Moderator: Nicole Marie
We are facing the very real possibility of a nuclear confrontation between Iran and Israel, largely as a result of the rest of the West refusing to confront Iran. I'm afraid that the world is about to get much more dangerous in the New Year.
dai bread wrote:You're probably right, Haggis, but the alternative is a pre-emptive strike and I can't see anyone being happy about that. Indeed, it would almost certainly drive Middle Eastern nuclear ambitions totally underground,not just physically. Israel managed to keep its program quiet. I don't see why others couldn't.
piqaboo wrote:If we take Karg Island, we'll be marketed as imperialist invaders in Iran and
the average person on the street will becomethat much more willing to bomb us.
We humans are not all that rational, sadly.
Analog's friend was right. Obama isnt only not doing anything and being nasty to Israel,
he's having the involved parties to dinner. Sheesh - what a putz.
TEHRAN — A defiant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that Iran will itself enrich uranium up to 20 percent purity in a blow to Western efforts to stop Tehran's sensitive nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad also said that even the Islamic republic's arch-foe Israel would be unable to do a "damn thing" about Iran's nuclear programme.
He reiterated that as far as Tehran is concerned, the nuclear issue is "over" and said the Islamic republic will "not back down from its rights."
GreatCarouser wrote:So let's see if I have this straight, Haggis? The proper solution is to leave a rather large, cauterized crater where the modern nation of Iran is? If not, then the proper solution is to make Iran another Iraq by some judicious 'nation-building?
If we 'nation build' do we just drop Afghanistan/Pakistan because what's going on there isn't worth our time/effort in comparison to what is going on in Iran? Perhaps we just decide that it's all an 'insidious conspiracy' by the Iranis and Al Qaeda/Taliban to divide and conquer us and use the 'cauterization' option on a rather larger portion of the Earth's real estate?
Maybe you prefer the 'Japan' option which involves surgically striking the Iranian nuclear facilities. Some seem to think that is a very limited, temporary holding action at best. If none of those 'satisfy' then I think you may be correct and Obviously more negotiation is called for...
My citation is different from yours btw....
.If Israel attacks Iran, U.S. military and civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf will be attacked by Iran almost immediately.
If we have an aircraft carrier in the Gulf an attack on it will constitute an attack on a national resource and would invite retaliation just shy of nuclear weapons.
Based on information available to me, news, opinions, etc, an attack on Iran by Israel has more downside than up, especially for the U.S. and the U.S. Navy. We have some ground based resources in the area but the chances are better than average that the host countries will forbid any attack on Iran because they don’t want to be seen as supporting Israel.
In that event the U.S. Navy will be the only significant force available
The White House is warning Iran’s leader to take seriously a year-end deadline over its nuclear program, responding sternly to defiant language by the Iranian president. …
Otherwise, Washington and its allies are warning of new, tougher sanctions on Iran.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ahmadinejad may not recognize the deadline but “it is a very real deadline for the international community.”
.Haggis@wk wrote:My other fear is that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack U.S. elements in the Persian Gulf. I said on this thread Summer 2008 that:If Israel attacks Iran, U.S. military and civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf will be attacked by Iran almost immediately.
If we have an aircraft carrier in the Gulf an attack on it will constitute an attack on a national resource and would invite retaliation just shy of nuclear weapons.
Based on information available to me, news, opinions, etc, an attack on Iran by Israel has more downside than up, especially for the U.S. and the U.S. Navy. We have some ground based resources in the area but the chances are better than average that the host countries will forbid any attack on Iran because they don’t want to be seen as supporting Israel.
In that event the U.S. Navy will be the only significant force available
Shapley wrote:I don't think it is about deterring Israel. It is about getting Obama to put more pressure on Israel to not attack, IMHO. Iran knows how to play Mr. Obama.
)piqaboo wrote:I'd have picked Condi for that, next round.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users