Iran draws up plans to bomb Israel

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: AP - Yahoo

TEHRAN, Iran - The deputy commander of Iran's air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the Jewish state attacks Iran, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

The announcement came amid rising tensions in the region, with the United States calling for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program and Israeli planes having recently overflown, and perhaps even attacked, Iranian ally Syria.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later appeared to soften that statement.

"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran...

[Benhurst]

1. This proves how vicious the Iranians are.

They promise to fight back if attacked.

[subsuelo]

9. I love the US response

The US dismissed Iran's remarks as "unhelpful" and "not constructive". (from BBC article)

- as if everything the US has declared recently about Iran is actually helpful and constructive, in contrast.

[kirby]

14. Taser them for resisting! n/t

[softwarevotingtrail]

2. Missing from the headline: "If Israel attacks Iran"

Details, details.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. It's really more of a confirmation of a previous news story on this

I wasn't sure if I should even post it as a separate article or not.

But yes, what they are saying is that if they are attacked they're ready.

[ohio2007]

8. Iran has vital interests that they worry will be attacked by Israel

not just on Iranian or Syrian soil. I wonder if this is also a threat if Israel goes on the offensive in the Gaza Strip?
Should Iranian citizens back their mullahs decision to attack Israel if Israel decides to take action along their own border?


Hamas says Gaza sanctions "declaration of war"


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19111647.htm

[pretty_lies]

3. Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons. Here's Why.

History shows that nukes prevent wars from breaking out.

Here's a few excerpts from a good analysis from Ken Waltz, a famous international relations theorist:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm

Nuclear weapons have been the second force working for peace in the post-war world. They make the cost of war seem frighteningly high and thus discourage states from starting any wars that might lead to the use of such weapons.

Nuclear weapons have helped main­tain peace between the great powers and have not led their few other possessors into military adventures. Their further spread, however, causes widespread fear.

Much of the writing about the spread of nuclear weapons has this unusual trait: It tells us that what did no, happen in the past is likely to happen in the future, that tomorrow's nuclear states are likely to do to one another what today's nuclear states have not done.

A happy nuclear past leads many to expect an unhappy nuclear future. This is odd, and the oddity leads me to believe that we should reconsider how wea­pons affect the situation of their possessors.

...

Many Westerners who write fearfully about a future in which third-world countries have nuclear weapons seem to view their people in the once familiar imperial manner as 'lesser breeds without the law'. As is usual with ethno­centric views, speculation takes the place of evidence.

How do we know, someone has asked, that a nuclear-armed and newly hostile Egypt or a nuclear-armed and still hostile Syria would not strike to destroy Israel at the risk of Israeli bombs falling on some of their cities? More than a quarter of Egypt's people live in four cities: Cairo, Alexandria, Giza, and Aswan. More than a quarter of Syria's live in three: Damascus. Aleppo, and Homs. What government would risk sudden losses of such proportion or indeed of much lesser propor­tion? Rulers want to have a country that they can continue to rule.

Some Arab country might wish that some other Arab country would risk its own destruction for the sake of destroying Israel, but there is no reason to think that any Arab country would do so. One may be impres­sed that, despite ample bitterness, Israelis and Arabs have limited their wars and accepted constraints placed on them by others. Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads. We cannot expect countries to risk more in the presence of nuclear weapons than they have in their absence.


...

What will a world populated by a larger number of nuclear states look like? I have drawn a picture of such a world that accords with experience throughout the nuclear age. Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been.

They express fears that many felt when they imagined how a nuclear China would behave. Such fears have proved un-rounded as nuclear weapons have slowly spread. I have found many reasons for believ­ing that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future.

[EnricoFermi]

7. Yes, the real game is

those with nukes, can't be rolled over, and have their regime changed through annihilation and occupation. This is the real reason that Israel and the United States want to keep it out of the hands of certain countries. We want to take out Iran at some point, so we can't let them have a way to hit us (Israel) back.

I've always thought that every country that isn't freaking insane ought to have that right, if we do. Obviously we should attempt to give incentive to cut down the total number of weapons, while also reducing our cache (not just obsolete weapons). But if we are constantly threatening a country, that gives them ever more reason to have them.

It should be either no nuclear weapon option or all should have the right.

[Psephos]

10. You're arguing for nuclear proliferation?

Your argument reminds me of the argument favored by the NRA. I find it hard to harmonize that line of thought with other progressive ideals.

The probability of gunfire increases with the number of gun owners packing heat. Likewise, the probability of nuclear weapon use increases with the number of potential users of nuclear weapons.

I'd rather we stay focused on decommissioning nukes by those who currently have them rather than increasing the pool of potential users. These weapons will summon the 12th Imam that Ahmadinejad awaits. There is no room for error with nuclear weapons. The outcome is binary.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

[pretty_lies]

13. Slow Nuclear Proliferation Is A Good Thing. Really.

Read the link I posted carefully.

The difference between civil society and international society is that conduct between nations is anarchic. There is no world law or police force. In such a world, it is every nation for herself and safety from invasion or attack must be ensured by being armed. If we lived in an anarchic society, then there would be a similar argument that we should all be personally armed. In fact, in anarchic societies like Somalia and Iraq and Yemen, everyone does go about armed.

The argument that Iranians are less capable of restraint than other existing holders of nuclear weapons is based purely on speculation and seems rather bigoted. Is Ahmadinijad really more evil or crazier than Stalin and Mao?

It's also very difficult to refute the point that if we have nuclear weapons, and we support Israel having them outside of the NPT, we have no right to tell others not to pursue them.

Iran having nuclear weapons to deter against attacks by aggressive powers such as the USA, Israel or for that matter some future Iraq makes a great deal of sense.

We should note that there's no evidence that the Iranians are actually building nuclear weapons, and that Iran has not broken a single point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to date. But nonetheless, it's a rational course of action that's likely to lead to less, not more, war.

Moreover, even the claim that nuclear weapon use is "binary" seems unlikely to be true. There's no evidence that a single nuclear bomb, even if used, would lead to an all-out Armageddon. Indeed, the immense damage that they can cause is a good incentive for all surviving parties to calm down immediately.

Finally, your argument that more nuclear weapons lead to more use is flatly refuted by history. These weapons have only been used when the USA was the only nation on earth that possessed them. The last half of the twentieth century was marked by a complete absence of wars between major powers - thanks to the deterrence effect of rival powers both possessing nuclear weapons. Nukes raise the cost of war, and that's a good thing, because wars are caused when leaders think they can gamble for high benefits at a low cost.

[Psephos]

39. Thoughtful response

I agree completely with your point about the anarchy of the international order.

We part company when you assert that "the argument that Iranians are less capable of restraint than other existing holders of nuclear weapons is based purely on speculation and seems rather bigoted. Is Ahmadinijad really more evil or crazier than Stalin and Mao?"

Ahmadinejad doesn't have to be crazier than Stalin or Mao to be completely frightening. In any event, examples of megalomaniacs from a half-century ago don't illuminate current geopolitics all that well. Technology has introduced great asymmetries into the "balance of terror" formerly counted upon to keep the missiles in their silos.

Iran is a revolutionary theocracy. It is run by extreme religious conservatives who tolerate no deviance from religious law, and who reserve to themselves the absolute right to interpret God's intentions and proscriptions. Like all true-believer religious freaks, they are comfortable with millennial thoughts and actions in service to their beliefs. Their morality police cruise the Iranian street looking for violators of dress, culture, speech, and sexual preference laws. They host international conferences on Holocaust denial. They hang teenagers from cranes for the crime of being gay. That's just the beginning.

It seems surreal to me to listen to an argument on a progressive board that a detonation or two of a nuclear weapon isn't necessarily all bad, and might even serve as an incentive for a quick return to peace. You apparently are unaware of the role of "Black Swans" in the course of history. Look that idea up; better yet, consider the book cited below. It will help erase misconceptions about our grasp of how history flows, and the role of "unknown unknowables." It amends fundamental flaws in our "intuitive" understanding of causality and probability. It's not in any way a political work and touts no ideology, but politicos and ideologues everywhere should devour it.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbab...

In your last paragraph, you say that because no nuclear weapons have been used in the last fifty years, history refutes the idea that more and more nuclear weapons in the hands of smaller and more radical countries or organizations is destabilizing. Would you argue that because there have been, for example, no large terrorist attacks on US soil since 2001, we can say history is showing that Bush's approach to homeland security is effective?

Cold War history has little to offer us in the current anarchic mix of major and minor countries all thrusting and parrying outside the two-axis system that held sway after WWII.

I know there is one way to absolutely avoid fatal car accidents, and that's not to drive. Likewise, the only certain way to diminish the probability of nuclear war is to diminish the number of nuclear weapons. Once the demons have escaped Pandora's box there will be no putting them back in.

We can start right here in North America first. I've worked for that for a long time.

[The Stranger]

18. It is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Think game theory.

[frankieT]

20. Yeah like you never know with those brown muslims....

Today it's Ahmadinejad, tomorrow it will be a mullah or some kind of nationalist iranian. It's like Pakistan we are always worried about Pakistan, never about India.
Hey, that's weird to worry about distant and different people committing mass scale industrial holocausts. So far the champions at this game are all christian westerners...

[Psephos]

32. What's with the racist stuff?

It's not in my post, nor do I harbor any such thoughts. Quite the contrary.

Leave that stuff out, it damages your credibility on your other points.

[frankieT]

35. I'm being provocative but let be honest

and dig a little into our souls. Why have you mentioned the ridiculous story about Mehdi the 12th elf or whatever stupid stories popping when it comes to rulers of non-western "civilizations" ?

[Psephos]

38. A meaningful discussion requires acquaintance with the facts

I didn't find your argument that Ahmadinejad's pronouncements are stupid elf stories particularly persuasive. You also completely ignored my main argument, which has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. My guess is you have no interest in dialog.

In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.

According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/1...


Use Google to find dozens more reports on this if you don't like the one I provided.

[frankieT]

40. OK. I didn't wanted to be rude with you.

It's just the idea of the 12th elf that makes me mad. It reduces (international) politics to trivial stories for FOX News à la Noriega & his little panties, Saddam & his wathever kinky dictator bad habits.
This is just not serious.

Look, if you consider Bush & his christian apocalyptic beliefs, maybe it's fun (& frightening) to see his policy through this perspective, but when you THINK and USE YOUR BRAIN, you quickly come to the conclusion that even if Bush is nuts he is surrounded by rational people in the administration in the army etc.

guess what. same goes in IRAN. If we consider this 12th elf crap to have any sense (i know a little bit about Islam and this 12th wizard is just plain esoteric crap i wonder if this some kind of racist elder sion equivalent in the muslim widespread bashing) we can at least compare it to the messianic democratic talk which can be considered seriously flawed.
whatever, my point is that you cannot take some mistranslated texts from REALLY CULTURALLy different people, use them out of context to milk your apocalyptic theories.

(my english is bad sorry for that, i wish i could explain my point clearly)

[Psephos]

41. Whenever someone says "I didn't want to be rude to you" I know they did

It's called a "tell."

Ahmadinejad, by his own words, believes in the Mahdi and doesn't believe in the Holocaust. Enough about that loser. The discussion about him is a side-street and a diversion.

My original post argues that as a general principle, fewer nuclear weapons in the world is better than more. I am astonished to find myself debating this with so many people on a progressive board.

What could possibly be a more humanistic position than to hold that nuclear weapons are bad, and we should work vigorously against their possession? Yet people are tying themselves in pretzels here defending nuclear propagation because they think that's going to level some theoretical playing field. Bullshit. Sooner or later, it's going to lead to a crater where a city once lay. After that, all bets are off.

[ohio2007]

45. but thats what 'finger pointing' was invented for

"See, I told you we deserved to get bombed because of ( X -persons ) stand on the nuclear issue .

on a side note, some countries know there won't be a nuclear missile targeting them since they do not possess the resources to waste on such development.
WHile others don't mind or hope they will be last to die from the fall out of what they had brought about.

The MAD policy isn't understood until it's applied after the point of no return

[frankieT]

53. I don't know you, and I certainly don't like wasting energy

especially "bad vibes" on people I don't know.

"Ahmadinejad, by his own words, believes in the Mahdi and doesn't believe in the Holocaust. Enough about that loser. The discussion about him is a side-street and a diversion."

We agree.

"My original post argues that as a general principle, fewer nuclear weapons in the world is better than more. I am astonished to find myself debating this with so many people on a progressive board."

Again, I agree on this principle.

"What could possibly be a more humanistic position than to hold that nuclear weapons are bad, and we should work vigorously against their possession? Yet people are tying themselves in pretzels here defending nuclear propagation because they think that's going to level some theoretical playing field. Bullshit."

Nuclear proliferation as a leveling process between nations have some theoretical value, like your theoretical argument for a strong enforcement of non-proliferation. Theories are nice, but they differ from practice. What do we have here : Iran, a growing nation, with a long history, deep historical and cultural connections in this region, sitting on vast geo-strategic resources in the middle of a highly insecure part of the world. For them it's like being a permanent target for predators, they already paid a high price when Saddam Hussein attacked them (Kuwait later experienced the same fate for having the misfortune to be rich and weak). If they seek a nuclear bomb (which is not proved right now), this will be mainly to get an insurance against a painful confiscation of their sovereignty. It's exactly why Israel gained rapidly these weapons and it worked for them. Even if there is a war between Arab countries and Israel it won't go to the point where Israel is wiped because no arab leader can afford to see Cairo or Damascus totally leveled. Even if i'm not a big fan of Israel policies in the region, i'm pretty sure they will never use their bombs for attack purposes. It's a survival weapon.
Is there a solution for Iran to assure its long term protection against a bigger fish ? Certainly, long term and global peace treaties, defense agreements, political and economic integration. Unfortunately this is not the path chosen by US since 2000. US went into aggro mode since 2000, even on nuclear policy, exiting global treaties with Russia, hinting in several occasions that they are eager to use (tactical) nuclear weapons for attack, showing that international laws (UN & Iraq 2003) are worthless. Being clearly designated by Bush as a potential target, iranians have all the reasons to take an insurance. They are threatened today by US (& Israel), tomorrow it could be Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, who knows. It's sad to hear repeatedly that Iran moves are primarily aggressive, Israel & US haven't any doubts about their security when they highlight "national security", they are more worried about the heightened security of Iran. US wants the control of oil resources, Israel wants to keep the strategic upper hand in its traditional preemptive policy, Saudi Arabia (& arab allies) want to keep control of their arab sunni sphere of influence. Maybe a more secure Iran will be more confident to attack or pressure its neighbors but I seriously doubt it.
All the talk about the regime in place in Iran is pure distraction and entertainment for our highly moral democratic pundits, I firmly believe that regimes change, but strategic national interests remain the same. Iran tried to have nuclear capabilities under the Shah, i read that it cost him the support of the US and that's why he fell to the islamic revolution. I'm certain that a "democratic" Iran will keep looking to improve its energetic and military security, as India or Israel did despite non proliferation treaties.
I'm certainly not happy with another nuclear country but i definitely understand Iran motives. The international community have to show SINCERELY that they care about Iran national interests in this dispute to defuse this supposed arm race.

[ronnie624]

49. Racism

most certainly plays a part in the willingness to attack other nations and take from them that which does not belong to us. It is no coincidence, that most of the bombs from the US, whose leaders happen to be predominantly white, have fallen on the heads of people who happen to be brown and yellow.

The U.S. government doesn’t drop bombs on people because of their race. Washington’s geo-po litical agendas lead to military actions. But racial biases make the war process easier when the people being killed and maimed aren’t white people. An oversize elephant in the U.S. media’s living room is a reality that few journalists talk about in public: The U.S. keeps waging war on countries where the victims resemble people who often experience personal and institutional racism in the United States.
<http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jun2004/solomon20604.html >

I do not for a moment believe that you are a bigot, but we all harbor biases that make it easier to vilify and attack others who are different, especially when those biases are stroked regularly by the use of propaganda.

Racism must never be 'left out' of a discussion about war.

[Megahurtz]

21. You Would Rather That

we stay focused on decommissioning Nukes by those who currently have them
rather than increasing the pool of potential users?
So why don't we start with Israel and the U.S. then???
The hypocrisy reeks and you know it!

[Psephos]

33. Your assumptions are drawn from thin air

Re-read my post. Where did you get the idea I'm not interested in reducing the nuclear arsenals of the US and Israel? I'm extremely interested in that. Throw China, Russia, India, and all the rest in that pot, too. Seems a lot more likely to lead to a war-free result if we reduce the supply of nuclear weapons than if we increase it.

There's little value in exchange with you when you ignore what I actually said, impute a motive I don't hold, and then imply I am a hypocrite.

I remember a time not so long ago when progressives marched by the tens of thousands against all nuclear arms. I'm sad to see us abandon the idea that Armageddon weapons have now become socially acceptable and even desirable in certain instances.

This will not end well.

[LeftishBrit]

42. I agree

The fewer nukes throughout the world, the better!

[EnricoFermi]

31. No

What I am saying is that countries like Iran have every right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons when we continue to threaten their existence. I do not advocate nuclear proliferation, but I do understand the protection that these weapons bring to countries which would normally be destroyed or taken over at our will. If they hold the nuclear card against Israel, it makes it that much harder for us to preemptively strike them, which we have no right to do.

If we want to stop proliferation, we are going to have to eliminate our cache. This double standard makes no sense whatsoever. I completely disagree with the use of nuclear weapons, but if we are holding these over countries such as Iran, they have every right to attempt to threaten them against us. It is absolutely ridiculous that we try to dictate which countries can have nuclear weapons, when we still have a policy of nuclear first strike, even against countries without these weapons.

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. nuclear weapons are like breast sizes

There's a fine line you cross when too many countries become nuclear-armed. Just like there's a fine line between a nice chest and a freak show.

7 or 8 countries = C cup.

9 or 10 = D cup.

10+ = Jerry Springer show guest.

[0007]

12. ........and the end result is 'Holy Smoke' look at the size of that dick, 'eh?

[tidy_bowl]

54. I was wondering.....

....when the dreaded breast cup-nuclear analogy would rear its ugly head.

[frankieT]

16. Thank you !!!

That's exactly what i think ! We hear the same irrational script over and over: crazy tyrants risking EVERYTHING, their lives, families, regime, country, people, in a hypothetical attack with one of the few old-school A-bombs to potentially harm a western civilized country (including Israel). This is total BS! Even a nutjob like Kim Jong Il would never use his toys. Everybody knows that but acts as if a nuclear Iran (we are still far from that) gonna strike. Attacks, especially nuclear ones, occur only when the attacker is overwhelmingly superior.
Today, the highest probability of a nuclear attack is one coming from the US.

[MilesColtrane]

57. BushCo™ and necon advocates of an attack on Iran...

...are more worried about the potential for "nonofficial" use of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

The same goes for North Korea. (Pakistan to a lesser degree)

Any government that launches a preemptive nuclear strike is committing suicide.

[Megahurtz]

24. This Is A Big Problem:

>>>"Many Westerners who write fearfully about a future in which Third-World Countries have Nuclear Weapons seem to view their people in the once familiar imperial manner as 'lesser breeds without the law'. As is usual with ethno­centric views, speculation takes the place of evidence."<<<

BushInc. would rather keep Iran and others oppressed in Third World status
because they feel extremely superior and want full Power and Control.
How Evil is that.

[Screwfly]

34. I don't think so

This idea of world-wide nuclear proliferation as good thing would only be true if the explosive signature of each countries nukes were know to everyone else. A crudely built A-bombs using uranium or plutonium would likely be as untraceable as a homemade zip-gun.

[happyslug]

37. Do you KNOW what it takes to build an Atomic Bomb?

Building the bomb itself is easy, A uranium bomb is two sets of sub-critical mass of Uranium 235 that are forced together. Once together it goes supercritical and explodes. Plutonium bomb requires 12-14 sets of plutonium that must be rammed together to go super-critical. Thus building the bomb itself is easy, the hard part is getting the right grade of uranium or plutonium.

Most atomic plants use relatively low purity Uranium. To generate power only a low level of energy is needed, thus low purity of Uranium is all that is needed. To get a bomb the amount of Uranium or Plutonium must be over 99%. That is HARD to achieve. Requires a huge investment of time and material. Furthermore given the fact Uranium is radioactive and this always deteriorating, sooner or later the fissionable material within the bomb breaks down BELOW Super-critical mass (Super Critical is the term used when an atomic fission occurs). I read that the US Hydrogen Bombs only has a shelf life of Seven years do to this problem (i.e. after Seven years they will NOT work and must be rebuilt with new Uranium or Plutonium). The exact amount has been classified since 1945 so I do NOT know the exact time limit but it appears to be quick. It appears that if the Uranium or Plutonium falls below 98% purity, the bombs will NOT work.

My point is, yes you can build a "Zip-Gun" type nuclear weapon, but the problem is getting the fissionable material NOT building the bomb itself. It fact the recent warning about a "Dirty" bomb appears to me to be more a warning someone has a old Atomic Bomb and may use it, but it is believed to be so old it is more likely explode and toss its Uranium or Plutonium all over the place rather instead of the Uranium or Plutonium core going super-critical (TNT or some other conventional explosive is generally used to force the Fissionable material together, if the fissionable material has deteriorated so much that it does NOT go supercritical, the TNT will still force the Fissionable material all over the place and thus is a "Dirty" conventional bomb. Thus a "Zip-Gun" type bomb is not a critical concern, as opposed to control over bomb grade Uranium and Plutonium.

[LeftishBrit]

36. I disagree on this...

The more nukes there are, the more risk there is that someone will use them.

It is potentially arguable (though as a longstanding supporter of CND I disagree even with that) that a nuclear 'balance' between two big superpowers is a deterrent against war. However, once countries everywhere start getting nukes, in a world where alliances are constantly shifting, the situation becomes much more unstable and unpredictable. Moreover, conventional wars can start, as they might with Iran, because countries start being afraid that another country will get nukes, and may stage military intervention in the hope of preventing this.

I doubt that a Middle Eastern country will use nukes in a first strike against another Middle Eastern country, because the fallout from hitting a relatively nearby country might endanger their own country as well. Nuclear radiation doesn't know about geographical boundaries or political alliances and enmities. Nonetheless, it is possible that a dangerously insane or paranoid leader, or one who thinks that his country is threatened with destruction, *might* do so. Moreover, once nukes exist, there is always the danger of takeover by terrorists who might use them wthout concern for the consequences. The fewer nukes the better, IMO.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. just what cheney wants you to hear!

[MetalCanuck]

6. A criminal state committing atrocities?

NOOOO! WAY!:)

[ShortnFiery]

48. I dunno, what countries has IRAN invaded and occupied in modern history?

[Spazito]

59. Geez, don't be saying that about the US....oh, wait a minute...

you weren't referring to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US under bush, the practice of torture by the US under bush....were you?

Welcome, fellow Canadian, where in Canada do you hail from?

[StClone]

15. IF

If the Jewish state attacks Iran. From what I see Iran is a little crazy; but, unlike Bush they'll wait until a rogue nation attacks them.

[frankieT]

17. Yeah certainly they're a little crazy

But so far they attacked/invaded no one. Their cities were bombed during Iran-Iraq war, their soldiers gassed with the help of US, but they didn't commit mass scale war crimes.

[Megahurtz]

19. Love The Misleading Yahoo Headline

making it appear as if Iran is going to attack Israel first.

Just more of the Bush Propaganda Machine at work.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

26. They've changed to a MUCH more factual headline -- Iran: Retaliation for any Israeli attack

The headline is not Yahoo's doing, but rather AP. I looked through several different news sites trying to find the article with a different headline before I posted it here. They all had the same headline.

[Redstone]

22. They'd be damn stupid not to, wouldn't they?

Doesn't EVERY country have a plan to retaliate if attacked?

Redstone

[lovuian]

23. Iran is letting Israel know they won't be like Iraq

they will Bite back

[democrat2thecore]

25. The only problem and Iran knows this...

First of all, I am no fan of Israeli foreign policy. However, it must be said that comments like this are made for internal domestic consumption to keep hardliners happy. The crucial part of the statement is of course, "If Israel attacks Iran first." The only problem with this is that Iran knows they would be on the losing end of that deal. Iran cannot - as of yet - "bite back." I have no question Israel would use tactical nuclear weapons in such a tit-for-tat, and possibly even strategic nuclear weapons which could, effectively, bring Iran to its knees. Iran, of course, knows this. At this stage of the game, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. With that said, I will repeat, I am NOT a fan of Israeli foreign policy. But, I don't have to like the way they do things to see the reality of the situation.

[martymar64]

27. Don't forget China, Russia and Pakistan

Russia has already warned that a US attack on Iran would be catastrophic. We could assume that this would apply to an Israeli attack on Iran as well, especially if Israel breaks out it's nukes. When Russia makes strong statements like this, we had better listen.
The problem with wars is that once started you never know what will happen and how it will end up. I'm sure the Nazis didn't expect to lose when they first invaded Poland. There are so many possible scenarios for any attack on Iran by Israel or the US and none of them are good. Oceans won't enough to protect us if this Pandora's Box opens.

[democrat2thecore]

28. Russia would not involve itself

Why would they? I agree it WOULD be catastrophic, in a LOT of ways, but not militarily for Russia.

[ShortnFiery]

47. Russia has invested in Iran and Syria. I wouldn't bet on their non-involvement.

World War III anyone? Unless we stop these bat-shit crazy leaders.

[Clanfear]

50. Cutting off nose to spite face?

Both Russia and China make far too much money off the US to get involved. It would mean losing hundreds of billions in an effort to save investments in Iran totaling 10's to 100's of millions.

As stated above this is just for internal Iranian public consumption. The Iranians have had plans for attack Israel for a long long time and visa versa.

[daleo]

29. They would retaliate after an attack?

Only a monstrous rogue nation would defend itself after an attack. Nowadays, civilized nations defend themselves before an attack.

(yes, it is sarcasm).

[ileus]

30. Imagine that, what ME country doesn't have the same plans.

[Solly Mack]

43. countries tend to have war plans already drawn up *in the event of*

but hey, let's get people all alarmed and worried..duct tape sales are down and we need Americans to hate and fear the Iranians so we can bomb them

[ohio2007]

44. yep,kinda like those "bomb Iran" invasion plans

we pulled off in June 2005,June 2006,June 2007....
October 2007,November,Dec 2007....( your month pick here )2008..2009

but it looks like Iran will pre empt our premptive strikes eh ?

[Solly Mack]

51. Whether or not America actually uses them, it does have the plans to

do just that...

It's not exactly "news" or even surprising that America has tentative plans for the invasion of other countries...it's what the war college does - it's what training grounds (NTC) are used for (mock invasions testing the plans)....for the "just in case"

[NuttyFluffers]

52. yup. i'm sure there's retaliation plans for micronesia...

in war colleges of USA and Iran!

it's what these people are paid to dream up all day.

[ShortnFiery]

46. The Rapture ... brought to you by Crazy Leaders of Iran, USA and Israel

OMG! We must stop these CRAZIES!?!

Or else all this saber-rattling may cumulate in "Christmas at Ground Zero."

Christmas At Ground Zero
by Weird Al Yankovic

It's Christmas at ground zero
There's music in the air
The sleigh bells are ringing and the carolers are singing
While the air raid sirens blare

It's Christmas at ground zero
The button has been pressed
The radio just let us know
That this is not a test

Everywhere the atom bombs are dropping
It's the end of all humanity
No more time for last-minute shopping
It's time to face your final destiny

It's Christmas at ground zero
There's panic in the crowd
We can dodge debris while we trim the tree
Underneath the mushroom cloud

You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
Or Jack Frost on your windowsill
But if someone's climbing down your chimney
You better load your gun and shoot to kill

It's Christmas at ground zero
And if the radiation level's okay
I'll go out with you and see all the new
Mutations on New Year's Day

It's Christmas at ground zero
Just seconds left to go
I'll duck and cover with my Yuletide lover
Underneath the mistletoe

It's Christmas at ground zero
Now the missiles are on their way
What a crazy fluke, we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday

What a crazy fluke, we're gonna get nuked
On this jolly holiday

[Agony]

55. Who is not on the stick?

This thread is a discussion of issues related to Israel and belongs in the Israel/Palestine forum. Somebody is not on the ball.

Oh wait...this is about somebody _attacking_ Israel not the other way around. Sorry my bad I guess this does belong in Breaking news...?

Does this make any sense. Am I the only one bothered by the inconsistency in the way news about Israel is handled?

[TheWraith]

56. Having a plan to bomb someone means absolutely nothing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Whether it's the Iranians planning to bomb Israel, or the US planning to bomb Iran, anything--theoretical military planning means nothing in terms of actual intent. It means that your military brass is simply thinking of what they would do if the word ever came down to hit so and so. To interpret having a plan as an aggressive stance is nonsense.

[Vidar]

58. It's not like any of their bombers, or even any of ours, could get through

the Israeli Air Force. Just more empty threats to save face, not that they are unjustified.