Iran has strategic missle -- threatens Israel

[Pekka]

I agree that air campagn wouldn't do much good to this particular threat, quite the opposite, it would heat things up real bad. If someone needs to take those out, I say Israel might be the best man for the job and they could maybe pull it out.

[Flip McWho]

Aye whats the famous quote concerning bombing **** to the ground but if you don't have the troops you can't hold the ground?

Yeah, but let's face it. Aside from the U.S., who really does?

True enough.

[Zevico]

Pax: 0/10. Do your trolling earlier in the day, it'll make for some better quality in your posting.

My question is--why does Europe see it in their interest to negotiate with Iran? As far as I can see, negotations wouldn't lead anywhere, given that Iran isn't exactly the most trustworthy and benevolent of nations. There's the reason of 'being different to America', but that seems very weak, especially since Iran country is about to get -nukes- and is quite a dangerous place already. Thoughts?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Have you called them evil yet? Cause i think you should call them evil. You know, it's like: you so need to bring God into this.

Richelieu, you really believe your own propaganda about right-wingers don't you. I am an agnostic and have said so many times.

[Ned]

Zevico, I think the Euro's are trying to head off a war. They know that Israel will strike Iran if they do not succeed in getting Iran to back down. Once that happens, Iran could react in very unpredictable ways, including cutting all oil shipments in the Persian Gulf using missiles and the like. That could affect Europe in a very adverse way.

[Sirotnikov]

Just think that if Iran gets nukes - it will be untouchable.

Just like NK is currently.


As president putin once said: Just because one country (Israel) is pruported to be a nuclear state, doesn't mean we need new ones.


And if you have any doubts about Iran: It is among the major sponsors of anti-Israeli terrorism. It is also still very much ideologically resistant to the "zionist" presence in the middle east/

[Sirotnikov]

Iran could react in very unpredictable ways, including cutting all oil shipments in the Persian Gulf using missiles and the like. That could affect Europe in a very adverse way.

In which case the europeans will finally start to care for changing the government in Iran. Sad, eh?

[The Mad Monk]

That's something I've brought up before.

Iran is already the major sponser of terrorism in the region, and probably around the world. It is also the primary source for the insurgents in Iraq. That's without the security guarantee of the bomb.

How far will they be willing to go once they have the security guarantee of the bomb?

I'm not talking about "handing nukes to terrorists". I'm talking about immunity to retaliation, even in the face of overt acts.

[Agathon]

Why does anyone think that Iran won't find itself in exactly the same situation as any nuclear power? Nuclear weapons serve only to deter, since a state conducting an offensive nuclear attack will be the subject of massive retaliation.

Iran won't attack Israel, and Israel won't attack Iran. The chance of Iran inviting massive Israeli retaliation by giving a nuclear warhead to Hezbollah is rather remote. Other than that, who cares?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Law in international conlicts isn't quite the same as law between individuals.

And international law says that preemptive war is only legal when you have information that there will be an imminent attack and there is no time for negotiation. Not the case here.

And besides, no one is going to attack Iran. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, the country will not be an easy victory. It has a large military and is a mountanous country. It can simply decide to fight like guerillas and hide in the mountains, taking pot shots. Going after Iran would be a mistake.

[Ned]

Imran, let's use some common sense for a change. Israel would not "attack Iran" in the sense you mean. It would simply take out Iran's nuclear reactors and processing facilities. Iran could not respond with an attack on Israel as it has no way of getting its troops there now that Iraq is no longer has Saddam.

Israel has to do this now, before Iran's nuclear capability goes critical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would simply take out Iran's nuclear reactors and processing facilities. Iran could not respond with an attack on Israel as it has no way of getting its troops there now that Iraq is no longer has Saddam.

Yes, and then that would be nice when the Arab World declares war on Israel or decides to stop giving the US support in Iraq. Use your brain for once, Ned and step into the real world. Israel/US and Arab relations are at its utter low. The Arab League would not tolerate it. And WORSE for the US, Iran would step it any efforts in Iraq to terrorist groups. Maybe even sponsor groups there.

You think terrorism is bad NOW in Iraq? If Isreael attacks Iran, it'd be catastrophic.

[Ned]

The Arab world? They would back the non Arab Iranians who are Shi'ites to boot? You forget that Saudi Arabi, Kuwait and others financed a war against Iran. Iran is the enemy of the Arab World.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are utterly demented aren't you? Israel attacks a Muslim country and the Arab would say ok? Have you lost your mind? SA, Kuwait backed Iraq in the Gulf War to keep the Balance of Power. Arab countries already feel the US is trying to begin a War on Islam. And Isreali attack on Iran would solidify that, and IS an act of war!

[Ned]

Legalities asside, your balance of power argument does carry some force.