Israel to attack Iran by Christmas – report

Well, that would not bother them one little bit, indeed, while they lie about the Iranian President saying that he 'wanted to wipe Israel off the map' (that was a lie, but one not often corrected in the MSM), it is more plausible that this uber nationalistic, apartheid, and quite frankly mentally unstable state, headed by Netty Yahoo, would desire to 'wipe Iran off the map'.

The Zionist screams in pain, as he punches you...

 

Attacking Iran would be the stupidest idea since America's genius invasion of Iraq. Pure idiocy.
As for Israel; when have they EVER respected their treaty obligations under the UN Charter?

When I first heard of the Iraq invasion I recall telling a work colleague that it would be the start an endless conflict, despite US protestations of 'surgical strikes' and 'a few weeks to do the job'. I was right and Iran won't be any different. If you poke a stick at a tiger you better be prepared to deal with its teeth, and we saw that in 9/11. Americans are still whining about the payback they got for starting the (*)(*)(*)(*)storm in the first place-by deposing a democracy in Iran and installing a brutal puppet dictatorship. Not very bright, Americans.

 

Well if the dogs do attack Iran it will be because Saudi has allowed them to use their airspace because Turkey is not going to let the zionists bomb them.

 

Fat chance.

 

I've no doubts israel will take care of growing Iran nuclear threat, with or without coalition. As simple as that.

 

'The newly retired head of Israel's fabled Mossad spy agency has turned his sights toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, repeatedly criticizing the Israeli leader's approach to Iran and the Palestinians....

...In a speech at Tel Aviv University on Wednesday, Dagan issued a stern warning against attacking Iran, saying a strike would risk unleashing a region-wide war and only encourage Tehran to push forward with a nuclear program that is widely believed to be aimed at developing weapons. Iran denies that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9677363

 

This has been Meir Dagan's position all along.

 

Gwynne Dyer: Reports of Iran's nuclear ambitions sound like a repeat of Iraq eight years ago

'“We will not build two (nuclear) bombs in the face of (America’s) 20,000,” said Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in response to an International Atomic Energy Agency report this week that accuses Iran of doing just that. He called Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, a U.S. puppet, saying: “This person does not publish a report about America and its allies' nuclear arsenals.”

Well, that’s true, actually. Amano will never publish a report about America’s nuclear weapons (only 5,133 of them now, actually). He hasn’t said anything about Israel’s, Britain’s, and France’s weapons of mass destruction either. And his report is largely based on information fed to him by Western intelligence agencies.

But apart from that, Amano is as impartial and free from U.S. influence as you would expect a career Japanese diplomat to be. Only cynical people will see any resemblance to Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations in 2003, when the U.S. defense secretary held up a test tube and assured us all that Iraq really was working on germ warfare.

Iraq was allegedly working on nuclear weapons, too: former president George Bush’s famous “smoking gun,” which also subsequently went missing. And on the basis of this “intelligence” about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” the United States and its more gullible allies invaded the country. Hundreds of thousands died, no weapons were found, and nothing was learned. Here we go again.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.

Many people in the West realise that they are being hustled into yet another attack on a Middle Eastern country, but they don’t really worry about it too much. After all, it will only be air strikes, and we all know that an air-only war is practically casualty-free for the side with air superiority. Look at Libya, for example.

But how many citizens of the United States or Britain know that Iran has ten times as many people as Libya? Maybe one in 10, maybe one in 20. How many know that Iran is a partially democratic, technologically proficient state with no history of attacking its neighbours, not a tinpot dictatorship run by a vicious loon? About the same number. How many realise that the war would not end with a few days of air strikes? Practically none.

The interesting exception to all this is Israel, where people do know those things, and where there is a vigorous debate about whether attacking Iran is a good idea. A lot think it is not, and that also goes for both of Israel’s intelligence agencies, Mossad and Shin Bet. Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Mossad, said last January that an attack on Iran was “the stupidest idea” he had ever heard.

So Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak, who do both want to attack Iran (or rather, have the United States do it for them), have gone public. If the Western powers don’t act at once, they warn, then Iran will get nuclear weapons and Armageddon will be just around the corner.

There are two things wrong with this proposition. One is the evidence. If you believe it all, it shows that Iran wants the knowledge and equipment that would let it build a nuclear weapon very quickly if necessary: an Israeli nuclear threat, a military coup in nuclear-armed Pakistan that brings young Shia-hating officers to power, whatever.

The evidence does not show that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon now, or has any present intention of doing so. And having the knowledge and equipment that would let you do so fast in an emergency is entirely legal under IAEA rules.

The other problem with the accusations against Iran is the logic behind them. Building a nuclear weapon now would be extremely costly for Iran in terms of economic sanctions, global diplomatic isolation and the like if it became known. But it would be completely pointless from a deterrence point of view if it remained secret.

Deterrence is the only logical reason that Iran would ever want nuclear weapons, since it would be suicidal for it to attack anybody with them. As Mahmoud Ahmadnejadi pointed out (above), it would have at the most a few nuclear warheads. The United States has thousands of them, Israel has hundreds of them, and even Pakistan has dozens.

If Iran’s leaders were completely logical in their thinking, they wouldn’t waste a minute thinking about nuclear deterrence. They’d just rely on the fact that their military can completely shut the Gulf to oil traffic and bring the global economy to its knees if anybody attacks them. However, they are still a lot more rational than their Western counterparts— or at least than their Western counterparts can afford to seem in public.

You heard about that recent exchange between French president Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. president Barack Obama that went out on an open microphone? Sarko said “I can’t stand (Netanyahu) any more. He’s a liar.” And Obama replied: “You're sick of him? I have to deal with him every day.” What about? One gets you 10 that it’s about bombing Iran.'

http://www.straight.com/article-530...r-ambitions-sound-repeat-iraq-eight-years-ago

 

Mossad really needs to be classified as a terrorist organization.

 

Your points are well taken, but I'm afraid most folks who've posted here are not familiar with current U. S. military doctrine. If, and that's a big "if" the U. S. were to become engaged it is highly doubtful that we would be using either atomic or thermonuclear bombs. Why?

Ostensibly, we would want to destroy Iran's ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, not kill everybody in Iran. So, the probable weapon-of-choice would be something like the recently-announced 30,000 lb. "bunker buster" bomb, probably deployed on targets in clusters, just to make sure.

Tactically, if we need to respond to Iranian retaliatory efforts against our strategic strikes, we can do so easily with everything from Hellfire missiles launched from drones, to the use of thermobaric bombs that would effectively eliminate the Iranian Army, Air Force, and Navy. All of the destruction, and none of the radiation associated with nuclear weapons!

Much... too much, has been made of the great affection that Russia and China are supposed to bear for Iran, and this is mostly horsecrap. Putin and Wen Jiabao are realists, and pragmatists. Neither Russia nor China particularly cares which variety of *******s are running things in Teheran, so long as the strategic interests of each of their countries is met, or at least not interfered with. And there is a non-nuclear, post-Ahmadinejad Iran that can serve the interests of both Russia and China perfectly well. So why would either Russia or China be so protective of a radical Islamic regime, ruled by religious clerics, with nuclear war making capability, so close to their own borders? Yeah, that one stumps me, too....

But, worst case... and you always have to consider the worst case... the U. S. has something that no other country on Earth has: a large fleet of Ohio-class nuclear submarines (SSBN's, or, "boomers") that can launch large numbers of MIRV'd hydrogen bomb warheads against any antagonist with virtual impunity. This is a fact well-known to Putin, Wen Jiabao, our friends in North Korea, and Ahmadinejad himself. They run silent, and run deep, and threaten no one, but they are there, running "picket" off the coasts of all these countries nevertheless....

 

I agree with this but we must realize a few important points. If the US or Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear production sites which, at least as of this moment, are engaged in the peaceful production of electricity then Iran is very likely to drop out of the NPT which means no IAEA inspections. Iran would very likely engage in a clandestine nuclear weapons program where there was no international inspections in the country and would rapidly develop nuclear weapons as a deterant against any foreign attacks by nations with nuclear weapons. I'd wager they could have a nuclear weapon in less than 3-years whereas by not attacking Iran may choose to never produce a nuclear weapon.

To date we have no evidence of Iran actually starting production of a nuclear weapon so I'd be very reluctant to give Iran a mandate to build one as expeditiously as they can.

 

If Israel said that no one should attack Iran, the same anti-israelis in the forum would say that we have to attack it...

 

Open your eyes, Shiva - Iran already IS "engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program... ...and rapidly develop nuclear weapons", and no NPT or IAEA will change it, or slow it down. And in my mind there's no "IF" israel taking them facilities down; the only question is "WHEN"

 

Would someone care to tell me EXACTLY which international law Iran has broken (in regards to the IAEA)?

And would someone also please show me the link to the IAEA report that shows that Israel is legally conforming within the IAEA rules? Or how they have allowed the IAEA access to their nuclear facilities?


By the way, here is the Nov. 8, IAEA report on Iran:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/bog112011-65.pdf

 

Why ? it's just a very good intelligence organization that protects it's country of origin
just because you hate it, doesn't make it a terrorist.

 

No, being an intelligence agency does not make Mossad a terrorist organization but it's international acts of kidnapping, murder and bombings do.

 

so pretty much, every intelligence agency in the world should be listed as a terrorist organization - according to you.
The CIA, ISI, KGB, GRU, SIS, etc. etc.

 

If they perform acts of kidnapping, murder and bombings, then yes, they are terror organizations. Terrorism is defined by acts, not by labels.

 

Are you able to read everyone's mind collectively?

I don't for a second think Israel would say this, any more than a serial killer would say they do not fancy another victim, but were they to do so, I for one would applaud them for it, and hope it were indicative of a new golden era, one in which fairness and peace were embraced over nationalism, war, land theft, and illegal occupation.

 

If it's so secret, how come some guy on the net called 'Dutch' seems to know about it?

 

Good stuff.

Now you need only to apply that same rationale to those you 'hate'.

 

Let us know when you plan on providing proof for your relentless jew-hating screeds, which have gotten more than a little tiresome.

 

Of course, but the jew-hating crowd here is only able to focus on Israel, even if others are far worse.

 

Well, I don't hate Jews, and of late, I have not only 'focused' on Israel, but France, Britain, Libya, several African nations, and Cuba.

Oh.

And Venezuela and Iceland.

 

I would think that Iran will fire the first shot.