what they’ve agreed to do.

What has the US done to show that they can be trusted not to use nukes when highly provoked?

The last 60 years of history.

The US should be working towards total elimination of nukes, including their own, if they expect to have any bargaining leverage.

That’s a nice sparkly bright, warm and fuzzy, nutmeg scented, pastel-coloured goal to work for sometime in the future. In the meantime, some situations are more urgent than others. The democracy that developed nuclear weapons and hasn’t used them since is a low priority, the nut-case religious theocracy whose leaders have openly said that nuclear war would be acceptable while giving the evil eye to its neighbor down the block is a much higher priority.

After all, there is only one country that has ever used nukes against a highly populated area.

Which is how we know how bad nukes are. Before that, this knowledge was only theoretical.

 

[webfusion]

Yes, and Yes.

Does Israel even have any bunker buster bombs? Or planes big enough to carry one? They don't have any heavy bombers that I know of.

vagabond, you are misinformed.
Israel also has mid-air refueling c-135's and the mission to NATANZ is completely within the capabilities of the IAF.
In fact, the Israelis have especially-equipped their F-16's for exactly this operation, loaded with BLU-109 weapons and an upgraded American-supplied GPS guidance kit (GBU-31 JDAM).


I am not going to second-guess the Iranians or their motives.
They must figure Israel is not going to attack, or if it does, they can launch retaliation with their SHIHAB (North Korean 'dongs') and let the Israelis sort them out (which the USA is really anxious to see, as the Arrow and Green Pine system would get a full-scale wartime test in combat action).

Stick to what you know best, which ain't much, OK, vag?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Leaving aside the subject of what most 'Murricans thought they were going to war for, which of the reasons have proved valid (I would trawl through the Joint Resolution just as most 'Murricans haven't if I could be arsed, but I can't).

If by "valid", you mean" true", then all of them. If by "valid", you mean "sufficient justification for war", that's a matter of opinion.

 

[TheChadd]

It's funny how now even if bush wanted to he couldn't go to war against Iran...

 

[Art Vandelay]

We could go to war. It just would be very difficult to occupy.

 

[TheChadd]

We could go to war. It just would be very difficult to occupy.

Oh I'm aware you could go to war... launch missiles etc. Little skirmishes etc... However yea, I can't imagine occupying Iran.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how can the US, without hypocrisy, demand that other countries not have nuclear weapons? What has the US done to show that they can be trusted not to use nukes when highly provoked?

As much as I dislike things in Iran, I cannot see how we can say, "Do as I say, not as I do," and expect anyone to respect us for it. The US should be working towards total elimination of nukes, including their own, if they expect to have any bargaining leverage. After all, there is only one country that has ever used nukes against a highly populated area.

You can't really be comparing the US on a moral ground with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, can you? We just don't want dictators who advocate holocaust or genocide to start producing them. It's not hypocrisy, it's survival.
People still debate today whether or not we really needed to drop those eggs in 1945. Here, you have taken it completely out of historical context, denying that it accomplished it's objective at the time and inserted into a post-cold war debate on the morals of nuclear weapons. Not long before that, we were carpet bombing the crap out of Germany and taking a lot of political heat for that, as well. This all lead to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
The NNPT is what dictates who can and can't have nuclear weapons. The "Big 5" can have them and agree to not use them or sell the technology and the others agree not to build them and the Big 5 won't use them on the little guys. If a non-NWS country decides to build them, well, then they take their chances that the Big 5 won't like it.
I'm beginning to think we should take Jaques Chirac's toys away as well.
Or we could go back to the days when we used to rehearse hiding under our desks...

 

[corplinx]

State of the Union Speech speech: What? Me worry?

Charlie (props to Alfred E Newman) Monoxide

Take it as a passive acknowledgement of how tense the Iran situation is right now. Bush has to be very careful with what he says about Iran right now.

 

[corplinx]

It's funny how now even if bush wanted to he couldn't go to war against Iran...

You find it funny?

 

[a_unique_person]

Like watching someone playing roulette put their whole bundle on black, and red comes up.