Convince me that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't foresee Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel because there would be an obvious response. I think a bigger threat would be Iran providing nuclear materials to groups like Hezbollah or Hamas who will use it for terrorist attacks against Israel and where everyone can deny responsibility. Then they set themselves up where they can Damage Israel, but a full war against them would look excessive to the rest of the world.

 

[Beerina]

Where on Earth does Iran get off accusing anyone of threatening them?

Apart from the pages of just about every US, European and Israeli paper?

I don't think it is too surprising that the Iranians will be making statements about protecting their national interests when the possibility of bombing the country is casually discussed all the time these days. What is your reading of "national interests"?

I think it is something of an inversion to take these statements as proof that Iran is a threat.

Iran, not being free, has no national interests, as expressed by these thugs. They are working to preserve their positions of power in a dictatorship by, as usual , focusing attentions on an external enemy. If it is one they , themselves, created, all the more savage of them.

 

[angrysoba]

Ayahtollahs threaten, they get threatened back. What did they expect? What did you expect?



I wouldn't call it a "casual" discussion at all. I would call it a tense discussion, borne of near-desperation. The Jew-hating, strait choking, religious fanatic terrorist bastards are going nuclear. If that happens, they've got us all by the chokepoint. Not just Israel.



When combined with the failure of the IAEA mission in Iran reported in the same article, one might easily conclude that Iran is a looming threat to the entire region, and a threat to the free flow of the world's supply of the critical oil.

Does Iran have to be a grave threat right now, or it doesn't count? Perhaps you think that way. I dont. And countries don't. Countries actually take looming threats seriously.

Well, alright. I'll agree that I do not want to see Iran with nuclear weapons and you make a good point that a nuclear-armed Iran will be far more capable of blockading the straits of Hormuz than they are capable of right now.

I'm not convinced that it necessarily means a grave threat to Israel which, being the subject of the thread, I was interested in seeing established. But, fine, I am convinced enough that the risks are greater than can be accepted.

 

[angrysoba]

Iran, not being free, has no national interests, as expressed by these thugs. They are working to preserve their positions of power in a dictatorship by, as usual , focusing attentions on an external enemy. If it is one they , themselves, created, all the more savage of them.

I don't agree that national interests only apply to states which are free (or democratic or liberal).

It is not incoherent to speak of the national interests of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, China or even Myanmar.

An argument could still be made that Iran sees the cessation of its oil exports as against the national interest unless you assume that it is irrelevant to national interests.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not convinced that it necessarily means a grave threat to Israel which, being the subject of the thread, I was interested in seeing established. But, fine, I am convinced enough that the risks are greater than can be accepted.

If the risks are intolerable for other, larger reasons, why is it necessary or important to satisfy the OP's request?

 

[Toontown]

If the risks are intolerable for other, larger reasons, why is it necessary or important to satisfy the OP's request?

I would add that those other, larger reasons also affect Israel's security. Israel is not on Mars.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I've always thought of the threats towards Israel as a symptom and not the problem per se. It's a part of a larger overall pattern and it's that pattern that gives me cause to distrust them.

 

[Caper]

I want to make a confession.

I want to make a confession.

Part of me wants to see a strike on Iran's nuclear program for no other reason that it would make for some really good tv for a few days..... I think I'm going to hell.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I want to make a confession.

Part of me wants to see a strike on Iran's nuclear program for no other reason that it would make for some really good tv for a few days..... I think I'm going to hell.

You and a lot of other folks.

 

[bigjelmapro]

You and a lot of other folks.

I most certainly don't. But then again, I won't be watching it on tv, but actually experiencing the war.

 

[Toontown]

I'd rather see the ayatollic regime paint itself into a corner, leaving itself no (viable) choice except to back down, and then spend years talking ridiculous, hysterical smack about how they, with the help of the Almighty Master Of The Universe, are going to kick all of our infidel dog asses one day.

And in that great day of God Almighty, we will at last see the error of our ways, but then it will be too late. For Judgement Day will already be upon us.

And then, after the ayahtollahs have mouthed of in that manner for several years, I would like to see the Iranian people drag them down like a pride of lions drags down a cow buffalo.

That's entertainment.

 

[JihadJane]

Iran, not being free, has no national interests, as expressed by these thugs. They are working to preserve their positions of power in a dictatorship by, as usual , focusing attentions on an external enemy. If it is one they , themselves, created, all the more savage of them.

Exactly, only someone completely out of touch with reality would believe that anybody is selfishly threatening Iran because of its regional and global geo-strategic importance. Those violent freaks have brought it all on themselves with their irrational behavior!

That's entertainment.

For an audience of violent psychopaths.

 

[IDB87]

Exactly, only someone completely out of touch with reality would believe that anybody is selfishly threatening Iran because of its regional and global geo-strategic importance. .

What is the significance of this "regional and global geo-strategic importance" ? What does it consist of, and why would we want to take Iran down because of that and not, say, for illegally acquiring nuclear weapons?

 

[JihadJane]

Is it a 100% certainty? No, of course not. That goes both ways and anyone who claims anything as a certainty in this matter is either lying to you or lying to themselves. So really what you have to decide is the likelihood of an attack by Iran against Israel and for that you need to look at Irans past history on the matter. They have in the past funded terrorist organizations whose sole purpose was to attack Israel and others who they don't like.

How is any of this relevant to aggressively attacking a country with a nuclear weapon?

Your characterization of Iran also fits Israel, yet Israel hasn't attacked anyone with any of its hundreds of nuclear weapons.

They have also voiced rhetoric saying that they wanted the state of Israel to disappear from the map

Source, please.

and they have a past history of violence in the Persian Gulf

Such as?

as well as the current threats that they have made regarding the Straits of Hormuz using conventional weaponry.

This was a response to US aggression.

With that in mind you need to decide whether you want to take the chance that they will not use them or give them to someone who will use them against Israel (or anyone else) as a terrorist type attack giving Iran at least some form of denial of responsibility.

What would Iran gain by attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon?

My opinion is that I don't want to take that risk because the losing side of that bet will be the horrible deaths of possibly millions of people both in the target location(s) and in Iran when everything is said and done or even worse it could trigger a larger scale nuclear war leading to the deaths of billions of people worldwide with huge swaths of land unusable for decades if not centuries..

Are you happy with Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Some people disagree on the level of risk or think that the right of any nation to arm itself is paramount no matter what the risk to other nations might be. I think that those people are being unrealistic in the face of Irans past history or are wearing ideological blinders.

Or vice versa.

No Islamic dictatorship threatening to destroy Israel has gotten a hold of nuclear weapons, yet.

Nor have children gotten a hold of them. I don't feel we should allow children to get them, either, just because nobody has proven they will misuse them.


We don't have to prove an evil, nasty dictatorship would misuse them. We would have stopped the Soviets and China from getting nukes, too, if we could have.

And yet, so far, only the grown-up, good guys have actually used them...

 

[Toontown]

And yet, so far, only the grown-up, good guys have actually used them...

Trust me on this. If they are to be used, then it is best that the grown-up good guys do it.

As supported by actual history, which has recorded the use of two low-yield nukes, followed closely by the end of history's bloodiest war, which had claimed the lives of 60 million.

 

[Darth Rotor]

How is any of this relevant to aggressively attacking a country with a nuclear weapon?.

Given that said country aggressively started a war with us, I am not sure why you ask that question.

Are you implying that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran SHOULD aggressively attack Israel, with nuclear, or other, weapons?

Or, are you implying that Iran should not?

What's your point, JJane?

 

[JihadJane]

Trust me on this. If they are to be used, then it is best that the grown-up good guys do it.

As supported by actual history, which has recorded the use of two low-yield nukes, followed closely by the end of history's bloodiest war, which had claimed the lives of 60 million.

No, I wouldn't trust you (or your version of "history") any more than I'd trust "the grown-up good guys" with a pea shooter.

 

[Toontown]

No, I wouldn't trust you (or your version of "history") any more than I'd trust "the grown-up good guys" with a pea shooter.

And I wouldn't trust you, your version of "history", or the various tyrannies you support, with a rubber band.

And I am another who would like to know exactly what it is you are trying to say. Mostly out of morbid curiosity.

 

[JihadJane]

And I wouldn't trust you, your version of "history", or the various tyrannies you support, with a rubber band.

You may be confusing me with someone else as I don't support any tyrannies. Alternatively you could be stuck in a For-us-or-against-us loop.

And I am another who would like to know exactly what it is you are trying to say. Mostly out of morbid curiosity.

What am I trying to say about what? Please be specific.

 

[boyntonstu]

"Iran's Aryan Obsession

Most people don't know that Iran's leader at the time was a big fan of Adolph Hitler. "Iran" - the name given to Persia in 1935 - was intended to connote a connection to the original Aryans. The "Aryans," you may recall, were a big hit in Germany. German scientists, when not trading the Arc of the Covenant back and forth with Dr. Indiana Jones, were using the pseudoscience of the time to prove - measuring noses, foreheads, and skull bumps - a racial linkage back to the original Aryans. Given the state of DNA technology today, this story would be funny if it weren't associated with the last major global conflict which destroyed much of human civilization and killed tens of millions of people."

http://politicsofreligion.blogspot.com/2006/08/irans-aryan-obsession.html