Saudis Would Allow Israel to Attack Iran

[geetrue]

Just a matter of time and then it will be all over :yep:
or will it ever be over ... I don't think so: London Sunday Times said fly over ok'ed (http://adsfree01.mail.com/scripts/common/home.main?a=8f98139853a8036ef954d275dc4cdab8101b3c 0db287e6872246f0536e468b211f227736ede7b6f2ebe73bbc 7792ec01542560d1a5d659be856ecf48bc0e606aa205)



Saudi Arabia would turn the other cheek and allow Israel to use its airspace to attack Iran, London’s Sunday Times reports. According to the report, Mossad chief Meir Dagan has told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that Syria has hinted to the move.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israel air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source stated.

“The Saudis are very concerned about an Iranian nuclear bomb, even more that the Israelis,” a former Israeli intelligence head stated.

John Bolton, the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., said that it was logical that Saudi Arabia would privately agree. “None of them would say anything about it publicly, but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn’t trumpet it as a big success,” Bolton told several Arab leaders in the Gulf. “To this day, the Israelis haven’t admitted the specifics, but there’s one less nuclear facility in Syria,” Bolton added, referring to Israel’s attack on a Syrian nuclear site in 2007.

Bolton said that the Arab countries would publicly condemn Israel at the U.N. but would breathe easier if the Iranian nuclear threat would be eliminated.



Several media sources reported Friday that an Israeli Dolphin submarine passed through the Suez Canal on its way to the Red Sea last month as part of a naval exercise. Israeli security officials told the Reuters news agency that the exercise was done as part of testing Israel’s strategy in light of the Iranian nuclear threat. Egypt denied the reports.

[CastleBravo]

Several media sources reported Friday that an Israeli Dolphin submarine passed through the Suez Canal on its way to the Red Sea last month as part of a naval exercise. Israeli security officials told the Reuters news agency that the exercise was done as part of testing Israel’s strategy in light of the Iranian nuclear threat. Egypt denied the reports.


Does Israel have a TLAM capability?

[Raptor1]

Does Israel have a TLAM capability?

TLAM? As in Tomahawk Land Attack Missile? No

It has been surmised that the larger torpedo tubes on the Dolphins could be used to carry cruise missiles though

[CastleBravo]

TLAM? As in Tomahawk Land Attack Missile? No

It has been surmised that the larger torpedo tubes on the Dolphins could be used to carry cruise missiles though

So some generic and/or home produced land attack missile is a possibility.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Supposedly a sub launched version of Popeye or SLAM IIRC. And not a possibility, I would bet my life on it being a pretty sure thing. Israel uses those subs as a second strike option.

PD

[geetrue]

Supposedly a sub launched version of Popeye or SLAM IIRC. And not a possibility, I would bet my life on it being a pretty sure thing. Israel uses those subs as a second strike option.

PD


or to pick up downed pilots that make it back to the sea :yep:

[Raptor1]

The Popeye doesn't have enough range for this purpose, an enlarged version of it or a variant of the Delilah missile might be able to do it. Though I think a submarine attack is highly unlikely.

[CastleBravo]

or to pick up downed pilots that make it back to the sea :yep:

Now we know the egress route. And the persian gulf is chock full of US assets.

Also on Monday the US and Russia signed an agreement allowing US flights over Russian territory. The correct IFF could be relayed to the Israelis. Also with the Marines in Balem province keeping curious heads down is a possibility for a rush to kabul for a partial dissasembly of aircraft, loaded onto cargo lifters.

[Raptor1]

We don't know anything, we don't even know there's going to be a strike...

[CastleBravo]

We don't know anything, we don't even know there's going to be a strike...

You are correct of course but it never hurts to run through the tactics available. Does it?

[geetrue]

We don't know anything, we don't even know there's going to be a strike...

Sombody knows, plus look at the timing with the enmies of Iran on your side not to mention the internal conflict of who is lying to who about the election.

What happens when a j bomb hits a nuclear installation anyway?

[Raptor1]

What's a j bomb?

[CastleBravo]

Sombody knows, plus look at the timing with the enmies of Iran on your side not to mention the internal conflict of who is lying to who about the election.

What happens when a j bomb hits a nuclear installation anyway?

Don't get all soft hearted here. Every country gets the government it deserves and if that government hasn't taken steps to protect its people, as can be seen out of the recent images, then folks will die. The deaths from radialogical debris won't be worse than Three Mile Island, and far less than Chernobyl.

[geetrue]

What's a j bomb?

One of those electronic guided bombs ... The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)

[Raptor1]

Ah!

If a JDAM, or indeed any other conventional weapon, hits a nuclear facility, said facility may or may not be destroyed depending on the way it's constructed. Any material already stockpiled might similarly be destroyed or scattered (Which could be a pain to clean up, but not anything that has been done before).

If you want to know whether anything earth-shaking will happen beyond the normal explosions, the answer is no.

[CastleBravo]

Ah!

If a JDAM, or indeed any other conventional weapon, hits a nuclear facility, said facility may or may not be destroyed depending on the way it's constructed. Any material already stockpiled might similarly be destroyed or scattered (Which could be a pain to clean up, but not anything that has been done before).

If you want to know whether anything earth-shaking will happen beyond the normal explosions, the answer is no.

If Iran has plutonium stockpiled it will burn when exposed to O2, but no second order reation/detonation can be expected. Thats the physics.

[Steel_Tomb]

Short of occupying Iran, there is no way to stop them from gaining nuclear arms if they so wish. We can destroy facilities but the knowledge remains, and they can rebuild their program again and again. Another point is that if the Iranians value a nuclear weapons program I think they would have it spread around the country, so there could be the main facility but there's nothing to say they haven't got other compounds hidden underground throughout Iran.

That's the sad truth of the matter, Israel and the US or any other nation for that fact can bomb parts of Iran to their hearts content... but we can't stop them forever. As much as I hate the Iranian regime, there's nothing we can do to stop them... a ground invasion would just radicalise the population and make Achjaminidad's (sp?) position stronger.

[CastleBravo]

[quote=Steel_Tomb;1129841]Short of occupying Iran, there is no way to stop them from gaining nuclear arms if they so wish. We can destroy facilities but the knowledge remains, and they can rebuild their program again and again.[quote]

Well then you keep setting them back if that is what it takes. This country and its mullahs have but one goal...to take away your freedom.

How often have they suspended the internet? That is freedom, and you would allow that based on your statement.

Perhaps you think that if we just talk it will make it all better. These are committed people. They care not about what you say. One thing matters to them, force.

[Max2147]

Well then you keep setting them back if that is what it takes. This country and its mullahs have but one goal...to take away your freedom.

How often have they suspended the internet? That is freedom, and you would allow that based on your statement.

Perhaps you think that if we just talk it will make it all better. These are committed people. They care not about what you say. One thing matters to them, force.
Hahahaha, you really think the Iranian mullahs want to take away OUR freedom? They want their own people's freedom for sure, but they really don't give a cr*p about how people live outside their borders.

[CastleBravo]

Hahahaha, you really think the Iranian mullahs want to take away OUR freedom? They want their own people's freedom for sure, but they really don't give a cr*p about how people live outside their borders.

So you think Islam for the world is not their goal? Many have said it. I guess I'm wrong to take them at their word.

Grow up man. If they say it they mean it.
Truthfully, I'd rather nuke them than be subjected to to their law.

[Steel_Tomb]

I know they don't want freedom and all that. What I'm getting at is that the general view of "lets bomb Iran" to stop their nuke program is flawed. Any air strike just delays the inevitable, whilst pitting public opinion in the M.E against the West in favour of the dictatorships over there. We may delay them for years and years, but the continued use of force won't work. They only respond to force, but im quietly hoping that in time the violent forces will be overcome by the minority. We saw a demonstration of that in the wake of the elections, Iran is ruled by a brutal and flawed regime yes... but history shows that such regimes do ultimately meet their end. Wether this happens before a catastrophy I don't know... I'm interested in the military and the defense of my country, but I dislike the prospect of war and killing for political points unless its absolutely nesseccary. If Iran shows itself to be an immediate and clear danger to either regional (i.e an attack on Israel) or global (as in a covert strike against the US and/or EU either by conventional or by WMD) then of course I will not hold back any military strike, I just think is should be the last course of action when all other roads have been blocked.

Going a bit O/T here, and this is my personal belief... The human race is a young species compared to the universe and the planet we live on, in fact when you look at our basic instincts and habits we are primitive and violent. Perhaps we will never shake off our animal instincts... but I hope one day that we can destroy our weapons and become a race instead of a scattering of global "tribes" (which is essentially what we are). Constantly using brute force to "solve" issues when we think they aren't going our way is a flawed conception and primitive to say the least... its the equivalent of a child not getting that mars bar its been spying for the last hour and throwing its toys out of the cot. We hold the power to completely destroy ourselves and the planet we live on, yet we don't have the patience or understanding to solve problems that are staring us in the face every day. We as a species need to evolve into something better, and running back to our most basic primal behavior which is to attack something we don't quite like is not helping us, that goes for all parties involved around the world... not just the West etc.

... I'll shut up now, sorry if that last bit is a rant and not very well written, but its just how I feel sometimes. :down:

[Skybird]

I know they don't want freedom and all that. What I'm getting at is that the general view of "lets bomb Iran" to stop their nuke program is flawed. Any air strike just delays the inevitable, whilst pitting public opinion in the M.E against the West in favour of the dictatorships over there. We may delay them for years and years, but the continued use of force won't work. They only respond to force, but im quietly hoping that in time the violent forces will be overcome by the minority. We saw a demonstration of that in the wake of the elections, Iran is ruled by a brutal and flawed regime yes... but history shows that such regimes do ultimately meet their end. Wether this happens before a catastrophy I don't know... I'm interested in the military and the defense of my country, but I dislike the prospect of war and killing for political points unless its absolutely nesseccary. If Iran shows itself to be an immediate and clear danger to either regional (i.e an attack on Israel) or global (as in a covert strike against the US and/or EU either by conventional or by WMD) then of course I will not hold back any military strike, I just think is should be the last course of action when all other roads have been blocked.


When will that be? Before or after they got the bomb and start proliferating?


No second Pakistan or North Korea , please. Both nations should have been crippled in their nuclear ability BEFORE they got their first nuclear warhead. Once you cannot say for sure whether they have one, or not, it is too late and the game is over.

--

Second threat on the Saudi decision. Maybe merging it, Xabba?

[Steel_Tomb]

Well if Iran does go nuclear like I can see it doing, depending on Obama's foreign policy and if he thinks merely talking can win the day or not I would most likely foresee a ground attack. With forces in Afghanistan we are somewhat uniquely positioned for an attack against Iran. With all sides closed from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf we could contain the personnel with the knowledge and "eliminate" them as the US see's fit for their political gains. Thereby eliminating the proliferation of technology after we become aware of it. I have no doubt that the agrogance and ego of the leaders in Iran will mean that the moment they have a weapon they will test it underground like NK has, and that will give the game away and will ultimately be their downfall... after that I doubt there would be anything we could say to the Yanks to stop them from using their military prowess against Iran.... it would be a terribly costly war, but I guess the prevention of proliferation would be worth that given the right circumstances. Its still not a nice idea, but thats the best thing to do in "realpolitik" terms am I correct? The gain of power over others throwing away certain moral restrictions?

I don't suppose giving the Iranians technology regarding Fusion reactors for electricity would help the problem? It can't be weaponized and the reaction is so hard to maintain that it can't "meltdown" like a Fission reactor can. Would more or less destroy their veil for civilian usage should it be rejected, leaving the door open for other political options.

http://www.sck.be/var/plain_site/storage/images/media/images/our-research/ans/iter-fusion-reactor/19451-1-eng-GB/ITER-fusion-reactor.jpg

http://www.jet.efda.org/

[Max2147]

So you think Islam for the world is not their goal? Many have said it. I guess I'm wrong to take them at their word.

Grow up man. If they say it they mean it.
Truthfully, I'd rather nuke them than be subjected to to their law.
The Iranian theocracy is not Al Qaeda. When has the Iranian theocracy ever said that they want to make America Muslim?

Even if they wanted to, the idea of the Iranian clerics ruling the world is laughable. They're Shia, and Shias are a small minority of Muslims (around 15%). To say that Shias are unpopular in the non-Shia parts of the Muslim world is a major understatement. The Iranian clerics wouldn't even be able to control the Muslim world, much less the entire world.

[Max2147]

I don't suppose giving the Iranians technology regarding Fusion reactors for electricity would help the problem? It can't be weaponized and the reaction is so hard to maintain that it can't "meltdown" like a Fission reactor can. Would more or less destroy their veil for civilian usage should it be rejected, leaving the door open for other political options.

http://www.jet.efda.org/
The fusion carrot wouldn't work. It's simply too far down the line. Iran also has a lot of their nuclear facilities already built, so all that would go to waste.

[Platapus]

So you think Islam for the world is not their goal? Many have said it. I guess I'm wrong to take them at their word.

Grow up man. If they say it they mean it.


Then when the Supreme Leader (the guy in charge of the military) said that Iran has no interest in attacking Iran (2005) and that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons (2007) why don't you believe him?

If they say it, they mean it -- right?

Either you believe what they say or you don't. You can't be selective in only believing that which supports your viewpoint of Iran but not believing that which does not support your viewpoint of Iran.

I, personally, don't put much credit in what politicians say (either Iranian or US). I go by action. Evidence. Facts.

The fact is that there still is no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons development program. We need to base our foreign policy on facts, not fears, evidence not emotions.

[Skybird]

Well if Iran does go nuclear like I can see it doing, depending on Obama's foreign policy and if he thinks merely talking can win the day or not I would most likely foresee a ground attack. With forces in Afghanistan we are somewhat uniquely positioned for an attack against Iran. With all sides closed from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf we could contain the personnel with the knowledge and "eliminate" them as the US see's fit for their political gains.
Like you eliminated Iraq and Afghanistan - after how many years...?

Iran is bigger, the distances are longer, the people are extremely patriotic (and ethnically and religiously united!) , the rural populations often are armed, it is stronger and better organised than Iraq, it has the capability to close the strait of Hormuz, it has better weapons and plenty of missiles of all kinds, different to Saddam it has close contacts to terror groups in the ME that listen to its orders, and the population is bigger in size. The terrain in many areas is more rugged than in Iraq. The mountains are bad for military operations - for the attacker. For a defender, they are a paradise, even more for a defender using guerilla tactics. expect Iranian guerillas to be better armed than the Taliban in Afghnaistan or Al Quaeda in Iraq. Several key locations are in extremely bad terrain. I have been in the North-Western part of Iraq, the land from the Turkish border down to somehwhere beyond the basin around Teheran, and at the Eastern border to Afghanistan. Believe me, you do not wish to have a ground war running there. Neither your military nor your public opinion want that.

A traditional ground war is totally and completely out of question. At best you could try extremely high-.risk operation to land special commandos via air raids, occupy key installation in the middle of the country for a couple of hours to manually blast them to hell - all that in an effort to avoid a nuclear attack on these siters. You would need to airlift hundreds of troops to each target and fight down, hold and search areas several dozen square miles in size. Whether your country has enough numbers of special commandoes for that, I cannot assess I doubt it. But they would have extremely high losses. Iran is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is simple, compared to that.

If I were a military commander, at no cost I would authorise, command or accept responsibility for such an operational concept to targets in the middle of the cpountry. Too high risks, too big losses, everything too uncalculatable. at best I could imagine such raids on taregst close to the Gulf coast. But again: that are high risk operations. a man feeling responsible would try to avoid them.

Thereby eliminating the proliferation of technology after we become aware of it.
After you became aware of it? You imply they will sit like ducks and wait to get shot while you go there to eliminate proliferation. Maybe you will that risk. I can not.


I have no doubt that the agrogance and ego of the leaders in Iran will mean that the moment they have a weapon they will test it underground like NK has, and that will give the game away and will ultimately be their downfall...
....????

Think again.

after that I doubt there would be anything we could say to the Yanks to stop them from using their military prowess against Iran....
Why do I think then that anybody will think twice before attacking a nuclear armed nation?

I would not hesitate a day to nuke Pakistani nuclear weapon sites - if only we would know where they are, and if only the carrier systems and the warheads would not be stored separately anyway. for the same reason the Paistani do not tell the americans these informations, although Washington presses them hard on it. They fear (correctly) that Washington would nuke thse sites in case of the "radicals" winning in the overthrowing of the state.

Why do you think the iranians would not hide and move around their warheads, once they got some? Could you imagine what it means to search something in a country the size of iran, and with that rugged terrain?
it would be a terribly costly war, but I guess the prevention of proliferation would be worth that given the right circumstances. Its still not a nice idea, but thats the best thing to do in "realpolitik" terms am I correct?
I fear not. You give me the impression that you shy away from what a real determined war to kill the Iranian program would mean, and thus you allow to follow some milder, softer scenarios that are highly unrealistic and multiply the risk for the West, Israel and anybody opposing Iran (including Saudi Arabia).

[CastleBravo]

Then when the Supreme Leader (the guy in charge of the military) said that Iran has no interest in attacking Iran (2005) and that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons (2007) why don't you believe him?

If they say it, they mean it -- right?

Either you believe what they say or you don't. You can't be selective in only believing that which supports your viewpoint of Iran but not believing that which does not support your viewpoint of Iran.

I, personally, don't put much credit in what politicians say (either Iranian or US). I go by action. Evidence. Facts.

The fact is that there still is no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons development program. We need to base our foreign policy on facts, not fears, evidence not emotions.

Why are they(Iran) reporting they have gaseous centrifuges? What purpose do they serve other than making U235 out of U238?

[Tribesman]

Why are they(Iran) reporting they have gaseous centrifuges?
Ask the IAEA, after all they have been releasing their reports about their inspections of Irans nuclear facilities every couple of months for the past 6 years.

[Buddahaid]

The Iranian theocracy is not Al Qaeda. When has the Iranian theocracy ever said that they want to make America Muslim?

Even if they wanted to, the idea of the Iranian clerics ruling the world is laughable. They're Shia, and Shias are a small minority of Muslims (around 15%). To say that Shias are unpopular in the non-Shia parts of the Muslim world is a major understatement. The Iranian clerics wouldn't even be able to control the Muslim world, much less the entire world.

That is a truth. Perhaps one that can be exploited when the **** hits the fan. Muhammedanism is not a united front, but I'm uncertain where the allegiances would fall in a major battle. The west must avoid any hint of a crusade, or even use the language of crusade, or risk a united front and Theocratic war.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Ask the IAEA, after all they have been releasing their reports about their inspections of Irans nuclear facilities every couple of months for the past 6 years.

Because all they have to say is doubletalk and enabling.

Here is an example....
Dr. ElBaradei said he hoped that conditions could soon be created to make it possible for negotiations between Iran and all relevant parties.
He repeated his call for a "double time-out" of all enrichment-related activities and of sanctions, to provide a breathing space for negotiations to be resumed.
"The earlier we move from confrontation and distrust, to dialogue and confidence-building, the better for Iran and for the international community," the Director General said.

'Soon be created to make it possible'? Yeah thats to the point. Ohg, I forgot to back it further back with 'hope'.

What does this mean, "double time-out"? Is this an Animal House reference? What a confidence builder!

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bog121007.html

[CastleBravo]

That is a truth. Perhaps one that can be exploited when the **** hits the fan. Muhammedanism is not a united front, but I'm uncertain where the allegiances would fall in a major battle. The west must avoid any hint of a crusade, or even use the language of crusade, or risk a united front and Theocratic war.

Buddahaid

The muslims use Jihad and fatwa all the time. Why not use the word crusade?

[Buddahaid]

It's the one prospect that will unite Islam. The crusades were not a shining moment of Christianity. Mostly barbaric slaughter of Muhammadens and Jews to reclaim the holy land, by people who believed this would buy their way to heaven by erasing past sins.

Buddahaid

[Max2147]

Why are they(Iran) reporting they have gaseous centrifuges? What purpose do they serve other than making U235 out of U238?
Because civilian reactors need U235.

[Max2147]

Because all they have to say is doubletalk and enabling.

Here is an example....
Dr. ElBaradei said he hoped that conditions could soon be created to make it possible for negotiations between Iran and all relevant parties.
He repeated his call for a "double time-out" of all enrichment-related activities and of sanctions, to provide a breathing space for negotiations to be resumed.
"The earlier we move from confrontation and distrust, to dialogue and confidence-building, the better for Iran and for the international community," the Director General said.

'Soon be created to make it possible'? Yeah thats to the point. Ohg, I forgot to back it further back with 'hope'.

What does this mean, "double time-out"? Is this an Animal House reference? What a confidence builder!

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/bog121007.html
The IAEA is a UN organization, therefore all of its documents are written in Diplospeak.

What El Baradei is saying is that he wants a cooling off period, where Iran stops enriching uranium and the West stops sanctions. He's being pushed hard from both sides. On one hand Iran hasn't signed the Additional Protocol, so he doesn't have as much access as he'd like. On the other hand, the West (not just the US) is pushing him hard to make it look like Iran is building nuclear weapons.

The IAEA reports are good for the technical information. All of that points to Iran not having a nuclear weapons program.

[SUBMAN1]

Something tells me, Iran is going to have a very bad day in the near future.

-S

[CastleBravo]

Because civilian reactors need U235.

Why would a country with the third largest oil reserves need nuclear power? And if they have gone green why dosesn't the US utilize the same nuclear facility?

[CastleBravo]

The IAEA is a UN organization,

And of very little value unless you are a petty despot or left leaning individual.

[Buddahaid]

Why would a country with the third largest oil reserves need nuclear power? And if they have gone green why dosesn't the US utilize the same nuclear facility?

Good point! Domestically, the US population is still scared of nuclear power and there is the waste to deal with. I'm for it overall as the past problems of co-lateral environmental problems can be overcome now.

Buddahaid

[CastleBravo]

Good point! Domestically, the US population is still scared of nuclear power and there is the waste to deal with. I'm for it overall as the past problems of co-lateral environmental problems can be overcome now.

Buddahaid

Personally, I'm so confident in the technology you can build it in my back yard. But the stimulus package, which we were in dire need of stopped the funding of the Yucca MTN Repository, essentially destroying Nuclear Pwr Generation.

No oil drilling,
No coal mining,
No nuclear power. Where is the horse and buggy?

I love the left:nope:

[Max2147]

Why would a country with the third largest oil reserves need nuclear power? And if they have gone green why dosesn't the US utilize the same nuclear facility?
The Iranian oil industry is a mess. It's in such bad shape that it's actually cheaper for them to go nuclear than it is to upgrade their oil infrastructure. Some studies say that they'll run out of exploitable oil as soon as 2014.

Also, even if their oil industry was in perfect shape, having an alternate energy supply would free up more oil for export.

As far as why the US doesn't use nuclear, the answer is NIMBYs and paranoia.

Regarding your comment about the IAEA, it's probably the most important pillar of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Without the IAEA any reasonably advanced country who wants nukes would have them. It has its faults for sure, but it has always been a very competent and professional organization.

[nikimcbee]

Great, let tthe attack begin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek&feature=related

[CastleBravo]

Great, let tthe attack begin!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek&feature=related

This is more like it if Iran isn't stopped now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kLOXZ3-7VM

Which begs the question...how many Iranians are you willing to sacrifice for talk?

[Steel_Tomb]

Skybird, there is no way the US could invade Iran prior to them testing a nuclear device, simply because the public would never go with it after what Bush said about the WMD in Iraq. A war with Iran would be devastating, and no I'm not pushing forward a halfhearted attack should that be necessary but a full on attack - anything else would just be a fools game. Are you saying we should just bomb them now and be done with it? It just wouldn't wash and instead of doing the right thing the Iranians would claim to be the victim and make the rest of the world look like the evil westerners in a crusade against Islam or some other bollocks. There is no easy answer to Iran at the moment, but we can't just go around bombing countries who do something we don't like. It seemed that one moment you criticise the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan but to me it seems thats precisely what your suggesting we do to Iran, in which case whats different? And how can you justify that without completely destroying the policital status of the West? We have to pick our moment carefully with Iran, just bombing them suddenly will do nothing but harm our objectives. Its shown in war that it just becomes a bloody mess and the true political message is lost between the body counts and the protests I.E Vietnam.

[Jimbuna]

If an attack was to be carried out it should only be given the go ahead if an extremely high level of accuracy and destruction of the vital components can be assured.

Otherwise I fear the voice of opinion and condemnation would quickly sway in favour of Iran leading to a series of further strikes from the west and possibly even a retaliatory strike from Iran or even NK. CAN WE BE CERTAIN THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY. CAN WE AFFORD TO TAKE THE CHANCE.

[geetrue]

I don't like to look at life like a chess game due to it's limited moves, but in a chess game you can look ahead to the possible moves your opponet might make.

Remember what the president of Iran said a few months ago about what Iran really wanted to do with their new nuclear power program?

They have already extended their hand to the other muslim countries around them to help them advance to the same level Iran has now obtained.

If I were in the war room (like in Dr Strangelove) (just saw that movie again last week on TCM) I would certainly make the deduction that this could only mean spread the wealth of how to make a nuclear weapon to their muslim neighbors which in effect would become a honey comb of threats to the west, to the EU and to Israel.

Mr president I propose a first strike with an olive branch follow up with a warning that their oil fields will be next if they don't comply. :arrgh!:

[Max2147]

I seem to remember that the decisions in the War Room didn't go terribly well.... ;)

Iran doesn't want other Muslim countries to have nuclear weapons, because they'd be aimed at Iran. For example, Saudi Arabia doesn't want nukes because they're afraid of Israel, they want them because they're afraid of Iran. A nuclear arms race among Muslim countries would be aimed at each other, not at an outside power.

[geetrue]

I seem to remember that the decisions in the War Room didn't go terribly well.... ;)

Iran doesn't want other Muslim countries to have nuclear weapons, because they'd be aimed at Iran. For example, Saudi Arabia doesn't want nukes because they're afraid of Israel, they want them because they're afraid of Iran. A nuclear arms race among Muslim countries would be aimed at each other, not at an outside power.

It was just a movie ... just a seed thought of what really goes on in there of course.

Iran may not want it's enemy neighbors to have nuclear weapons, but they did offer it to the lesser muslim countries nearby.

Searching google for an answer produced some surprising results though on what Iran's neighbors do want: http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2718 (http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2718)



Israel is not the only Middle Eastern state indicating an interest in advancing a civil nuclear power program. About a dozen nations in the region have declared their interest in such programs in the past year.

[Max2147]

Searching google for an answer produced some surprising results though on what Iran's neighbors do want: http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2718 (http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2718)
How is that surprising? I thought the renewed interest in civilian nuclear power in the Middle East was pretty widely known.

There's a massive difference between sharing technology on civilian nuclear reactors and giving a country nuclear weapons. That's one of the major pillars of the NPT - countries with nuclear technology will share it with others, in return for those countries agreeing to abide by IAEA safeguards that prevent them from building nuclear weapons.

[Skybird]

However, Obama meanwhile has objected earlier statements by Biden. The Saudis also have rejected the news published by the Times that they have given permission to use their air space.

What of all that is true and what not, is impossible to tell with certainty. Obama has no other choice, no matter the facts, than to object Biden, else he would be seen as the helpless bystander of events dominated by Israeli policy making. And the Saudis of course cannot admit in public to allow Israeli forces the use of their air space. In this light all statements and comments must be seen.

I wonder if the Biden-Obama collision is signal for an internal conflict over the issue. A lot of people must think that Obama's idealism maybe is a bit distanced from harsh realities. And I must admit that despite his several charm offensives I am currently not overly impressed by Obama's politcal deeds so far. I give him the victory in congress regarding the health system reforms. If it will suzrvive the senate, remains to be seen. Beyond that, so far all we got from his are words. His foreign diplomacy is very idealistic - and so far only has encouraged hostile factions to try making America falling back. His spending and willing of new debts is questionable, to put it mildly. That's a score of 0.5 : 2.5 so far in my book (0.5:0.5 for the undecided health policy, 0:1 for foreign policy, and 0:1 in fiscal policy. No score for increasing the troop level in Afghanistan, since that is just reason and logic - and mujst be expected as minimum without needing to reward it).

But this presidency still is young.

[geetrue]

This Biden-Obama clash is really just an act ...

You have to be able to see through it to understand how these two minds work.

They work in unity:

Obama, "Joe you go ahead and tell the american people such and such"

"Then I will come in and say such and such ... got that"

Biden, "Yeah I think so boss" "You'll back me up, right"

Obama, "Well, not always Joe"

They talk, they discuss, they put on an act together ... it is like pre-thought out what they are going to say and do. They play the news game to their advantage.

end of story

[Aramike]

This Biden-Obama clash is really just an act ...

You have to be able to see through it to understand how these two minds work.

They work in unity:

Obama, "Joe you go ahead and tell the american people such and such"

"Then I will come in and say such and such ... got that"

Biden, "Yeah I think so boss" "You'll back me up, right"

Obama, "Well, not always Joe"

They talk, they discuss, they put on an act together ... it is like pre-thought out what they are going to say and do. They play the news game to their advantage.

end of storyI wouldn't quite say "end of story" at the end of that, unless you have some kind of evidence backing this up.

Biden's not doing anything different than what he's done for years.