preemptive strike on Iran

[chabibi]

hypothetical question

would Israel be wrong to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, like it did in Iraq?

[BluffTHIS!]

Iran's president recently gave them all the justification they need. They acted pre-emptively in 67 because they knew they were about to be attacked. They didn't do so in 73 even knowing the same because of negative reactions to the earlier war and US pressure. But now, even without knowledge of an immenent attack, they can take zero risk of suffering a nuclear attack which would devastate their small country. It won't be easy to hit a dispersed network of sites, but they still should do it if they have intel that Iran is close to having nuclear weapon capability, and the US should give them all the satellite and other intel help possible.

[lehighguy]

Given the recent excuse they were given (not even excuse really its legitimate) I would go for it.

[BluffTHIS!]

I want to add before someone else does, that a large percentage of Iranians, especially the younger generation, are more western oriented and don't support their government, but that if attacked would undoubtedly unify behind that government. But their government is their responsibility and if they don't want to suffer the negative consequneces of their government's actions, then it is up to them to start another revolution to do so. Otherwise they get what they deserve, same as with the germans in WWII.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
But their government is their responsibility and if they don't want to suffer the negative consequneces of their government's actions, then it is up to them to start another revolution to do so. Otherwise they get what they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe the victims of 9/11 got what they deserved? One could flip your argument to suggest that the americans who died that day were responsible for the US Government's actions in the middle east.

I don't think the victims of 9/11 deserved what happened to them, but it's important to be careful when saying these kinds of things.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical question, would Israel be wrong to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, like it did in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why hypothetical ? Why not real?

The world has changed. Used to be there were two superpowers (their respective political regimes matter little, in this context) and one was supporting the Israelis and the other superpower the Arabs, in the Mid East conflict. In such a world, there were limits tyo what Israel was allowed to do, imposed by America, on account of the existence and the deterrence effect of the USSR. Now, as it happens, there is only one superpower, and it's the one that supports Israel.

Israel won the lottery. And it can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases, without the slightest fear of retaliation or punishment.

And this is not an exaggeration. "Everything it pleases" includes messing with good ol' USA. Israel practically spat Bush and his gang in the face and tore their "road map" to shreds. Bush and the rest of the American administration wiped their faces and pretended it was rain.

So go ahead and bomb away! You still got the OSIRAK plans, don't you?

[BluffTHIS!]

Cola,

I was talking about the citizens of a country suffering the consequences of their undemocratic government's actions, and that the citizens of those countries bear the responsibility for same if they are not willing to change that government even at the risk of their lives. If you are equating US government actions and policies with those of such regimes then Osama would love you.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are equating US government actions and policies with those of such regimes then Osama would love you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I said that at all.

[ QUOTE ]
undemocratic government

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so that's the key? Why should it only be the responsibility of citizens who live under an undemocratic government? In a democracy, people elect leaders and are more directly responsible for who makes the decisions.

People are indirectly responsible for all of their own government's actions, but that doesn't mean they are 'getting what they deserve' when attacked by those who are against their government's policies. That was my only point, and I seriously doubt anyone can offer a real argument that disproves it.

[BluffTHIS!]

OK, it doesn't matter whether democratic or not. What does matter is that if their government unjustifiably attacks or threatens another country, and is attacked in response, then the consequences of same are "deserved". Of course if your real agenda is an anti-Israel one, then I guess guess you could think the very existence and history of Isreal provide the justification.

[ACPlayer]

The more interesting question is:

If America were to tell the Israeli's that it is not in America's best interest for Israel to bomb Iran (and, IMO, it is not in OUR interest for Israel to bomb Iran) would Israel give a rats ass?

[BluffTHIS!]

If allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon only fell into the category of "not in Israel's best interest" as opposed to that of "likely to insure Israel's destruction" then Israel should care about the US's wishes. But it doesn't.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
If allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon only fell into the category of "not in Israel's best interest" as opposed to that of "likely to insure Israel's destruction" then Israel should care about the US's wishes. But it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not follow your hypothetical if's etc. But your last statement But it (Israel) doesn't (care about the US' wishes) was certainly spot on, so I feel it is not necessary to re-read the preamble.

[BluffTHIS!]

I meant that Israel should care about US wishes on matters that are not of paramount importance, but should not care when it concerns matters that could lead to their anihilation, like Iran developing nuclear weapons.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe the victims of 9/11 got what they deserved? One could flip your argument to suggest that the americans who died that day were responsible for the US Government's actions in the middle east.


[/ QUOTE ]

They were.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the victims of 9/11 deserved what happened to them, but it's important to be careful when saying these kinds of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I, but it's about time these arguments were stripped of the geographical bias, and flat out what we do is good, what they do is bad nonsense.

Mack

[ QUOTE ]
The more interesting question is:

If America were to tell the Israeli's that it is not in America's best interest for Israel to bomb Iran (and, IMO, it is not in OUR interest for Israel to bomb Iran) would Israel give a rats ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. Why would they? When Iraq launched scuds at them, and America asked them not to respond, didn't they flip us the bird and go wild on Saddam?

Oh wait, they didn't.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more interesting question is:

If America were to tell the Israeli's that it is not in America's best interest for Israel to bomb Iran (and, IMO, it is not in OUR interest for Israel to bomb Iran) would Israel give a rats ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. Why would they? When Iraq launched scuds at them, and America asked them not to respond, didn't they flip us the bird and go wild on Saddam?

Oh wait, they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering if I was going to have to be the one to bring this up. Nice post. And of course Saddam was basically relying on the assumption that Israel would conduct some sort of retaliatory strike against him for the SCUD launches.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
When Iraq launched scuds at [the Israelis], and America asked them not to respond, didn't they flip us the bird and go wild on Saddam? [sarcastically]
Oh wait, they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the reason Israel did not retaliate against Saddam's scuds was that America demanded restraint from Israel ??

Do you, for one minute, believe that Israel would restrain itself if it thought it would be better off following a more active course?

The reason Israel did not retaliate was plain and simple : It paid to stay put. The Americans were advancing towards Baghdad; Saddam's troops had the same prospects that turkeys have around Halloween; Saddam's last hope was to turn this from a Kuwait-Iraq confrontation (an Arab-Arab confrontation) to an Israel-Iraq confrontation; he tried to provoke the Israelis into any kind of retaliation so that the world, and especially the Saudis, the Egyptians and the rest of the Arabs, would see an Arab country being attacked by "Zionists" instead of the troops of the United Nations.

Saddam's little manoeuvre failed because the Israelis are, y'know, not stupid.

For the last 50 years (something not denied even by Israel itself), Israel abides by the wishes of Washington ONLY when the abiding is convenient for Israel!

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Preemptive attack, as a last resort, in an extremely dangerous and unique situation, makes sense. In general, however, preemptive counter-proliferation actions should be considered only in the most extreme cases, where all other options appear to be ineffective, and where the conditions favor success

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Barry Schneider of the U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center

The real question is if isreal bombs them and misses one nuke howmuch [censored] is going to fly? Would all of you favoring preemptive strikes be ok if Iraq launched a preemptive attack on the US during the 24 hour ultimatium we gave? The US made very clear its intentions to invade a soverign state, of which we had no proof of any wrong doing. Sounds like a smashing idea to me if I was iraq. Then I could go to the UN and be like "yo, these haters were going to invade my country, Iraq. I put a cap in their ass before they got me so clear me like you did Israel" (FYI all english speaking Iraqis come from compton.)

But of course thats different, we are the "good guys" and therefore are allowed to invade/bomb/attack preemptivly. I think I'd be great if Iran pulled a pre-preemptive attack on Israel, then Israel could stop it with a pre-pre-preemptive attack. Soon we'd all be at war before anyone even knew there were hostilities.

[BluffTHIS!]

We can get hurt badly but not destroyed by a pre-emptive attack from a non-major nuclear power, with plenty weapons left to annihilate them in return. But Israel can't allow itself to suffer even one such attack since they are so small, even though they would still have a submarine launched nuclear retaliatory response left available. That's the crucial difference. They can get wiped out, we can't, by a small nuclear state.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No

[nicky g]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I'm not sure it would be possible. As I understand it, Iraq had one major reactor complex, whereas Iran's nuclear work is carried out at a variety of different locations, amongst them hidden and underground installations.

[Felix_Nietsche]

but that if attacked would undoubtedly unify (the younger Iranians) behind that government.
************************************************** ************
They probably would get angry with the USA but their anger takes a backseat to US interests.

Iran has been supporting the insurgency financially and is responsible for the new generation of road bombs that uses shaped-charges to pierce the armor of the USA armored Humvees. A lot of US troops have been killed by bombs made and designed from Iran. Time for some payback. The Iranians see Bush as a weak because he has allowed these war-like actions to go unchecked.

Another course of action is to inact a naval blockade of Iran. Without their oil revenues, their govt will be unable to finance the Iraqi insurgency, continued financing of their nuke program will be difficult if not impossible, and their govt will be severely weakened. But this will mean $80 a barrel oil and evidently too many American politicians are afraid of the reactions of the American public. I'm willing to pay for higher gasoline prices if it means we can get back at Iran.

[nicky g]

"Iran has been supporting the insurgency financially and is responsible for the new generation of road bombs that uses shaped-charges to pierce the armor of the USA armored Humvees. A lot of US troops have been killed by bombs made and designed from Iran."

Evidence? There was talk a while back that Shi'i groups in southern Iraq were using bomb technology passed to them, via Hizballah, by Iran against British troops (it later turned out to be wrong), but this is the first I've heard of the canard that Shi'i Iran is arming anti-Shi'i insurgents in a long time.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Evidence? There was talk a while back that Shi'i groups in southern Iraq were using bomb technology passed to them, via Hizballah, by Iran against British troops (it later turned out to be wrong), but this is the first I've heard of the canard that Shi'i Iran is arming anti-Shi'i insurgents in a long time.
************************************************** *************
This took me two minutes using google. The BBC has been going into overdrive to avoid publishing stories like these. But the evidence keeps growing to the point where no responsible news organization can ignore this story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829929/
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/08/sophisticated-roadside-bombs-in-iraq.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/08/mil-050806-33bd4158.htm

[Meech]

To Israel I say -- Let 'em rip skip.

Nobody else in the world (least of all the UN) has the balls to do anything about it.

[nicky g]

"This took me two minutes using google."

It shows. Let's take the most credible of your links, the Christian Science Monitor. It refers to the story I was talking about, which related to Shi'i groups and British soldiers, not the Sunni insurgency or US troops, and has since been discredited. The other three all refer to the same one-off story from August that nothing has been heard of since and is sourced from "coalition officials" and such credible non-ideologues as Michael Ledeen without any actual evidence being presented.

[Felix_Nietsche]

and has since been discredited.
************************************
Evidence?

Also since you have not address the other links I posted then I assume you accept these as credible stories.

[BluffTHIS!]

If Iran wants the technology to make this, then Israel should share it with them this way.

http://www.zvis.com/images/nuks/dmtruckee1.jpg

[nicky g]

"Also since you have not address the other links I posted then I assume you accept these as credible stories."

Er, yes I did.

[nicky g]

Revealed: IRA bombs killed eight British soldiers in Iraq
Independent on Sunday, The, Oct 16, 2005 by Greg Harkin, Francis Elliott
new


Eight British soldiers killed during ambushes in Iraq were the victims of a highly sophisticated bomb first used by the IRA, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

The soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they travelled through the country, died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams while on patrol. The bombs were developed by the IRA in collusion with intelligence services more than a decade ago.

This contradicts the British government's claims that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.


The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter- terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s.

According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents.

'We are seeing technology in Iraq today that it took the IRA 20 years to develop,' said a military intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland.

He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three- way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam " a technique perfected by the IRA.

Britain claims that the bomb-making expertise now being used in southern Iraq was passed on by Iran's Revolutionary Guard through Hizbollah, the revolutionary Islamist group it sponsors in Lebanon.

But a former agent who infiltrated the IRA told The Independent on Sunday that the technology reached the Middle East through the IRA's co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.

The former agent added: 'The photographic flashgun unit was replaced with infra-red and then coded infra-red, but basically they were variations of the same device. The technology came from the security forces, but the IRA always shared its equipment and expertise with Farc guerrillas in Colombia, the Basque separatists, ETA, and Palestinian groups. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology used to kill our troops in Basra is the same British technology from a decade ago.'

Even more alarming is the claim that the devices were supplied by the security services to an agent inside the Provisionals as part of a dangerous game of double bluff.

According to investigators examining past collusion between the security forces and paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, members of the shadowy army undercover outfit, the Force Research Unit, and officers from MI5 learned in the early 1990s that a senior IRA member in south Armagh was working to develop bombs triggered by light beams. They decided the risks would be diminished if they knew what technology was being used.

'The thinking of the security forces was that if they were intimate with the technology, then they could develop counter- measures, thereby staying one step ahead of the IRA,' a senior source close to the inquiry explained. 'It may seem absurd that the security services were supplying technology to the IRA, but the strategy was sound.

'Unfortunately no one could see back then that this technology would be used to kill British soldiers thousands of miles away in a different war.'

The agent with the Provisionals was allowed to travel to New York, where he met CIA officials and was able to purchase the equipment. But the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland, Nuala O'Loan, has discovered that this strategy backfired disastrously.

t A dossier naming the alleged killers of the six Red Caps murdered by an Iraqi mob more than two years ago is being handed over to Iraqi judges this week. The six members of the Royal Military Police were butchered to death in June 2003 in an Iraqi police station after being attacked by about 300 tribesmen.

Two mothers of British soldiers killed in Iraq are to stage a 24-hour 'peace camp' opposite Downing Street on Tuesday.

IOS article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20051016/ai_n15710771)
Also note again that that article referred principally to a small number of attacks on British soldiers in the south of the country by Shi'i groups.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three- way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam " a technique perfected by the IRA.
************************************************** ****
LOL.......just as I thought you have no evidence.
The news stories I posted were on SHAPE CHARGES being manufactured in Iran. Shape charges are unique in that they can penetrate armor. I think it is safe to say you do not have a military background. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just because IRA designed bombs have been used in Iraq does not invalidate the news stories I posted. All you have done is given evidence that IRA designed bombs are being used by insurgents as well. Nice try..... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
For the last 50 years (something not denied even by Israel itself), Israel abides by the wishes of Washington ONLY when the abiding is convenient for Israel regardless of how important Washington considers its wishes!


[/ QUOTE ]

[Felix_Nietsche]

Er, yes I did.
************************************************** *
Er, no you did not.
You STILL have not addressed the news stories (PLURAL) that discuss Iran providing SHAPE CHARGES to the insurgents. All you have done was provided evidence that IRA designed detonation systems have been used in Iraq. The coalition soldiers being killed in Iraq are being killed by shape charges which are able to penetrate the armored Humvees. The links I provided show that there is strong evidence that Iran is giving these shape charges to the insurgents.

Since Iran is engaging in war-like acts against US troops, the USA has justification to use military force on them. End-of-Story. But I don't think Bush43 has the balls to risk $80 per barrel oil so I think Iran is safe for the moment.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
We can get hurt badly but not destroyed by a pre-emptive attack from a non-major nuclear power, with plenty weapons left to annihilate them in return. But Israel can't allow itself to suffer even one such attack since they are so small, even though they would still have a submarine launched nuclear retaliatory response left available. That's the crucial difference. They can get wiped out, we can't, by a small nuclear state.

[/ QUOTE ]


i aggree; This is an important distinction, critical in any justification for an isreali pre-epmtive strike.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
He revealed that one trigger used in a recent Iraqi bombing was a three- way device, combining a command wire, a radio signal and an infra-red beam " a technique perfected by the IRA.
************************************************** ****
LOL.......just as I thought you have no evidence.
The news stories I posted were on SHAPE CHARGES being manufactured in Iran. Shape charges are unique in that they can penetrate armor. I think it is safe to say you do not have a military background. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just because IRA designed bombs have been used in Iraq does not invalidate the news stories I posted. All you have done is given evidence that IRA designed bombs are being used by insurgents as well. Nice try..... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The CSM story referred to allegations of Iranian-sourced shape-charges and detonation mechanisms. The IoS story clearly shows that the detonation mechanisms which were claimed to be coming from Iran did not. It proves that half of their argument about Iran was completely wrong, which should at least make one highly dubious as to the veracity of the second aspect of the story, at least until some actual concrete evidence for this has been presented.

Nontheless I'd say it is certainly conceivable that Iran at some level is supporting some armed Shi'i groups in the south that may have been involved in attacks on British soldiers there. But the entire logic of your argument that Iran is backing the Sunni insurgency is absurd. Ledeen in one of the stories you linked to argues that the Iranians are desperate for the US to leave. Clearly that is ridiculous. Firstly, it clearly suits Iran for the US military to stay in Iraq, as it limits its ability to attack Iran. An Iranian backed movement, the SCIRI, is in coalition government in Iraq and running major ministries including the Interior Ministry, and has no desire to have to face the Sunni insurgents by itself. More importantly, Iran-backed SCIRI is fighting (and torturing) the very insurgents that Iran is supposed to be supplying with these bombs. Unless you believe Iran is fighting itself in Iraq, the allegations make no sense.

[nicky g]

"the news stories (PLURAL) "

Two of the four links you gave are the same story by NBC news. It provides zero evidence that a shipment was even intercepted, never mind proven to have been sent by the Iranian government, other than anonymous briefings by the same people that told us they knew where Iraq's WMDs were. A third is about a bombing that turned out to not be a shape charge, but refers back to the charges made in the first two links and admits details of so-called interceptions are vague and that "The coalition official here says there is no evidence to suggest that the government in Tehran is facilitating the smuggling of shape charges into Iraq.. " The fourth of them refers to Iranian backing for small Shi'i groups in the British-controlled south, whereas you ahve been arguing for Iranian support for the main Sunni insurgency. If you want your charges to be taken seriously, you need to do a bit better than this to substantiate an argument that makes no logical sense ie Iran is arming groups that are fighting its Iraqi proxies.