An Attack on Iran???

Here we go. I wonder if well make it this time around?

I knew they or the US would do something like that, or, rather, believed they would.

Re: An Attack on Iran???
A refresher from a year ago:



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/09/mil-040921-voa01.htm

No rest for the wicked

Hope they're not losing any time waiting for my permission.....

Nobody would act without your sayso, gunga din.

Good album.

Been awhile since I listened to Ozzy.

Humanity will continue to fight a war with an enemy that really only exist within himself the casualty of which is his own soul. But who needs a soul when you acquire the world.

I've been waiting (expecting) something like this for a while now................................

Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004


by the International Herald Tribune

Israel's Nukes Serve to Justify Iran's

by Jonathan Power


The more nuclear arms are lying around, the more the chances of them being used. So to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.

These Western powers have argued convincingly for decades that nuclear deterrence keeps the peace - and themselves maintain nuclear armories long after the cold war has ended. So why shouldn't Iran, which is in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods, have a deterrent too?

And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.

The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.

The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.

There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel. And there is no evidence that Israel's nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers.

Nor have Israel's nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace. In the 1973 Arab war against Israel and in the 1991 Gulf war, they clearly failed in their supposed deterrent effect. The Arabs knew, as the North Vietnamese knew during the Vietnam War, that their opponent would not dare to use its nuclear weapons.

Israelis say that they need nuclear weapons in case one day an opportunistic Egypt and Syria, sensing that Israel's guard is down, revert to their old stance of total hostility and attack Israel. But, as Zeev Maoz has argued in the journal International Security, these countries keep to their treaty obligations.

Egypt did not violate its peace treaty with Israel when Israel attacked Syria and Lebanon in 1982. Syria did not violate the May 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel even when its forces were under Israeli attack. Nor did Egypt, Jordan and Syria violate their treaty commitments when the second Palestinian intifada broke out in September 2000.

Since its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has reduced its defense spending from 22 percent of its gross national product in 1974 to a mere 2.75 percent in 2002. Syria's has fallen from 26 percent to 6.7 percent. The combined defense expenditures of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon amount to only 58 percent of Israel's. It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel's might, rather than the other way round.

Israel's nuclear weapons are politically unusable and militarily irrelevant, given the real threats it faces. But they have been very effective in allowing India, Pakistan, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, North Korea and now Iran to think that they, too, had good reason to build a nuclear deterrent.

Four of these nations have dismantled their nuclear arms factories, which shows that nuclear policies are not cast in stone. The way to deal with Iran is to prove to its leadership that nuclear weapons will add nothing to its security, just as they add nothing to Israel's.

This may require a grand bargain, which would mean the United States offering a mutual nonaggression pact, ending its embargo over access to the International Monetary Fund and allowing American investment in Iran. It would also mean America coming clean about Israel's nuclear armory and pressuring Israel to forgo its nuclear deterrent.

If Western powers want to grasp the nettle of nuclear proliferation, they need to take hold of the whole plant, not just one leaf.

Copyright © 2004 the International Herald Tribune

Iran's nukes are in violation of the NPT.

Israel's nukes are not.





Because they signed a treaty that forbids them having nuclear weapons.





No. They'd never attack Israel. Why would anyone think they'd attack Israel?

Sheesh!





Ignorance of history must be a comforting thing.

However, Israel was very close to nuking Damascus and Cairo during the war.





The way to deal with Iran is to blow the hell out of them.

Let them come clean about their terrorism and pay compensation to their victims if they want normalized relations.

Now heres some things to think about

Some people demonstrate their complete ignorance by talking about 'Irans Nukes,' as though they posess Nukes at this very moment in time, when even the Israelis (who suffer from the most extreme form of paranoia even on the best of days) concede that Iran does not posess Nukes.

Those people who actually believe Iran posesses Nuke could you post the evidence here.


Those people defending Israel's right to wipe out the rest humanity off the face of the earth justfy this absurdtiy by saying that they havent signed the NPT, so by that token if the Iranians or North Koreans withdraw from that treaty, we can all calm down right??


And why is Israel exempt from signing the NPT anybody have any ideas???

Infact this was the exact arguement the Indians gave before they went nuclear, and they specifically mentioned the blind eye which the US turns when it comes to Israel.

So after India went nuclear it was followed by Pakistan.

No look at Iran stuck between Nuclear China, Pakistan and India to its East and Nuclear Russia to its North and Nuclear Israel to its West.

The single most important catalyst in driving the Nuclear arms race in the World is Israel,

not because im suggesting it is the only country to own Nukes, but it is the only country that deems itself exempt from any form of inspections, UN Resolutions or Nuclear treaties.

So other countries will also say 'if they can have Nukes why cant we?'

And how do we counter that arguement?

There is no arguement, just force is left.

Which as we can se between Iraq and North Korea (US attacked the former because it had no WMDs and doesnt attack the later because it does have Nukes)

So the option or threat of force would only accelerate military development not hinder it.


But who is advocating another War? Israeli apologists.

We read comments by Israeli apologists who believe solutions are based on

"Blowing the hell out of people"

these are the people that fanned the flames of the iraq war for Israels imperialism that has given the United States nothing but the death of our children and a pro-iranian government in Iraq.

Its no coincedence that the Iranians are 'bigging themselves' up they know and can see whats happening in Iraq!!! thanks to Bush and Co.

they couldnt have fought that War better themselves, who would have thought the Us would remove their own alley (against Iran) a secularist and replace them with a pro-Iranian government.?!


And just how insane is the Iranian President?? As insane as the Israelis

Whats the soultion?
A nuclear free middle east
followed by a nuclear free earth.

When we consider this issue we need to think what is in the best Interest of the US and the world as whole, not what score we should settle for the Israelis.

Enough of our kids have died already for that.


(see if you can spot the nonsensical replies :wink: )

Iran is developing nukes at this very moment.

Nice attempt to dodge that point though.





Well, no. They were running an illegal nuclear weapons program while they were parties to the treaty (Iran still is a party to it), so they don't simply get a free pass to withdraw.





Because they are a sovereign nation who can decide for themselves whether or not they are going to join a treaty.





India seems to be coming along nicely in their program:

http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19980523/14350684.html





Anti-Semitic tripe.





Oh, and just what nuclear treaties are India and Pakistan party to???

Well I guess that's why the US army is in Iraq.. kicking out saddam was the best way to start wars on syria and Iran!

A war in Iran will be a very big risk for USA right now. I don't see something like that happening.

German media: U.S. preparing Iran strike

By Martin Walker
UPI Editor
Published December 30, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.
    
    The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.

    
    But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."
    
    The German news agency DDP cited "Western security sources" to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12, was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.
    
    The DDP report added that Goss had delivered to the Turkish prime minister and his security aides a series of dossiers, one on the latest status of Iran's nuclear development and another containing intelligence on new links between Iran and al-Qaida.
    
    DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took place, and had also been given "a green light" to mount their own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks inside Turkey.
    
    Goss's visit to the Turkish capital followed the rising international concern over recent statements by the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be "wiped off the map," denying the existence of Holocaust, and suggesting that Israel's Jewish population might be re-located to Europe.
    
    In a December 23 report, the DDP agency quoted an anonymous but "high-ranking German military official" telling their reporter: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."
    
    The DDP report also said that several friendly Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan, had also been informed in general terms that the Pentagon was preparing contingency plans, including "the option of air strikes," in the event of the new Iranian government precipitating a crisis.
    
    Arab diplomatic sources have told United Press International that they have been given no briefings on any policy change beyond President Bush's "all option are open."
    
    Bush's most recent such statement in public came on Aug. 13, during an interview at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he told Israeli TV: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and, you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."
    
    Other NATO sources have told United Press International that "all this may be mood music, a way to step up the diplomatic pressure on Tehran."
    
    It is possible that leaks from NATO and German security sources are part of a ploy to convince the Iranian government that the Americans and their NATO allies are in dead earnest when they say a nuclear-armed Iran would not be tolerated, and that Iran had better start negotiating seriously.
    
    But the German media speculation about the supposed U.S. plans has been fueled by a number of high-profile visits to Turkey this month, including trips by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, by the CIA's Porter Goss and by the FBI Director Robert Mueller, who also delivered U.S. intelligence reports on Iranian backing for PKK operations aimed against Turkey. There have also been some significant Turkish visits to Washington, as reported by Der Spiegel.
    
    "Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing," Der Spiegel reported Friday.
    
    "Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself," the German weekly added.
    
    The CIA Director's Dec. 12 call on the Turkish prime minister last for over an hour, far longer than customary for a mere courtesy call, and followed an even longer meeting with senior staff of MIT, Turkish intelligence. The Turkish Daily Cumhuriyet reported on December 13: "Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible U.S. air operation against Iran and Syria."
    
    Der Spiegel noted Friday that the latest high-level visitor to the Turkish premier was NATO Secretary-General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer. This is not unusual, since Turkey is a member of NATO, but the coincidence of these various trips prompted Spiegel to comment "the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically."
    
    "In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down," Der Spiegel reported Friday. "During his inaugural visit with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a U.S. air strike against Iran 'had not been an issue,' for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told Spiegel."
    
    The original story in the German press which provoked the wider media furore was written for the DDP agency by a veteran reporter on security and intelligence matters, Udo Ulfkotte, who has in the past been criticized in the German media for being "too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND" (Bundesnachrichtendienst).
    
    At the same time, Ulfkotte has himself come under scrutiny by German security services, and his home and offices have been repeatedly searched in the course of inquiries into allegations that he had published official secrets.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051230-124328-9385r