Skip to comments.Israel Needs A Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran
Posted on 06/24/2006 1:32:23 PM PDT by IsraelBeach
Israel Needs A Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran
By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency
Jerusalem ----- June 24...... One of the best ways to ensure the world doesnt get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.
In 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland the allies appeased him, even though they could have been in Berlin in two weeks. In 1938 they once again let him off the hook, even though the allies could have been in Berlin within two months. Shortly after the appeasement of Munich, Russia signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, setting the stage for what it hoped would be his defeat of the West, which would pave the way for Russian domination of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
Now we have Iran, a country led by Ahmadinejad, an equally deranged and evil maniac. He is driven by an ideology combining elements of Nazism and Mahdism, with a tad of Maoism as well, a lethal cocktail of three of the most evil ideologies of human political history.
By most current intelligence estimates, by 2008, exactly 70 years after Chamberlain announced on his return from Munich he had achieved peace in our time, the Iranian Islamo-Nazi regime will have succeeded in developing an atomic bomb. Although it seems that the international community has belatedly begun to awaken to the danger, it is still far from certain that this will actually lead to concrete and concerted steps to ensure this doesnt happen.
Moreover, even if the West does get its act together, three is no guarantee that Russia will not revert to course, enacting a repeat performance of the Molotov-Ribbentrob pact. Putin seriously mulling double crossing the West.
This week new and highly disturbing evidence came to light that this is exactly what Russia is doing. According to a western intelligence report published earlier this week, satellite images showed large volumes of heavy Russian weaponry heading towards Iran. The weapons belonged to Russian military units evacuating Georgia, as part of the Russian-Georgian agreement signed in March, which calls for all Russian troops to be withdrawn from Georgian soil.
The Russians were evacuating their two big Soviet-era military bases in Georgia on the shores of the Black Sea the 12th base in Batumi and the 62nd at Akhalkalaki to the north, 19 miles from the Turkish border. The mages revealed the retreating Russian units moving along not one but two routes. The first showed small groups of Russian officers and soldiers heading out of Georgia carrying only their personal kits, the second was jammed with convoys of trucks loaded with weapons and logistical systems, radar and ammo.
Freight trains were also pressed into service. This route wound out of Georgia and headed into Armenia where the vehicles halted at the Russian base near Gyumri. A Russian military spokesman explained this relocation by stating that the property of the 62nd (Akhalkalaki), Georgia, would be reassigned to replenish Russias 102nd base in Gyumri, Armenia. He added: The transfer of this property to any other party is not envisioned.
However Armenia was not the the propertys last stop. The close watch on the Russian supplies convoys continued and, lo and behold, a third route surfaced, this one heading out of the 102nd base in Armenia and into Iran.
Western military sources have traced the route these weapons took. From Gyumri, the trucks and trains rolled on to the Armenian capital of Yerevan. There, they were offloaded onto Armenian and Iranian trucks and trains, which turned south to the Iranian border. The freight crossed the border and halted at the Iranian town of Sadarak. Its next stop was the Iranian-Azeri town of Naxcivan and then on to Tabriz. Subsequent shipments by truck and rail followed the same route, They included APCs, heavy artillery, Grad rockets, BM-21mm missiles and anti-aircraft systems.
So far this year, Iran has purchased over $7 billion for arms from Russia, including anti-air, nuclear-capable Tor-M1 cruise missiles, considered by experts the most advanced of its kind in the world. Iran has purchased these missiles to secure the Bushehr atomic reactor and other nuclear sites. These sources say that Teheran is using the Georgian weapons deal as bait, to get Moscow to part with weapons and technologies it has so far refrained from passing over to the ayatollahs, specifically technology transfers enabling Iran to begin domestic production of the sophisticated Russian X-5518 nuclear cruise missiles, known also as Kh-55 or AS-15s.
Tehran already has a dozen of these missiles, which have a 3,000km range and are capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. They were purchased on the black market of Ukraine in 2005. Teheran has reportedly promised to significantly increase its purchase of conventional weapons from Russia, if it agrees to the missile technology transfer.
Despite the uncertainty as to whether Russia (and possibly China as well) would cooperate with the West regarding Iran, the conventional wisdom has remained unchanged, namely that Iran is an international problem, being dealt with accordingly by the international community, and that Israel should therefore take a back seat.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The world needs to understand very clearly that Israel cannot and will not allow a Holocaust denying regime that openly calls for its destruction to wield a nuclear bomb. Israel needs to make it very clear that the consequence of it having to face a nuclear Iran by itself will be a preemptive strike against Iran.
The more the international community gets the message that the consequences of appeasement will be worse than those of action, the better the chances of action. The growing evidence of Russian perfidy makes it even more important that there be no room for misunderstandings in this regard. The best way to get that message across is to make it very clear that if Israel is faced between an Iran nuclear bomb, or having to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to prevent that eventuality, it will opt for the latter.
The world must be told loud and clear by Israel that the only way to avoid the first nuclear strike by a nation since Nagasaki is to take whatever actions are required to ensure Iran doesnt get the bomb, and to prevent an Iranian conventional weapons build up to the point where a preemptive nuclear strike becomes the only option for dealing with the rogue ayatollah regime.
Jonathan Ariel, was an advisor to the South African government and is a former editor-in-chief of the Israel on-line Maariv International. He has filled numerous positions with well known Israel and international media organizations such as Maariv, Makor Rishon, Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, The International Herald Tribune, Israel Radio, SABC and the Independent Foreign Service. These include Managing-Editor of Makor Rishon and Editor-in-Chief of Maariv International. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading media organizations such as the LA Times, The Economist, The Guardian, The New York Sun, Times of India, The Australian, Sunday Times and the BBC. His articles have been translated into over a dozen major languages, including German, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese. He has degrees in Political Science and Journalism. He speaks English and Hebrew at mother tongue level, French, Dutch (Afrikaans) fluently.
A preemptive nuclear strike on Iran?
This is not rational thought.
President Bush, please take a new peek into Putin soul...you might have missed something.
Why stop there, why not hit China, North Korea, and Venezuela while your at it?
Why would anyone in their right mind want to nuke Iran, when Iran is only half Iranian, and of the Iranians, 60 to 70% of them hate the Ayatollahs and Mullahs.
"This is not rational thought."
Nor is Israel ignoring a nuke armed Iran that has stated their goal is the destruction of their country.
It is not only rational, but it may be necessary. Conventional munitions would require too many strikes to assure success, when what Israel needs is a check mate.
I would suggest that 'ignoring the situation' and 'anihalating part of their country with a nuclear strike' are by no mean the only two options here.
Israel has a right to defend herself including the use of tactical nuclear weapons. She also has the right to preempt using tactical nuclear weapons. Israel would doing the world a favor by permanently putting Iran out the nuclear business.
In the great immortal words of Ronald Maximus Reagan, "Let the bombing begin in 5 minutes."
If your enemies are coming for you in the morning, you'd best go and get them tonight.
Iran has declared itself at war with Israel many times, and not one but several Iranian leaders have said that they want a nuclear war, because they can survive it whereas Israel can not.
To let these people get their hands on a nuke is the worst mistake Israel could make.
What other realistic options do you see?
Russia and china are already alligned with iran. Why do you think iran has been running off at the mouth? Countries have been choosing sides for the next war for awhile now.
"Russia and china are already alligned with iran."
The irony is, Iran is filled with people who love America, hate their rulers, and are more receptive to the gospel than they have been for a millenium. Last I heard, Israel was not terribly friendly to the gospel.
There is NOTHING pre-emptive. Iran has been attacking American
and Israel for decades. Most IEDs killing Americans TODAY
are from Iran. This would be retaliatory, not pre-emptive.
"Why stop there, why not hit China, North Korea, and Venezuela while your at it?"
"They are not willing to blackmail the world with nuclear weapons. Iran will use its nuclear weapons to blackmail the oil producing states with its technology."
You telling me the mangy little "dear leader" isn't engaging in nuclear blackmail?
There are lots of other options. And, while they like their fiery rhetoric, the regime in Tehran has done little to suggest that they are not rational.
Apart from the ethical and strategic objections to the course of action suggested, above all I feel it would be counter-productive. Even if it didn't provoke further nuclear exchanges on a state level, I'm sure that someone would find a way of delivering retaliation in kind to Israel.
Someone said, "a nation doesn't have friends; it has allies."
Israel should not depend on "friends" to do for it what needs to be done.
They call it "survival instinct" for a reason.
A nuclear "accident" at the Iranian facilities would be a good start, but hard to do while maintaining plausible deniability.
I have no ethical objections for the use of tactical nuclear weapons especially with a nation(Iran) threatening to use nuclear weapons to make war upon her neighbors.
Israel certainly has a right to defend herself, and I myself, am ready to go stand guard on the Golan Heights to defend this island of courage in a sea of fanaticism. However, I am opposed to a preemtive nuclear attack on Iran that would turn Iran into a radioactive wasteland, and you should be too.
Considerably more rational than allowing an enemy committed to your annihilation to obtain the means to do it.
An Attack on Iran would be a major mistake. Too many Iranians have good and positive feelings about relations with the USA. Two better targets would be North Korea and/or Syria. The total wipe-out of these two rogue countries would send a message to Russia, China, Iran, etc., that if you fool with the bull, you get the horn. Not one person in the world really cares about North Korea and Syria. North Korea is an obvious target. Syria has hidden Saddam's WMD and has caused many American deaths as well as Iraqi's.
For a less rabid analysis, see:
Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict
by Martin Van Creveld
From Publishers Weekly
Though the possibility of nuclear confrontation between superpowers has greatly diminished since the end of the Cold War, the possession of nuclear weapons by states whose conflicts are unresolved could turn out to be equally threatening, notes Van Creveld ( The Transformation of War ). He here considers the likelihood of conflict between North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, China and India, India and Pakistan, Israel and the Arab states, as well as the nuclear status of other countries currently developing the scientific, technological and industrial infrastructure that would enable them to build weapons of mass destruction. Van Creveld begins this academic study by describing the basic characteristics of large-scale warfare as it evolved before the introduction of nuclear weapons and the effect of the latter on both the countries that possess them and on those countries threatened by them. Finally, he assesses the impact of nuclear proliferation on the future of war itself, including the configuration of the armies that would be prepared to wage it. For specialists.
From Kirkus Reviews
A somewhat reassuring audit of the residual threat posed by nuclear weapons, from a military analyst whose previous predictions have proved chillingly prescient. With defense budgets in both the US and the erstwhile USSR in full retreat, van Creveld (History/Hebrew University, Jersusalem; The Transformation of War, 1991, etc.) focuses on the state of the atomic-arms art in a clutch of less-developed countries--China, India, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, etc. Among other matters, his informed survey considers the impact of strategic circumstances on national nuclear policies, and provides estimates of each country's atomic inventories. For various reasons, van Creveld concludes that the use of A-bombs or their tactical equivalents by Third World nations is effectively foreclosed. In the case of Pakistan, for instance, the author contends that the development of a nuclear arsenal has made its rulers ``simultaneously more confident of themselves and less adventurous.'' Which is not to say that van Creveld believes the West to be home free. Indeed, he reiterates previous warnings as to the faltering capacity of even modern industrial powers to monopolize violence, let alone combat or contain terrorism, grass-roots insurgencies, and allied belligerencies. For the time being, however, van Creveld doesn't see any danger of nuclear holocaust at the hands of the less- developed nations. A perceptive study that affords a measure of cold comfort on the score of deterrence.
I seem to recall an old Moshe Dayan or Golda Meier quote that went; "We are not willing to all die to prove our critics wrong."..or something like that.
Well if they decide to pursue that agenda, they can kiss their tiny little country goodbye. (they are not exactly surrounded by friends)
Neither have caused the deaths the cult in iran have.
Who cares what the rest of the world perceives.
They will either see the truth ... or die by Islamic Nazi terrorists.
"And the strike would be executed when the winds are blowing towards Syria."
Ohh, I'm sure hundreds of thousands of coalition troops based between Iran and Syria will be pleased to hear this...