Israel to attack Iran 'in the spring'

[Lateralthinking1]

I have totally mixed views on this one:

- The west can't afford to become embroiled v Can't afford not to take action
- Everyone has equal rights to a bomb v More bombs are bad news whoever has them
- Need to protect Iranian citizens v Their leader is anti all minorities, music, freedom of expression
- He appears to be a dangerous nutcase v Is this just western paranoia and double standards?
- His bomb probably wouldn't reach the UK v Need to be a good world citizen
- Need not to upset Muslims v But he only likes a certain kind of Muslim
- War should be absolutely the last resort v He is likely to be beyond normal diplomacy
- We should be reducing oil consumption v That is just a green utopia
- Israel will protect itself by taking action v Action will simply trigger a later obliteration
- We can take action to prevent Israeli action v Isn't that siding with the Iranian regime?

One question I ask myself is how the situation would look had there been no conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. While almost everyone is very war weary, it would be somewhat ironic if a war that was essential didn't occur because inessential ones did.

[teamsaint]

Care to provide a list?

Christopher Shale

Sean Hoare (possibly)

Stephen Milligan

Justin Fashanu.

And I am not someone who has looked into this stuff too closely....there are no doubt plenty more.

no one will EVER convince me that Kelly wasn't murdered.

The government kill people, British and Foreign, in wars day after day, week after week, Year after year, in war after war.

They are not too fussed about bumping off the odd difficult journo, scientist, or junior politician if it suits them.

[teamsaint]

I have totally mixed views on this one:

- The west can't afford to become embroiled v Can't afford not to take action
- Everyone has equal rights to a bomb v More bombs are bad news whoever has them
- Need to protect Iranian citizens v Their leader is anti all minorities, music, freedom of expression
- He appears to be a dangerous nutcase v Is this just western paranoia and double standards?
- His bomb probably wouldn't reach the UK v Need to be a good world citizen
- Need not to upset Muslims v But he only likes a certain kind of Muslim
- War should be absolutely the last resort v He is likely to be beyond normal diplomacy
- We should be reducing oil consumption v That is just a green utopia
- Israel will protect itself by taking action v Action will simply trigger a later obliteration
- We can take action to prevent Israeli action v Isn't that siding with the Iranian regime?

One question I ask myself is how the situation would look had there been no conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. While almost everyone is very war weary, it would be somewhat ironic if a war that was essential didn't occur because inessential ones did.

but why might a war in Iran be essential ?
Oil?
power?
Strategic interest ?

[Simon]

FF tells me I'm not to use the word "mindless" anymore, so that makes it a bit difficult to comment on some of these politically-motivated posts.

So if anyone else could some up with a suitable, and acceptable, adjective, to describe the comment that "Iran is no threat at all really", I'd be grateful. I'd thought of "naive", but that doesn't really get across the whole enormity of the misconception.

And whilst there are indeed other ways than fighting to solve many problems, perhaps the intellect that suggested them might care to elaborate on them. A polite "please don't make threats against your neighbours" has, I think, been tried already.

History is littered with the deaths of polite people who sweetly asked the strong and vicious not to hurt them. Fortunately, as happened in 1939, there are still realists about who realise that tyranny sometimes has to be resisted by force.

[Serial_Apologist]

but why might a war in Iran be essential ?
Oil?
power?
Strategic interest ?

America's determination that no substitute for lapsed Marxism be allowed to supplant it's imposed model of democracy?

[teamsaint]

FF tells me I'm not to use the word "mindless" anymore, so that makes it a bit difficult to comment on some of these politically-motivated posts.

So if anyone else could some up with a suitable, and acceptable, adjective, to describe the comment that "Iran is no threat at all really", I'd be grateful. I'd thought of "naive", but that doesn't really get across the whole enormity of the misconception.

And whilst there are indeed other ways than fighting to solve many problems, perhaps the intellect that suggested them might care to elaborate on them. A polite "please don't make threats against your neighbours" has, I think, been tried already.

History is littered with the deaths of polite people who sweetly asked the strong and vicious not to hurt them. Fortunately, as happened in 1939, there are still realists about who realise that tyranny sometimes has to be resisted by force.

Iran , may possibly be in a position , sometime soon, to make a nuclear weapon. it may, just may, be able to deliver it. It certainly isn't in a position to enter a nuclear conflict, because Israel has, at the most cautious estimate, at least 70 warheads that it certainly can deliver. It also has the americans behind it. Iran presents problems, but i suggest that beginning a nuclear conflagration isn't one of them.

As for other ways to prevent war, lets try to remember all the way back to Iraq, shall we.You know, the country with weapons of mass destruction, for which we went to war causing probably 100,000 deaths. Only, remember, there weren't any, not least because we had weapons inspectors all over them.

The sabre rattling here comes from the US and Israel, and if Iran is joining in , its up to the people with the real power, the US and Israel, to put the pressure on, short of going to war.

It worked in Iraq, they just forgot to tell us.

Oh, and "politically motivated posts"? that means what exactly?
I see what I see, and I respond accordingly.

[Lateralthinking1]

but why might a war in Iran be essential ? Oil? power? Strategic interest ?

I accept the inference behind this point as valid enough in its angle. It is also bad show to answer questions with questions although I feel that I must here.

Is this really a case of either/or? Does history gives us faith in the personal stability of totalitarian leaders more than we can have faith, say, in the leadership of Greece or Iceland, let alone Germany or Sweden?

And if we are to accept that there are always western motives, many of which are no doubt reprehensible, does this automatically turn Ahmadinejad into a male version of Caroline Lucas?

[teamsaint]

I accept the inference behind this point as valid enough in its angle. It is also bad show to answer questions with questions although I feel that I must here.

Is this really a case of either/or? Does history gives us faith in the personal stability of totalitarian leaders more than we can have faith, say, in the leadership of Iceland?

And if we are to accept that there are always western motives, does this automatically turn Ahmadinejad into a male Caroline Lucas?

My point is, I suppose, that the western media constantly show us the dangers that countries like Iran apparently present, whilst turning a blind eye to the motives and actions of western governments.
Iraq presents dangers.Their president MAY indeed be a dangerous man. We need to look at the reasons that they act as they do......and many those reasons are rooted in the actions of our governments.

[Lateralthinking1]

My point is, I suppose, that the western media constantly show us the dangers that countries like Iran apparently present, whilst turning a blind eye to the motives and actions of western governments.
Iraq presents dangers.Their president MAY indeed be a dangerous man. We need to look at the reasons that they act as they do......and many those reasons are rooted in the actions of our governments.

Well, yes, but we may be running out of time. I agree it isn't clear cut. Before anyone sends in the heavies, I feel that we the public should be entitled to more information. The lack of it is having an impact on being able to have a learned opinion.

I would like to hear more from our press about the true views of Iranians. We are told very little indeed. Iranians here could also say rather more. I am fully willing to believe that there might have been electoral fraud. However, it would have had to have been on an epic scale because he secured 62.63% of the vote whereas the candidate in second place was on 33.75%. Perhaps our own international election squads could be quizzed on the nuances and even about whether distortions of 30% plus are plausible.

Next, I still want to know from the Labour mayoral candidate for London, the presenter of the drivetime show on LBC who speaks warmly to Farage, and others, what specifically their relationships are or have been with Iranian national broadcasting. What exactly are their programmes on that network about? Who pays? Who sanctions? And why? Currently they are having a laugh.

[Simon]

Iran , may possibly be in a position , sometime soon, to make a nuclear weapon. it may, just may, be able to deliver it. It certainly isn't in a position to enter a nuclear conflict, because Israel has, at the most cautious estimate, at least 70 warheads that it certainly can deliver. It also has the americans behind it. Iran presents problems, but i suggest that beginning a nuclear conflagration isn't one of them.

As for other ways to prevent war, lets try to remember all the way back to Iraq, shall we.You know, the country with weapons of mass destruction, for which we went to war causing probably 100,000 deaths. Only, remember, there weren't any, not least because we had weapons inspectors all over them.

The sabre rattling here comes from the US and Israel, and if Iraq is joining in , its up to the people with the real power, the US and Israel, to put the pressure on, short of going to war.

It worked in Iraq, they just forgot to tell us.

Oh, and "politically motivated posts"? that means what exactly?

The last bit refers largely to mahlerei, teamsaint.

As for the rest:

1. I haven't seen anyone here suggest a nuclear attack would be a good thing, but I agree with you that it would not at this stage achieve the objective of moderating the line in Iran and, hopefully, getting rid of a fraudulently-elected dictator. (No knowledgeable commentator doubts this, by the way.)

2. Weapons inspectors are valid up to a point, but are no guarantee of safety. Apart from that, in this case there is no way that the current powers in Iran would allow UN staff to wander freely around to check what they are doing;

3. As you rightly hint, the problem is not just Iran, but Israel. Without so much US support, Israel would have had to compromise its stance considerably over the past thirty years. A more enlightened treatment of the people of Palestine would have defused much tension. But because the Jewsish lobby is so powerful in America - not only as regards political and media power, but especially as regards financial and legal power - anything that the US might wish to do to moderate the hardline that so often comes out of Tel Aviv is usually dead in the water before it's taken flight. If Reagan and Clinton, who both had the best (more recent) chances, and arguably the greatest will, to achieve a solution here, couldn't manage it, then no chance for Obama: the packing of pro-Israeli people at the levers of US power is greater now than it ever was.

But there again there are two sides to the story: rhetoric about destroying Israel is hardly likely to encourage moderation and compromise, is it?

I don't think that Israel will at the moment risk an attack, but the problem there is that you can never tell. Things can change in hours. Not even the best analysts - and I know a couple of them - are comfortable with Israeli politics. Whilever there is a hope that people-power will win, I think they'll let things alone. But don't forget that they have access to intelligence that nobody else does - and they don't share it. If the madman in Iran does acquire a WMD of the nuclear sort - and it's still more likely that he'll be able to buy one than build one - then you can be sure that they won't let him fire it, even if that does mean a big strike. With regard to this, a lot of people are watching the relationship between him and Assad: if Syria looks like imploding and the people win through, then desperation might come into play. And desperate people can do silly things.

[Lateralthinking1]

Without so much US support, Israel would have had to compromise its stance considerably over the past thirty years. A more enlightened treatment of the people of Palestine would have defused much tension. But because the Jewsish lobby is so powerful in America - not only as regards political and media power, but especially as regards financial and legal power - anything that the US might wish to do to moderate the hardline that so often comes out of Tel Aviv is usually dead in the water before it's taken flight.

Isn't this yet another point about the information we are never given? While there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it is true - and it is said often enough - what I wonder do we really know about all Jewish American opinion on the Israeli government? I have never seen an opinion poll about attitudes either among the elites or the public. Nor have I seen one here although, as I have written before, I have known devout Jewish families who find the Israeli government unmentionable.

On another point, that project known as star wars. Perhaps it is time to think about it again rather than emigrating to the moon?

[Richard Tarleton]

Isn't this yet another point about the information we are never given? While there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it is true - and it is said often enough - what I wonder do we really know about all Jewish American opinion on the Israeli government? I have never seen an opinion poll about attitudes either among the elites or the public. Nor have I seen one here although, as I have written before, I have known devout Jewish families who find the Israeli government unmentionable.

On another point, that project known as star wars. Perhaps it is time to think about it again rather than emigrating to the moon?

There's a book on the subject. There's a very powerful pro-Israeli lobby, however representative it is of Jewish American opinion as a whole

[PhilipT]

I haven't seen anyone here suggest a nuclear attack would be a good thing, but I agree with you that it would not at this stage achieve the objective of moderating the line in Iran and ...

Well, an unsuccessful nuclear attack, by Iran on Israel, might well be a good thing. No member of the UN Security Council would want to be seen to tolerate it. There would be swift regime change, a forced de-nuclearisation of Iran, the nutcase would meet a fitting end (it would be arranged), a new constitution would be imposed declaring Iran to be secular Islamic Republic, ...

If the madman in Iran does acquire a WMD of the nuclear sort - and it's still more likely that he'll be able to buy one than build one -

Can you support that? Iran has no shortage of money. It is acquiring the bomb the hard way because it can't get it the easy way.

I find the contrast between the Iranian and North Korean approaches troubling. NK went the plutonium route because it promised to be cheaper, but plutonium is tricky to use to make a reliable weapon. There's no certainty they have yet succeeded - test #1 was certainly a fizzle, and test #2 may well have been purely chemical. Should Iran acquire enough pure U-235 to make a weapon, they'll have no trouble building one that works. The uranium-based design used on Hiroshima wasn't tested first, because the designers could be certain it would work. The plutonium-based design dropped on Nagasaki was tested first, because they couldn't. Unlike the India-Pakistan case, where they have merely rattled sabres by conducting tests, Iran could move straight to an attempt to use. Deeply worrying, that.

[teamsaint]

Well, an unsuccessful nuclear attack, by Iran on Israel, might well be a good thing. No member of the UN Security Council would want to be seen to tolerate it. There would be swift regime change, a forced de-nuclearisation of Iran, the nutcase would meet a fitting end (it would be arranged), a new constitution would be imposed declaring Iran to be secular Islamic Republic, ...



Can you support that? Iran has no shortage of money. It is acquiring the bomb the hard way because it can't get it the easy way.

I find the contrast between the Iranian and North Korean approaches troubling. NK went the plutonium route because it promised to be cheaper, but plutonium is tricky to use to make a reliable weapon. There's no certainty they have yet succeeded - test #1 was certainly a fizzle, and test #2 may well have been purely chemical. Should Iran acquire enough pure U-235 to make a weapon, they'll have no trouble building one that works. The uranium-based design used on Hiroshima wasn't tested first, because the designers could be certain it would work. The plutonium-based design dropped on Nagasaki was tested first, because they couldn't. Unlike the India-Pakistan case, where they have merely rattled sabres by conducting tests, Iran could move straight to an attempt to use. Deeply worrying, that.

which particular nutcase?

Hoping for an unsuccessful nuclear by Iran attack as a way of dealing with the situation is certainly one approach....not straight out of the international relations text books I suspect !!

[Flosshilde]

which particular nutcase?

Certainly not the nutcase in charge of Israel. An attack by Iran would consolidate Israel's aggressive policies in the Middle East & remove any (admittedly inefectual) restraints by the UN. Given the level of pro-Israel Jewish influence in USA politics it could also trigger a USA invasion (or bombing at least) of Iran - & the roundabout would go round again.