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

[Skybird]

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]

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

[Oberon]

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]

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?

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.

[TLAM Strike]

TNG and DS9 rock.

Originally Posted by geetrue

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

Well all the Muslim countries seem greatly concerned about the welfare of the Palestinian refugees. The same refugees the Muslim states keep in squad camps and deny citizenship too.



From 638 AD to 1073 AD the Muslims didn't seem very concerned about preserving the sanctity of Jerusalem, they took every opportunity too invade and capture the city from rival Muslims.

Considering how many times Muslims bomb their own holy sites to kill members of rival sects, they don't seem too concerned about sacrilege when it comes in the way of victory. Lets also not forget that Islamic fundamentalists sized the Grand Mosque in 1979, the resulting battle cost about 500 lives.

Its in their deepest traditions to destroy a holy place even their own, then built triumphantly on the ruins. It happened in Mecca, it happened in Jerusalem, and a bunch of other places.

[Skybird]

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]

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]

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

[Oberon]

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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.

Consider Worf to be any of the Western ones, and Garak to be the Iranians.


In serious, there have been assassins. The Iranians speeded their efforts up. There have been cyberattacks. The Iranians mutliplied the centrifuges, or replaced the production method. The sanctions - is anyone aware that there even are sanctions? I cannot see sanction smaking them chnage their mind at all.

It is about time, and none of the above things works fast enough and produces sufficient results so far. And the diplomatic game is a stupid waste of time that time and again saw the West being led around by its nose. Since years and years and years and years and years. And still there are those who claim that after one wasted decades, it only needs some more "time". Well, time is running out. Once they are under their damn mountains, they are invulnerable and have all the time they need to complete their damn nukie.

Let'S face it. The Iranians do not want to negotiate conditions to give up their nuke program. They never wanted to give it up, and they never will give it up. What they want is divide their enemies, deflect Western opposition, undermine Western public opinion like the USSR and GDR did during the cold war, and they want to win the time they need to dig their facilities so deep into the mountains that they cannot be reached anymore. Gaining a high price from the West to give up their nuke program is not part of their agenda, and never was.

They want nuclear weapons. They directly threatened Israel repeatedly. And they are driven by damn Islamic ideology as well, which again is not about compromise and coexistence and tolerance, but is about dominating it all and subjugating it all and winning it all and taking all the prize. Beware the religious hysterics with a nukie in his hand. What is horror to you, is a scenario of delight and glory to him.

They want nukes, and they do what they must to get them. What else is there needed for deciding what to do? I cannot understand the Western egg-dancing, which has seen over a hundred diplomatic back-and-forths over one decade - and nothing, nothing, nothing having been acchieved from a Western POV.

They want nukes. And now it is up to us to decide if we let them, or not. There is nothing more to be known. Could the situation be any simplier? I doubt it. Do we allow them getting nukes, or not? Very simple question, can be answered with Yes or No.

Eternal optimists. I think such optimists should be concerned that they do not end up as being "eternal" in the meaning of "dead". I can recall three eternal optimists whom I made closer contact with in my life. Yes, I liked them, and yes, they were very well-meaning and inspiring for sure. And they all crashed their lifes against walls that refused to become any softer due to their good wishing. They all payed very high prices for glossing reality in their private lives, because fate and slow but long falls found them unprepared. I think I prefer realism and determination any time. Being prepared while not needing to be, is good. Being prepared while needing to be, is even better.

Or as Patton said: When the situation is hopeless, things are desperate and you are loosing: attack, attack, attack!