Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
So you admit that Iran can't taler any direct military actions against Israel? (given that Israel is a nuclear power).

Iran is well aware that Israel can not, and will not use nuclear power unless in dire stress of eradication.

What detteres Iran from military action is the fear of Israel's long arm, both in Airforce and in Mossad abilities.

MAD does not apply, since Iran knows that Israel won't use nukes, and Israel supposes Iran won't use nukes too.

What applies, when Iran has a bomb, is very unfavorable reshuffling of power that strengthens such violent evil-makers like Iran, Hezbullah, Hamas and Syria. and a very dangerous arms race in the entire region.

This assuming that we don't underestimate the messianic sect of shia Islam (which Ahmedinejad is a part of) which calls for a war to end all wars.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Theben
The main problem isn't Iran having nuclear power or even a nuke weapon, it's the arms race it'll cause in a highly unstable & violent region of the world.

Then let those unstable and violent countries settle it themselves.

No matter what we do we end up hated for it, and that puts Americans in danger. So, forget it. Let them deal with their own messes.

The real question though, since an Iranian strike seems unlikely, is what will happen if/when Israel makes their threatened strike against Iran (a more likely scenario)?

[Unimatrix11]

I am totally with Arrian on this one. Because what comes out of this preventive strike doctrine is that Iran has reason to fear an US-invasion NOW, meaning that they NEED nukes ASAP (and keep the US busy elsewhere if possible). Any action taken to prevent it from getting them, might delay them, but on the other hand will demonstrate to them just how badly they need nukes (along with any other nation who might become subject to this kind of aggression). Naturally this will not help relations all that much, and when time comes and Iran will finally have nukes, their middle-fingers are just that much more likely to raise.

The Iranian announcement should be seen in this light and i understand it as ´if the US is going to attack us, once we have nukes, we´ll make israel pay (since we cant reach ths US)´ - of course they would. Nothing new.

It is BTW a funny idea to regard Iran as an ´unstable´ region. It´s borders are well established since the 19th century at least. It´s population is of a single confession, that can hardly be found anywhere else. An expansionist policy is highly unlikely. The regime seems to sit firmly in the saddle and a revolution of some sort is not to be expected in the foreseeable future. Indeed Iran could be called one of the most stable nations in the world. With or without nukes, it can be expected to be the same in 20 or even 50 years, if nothing from outside forces it to change. It´s just , that they have their Bush being president right now (and that might have something to do with the US-one as well...).

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
I am totally with Arrian on this one. Because what comes out of this preventive strike doctrine is that Iran has reason to fear an US-invasion NOW, meaning that they NEED nukes ASAP (and keep the US busy elsewhere if possible). Any action taken to prevent it from getting them, might delay them, but on the other hand will demonstrate to them just how badly they need nukes (along with any other nation who might become subject to this kind of aggression). Naturally this will not help relations all that much, and when time comes and Iran will finally have nukes, their middle-fingers are just that much more likely to raise.

The Iranian announcement should be seen in this light and i understand it as ´if the US is going to attack us, once we have nukes, we´ll make israel pay (since we cant reach ths US)´ - of course they would. Nothing new.

It is BTW a funny idea to regard Iran as an ´unstable´ region. It´s borders are well established since the 19th century at least. It´s population is of a single confession, that can hardly be found anywhere else. An expansionist policy is highly unlikely. The regime seems to sit firmly in the saddle and a revolution of some sort is not to be expected in the foreseeable future. Indeed Iran could be called one of the most stable nations in the world. With or without nukes, it can be expected to be the same in 20 or even 50 years, if nothing from outside forces it to change. It´s just , that they have their Bush being president right now (and that might have something to do with the US-one as well...).

Also known as the Bush-doctrine paradox, and why the doctrine's inevitably doomed to fail.

I think 1979 is still fresh in everyone's memory, and with the war against Iraq in mind, people don't consider Iran as a stable (i.e. peaceful) region.


And as Bluepanzer said already I believe: these are nothing but words. A pre-emptive strike would be pointless for Iran, because Israeli airforces would bomb Natanz and other facilities in retaliation of the pre-emptive strike. It would only makes sense if Iran could wipe out Israel or at least its airforcesd before that retaliation could happen, and that's just nonsense.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Iran is well aware that Israel can not, and will not use nuclear power unless in dire stress of eradication.

What detteres Iran from military action is the fear of Israel's long arm, both in Airforce and in Mossad abilities.

MAD does not apply, since Iran knows that Israel won't use nukes, and Israel supposes Iran won't use nukes too.

What applies, when Iran has a bomb, is very unfavorable reshuffling of power that strengthens such violent evil-makers like Iran, Hezbullah, Hamas and Syria. and a very dangerous arms race in the entire region.

This assuming that we don't underestimate the messianic sect of shia Islam (which Ahmedinejad is a part of) which calls for a war to end all wars.

1. Ahmedinejad woulnd't have his hand on the button (even assuming he gets re-elected, which is no sure thing).

2. If the Iranians were messianic fools, why did they sign a peace treaty with that infadel Saddam, instead of continuing the war until they ahd liberated the Shiite Holy Places and installed a sister regime in Iraq?

3. Hamas and Hezbollah gain their strenght from the failures of Arab regimes to provide and the appeal of Islamism. Iran having nukes gives them a safer friend and might embolden them, but their strength is already susbstantial and will only be lessened through real political alternatives in the Arab world, something that isn't based on American and Israeli military power.

4. I agree that an arms race might ensue. Of course, the alternative (actual treatries banning WMD's in the area) aren't going to happen, so an arms race was inevitable given the current conditions.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

So you admit that Iran can't taler any direct military actions against Israel? (given that Israel is a nuclear power).

I assume you mean "take".

Theres nothing to admit, I pointed out earlier in the thread that such a possibility was a joke.

The nuclear threat wasn;t from Cuba, it was from the USSR.

Quite true but irrelevant to the point that we took action and were prepared to pre-emptively go to war in order to stop the threat to the USA.

The issue here is the mistaken belief that Iran's leadership is suicidal and thus thery are not bound by nuclear deterence. All the arguments I have read about why the Iranian leadership is inherently irrational and that if they get nuke they will use it (unlike anyone esle since 1945) rea based on blantant charicatures and are clo0se to worthless.

I agree.

[Docfeelgood]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Iran is very unlikely to give nukes to terrorists if they ever get them. They have a very paranoid leadership set that fully understands the term, "blowback." We appear not to have considered this fully in assisting Bin-Laden create his original list of Mujahadeen, now AQ.

In most of the world, if one guy talks tough, then the other one throws the smack right back at him. That's all this noise is. Israel said they would pre-empt if Iran did not cooperate with the Europeans about future nukes. Now Iran is saying, "well, we'll just preempt your preemption." Like schoolboys. As long as they are talking, not much will happen. Neither country is foolish. If the time really does come, they won't have much to say. They will let the weapons talk. Don't underestimate either of them, even though neither has the logistics for any sort of drawn out struggle in the air.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by GePap

2. If the Iranians were messianic fools, why did they sign a peace treaty with that infadel Saddam, instead of continuing the war until they ahd liberated the Shiite Holy Places and installed a sister regime in Iraq?

I think he's talking about a specific sect of Shi'ism that exists in Iran, as opposed to the Shi'ism of the Iranian Islamic Republic as a whole, in the general sense. This sect was renounced officially by many of its former members, after the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadejinad was member of this sect but recanted. There is an article on the matter here:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1985 'Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi'.

The article does not mention that Ahmadejinad is willing to use nuclear weapons, or that he is linked to the rhetoric of those that do think nuclear weapons should be used.