Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

I can accept sanctions, if they are possible.

But it looks to me like China and Russia plan to prevent any sanctions from taking place.

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence? You once again indulge your penchant for making statements from authority rather than offering an opinion.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention lately, but Israel isn't exactly a champion of Liberty, nor equality for all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention lately, but Israel isn't exactly a champion of Liberty, nor equality for all.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe not, but much more so than any other nation in the region.

Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.

oralloy wrote:

Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.

Interesting, hadn't thought of that. But it would take a few thousand men, and most of them would remain in Iran as pows.

It won't work
A military strike against Iran, either directly by the US or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble its efforts.

Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, in at least nine major locations. Even the bunker-buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.

The US-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and ultimately led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the US Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and criticizing the UN for its opposition to Israel's illegal military attack.

The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by US allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear-weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa and Southeast Asia.

The Bush administration and congressional leaders of both US parties have rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that the United States has the right to decide unilaterally which countries get to have nuclear weapons and which ones do not, in effect imposing a kind of nuclear apartheid.

In 1958, the US was the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region, bringing tactical nuclear bombs on its ships and planes. Israel became a nuclear-weapons state by the early 1970s with the quiet support of the US government. To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have developed nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and has provided both countries with nuclear-capable jet fighter-bombers.

Located in such a dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The US and Israel do not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would challenge the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In other words, what those in the Bush administration, the Israeli government and the bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the US and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Such a policy does not protect the interests of the American or Israeli people, nor does it help the people of Iran and the Middle East as a whole. It remains to be seen, however, whether the American public will once again allow the Bush administration and the leadership of both parties in Congress successfully to employ exaggerated stories of potential "weapons of mass destruction" controlled by an oil-rich country on the far side of the world to justify a disastrous war.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He serves as a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and is the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

From an article in the Asia Times.

Quote:

It won't work
A military strike against Iran, either directly by the US or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble its efforts.

Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, in at least nine major locations. Even the bunker-buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located.

The US-backed Israeli raid of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, according to virtually all accounts by Iraqi nuclear scientists, was at most a temporary setback for Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and ultimately led to the regime accelerating its timetable for the development of nuclear weapons until it was dismantled under the watch of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency in the early 1990s. Despite this, the US Congress passed a resolution in 1991 defending Israel's action and criticizing the UN for its opposition to Israel's illegal military attack.

The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a diplomatic one. For example, Iran has called for the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone for the entire Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by US allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear-weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa and Southeast Asia.

The Bush administration and congressional leaders of both US parties have rejected such a proposal, however, insisting that the United States has the right to decide unilaterally which countries get to have nuclear weapons and which ones do not, in effect imposing a kind of nuclear apartheid.

In 1958, the US was the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region, bringing tactical nuclear bombs on its ships and planes. Israel became a nuclear-weapons state by the early 1970s with the quiet support of the US government. To Iran's east, Pakistan and India have developed nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration recently signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and has provided both countries with nuclear-capable jet fighter-bombers.

Located in such a dangerous region, then, it is not surprising that Iran might be seeking a nuclear deterrent. The US and Israel do not want Iran to have such a deterrent, however, since it would challenge the US-Israeli nuclear monopoly in that oil-rich region. In other words, what those in the Bush administration, the Israeli government and the bipartisan leadership in Congress are concerned about is protecting the hegemonic interests of the US and its junior partner Israel, not stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Such a policy does not protect the interests of the American or Israeli people, nor does it help the people of Iran and the Middle East as a whole. It remains to be seen, however, whether the American public will once again allow the Bush administration and the leadership of both parties in Congress successfully to employ exaggerated stories of potential "weapons of mass destruction" controlled by an oil-rich country on the far side of the world to justify a disastrous war.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy In Focus Project. He serves as a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and is the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

I just hope that the administration is not really already planning to bomb/invade Iran if they are it may as well be set in stone because nothing anyone will say will stop them.

Iran has accused the US and its allies of creating an artificial crisis by tabling a UN resolution calling for a halt to its uranium enrichment.

oralloy wrote:

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence?

oralloy wrote:

Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.

Interesting, hadn't thought of that. But it would take a few thousand men, and most of them would remain in Iran as pows.

Bush 'committed' to Israel security

From: AAP
From correspondents in Washington
May 05, 2006


PRESIDENT George W. Bush said overnight that the United States has an "unshakeable" commitment to defend Israel, which has faced outspoken threats from Iran's hardline leader.
"America's commitment to Israel's security is strong, enduring and unshakeable," Bush said in a speech in Washington to the influential American Jewish Committee, which is marking its 100th anniversary.

He said the United States and Israel were "natural allies and these ties will never be broken".

Amid a mounting international dispute over Iran's nuclear programme, its conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has stepped up anti-Israeli rhetoric. In October he said that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map".

President Bush said "we are concerned because the Iranian regime is repressing its people, sponsoring terrorists, destabilising the region, threatening Israel and defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons.

"American will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

Advertisement:

The United States is leading a bid to make the UN Security Council take action against Iran over its nuclear programme, which Washington and its allies fear hides an attempt to make an atomic bomb.

Iran insists its programme is peaceful.

news.com.au

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.

Interesting, hadn't thought of that. But it would take a few thousand men, and most of them would remain in Iran as pows.

I was thinking of a much larger invasion -- enough to take over the country.

But once we had control of the country, we'd just blow up the bunkers and leave, not stay and occupy like we are doing in Iraq.

We could rescue any POWs before we pulled out.


I doubt Bush plans on doing that, though. I think he has his heart set on the nuke.

oralloy wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Although one alternative to using a nuke on that bunker is to make a large ground invasion to capture the bunker, blow it up from the inside, and then withdraw from the country once the bunker is destroyed.

Interesting, hadn't thought of that. But it would take a few thousand men, and most of them would remain in Iran as pows.

I was thinking of a much larger invasion -- enough to take over the country.

But once we had control of the country, we'd just blow up the bunkers and leave, not stay and occupy like we are doing in Iraq.

We could rescue any POWs before we pulled out.


I doubt Bush plans on doing that, though. I think he has his heart set on the nuke.

And I thought Bush was a madman!

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence?

Israel is our friend and ally. We should always aid our friends and allies when they are threatened.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence?

Israel is our friend and ally. We should always aid our friends and allies when they are threatened.

Afghanistan is also our friend and ally. The United Arab Emirates are also our friends and allies. Kuwait is our friend and ally. One assumes that at least by policy, Iraq is our friend and ally. Saudia Arabia is also our friend and ally. Jordan is at least theoretically our friend, if not actually our ally. Turkey is our friend and is our ally by treaty, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. All of those nations could be seriously harmed by unilateral American action on behalf of Israel which were based upon a putative and undemostrated threat from the Persians.