FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran





S3nd K3ys
Quote:
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.


Wonder why this isn't on the front page?? Seems Iran is about to find itself in a world of hurt. Not sure where it will end up, but I'm thinking that Russia and others will be heavily involved.

When Isreal destroys Iran's nuclear facilities, Russia, Iran, Sudan, and Lybia will attack Isreal.

Can you say WWIII?
i_am_mine
The reason why its not on the headlines is that a strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities has been news items for almost every year since than the Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad.

Isreal and Iran both know the consequences of first-attack.Complete annihalation.Iran also regularly mentions how Israel " should be wiped off the map " and lately mentioned the idea that if " Europe is so sympathetic with jews/Israel they should carve out Israel from themselves ".

Comments such as these do not, usually make headlines, unless what we call hardcore evidence is found.
ocalhoun
The USA would be on the side of Isriel probobly, and from your post Russia would be on the opposite site. From the sound of things, nuclear weapons may be used. Should we teach our kids to duck and cover?
benwhite
If you read more about the subject, you'll quickly realize there isn't much news there. Israel has had to survive for over 50 years under the constant attack of its opponents.

The order to be ready for an attack was simply that if Iran refuses to cooperate with the EU and America to build a civilian reactor AND produces significants steps in a reactor to create enriched uranium for weapon, Israel will destroy it and leave. Its fairly similar to the pre-Iraq threats about if Saddam didn't comply--the big difference being that this would be a targeted attack and not an occupational war. It's happened before and it was successful. The US would be on the side of Israeli's, as they were last time this sort of thing has happened. In general, while Europe is hostile towards Israel's actions in the middle east, America has been supportive, mainly because Israel was (and in many ways, still is) the only longterm functioning democracy in a "sea of backwards dictatorships."

Israeli ministers said simply "Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear equipped Iran" because it has been made clear that Iran is openly hostile and has absolutely no need for said armaments. In case you didn't know however, Israel does have the bomb, and they have had it for years.

Nuclear armaments would not be used in all likelihood. In case you hadn't noticed, that would produce, to put it lightly, a shitstorm. Why would anyone use a nuclear weapon to stop the production of more nuclear weapons? That doesn't make sense. Besides, Israel easily has the capability to safely destroy a production facility without the use of nuclear weapons, which it has never used. The likelihood of a backlash attack by a non-Arab state is also unlikely, though economic sanctions are certainly possible.
i_am_mine
Precisely, the Israel-Palestine-Iran conflict is perhaps the clearest illustration of how Nuclear-capability doesn't ensure the actual safety, or defence-capability of a nation.In the end it just comes down to how well equipped you conventional forces are, id est, how technologically superior your soldiers, your hand held weapons, various armour,tanks,vehicles etc.,are compared to the enemies, not to forget the most vital : local intelligence.

Reports of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear weapons have been ever increasing ( atleast once a year for several years ), to the extent that they are no longer headline news.

An air-strike against Iran by Israel would set off a chain reaction, arguably of unseen proportions, counter-strikes not only by Iran but by the Islamic world, and what Islamic countries do initially abstain from reaction will join in after their extremist elements demand it.Forget the extremists, any moderate Muslim would approve of such retaliation.

Which is why such a scenario is highly unlikely.
ocalhoun
Many seem to forget it, but Isriel has fought off immensly superior forces before.
Ever heard of the 3 day war?
Long ago God made promises to Isriel; They are still kept.
benwhite
Honestly, in the event of an israeli strike, I highly doubt significant official backlash. Certainly the intifada will continue and terrorism and support for groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas will grow, but in terms of arab countries attack israel? doubtful.

Among other things, most countries have little to gain. The idea of actually beating Israel in armed conflict went out years ago, after even a suprise attack with joint Syrian and Egyptian armies failed. There is peace with Egypt and the Syrian border is quiet. Just because most arab countries dislike Israel on a fundamental level doesn't mean they'll get involved. For example, while most support Palestinian attacks on Israel, no country has ever opened their arms to widespread Palestinian immigration or given real support to the people in general. The first attack on Iran's nuclear capability didn't bring war.

Israel has the most powerful military force in the area. All able citizens serve in the IDF almost without exception, men and women. They have the best technology in the area, bought from America and upgraded constantly. In a normal armed conflict (with the use of chemical and biological agents, which would most definitely make a huge international incident), Israel would most likely win, even against a coalition. There have better intelligence, better tech., better weapons, and a bigger defense force. It is precisely because Israel is constantly in danger that it is equipped to handle it so well.
i_am_mine
Israel has vastly superior conventional forces, an Irani backlash would be nothing, but a response from more than one Islamic country would be overwhelming.
jason11350
If Israel were to take out an Iranian nuclear facility, Iran's leadership would make angry statements on TV and that would be the end of it. They know that any military action they take would be suicide, plain and simple. They would pretty much be asking to have their regime changed for them. They've already angered the U.S. by continuing to harbor terrorists and advocate the destruction of Israel. Any attack on a U.S. ally, provoked or not, would be foolish.
i_am_mine
With muslim sentiment as hostile as it is, even from relatively " US neutral " Islamic countries, none of the nations striking back is highly unlikely.In the highly unlikey situation that none of the nations did strike back openly, a proxy war would ensue, i.e., increased spending and funds through unofficial channels to Islamic extremist outfits, and this time on unprecedented scales ( from Saudi Arabian royalty and Private Businesses, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, the list goes on ), what would come would be a war.The middle east is no longer militarily weak as it was in the days of the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan or as in the days of the US backed Shah of Iran.They may not be nuclear capable ( Pakistan is ), but their conventional forces, when combined with guerilla tactics of militants capable of suicidal acts of terror is not to be under-estimated.As time will show you, this "report" of Israel striking Iran will die its own death, especially in the wake of Israel's Prime Minister Sharon pulling out of the West Bank in Palestine, which is seen as a positive development by the Muslim world.
nik
if the israel will attack it's wont' be so good thought if they wont' attack it wint' be any better becouse arabian country will have to much power. russia will be on the arabian side becouse they allways help them and allways did.

like someone said not all of the arabians are terrorists BUT all of the terrorists are arabian...
geeren
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
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.


Wonder why this isn't on the front page?? Seems Iran is about to find itself in a world of hurt. Not sure where it will end up, but I'm thinking that Russia and others will be heavily involved.

When Isreal destroys Iran's nuclear facilities, Russia, Iran, Sudan, and Lybia will attack Isreal.

Can you say WWIII?


Now i don't think that can happen, but why do we hear only about iran, and why not about israel, who has nuclear wappens, so why does iran not may make nuclear wappens. israel is thraet in the middle est for the arab country's.
geeren
benwhite wrote:
Honestly, in the event of an israeli strike, I highly doubt significant official backlash. Certainly the intifada will continue and terrorism and support for groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas will grow, but in terms of arab countries attack israel? doubtful.

Among other things, most countries have little to gain. The idea of actually beating Israel in armed conflict went out years ago, after even a suprise attack with joint Syrian and Egyptian armies failed. There is peace with Egypt and the Syrian border is quiet. Just because most arab countries dislike Israel on a fundamental level doesn't mean they'll get involved. For example, while most support Palestinian attacks on Israel, no country has ever opened their arms to widespread Palestinian immigration or given real support to the people in general. The first attack on Iran's nuclear capability didn't bring war.

Israel has the most powerful military force in the area. All able citizens serve in the IDF almost without exception, men and women. They have the best technology in the area, bought from America and upgraded constantly. In a normal armed conflict (with the use of chemical and biological agents, which would most definitely make a huge international incident), Israel would most likely win, even against a coalition. There have better intelligence, better tech., better weapons, and a bigger defense force. It is precisely because Israel is constantly in danger that it is equipped to handle it so well.


Funny, hahaha Iran has more than 60 milion citizens, and they have many weapons from russia, irael has only 6 milion people, and a graet technologie, i don't know who is gonna win, but i know that israel will not make it.
withaar
I would suggest the israelies are simply raising the bar in the international arena, drawing attention to the consequences of an unchecked iran. This, for the benefit of both the international community and the more moderate forces inside iran. As I understand it the religious councel of iran is not all that pleased with their president at the moment either.
benwhite
Given how prevalent topics concerning the Middle East are, I'm sort of saddened by the fact that most people don't seem to learn much of the history surrounding the area.

Israel has the bomb, but they've never used it and probably never would except in retaliation. This is easily shown by the fact theyve been attacked and been at war since possessing and have not used it. In contrast, Iran is much more likely to use it unprovoked. Additionally, Israel is democratic with close ties to America. They don't get to go around blowing up millions of people for no reason. That's why any violence they've done in the past 30 years has been within their own borders (where no one in their right mind would use a nuclear weapon).

Guerilla warfare is hard to use when you attack a stable country. It's not Vietnam, Israel is mostly desert. Also, there is a bit of a WALL blocking a good portion of the border. Yum.

Isreal is not raising a bar. They are simply reaffirming their commitment to a nuclear WEAPON free Iran. They've taken the action before. No one in the world wants more countries to have more weapons. For nuclear capabilities, the Europeans feel less is more.

Pakistan has never been in conflict with Israel. They have with India.

The argument that Iran is bigger means they'll win is really really dumb. That assume that everyone in Iran fights, which they wouldnt. Israel's service is cumpulsory and efficient. I think we've seen from history that technology is incredibly important. There's a reason American lost so few people in both Gulf Wars. It's not just manpower. American (and by extension, Israeli) planes are infinitely more capable than those of Arab nations. Also, for the love of God, Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid, you think they'd have to fight alone in the event of an Arab offensive? Israel beat both Syria and Egypt at once, Jeez...

It wouldn't be nearly as hard for Israel to wipe out terrorism in the region as you might think right now, it involves all out war. The reason it continues is for strickly humanitarian reasons.
withaar
benwhite wrote:
Isreal is not raising a bar. They are simply reaffirming their commitment to a nuclear WEAPON free Iran. They've taken the action before. No one in the world wants more countries to have more weapons. For nuclear capabilities, the Europeans feel less is more.

That israel would choose the present moment to impress the importance of iran's aspirations, especially now, is completely compatible with your other views. Even if they did not intend to - and I am sure they do very little without intending to - they most certainly "raised the bar", or more appropriately: impressed on the world the importance of current developments in iran. Israel would most certainly prefer it if the current iranian president would be dealt with inside iran.
benwhite wrote:
It wouldn't be nearly as hard for Israel to wipe out terrorism in the region as you might think right now, it involves all out war. The reason it continues is for strickly humanitarian reasons.

This seems a bit naive to me. Sure israel could completely bomb and kill all palestinians in their vicinity. Would that make them more secure? Certainly not.
benwhite
Perhaps. I choose to emphasize that the statement and sentiment are nothing new and should not be seen as a huge development. It's in line with history and current trends.

withaar wrote:
This seems a bit naive to me. Sure israel could completely bomb and kill all palestinians in their vicinity. Would that make them more secure? Certainly not.


Hyperbole. I said terrorism in the region, but yes I was exaggerating. The wall has seriously reduced attacks on Israel. Other militaristic actions could fortify the country. It doesn't even really take mass murder. Yes, there could still be internal conflict from the 6 million arabs living inside as Israeli citizens. I was simply illustrating a point that Israel doesn't really flex its military might, so people tend to downplay theyre capability. Hell, the last big manuever they pulled was ripping their own people from their homes in Gaza, which I'm pretty sure most of the world didn't particularly care about.
withaar
Hyperbole indeed - I am sorry, and the withdrawal from the Gaza strip was one of the most impressive things I have seen recently. I also know that the israeli population is quite mixed, and the military feats of the israeli are remarkable, and of course it is better to have no nuclear weapons at all, and if at all in the hands of stable democratic regimes.
Related topics
Farkash sets deadline for strike on Iran
US & Iran
The Middle East Conflict
Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities
Iran...war looming ?
Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
U.K. Sunday Times: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Tony Blair
India - USA Nuclear Deal
Is it a worry about Iran?
Iran to meet with World Leaders
Did Iran help plan Sept11?
Are you afraid of Iran shoud we start to care about them?
Imp: Why Israel not attacked Iranian Nuclear Installations?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.