US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran [Archive]

View Full Version : US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran

Skybird

11-05-11, 08:33 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-military-official-we-are-concerned-israel-will-not-warn-us-before-iran-attack-1.393834

Comments come at a time short before the US and Israel will stage the biggest joint excercise in their history and Israel'S warning to Iran become much louder, with a new critical IAEA report with evidence for the Iranian nuclear weapon program expected for release in just some days. There is also growing military activity against Gaza reported, and extensive long-range operation practicing of the Israeli air force, reaching ranges over the mediterranean and to Italy that would allow it to reach Iran as well.

Israeli president said on TV, there is only half a year left, at best one year, before Iran either must be attacked, or allowed to go with nuclear arms.

Some ticking sound in the air seems to grow louder.

1480

11-05-11, 09:22 PM

I am sure they will not consult with the current administration. Just a hunch.

magicstix

11-05-11, 09:31 PM

1480

11-05-11, 09:51 PM

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

You do not believe they have that operational capability? It may stretch them thin but I think they can handle that type of mission logistically. Do they have the resolve? Silly question.

What could we really do about it if they decide to do it? I do not for see us attacking them, but Russia, different story. Just too many variables that do not have any upside.

A nuclear Iran threatens the entire world. If China and Russia think they would be immune to that threat, then their intelligence agencies are asleep.

CCIP

11-05-11, 10:42 PM

I am sure they will not consult with the current administration. Just a hunch.

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

Skybird

11-06-11, 06:52 AM

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.
I am sure the Pentagon already has the plans in the drawer. Isra<el probbaly just do not trust the Obama admninsitration not to give away any diplomatioc warnings that the first strike is underway. Also, Israel still accepts, depends and is sure of that the Americans will join once it has begun, but Obama maybe wants to prevent that it begins so that he doe sniot have to come. I think, thertefore, Israel is about preventing early warning to Iran, and to cinfront America with facts created by reality and that force it to join, not to hesistate.

I must admit, if I were Israel, I would calculate exactly the same way. And I never would forget that in case of doubt, I stand all alone, and Europeans will fail me. That's why I take the Israeli warnings serious.

The British are said to also currently run huge manouvers, or did I misinterpret that? I recall there was some news on that some days ago.

Skybird

11-06-11, 07:14 AM

You do not believe they have that operational capability? It may stretch them thin but I think they can handle that type of mission logistically.
For a quick overview, I used Wikipedia.

They have 10 Hercules tankers and 10 Boeing 707 tankers.

Number of F-15 and F-16 jets in service is 373-408 (varying sources).

These fall into three groups, air superiority fighters, fighter bombers, and multi role.

Roughly 60 air superiority fighters.

25 fighter bombers/strike fighters.

~320 multi role

For dealing with a target list of 300 places regarding the weapon and nuclear research program alone, plus the integrated air defences of Iran, plus considering the huge distance they need to approach over, plus the huge size of Iran, those aircraft numbers do not really convince me - nor can I rule out that it is sufficient in case everything works well.

Does everything work well in war?

No doubt a huge number of cruise missiles would be used, too. But still. And Israel's supply in smart ammo is not unlimited.

As I said earlier, I doubt that a conventionel strike alone could reach all components of the Iranian program. And if that strike is reduced in size and cannot be maintained over a longer time since the number of planes available is not sufficient, chances are even thinner.

Outcome of this operation is anything but certain, even if the US throws in its weight. We can only hope that it would achieve its objectives, and that that objective is not "delay", but "destruction". For just delaying it, it is not worth the effort and the ammount of killing and destruction - you will need to do it again in the forseeable future.

It will also be interesting times for Israeli'S ground army and riot police: Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, internal riots, and a no longer safe Egyptian border. Just Syria, for the time being, seems to be taken out of the equation.

Jimbuna

11-06-11, 07:47 AM

STEED

11-06-11, 08:43 AM

Oberon

11-06-11, 08:49 AM

IIRC the Saudis gave the nod a few years back to let Israel overfly their airspace to hit Iran, so that's an option...but yeah, the first we'll know about it is when Iran starts screaming blue murder. Heck, I think the Pentagon's first warning will be the newsflash on CNN :haha:

Jimbuna

11-06-11, 09:39 AM

I've no doubt the US will pick up the IAF via satellite the minute they're airborne but won't advise anyone of the fact.

Kongo Otto

11-06-11, 09:45 AM

They're going to have some serious trouble getting overflight to Iran if they don't come to us first... Plus a campaign against Iran would require weeks of bombing at high operational tempo, not just a quick airstrike.

They just flew over Jordan and Saudi Arabia when attacking the Iraqi Nuclear Plant in Osirak back in 1981, they never ask anybody and they didnt have to ask anybody.
What makes you so sure that it needs weeks of airstrike?
Just because the Iranian Loudmouth Ahmadinedschad and other self proclaimed "Middle east experts" say so and the international appeasement press is willingly following this logic?
No one of us knows what the Israelis already know about the locations and their positions and how they will take care of.
You dont have to destroy a nuclear plant or anykind of nuclear production facility etc, just go and kill the heads who run them, kill the workers, detsroy the logistics that can be done in the countries who support them, that must not be necesarly the iran.
Thats the kind of lanquage which is very well understood in any islamic country!!

The other side of the medal is the Israelis themselves, sure they make the loid noise right now about attacking iran, the main reason is that Ahmadinedschad is not very popular when it comes to the Ayatollahs, so maybe the ayatollahs leash the dog again which they have unleashed some years before.
When there is great smoke, that not necessarly mean that there is a fire too and the israelis can play that kind of music like no one else on this planet because the louder the battlecry from israel is the more will the other nations try to get an diplomatic appeasement and then there are options:

iran steps back from its nuclear program(which is not very possible)
iran has diplomatic negotiations about the nuclear topic and this will bring the israelis more time to take proper care of
The israelis make a deal with the iranians, the israelis are quite good in such little dirty deals, they did it with the Jordanians and the Iranians aswell back in the 80's and 90's, just guess from where the spare parts for the iranian M-109's came from during the Iranian-Iraqi War in the 80'

There is a saying in the Middle east that applies very good:
"If you can't cut your enemies hand, then shake it" ;)

There will be interesting times, such much is for sure.

Tribesman

11-06-11, 12:56 PM

What makes you so sure that it needs weeks of airstrike?

Well a starting point would be the ranges, capabilities and sustainabilities , especially regarding ranges, capabilities and sustainabilities with an added dose of repeatabilities.
From such simple stuff you could move on to little things like effectiveness, which would come back to ranges capabilities and sustrainabilities with some added complications of dispersal and redundacy with some added reinforcement.
Then to take it onwards you have the fallout which affects ranges capabilities and sustainabilities plus adds reprisals.

So really the question is what on earth makes you think that it is possibly even doable in the first place let alone sustainable or effective even without weeks or months of airstrikes?:doh:

Just because the Iranian Loudmouth Ahmadinedschad and other self proclaimed "Middle east experts" say so and the international appeasement press is willingly following this logic?
No one of us knows what the Israelis already know about the locations and their positions and how they will take care of.

Wow, years of IAEA reports on just the known facilities seem to have escaped your equation:doh:
Have you even seen the Israeli test model for destroying just a single facility using its entire capabilty at maximum range with a full scale of "bloody lucky" on every single roll out of 40 dice and no repeatability at all??????.....when you find it you can perhaps tell us how many months they expect to put the Iranians back by if all works perfectly.

1480

11-06-11, 01:35 PM

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

The American President, George Bush, issued an appeal to Israel to hold back from retaliation for the attack. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/18/newsid_4588000/4588486.stm

39 Scud missiles were fired into Israel by Iraq during the Gulf war. Israel agreed with the US to not retaliate. I think we owe them a big one.

Security being protecting their borders. No country should have to ask for permission to do so. But we are talking about a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. Apples and oranges.

It will also be interesting times for Israeli'S ground army and riot police: Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, internal riots, and a no longer safe Egyptian border. Just Syria, for the time being, seems to be taken out of the equation.

@skybird: looks like syria is back in play.

"We expect and recommend that everyone keep the current calm but as we've said, the introduction of systems that disturb the balance endanger the stability and the calm, he said.
The United States said the move would have a possible "destabilizing effect" on the region. The presence of more advanced missiles in Lebanon could raise the prospects of a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
Hezbollah is on the U.S. terrorism blacklist, but is part of Lebanon's unity government.
The Lebanese government has had no comment on the U.S. allegations. But Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah said the comments made by the White House were interference.
"This American interference that has completely adopted the Israeli position, is condemned and rejected by Lebanon. This U.S. position presents a threat to Lebanon," Fadlallah said.
"These American pressures and Israeli intimidation will not affect our choices and our commitment to defend our country by all means," Fadlallah told Reuters.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-israel-s-scud-accusation-may-be-pretense-for-attack-1.284315

Another month from now, the entire Arab world will think they will be Israel's next preemptive strike target. Either Israel is all that and a slice of cheese or we are getting a hint that Arab countries may band together to attack Israel.

sidslotm

11-06-11, 01:49 PM

Skybird

11-06-11, 01:55 PM

soopaman2

11-06-11, 02:44 PM

If Israel attacks Iran, it will do so with the silent support and sympathy of many Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Katar.

The only real victim in the field of diplomacy with Muslim neighbours and countries in the area, will be the relations between Turkey and Israel. On the other hand: what else is left in these relations that still could get broken?

I will have to agree.

There are many arab countries, who see the big picture, and realize it is better to take our money and goodwill (trade, good relations, alliances etc) than to outright alienate the west (as a whole) with extremism.

I have a theory but nothing to back it up besides circumstantial evidence, that anti US sentiment tides from most countries with Chinese and Russian support. It just seems to be that any country that China, and Russia likes, seems to hate the US. (cold war over my backside)

It would be better to address the disease and not the symptoms, but that would be called WW3.

1480

11-06-11, 04:22 PM

I will have to agree.

There are many arab countries, who see the big picture, and realize it is better to take our money and goodwill (trade, good relations, alliances etc) than to outright alienate the west (as a whole) with extremism.

I have a theory but nothing to back it up besides circumstantial evidence, that anti US sentiment tides from most countries with Chinese and Russian support. It just seems to be that any country that China, and Russia likes, seems to hate the US. (cold war over my backside)

It would be better to address the disease and not the symptoms, but that would be called WW3.

Had this been two years ago, I would readily agree. I am a bit reluctant with all of the regime change that happened this past year.

Skybird

11-06-11, 05:26 PM

No regimen change in Saudi Arabia and Katar, military regime still somewhat in control of Egypt.

Anyhow. The bigger picture is not regime changes, or the Palestinian problem, but the old civil war between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians, and the rivalry of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt (and to some degree also Katar) for a dominant position in the region.

Iran has no allies there. Nobody would shed a tear over them.

mapuc

11-06-11, 06:26 PM

I have ret the Article* and that made me think

Could it be that it will be a joint operation,??

1. The US take care of the iranian defenses and other thing

2. Israel take care of the nuclear facilities a.s.o
( I had it on my tongue, but it disappeared)

Markus

Note
I know that I have recently red in some article, that there should be some
joint execise USA and Israel.

Skybird

11-06-11, 07:06 PM

I have ret the Article* and that made me think

Could it be that it will be a joint operation,??

1. The US take care of the iranian defenses and other thing

2. Israel take care of the nuclear facilities a.s.o
( I had it on my tongue, but it disappeared)

So far it is not more than talkin g and sabre-rattling, as far as we can tell. Even the Israeli government is split.

I know that I have recently red in some article, that there should be some
joint execise USA and Israel.

This thread, post #1. :D

And: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-joint-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878

---

Israeli websites of Shin Bet, IDF, Mossad, government are down. Hacker attacks are claimed by Anonymous who has threatened such attacks as revenge for stopping the two boats to Gaza recently. Israeli government denies, saying it is just a web malfunction.

mapuc

11-06-11, 07:30 PM

So far it is not more than talkin g and sabre-rattling, as far as we can tell. Even the Israeli government is split.

This thread, post #1. :D

And: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-joint-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878

---

Israeli websites of Shin Bet, IDF, Mossad, government are down. Hacker attacks are claimed by Anonymous who has threatened such attacks as revenge for stopping the two boats to Gaza recently. Israeli government denies, saying it is just a web malfunction.

The israel and the Knesset is divoted, not if Iran is a threat to Israel, but in how to handle it.

Thank you-I knew I had red it somewhere.

I'm also thinking what the response would be, among the common people on the street in middle east , if USA is the one of the attackers.

USA is one of the most hatred country in that area(that what I have been told)

Can Israel pull all this by itself? I doubt. It's not just a singel factory or a nuclear facility.

Markus

1480

11-06-11, 10:57 PM

Skybird

11-07-11, 06:52 AM

Superb:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/here-s-how-to-decide-whether-to-support-an-attack-on-iran-1.394117

It's impossible to take a serious position on the matter without full knowledge of the facts.

By Yehezkel Dror (http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/yehezkel-dror-1.637)

In terms of democratic principles, the public debate over a prospective Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is justified, as long as it doesn't cause Israel diplomatic damage or require revealing secret information. But the current debate is actually a ritualized and pointless endeavor.

In effect, it's impossible to take a serious position on the matter without full knowledge of the facts. It's important to know the stance taken by countries that are important to Israel, as well as the intelligence assessment and operational options. Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn from public opinion polls asking whether people would support or oppose an Israeli attack is that the Israeli public discourse on the issue is a superficial one. The only proper response is: "I don't have the necessary information to express an opinion."

The fact that this public debate is so insubstantial also affects the statements made by former high-ranking security officials. In theory, they have the right, and even the obligation, to publicly share their opinions on such an important matter, if it's possible to do so without revealing confidential information or damaging Israel's security or foreign affairs. That's the case for a substantive public debate that could influence the decisions being made. On the other hand, there's nothing to be gained from having former high-ranking officials announce what they think about a given issue if it's just a ritualized debate. It would be better for them to try to influence the genuine decision-makers from the inside rather than make a lot of noise in the public arena.

For a closer look at the distinction between substantive and non-substantive public discourse, we can compare the Iranian issue with one that is no less important: the peace process. Decisions relating to how worthwhile it is for Israel to give up parts of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem in exchange for peace agreements are fitting for public debate, as are decisions relating to whether it is right to focus on relations with the Palestinians or whether it would be better to pursue a comprehensive regional peace. It is important to debate such questions. Although there are complicated security considerations involved in the peace process too, one cannot compare the level of secrecy needed in that case to the level of secrecy needed regarding anything connected to Iran. On the peace process, then, former senior political and security officials should indeed be stating publicly what they think and why, thus contributing to a serious public debate.

A public debate on the peace process, and the associated values, can and should affect a national referendum on the issue, as well as Knesset votes and cabinet resolutions. That makes it an essential debate, unlike discussion of an Israeli attack in Iran. Unlike with the peace process, Israel's leaders must - in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and based on the specific characteristics of the Iran issue - make a decision on a prospective Israeli attack on Iran to the best of their judgment, without taking into consideration the media, public discourse or party politics.

I am inclined to estimate that not more than 10 or 15 people in all of Israel know all the varied information that is essential for a level-headed decision on the Iranian issue, including the prime minister, defense minister and two or three advisers and professionals. This leads me to a difficult but unavoidable conclusion: History is presenting Israel with a critical challenge in which the very few are likely to greatly affect the future of very many. Such a situation is not desirable from the perspective of democratic values, and it also entails some danger. Such situations are rare, but they are not unique in history, especially in light of weapons of mass destruction. (Just recall U.S. President John F. Kennedy's response to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. )

Fortunately, notwithstanding all the justified criticism of this country's leaders on issues like the peace process and the social welfare policy, there is no doubt about their total commitment to Israel's security, expertise in the Iranian issue and reasoning ability. In any case, the decision is necessarily in their hands. One can only hope that the public debate, which will certainly not help matters, will at least do no harm.

Good to get reminded of these essential thoughts. :)

Skybird

11-07-11, 07:00 AM

IAEA says Iran is on the treshold of nuclear weapons capability. Also, they had massive foreign assistance, from Russia. Iran is said to gain nuclear weapon capability "within months". Some German media wonder meanwhile if Gaddafi's centrifuges have gone directly to Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to-threshold-of-nuclear-capability/2011/11/05/gIQAc6hjtM_story.html?hpid=z1

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-will-be-able-to-build-nuclear-bomb-within-months-iaea-says-1.394162

Jimbuna

11-07-11, 08:54 AM

Some German media wonder meanwhile if Gaddafi's centrifuges have gone directly to Libya.

Don't you mean Iran?

CaptainHaplo

11-07-11, 09:05 AM

Skybird

11-07-11, 09:21 AM

Don't you mean Iran?
Oh, eh - yes.

Corrected.

Skybird

11-07-11, 09:44 AM

Israel does not need to destroy Iran's nuclear program - they simply have to do what they have done in the past - knock it back a ways.

Destroy enrichment/storage facilities and the trigger research location. You take out the eggheads with the knowhow to build a nuke, you cause a lot of delay. [/quoite]

War after war after war? No thanks, not with me. Over the distance this causes more death (and probbaly also financial costs to Israel, the US, the UK!!!) than one detemrtioned effort. Strike and break them, or stay at home.

[quote]Enrichment has been under attack for a good long while - remember stuxnet?
Stuxnet'S delay was shorter than expected, and just two weeks or so ago it was reported that they are surprised how fast the Iranians recovered, that nbow they enrich faster than ever bewfore, and have gained more material than was thought possible.

Iran wants to brag about how its facilities are underground and safe.
Israel has had access to Durandals for decades, and there are plenty of other and better groundbreakers now if it needs them.
Durandals are runway, not bunker busters. Iranian bunkers' precise locations (entries, ventilator openings) often are unknown to allow preicse targetting of vulnerable spots, which leads to the problem I repeatedly have pointed at: if you have a perimeter of lets say 10x15 km and know there is somehwere a hidden factory 20 m eters below the ground, protected by hardened steelconcrete, and potentially vulnerable points loike entries are unknown for porecise warhead coordinate programming, then you have a problem and would need to cluster-bomb that whole oplerimeter to maintain at least the chance to do at least some damage to the ceiling of said instakllation - and we do not tall about destroying it. When they manage to move just small but sufficient ammounts of matwerial into mountain bunkers where intel knowsd even less about - then you as the attacker attacking blindly effectivly can fold, for then it is game over for you.

The program's installations must be destroyed in all it'S ~300 installations and places. Not just delayed, and in three years or so we again are were we are today. Stuxnet has not worked as intended. The targetted assassination of key personnel of the developement has not worked. Doing limited damage and leave it to that, will not work.

If you go there, go all the way. Do not take a florett or a skeleton key with you, but use a two-handed sledgehammer and a truckload of dynamite - and make sure you have plenty more in supply and on its way to the head of your column.

Do not try to repeat the botch of 2002, '03 and '06.

Krauter

11-07-11, 11:45 AM

Go big or go home.

1480

11-07-11, 11:50 AM

Go big or go home.

ja ja :rock:

Platapus

11-07-11, 03:38 PM

In reading the news over the past few months/years, I am seeing more threats from Israel attacking Iran than threats from Iran attacking Israel.

11-07-11, 03:52 PM

In reading the news over the past few months/years, I am seeing more threats from Israel attacking Iran than threats from Iran attacking Israel.

Yeah.....
That's good one.
Has Israel ideological reason to do so?
(hmmm....maybe its the god people thing)

Jimbuna

11-07-11, 04:18 PM

In reading the news over the past few months/years, I am seeing more threats from Israel attacking Iran than threats from Iran attacking Israel.

I reckon the threat from Iran may be sufficient to make Israel become a pre-emptive reality.

Krauter

11-07-11, 05:42 PM

I reckon the threat from Iran may be sufficient to make Israel become a pre-emptive reality.

I think this is closest to the truth. After two wars being caught by surprise I think that Israel is going to overreact to any perceived threat mainly to get the other side to stop immediately for fear of a pre-emptive strike. And if that fear doesn't stop them, then they can be almost sure a pre-emptive strike will come.

Being a nation being almost completely bordered by hostile nations would make me have a national defence policy of similar style.

CaptainHaplo

11-07-11, 06:44 PM

Jimbuna

11-07-11, 07:01 PM

CaptainHaplo

11-07-11, 07:11 PM

I'm curious...which Arab state has the power to stop it...presuming they had advance knowledge of it happening? :hmmm:

The surrounding states would not sit idly by while Israel destroyed Iran. Think Pakistan will sit idly by as nukes fly? India?
The nuclear genie is just one you don't pull out of the bottle.

So that leaves a massive, sustained air attack - and while the arab states would sit idly by for a single, short operation due to "blind eyes" - they are not going to sit around while Israel performs a modern day version of the air war in Europe, 1945. They couldn't pretend to be blind to it - so no overflights, contested airspace - leading to ground skirmishes, etc. And if you think the extremist elements wouldn't jump in - they would love it. You would have Israel facing another Yom Kippur war - that they would have started....

Skybird

11-07-11, 07:12 PM

I think this is closest to the truth. After two wars being caught by surprise I think that Israel is going to overreact to any perceived threat mainly to get the other side to stop immediately for fear of a pre-emptive strike. And if that fear doesn't stop them, then they can be almost sure a pre-emptive strike will come.

I wonder how that is possible - to "overreact" to a nuclear armed Iran. What should such "overreaction" be?

If a nuclear armed Iran does not worry you, than nothing in life ever will, and all failures of appeasement policies in history that hoped for peace and led to war have never really taken place.

People want to see it nicely and minimise Iran'S threat because they shy away from the alternative. They ignore that Iran already wages war against Israel. That Korea, Russia and China already have dleivered knowhow and tehcxnology for nuclear wepaon production into the region. That Iran already arms up Hezbollah, and confronts Saudi arabia in a proxy war. That Israelis already get killed by all that. That the current president of Iran is said to be one of the fighters hwo seitzed the US embassy back then. That there is a deep-rooting hate against Jews playing a role on Iran'S side, and a wide-spread attitude of not caring for threatened Jews on Western and European side.

The best joke ever told in British history, was told by Neville Chamberlain, and that was long before Monthy ython. Millions laughed themselves to death over it. Must we really laugh about the same joke for a second time? Some of you guys have to face it: with emotioinal hysterics teaching hate all day long, religious fanatics and nutheads, you cannot argue reasonably, and some people there are that do not care for long life or bounty or saving the innocent: they just take delight from seeing the world burning, and do not care for turning even their own people into martyrs. You better bring them down before they can light a match.

Oberon

11-07-11, 07:21 PM

Certainly an option of retaliation of Irans is increased funding of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Scud launches, however Israel has faced both threats before and come through them intact.
However I do think that the total destruction of Irans nuclear ability in one fell swoop is beyond Israels capabilities at this time without using a combination of air attacks and missile launches...and to be fair, when you see a missile go up, you don't know what kind of warhead it has until it hits the target, that could rattle a lot of cages that shouldn't be rattled...although I doubt Pakistan would launch any kind of nuclear strike on Israel because that would weaken it against India. Israel, in turn, will most certainly not use nuclear weapons against Iran, it would be suicide, however I could see them undertaking a three or four day intensive operations period over Iranian airspace. They have the nod from the Saudis who want to see Irans nuclear program stopped as much as the US does, and Egypt would most likely look the other way too.
In terms of retaliation, well Syria can't really do anything because it's too busy shooting its own populace, and any military forces taken away from the cities will just give the protestors more room to grow. Jordan...well, no-one has really heard from Jordan since the last smackdown they got from Israel, it's possible they might do something...but not entirely likely.
Lebanon is usually mostly on fire, I'd expect to see a few Katayusha rockets come over the border, but as I've already said, that's not exactly something that Israel is unfamiliar with...and Egypt is too busy dealing with internal problems to risk a war with Israel...although a war with Israel might distract the public from the continued military dominance of the leadership of Egypt...but at the same time it might also cause the destruction of said leadership, so I think they'd play it safe and keep quiet.
Russia would use every diplomatic trick it has in the book to try to get sanctions on Israel, as will the PRC...and the EU will probably either abstain or vote for it, but the US will veto so Israel has no problems there.
The only main problem is keeping the transitioning airspace open long enough for Israel to finish the job. Irans program is very widespread, well hidden and great in number, you can set it back a few years...but unless you kill every single Iranian scientist and ban them from reading books and the internet...you're not going to stop the program completely...but I think Israel knows that, and they'll just settle for destroying the current progress of the program.

Skybird

11-07-11, 07:32 PM

Pakistan I worry over in a lot of contexts. An open and direct nuclear exchange with Israel in solidarity with Iran is none of my concerns.

mapuc

11-07-11, 09:12 PM

While I am don't believe in the concept of a "warm" conflict - the reality is that a massive scale attack that would in essence destroy the entire program is not feasible. Unless you want to skip air power and just nuke Iran now.... That MIGHT do it.

To totally destroy its nuclear program means to defeat it in total. That isn't something that Israel will pursue - nor would the Arab states allow it.

I was about to write the same thing you have done.

So the question is, what then-let say Israel bomb Iran and Iran rebuild their facilities, this time more secretly.

Maybe It should be some kind of divide and (forgot the word)

First help the opposition and hope the sitting government is overthrown, then they can bomb Irans nuclear facilities.

Markus

CaptainHaplo

11-07-11, 09:13 PM

Sky - Pakistan won't care who its over. Think about it.

Nuke launched from Israel - up it goes - every nuclear country in the world is gonna see it - because with nukes comes the need to know one is coming so you get to counterstrike.

Think Israel is going to call pakistan and tell em "don't worry - its headed to Iran, not to you"? Think anyone will care - fallout is dangerous too ya know.

A nuclear shot doesn't just destroy its target. Pakistan - with its government rife with extremists - see a nuke in the air - who the eff knows where its REALLY going? You going to wait till it lands to see? Heck no - you fire your load just to be sure that the other guy dies too - in case it was aimed at you. The extremists in the Paki government would be ALL over it.

A nuke in the air in the middle east means the entire section of the world is going to burn like never before. Count on that.

Krauter

11-07-11, 09:27 PM

I wonder how that is possible - to "overreact" to a nuclear armed Iran. What should such "overreaction" be?

What I meant in my statement of Israel "overreacting" is that if any threat, imaginary or real is met with an overwhelming reaction, I believe that would dissuade any rational or logical leader who has to think of what Israel will pre-emptively strike them with.

I was about to write the same thing you have done.

So the question is, what then-let say Israel bomb Iran and Iran rebuild their facilities, this time more secretly.

Maybe It should be some kind of divide and (forgot the word)

First help the opposition and hope the sitting government is overthrown, then they can bomb Irans nuclear facilities.

Markus

Divide and conquer?

mapuc

11-07-11, 09:42 PM

Divide and conquer?

Yes, Thank you.

Markus

mapuc

11-07-11, 09:52 PM

It seems like it's 110% given that, the first day Iran gots it's first nuclear missil, Iran gonna send it immediately against Israel.

That's the feeling I get, when reading newspaper and posting on forums.

I know that the leader of Iran is cracy, but not that cracy.

Couldn't it be so, Iran gonna use their nuclear weapon as aces in negotiations??

Markus

Krauter

11-07-11, 09:56 PM

I think that this is going to be used more as a terror weapon and bargoning chip then anything else...

"Join our Islamic Union or else.."

Edit: Also, don't forget that simply having a nuke doesn't mean that said country has instant credibility on the world stage. If Iran can produce nuclear munitions, but does not have effective delivery means, or inneffecive protection for said delivery means, then those nuclear weapons are a lot less dangerous, baring something like a dirty bomb or something smaller sold to terrorists.

Falkirion

11-07-11, 11:42 PM

Oberon

11-08-11, 03:54 AM

How is Israel going to do this? How feasable is a ground operation? And having a look at Wiki's (I know, not the greatest source) list of the IAF inventory, they do have drones available and I'm given to understand their endurance is pretty large.

And now my brain is just going for an outright crazy idea, lets say they convert a container ship to launch drones via a catapult system slip the ship in close to Iran's coast under the guise of cargo then launch the strike from there? Action movie cliche I know but not impossible, and crazy enough to at least have the element of surprise.

A ground war in Iran is a big no-no, that's pretty much a given. So the current options for the IDF is either an aerial strike or a ballistic missile strike, or more likely a combination of the two.
Drones from a container ship is not unfeasible, and certainly is an option...however the container ships life is forfeit as soon as the Iranians discover the location of it, so you're probably going to have a reasonable loss ratio there.
Drones alone though will not be enough to destroy Irans nuclear facilities. One thing people need to understand about them is that there are a lot of them and they are spread out all across Iran. Iran is not stupid, it knows that Israel and America cannot abide the thought of a nuclear armed Iran (nor can most of the Middle East but they can't be arsed to do anything about it) and so their best defence, just like Nazi Germany during the Allied bombing campaign, is to scatter the components and hide them well, usually underground. Of course, this has its disadvantages when it comes to assembling the weapon, which is probably what Israel is waiting for them to do before hitting the assembly site. However even if the assembly site is hit, what is to stop them just making another one?
If Israel destroys one Iranian nuclear weapon in a raid, Iran will immediately cry foul to Russia and receive a load of weapons technology in return, thus making it harder for Israel to hit Iran again when they build weapon number two. So, if Israel is to do this job properly it needs to put the Iranian nuclear weapons program back by at least a decade...which means it needs to hit every single identified site that has anything remotely to do with the Iranian nuclear weapons program, reactors, centrifuges, scientists homes, everything. Israel will get one window of opportunity for this, so it needs to do it properly...and Tel Aviv knows this, and it knows it well...make no mistake Israel is good at war, it's had plenty of practice over the years and it has learnt from every military lesson it has been taught...so Israel will not strike until they can be absolutely sure of a total success rate...anything else is unacceptable and will result in grave consequences down the line.

The problem lies though in another ten years. Iran will have rebuilt the program (perhaps in an even shorter period than a decade if they get help from Russia again) and in the interim have upgraded and replaced its aerial defence systems, thus making another attack harder.

The other problem is that the destruction of Irans nuclear facilities by Israel alone cannot be done in one day, by Israel and the US perhaps, but not Israel alone, they just do not have the resources to do it. So it will be a three to four day raid, at least, which means the first thing they'll have to do is attrition Irans anti-air capability, before they even think about hitting the sites. They could do one raid on the nuclear sites using the element of surprise, but the Iranian SAMs and AAA will be wide awake on the second raid, and these guys are not just packing Iraqi Bofors, they have some Tors, some S-300s (rumoured to be one of the most potent SAM systems in the world...thankfully they only have a couple), they have Rapiers, and they even have some old Hawk batteries.
Their airforce is pretty terrible, and will probably spend the raids in pieces in a crater or tucked away somewhere. It's possible Iran has some Su-30s, but otherwise it's just MiG-29Cs, and F-14s and the Chinese MiG-21 knock-off F-7 Airguards. Nothing particularly special and to be honest the maintenance quality of the Iranian airforce has been called into question on multiple occasions, and their only AWACs system was destroyed in a collision in 2009.
So, if Israel wants a clear road to the nuclear sites (which you can bet have a nice cluster of anti-air batteries around them) then they need to dedicate the first raid and good portions of the next raids to Wild Weasel. In fact, it's likely that the first ballistic and cruise missile launches will be targeting Iranian SAM and AAA sites.
With the skies clear, then Israel can get down to the work of destroying the facilities, which will take a while, and all the time they're doing this, Iran will be launching Scuds back at Israel (the ones that haven't been knocked out during the first raid, which again will take up valuable aerial resources) and crying blue murder at Russia and China to do something in the UN.
Saudi Arabia will be under intense pressure to close its airspace to the Israelis, and if it does that then Israel either has to stop the raids or pass through it without permission, and if it does that then there's a problem, because the Saudis and the US are bosom buddies, that places the US in a difficult position and it may have to order Israel to stop and threaten some kind of sanction on it if it does not...however IMHO it's unlikely the Saudis will close their airspace...they want Iran defanged as much as Israel does.

So, basically the Israels mission objectives are as follows:
1) Remove Iranian Anti-aircraft ability
2) Remove Iranian retaliatory ability
3) Remove Iranian nuclear program

Objective one must be completed before objective three can be undertaken, and objective two must take place during the opening movements before the order can be given to launch.

It may not look like much, but when you spread it over an entire country, it's a lot of work for one airforce.

Jimbuna

11-08-11, 05:20 AM

A ground war in Iran is a big no-no, that's pretty much a given. So the current options for the IDF is either an aerial strike or a ballistic missile strike, or more likely a combination of the two.
Drones from a container ship is not unfeasible, and certainly is an option...however the container ships life is forfeit as soon as the Iranians discover the location of it, so you're probably going to have a reasonable loss ratio there.
Drones alone though will not be enough to destroy Irans nuclear facilities. One thing people need to understand about them is that there are a lot of them and they are spread out all across Iran. Iran is not stupid, it knows that Israel and America cannot abide the thought of a nuclear armed Iran (nor can most of the Middle East but they can't be arsed to do anything about it) and so their best defence, just like Nazi Germany during the Allied bombing campaign, is to scatter the components and hide them well, usually underground. Of course, this has its disadvantages when it comes to assembling the weapon, which is probably what Israel is waiting for them to do before hitting the assembly site. However even if the assembly site is hit, what is to stop them just making another one?
If Israel destroys one Iranian nuclear weapon in a raid, Iran will immediately cry foul to Russia and receive a load of weapons technology in return, thus making it harder for Israel to hit Iran again when they build weapon number two. So, if Israel is to do this job properly it needs to put the Iranian nuclear weapons program back by at least a decade...which means it needs to hit every single identified site that has anything remotely to do with the Iranian nuclear weapons program, reactors, centrifuges, scientists homes, everything. Israel will get one window of opportunity for this, so it needs to do it properly...and Tel Aviv knows this, and it knows it well...make no mistake Israel is good at war, it's had plenty of practice over the years and it has learnt from every military lesson it has been taught...so Israel will not strike until they can be absolutely sure of a total success rate...anything else is unacceptable and will result in grave consequences down the line.

The problem lies though in another ten years. Iran will have rebuilt the program (perhaps in an even shorter period than a decade if they get help from Russia again) and in the interim have upgraded and replaced its aerial defence systems, thus making another attack harder.

The other problem is that the destruction of Irans nuclear facilities by Israel alone cannot be done in one day, by Israel and the US perhaps, but not Israel alone, they just do not have the resources to do it. So it will be a three to four day raid, at least, which means the first thing they'll have to do is attrition Irans anti-air capability, before they even think about hitting the sites. They could do one raid on the nuclear sites using the element of surprise, but the Iranian SAMs and AAA will be wide awake on the second raid, and these guys are not just packing Iraqi Bofors, they have some Tors, some S-300s (rumoured to be one of the most potent SAM systems in the world...thankfully they only have a couple), they have Rapiers, and they even have some old Hawk batteries.
Their airforce is pretty terrible, and will probably spend the raids in pieces in a crater or tucked away somewhere. It's possible Iran has some Su-30s, but otherwise it's just MiG-29Cs, and F-14s and the Chinese MiG-21 knock-off F-7 Airguards. Nothing particularly special and to be honest the maintenance quality of the Iranian airforce has been called into question on multiple occasions, and their only AWACs system was destroyed in a collision in 2009.
So, if Israel wants a clear road to the nuclear sites (which you can bet have a nice cluster of anti-air batteries around them) then they need to dedicate the first raid and good portions of the next raids to Wild Weasel. In fact, it's likely that the first ballistic and cruise missile launches will be targeting Iranian SAM and AAA sites.
With the skies clear, then Israel can get down to the work of destroying the facilities, which will take a while, and all the time they're doing this, Iran will be launching Scuds back at Israel (the ones that haven't been knocked out during the first raid, which again will take up valuable aerial resources) and crying blue murder at Russia and China to do something in the UN.
Saudi Arabia will be under intense pressure to close its airspace to the Israelis, and if it does that then Israel either has to stop the raids or pass through it without permission, and if it does that then there's a problem, because the Saudis and the US are bosom buddies, that places the US in a difficult position and it may have to order Israel to stop and threaten some kind of sanction on it if it does not...however IMHO it's unlikely the Saudis will close their airspace...they want Iran defanged as much as Israel does.

So, basically the Israels mission objectives are as follows:
1) Remove Iranian Anti-aircraft ability
2) Remove Iranian retaliatory ability
3) Remove Iranian nuclear program

Objective one must be completed before objective three can be undertaken, and objective two must take place during the opening movements before the order can be given to launch.

It may not look like much, but when you spread it over an entire country, it's a lot of work for one airforce.

^ Good post :sunny:

Skybird

11-08-11, 06:09 AM

It seems like it's 110% given that, the first day Iran gots it's first nuclear missil, Iran gonna send it immediately against Israel.

No.

The threat is a bit more subtle, although the scenario you mention becomes the more likely the more religious hysteria is involved.

To me the main thrats remain to be these: proliferation especially to terrorist groups loving to lace a suitcase bomb in a Western capital, or Israel, and the status of being susceptibale to blackmail resulting from this scenario for Western.

Both scenarios are imo totally, absolutely unacceptable.

Secondary considerations are that we should not allow another example like Pakistan, and the nuclear arms race that an nuclear Itran ineviotablywill trigger int he region - a region that is not driven by cold-blooded calculation and ratio like the cold war, but where a millenia of mutual hostility has caused a level of hate and religious righteousness that is second to none in world'S history, and all that instability and irrationality ion that region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria all will not just sit on the sidefence when Iran gains nukes.

Skybird

11-08-11, 06:25 AM

Skybird

11-08-11, 08:27 AM

I took the time to scan in some pages from a book via OCR, "Kritik der reinen Toleranz", from 2009. It illustrates so wonderfully (though in German, sorry), what kind of a completely braindead, idiotic, totally wasteful, useless "dialogue" The West has allowed to go on with Teheran over the last couple of years. And Teheran got the possible maximum of what it wanted to gain from these "dialogues" - the time it needed to create facts.

Consider the number of notes and exchanges, and look at the dates - how very very much useless hot thin air they produced in what remarkably short ammount of time! All the while with Teheran reasoning loud and publicly over how thankful they are that Allah had made it so that they would deal with >complete idiots< on the European side (original quote).

The author is right when he says that the Western policy on the Iran nuclear weapon programs only served the purpose of a placebo that Westerners take in order to feel well themselves.

Those understanding German, enjoy. No comedian can ever be so funny and no clown could ever behave so idiotic like Western diplomats.

Alles, was man über den heldenhaften Einsatz Europas bei der Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten wissen muss, ist eine Nebensächlichkeit aus der Zeit der Taliban¬Herrschaft in Afghanistan. Damals fanden die öffentlichen Hinrichtungen im Stadion von Kabul statt, das von der EU finanziert worden war. Ein verhaltener Protest der Europäer gegen diese Zweckentfremdung wurde von den Taliban mit dem Rat beantwortet, die Europäer sollten ein zweites Stadion bauen, wenn sie mit der Nutzung des ersten nicht einverstanden wären. Das war's. Und wäre das Taliban-Regime nicht bald darauf mit Gewalt beseitigt worden, hätten die Europäer möglicherweise die Anregung in die Tat umgesetzt - als einen Beitrag zur Förderung der Zivilgesellschaft in Afghanistan.

Eines freilich unterscheidet die bösen Buben daheim von denen in weiter Ferne. Die einen kosten die Gesellschaft viel Geld, die anderen verfügen über eine erhebliche Kaufkraft. Deswegen will jeder Protest gegen die Zustände in einem Schurkenstaat - USA und Israel ausgenommen - gut überlegt sein. Er könnte der deutschen Außenhandelsbilanz schaden und Arbeitsplätze gefährden.

Seit Jahren führt der Iran die Europäer am Nasenring durch die Arena, und die Europäer lassen sich vorführen wie einst Graf Bobby in einem Prater-Beisl. »Haben Sie soeben >Arschloch< zu mir gesagt?« -»Ja, habe ich.« - »Wollen Sie sich bitte sofort entschuldigen?« - »Nein!« - »Auch gut. Servus.«

Der zweitgrößte Rohölproduzent der Welt will unbedingt Atommacht werden, verspricht freilich, die Kernkraft nur zu friedlichen Zwecken zu nutzen. Nun kommt es darauf an, was man unter »friedlich« versteht. Für die Europäer ist es der Einsatz in Forschung und Wissenschaft, die Mullahs dagegen möchten den Nahen Osten befrieden, indem sie »den Schandfleck [Israel] aus dem Schoß der islamischen Welt beseitigen«. Und das ist ein Wunsch, für den sogar progressive Naturfreunde Verständnis haben, die für die sofortige Abschaltung von Biblis und Grundremmingen und für das Recht des Iran auf friedliche Nutzung der Atomkraft demonstrieren.

Gleich nachdem der Iran die UN-Siegel an seinen Atomanlagen entfernt und die Arbeiten zur Urananreicherung wieder aufgenommen hatte, berichtete die »Welt« am 11.1.2006: »Teheran bricht die Siegel an seinen bisher verschlossenen Nuklearanlagen. Die Regierung nimmt die umstrittene Atomforschung wieder auf und signalisiert, dass es ihr um Nuklearwaffen geht. Für den Westen bedeutet dies: Es geht um die Bombe.«

Und so ging's weiter: Bei der Münchener Sicherheitskonferenz Anfang Februar 2006 sagt Angela Merkel: »Wir wollen und wir müssen die Entwicklung iranischer Nuklearwaffen verhindern«, niemand könne erwarten, dass Deutschland »in dieser Frage auch nur die geringste Toleranz aufbringt, wir haben aus unserer Geschichte gelernt«. Der Sprecher des iranischen Außenministers kommentiert Merkels Stellungnahme mit den Worten: »Eine Politikerin sollte nicht die Augen schließen und dann einfach den Mund aufmachen, sondern erst die Augen und dann langsam den Mund.« Der iranische Präsident erklärte: »Ihr könnt noch so viele Resolutionen dieser Art verabschieden, aber ihr könnt den Fortschritt im Iran nicht verhindern. Wir danken Gott, dass er es so eingerichtet hat, dass unsere Feinde Idioten sind.«(»Welt kompakt«, 6. 2. 2006)

Am 13. April 2006 sagt die US-Außenministerin nach einem Treffen mit ihrem kanadischen Amtskollegen: »Es gibt keinen Zweifel daran, dass der Iran seine Salamitaktik fortsetzt, ein bisschen hier und ein bisschen da und dann noch ein bisschen mehr, obwohl die internationale Gemeinschaft ihnen klar bedeutet hat >Stop<. Wenn der Sicherheitsrat wieder zusammentritt, wird diese Missachtung Konsequenzen haben müssen ...« (»Welt«, 15. 4. 2006)

Am 28. April 2006 endet die Frist, die der UN-Sicherheitsrat dem Iran gesetzt hatte, die Uran-Anreicherung zu stoppen. Ein paar Tage vorher kritisierte der Vorsitzende des Auswärtigen Ausschusses im Bundestag, Ruprecht Polenz, die »aufgeregte Debatte«, die Irans Präsidenten in die Hände spielen würde. Der Iran werde »noch fünf bis zehn Jahre« brauchen, bis er eine Atombombe bauen könnte. »Es gibt keinen Zeitdruck, bis Pfingsten oder bis Weihnachten das Problem zu lösen.« (»Tagesspiegel«, 24.4.2006)

Auf die UN-Forderung, die Urananreicherung zu stoppen, erklärt der iranische Präsident, der Iran werde keine Verhandlungen über etwas führen, das ihm zustehe. Der Chefunterhändler für das Atomprogramm sagt: »Wir sind allergisch gegen die Aussetzung (der Urananreicherung) ... Wenn sie uns Leid zufügen, werden wir ihnen Leid zufügen. Wir meinen das ernst.« (»Welt«, 2. 5. 2006)

Die Umweltorganisation Greenpeace fordert Bundeskanzlerin Merkel auf, ihre Strategie im Kampf gegen die iranische Atombewaffnung zu ändern und die USA dazu zu drängen, atomar abzurüsten. Die Verhandlungen mit dem Iran könnten nur dann zum Erfolg führen, wenn die westlichen Atomwaffenstaaten selbst glaubwürdig handelten und ihre eigenen Atomwaffenarsenale abbauten, erklärte die Geschäftsführerin von Greenpeace Deutschland. (»Tagesspiegel«, 7. 5. 2006)

Die fünf Vetomächte im UN-Sicherheitsrat und Deutschland bieten dem Iran Hilfe beim Bau von Leichtwasserreaktoren an, inklusive einer Garantie für die Lieferung von Brennstoffen, wenn der Iran seine Urananreicherung stoppt. Angela Merkel spricht von einer »unglaublichen Chance« zur Lösung des Konflikts. (»Welt«, 3. 6. 2oo6)

Der iranische Außenminister erklärt: »Bei gutem Willen ist ein Durchbruch möglich. Der Iran erwartet ein faires Angebot.« Die Gespräche dürften aber nicht an Bedingungen geknüpft sein. (»Tagesspiegel«, 4. 6. 2oo6)

Die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation stellt fest, dass der Iran die Arbeiten in der Urananreicherungsanlage bei Natans fortgesetzt hat. Außerdem seien weitere Gaszentrifugen installiert worden. Zugleich erklärt sich der iranische Präsident zu neuen Gesprächen über das iranische Atomprogramm bereit. (»Tagesspiegel«, 9. 6. 2oo6)

Die fünf Vetomächte und Deutschland setzen dem Iran eine Frist bis zum 29. Juni, um auf das Angebot von Anfang Juni eine Antwort zu geben. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 13. 6. 2oo6) Der iranische Präsident erklärt: »Wir bewerten das Angebot als einen Schritt nach vorne, und ich habe meine Kollegen angewiesen, es genau zu prüfen.« (»taz«, 17. 6. 2oo6)

Der iranische Präsident droht der EU mit einem Ende der Zusammenarbeit, sollte sich herausstellen, dass die europäischen Länder nicht »guten Willens« seien. »Wir haben keine Angst und werden uns nicht blind den Anordnungen des Westens beugen.« (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 14.7. 2oo6)

Der Sprecher des iranischen Außenministeriums erklärt: »Der Dialog ist der richtige Weg, der Weg des Extremismus und der Drohungen ist nicht akzeptabel, er wird nicht funktionieren.« Allerdings richtet sich sein Appell nicht an die fünf Vetomächte und Deutschland, sondern an die G-8-Staaten, die er zu neuen Gesprächen auffordert. (»Berliner Zeitung«, 17. 7. 2oo6)

Der Iran weist die Resolution des Sicherheitsrates vom 31. 7. zurück, die Urananreicherung binnen vier Wochen einzustellen. (»Welt«, 2. 8. 2oo6) Nachdem der UN-Sicherheitsrat dem Iran völkerrechtlich verbindlich auferlegt hat, die Urananreicherung auszusetzen und mit Sanktionen für den Fall gedroht hat, dass der Iran die Auflage nicht erfüllt, erklärt der Vorsitzende des iranischen Nationalen Sicherheitsrates: »Wir lehnen diese Resolution ab.« Und er droht seinerseits mit Konsequenzen: »Wir werden auf eine Art reagieren, die schmerzhaft für die anderen wäre. Wir wollen die Ölwaffe nicht anwenden, man würde sie uns aufdrängen. Zwingt uns nicht dazu, etwas zu tun, das Leute in der Kälte frieren lässt.« (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 7. 8. 2oo6)

Die iranische Führung legt eine umfassende schriftliche Antwort auf das internationale Angebot zur Beilegung des Atomstreits vor. Unter Berufung auf Regierungsvertreter aus Teheran melden Agenturen, Iran habe eine »neue Formel« zur Lösung des Konflikts ins Spiel gebracht und Fragen zu einzelnen Punkten gestellt. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 23. 8. 2oo6)

Die Europäer zeigen sich über die iranische Reaktion enttäuscht. »Wir müssen leider konstatieren, dass diese Antwort wichtige Fakten nicht enthält«, sagt Kanzlerin Merkel. »Aber die Tür ist weiterhin offen.« (»Welt«, 26. 8. 2006)

Nur fünf Tage vor dem Ablauf des UN-Ultimatums zur Einstellung der Urananreicherung eröffnet der iranische Präsident eine Anlage zur Produktion von »schwerem Wasser«, die einen geplanten Schwerwasserreaktor bei der Stadt Arak versorgen soll. Beim Betrieb eines solchen Reaktors fällt Plutonium an, das zum Bau von Atomwaffen gebraucht wird. (»Welt«, 28. 8. 2006) Zwei Tage später fordert der iranische Präsident den amerikanischen Präsidenten zu einer Fernsehdebatte auf, die nicht zensiert werden dürfe, damit das amerikanische Volk »die Wahrheit« erfahre. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 30. 8. 2006)

Nach Ablauf des Ultimatums werden mögliche Sanktionen gegen den Iran diskutiert. Der Vorsitzende des Auswärtigen Ausschusses im Europaparlament, Elmar Brok, sagt der »Berliner Zeitung«, Sanktionen dürften die immer noch möglichen Verhandlungen mit dem Iran nicht behindern, müssten aber zugleich zeigen, dass die Provokationen Teherans nicht hingenommen werden. Der Fraktions-Vize der Grünen, Jürgen Trittin, sagte: »Es ist falsch und bedient die Bombenfantasien des Herrn Rumsfeld, wenn immer nur über Sanktionen geredet wird.« Es sei wichtiger, »endlich mit dem Iran zu reden«. (»Berliner Zeitung«, 1. 9. 2006)

Bei einem Treffen der 25 EU-Außenminister Anfang September 2006 im finnischen Lappeenranta sind sich die Teilnehmer einig, der Diplomatie noch eine Chance zu geben... Die EU suche weiter den Dialog, gewähre dem Iran aber nur noch eine »kurze Frist«, um den Forderungen der UN nach Aussetzung der Urananreicherung nachzukommen. (»Tagesspiegel«, 3. 9. 2006)

»Unsere Position in der Sache ist transparent, klar und logisch«, sagt der iranische Präsident nach einem Treffen mit UN-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan, »und obwohl wir das Vertrauen in die Europäer ... verloren haben, sind wir immer noch bereit, uns auf gleicher Augenhöhe auseinanderzusetzen.« (»Welt«, 4. 9. 2006) »Annan ohne Erfolg in Teheran« (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 4. 9. 2006) »Rückkehr aus Teheran mit leeren Händen« (»taz«, 4. 9. 2006)

Die Europäische Union will einen letzten Anlauf für eine Lösung im Atomstreit unternehmen ... Die Beratungen gelten als letzte Chance für Teheran, drohende UN-Sanktionen abzuwenden, nachdem das Ultimatum des Sicherheitsrates ... am 31. August abgelaufen ist. (»Welt«, 6. 9. 2006)

EU-Chefdiplomat Javier Solana und der iranische Unter-händler Ali Laridschani haben am Samstag in Wien über das umstrittene Atomprogramm Teherans gesprochen. Das Treffen fand im österreichischen Kanzleramt statt ... Es gilt als möglicherweise letzte Chance für eine diplomatische Lösung des Konflikts. (»Tagesspiegel«, 10.9.2006)

Der iranische Präsident ... hat am Donnerstag zum wiederholten Mal die Forderung nach einem Aussetzen der Urananreicherung abgelehnt. Seine Regierung sei entschlossen, die Atomkraft weiterhin für friedliche Zwecke zu nutzen ... (»Tagesspiegel«, 29. 9.2006)

Die iranischen Atomanlagen sollen auf Anweisung von Präsident Ahmadinedschad für ausländische Touristen geöffnet werden ... Auf diese Weise wolle der Präsident beweisen, dass das Atomprogramm friedlichen Zwecken und ausschließlich der Energiegewinnung diene. (»Welt«, 5. 10. 2006)

Blix: Sanktionen gegen den Iran sind gefährlich. Der frühere UN-Chefwaffeninspekteur Hans Blix hat vor Sanktionen der Vereinten Nationen gegen Teheran im Atomstreit gewarnt. Es bestehe das Risiko, dass Teheran sich bei einer Verhängung von UN-Sanktionen in seinen atomaren Ambitionen bestätigt sehe ... (»Tagesspiegel«, 24.10.200G)

Auch im Jahre 2007 geht es wie gewohnt weiter.

»Atomkontrolleure fühlen sich von Teheran betrogen.« Die iranische Führung beginnt mit den internationalen Atominspekteuren ein Katz-und-Maus-Spiel, wie es einst Saddam Hussein betrieb. (»Welt«, 27. 1. 2007)

»Iran möchte doch über Atompläne reden.« Der iranische Chefunterhändler Ali Laridschani hat auf der Münchener Sicherheitskonferenz die Tür für Verhandlungen über das iranische Atomprogramm wieder einen kleinen Spalt geöffnet. Iran sei verhandlungsbereit. »Wir wollen nicht, dass sie sich Sorgen machen«, rief er den skeptischen Zuhörern zu. Laridschani betonte, über drei Dinge rede er nicht: Suspendierung des Atomprogramms, Israel und den Holocaust, dessen Leugnung er als »Meinungsfreiheit« bezeichnete. (»Tagesspiegel«, 12. 2. 2007)

»Ahmadinedschad stellt Bedingungen für Gespräche.« Der iranische Präsident hat am Dienstag im Atomstreit die Forderung erhoben, auch der Westen müsse seine Nuklearprogramme aussetzen, bevor es zu Verhandlungen kommen könne. »Die Gerechtigkeit verlangt, dass diejenigen, die mit uns Verhandlungen führen wollen, ihre Programme zum nuklearen Brennstoffkreislauf ebenfalls ausschalten. Dann können wir einen Dialog in einer fairen Atmosphäre halten.« (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 21. 2.2007)

»Iran bleibt im Atomstreit stur.« Unbeeindruckt vom Ablauf einer Frist des UN-Sicherheitsrates hat der Iran die Fortsetzung seines Atomprogramms angekündigt. Die Atomtechnologie sei »sehr wichtig für die Entwicklung und die Ehre« Irans, »sie ist es wert, andere Aktivitäten für zehn Jahre zu stoppen und sich ausschließlich auf die Atomfrage zu konzentrieren«. (»Welt«, 22. 2. 2007)

Teheran will derweil trotz möglicher weiterer Sanktionen an seinem Atomprogramm festhalten. Präsident Ahmadinedschad sagte, der Iran sei »ein Zug ohne Bremsen und Rückwärtsgang«. (»Welt«, 26. 2. 2007)

»UN beschließen härtere Sanktionen.« Der UN-Sicherheitsrat hat am Samstag einstimmig die Verschärfung der Strafmaßnahmen gegen den Iran verabschiedet. Die Resolution 1747 enthält ein Verbot von Waffenexporten und das Einfrieren weiterer Konten und verschärft damit die Resolution 1737 von Ende Dezember. US-Außenstaatssekretär Nicholas Burns nannte die neue Resolution eine »internationale Rüge« für Teheran. (»Tagesspiegel«, 25, 3. 2007)

»Iran kommt Atombombe näher.« Iran hat am Montag einen Fortschritt in seinem Atomprogramm verkündet, der dem Land bald die Fähigkeit zur Herstellung einer Atombombe verschaffen könnte. Der Chefunterhändler der Regierung, Ali Laridschani, sagte, Iran habe begonnen, 3000 Zentrifugen zum Anreichern von Uran einzusetzen. Das gilt als Voraussetzung, um den Sprengstoff für eine Atombombe jährlich zu produzieren. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 10. 4. 2007)

»Iran: Wir können nuklearen Brennstoff herstellen.« Der Iran kann sich nach Angaben von Präsident Ahmadinedschad jetzt mit atomarem Brennstoff selbst versorgen. »Der Iran steht seit heute auf der Liste derjenigen Staaten, die in der Lage sind, nuklearen Brennstoff herzustellen ... Der Chef der iranischen Atomenergie-Organisation ... sagte zum »Nationalen Atomtag«, sein Land könne jetzt Uran »im industriellen Maßstab« anreichern. (»Tagesspiegel«, 10. 4. 2007)

»Entsetzen über Irans neue Atompläne.« Ungeachtet internationaler Kritik hat der Iran im Atomstreit noch einmal nachgelegt. Teheran will die industrielle Anreicherung von Uran massiv ausweiten. Das Ziel sei »nicht bloß der Aufbau von 3000 Zentrifugen«, sagte der Chef der nationalen Atomenergiebehörde, »wir haben alles geplant, um 50 000 Zentrifugen zu installieren«. (»Welt«, 11.4.2007)

»IAEO: Der Iran kann Atombombe frühestens in vier Jahren bauen.« Der Iran könnte nach Schätzung der IAEO frühestens in »vier bis sechs Jahren« eine Atombombe bauen. »Es gibt also noch viel Zeit zu verhandeln«, sagte IAEO-Sprecherin Melissa Fleming. (»Welt«, 12. 4. 2007)

»Der Westen kommt Iran entgegen.« Die maßgeblichen Regierungen des Westens zeigen Bereitschaft, Iran im Atomstreit entgegenzukommen. Den Iranern könnten Zugeständnisse bei der Aussetzung der Urananreicherung gemacht werden ... Europäische Diplomaten sagten, man müsse sich irgendwo in der Mitte treffen. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 26. 4. 2007)

Außenminister Steinmeier hat es am Donnerstag im ARD-Fernsehen als »Pflicht« bezeichnet, Uran-Anreicherung in Ländern wie Iran zu stoppen. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 4. 5. 2 007)

»Iran bei Urananreicherung weiter als angenommen.« Der Iran hat der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde (IAEO) zufolge große Fortschritte bei der Urananreicherung erzielt. »Wir glauben, dass sie die Anreicherung im Wesentlichen verstanden haben«, sagte IAEO-Chef Mohammed al Baradei, »ab jetzt müssen sie das Wissen nur noch perfektionieren.« (»Tagesspiegel«, 16. 5. 2007)

Die Sondierungen der EU zur Beilegung des Atomstreits mit Iran verlaufen offenbar deutlich schlechter als bisher bekannt war. Der EU-Außenbeauftragte Javier Solana ... sagte, eine Wiederaufnahme von formalen Verhandlungen sei »sehr schwierig, sehr schwierig«. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 16. 5. 2007)

»Nuklearstreit mit Iran eskaliert weiter.« Die Auseinandersetzung um das iranische Atomprogramm hat eine neue Eskalationsstufe erreicht. Nach erneuter Kritik der Internationalen Atomenergie-Agentur an Teheran dringen USA, Frankreich, Großbritannien sowie Deutschland auf eine erneute Ausweitung der erstmals im Dezember letzten Jahres verhängten und im März dieses Jahres verschärften UNO-Sanktionen gegen Iran. (»taz«, 25. 5. 2007)

Bundeskanzlerin Merkel droht dem Iran mit weiteren Sanktionen, falls das Land im Streit über das Atompro-gramm nicht nachgeben sollte. »Wir können nicht die Augen vor einer Gefährdung verschließen. Ich trete mit Nachdruck dafür ein, dass wir das Problem auf dem Verhandlungsweg lösen, aber dazu müssen wir auch bereit sein, weitere Sanktionen zu verhängen, wenn der Iran nicht einlenkt.« Der Iran bedrohe »die Region, Europa und die Welt«, das müsse verhindert werden. (»Welt«, 15. 10. 2007) Merkel will Handel mit Iran einschränken. Sie will dazu die deutsche Wirtschaft zur Einschränkung ihrer Exporte in den Iran bewegen. (»Welt«, 12. 11 2007)

»Solana enttäuscht über Iran.« Nach einem fünfstündigen Treffen mit dem iranischen Chefunterhändler Dschalili in London, sagte der EU-Außenbeauftragte Solana: »Ich muss zugeben, dass ich mehr erwartet hätte, und deshalb bin ich enttäuscht.« Dagegen erklärte Dschalili, er habe »gute Verhandlungen« mit Solana geführt und kündigte eine rasche Fortsetzung der Gespräche an. (»Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung«, 1. 12. 2007)

Und so geht es weiter und weiter. Die Europäer drohen mit Sanktionen, der Iran macht, was er will, wissend, dass er es mit einem Kränzchen von Papiertigern zu tun hat, denen es vor allem darauf ankommt, den Gang der Geschäfte nicht zu gefährden. Auch Österreich und die Schweiz haben inzwischen milliardenschwere Energieabkommen mit dem Iran geschlossen, die jede »UN-Sanktion« zu einem Witz degradieren.

Einmal freilich lässt die EU ihre Muskeln spielen. Ende Februar 2008 hat sie gegen einen dem Teheraner Parlament vorliegenden Gesetzentwurf protestiert, der für »Apostasie, Ketzerei und Zauberei« die Verhängung der Todesstrafe vorsieht. Die kommt zwar jetzt schon zur Anwendung, aber das neue Gesetz würde dem Richter keinen Spielraum mehr lassen. Nichts spricht dafür, dass die Iraner wegen einem Brief aus Europa von ihren »Reformplänen« abrücken würden, aber für die Europäer, die Politik vor allem als endloses Palaver verstehen, hat so ein Protest die Kraft eines Placebo-Präparats. Sie fühlen sich nach der Einnahme besser.

Auch der Chef der Internationalen Atomenergieagentur, al Baradei, der die Iraner immer zuvorkommend und rücksichtsvoll behandelt hatte, beweist, dass er seinen Job ernst nimmt. Ende April 2008 erteilt er den USA und Israel eine Rüge, nachdem die USA Videos und Satellitenaufnahmen von einem im Bau befindlichen syrischen Reaktor vorgelegt haben, den Israel Anfang September 2007 durch einen Luftangriff zerstört hatte. Damit, so al Baradei, sei die Arbeit seiner Agentur behindert worden; man habe dem Verdacht, Syrien baue mit nordkoreanischer Hilfe eine Atomanlage, nicht nachgehen können. Israels praktischer Beitrag zur atomaren Abrüstung im Nahen Osten blieb dagegen ungewürdigt. Und auch sonst passierte nichts.

»Der Iran hat im Streit über sein Atomprogramm erneut einen Verzicht auf die Anreicherung von Uran abgelehnt.« Jedes Verhandlungsangebot der internationalen Gemeinschaft, das eine solche Bedingung stelle, werde gar nicht erst in Erwägung gezogen, erklärte das Außenministerium in Teheran am Sonntag. Die Urananreicherung sei ein »unbestreitbares Recht« des Irans, das kein Anreizpaket aufwiege, sagt Sprecher Mohammad Ali Hosseini.

»Die USA und andere Staaten einigten sich vergangene Woche darauf, dem Iran ein neues Angebot zu unterbreiten. Der Sicherheitsrat hat gegen Teheran wegen des umstrittenen Atomprogramms bereits drei Mal Sanktionen verhängt.« (AP-Meldung, 11. 5. 2008)

»Die internationale Staatengemeinschaft hat dem Iran ein neues Paket mit Anreizen für einen Verzicht auf die weitere Urananreicherung vorgelegt ...«

Chefdiplomat Javier Solana überreichte die neuen Vorschläge Außenminister Manutschehr Mottaki. Es handle sich um ein >großzügiges und umfassendes Angebot<, sagte Solana. Damit zeigten die EU und die Gruppe der fünf ständigen Mitgliedsstaaten im Weltsicherheitsrat unter Einbeziehung Deutschlands ihren Wunsch nach >konstruktiven und kooperativen Beziehungen mit dem Iran bei der Atomenergie und in vielen anderen Bereichen<. Der Iran solle dabei unterstützt werden, ein modernes Programm zur wirtschaftlichen Nutzung der Kernenergie zu entwickeln. Das Paket ist eine geringfügig geänderte Neuauflage eines ersten Vorschlags aus dem Jahr 2006.

Regierungssprecher Gholam Hossein Elham sagte, Teheran werde das Paket nicht annehmen, wenn damit die Forderung nach einer Einstellung der Urananreicherung verbunden sei. Dann werde man es noch nicht einmal näher anschauen, sagte Elham nach einer Meldung der amtlichen Nachrichtenagentur IRNA. >Die Position der Islamischen Republik Iran ist eindeutig.«< (»20 Minuten«, Zürich, 14. 6. 2008)

Nur die internationale Staatenbereitschaft will es nicht begreifen. Denn zu einem gelungenen Täuschungsmanöver gehört auch immer einer, der sich täuschen lassen will. Und so gehen die Verhandlungen mit dem Iran weiter. Der Iran macht, was er will, und die Europäer verhandeln. Vor allem darüber, unter welchen Bedingungen verhandelt werden soll. Dass überhaupt noch »verhandelt« wird, gilt schon als ein Erfolg der Diplomatie. Und die Musi spielt dazu.

Am 2. Juli berichtet Bahman Nirumand in der »taz« über »Versöhnlichere Töne aus Teheran«, eine Aufweichung der bislang unversöhnlichen Positionen. Nirumand hört öfter das Gras wachsen, manchmal auch schon bevor es gesät wurde. So hat er unter anderem kurz nach der Wahl Ahmadinedschads zum Präsidenten des Iran vorausgesagt, er werde sich nicht lange im Amt halten. »Bereits nächste Woche«, so Bahman unter Berufung auf Informationen aus Teheran, »sollen die Gespräche mit den ständigen Mitgliedern des UN-Sicherheitsrats und Deutschland wieder aufgenommen werden«; ein Grund für Nirumands Optimismus ist eine Erklärung des Abgeordneten Emad Hosseini, er habe den Eindruck, dass die Europäer ihre Haltung geändert hätten. »Daher sind wir zu dem Ergebnis gelangt, die Verhandlungen wieder aufzunehmen.« Als weiteren Beleg für eine mögliche Kursänderung nennt Nirumand eine Diskussion im iranischen Fernsehen, bei der einige »Teilnehmer Meinungen äußerten, die dem offiziellen Kurs diametral entgegengesetzt waren« - das war im Wesentlichen alles, was er zu bieten hatte.

Nur vier Tage später, am 6. Juli, berichtet die »FAZ«, »die fünf Veto-Mächte des UN-Sicherheitsrats und Deutschland« würden nähere Verhandlungsmöglichkeiten mit Teheran »sondieren« - so als habe man soeben mit den Verhandlungen begonnen. Die Sechser-Gruppe habe sich darauf verständigt, »dass der EU-Außenbeauftrage Solana noch in diesem Monat zu einem Gespräch mit dem iranischen Atomunterhändler Dschalili aufbrechen soll«; zugleich habe Deutschland dem Iran damit »gedroht, dass das iranische Atomprogramm im Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen abermals zum Thema gemacht würde, sollten die laufenden Verhandlungsbemühungen scheitern«.

Um dieser massiven Drohung Nachdruck zu verleihen, erklärt Außenminister Steinmeier: »Wenn es zu keinen Fortschritten und keinen konstruktiven Antworten aus Teheran kommt, müssen wir über eine neue Runde im Sicherheitsrat nachdenken, ausdrücklich mit Russland und ausdrücklich mit China.«

Und während Steinmeier darüber nachdachte, wie es mit dem Nachdenken über den Iran weitergehen soll, zog die iranische Regierung wieder ihren Joker aus dem Ärmel. Ein iranischer Regierungssprecher gab bekannt, der Iran sei zwar bereit, im Rahmen der internationalen Regeln zu verhandeln, die Einstellung zum Atomprogramm habe sich jedoch nicht geändert. Was die »FAZ« so interpretierte: »Das ließ darauf schließen, dass die wichtigste Forderung des Westens, die Einstellung der Urananreicherung, weiterhin abgelehnt wird.«

Trotzdem trafen sich kurz danach in Genf die Vertreter der »Sechser-Gruppe« mit Repräsentanten der Islamischen Republik Iran, um wieder über das »Anreizpaket« zu verhandeln. Zum ersten Mal saß auch ein ranghoher amerikanischer Diplomat mit am Tisch, Staatssekretär Williams Burns, der schon die Libyer und die Nordkoreaner davon überzeugt hatte, dass es gut für sie wäre, auf atomare Abenteuer zu verzichten. Doch diesmal konnte auch Burns nichts ausrichten. Nach dem mehrstündigen Treffen, das wie alle vorausgegangenen ergebnisneutral endete, erklärte Javier Solana, das Gespräch sei »substantiell und konstruktiv« gewesen, man habe allerdings keine Antworten auf die gestellten Fragen erhalten. Auf die Frage, ob die Führung in Teheran mit weiteren UN-Sanktionen rechnen müsse, orakelte der EU-Außenbeauftragte: »Die Iraner wissen sehr genau, wie es weitergeht, wenn ansonsten nichts passiert.« Ein iranischer Unterhändler betonte dagegen, man habe sich nur über »allgemeine Punkte« unterhalten. In zwei Wochen werde man sich wieder zusammensetzen. »Iran bleibt hart«, so die »Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung« vom 20. Juli über den Ausgang des Palavers am Genfer See.

Und während Javier Solana schon die Taschen für seine nächste Reise nach Genf oder Teheran packte, um die Verhandlungen fortzusetzen und mit Sanktionen für den Fall zu drohen, dass der Iran die Uran-Anreicherung nicht aussetzt, forcierten die Iraner den Bau neuer Gaszentrifugen, um mit der Urananreicherung voranzukommen.

So ging die unendliche Geschichte weiter und weiter. Die USA, die Atomenergiebehörde, die Europäer machten Angebote, unterbreiteten Kompromissvorschläge, bauten Brücken. Die Iraner setzten sich über alle Offerten souverän hinweg und bauten ihr Atomprogramm weiter aus. Ende November 2008 fasste Hans Rühle, einer der führenden Sicherheitsexperten der Bundesrepublik die Situation in zwei Sätzen zusammen: »Jüngste Untersuchungen belegen, dass das iranische Nuklearprogramm sich in seiner finalen Phase befindet. Das Land hat jahrelang an einem geheimen Militärprogramm gearbeitet - und den Rest der Welt an der Nase herumgeführt. (»Welt«, 25. November 2008) Bei dieser Gelegenheit wies Rühle auch darauf hin, dass bei der letzten iranischen Militärparade im September 2008 ein Banner präsentiert wurde, auf dem in Englisch und Farsi die Parole zu lesen war: »Israel should be eliminated from the universe.«

In einem Interview mit der »Welt« vom 15. Dezember 2008 antwortete der Chef der Atomenergiebehörde, Mohammed al-Baradai, auf die Frage, ob die Iran-Politik der internationalen Gemeinschaft ein Erfolg oder Misserfolg war: »Bisher war sie ein Misserfolg, wir haben uns keinen Zentimeter bewegt...«. Mit der Übernahme der amerikanischen Präsidentschaft durch Barack Obama wurden neue Akzente gesetzt. Jetzt war wieder von einem »Dialog« mit dem Iran die Rede, zugleich sprach Obama in einem Interview mit dem Sender al-Arabija von der Notwendigkeit von »Opfern« bei einer Lösung des Nahostkonflikts - bezog dies aber nur auf Israel. Über die Hamas und die Hisbollah, die beide vom Iran unterstützt werden, verlor der frischgebackene Präsident in seinem ersten TV-Interview kein Wort, obwohl die Gelegenheit günstig gewesen wäre.

Anfang Juni 2008 legte die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde einen neuen Bericht zum Stand der Uran-Anreicherung im Iran vor. Danach hatte Teheran insgesamt 4920 Zentrifugen in Betrieb genommen und 1,4 Tonnen angereichertes Uran produziert. Durch die höhere Anzahl an Zentrifugen, hieß es in dem Bericht, sei es für die IAEA- Inspektoren schwieriger geworden, das iranische Atomprogramm zu überwachen. Deswegen erwäge man bei der IAEA die Neuausrichtung der Überwachungskameras.

Does it need anything more to illustrate what total idiots we are?

Oberon

11-08-11, 09:07 AM

Oberon, you basically confirm my line of reasoning and worries. All your concerns are valid, I share them.

But since I still think this job needs to get done (it'S a war of need to me, not a war of choice), no matter what, this is the reason why I argue in favour of a massive, really huge committment by the US and hopefully (though not likely) the EU states as well, and why I even do not rule out the use of some non-conventional weapons to bust open certain critical sites, and to make access to such destroyed sites as difficult as possible, to make it hard or impossible to save material or components from such sites.

We should also be ready to monitor said destroyed sites and prevent such rescue operations by being ready to fire more cruise missiles if the Iranians launch according activities there. Rescue parties searching for plutonium or machinery, must be targetted.

So we talk about a years-long regime of sanctions and observations, maybe comparable to what there has been in Irak.

For the record: nowhere have I ever and do I speak of "nuking cities". I do not even talk of regular, normal sized small warheads the kind of which you see in SRBMs. I talk of nuclear bunker busters. Rumsfeld I think was said to have stopped their developement, or do I recall that wrongly? But nobody can tell me the military with its big fat pots of black money really has stopped the developement of such a lovely, preferable toy. And who believes Rumsfeld anyhow?

I am telling on this forum since years that just some days of strikes will acchieve close to nothing substantial. But for politicians at home it may be tempting to start a show with bright lights and loud sounds and then sell it as a sign of their determination and committment when the next elections come up. Of all scenarios how it goes and ends, this one is the most likely to me: that some form of insufficient military action gets started as an alibi, and that then any possible improvements once again will get ruined and messed up by politicians.

Saudi Arabia should be sent a good fat part of the bill. Nobody in the region benefits more from a haircutting of Iran, than SA. So make them pay for it, too. They can takje the money from the funds by which they support international Islamic terrorism and extremist recruiting centres in European cities.

Unfortunately I can't see either the US or the EU taking an active role in terms of using firepower against Iran until after Iran takes an action, be it using its nuclear weapon against Israel or supplying a Islamic militant group with nuclear material (if indeed they haven't already). Relations between Israel and the EU and the US are very strained at the moment, as this report shows:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15635476

"I can't stand him any more, he's a liar," Mr Sarkozy said in French. "You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day," Mr Obama replied."
So, if Israel is going to do this, it is going to have to do it alone...and there will be no follow up attacks on recovery teams because I don't think Israel can maintain that tempo of operations for the length of time that is required...I might be wrong, Israel has surprised everyone before, but they'll be facing a lot of problems at home after the initial raids when Hezbollah starts launching, so they'll need some of their aircraft back in Israel to launch retaliatory raids into Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah Katyushas and cell bases.
The United States isn't going to cut relations with Israel, not even over the bombing of Iran, it would be political suicide, however it is clear that under the current presidency (and perhaps under the next one, who knows?) Israel does not enjoy the same level of friendship that it once did because Washington is unable to look at Israel from Israels point of view. They haven't faced such a threat to their existence since the War of Independence...and that is a fading memory that grows fainter every year, despite the celebrations of July 4th.
The EU will definitely not involve itself because in the EU 'Israel' is a dirty word, and the EU has enough problems on its plate right now without getting involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. The fact that Iranian missiles have the range to hit Paris and Berlin doesn't enter into the equation. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the Western world is very reluctant to be pre-emptive on any Middle Eastern threat, because of the sheer amount of public flak that is thrown up by the mere mention of the region. China and Russia rub their hands in glee at the matter, because nine times out of ten it is their allies that are causing the trouble, it's becoming a pretty bi-polar world once again with the West on one side and the East on the other, but that's a cycle that's been going since 1917, if not before.
So western nations would rather wait until after the event to take action...of course, the problem with that is the event is most likely going to be a giant crater in a city somewhere...not exactly a desirable outcome...but at the same time, it would certainly wake the West up to the potential threat of unstable nations with nukes.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not some far-right lunatic...nor I believe is Skybird, despite many peoples efforts to label him as such. But neither of us trust Iran further than we can throw it, and really would not put it past Tehran to use its nuclear missile ability to further its own agenda in the Middle East. Neither of us can say for certain that Dinnerjacket (as I call him) would use a nuclear weapon in anger, particularly given the retaliation...however the risk is certainly greater than even the DPRK using a nuclear weapon IMHO because Communist leaders tend to try and live for as long as humanly possible (see entire Soviet Politburo from 1953 to 1987), whereas radical Islamics...well...see Suicide bombers.
Can we equate a Suicide bomber with the leader of Iran? I don't know...I don't know Dinnerjackets psyche. However it is clear that Israel perceives Iran as a clear and present danger to its continued existence...and I agree with Tel Aviv...because if Iran nuked Israel, Washington would not nuke Iran, so it would be down to Israel to retaliate...so Israel has no real backup which is why it has its nukes that no-one is supposed to know about (:haha:) and why, faced with its destruction, it will use them.

Bit of a ramble that one, less coherent than my first...but I will summerise again:
1) Iran may or may not use its nuclear weapons against Israel and/or Europe
2) If Iran did use a nuclear weapon against Israel, the United States would not launch a nuclear strike on Iran in retaliation
3) Israel is pretty much an isolated nation in the Middle East which is surrounded by enemies, no matter what Israel does, its enemies will not be satisfied until it has been completely removed from the map
4) One of the biggest threats from the Middle East is a unified Arab theocracy with a radical Muslim leader in charge...a Iran with nuclear weapons could, in theory, bully its neighbours into creating such an entity (a Middle Eastern EU?) with itself in charge. This would be a disaster on an unprecedented scale.
5) We rely on oil. The Middle East has a lot of it. Therefore, if we want to live in the relative comfort that we live in now, we need to keep an active interest in the Middle East...despite the knockbacks that we have had. Ground forces are a big no-no, however the use of airforce in a policing role should be investigated further (see Iraqi no-fly zone)

Skybird

11-08-11, 09:17 AM

That's me.

I was against the early ending of the Iraq war 1991. I was against the way they handled the Afghanistan war 2002. I was completely against the Iraq war 2003. I was against the way the handled the Lebanon war 2006.

Now that there could be a war that I would support and agree on, they do not want to wage it. Loosers.

Oberon

11-08-11, 09:19 AM

Type941

11-10-11, 02:27 AM

Oberon

11-10-11, 06:47 AM

why not just take out the crazy cookoo people in iran who make decisions about nuclear programme?

I.e. next time Ahmadejad and the Mullah are in some meeting... who would shed a tear?

Thats what Jack Bauer would do anyway.

I agree though that a lot of Russia and CHina reactions are aimed at striking small blows to US all the time. Obama can't handle it.

The snag with hitting the leadership is that a) it would incite an even bigger condemnation and terrorist retaliation than hitting the nuclear program and b) it would just clear the path for another group of nutjobs to take over.
Better the devil you know...

Skybird

11-10-11, 07:59 AM

Iran has a very complicated leadership structure, and a complex and huge personnel pool for that as well. If you want to decapitate it, you would probabaly be in need of killing several hundreds, maybe more. You do not acchieve much if just killing Ahmadinejadh or some council of Mullahs. Not even mentioning the state-within-the-state, the RG, dominating the military sectors and controlling key-nexus of the economic network as well.

Meanwhile, Israel has started to ask tough questions about the role of former IAEA chief al-Baradei who had done his best to help the Iranians getting the time they needed, and hindered the examination and reporting about the weapon program tremendously. I personally think he is conspirating with the Iranians indeed, and that him candidating for Egyptian elections is a perspective that I find as worrying as do the Israelis. He cannot be trusted. But Israelis I do not tell something new, I assume. Since Egypt and Iran are rivals, I can assume as only motivation for al-Baradei'S betrayal when leading the IAEA a shared hostility towards the Jerwish state and/or the West in general

Sammi79

11-10-11, 08:18 AM

US fears Israel would not advise if it strikes Iran.

What and give up the advantage of surprise? That would be a foolish move that would be quite out of character for Israel I think.

Still IMHO I find it hard to swallow that so many heavily nuclear armed nations who all demand their right to keep them and build more for the purposes of negotiation or deterrent feel they have any say in the rights to these catastrophic weapons of other nations. We have ours. Why can't they have theirs ? From their point of view, no fair dealings can be had until they hold the same cards, no ? If nations want nuclear weapons proliferation to stop, they need to start at home, because if even just 1 nation has them, then every other nation feels a need for them too.

I also think bombing nuclear facilities is highly irresponsible, the possible dangers to people and the environment are great. Still that never worried Israel before.

Jimbuna

11-10-11, 09:42 AM

No suprises here then:

Russia rules out new Iran sanctions over nuclear report

Russia has ruled out supporting fresh sanctions against Iran, despite a UN report that says Tehran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Britain, France and the US all said they would pursue new sanctions against Iran in the wake of the IAEA report.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said the report showed the need for the world to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15659311

Skybird

11-10-11, 10:18 AM

Israel'S nuclear arsenal is defensive, Iran'S is offensive.

The Arab neighbours never have much complained about Israel'S nuclear option until just the recent past years. These regimes had arranged themselves with Israel, knowing that Israel not only lacks the potential to ever threaten these regimes with toppling them or to conquer them, put even - paradoxically - helps them to solidify themselves. Israel is no offensive threat to anyone in the region. Iran is.

Iran however, does not answer Israel's favour to never have questioned Iran's integrity and stability and right to excist. Iran says clearly that Israel has no right to exist, Iran tries to destabilise Israel and the whole region for gaining more power itself, and Iran tests Irael'S internal stability by letting Iran'S helpful proxies firing missiles into Israel every couple of weeks currently, and helps terrorists to kill Israeli without discriminating military taregts from civilian persons. Iran already wages a shooting war against the state and people of Israel, it already kills. And IUran has left no doubt that the destruction of Israel is the ultimate goal of Iranian policy.

You may not see this little, but decisive difference, Sammi, or in an attempt to endlessly relativse the aggressiveness of Iran and to prevent a clear distinction between aggressor and victim you may think that the examples already set up by Iran and that give evidence that Iran is not like any other nuclear power (like you seem to argue) mean nothing. But that speaks against your reasonability then, not against Israel or the need to prevent Iran becoming nuclear. Israel acts passively in the region and is no strategic threat to anyone there, questioning no state's or regime's right to exist there. Iran is the aggressor here, and it has said what it wants to do with Israel, not to mention the even deeper-rooting antipathy to Saudi Arabia. You m ay think Israel or the Palestinioans are important and key to the ME - they are not. Key to understanding the problem they have there is the hostility between Shia and Sunni, Iran and Saudi Arabia. And that conflict rages like many centuries.

And your concerns about the environment and war killing people, that is very kind, thank you for your good heart. If that way of arguing were the reasons that decide over war and peace, world peace already would have broken out longer time ago. But it hasn't. Conclusions?

Skybird

11-10-11, 10:57 AM

"We use the bomb for
peaceful purposes only!"
.................................................. ....................................."Pardon! We use nuclear energy
.................................................. ........................................for peaceful purposes only!"
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/pardonts/5819286/2.jpg?format=format10 (http://www.tagesspiegel.de/mediacenter/karikatur/karikaturen-von-stuttmann-und-schwalme/3994.html?p3994=2#image)

1480

11-10-11, 11:06 AM

JU_88

11-10-11, 01:05 PM

[QUOTE=Skybird;1784812]Israel'S nuclear arsenal is defensive, Iran'S is offensive.

or so we are told.

Skybird

11-10-11, 02:38 PM

[QUOTE=Skybird;1784812]Israel'S nuclear arsenal is defensive, Iran'S is offensive.

or so we are told.

No, it'S historic record.

Read the rest of my post. Israel is no threat to any neighbouring states existence, Iran is. Israel never has threatened for example Jordan to wipe the Jordanian dirt off the earth'S face. Iran has.

STEED

11-10-11, 02:44 PM

Israel will attack Iran next month according to the British press today. :o

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press? :hmmm:

Iran dose not need to spy on them just pick up a UK paper. :har:

Sammi79

11-10-11, 03:07 PM

Yes but by that rationale, Sky, the USA is the only nation who owns 'offensive' nuclear weapons - by the historical record.

The problem with all nuclear weapons is, if any one nation is dumb enough to use them against another nation that has them - both nations are toast, as well as probably the rest of the planet as automatic MAD retaliatory systems kick in. I think most governments (yes even the Iranian dictatorship) understand this. Even your cynical mind must be able to see the irony here. Israel was neither forthcoming nor transparent when it developed its own nuclear arsenal.

You are welcome for my 'good heart' and 'kindness' as much as you want to belittle me over it, the point was, bombing nuclear facilities risks dispersing radioactive materials into the environment equaling or even surpassing Chernobyl, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable for human beings for centuries, of course, who cares if it's not on your land right?

I am not fond of the Iranian regime, nor of extremist Islamist anti Iraeli sentiments, but then Israeli regime actions since the end of their last war have hardly been whiter than white either. I would personally find it more agreeable if a nation who didn't have nuclear weapons was making these investigations and demands for a Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, at least it would come from a position of righteousness rather than seeming like the school bully with the biggest stick in the playground. Then again, as I stated in my previous post, that is my opinion - not a fact, not an implication that it should or must be done or not, simply an opinion, OK?

regards,
Sam.

Skybird

11-10-11, 03:07 PM

Steed,

Israel did not leak it to the press, but advised the British authorities (and apparently the British military), it seems. It is an insider of the latter that the Mail refers to.

http://www.debka.com/article/21464/

A senior Foreign Office official says British government ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action in the wake of the UN watchdog report "as early as Christmas or very early in the new year," the London Daily Mail reported Thursday, Nov. 10. The ministers were told that Israel would strike Iran's nuclear sites "sooner rather than later" ***8211; with "logistical support" from the US.

According to the British paper, which has good military and intelligence ties in London, President Barack Obama would "have to support the Israelis or risk losing Jewish-American support in the next presidential election." The bigger concern is that once Iran is nuclear-armed, it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons to even out the balance of nuclear terror in the Middle East.

debkafile's military sources add that Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has told Obama more than once this year, "If Iran gets nuclear arms, Turkey will get nuclear arms."

The Daily Mail goes on to report that in recent weeks, British Ministry of Defense sources confirmed that contingency plans had been drawn up in the event that the UK decided to support military action.

debkafile refers to an earlier report that the British chief of staff, Gen. Sir David Richards, paid a secret visit to Israel on Nov. 2, followed the next day by the arrival in London of the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak for talks with British defense and military heads.

The reference to US logistical support is explained by our military sources as pointing to the Libyan model of military intervention whereby France, Britain and Italy spearheaded the action against the Qaddafi regime while the United States from "a back seat" laid on satellite and aerial intelligence and placed at their disposal its logistical supply network, including the in-flight refueling of bombers and ordnance.

Transposing this model to an offensive against Iran, Israel's air and naval forces would front the attack on Iran with logistical and intelligence backup from the United States, while leading NATO powers France, Britain, Germany, Holland and Italy would participate directly or indirectly in the Israeli operation.

Since this attack would almost certainly bring forth reprisals from Tehran and its allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami, it would almost certainly expand into a wider Middle East conflict, thus also broadening US and West European military intervention.

Prospects are fading for the alternative to military action - tough new sanctions able to choke Iran's financial operations and oil exports after the nuclear agency confirmed its surreptitious attainment of a nuclear weapon capability.

Wednesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov promised visiting Iranian official Ali Baqeri that "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen***8230; as an instrument for regime change in Tehran. That approach is unacceptable to us and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals."

China will certainly go along with Russia on this.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first response to the IAEA report was to attack its credibility and declare that Iran would continue its nuclear program regardless of its findings.

Skybird

11-10-11, 03:27 PM

Yes but by that rationale, Sky, the USA is the only nation who owns 'offensive' nuclear weapons - by the historical record.
Not even the Soviet Union has ever threatened nuclear holocaust against another nation for mere reasons of hate, or just becasue that nation was there. The Cold War was basing on a mutual deterrancy. You cannot compare Iran'S policy to that of the USSR, the US, Britain, France, Israel, Brasil, India.

The problem with all nuclear weapons is, if any one nation is dumb enough to use them against another nation that has them - both nations are toast, as well as probably the rest of the planet as automatic MAD retaliatory systems kick in.
China, Rzussia and the US would not go at each others throats over a hyrophobic dog like Iran. You can truist in that. Also, as I repeatedly said, the bigger danger is not Iran dropping the bomb on Israel, although that is absolkutely possible - they said so often eough mand who am I or who are you to tell the world the Iranians do not mean what they say? They are relgious nutzheads, and thus by defintion: irrational. The bigger thgreats are nuclear proilioferation to terror ghroups, the Wets become vuklnerable to nuclöear blackmal by such terror groupos of the Iranian MRBMs, and the risky nature of a nuclear artms range between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt in an environment as instabile, unpredictable, emotionally hysteric and simply: ionsane, oime the the ME is. The cold war took place in a reölatively stable, raitonal context (and even hewre we sometimes were close to lose control, and inat least one case simpy were lucky that we survrivbed it). a new cold war in the ME is - unacceptable. It makes the cold war of the past look like a friendly gathering under the christmas tree.

I think most governments (yes even the Iranian dictatorship) understand this. Even your cynical mind must be able to see the irony here. Israel was neither forthcoming nor transparent when it developed its own nuclear arsenal.
And it never threatened anybody to wipe him off the earth'S face, and is not seen by the Arabic regimes as a thrat to their very own existence. If they are not better than the IUranians, then I wonder why the Arbaa nations see this difference? Nobody has raised his own hjuclearf program to coutner Israel. But with Iran, SA, Turky and Egypt have left no doubt in the past years that they would seek nuclear reactions to that.

You are welcome for my 'good heart' and 'kindness' as much as you want to belittle me over it, the point was, bombing nuclear facilities risks dispersing radioactive materials into the environment equaling or even surpassing Chernobyl, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable for human beings for centuries, of course, who cares if it's not on your land right?

Right. Better them than us, since we did not make the deicison to threaten our neighbours with exticntion, and do not support terrorism. You see, I believe in thjat people are responisble for the choiuces they make. Even the Iranians. My country poayed a porice for tzhe deciisons the people made 80 years ago. So will the Iranians. I have no intetion to leave them any other cheap alternative.

Equalling Chernobyl, you say? Well, Fukushima surpasses Chernobyl, they now say. But Japan is still there. Iran has smaller radioactive material stockpiles, and as I said on various occasions: we do talk aboiut nuclear bunker busting of those critical installations only that cannot be reached by conventional ammo. If any radioactive contamination makes it difficult to enter the bombed sites to try saving plutonium or critical technology and installation - the better!

I am not fond of the Iranian regime, nor of extremist Islamist anti Iraeli sentiments, but then Israeli regime actions since the end of their last war have hardly been whiter than white either. I would personally find it more agreeable if a nation who didn't have nuclear weapons was making these investigations and demands for a Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, at least it would come from a position of righteousness rather than seeming like the school bully with the biggest stick in the playground.

Then yoiu have slept since many years. Practically all European natiosn for example, nhuke-owners and not, have said that loiud and clear, and supported the IAEA. Since years. Since over one deacde. And they sqaid time and again they would not tolerate or accept a nuzclear Iran. Have you been on a 5 year expedition to the outer planets to miss that? I even quoted a 10 book pages' list of diplomatic exchanges some days ago, four dozen exchanges within a timeframe of just 18 months, 2007 and 2008.

mapuc

11-10-11, 04:40 PM

Israel will attack Iran next month according to the British press today. :o

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press? :hmmm:

Iran dose not need to spy on them just pick up a UK paper. :har:

Maybe so. I do believe it's some kind of misled information

Markus

Jimbuna

11-10-11, 06:30 PM

Sammi79

11-10-11, 07:36 PM

OK Sky, next time, maybe just type in German and I'll use a translator, or maybe just try not to type in an emotionally charged state, you know, think of your heart (the blood pumping one not the emotive one). it might be easier for me to read that way. My posts certainly seem to provide you with much argumentative glee though, so here's another.

The bigger thgreats are nuclear proilioferation to terror ghroups, the Wets become vuklnerable to nuclöear blackmal by such terror groupos of the Iranian MRBMs, and the risky nature of a nuclear artms range between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt in an environment as instabile, unpredictable, emotionally hysteric and simply: ionsane, oime the the ME is.

You have a point there, they might all throw nukes at each other but then you write -

Right. Better them than us, since we did not make the deicison to threaten our neighbours with exticntion, and do not support terrorism. You see, I believe in thjat people are responisble for the choiuces they make. Even the Iranians. My country poayed a porice for tzhe deciisons the people made 80 years ago. So will the Iranians. I have no intetion to leave them any other cheap alternative.

That last bit basically states you couldn't care less if Iran gets large areas of land and people irradiated for a very long time, and that in your eyes they even deserve it? I find that pretty disgusting considering you are talking about a dictatorship government who does not in any real sense represent those people. They've not recently tried to conquer the entirety of Europe, or the ME, have they? Your logic about nuclear weapons being 'defensive' and/or 'deterrent' is ludicrous because it can just as easily be used by Iran. Yes they threaten, and yes they posture, but this is not proof that they will use nuclear weapons against Israel or anybody else. Of course, Israel says that its nukes are defensive only as does every other nuclear armed nation, but as has already been discussed they will surely hit first and talk later.

To recap only on the content of what I said before, I think it's a bit bloody ironic that all of our nations who are practically bristling with enough nuclear armament to turn the entire planet into space dust telling any other nation (however mad and/or dangerous we are led to believe they are) that they're not allowed. You are arguing against my sense of irony, but as I sense it, how can I be without it ? I can hear you typing madly already so let me just quote myself again only this time, see if you can understand :-

as I stated in my previous post, that is my opinion - not a fact, not an implication that it should or must be done or not, simply an opinion, OK?

regards,
Sam.

Skybird

11-10-11, 08:58 PM

That last bit basically states you couldn't care less if Iran gets large areas of land and people irradiated for a very long time, and that in your eyes they even deserve it? I find that pretty disgusting considering you are talking about a dictatorship government who does not in any real sense represent those people.
I said that if they want a showdown over their damn bomb, then I prefer them to suffer instead of us. I prefer an Iranian bunker factory or research site being taken out to a suitcase bomb with radioactive material going off in Frankfurt or London.

They've not recently tried to conquer the entirety of Europe, or the ME, have they?

Oh they do. I need no rehtorics to show you that. They say they want to annihilate Israel. They already shoot at Israel. They support Islamic terror around the world, they finance it, equip it, support it by training and intel. They have infiltratred and taken over Lebanon. Thanks to them, Hezbollah is there - and armed stronger than ever before. Iranian RG commandoe are there and train Hezbollah. They want an Islamic global rule, which is the aim of Islam.

Is that aggressive and violent enough for you, yes?

Your logic about nuclear weapons being 'defensive' and/or 'deterrent' is ludicrous because it can just as easily be used by Iran. Yes they threaten, and yes they posture, but this is not proof that they will use nuclear weapons against Israel or anybody else. Of course, Israel says that its nukes are defensive only as does every other nuclear armed nation, but as has already been discussed they will surely hit first and talk later.
If Israel is being pushed into a corner. Iran has not been pushed into a corner, and theirs is a record of proxy wars and violence and terror support. Maybe you think it is clever to still give them the benefit of doubt when wanting to decidce whether or not leaving them nukes. But that is insanity. Iran act offensiovely. Iran acts agressively. Iran acts criminally and inhumane. Iran threatens extinction and annihilation not as a retaliatory means, but offensively.

If the people want not to be held respkjnbile for what is beign done in their name, then they have to raise up. That may come at a price, but that'S how it is. However, having spend loinger time in Iran years ago, I learned the many difefefnt people/classes there, and if yoiu think the regime has support only by a minority of the ordinary population, then you are simply wrong. It is not that simplistic.

To recap only on the content of what I said before, I think it's a bit bloody ironic that all of our nations who are practically bristling with enough nuclear armament to turn the entire planet into space dust telling any other nation (however mad and/or dangerous we are led to believe they are)
We are not led to believe. We see it from their record of the past 30 years.

that they're not allowed. You are arguing against my sense of irony, but as I sense it, how can I be without it ? I can hear you typing madly already so let me just quote myself again only this time, see if you can understand :-
And I refer again to the difefrence of the setting of the cold war, which desopite all overkill potential was cold rational and a mutual agreement for a balance that nobody wanted or dared to break (except Cuba), and the hysteric climaste and emotioanlly charged, irrational environment the ME is. You do not want a nuclear arms race there between 4 local rivals. You really do not want that. Not with these players.

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident), and give them the benefit of doubt as long as a terror strike has not killed or contaminated 50.000 people. I accept that if you would pout only your own life and that of your own family at risk - then I couldn't care less. But if they trim their weapons at my directions and that of the country I live in, while having such a terrosit records marked on their behalf, then I warn them while the wepaon still is moving - but short before it actually is aimed at me I strrike them first if they do not stop.

You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark. Yolu can prefer to do that, if you want, but again: do that with your own family only - not with 50.000 others as well.

Tribesman

11-11-11, 03:34 AM

Oh they do. I need no rehtorics to show you that.
Yet that response doesn't address Sammis quoted statement at all.

They have infiltratred and taken over Lebanon.
Was that after the infiltration, invasion and occupation by Israel failed?

Thanks to them, Hezbollah is there
Isn't that the terrorist group formed after the Israeli invasion and after the Israeli support of Lebanese terrorist groups?

. They want an Islamic global rule, which is the aim of Islam.

Yeah right:doh:

If Israel is being pushed into a corner. Iran has not been pushed into a corner, and theirs is a record of proxy wars and violence and terror support.
Both are being pushed, both have a record of proxy wars and violence and both support terrorists.

Iran act offensiovely. Iran acts agressively. Iran acts criminally and inhumane.
Applies to both countries.

Iran threatens extinction and annihilation not as a retaliatory means, but offensively.

Supply the quote,and deal with what was really said. but hey thats been dealt with so many times already and nothing will stop Skybird from, repeating the same bull again and again:yep:

If the people want not to be held respkjnbile for what is beign done in their name, then they have to raise up.
Applies to both countries.

Iran bad Israel good
Isreal bad Iran good
Bollox they are both bad

Sammi79

11-11-11, 05:39 AM

Right, Sky, all I have actually said or wanted to say I repeat one final time : I think it's Ironic. You can say you don't, and why, but you can't stop me thinking that or suggest I am wrong to do so. I have obviously annoyed you in a previous argument, and to be honest I am glad. Sorry for the ad hominem folks but you asked for it Sky, you consistently show yourself to be extremely right wing, fascistic and of totally reproachable character.

So now for your further entertainment, I shall respond in your own style.

I said that if they want a showdown over their damn bomb, then I prefer them to suffer instead of us.

They want a bomb like the bullies who would bully them, not a showdown. If they get a bomb, they can hardly bully anyone else who has one, a lesson from the cold war.

I prefer an Iranian bunker factory or research site being taken out to a suitcase bomb with radioactive material going off in Frankfurt or London.

I prefer taking out the logistics and infrastructure that facilitates such sites and avoiding possible nuclear disasters.

Oh they do.

No, they haven't.

I need no rehtorics to show you that.

I think you do.

They say they want to annihilate Israel.

Promises, promises.

They already shoot at Israel.

That's quite an accusation, definitive proof of Iranian military attacks upon Israel in the last decade please.

They support Islamic terror around the world, they finance it, equip it, support it by training and intel.

Bit like the CIA then, or Mossad. Oh right, Islamic, rather that Christian or Zionist. They are all the same, these extreme Abrahamic nutjubs.

They have infiltratred and taken over Lebanon.

That's between Lebanon and Iran.

Thanks to them, Hezbollah is there - and armed stronger than ever before.

But they don't have nuclear weapons.

Iranian RG commandoe are there and train Hezbollah.

Quite. Despicable behavior I agree. A bit like us training the Taliban to fight off those pesky commies during the cold war.

They want an Islamic global rule, which is the aim of Islam.

You are talking about a minority of religious idiots, and making a gross generalisation.

Is that aggressive and violent enough for you, yes?

No.

If Israel is being pushed into a corner.

Excuses, excuses.

Iran has not been pushed into a corner, and theirs is a record of proxy wars and violence and terror support.

Hmmm, again I see striking similarities here with the USA, Russia, China, etc...

Maybe you think it is clever to still give them the benefit of doubt when wanting to decidce whether or not leaving them nukes.

Maybe I think it's ironic that nations staggering under the weight of their own nuclear arsenal think they have any right to dictate who is or is not allowed a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, you know, I might have said something different.

But that is insanity.

Maybe so, but those were your words, not mine.

Iran act offensiovely.

Like Israel then.

Iran acts agressively.

Like Israel...

Iran acts criminally and inhumane.

I could swear you meant to type Israel in place of Iran there.

Iran threatens extinction and annihilation not as a retaliatory means, but offensively.

Promises, promises.

If the people want not to be held respkjnbile for what is beign done in their name, then they have to raise up.

Like the Germans rose up against Hitler you mean?

That may come at a price, but that'S how it is.

So you think then that Germany and its people should be held permanently accountable for WW2 and all that sprung from it, the cold war, and the current situation in the ME regarding Israel then?

However, having spend loinger time in Iran years ago, I learned the many difefefnt people/classes there, and if yoiu think the regime has support only by a minority of the ordinary population, then you are simply wrong. It is not that simplistic.

Neither is it as simplistic as 'they all support it or are too weak to rise up therefore they should all suffer the same fate determined by us outsiders because oh, we're just so righteous' - pathetic. honestly.

We are not led to believe.

Yes we are.

We see it from their record of the past 30 years.

Shown to us via our own propaganda media.

And I refer again to the difefrence of the setting of the cold war, which desopite all overkill potential was cold rational and a mutual agreement for a balance that nobody wanted or dared to break (except Cuba), and the hysteric climaste and emotioanlly charged, irrational environment the ME is.

Sky have you any idea how wrong your interpretation of the cold war is? it was not rational, it damn near ended humanity more than once, and contained plenty of emotionally charged anti communist and anti capitalist hysteria.

You do not want a nuclear arms race there between 4 local rivals.

Not really, no. But our nations set the example they want to follow you know.

You really do not want that.

You already said that.

Not with these players.

You already said that as well.

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident), and give them the benefit of doubt as long as a terror strike has not killed or contaminated 50.000 people.

I don't claim anything, Sky, all I said was I think it's ironic... where are you getting all of this from my posts?

I accept that if you would pout only your own life and that of your own family at risk - then I couldn't care less.

Well thanks for your kind words. I see it's very easy for you to subhumanise people and use rhetoric to rationalise it. Now that is very familiar, where have we seen that before?

But if they trim their weapons at my directions and that of the country I live in, while having such a terrosit records marked on their behalf, then I warn them while the wepaon still is moving - but short before it actually is aimed at me I strrike them first if they do not stop.

all the while your weapons are trained on them and you deny this is threatening or intimidating and they should just accept it?

You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark. Yolu can prefer to do that, if you want, but again: do that with your own family only - not with 50.000 others as well.

Well now I don't feel so bad about my calling you a right wing fascist.

Islamaphobia = Anti semitism : you just switched the target of your persecution.

I don't agree with you Sky and I am prepared to leave it at that, I only replied as you seem to delight in picking apart my rather simplistic post stating a single opinion and turned it into a page of vehement diatribe with a fervor that equals that of the fundamentalists you aspire to hate, over which I feel compelled to defend my position. Mods I am sorry If this offends and I agree it is way off topic, so I understand if you feel the need to give me an infraction, but Sky here goaded me into it over a simple one line statement and I must give as good as I get. Apologies.

11-11-11, 06:11 AM

Geee-some people must regard their freedom as god given thing.

Tribesman

11-11-11, 07:22 AM

a fervor that equals that of the fundamentalists you aspire to hate
Sky wanna be wahibi but thinks it may be a bit muslimish for him.

CaptainHaplo

11-11-11, 07:41 AM

Sammi....

While you obviously have an issue with Israel existing and countries like the US acting globally (which I agree we should not always do), your position regarding Iran and its "promises, promises", "well everyone else does it to" and "what they do isn't anyone else's business if it doesn't affect them" demonstrate a case of neville chamberlain syndrome. He too turned a blind eye to what could already be seen, and because of it the world suffered more than necessary.

While one could argue that "everyone else" like the US is doing bad things too - the comparison of working in Afghanistan to help that country defend itself against communist military aggression vs Iran supporting groups whose only goal is to kill the men, women and children of nations that do not share their religious views and zealotry - just doesn't work. One is a military action - the mujahaden were not targetting russian women and children during the time we were helping. Terrorists do not care who they kill, they are perfectly happy taking out their own people (look at Iraq for example) as well as their targets. The Afghani's during the Russo-Afghan conflict focused on military targets - Terrorists intentionally target civilians all too often. The differences are vast, your attempt to equate them just does not hold up under scrutiny.

Israel is the aggressor also doesn't fly. Israel was established not by force of a zionistic military action, but by the act of internation agreement within the UN. Since that time - they are the ones who have been attacked. In those attacks, their enemies (like Syria with the Golan Heights) lost significant territory. Perhaps you don't understand how war works - but to the winner goes the spoils. Israel didn't ask to be attacked. The countries that attacked paid a price in land loss. The people in those areas were, technically - conquered. Unrest happens. Having it fomented and supported by foreign entities however is an act of war - Israel's forbearance has been rather significant. Neighboring areas like lebanon have been supported and used to attack as well. Yes, Israel sends in the troops to regions sometimes - but name once where it did so without a causus belli occuring first. Every action taken is in response to violence or an attack. They are entitled to an active defense. Again your expounded perspective is demonstratably refusing to look at all the facts.

Finally - your position that Iran is just "talking". Iran right now is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are attacking their neighbors (as well as NATO forces and Israel) by proxy. And they are not even talking about doing that. They have continually acted to gain power, prestige and recognition at the cost of their own people, their neighbors and the world. They say they seek a caliphate - and their actions show that they are acting to that end. You talk about "well the terrorists haven't gotten a nuke yet" - your right - they do have Iranian explosives though. Iran simply doesn't have a nuke to give them - YET. There is a reason that all the other countries in the region are quietly working to isolate Iran - they all are threatened by what the Iranian government and its action arms do. To ignore that reality is to do exactly like Chamberlain more than a half a century ago. He stuck his head in the sand and refused to see the threat that was plain to everyone else. You seem to be choosing to do the same, apparently based on your anti-israel and anti-us views.

11-11-11, 07:58 AM

Iran sees nuclear program as last line of defense against West, expert says

In interview with Haaretz, Mehdi Khalaji, senior Iranian scholar and son of Shi'ite Ayatollah, says sanctions, dialogue will not thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

There isn't any real chance of thwarting Iran's nuclear program through escalated sanctions or negotiated compromise, an Iranian expert told Haaretz, days after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report indicating that Tehran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Iranian regime considered its nuclear program as the utmost tool to preserve its survival, meaning that pressure by the West could not sway Tehran away from further advances.
An Iranian technician inside a uranium conversion facility near the city of Isfahan, in 2007. What’s holding Iran back is uranium enrichment, says nuclear expert Dr. Olli Heinonen.

Khalaji is considered one of Iran's premier scholars, also because of his own personal background. He was born and raised in the city of Qom, Iran's largest center for Shi'ite Muslim scholarship.
He studied theology and Shi'ite legislation for 14 years in one of the largest religious seminaries in Qom, a city which still serves as the home for Khalaji's father, a chief Shi'ite clergyman, or Ayatollah.
In 2000, Khalaji left Iran for France, later moving to the United States.
Speaking with Haaretz, the chief researcher said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei believes that the West is trying to depose Tehran's Islamic regime, going as far as considering U.S. President Barack Obama's offer for compromise to be a scam.
However, he added, Iran's leadership was equally distrustful of other nations for working to undermine their regime, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and even China and Russia.
He said Iran was very isolated, leading its rulers to believe that a nuclear program was the only way to forestall a future attack. That mistrust, Khalaji said, is not due to go away any time soon, which spells doom to any attempt for compromise.
When asked if Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it develops one, Khalaji said he didn't feel anyone in Iran is thinking of using a nuclear bomb, and that the regime's only goal was to achieve regional supremacy.
Moreover, the Iranian researcher said that the use of nuclear weapons would be a suicidal move by the Islamic Republic.
Referring to a possible Israeli strike, Khalaji said the Iranian regime did not consider that to be a viable option, adding that Tehran knows that the potential price of such a move deters anyone who would be involved from undertaking it.
He added that the fact that the subject was so extensively discussed in the media indicated that neither Israel nor any one of its potential partners were actually considering such a move.
When asked of Iran's reaction to a possible strike, Khalaji estimated that a strike would unite Iran's citizens around the regime, but adding that the direct consequences of a military strike were hard to predict.
The Iranian researcher also discounted the notion that Iran would initiate a preemptive strike, saying that the country's military doctrine stipulated that Tehran would try to avoid armed conflict on Iranian soil, choosing to wage its wars against the West elsewhere: Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Iran's regime is threatened by both war and peace, Khalaji said, saying that was the reason Khamenei sought to preserve a tension that was neither peace nor war.
Khalaji also said he felt recent tensions between Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have no effect on Iran's nuclear path, since Khamenei had complete control over the country's nuclear program.
However, he added, there were those in Iran's political elite who felt the country did not need to develop nuclear weapons.
When asked who he thought would inherit Khamenei as Supreme Leader, Khalaji said that while Khamenei ruled Iran using the country's Revolutionary Guard, he thought that situation would reverse after his reign, believing that Revolutionary Guard officials would choose a weak spiritual leaders while they effectively run the country.
Khalaji also referred to the disappearance of Iran's political opposition, since the great rallies of 2009, saying that anti-government sentiment was in fact on the rise.
However, he added, dissenters had no real structure or framework, saying that it would take a while before a real opposition comes into being.
The Iranian scholar said, however, that Khamenei had turned Iran into a "classic dictatorship," a regime that the Iranian people have already shown to be able to depose.

**********

Sammi79

11-11-11, 09:17 AM

you obviously have an issue with Israel existing and countries like the US acting globally

CaptainHaplo : Wherein have I implied that I have a problem with the existence of Israel? I have a problem with Israels militarily occupying non-Israeli land indefinitely, or if as you suggest they take that land as the spoils of war, then they need to extend the same civilian rights to the people living in these places as people living inside the original borders, like voting etc... that would be OK IMHO too. In regard to any single nation acting globally, yes I do think that is wrong, global actions need to undertaken globally by a union of nations, or it is simply megalomania whichever way you try to push it.

Look if Iran decided (after getting nuclear weapons) to bomb Israel, or any of its neighbors, that would be the end of the entire country of Iran in a sense that no human being has ever truly witnessed save a few lucky Japanese survivors. Israel and their US buddies would absolutely guarantee it. I think even Iranian dictators can understand that. This is the political mess that is nuclear proliferation (which is OK for Israel and us and the US etc...) I personally have less faith than you in our leaders virtuous natures. What you lot are condoning is offensive, aggressive and exactly what you (however correctly) accuse Iran of being. I would certainly hope that things can be solved without those kind of actions, maybe they can't, fine but as I have stated multiple times and none here has been able to grasp this yet - I just think it's ironic. So sue me, I state a simple opinion and get bombarded by all this crap from an extreme right wing fascist, get accused of being anti Israel, anti American, I have Neville Chamberlain syndrome, I don't look the facts regardless that most of the 'facts' you guys are on about come to you through the media which to me means propaganda and I wasn't even arguing with you ? what gives ? Oh yeah, I also said I think bombing nuclear facilities is highly irresponsible and I stand by that, again though that is an opinion, and it's fine if you do not share it.

I'll let you in on a little secret - I'm anti religious, which may make me seem anti Israel and anti American, but there is a difference. I look admiringly on the US constitution as a secular document of laws and rights etc. your founding fathers had their heads screwed on tight I think, and it's a real shame you guys don't live by that any more. I'm anti corporatocracy vainly clinging to a dilapidated disguise of democracy, and I fully understand the power of the world media to manipulate peoples opinions and sensibilities on a truly global scale. Don't buy into it. Any of it. I am pro people, you know, the regular types who just want to live in a bit of peace and quiet, who are (I am certain) the largest majority of folks on the planet of all nations, myself included. Trouble is we are not extreme, nor militant, nor very vocal, and therefore are constantly being kicked in the teeth by people with a more feral nature. I also very much doubt if civilians care too much whether they got hit intentionally or by accident, seeing as the results are indistinguishable from each other.

@MH that's an interesting article, maybe you'd share your opinion on it's meaning, it's bias and it's intent? I think he says that no matter what external pressures Iran will continue its nuclear program [gaining nuclear weapons in the process] which it will use as a deterrent to possible future attacks by any of its neighbors or Israel and/or the rest of the West. Which to me is just as reasonable as any nation explaining why they should have them.

Jimbuna

11-11-11, 09:30 AM

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and people sharing opinions etc.

Can we all ensure we don't fall into the category of personal attacks and insults please.

Thanks in anticipation of your co-operation.

11-11-11, 09:38 AM

@MH that's an interesting article, maybe you'd share your opinion on it's meaning, it's bias and it's intent? I think he says that no matter what external pressures Iran will continue its nuclear program [gaining nuclear weapons in the process] which it will use as a deterrent to possible future attacks by any of its neighbors or Israel and/or the rest of the West. Which to me is just as reasonable as any nation explaining why they should have them.

To my understanding Iran will continue its program at all coasts to be able to spread its influence.
The purpose of nukes its not necessarily to directly use them against Israel or European countries.
Its more a umbrella to allow Iran spread its influence in the region without the western ability for direct intervention...hence self defence against west.
This will allow Iranian regime to be more direct in meddling in neighboring oil reach countries to gain control over oil prices and maybe even aspects western economy.
When Iran achieves the above goals it can deal with Israel...and not necessarily by nukes....see...its just rational thinking to achieve regional goals.
So...they need those weapons for self defence and have good reason for it.

Again...with religious nuts you never know what else may happen.....
Why do think Saudis and Turks fear of nuclear Iran-is it islamophobia?

1480

11-11-11, 10:40 AM

I'll let you in on a little secret - I'm anti religious, which may make me seem anti Israel and anti American, but there is a difference. I look admiringly on the US constitution as a secular document of laws and rights etc. your founding fathers had their heads screwed on tight I think, and it's a real shame you guys don't live by that any more.

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

The first amendment only prohibits congress from establishing a national religion.

The framers were all God fearing men, if you look at writings by them about the constitution you will see that they reference the divine. So, if you do not believe that the framers were not influenced by Christianity than not sure what will change your mind. It's on our currency and in the pledge of allegiance.

Sailor Steve

11-11-11, 10:57 AM

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.
No, it's not. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" was a common Enlightenment term and was specifically used to make sure it was non-denominational. "Creator" was used in a like manner. Jefferson firmly believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but vehemently denied any divine connection. The founding documents were all specifically designed to avoid any connection with a particular belief. Were they Christians? A lot of them, yes, but the biggies were mostly not.

The first amendment only prohibits congress from establishing a national religion.
And its point was to keep any religion from controlling the government to the detriment of others.

The framers were all God fearing men, if you look at writings by them about the constitution you will see that they reference the divine.
But "the divine" is not necessarily "Christian", and while many of the professed Christ, or at least gave lip service, many others did not, most notably Adams, Franklin and Jefferson.

So, if you do not believe that the framers were not influenced by Christianity than not sure what will change your mind.
'Influenced', yes, as anyone raised around any group of believers will tend to be influenced by the prevalent belief system.

It's on our currency
First appeared on coins in 1864 and paper money in 1957. Nothing to do with the founders.

and in the pledge of allegiance.
Written in 1892, and not adopted by Congress until 1942. "Under God" not added until 1954, as part of the right-wing anti-communist surge. Again, nothing to do with the founders.

Skybird

11-11-11, 03:38 PM

Islamaphobia = Anti semitism : you just switched the target of your persecution.
(...)
but Sky here goaded me into it

That is two fantastic jokes within just seconds! I goaded you. Yes, sure, I made you overstepping the line when you called me

a right wing fascist

By your reasoning, the Israelis make terrorists firing rockets into civilian areas in an attenmpt to commit civilian mass murder, and Germany made the RAF terrorists kidnapping and murdering their victims, and the West made terrorist hijacking planes and blowing them up. It'S all our own fault. We make them do these things. Why don't we play their ballgame, eh? Ideology justifies terrorism, right? Or just any offence, eh?

Well now I don't feel so bad about my calling you a right wing fascist.

I'm glad that you do not feel bad about misbehaving yourself. However, I am also glad, since I am not obligated to waste my time with an infantile fool ignoring reality even if it is laid out before his eyes, and who mistakes loud calling with argument and offending with historic fact, and lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.

Welcome to the club then.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9181/fsscr000m.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/fsscr000m.png/)

Sammi79

11-11-11, 04:45 PM

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident)...
You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark...

This is where you overstepped the line with me as you put it - you just called me (or implied that I am) an ignorant, arrogant and suicidal idiot. For what reason? Because I find it ironic that nuclear armed nations feel they have any right whatsoever to demand that other nations (not only but including Iran) may not develop their own nuclear weapons? Because I think it irresponsible to risk dispersing large amounts of highly radioactive materials into the environment without concern, no matter who or what or where?

And just now you write -

I am not obligated to waste my time with an infantile fool ignoring reality

So I called you - extreme because to me your views seem extreme - right wing because they also seem to me to be right wing - and fascist because you demonstrate an ability to verbally subhumanise with great ease and justify it with rhetoric and logical fallacy, all of which are adjective terms which you may find offensive, but I never used purely derogatory terms such as 'fool' or 'idiot' or 'infantile'. I am as guilty as you for goading - I admit it, but being from the UK I am reminded of the phrase "They don't like it up 'em" If you're prepared to dish it out, you should be prepared to take it as well.

So now I'm on your ignore list? Should I celebrate? I hope this will mean an end to bickering matches like this but somehow I can't shake this sneaking feeling, that you won't let it lie. From my end however, I'm sorry for any offense caused to anyone but this will be the last from me on this matter or in this thread.

Sincerely,
Sam.

Tribesman

11-12-11, 03:20 AM

Yes, sure, I made you overstepping the line when you called me

Yet by his own admission on his anti muslim fetish he protests with neo nazis and joined groups filled wth neo nazis.
So Sammi didn't overstep anything, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with other ducks doing the duck things other ducks are doing it is either a duck or a very very good immitation of a duck.

It is funny though Sky writes.....
lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.
Yet repeats the same lies to fit his views again and again no matter how many people take them thoroughy apart and laughingly calls the "fact".

So now I'm on your ignore list? Should I celebrate?
Celebrate it, Skys ignorance is great.:yeah:
It makes it easy to demonstrate his opportunistic selective memory.

CaptainHaplo

11-12-11, 10:52 AM

CaptainHaplo : Wherein have I implied that I have a problem with the existence of Israel? I have a problem with Israels militarily occupying non-Israeli land indefinitely, or if as you suggest they take that land as the spoils of war, then they need to extend the same civilian rights to the people living in these places as people living inside the original borders, like voting etc... that would be OK IMHO too. In regard to any single nation acting globally, yes I do think that is wrong, global actions need to undertaken globally by a union of nations, or it is simply megalomania whichever way you try to push it.

Sammi - I didn't "attack" you. Yes, I said you showed Chamberlain syndrome. Your arguments bear that out in the light of facts. My hope was that calling your attention to it would help you re-evaluate /re-examine the data.

Now - you said you have a problem with Israel occupying land that it "conquered" - because they won't give voting rights to the people in that area. That is a wonderful, idealistic view. However, how can a government and nation extend voting rights to an area inhabited by a group of people that act, or condone, violence against the state that control it? To do so is suicidal. Note I said "idealistic" - because not only is it an unworkable option (for self-preservation reasons), the idea indicates that your reticence to accept the situation would be solved by suffrage rights. Ok, maybe YOUR objections would, but do you truly expect that the anti-Israeli sentiment and actions in the Middle East (or just in the "occupied territories") would suddenly cease if Israel extended such rights? If not, then your objection is a sham, if so - then there is nothing I can do to help you grasp the foundational hate that the Arab world - fed by Islamic teachings - has for any Jewish state or people.

Global actions need global support? Again - in an ideal world that would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world. In such a world, we could all accept different religions because different religious would accept and tolerate each other. There would be no greed - heck communism would actually be a working system - instead of a great idea on paper that will always be a failure in reality. You can't always get people on the same page - and self preservation requires a person, or in the context of what we are discussing - a nation - to act on its own.

To show you how global thinking cannot the only standard - look at how many nations have been ok with attacking / destroying Israel, it should be allowed to happen?

No one is in a position to threaten Iran regionally - they are only "threatened" because their acts of overt and clandestine violence (and support of such) against their neighbors threaten the regional and global stability. The bully on the field is mad because the rest of the world notices and some are not willing to just sit by. So everything from diplomacy to sanctions has been tried. Its failed - and the bully will whine when it gets its nose bloody because its trying to become more of a bully.

Platapus

11-12-11, 11:39 AM

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.

Platapus

11-12-11, 11:50 AM

1480

11-12-11, 12:01 PM

No, it's not. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" was a common Enlightenment term and was specifically used to make sure it was non-denominational. "Creator" was used in a like manner. Jefferson firmly believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but vehemently denied any divine connection. The founding documents were all specifically designed to avoid any connection with a particular belief. Were they Christians? A lot of them, yes, but the biggies were mostly not.

SS, is this the same Jefferson who talked out of both sides of his mouth ie, being vehemently opposed to the slave trade, yet who owned over 100 of them?

Is this the same Jefferson who penned this enlightened thought?

"The blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distant by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind"

or this gem about interracial coupling:

"Their amalgamation with the other color produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent."

Had Jefferson been a bit more "christian", who knows how things may have turned out ;) Though I would love to check out a few of his psalms in his version of the bible.

Love debating you since you provoke thought.

Though the very basis of the Declaration is grounded in the fact that man is endowed by his Creator, to be alive, to be free and to pursue happiness.

Christianity was the only show in town once it came to revolutionary America. Therefore, when one speaks about God back then it is grounded in the christian faith.

I will leave you with this little nugget.

Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

1480

11-12-11, 12:04 PM

Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.

Actually I just accidentally posted a counterpoint to your argument. ^

You are absolutely right that Declaration of Independence is not a binding document, but we based our constitution on the principals it set forth. I am not making a leap in logic, just climbing up that slippery slope.

Sailor Steve

11-12-11, 12:46 PM

SS, is this the same Jefferson who talked out of both sides of his mouth ie, being vehemently opposed to the slave trade, yet who owned over 100 of them?
The same Jefferson who felt his slaves had no chance at all of surviving if freed, yet tried on more than one ocassion to get Virginia to outlaw slavery.

Is this the same Jefferson who penned this enlightened thought?

"The blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distant by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind"
Early in his career, yes. On the other hand, Jefferson's letter to mathematician Benjamin Banneker shows that he was capable of modifying his position. But I was commenting on your claim that the founders were all Christian, and you seem to be trying to change the subject.

Further, Benjamin Franklin refers to the Creator, yet absolutely denied Christ.

As for owning slaves, so did Washington and Madison.

Though the very basis of the Declaration is grounded in the fact that man is endowed by his Creator, to be alive, to be free and to pursue happiness.
Not even closely true. The grounding of the Declaration is an explanation of why we were currently at war with our Mother Country, and seeking separation. I've already explained the use of the word "Creator" in its proper context. Also you call it "the fact", when it is only opinion. A fact is something that can be shown as evidence. Not necessarily explained or understood, but shown. Therefore "his Creator" is not fact at all, just a belief. Also those words were composed by the same Jefferson you attempted to discredit. Are his words to be taken as proof of belief on the one hand, but dismissed as worthless on the other, at your convenience? My point is that the founders were not all Christians, or even mostly Christians, and you have yet to approach that. And I showed that the use of certain terms were common among Deistic followers of the Enlightenment.

Christianity was the only show in town once it came to revolutionary America. Therefore, when one speaks about God back then it is grounded in the christian faith.
This is true, but the question remains of whether the authors of the founding documents were adherents to that faith, or merely using terminology that would be acceptable to their fellows. And as to whether those fellows, like their modern counterparts, were actually followers or merely following what they grew up with as accepted practice.

I will leave you with this little nugget.
Nice, but was Brewer an impartial judge or was he a devout Christian trying to prove a point with what was really only his opinion? Until you can show his lack of bias, his claims are as suspect as those of any modern Christian apologist, and his writings were more than 100 years after the fact.

Sailor Steve

11-12-11, 12:59 PM

Actually I just accidentally posted a counterpoint to your argument. ^
Actually you didn't. John Adams not only signed the treaty, but wholly endorsed it. Adams was a regular churchgoer, but it was a Unitarian church and Adams himself claimed a belief in God, but denied that Jesus was divine. So Adams too was no Christian.

You are absolutely right that Declaration of Independence is not a binding document, but we based our constitution on the principals it set forth.
Actually both are firmly rooted in the writings of John Locke, the father of the enlightenment, and the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers and of more recent French adherents of Locke. There is nothing in either document that can be linked even indirectly to the teachings of the Bible.

Rockstar

11-12-11, 02:40 PM

Rebellion against kings, leaders and others placed in authority does seem to be a christian principle or excuse. However it is NOT a biblical one.

1480

11-12-11, 03:01 PM

Actually you didn't. John Adams not only signed the treaty, but wholly endorsed it. Adams was a regular churchgoer, but it was a Unitarian church and Adams himself claimed a belief in God, but denied that Jesus was divine. So Adams too was no Christian.

Actually both are firmly rooted in the writings of John Locke, the father of the enlightenment, and the writings of Greek and Roman philosophers and of more recent French adherents of Locke. There is nothing in either document that can be linked even indirectly to the teachings of the Bible.

The proof that I pointed out was for Platapus, sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that people are influenced by what they are taught, their experiences and the like. My question therefore is why did they mention God if they were attempting a completely secular movement?

John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams belonged to the Unitarian church. Unitarianism is a, Christian theological movement, therefore Christian.

An aside: reason I picked out flaws in TJ is that you originally brought him up. He was very contradictory in his thoughts.

When you speak of context of "Creator" here we have Jefferson's original version of that line:

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . .

Adams original version:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; . .

Somewhere somehow it got changed to "their Creator."

Thousands of theories abound about why.

Franklin:

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?... I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.

It cannot hold that Franklin was a Deist, it sounds that would have come from a christian.

I would bring up the other two but my eyes are dead tired.

1480

11-12-11, 03:16 PM

Rebellion against kings, leaders and others placed in authority does seem to be a christian principle or excuse. However it is NOT a biblical one.

Maccabean Revolt

The Revolt of the Ten Tribes

Sorry about the emphasis.

Rockstar

11-12-11, 04:23 PM

Maccabean Revolt

The Revolt of the Ten Tribes

Sorry about the emphasis.

Maccabean Revolt had much to do with Gentiles being in a place they had no business being in and attempting to make Jews worship strange gods. So the Gentile was rightfiuly shown the door by force.

The so called lost ten tribes revolted but they in essence revolted against God Himself. Big No No so they were eventually defeated and dispersed by the Assyrians. But in the end there is good news for some of them Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The above verses describes many of those in the ten tribes coming home again.

Anyways I guess what I really want to say is just because rebellion is recorded in the Bible. It shouldn't be automatically assumed to be permissible for any and everyone. Usually those that do rebel end up paying a heavy price for it.

1480

11-12-11, 11:19 PM

Maccabean Revolt had much to do with Gentiles being in a place they had no business being in and attempting to make Jews worship strange gods. So the Gentile was rightfiuly shown the door by force.

The so called lost ten tribes revolted but they in essence revolted against God Himself. Big No No so they were eventually defeated and dispersed by the Assyrians. But in the end there is good news for some of them Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

The above verses describes many of those in the ten tribes coming home again.

Anyways I guess what I really want to say is just because rebellion is recorded in the Bible. It shouldn't be automatically assumed to be permissible for any and everyone. Usually those that do rebel end up paying a heavy price for it.

You bring up a fabulous point. It boils down to having faith or a belief in what you are doing is morally right. One is an example of what one might consider righteousness and the other hubris.

1480

11-12-11, 11:46 PM

[QUOTE=Sailor Steve;1785800]No, it's not. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" was a common Enlightenment term and was specifically used to make sure it was non-denominational. "Creator" was used in a like manner.

In the context of the era and location, the Judeo/Christian God was the only show in town. Just because they did not use "Lord" or "Messiah" or the "Divinity" does not make it any less christian. Considering 90 something percent of the people that lived in the colonies were of one or another denomination of christianity.

Natural law is derived from Divine Providence, not separate from it. It's acknowledged as fact when they grant that there are certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. Which as to my understanding is man cannot grant nor take away these privileges from another man. They also say it as such in the last sentence of the Declaration.

And its point was to keep any religion from controlling the government to the detriment of others.

Please point out the gospel that points to rulership or how to govern.

But "the divine" is not necessarily "Christian", and while many of the professed Christ, or at least gave lip service, many others did not, most notably Adams, Franklin and Jefferson.

Again in the context of time and place, I will argue that divinity was taught via Christianity, not Plato or Aristotle.

joegrundman

11-13-11, 03:03 AM

http://www.n00bstories.com/forums/index.php?t=getfile&id=3141&private=0

Tribesman

11-13-11, 03:57 AM

In the context of the era and location, the Judeo/Christian God was the only show in town. Just because they did not use "Lord" or "Messiah" or the "Divinity" does not make it any less christian. Considering 90 something percent of the people that lived in the colonies were of one or another denomination of christianity.

If it was the only show in town what show were the missing 10% at?

Again in the context of time and place, I will argue that divinity was taught via Christianity, not Plato or Aristotle.
In the context of time and place you are looking at the boom in the classics

1480

11-13-11, 08:49 AM

If it was the only show in town what show were the missing 10% at?

In the context of time and place you are looking at the boom in the classics

It is probably closer to 100% but I wanted to hedge my bets, lest be pounded on my semantics.

Yes, the classics were being circulated in larger numbers, but again time and place, the majority had very little time for leisure activities, reading something other than the bible being one of them. Literacy rates, collectively are close to what they today in the US. Though the southern colonies were lagging behind the northern counterparts.

Tribesman

11-13-11, 01:24 PM

Yes, the classics were being circulated in larger numbers, but again time and place, the majority had very little time for leisure activities, reading something other than the bible being one of them.
But you are not talking about the majority, you are talking about basicly the landed "gentry" and the educated merchant classes.
It doesn't matter what some ditch digger got as was called an education, it mattered what was the scope of education the signers and draughters recieved...which with all that deist enlightenment thingy was going for inclusion of the classics.

Sailor Steve

11-13-11, 03:05 PM

The proof that I pointed out was for Platapus, sorry.
I know. But his treaty says it plainly in writing, and you didn't counter that at all.

The point I was trying to make is that people are influenced by what they are taught, their experiences and the like. My question therefore is why did they mention God if they were attempting a completely secular movement?
Because they spoke in the language of the time, and as I've said twice now "Nature and Nature's God" was a favored phrase of the Enlightenment and of Deism, and "Creator" implies that they did believe in something, but the leaders mostly denied the divinity of Christ, and in writing.

John Adams belonged to the Unitarian church. Unitarianism is a, Christian theological movement, therefore Christian.
And specifically denied the Trinity, which made him a heretic.

An aside: reason I picked out flaws in TJ is that you originally brought him up. He was very contradictory in his thoughts.
Yes he was. Brilliant but conflicted.

When you speak of context of "Creator" here we have Jefferson's original version of that line:

Adams original version:

Somewhere somehow it got changed to "their Creator."

And neither one mentions God. They did believe in a creator, but Jefferson specifically denied Christ, and Adams agreed with him.

When we say God is a spirit, we know what we mean, as well as we do when we say that the pyramids of Egypt are matter. Let us be content, therefore, to believe him to be a spirit, that is, an essence that we know nothing of, in which originally and necessarily reside all energy, all power, all capacity, all activity, all wisdom, all goodness.
-John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, January 17, 1820

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788)

It cannot hold that Franklin was a Deist, it sounds that would have come from a christian.
I guess you haven't read the whole piece, for his very next paragraph reads as follows:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

And in his own words:
My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.
-Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography

mapuc

11-13-11, 04:38 PM

maybe not the right place, but I didn't want to start a new thread about Iran

According to the swedish newspaper aftonbladet.se

"Prosecutors in Bahrain said on Sunday that the "terrorist cell" uncovered the day before, had plans to attack the country's Interior Ministry, have links to Iran.

According to a spokesman for the Bahrain courts, the five men arrested on suspicion of being part of a terrorist group "in connection with security in another country." The spokesman also says that the five have been sent "to Iran to get military training," reports the Bahraini state news agency BNA."

(used google translator)

Markus

Skybird

11-13-11, 04:40 PM

maybe not the right place, but I didn't want to start a new thread about Iran
:haha: :up: Good one!

mapuc

11-13-11, 04:54 PM

:haha: :up: Good one!

Thank you

If Israel should attack Iran two things gonna happen in that region

Officially there wil be some demostration against Israel and some leaders will condemm it.

Off the record
They will send applause and thanks to the governemt in Israel

Markus

Sailor Steve

11-13-11, 09:07 PM

:haha: :up: Good one!
:yep:

1480

11-13-11, 11:46 PM

:yep:

I also approve this message.