What will Iran bomb first?

[Dragoonster]

When did I claim it would? Maybe you could argue what I say instead of the straw men you are so fond of?

I'm asking you questions because your points aren't clear. You apparently call a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a continuation of the attack Iran makes on Israel via their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm trying to find out if I'm reading you right. Or if you're talking about a different sort of attack.

It's astonishing to me that you're still using words like "preemptive" to describe an attack on a nation that has been attacking another nation for years through proxies. What color is the sky in your world? Israel will do what it feels necessary to defend itself against Iran's unprovoked aggression.

Unprovoked? How can Iran be attacking Israel via proxies but Israel not be attacking Iran via proxies? If Hamas & Hezbollah = Iran, then Israel is attacking Iran as well. Thus an Iranian attack wouldn't be preemptive either, and it would be as justified as an Israel attack. You seem to be advocating different rules for the same situation.

We know the only thing preventing Iran from expanding its aggression from proxy war to direct attack is Israeli military superiority. Certainly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons changes that dynamic.

An Iranian ground force having to cross through either Turkey or Iraq, then Syria doesn't prevent a direct attack? Your "knowledge" claims are exaggerated.

Or do you mean solely an air/missle attack? How would nukes change that? They wouldn't, the IDF would still have massive superiority for both.

So...exactly what direct attack are you talking about here? If you don't want me to strawman you, start putting forth specific arguments.

Guarantee? This is the real world... I can't guarantee I will make it home alive the next time I get behind the wheel of my car. Maybe things can be guaranteed on Planet X, but not here.

You just claimed the US has the ability to defang Iran through air power alone. Were you again exaggerating?

 

[WildCat]

I'm asking you questions because your points aren't clear. You apparently call a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a continuation of the attack Iran makes on Israel via their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm trying to find out if I'm reading you right. Or if you're talking about a different sort of attack.

Here's the point: Iran has been waging an unprovoked war on Israel for years now. If Israel decides it is not in their interest to allow Iran to acquire weapons with which Iran could more effectively attack Israel they certainly have that right.

Unprovoked? How can Iran be attacking Israel via proxies but Israel not be attacking Iran via proxies? If Hamas & Hezbollah = Iran, then Israel is attacking Iran as well. Thus an Iranian attack wouldn't be preemptive either, and it would be as justified as an Israel attack. You seem to be advocating different rules for the same situation.

because Israel is not attackling Iran! They are defending themselves against the proxy army trained, funded, supplied, and armed by Iran which has attacked and continues to attack Israel proper. Israel has never attacked Iran, either directkly or by proxy.

An Iranian ground force having to cross through either Turkey or Iraq, then Syria doesn't prevent a direct attack? Your "knowledge" claims are exaggerated.

Or do you mean solely an air/missle attack? How would nukes change that? They wouldn't, the IDF would still have massive superiority for both.

So...exactly what direct attack are you talking about here? If you don't want me to strawman you, start putting forth specific arguments.

It's quite simple - Iran is actively attacking Israel through its proxy armies Hamas and Hezbollah. It is certainly not in Israel's interests for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, which could only embolden them to step up their attacks once they are protected by the nuclear umbrella. Or who knows, maybe they decide to nuke Israel directly in order to bring the return of the 12th Imam.

You just claimed the US has the ability to defang Iran through air power alone. Were you again exaggerating?

How does that entail an exaggeration? You demanded a guarantee, I pointed out that there is no such thing in the real world. There are only degrees of certainty.

It seems to me that some people here have the impression that Iran is some innocent little country, minding it's own business, being bullied by the big bad evil US and Israel.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Or who knows, maybe they decide to nuke Israel directly in order to bring the return of the 12th Imam.

I just love when the crazy comes out while ranting about how crazy they are.

 

[WildCat]

I just love when the crazy comes out while ranting about how crazy they are.

Yeah, because a country run by Shiite Islamic fundies would never try to carry out the core belief of their religion. They'll stop with stoning prostitutes, hanging homosexuals, repressing other religions, etc... but never even think about that 12th Imam! Just like you'd have no problems with fundamentalist Christian Zionists in charge of the US nuclear stockpile I'm sure.

 

[Pardalis]

You're the one who brought up Godwin. Let me guess... You think that is the intellectual way to react to a mention of Hitler?

What are you babbling about?

Making a comparison with Hilter when the discussion has nothing to do with WW2 is Godwin.

What the hell is this ridiculous conversation?

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. Iran has said it will retaliate. It has not said it would strike first. America hasn't taken a first strike off the table.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about Iran's rhetoric of "death to Israel" which was used before the present tensions.

It's America's ... America.

Again, not the topic of this thread, and nothing to do with my question.

You're a one-track mind, you might want to go check this out with a professional.

What evidence do you have that Iran would attack a nuclear power?

Its own words.

The only reasons Iran has not been bombed is because Iran has promised to retaliate with force -- and America believes that promise.

I think it's the opposite, the only reason Israel is still there today is because of the US.

This is pointless, the rest of your post is again about the US, so we're going in circles, and besides, the conversation ended with your Hitler nonsense.

 

[Pardalis]

So according to Wildcat, Israel is to blame for attacking Iran, not Saddam.Because the US, being Israels Ally, funded Saddam in the first place.

More so did France and Germany. Ziggurat or Wildcat mentioned that with evidence a few dozen pages ago, you might want to go back and read.

 

[RandFan]

It's better than flatly asserting something which may not be true.

The worst of two evils is only of value you when you have a dichotamy. Surely you have other options.

You seemed to be arguing that nations with nukes don't have many security advantages over those which don't, or even net disadvantages.

Our nukes didn't protect us from 9/11 and it ensures that other nations with nukes have them pointed at us.

The US gave a multitude of pretexts--humanitarian concern, breaking UN resolutions, Iraq firing at fly-by planes, Iraq linked to 9/11, WMDs as either a program or actually existing, false Iraqi "intelligence" sources, etc. They went from one to the other as soon as each looked weak. They both cited UN resolutions, and reneged on putting forth a final resolution because it wouldn't have passed. They cited UN and IAEA searches and documents, and disputed Hans Blix's ongoing searches.

So is there some confusion on your part or are you square now?

I don't. But far too many of them are of our making.

I don't know how many are too many. I'm guessing you don't control for your own bias when it comes to analysis?

And someone supporting US foreign policy there shouldn't even mention democracy as a serious goal. For decades our closest non-Israel allies have been extremely anti-democratic. Saudi Arabia is the least democratic Arab nation, until a few years ago not having any government positions open to voting, whereas all others at least allowed it for some of their legislature. Pakistan was at the time of our recent alliance a military dictatorship. We overthrew or helped to overthrow democracies in favor of supposedly stable dictators in the past. And despite our lauding of democracy, when Palestinians elected Hamas via a fair election, we refused to recognize them as a legitimate government and instead supported the coup of Fatah, helping to overthrow yet another democracy.

We are venturing into a rather large area of contention. I don't see the point of debating every instance. I certainly don't see America's intervention the way you do. It's mixed. Some good some bad. What's the net? I'm guessing it depends on one's bias.

Our history is that we base our alliances on friendliness and comportment to our policies, regardless of whether the ally is a democracy or dictatorship.

Overly simplistic.

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are.

Again, I think that is a bit overly simplistic.

 

[FireGarden]

What are you babbling about?

Making a comparison with Hilter when the discussion has nothing to do with WW2 is Godwin.

What the hell is this ridiculous conversation?

[...] This is pointless, the rest of your post is again about the US, so we're going in circles, and besides, the conversation ended with your Hitler nonsense.

So my guess was right: you think that the intellectual way to respond to a mention of Hitler is to say "Godwin" and move on.

You can't deny that it is Bush who has been aggressive and caused the deaths of many people. Acts of which Hitler is an example. If Bush had left money under my pillow, I might have compared him to the tooth fairy. There are probably some on Wall Street who do -- but they're the sort who understand a comparison doesn't have to be exact.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about Iran's rhetoric of "death to Israel" which was used before the present tensions.

It is what we are supposed to be talking about. Follow your own advice and read the title of the thread and the question in the poll: "What place will Iran bomb first as retaliation?"

I've not tried to hide that Iran wants to see the end of Israel. The comparison they have used most is the end of the USSR. You have not made the case that Iran intends to destroy Israel by starting a war. Israel cannot sustain itself anymore than the USSR could. Olmert himself has said that Israel is finished without a two-state solution.

So all you're left with is rhetoric and no intent to attack -- unless Iran is attacked first.

If you take Wildcat's point about Hezbollah... Hezbollah was started in the 1980's as a resistance army. It was succesful in forcing Israel out of Lebanon and in getting prisoners released. Today, they talk about stopping Israeli fighters flying in Lebanese skies and getting back the Shebbah Farms. And, actually, I would say that Hezbollah is another reason why Iran has NOT been attacked. Israel tried to take out Hezbollah and saw how difficult it would be. Syria would be Hezbollah on steroids. Iran would be Syria on steroids. Hence -- no war. Iran will not start it. And neither will Israel.

Again, not the topic of this thread, and nothing to do with my question.

Your question is not the topic of this thread. America, as a target of Iranian retaliation, is a topic of this thread.

I think it's the opposite, the only reason Israel is still there today is because of the US.

I would agree in the sense that there would be boycotts against Israel -- just like there were boycotts against apartheid South Africa.

But your belief is that Iran would bomb Israel if America agreed not to do anything about it. You can't give any evidence to support that belief.

OTOH, I have given evidence to support my belief that America would bomb Iran if Iran could not defend itself: How many times has Pakistan -- nuclear powered ally of America -- been bombed by America? I haven't counted. I suppose you really like the rhetoric coming out of Pakistan at the moment: "Oh please. Please.... We're your friend."

 

[Dragoonster]

The worst of two evils is only of value you when you have a dichotamy. Surely you have other options.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Your quote was "Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war." Quite an oversure statement imo, and I gave an example where it may indeed have stopped conventional war.

Our nukes didn't protect us from 9/11 and it ensures that other nations with nukes have them pointed at us.

9/11 wasn't an invasion. Nukes would likely protect Iran from an invasion. Iran is much, much, much more capable of being invaded than the United States (I hope that opinion isn't biased).

So is there some confusion on your part or are you square now?

Huh? You asked what pretext could be used to attack Iran, implying (or so I thought) that it would be difficult for the US to form one. It wouldn't be, I gave a slew of various pretexts proffered in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and how some could be applied to Iran.

I don't know how many are too many. I'm guessing you don't control for your own bias when it comes to analysis?

What? I was responding to your strawmanning of my position with "If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making [...]"

You consented that "in some ways we exacerbate" and it's my opinion that that exacerbation has outweighed the good we've done. That's what "too many" means here. I gave some examples later on.

We are venturing into a rather large area of contention. I don't see the point of debating every instance. I certainly don't see America's intervention the way you do. It's mixed. Some good some bad. What's the net? I'm guessing it depends on one's bias.

It'll have to if you won't discuss the particulars.

Overly simplistic.

There are plenty of examples of alliance or creation of despotic, undemocratic regimes. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Iran. Balanced against Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey. A lot can be excused by having to thwart Soviet influence, but a) the canard of "spreading/promoting democracy as a consistent foreign policy" is still a canard, and b) we've continued this lousy foreign policy post-USSR dissolution. I imagine the next blowback state will be Pakistan, a decade or less after we leave there and Afghanistan.

But nevermind, you don't want to discuss particulars.

Again, I think that is a bit overly simplistic.

Not much point in continuing this discussion, feel free to have the last post.

 

[Oliver]

It looks like as if there is a whole new aspect to the whole story
regarding Iranian Missile defense systems:

Israel laying its yellow brick road to Iran war

 

[Crowlogic]

Syria or the Mediterranean. I bet their aim sucks.

With a nuclear warhead you don't need precision aim. Just get it into the right county and the deed is done.

 

[Pardalis]

so my guess was right: You think that the intellectual way to respond to a mention of hitler is to say "godwin" and move on.

once more:
To compare someone with Hitler when the topic has nothing to do with it IS GODWIN!

 

[Pardalis]

I've not tried to hide that Iran wants to see the end of Israel. The comparison they have used most is the end of the USSR. You have not made the case that Iran intends to destroy Israel by starting a war.

Iran's rhetoric is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down. They have their part of responsibility in this mess too, it's sad that you only see America as the culprit, and making all kinds of contorsions to apologize for Iran.

Israel cannot sustain itself anymore than the USSR could. Olmert himself has said that Israel is finished without a two-state solution.

Olmert is but one man, what he says is his opinion, not necessarily fact.

If you take Wildcat's point about Hezbollah... Hezbollah was started in the 1980's as a resistance army. It was succesful in forcing Israel out of Lebanon and in getting prisoners released. Today, they talk about stopping Israeli fighters flying in Lebanese skies and getting back the Shebbah Farms.

They kidnap, they aid terror groups, they kill innocent civilians, they help plan a coup in their own country... What's your point?

That they are only freedom fighters? To me and everyone sensible they're religious fascist demagogues and killers, but hey, you like freedom and democracy right? You're one of those "pacifists" who go out of their way to apologize for the real Hitlers of our time. Why don't you move over there, since you like them so much? You'll love it there, so much freedom. Start fresh in... an islamic theocracy. And be sure to bring Oliver along.

And, actually, I would say that Hezbollah is another reason why Iran has NOT been attacked. Israel tried to take out Hezbollah and saw how difficult it would be.

Actually, it was rather easy in 2006, they stopped because of international pressures.

Syria would be Hezbollah on steroids. Iran would be Syria on steroids. Hence -- no war. Iran will not start it. And neither will Israel.

If Iran gets a nuke, there will be a giant shift in the region, Syria will want one, and so forth...

Your question is not the topic of this thread. America, as a target of Iranian retaliation, is a topic of this thread.

You seriously think America is a target on the other side of the Atlantic? That's the topic of this thread? I thought the US option was a joke, you know, a planet X kind of an option...

I would agree in the sense that there would be boycotts against Israel -- just like there were boycotts against apartheid South Africa.

But your belief is that Iran would bomb Israel if America agreed not to do anything about it. You can't give any evidence to support that belief.

You're naïve. Radical Islam's hatred of Israel is much more virulant than that, they wouldn't just settle with mere "sanctions", that's just ridiculous wishful thinking on your part. For them the existence of Israel, its very presence in the region is a catastrophe, it's unacceptable. They want nothing more than eradication, and the only thing stopping them is America. If America wasn't such a staunch defender of Israel, and if they hadn't armed them, Israel would have been invaded on all sides. If America wasn't there, Israel would have been successfully invaded and eradicated by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq along time ago.

My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, and you want me to swallow your "sanctions" canard?

It's a power struggle for the region, if Iran gets the nuke, it will destabilize everything, they will get more leverage and more influence to counterbalance America, which won't be able to counter them and protect Israel as before.

 

[Oliver]

Iran's rhetoric

Which is?

... is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down.

Like that? :

Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad [*excerpt from article*]

Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[29]

*snip* asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[30][31]

*snip* "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[32]"

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, and you want me to swallow your "sanctions" canard?

Uhm. That was long before the Iranian Revolution thingy. Would
you like to read on in your history book now?

It's a power struggle for the region, if Iran gets the nuke, it will destabilize everything, they will get more leverage and more influence to counterbalance America, which won't be able to counter them and protect Israel as before.

Protect Israel from what? It's the western struggle to keep those
down who are not willing to obey to our democratic way of life.

Let me quote you:

"but hey, you like freedom and democracy right?"

You actually like it so much that Iranian's don't deserve to choose.
Why? Because you don't like their choices. A truly democratic
stance coming from you, eh?

 

[Pardalis]

You do know that Iran is not a democracy, right Oliver?

 

[Oliver]

You do know that Iran is not a democracy, right Oliver?

They have an elected government - the final say, however, if
the supreme leader doesn't agree with a decision, is by him.
[You may call it a Veto-right like the [religious] President in the US has]

My point was that you don't care about your love for democracy
when it comes to countries you don't like. You actually seem to
support an attack against the elected Iranian Regime and their
Country - pretty much giving a **** about what they want,
therefore you're throwing your holy democratic value over board.

However, you [deliberately?] missed Ahmadinejad's outrageous claims:

Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad [*excerpt from article*]

Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[29]

*snip* asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[30][31]

*snip* "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[32]"

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

So where exactly is he threatening Israel?
And what is Irans "escalating" Rhetoric?

 

[Pardalis]

They have an elected government - the final say, however, if
the supreme leader doesn't agree with a decision, is by him.

Ergo, not a democracy.

My point was that you don't care about your love for democracy
when it comes to countries you don't like.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

However, you [deliberately?] missed Ahmadinejad's outrageous claims:

So where exactly is he threatening Israel?
And what is Irans "escalating" Rhetoric?

They have a heck of a lot more than one claim to clarify, not to mention their actions and support of terror groups who undermine every peace efforts.

And about that referendum shtick:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."

Kind of contradictory isn't it?

If this alleged referendum ends up with a resolution for a two-state solution, what will Iran do? They just said they will never accept Israel.

 

[Oliver]

Ergo, not a democracy.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

They have a heck of a lot more than one claim to clarify, not to mention their actions and support of terror groups who undermine every peace efforts.

And about that referendum shtick:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."

Kind of contradictory isn't it?

If this alleged referendum ends up with a resolution for a two-state solution, what will Iran do? They just said they will never accept Israel.

What about elected government don't you understand, Goury?
It's not the same type of Government you, I or the US has, but
it is an elected Government. The difference is the separation of
state and church. And I completely understand that you don't
like that. I feel the same about "western democratic" leaders
who listen to god elected by god-believing people.

However: This is JREF. You are actually free to provide all the
evidence about threats against Israel, the country - and Israel,
the Regime - coming from Iran.

Feel free to cite the elected president and the supreme leader
concerning actual Iranian Policies concerning Israel...

 

[Pardalis]

Oliver, you didn't answer my point.

What if a pan-Palestinian referendum ends up with a majority of people wanting a two state solution, a Palestinian state, and Israel? What will Khamenei or Ahmadinejad say?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, you didn't answer my point.

What if a pan-Palestinian referendum ends up with a majority of people wanting a two state solution, a Palestinian state, and Israel? What will Khamenei or Ahmadinejad say?

What Hitler [] Ahmadinejad said:

"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it."

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad