Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
The Sunday Times ^ | December 11, 2005 | Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington

Posted on 12/10/2005 6:48:44 PM PST by rhainw

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 last
To: Semper Paratus

Voted. Thanks.


301 posted on 12/12/2005 11:24:12 AM PST by Paul_Denton (The U.S. should adopt the policy of Oom Shmoom: Israeli policy where no one gives a sh*t about U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Da Mav

Very true, but the 19 terrorists were not state actors with a power base to maintain and a country to run. Countries don't knowingly commit suicide in the same way that terrorists do.


302 posted on 12/12/2005 11:36:53 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

LOL.


303 posted on 12/12/2005 11:37:24 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: mjaneangels@aolcom

All the middle eastern countries, other than Israel, all come form the lineage of Ishmael, and thus they are all related. Arab was just a generic term. Picky, picky, picky.


304 posted on 12/12/2005 12:51:44 PM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

There are two ways for Iran to "save face":

1) Demand that Israel give up its nuclear weapons and engage the U.N. in a drawn out campaign to pressure Israel into doing so while they continue to enrich uranium.

2) Drag all of its choice components into the open and dare Israel to do something about it. This will take away any justification for using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy their program. It will also be an act of war which will allow Iran (and Syria) to retaliate in kind without being labeled as "aggressors". The question on everyone's mind will be, "does Iran still have a nuclear weapon somewhere?" and what will happen to all that oil if a nuclear exchange occurs?

The way I see it, Israel may have room for a conventional strike, with a hair-trigger on the nuclear option if it's not successful and Iran moves to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. I don't believe Iran will pre-emptively strike with a nuclear weapon. Not in a million years. But if Israel pre-emptively tries to destroy their facilities... well, all I can say is, they'd better finish the job.


305 posted on 12/12/2005 12:55:08 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rhainw
Has anyone thought of the fact that Iran is not likely to absorb these attacks and do nothing. They will retaileate with conventional weapons and an all-out war will develop in the ME. Armageddon Anyone?
306 posted on 12/12/2005 1:33:05 PM PST by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The idea that the west would leave it's dirty laundry to Israel, is disgusting to say the least.

I put this story in the same classification as the one below.

A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
www.lebanwire.com ^ | October 20, 2004 | Wayne Madsen

White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent

According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan.

Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.

The Iran attack plan was reportedly drawn up after internal polling indicated that if the Bush administration launched a so-called anti-terrorist attack on Iran some two weeks before the election, Bush would be assured of a landslide win against Kerry. Reports of a pre-emptive strike on Iran come amid concerns by a number of political observers that the Bush administration would concoct an "October Surprise" to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

307 posted on 12/12/2005 2:18:56 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mtntop3
Contrary to the fluff in the article, the IDF is ready at any given moment to make an attack, in the past, at present, in the future. And the Arabs know this very well.

Yes they know it, and most of them are not suicidal. You know many in the region would really rather Iran and the extremist groups just be quiet before they provoke an attack someday that results in mass casualties.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Israel gets any first strike, retalliation will be harsh, and you have to know the Arabs know this as well.

308 posted on 12/12/2005 2:37:18 PM PST by lawnguy (Give me some of your tots!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
There are two ways for Iran to "save face":

1) Demand that Israel give up its nuclear weapons and engage the U.N. in a drawn out campaign to pressure Israel into doing so while they continue to enrich uranium.

2) Drag all of its choice components into the open and dare Israel to do something about it. This will take away any justification for using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy their program. It will also be an act of war which will allow Iran (and Syria) to retaliate in kind without being labeled as "aggressors". The question on everyone's mind will be, "does Iran still have a nuclear weapon somewhere?" and what will happen to all that oil if a nuclear exchange occurs?

The way I see it, Israel may have room for a conventional strike, with a hair-trigger on the nuclear option if it's not successful and Iran moves to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. I don't believe Iran will pre-emptively strike with a nuclear weapon. Not in a million years. But if Israel pre-emptively tries to destroy their facilities... well, all I can say is, they'd better finish the job.

You have it about right - I think Iran will bide for option #1 - While knowing there is no good "military" option for Israel in the mean time - A preemptive nuclear strike by Israel I just don't see happening - The ramifications for Israel would probably result in its own destruction.

This is a much uglier / complicated situation then many seem to rationalize. The fact that there is no real good "military" option greatly heightens the complexities and seriousness of any actions actually taken.

309 posted on 12/12/2005 3:38:10 PM PST by SevenMinusOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom

Thanks. The problem I have with your premise, is that Iran is actively seeking nukes and we'll have hell to pay if it does get them. I do beleive something has to give on this shortly.

I do understand your hesitation to believe much of what you see in print these days.


310 posted on 12/12/2005 4:10:40 PM PST by DoughtyOne (MSM: Public support for war waining. 403/3 House vote against pullout vaporizes another lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Thanks. The problem I have with your premise, is that Iran is actively seeking nukes and we'll have hell to pay if it does get them. I do beleive something has to give on this shortly.

The big factor when Iran gets nukes is what type of person is in charge of the country.

If it is a Muslim who believes in Allah, and follows the Koran to the letter, the bombs will be dropped on Israel regardless of the consequences.

On the other hand, if the leader of Iran is like the present King Abdullah of Jordan, a heretic and an infidel collaborator, the bombs won't be used. - Tom

311 posted on 12/12/2005 4:36:23 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

Comment #312 Removed by Moderator

To: Zack Nguyen

"Countries don't knowingly commit suicide in the same way that terrorists do."

Your point is taken, but we don't know that for a country driven by religious fanatics who see death as a reward. Only in the most recent times have countries actually faced total annhilation as a possible outcome of total war. We, as a species are still learning. I would not be too quick to assume that MAD would deter the Iranians in charge -- as opposed to the Iranians as a people.

Neither of us knows for certain, but I'm not ready to exclude such an action on their part as impossible, just improbable.


313 posted on 12/18/2005 9:03:34 AM PST by Da Mav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Da Mav

Well said. No, we can't be sure. We musn't assume either that the operational link between Iran's nuclear weapons and the political leadership is all that firm either, just because it is here.


314 posted on 12/18/2005 9:41:10 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

"We're already fighting WWIV."

Absolutely true. Just like the ones in the past, we have no choice BUT to fight and win this war. Our children and their children's safety is more at stake now then ever. May God bless America all the way through.


315 posted on 04/11/2006 6:07:57 PM PDT by Right-Wing Champion (God Bless the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson