Is Israel about to defang Iran? Signs point to yes...

News today that Isreal is readying for an assault on Iran's secret nuclear facilities.

This is something we all could see coming from miles away. Isreal is not likely to sit back and let Iran become a nuclear power, especially not with Iran making comments suggesting that Isreal needs to be moved to Europe.

The big question is where the left will find themselves when this inevitable confrontation takes place. Will they be waving little white flags, decrying Israel's use of military force in a nearby sovereign nation, or will they cheer the action with righteous indignation over Iran's failure to cooperate with the international community.

I still find it hard to believe that we'd be any where near this point if we hadn't gone through 4 years of Jimmy Carter's ineptitude back in the 1970s that let Iran fall into the hands of radical Islamists. Beyond that though, we also suffered through 8 years of Clinton-Gore during which time military actions were reserved for quagmires like Kosovo and for the occassional distraction away from the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandals. Had we not gone through at least 8 years worth of letting the U.N.'s resolutions have absolutely no meaning, then perhaps we would now have more respect for that organization from the likes of Iran and other nations that do nothing but thumb their noses at the world's demands.

If Israel really does go after Iran (which seems inevitable at this point), it could truly set off a powder keg and a chain reaction of hostilities that will make the current situation in Iraq seem like a backyard schoolboy fight.

I hope that the flag-wavers in the Democratic party and on the left (as well as it the idiotic RINOs like C.O.L. Gene who keeps demanding that we leave now) slow down and really consider what their demands for an exit strategy in Iraq may lead to. For the clowns (like the C.O.L.) that want an immediate withdrawal of troops are they going to be ready to send them back into the middle of the middle east when there's an even stronger possibility of finding WMDs, and an even stronger possibility of having WMDs used in the battle/war?

Anyway, original article snippet follows. Please see original for complete story. Headline (as usual) linked.






Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.
Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.
The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda and the issue now was: “What next?” That question would have to be answered in the next few months, he said.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the “point of no return” after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
“Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.”
The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week.
Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel. “There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment,” he said.
{ snip }
If a military operation is approved, Israel will use air and ground forces against several nuclear targets in the hope of stalling Tehran’s nuclear programme for years, according to Israeli military sources.
It is believed Israel would call on its top special forces brigade, Unit 262 — the equivalent of the SAS — and the F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, which can strike Iran and return to Israel without refuelling.


The Sunday Times (U.K.) - Online edition - December 11, 2005

much more at original article
9,153 views 40 replies
Reply #1 Top
Signs point to yes...


Yeah, Little Stevie Wonder could read those signs.

Israel did it to Iraq, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it to Iran as well, especially with Iran's loose lipped new president practically begging for it. That's how I assumed this non-sense would go.

Given Iran's growing influence in Sunni Iraq, and America's traditional pro-Israel stance, things could get very hairy very quickly.

I wonder if Iran isn't baiting Israel? And if so, why? Are they looking for an excuse to start a popular uprising against the Americans and try to take over military-less Iraq? Do they have secret (possibly Russian supplied) weapons they are itching to use against Israel and just looking for an excuse to do so, even if they have to goad Israel into giving them that excuse?

Yep, I expect Israel to do it (it might even be the best solution to the mess), I just hope they're not walking into a trap.

Reply #2 Top
Here is the official position of the Israeli Defense Forces from todays local press...
Link

We are at the moment in an election campaign set for March, lots of local problems to deal with... war with Iran is not a primary issue on our agenda at the moment.
BUT.... if they dare attack us, that will be the last act they perform as a nation.
Reply #3 Top
Yep, I expect Israel to do it (it might even be the best solution to the mess), I just hope they're not walking into a trap.


I don't believe Israel would let themselves walk into a trap. They may be about to take on a bigger fight than we might be able to estimate and understand, but I think they know the fight they'd be up against, and they know full well how ready and capable they'd be for taking on that fight.

Its tough to tell how much fight there really would be in Iran, where we keep hearing tales of a country that is much like Iraq, supposedly ready to toss it's leaders, but doesn't quite have the will to do it. Yes, there's a hardcore group there that is much like the Taliban was in Afghanistan, but I expect in many ways Iran might be just like Afghanistan if and and when a real fight actually occured. On the one hand they'd pull the Saddam minister of mis-information (Baghdad Bob) type campaign where they'd claim the fight is going well, Allah wil bless them, they will not lose, the infidels will be repelled, etc., on the other hand they'd see their losses mount quickly, and see their territorial hold shrink just as quickly.

While "the street" in Iran might not be big fans of an Israeli occupation, I don't believe they'd be that apt to get themselves killed in a fight between parties that they don't really care about either.
Reply #4 Top
Can't speak for all liberals, but I am ok about it. But then, I have selfish reasons, what with a jewish wife and many of her family living in Israel. Yeah, how do you guys say....um....let's get 'er done! OOOO, I felt all macho and tingley for a moment. This conservative stuff might not be so bad after all.
Reply #5 Top
I still find it hard to believe that we'd be any where near this point if we hadn't gone through 4 years of Jimmy Carter's ineptitude back in the 1970s that let Iran fall into the hands of radical Islamists.


ineptitude? it aint as if jimma was doin anything inept in the early 50s when the anglo-american oil corp manipulated the brits and our government to task the cia and british intelligence with the job of overthrowing the elected government of mohammad mosaddeq.

replacing mosaddeq with the shah'n'shah (scion of the noble ancient--well 2 generations anyway--palavi dynasty) may have seemed like a success at the time...but it was really inept statecraft. furthermore it is exactly this kinda 'democracy and freedom are good enough for us, but not for you' inversion of all we claim to stand for which keeps coming back to bite us in the ass.

install a greedy tyrant who spends the next 2 decades repressing his people and refusing to share the lil kickback he gets from the people who are robbing his country of its resources and you go head on and bet the farm the citizens of that country are gonna remember what you've done for a long damn time.

they clearly have memories that surpass yours.
Reply #6 Top
I believe that's "Git 'er done!" UBoB. But an A for effort.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #7 Top
Had we not gone through at least 8 years worth of letting the U.N.'s resolutions have absolutely no meaning, then perhaps we would now have more respect for that organization from the likes of Iran and other nations that do nothing but thumb their noses at the world's demands.


had we put any real effort into making the un work especially during the most recent 30 of the past 60 years (altho it's pretty much true of the first 30 as well), nations like iran and north korea almost certianly be less dismissive of the organization. that's really another topic but...

a more germane 'woulda' goes like this: if our current vice-president hadn't spent much of the 90s doing his best to work around sanctions both legally and otherwise in order to help iran pay for its nuclear program by enabling them to produce oil more profitably, things might be much different.

perhaps you can explain how such a patriot as cheney justify calling for the end of sanctions in order to enrich the company he headed.
Reply #8 Top
I agree with kingbee about Iran - hindsight has shown installing the Shah to have been a dumb move, not to mention counter to the principles we espouse, although how "democratically" elected Mossadeq was is probably open to debate.

At least in Iraq we're getting closer to doing it right.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #9 Top
Installing totalitarian governments was a dumb move, period. Not addressing the Soviets early and playing a pissy game of chess for the next 40 years was a dumb move. Not defeating your enemies is a dumb move. Pretending to want balance when it is really a global land-grab is a dumb move.
Reply #10 Top
The dangerous thing is that Iran could screw up Israel's plans pretty badly. I'm no scientist, but doesn't covering a nuclear bomb in zinc/cadmium and then blowing it up cause the whole "poisoned land" scenario? If the Iranian president/Ayatollah is sufficiently martyr-ish (and I mean that in the bad way, not the Joan du Arc way) couldn't he just zinc the powerplants and cry disaster when Israel blows them up?

It wouldn't reflect well on Israel to turn the Middle East into a poisoned hellhole, and certain left-wing anarchists and a number of Islamic terror orgs would never believe that Iran would do such a thing.

I don't know the science behind. I want to make that clear. But if it is possible, I hope the Israelis look into preventing it in the event they attack. Cos otherwise it would be yet another poor PR move by Israel's government, sinking yet another nail into their global reputation. Hardly anyone defends them today; who's going to if they cause immense catastrophe?
Reply #11 Top

Hardly anyone defends them today; who's going to if they cause immense catastrophe?


Israel's enemies have tried to cause to many immense catastrophes in Israel, I believe Israel is due one try to do the same to the enemies; especially those enemies who don't have the good sense to make peace or adhere to a cease-fire.

I wish for a united Arab-Israeli front against Iran. And judging from current events and the Iranian president's words, this might actually happen.


If Iran would actually bomb Jerusalem and Palestine, as they cannot avoid doing if they want to hit Israel (there are no nukes that just hit the Jewish parts of a target, no matter how much racists pray), Iran will have more problems than just Israel.



But Iran will most likely want to use the nukes as deterrent so they can attack whomever they like and scare away possible bad consequences.


To me it seems like it's up to the Arabs to decide whether they want Iran to have such power or not. Is Arab hatred for Jews big enough to warrant their own destruction at the hands of Iranian terrorists? We will see.
Reply #12 Top

overthrowing the elected government of mohammad mosaddeq.

replacing mosaddeq with the shah


I'm afraid you got your history left. The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany.

Mosaddeq was fired by the shah (then still in power). Britain and the US helped the shah because of their oil interests, that is true. But then oil interests are not an automatic symptom of evil. Britain and the US protected private property, which Mosaddeq illegally stole.
Reply #13 Top
I believe that's "Git 'er done!" UBoB. But an A for effort.


Close, it's "Git-R-Done." (I just reviewed the book.)

Now back on topic...

Israel good. Iran bad. Discuss.
Reply #14 Top
The scary part remains that Israel taught the world a lesson about Nuclear programs when it took out the Iraqi program back years ago. The Iranians learned that lesson all too well, and because of it, have spread their program around their country.

If Israel really wants to take down that program, they're gonna have to hit multiple targets in much the same way Al Qaeda has to have synchonized bombing missions -- hit them all quickly and not leave time for any of the key components/personnel to be shifted from one place to another. If they fail in that regard the program could continue and be even harder to stop.
Reply #15 Top

I'm afraid you got your history left. The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany.

Unfortunately, that does not fit in with the thesis that all bad happens under republican administrations. Hence his slight oversight.

Reply #16 Top
I'm afraid you got your history left. The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany.


Unfortunately, that does not fit in with the thesis that all bad happens under republican administrations. Hence his slight oversight.


and i'm afraid yall are so interested in denying historical fact, you confuse the shah's father with his son...and 1941 with 1953.
Reply #17 Top

and i'm afraid yall are so interested in denying historical fact, you confuse the shah's father with his son...and 1941 with 1953.


Classic.

You should have split that up into two comments.
Reply #18 Top

and i'm afraid yall are so interested in denying historical fact, you confuse the shah's father with his son...and 1941 with 1953.

I have a radical Idea!  How about a link? Oh, but you dont have one.  How about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran

Styled His Imperial Majesty Shahanshah Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans), was the last reigning Shah of Iran to date, ruling from 1941 until 1979.

Reply #19 Top
Oh, yeah - as in Toys-R-Us.

OK, do I get partial credit for only being off one letter?

Touche, Gene.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #20 Top
Regardless of what happened when in Iran, it was still incredibly stupid of Carter and his administration to not have an exit strategy and not have a plan for what was going to happen to protect the interests of the United States and it's allies once the Shah was out of the country.

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. should have installed a puppet government, but I have to believe that we could have gotten a much more western friendly government out of (or in) Iran than what we saw once the radical Islamists took over.

It was foolish to let Khomeni back into the country, and just as foolish to let his influence into the country.

Had the Shah been quietly exiled away from the country before the revolution took place, a legitimate government might have had a chance, but once it was well known that the Shah wasn't coming back, and his administration couldn't maintain control, the radicals took over and we've paid the price ever since.

Does this all lead to World War 3? Hard to tell. I sure hope not, but it depends on just how much of a death wish the Iranians have. The Israelis are not to be triffled with. They don't take their own security lightly, and they are more than capable of protecting their own interests, even if Iran has spread their program throughout their vast real estate.
Reply #21 Top
You should have split that up into two comments


yeah i prolly shoulda. clearly i was the one confusing reza palavi with his son, reza palavi. it's so damn easy to get confused with these two generation dynasties.

The shah came to power in 1941 when he was put in power to make sure Iran would not ally with Germany


the second palavi shah--the one to which i was referring did not, in fact, reign from 1941 until 1979.
Reply #22 Top
Unfortunately, that does not fit in with the thesis that all bad happens under republican administrations. Hence his slight oversight


i seem to have confused the two palavi shahs (due as much to the fact the old man's adopted name was essentially the same as his son's) and forgot about the brits/soviets assisting him in deposing his father in 1941. sorry for the confusion*

if you'd actually read the entire wikipedia article to which you provided the link, you'd know that the 2nd palavi could not have reigned continuously from 1941 to 1979. in 1953 he was forced into exile until us/brit spooks worked their magic to make mossadeq disappear and lots of money start pouring back into the anglo-iranian oil company once again.

no question but it happened while eisenhower was president. i'm not familiar with kermit roosevelt's political persuasion. i'm thinking he was, at heart, into the green party...as in greenbacks.

*note to dr guy: believe it or not some people actually admit to making mistakes...and this is how it's done. you should try it some time.
Reply #23 Top
it was still incredibly stupid of Carter and his administration to not have an exit strategy and not have a plan for what was going to happen to protect the interests of the United States and it's allies once the Shah was out of the country.


hindsight provides such incredible clarity. carter may not have realized the kinda mania khomeni inspired. very few americans did at the time. reagan shoulda known who he was dealing with (even if his campaign was totally innocent of the so-called 'october surprise') but that didn't stop him from providing them with missiles and replacement parts. (i have a difficult time believing he hadda clue; how else to explain sending khomeni a bible of all things?) for that matter, it seems the current administration is doin its best to turn iraq over to sistani.
Reply #24 Top
Had the Shah been quietly exiled away from the country


the one really stupid thing carter did was to permit the shah to flee to the us. it may have been the humane thing to do, from our perspective, but it sure pissed them iranians off bigtime. talk about adding insult to injury.

. I sure hope not, but it depends on just how much of a death wish the Iranians have.


how many more suicide bombers have to push the button before you realize they don't just wish for death...they welcome it?
Reply #25 Top
OK, do I get partial credit for only being off one letter?


[I'm still off topic] You certainly did better than I would have had I not just read the book. [/I'm still off topic]