This is claimed to be Israel's (no longer) secret war plan

Skybird · 08-16-12, 05:13 AM

Rumours are they will strike even before Novembre.

Say the rumours.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...cret-war-plan/

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...he-hasbarafia/

Note that the blogger himself seems to be quite realistic and critical of Israel'S chances, exporessing doubt that Israel has correctly understood the nature and setup of it's Iranian enemy - at the price of underestimating him.

I am split over all this, i only agree with Israel not to put its trust into Obama. While Israel may assume that he is just about not launching a war before he got reelected, I even doubt his willingness to launch any war against Iran at all. I think he already has arranged himself with a nuclar arms race in the ME and wants to appease Israel endlessly with hollow promises of future assistances. And the rest of the world? The whole diplomatic "effort" over Iran is based on illusions, intentional misinterpretations of realities, and ignoring reality completely.

I think an Israeli war now just will be the prelude to the next war. A delay of this kind may be acceptable for a force as limited as that of Israel. If at any time the US gets involved, I expect much more determination to really crush them. I also expect Europe, if it already does not participate in the fighting (and who seriously holds his breath for that?), then at least it should pay solid and greater part of the American bill for this operation. And Germany should finally arrest and hang those bosses of business that still do hidden business with Iran.

And when I say "hang them", I mean exactly that, in a perfectly cool state of mind. Its about teaching a lesson to others.

Oberon · 08-16-12, 07:16 AM

Good lord, that's supposedly their battle plan?

Israel can't do this alone, not and expect to achieve anything other than a massive counter-barrage from both Iran, what's left of Syria and Lebanon.

Besides, they'll take out Irans nuclear reactor, great, but what's stopping them from just building another one, but this time with Russian help and with Russian SAM launchers around it? Israel would have become an international pariah for acting first without going through the UN and Russia and China would have gained a political reason to supply Iran with all the hi-tech weaponry it needs to 'protect it from the aggressive and warlike Israel'.

Heck, politically, it could play straight into Irans court to be bombed by Israel, particularly if they refrain from retaliating and play the moral high ground in the UN on it. Of course, I doubt they will refrain from retaliating, that would cause internal trouble, but Russia and China could, and will, use a pre-emptive Israeli strike to push for sanctions on Israel in the UN, and for the removal of sanctions on Iran. The US will veto any Israeli sanctions, but its position will be increasingly untenable, and you can expect backlash against US forces in Afghanistan over it.

There is no easy way to deal with Iran, and Israel cannot do it alone, not and hope to achieve any long lasting success, it may win the battle, of that I have little doubt, but it will lose the war and suffer a great deal of damage both in terms of human casualties and political casualties. If Israel had US support, then it gets a bit easier, but you're still left with the problem that unless you put boots on the ground or create constant air superiority then it would be easy for Iran to just dust itself down and restart the program, and then ten-fifteen years down the line you're back at square one, only this time Iran has better weaponry thanks to Russia and China, and you might not even have the resources available to tackle Iran.
It's an election year this year, and neither Romney or Obama would commit to a long term campaign in Iran, it would be political suicide, in fact it's bordering on political suicide to mention any armed campaign against Iran due to the level of war weariness in the US, heck isolationism seems to be on the gentle rise in the background, if trending comments from Americans on different forums I frequent are anything to go by.
The EU...well...lol, that's the only thing I have to say about that mess, honestly I don't think it'd be able to find Tehran on a map, much less contribute to any attack against it, and as for dealing with bankers, well you forget who runs the EU Skybird, it sure as hell ain't the politicians

The UK might throw a couple of TLAMs into the equation but then we'd run out of ammo and have to withdraw so that's pretty pointless. So really, if any big nation who isn't already a friend of Iran is going to have to tackle it, then it's the US and Israel, and even with those two combined, unless Iran magically transforms back to pre-revolutionary days (lol) and becomes a western ally, then all you're going to do is make Iran stronger in the long run.

TLDR? One strike will not be enough, and yet one strike is all that Israel and the US can afford both economically and politically, and even then the price may be too high for them to pay.

Skybird · 08-16-12, 07:50 AM

It is a difficult dilemma. For us.

For Israel, it is the choice between a nuclear holocaust or not. Which makes their choice easy and explains their determination. It is not important whether we take Iran's threats serious or not, our interpretations mean nothing. That Israel takes them as what they are being given is what counts. And I cannot blame them for doing so.

My position is clear, and has been since years. Iranian nukes are totally unacceptable and must be prevented, no matter what. Israel alone probably can only delay and buy some time. But with the US, I demand a greater ambition to not just delay but to turn into microscopic pieces all installations related to a nuclear weapon program. What stands in the way to that objective, must get shattered, too. By as little violence as possible but as much as is needed to guarantee the achieving of all objectives.

Priority is not to not do this and not to use that. Priority is to achieve the objectives.

The alternative, to which Obama probably already has subscribed, is to live with a nuclear arms race of uncalculatable proportions and in a fundamentally unstable region filled with tribal minds having open bills, and religious hysterics, hot-blooded supremacists and apostles of apocalypse. This scenario I fear more than any other. It is instabile, unpredictable, and in no way compares to the stable, rational cold war between East and West.

Damn, I really miss the cold war. And no, Jimbuna, again I am not joking.

Oberon · 08-16-12, 08:10 AM

Don't worry, I miss it too. At least you knew your enemy back then.

I understand Israels motives for a strike, it is a matter of survival, however once they have undertaken the first strike they have committed themselves to a program of continual strikes against an enemy which will be supplied by Russia and China, whilst further isolating themselves from international support and risking cutting their support from America. It's a short term victory but a long term defeat.
And even if America does reduce the Iranian nuclear program to a fine layer of dust, how long will it take until Iran has rebuilt that program? Particularly if it gets covert Chinese and Russian support? And this time that program will have Russian and Chinese made weapons guarding it, which means that when the US comes to reduce the program to dust for a second time it will be more costly, and then Iran will rebuild it for a third time, and so on and so forth.
If the Germans had bombed the Los Alamos laboratory in 1943, would the US have given up on the Manhatten Project? No, it would have had a big setback, yes, but it would still have carried on, and with Iran it's even worse because Iran knows what a nuclear weapon can do, whereas the US only had an idea of the potential of one.

geetrue · 08-16-12, 11:01 AM

Iran is already under attack by Israel

Plus the Lord said that "If Iran were to launch a missile towards Tel Aviv it would land in Jordan"
meaning that El Shaddi is still in charge of his chosen nation no matter what the threat is.

Talk of Military Attack May Be Cover for Cyber War on Iran

Daily chatter of a military attack on Iran may be a ruse to cover a cyber war that could knock out Iran’s nuclear program

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158941

Quote:

Journalists are scratching their heads to figure out why Israeli and American leaders are leading a daily chatter of a military attack on Iran, but the flow of words may be a ruse to give Iran a double jolt as its deep fear that a cyber war can knock out its nuclear program prompts Tehran to try to setup a domestic Internet network.
“The regime no longer fears a physical attack from the West,” Mahmoud Enayat, director of the Iran Media Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communications, told The Wall Street Journal recently. “It still thinks the West wants to take over Iran, but through the Internet.”
Computer geniuses can literally take over Iran by taking control of its nuclear sites through technology, Minyanville financial website’s staffer Justin Rohrlich wrote Wednesday.
A spate of cyber attacks, such as the Stuxnet and Flame virus and Malware, may have scared Iran more than the nearly daily threats from Israel that it will strike its underground nuclear installations.

Skybird · 08-16-12, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Don't worry, I miss it too. At least you knew your enemy back then.

I understand Israels motives for a strike, it is a matter of survival, however once they have undertaken the first strike they have committed themselves to a program of continual strikes against an enemy which will be supplied by Russia and China, whilst further isolating themselves from international support and risking cutting their support from America. It's a short term victory but a long term defeat.
And even if America does reduce the Iranian nuclear program to a fine layer of dust, how long will it take until Iran has rebuilt that program? Particularly if it gets covert Chinese and Russian support? And this time that program will have Russian and Chinese made weapons guarding it, which means that when the US comes to reduce the program to dust for a second time it will be more costly, and then Iran will rebuild it for a third time, and so on and so forth.
If the Germans had bombed the Los Alamos laboratory in 1943, would the US have given up on the Manhatten Project? No, it would have had a big setback, yes, but it would still have carried on, and with Iran it's even worse because Iran knows what a nuclear weapon can do, whereas the US only had an idea of the potential of one.

what would you suggest that they do,then, if you do not want to strike Iran every couple of years?

gimpy117 · 08-16-12, 11:52 AM

Oh yeah, If Israel wants to do that let them, just don't Drag the US into it

Oberon · 08-16-12, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

what would you suggest that they do,then, if you do not want to strike Iran every couple of years?

If I had that answer I'm sure MOSSAD would have contacted me already.

geetrue · 08-16-12, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

If I had that answer I'm sure MOSSAD would have contacted me already.

Mossad say, "Worry about enemy next door" who have declared to push Israel into the sea.

Do you really think Iran or any muslim country for that matter would want to harm their precious Jerusalem with nuclear or WMD warfare?

Quote:

Jerusalem is the capital and largest city of Israel, even though it is not universally recognized as Israel's capital.
It is a holy city to three religions, and one of the oldest cities in the world.

Skybird · 08-16-12, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

If I had that answer I'm sure MOSSAD would have contacted me already.

Why making it co9mplicated - it isn'T. Either one accepts to bomb Iran'S industrial and scneitifc capabilties minto9 th stoneage, which proibbaly can also be used with the well-chosen use of mini-nukes for selected key favciitlies already that much hardened that you cannot reach them in a different weay, or you accept Iran goping nuclear, and a nuzclear arms race in the region with all the uncalculaltable risks that I repeatedly have outlined.

It is a draconic choice, yes, nevertheless: complicated the issue is not. Not at all.

I think that people ver yoften know from beginning on what to do and what is right and what is wroing. But it often takes us a long time longer to admit to ourselves that we already know.

The critical tikjme criterion is no US elections, or fantasised last-minute successes in diplo9macy, but when Iran has become unvulnerable by hagin g m oved to much of its prog ram intop hardened mountain bunkers that can no longer be reached. It is there when the match will get decided. Whenh they have acchieved that, a war hgas become piointless, and the nuclear race has become a certainty, and our all survival on a global scale has become m ore uncertain than ever durin g the cold war, with the exception maybe of the Cuba crisis. A nuclear arms race in the ME will compare to a Cuba crisis every damn day of the year.

I am not wiulling to accept that risk, and that is why I find the choice to make vey easy. Grim, bitter - but nevertheless easy. In four words, it sounds like this: better them, than us.

You see a third option that could function without needing to ignore reality?

I say "I will kill you", and you see me starting to swing the barrel of my gun at your direction. What do you do? Wait until I'm finished and can kill you any split of a second - or trying to shoot me before I get ready to pull the trigger?

I fail to see the difficulty in these decisions. To me, the hesitation just indicates that people are terrified by the consequences of one's own decision. And maybe I am terrified , too. But terrified or not, Iran continues to move its prgram out of reach from Western bombardements, and the necessity to decide whether we allow it or not does not become smaller.

He who allows himself to get stunned by his hesitation, already has lost.

I just wish the Us woulds throw in all firepower it could bring together from all around the globe. For the task in question, there is no such thing than exaggerated firepower and "too much". And I realyl wish that Europe would pay majhpor parts of the bill, if it does not fight. After all, Europe is closer to and more dependant on the Gulf, than America.

Oberon · 08-16-12, 02:25 PM

We have a saying, I imagine it's translated in German at some point, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
You and I both know that the western world does not think in a straight way, it convolutes the matter, when you say that I make it complicated, it's not me, it is my observation of the way the western world works.
Israel will attack, like you say it has no real choice but to do so, but it will do so alone because the US cannot afford a war with Iran at the moment, not in terms of finances, although that is certainly a factor, but in terms of international standing and internal political problems.
The EU couldn't organise a bread fight in a bakery so they're out of the question, so that leaves little Israel in it alone.

By acting alone and striking first they hand the political prize to Iran, the US wouldn't be able to applaud Israel publically because they'd be seen as endorsing a first strike scenario (which opens up a can of worms in terms of China hitting Taiwan and Russia hitting...well...any of its neighbours that aren't NATO members) and they would be forced both internally and externally to reduce aid to Israel as 'punishment'.

You and I both know that this is how the world of today works, Skybird, we both don't agree on it, but we have to be realistic here, and face the fact that Iran is in the strong position here and will remain so for the near future. Short of turning the entirety of Iran into glass and vaporising its entire population, Israel is not going to win this, not in the long term. It might delay that gun coming around, but it's not going to disarm it.

There are plenty of options but each option is unpalatable to a particular faction involved in this entire event:

1) Do nothing - Iran gets the bomb, and a Middle Eastern arms race begins
2) Put anti-missile defences around Iran, fence it in so that any nuclear weapons it does have cannot be launched via missile - So a suitcase bomb explodes in Tel Aviv instead.
3) Israel attacks Iran alone - Irans nuclear program set back by five years to a decade, Israel receives a massive retaliatory strike but is otherwise unharmed. However its international reputation is down the gutter and the US is forced to reduce aid, thus making its position harder and Iran gets extra support for its rebuilding program from Russia and China.
4) Israel and the US attack Iran - Irans program set back by ten years to twenty, the retaliatory strike is greatly reduced but the US and Israel both become international pariahs and Iran gets extra support for its rebuilding program from Russia and China. There is a potential for UN sanctions against Iran to be overturned.
5) The US turns Iran into a giant mirror - Irans nuclear program no longer exists, and neither does Iran. The entire world reacts in outrage, the US becomes isolated, sanctioned and embargoed to the hilt. Its economy falls into ruins and Israel is overrun by its neighbours.
6) Israel stages an Iranian attack on Israel as a cassus belli - Irans nuclear program set back by five to ten years, Russia and China protest overuse of force in retaliation. World suspects a fraud but struggles to prove it. Opinion split on either it was really an Iranian attack or an Israeli fraud.
7) The US and Israel stage an Iranian attack on Israel as a cassus belli - Same as above only there's either a slightly higher or lower chance of the fraud being discovered depending on how much credibility you give the CIA.
8) Israel waits until Iran uses a nuclear weapon first, then uses world opinion to remove the nuclear program from Iran - Israel loses 400,000 people, Iran loses active support from Russia and China and then loses a lot of other things as Israel and the US bomb it back to the stone age, with global support. It's unlikely that Iran will have a nuclear program any time soon after this. A pyrrhic victory for Iran, but it would not stop them from conducting it.

Pick your poison.

eddie · 08-16-12, 02:33 PM

With those kind of choices Oberon, I'll be another volunteer to go to Mars,lol

Oberon · 08-16-12, 02:37 PM

Too damn true Eddie...

Here, I know you're a Trek Fan Skybird, I just found this and thought of our conversation:

Consider people like us as Garak, and people like Bashir as some in the western world these days.

Bilge_Rat · 08-16-12, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetrue

Iran is already under attack by Israel

Talk of Military Attack May Be Cover for Cyber War on Iran

Daily chatter of a military attack on Iran may be a ruse to cover a cyber war that could knock out Iran’s nuclear program

Agreed.

No need for a messy Air attack which may not knock the whole program anyway.

Israel's strategy so far: assassinations, sabotage, cyber attacks works as well and more importantly, is much less public.

Oberon · 08-16-12, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Agreed.

No need for a messy Air attack which may not knock the whole program anyway.

Israel's strategy so far: assassinations, sabotage, cyber attacks works as well and more importantly, is much less public.

It's a good strategy, and one that Israel is particularly skilled at.

Whether or not it's enough...remains to be seen.

08-16-12, 05:13 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	This is claimed to be Israel's (no longer) secret war plan Rumours are they will strike even before Novembre. Say the rumours. http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...cret-war-plan/ http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...he-hasbarafia/ Note that the blogger himself seems to be quite realistic and critical of Israel'S chances, exporessing doubt that Israel has correctly understood the nature and setup of it's Iranian enemy - at the price of underestimating him. I am split over all this, i only agree with Israel not to put its trust into Obama. While Israel may assume that he is just about not launching a war before he got reelected, I even doubt his willingness to launch any war against Iran at all. I think he already has arranged himself with a nuclar arms race in the ME and wants to appease Israel endlessly with hollow promises of future assistances. And the rest of the world? The whole diplomatic "effort" over Iran is based on illusions, intentional misinterpretations of realities, and ignoring reality completely. I think an Israeli war now just will be the prelude to the next war. A delay of this kind may be acceptable for a force as limited as that of Israel. If at any time the US gets involved, I expect much more determination to really crush them. I also expect Europe, if it already does not participate in the fighting (and who seriously holds his breath for that?), then at least it should pay solid and greater part of the American bill for this operation. And Germany should finally arrest and hang those bosses of business that still do hidden business with Iran. And when I say "hang them", I mean exactly that, in a perfectly cool state of mind. Its about teaching a lesson to others. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-16-12, 07:50 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It is a difficult dilemma. For us. For Israel, it is the choice between a nuclear holocaust or not. Which makes their choice easy and explains their determination. It is not important whether we take Iran's threats serious or not, our interpretations mean nothing. That Israel takes them as what they are being given is what counts. And I cannot blame them for doing so. My position is clear, and has been since years. Iranian nukes are totally unacceptable and must be prevented, no matter what. Israel alone probably can only delay and buy some time. But with the US, I demand a greater ambition to not just delay but to turn into microscopic pieces all installations related to a nuclear weapon program. What stands in the way to that objective, must get shattered, too. By as little violence as possible but as much as is needed to guarantee the achieving of all objectives. Priority is not to not do this and not to use that. Priority is to achieve the objectives. The alternative, to which Obama probably already has subscribed, is to live with a nuclear arms race of uncalculatable proportions and in a fundamentally unstable region filled with tribal minds having open bills, and religious hysterics, hot-blooded supremacists and apostles of apocalypse. This scenario I fear more than any other. It is instabile, unpredictable, and in no way compares to the stable, rational cold war between East and West. Damn, I really miss the cold war. And no, Jimbuna, again I am not joking. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 08-16-12 at 08:04 AM.

08-16-12, 11:52 AM	#7
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	Oh yeah, If Israel wants to do that let them, just don't Drag the US into it __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

08-16-12, 02:33 PM	#12
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	With those kind of choices Oberon, I'll be another volunteer to go to Mars,lol __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

08-16-12, 07:16 AM	#2
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Good lord, that's supposedly their battle plan? Israel can't do this alone, not and expect to achieve anything other than a massive counter-barrage from both Iran, what's left of Syria and Lebanon. Besides, they'll take out Irans nuclear reactor, great, but what's stopping them from just building another one, but this time with Russian help and with Russian SAM launchers around it? Israel would have become an international pariah for acting first without going through the UN and Russia and China would have gained a political reason to supply Iran with all the hi-tech weaponry it needs to 'protect it from the aggressive and warlike Israel'. Heck, politically, it could play straight into Irans court to be bombed by Israel, particularly if they refrain from retaliating and play the moral high ground in the UN on it. Of course, I doubt they will refrain from retaliating, that would cause internal trouble, but Russia and China could, and will, use a pre-emptive Israeli strike to push for sanctions on Israel in the UN, and for the removal of sanctions on Iran. The US will veto any Israeli sanctions, but its position will be increasingly untenable, and you can expect backlash against US forces in Afghanistan over it. There is no easy way to deal with Iran, and Israel cannot do it alone, not and hope to achieve any long lasting success, it may win the battle, of that I have little doubt, but it will lose the war and suffer a great deal of damage both in terms of human casualties and political casualties. If Israel had US support, then it gets a bit easier, but you're still left with the problem that unless you put boots on the ground or create constant air superiority then it would be easy for Iran to just dust itself down and restart the program, and then ten-fifteen years down the line you're back at square one, only this time Iran has better weaponry thanks to Russia and China, and you might not even have the resources available to tackle Iran. It's an election year this year, and neither Romney or Obama would commit to a long term campaign in Iran, it would be political suicide, in fact it's bordering on political suicide to mention any armed campaign against Iran due to the level of war weariness in the US, heck isolationism seems to be on the gentle rise in the background, if trending comments from Americans on different forums I frequent are anything to go by. The EU...well...lol, that's the only thing I have to say about that mess, honestly I don't think it'd be able to find Tehran on a map, much less contribute to any attack against it, and as for dealing with bankers, well you forget who runs the EU Skybird, it sure as hell ain't the politicians The UK might throw a couple of TLAMs into the equation but then we'd run out of ammo and have to withdraw so that's pretty pointless. So really, if any big nation who isn't already a friend of Iran is going to have to tackle it, then it's the US and Israel, and even with those two combined, unless Iran magically transforms back to pre-revolutionary days (lol) and becomes a western ally, then all you're going to do is make Iran stronger in the long run. TLDR? One strike will not be enough, and yet one strike is all that Israel and the US can afford both economically and politically, and even then the price may be too high for them to pay.

08-16-12, 08:10 AM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Don't worry, I miss it too. At least you knew your enemy back then. I understand Israels motives for a strike, it is a matter of survival, however once they have undertaken the first strike they have committed themselves to a program of continual strikes against an enemy which will be supplied by Russia and China, whilst further isolating themselves from international support and risking cutting their support from America. It's a short term victory but a long term defeat. And even if America does reduce the Iranian nuclear program to a fine layer of dust, how long will it take until Iran has rebuilt that program? Particularly if it gets covert Chinese and Russian support? And this time that program will have Russian and Chinese made weapons guarding it, which means that when the US comes to reduce the program to dust for a second time it will be more costly, and then Iran will rebuild it for a third time, and so on and so forth. If the Germans had bombed the Los Alamos laboratory in 1943, would the US have given up on the Manhatten Project? No, it would have had a big setback, yes, but it would still have carried on, and with Iran it's even worse because Iran knows what a nuclear weapon can do, whereas the US only had an idea of the potential of one.

08-16-12, 02:25 PM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	We have a saying, I imagine it's translated in German at some point, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." You and I both know that the western world does not think in a straight way, it convolutes the matter, when you say that I make it complicated, it's not me, it is my observation of the way the western world works. Israel will attack, like you say it has no real choice but to do so, but it will do so alone because the US cannot afford a war with Iran at the moment, not in terms of finances, although that is certainly a factor, but in terms of international standing and internal political problems. The EU couldn't organise a bread fight in a bakery so they're out of the question, so that leaves little Israel in it alone. By acting alone and striking first they hand the political prize to Iran, the US wouldn't be able to applaud Israel publically because they'd be seen as endorsing a first strike scenario (which opens up a can of worms in terms of China hitting Taiwan and Russia hitting...well...any of its neighbours that aren't NATO members) and they would be forced both internally and externally to reduce aid to Israel as 'punishment'. You and I both know that this is how the world of today works, Skybird, we both don't agree on it, but we have to be realistic here, and face the fact that Iran is in the strong position here and will remain so for the near future. Short of turning the entirety of Iran into glass and vaporising its entire population, Israel is not going to win this, not in the long term. It might delay that gun coming around, but it's not going to disarm it. There are plenty of options but each option is unpalatable to a particular faction involved in this entire event: 1) Do nothing - Iran gets the bomb, and a Middle Eastern arms race begins 2) Put anti-missile defences around Iran, fence it in so that any nuclear weapons it does have cannot be launched via missile - So a suitcase bomb explodes in Tel Aviv instead. 3) Israel attacks Iran alone - Irans nuclear program set back by five years to a decade, Israel receives a massive retaliatory strike but is otherwise unharmed. However its international reputation is down the gutter and the US is forced to reduce aid, thus making its position harder and Iran gets extra support for its rebuilding program from Russia and China. 4) Israel and the US attack Iran - Irans program set back by ten years to twenty, the retaliatory strike is greatly reduced but the US and Israel both become international pariahs and Iran gets extra support for its rebuilding program from Russia and China. There is a potential for UN sanctions against Iran to be overturned. 5) The US turns Iran into a giant mirror - Irans nuclear program no longer exists, and neither does Iran. The entire world reacts in outrage, the US becomes isolated, sanctioned and embargoed to the hilt. Its economy falls into ruins and Israel is overrun by its neighbours. 6) Israel stages an Iranian attack on Israel as a cassus belli - Irans nuclear program set back by five to ten years, Russia and China protest overuse of force in retaliation. World suspects a fraud but struggles to prove it. Opinion split on either it was really an Iranian attack or an Israeli fraud. 7) The US and Israel stage an Iranian attack on Israel as a cassus belli - Same as above only there's either a slightly higher or lower chance of the fraud being discovered depending on how much credibility you give the CIA. 8) Israel waits until Iran uses a nuclear weapon first, then uses world opinion to remove the nuclear program from Iran - Israel loses 400,000 people, Iran loses active support from Russia and China and then loses a lot of other things as Israel and the US bomb it back to the stone age, with global support. It's unlikely that Iran will have a nuclear program any time soon after this. A pyrrhic victory for Iran, but it would not stop them from conducting it. Pick your poison.

08-16-12, 02:37 PM	#13
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Too damn true Eddie... Here, I know you're a Trek Fan Skybird, I just found this and thought of our conversation: Consider people like us as Garak, and people like Bashir as some in the western world these days.