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

[Jimbuna]

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]

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]

"We use the bomb for
peaceful purposes only!"
.................................................. ....................................."Pardon! We use nuclear energy
.................................................. ........................................for peaceful purposes only!"

[1480]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"We use the bomb for
peaceful purposes only!"
.................................................. ....................................."Pardon! We use nuclear energy
.................................................. ........................................for peaceful purposes only!"

[JU_88]

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

or so we are told.

[Skybird]

[QUOTE=JU_88;1784994]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

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

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press?

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

[Sammi79]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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]

Originally Posted by STEED

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

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press?

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

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

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by STEED

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

Is Israel leaking there plans to the press?

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

You may well be right

[Sammi79]

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 -

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 :-

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

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.

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

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

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