Panetta: Israel could attack Iran as early as April

[Wezil]

Feeling are not a substitute for analysis.

Right. I have these feelings because I threw a dart at a board and that's what I hit.

I've done the analysis and come to a different conclusion than you. Unlike you, I have no desire to spend the next several pages arguing the same points. Suffice to say, I would be perfectly happy for time to prove me wrong in this regard. Your analysis has a much happier ending.

[Dinner]

Someone will do something.



http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...n-tests-a-bomb

I don't doubt they have the money to pay some body to make them a nuke but I do know the Saudis can't even keep the aircraft we sell them flying without western experts repairing them for them. I imagine the same lack of expertise would hamper and domestic nuclear program only when it comes to nukes they'll likely find the west is unwilling to send them the experts they need.

[SlowwHand]

The article expresses opinion on where they'd get ready-made nukes.

[Berzerker]

Iranian policy in Iraq before the Iran-Iraq war. This was a war that began because Iran was sponsoring Shiite groups that assassinated Ba'ath members. The plan was to quite literally ensure that the Shiites killed their way to the top and toppled the Ba'ath.

I did not know that, I thought Saddam wanted a chunk of land near the Gulf and the west wanted him to mess with the Iranians

[Dinner]

He did. In the late 70's the Shah's government was sponsoring Kurdish rebel groups in Iraq as a proxy way to undermine Saddam, Saddam cut a deal with the Shah to give up the shat al arab waterway (a narrow stripe of land on the southern Iran-Iraq border) in exchange for the Shah to abandon the Kurds (which they did) but then when the Shah got over thrown and Iran was in the midst of revolution Saddam attacked Iran to try to regain the disputed territory.

[Zevico]

He did. In the late 70's the Shah's government was sponsoring Kurdish rebel groups in Iraq as a proxy way to undermine Saddam, Saddam cut a deal with the Shah to give up the shat al arab waterway (a narrow stripe of land on the southern Iran-Iraq border) in exchange for the Shah to abandon the Kurds (which they did)

Can't recall if this is correct or not.

but then when the Shah got over thrown and Iran was in the midst of revolution Saddam attacked Iran to try to regain the disputed territory.

Not exactly. There is a documented history of conciliatory overtures taken by the Ba'ath vis-a-vis the new Iranian regime. Saddam hoped that front could be kept quiet post-revolution, not least because of their shared anti-American worldview. The revolutionaries responded by killing Ba'ath officials. Then Saddam decided to invade. Saddam gambled that he -could- beat the Iranian regime in its weakened post-revolutionary state but the motive was self-preservation and, as a secondary matter, territorial enlargement. It is the Iranians, by contrast, who were fixated on a second Shia state in the Middle East, and with whom a peace with the Ba'ath was a "bitter pill," as Ayatollah Khomeini then put it.

[Zevico]

Right. I have these feelings because I threw a dart at a board and that's what I hit.

Look, maybe I wasn't polite. I apologise for that. But what does the invasion of Iraq have to do with it? A discussion of an Israeli strike on Iran "reminds" you of the American invasion of Iraq...how? Because it "feels" the same? Explain yourself.

I've done the analysis and come to a different conclusion than you. Unlike you, I have no desire to spend the next several pages arguing the same points. Suffice to say, I would be perfectly happy for time to prove me wrong in this regard. Your analysis has a much happier ending.

Well, you've asserted that the Iranians were 'holding out' in Iraq and Afghanistan without offering any evidence for that assertion. Again, I'd be fascinated to actually see an article that explicitly accepts your assertion and backs it up with an evidentiary analysis; or alternatively, your own analysis, provided that its backed up by evidentiary analysis. I'd welcome it.

[SlowwHand]

It seems that events keep leading us to the inevitable.

JERUSALEM — Israel's prime minister on Monday accused Iran of being behind a pair of car bombings against Israeli diplomatic targets in India and Georgia.

Benjamin Netanyahu told a meeting of lawmakers from his Likud Party that he believed the Iranians were responsible for the attacks in New Delhi and Tbilisi. Two people were wounded in India and the bomb in Georgia was discovered before it went off.

Netanyahu said Israel has thwarted other attacks in recent months in Azerbaijan, Thailand and elsewhere.

"In all those cases, the elements behind these attacks were Iran and its protege Hezbollah," he said.

Iran has accused Israel of involvement in a series of killings of officials and scientists involved in its controversial nuclear program.

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuke scientists

Israeli officials earlier told The Associated Press that an explosion tore through an Israeli diplomat's car in New Delhi. The driver and a diplomat's wife were injured, according to Indian officials.
Advertise | AdChoices

Television footage showed a charred minivan with blue diplomatic plates, its rear door apparently blown out.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor would not discuss who was injured nor the extent of the injuries because it was a security matter.

"There was one attempted attack, and one successful, as it were," said Paul Hirschson, a spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry. "In both cases, the people concerned worked with the Israeli embassies."

Hirschson said the Israeli ambassador to India was not hurt in the New Delhi attack.

Israel had put its foreign missions on especially high alert ahead of the February 12 anniversary of the assassination, in 2008, of the military mastermind of Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, linked to the Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah, Imad Moughniyeh.

Iranian-backed Hezbollah had vowed to avenge Moughniyeh's death in a Damascus car-bombing, blaming it on Israel.

[C0ckney]

well if the israelis assassinate iranian nuclear scientists, then they can hardly cry foul when iran targets their personnel.

[regexcellent]

well if the israelis assassinate iranian nuclear scientists, then they can hardly cry foul when iran target their personnel.

First of all, there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Iran whatsoever.

Secondly, Israel (presumably, it could just be MeK) targets people who are involved in a program that poses a serious threat to the continued existence of Israel and the lives of all of its citizens. Killing diplomats is not the same. It's like equating Iran stoning people to death for adultery (which in Iran includes being the victim of rape) and Virginia's or Texas' lethal injection of murderers (which is an equivalence I have seen actually made, sadly).

[Az]

well if the israelis assassinate iranian nuclear scientists, then they can hardly cry foul when iran targets their personnel.

Ahh, I was just wondering who was going to post this - this case is actually a great litmus test if you are a rational outsider, or have feelings involved in your opinion in the conflict. The Iranian scientist was a military target, as he was directly employed by the Iranian MIC. The Israeli ambassador is a diplomatic figure.

Good job.

[dannubis]

First of all, there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Iran whatsoever.

classical answer: number of civilians killed by IDF vs number of civilians killed by Iran military ?

[regexcellent]

The Iranian military (especially Revolutionary Guard) has killed lots of civilians, most of them within its own borders. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

[dannubis]

So there is a moral equivalence, now is there ?

[regexcellent]

No. The Israeli government occaisonally kills civilians by accident while trying to protect its people from shelling and terrorist attacks whereas Iran terrorizes its own people and funds terrorist proxies throughout the region which deliberately target civilians. It's not the same.