It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Israel Prepares Troops for Attack on Iran

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I don't believe this is empty posturing at all. All of the candidates in the Israeli election are running on a platform of "offensive defence".

To put it lightly, the war is coming one way or another and the Israelis are trying to push the Iranians into firing the first shots.

The problem is that Iran has elected a President who might just use the damn weapons in a first strike.




posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I TOLD YOU! IVE BEEN SYING THIS EVER SENCE IRAN HAS HAD NUCLEAR POWER! WWIII is about to be ignited!



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I am stoked. I can't wait for the show to go on the road. we're all exited about wwIII starting im drooling heavily.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Rocket Ride


Originally posted by scienceguy94
I am stoked. I can't wait for the show to go on the road. we're all exited about wwIII starting im drooling heavily.

Not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of killing to go around.



Fig. 1: Another satisfied customer.




posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
When over enthusiastic Americans here (Not just in this thread) tell people that'll USA or ISRAEL will turn Iran 'Into Glass' or 'A Carpark'........

Have these people ever stopped to think other than the people who are killed by the initial blast, about the apalling after effects of Nukes?

Not just on IRAN, but on other countries, Europe? It's called Nuclear fall - out and radiation and it's carried by the wind and the initial blast. Gives people thyroid cancer and all sorts of foul symptoms before killing them.

Would these people be so happy about taking IRAN out, if it was in CANADA? or SOUTH AMERICA? No, because then they would be a target for fall out too!

Sometimes, I think these people give other more intelligent Americans a bad name on this forum. It does give people the impression Americans are arrogant and think that as they are over the other side of the world, they can do what the hell they want. This attitude is plain wrong.

I am aware this is just a proportion, but anyway, it's a bad attitude to have, a superiority complex. The world has it's differences but as humans we are all born equal. It's the situation we're born into, be it war/peace, rich/poor and the influences that make us a 'filthy arab' or 'dirty jew' or a 'mad englishman' to other people, not our race per se. ALL Children are innocent (regardless if they are from USA or IRAN), adults form them into hateful creatures who want to destroy.

Please try and remember this when suggesting people 'Nuke' other people like it's some exciting video game. No one has a right to destroy anyone in the name of anything and playing with Nukes is always going to be disaster no matter who 'wins'.

End of.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If this is true then if I were Iran I'd make a preemptive strike on Israel. I doubt it is true. But if it were the use of force against Israel would certainly be justified.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Mutual Assured Preemption


Originally posted by Indy
If this is true then if I were Iran I'd make a preemptive strike on Israel. I doubt it is true. But if it were the use of force against Israel would certainly be justified.

Knowing this, Israel must launch a preemptive strike before Iran launches theirs.

Of course, Iran is fully aware of the danger, and so must launch its preemptive strike that much sooner.

Now throw nukes into the equation, and we find these two countries playing a reprise of the U.S. and Soviet Union after WWII.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

In this case, however, I predict a different outcome.

Anyone have the time?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
While some of what is taking place may just be saber rattling, it can still be dangerous. If Iran misjudges the situation, they could ignore warnings or go for a first strike. Similarly if the Iran is judged to be too weak by the US, then the US might be more likely to strike.

If the US determines that Iranian backed forces are making trouble in Iraq, the US could try 'limited' retaliation of sorts. The situation could potentially continue to escalate to outright war.

Just because the US claims the problem is about oil or nukes, these may not be the real reasons. The question is what are the causes, and what are the affects. Iran could just be switching off the dollar, and heightening the rhetoric due to conflicts below the public discourse.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by crontab
If the US determines that Iranian backed forces are making trouble in Iraq, the US could try 'limited' retaliation of sorts. The situation could potentially continue to escalate to outright war.

There is no "if".
Furthermore, it was not the US that first reported that Iran was backing insurgents, etc. in Iraq, it was the British, being that the British have control of the province(s) bordering the Iran.




Just because the US claims the problem is about oil or nukes, these may not be the real reasons. The question is what are the causes, and what are the affects. Iran could just be switching off the dollar, and heightening the rhetoric due to conflicts below the public discourse.

And again, this is simply not an issue restricted to the US. The British and the EU have spoken and acted on Iran's so-called peaceful intent nuclear program.





seekerof



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
If this is true then if I were Iran I'd make a preemptive strike on Israel. I doubt it is true. But if it were the use of force against Israel would certainly be justified.


With what exactly [military hardware] is Iran going to make a sufficient preemptive strike of Israel with?




seekerof



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Doesn't Iran have a mutal defense pact with Syria? Also, Russia has close ties to Iran.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Iran theoretically could cause some interesting fireworks upfront to dull the coming Israeli air campaign, but that's a bad line to cross, because it takes us out of the realm of surgical ops and into a full blown war.

Iran would have to be gambling that the US will hold Israel back rather than have Iraq caught in the cross-fire. This might be a very poor bet to make, unless of course one actually beleives that the current administration (which has no more elections to face, and probably realizes that there is nothing they can do to help their party in 2006 or 2008) actually cares about stability in Iraq.

So the question is, where does Iran see the best odds:

Option 1: Follow the North Korea model- Stall for time, lie, cheat, beg, borrow, steal- do whatever is possible to make it look like they are taking down their program while preparing enough weapons to ensure that the US won't make a move, and may possibly even restrict Israel from making one. The chances for a Democrat re-taking of the US senate in 2006 favor this course of action- if that happens Bush will never get a declaration of war and they might even be able to leverage some kind of legal victory to keep Bush from using war powers.

Option 2: Try to bloody the noses of Israel and the US quickly and force a peace settlement. Launch preemptive strikes on US vessels in the gulf, unleash a missile barrage on Israel, and invade Northern Iraq in hopes of linking up with the Syrians. This wouldn't be a bad time for some Fatwas calling for the overthrow of the House of Saud and any other Arab government which doesn't cooperate.
This is tricky- if you aren't wildly successful, you're gonna get you head kicked in. Even if you are wildly successful you can expect the US to come back and bring you a world of hurt in a relatively short time unless you can pull off some real miracles in terms of propaganda, diplomacy, or acquisition of weapons.
There's also always the chance that if things go too badly that Israel will push the button.

Option 3: (if you believe in miracles) Convince the Russians to bring in their own aircraft and pilots to defend Iranian airspace and hope that it doesn't become a repeat of Russian aid to Egypt in 1973.


My money is in on an eventual Israeli strike which will probably not be answered to any great effect, but I'm not sure when. Like I said earlier, we hear the saber rattling, but we won't know if it's being drawn or not until we either see US troop movements, evidence of increased Mossad activity in Iran, or something else of that nature.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Although Israel has not ruled out the use of force against Iran if diplomatic measures prove unsuccessful, they have denied that the allegations by The Sunday Times that they are preparing for an attack against Iran.




ISRAEL yesterday denied that it was planning to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear installations in March.

But it did not rule out using force if international diplomatic efforts to prevent Tehran from gaining nuclear weapons capability failed to bear fruit.


"It would not be correct for a country that faces such a threat to deny that it would ever consider another option," Amos Gilad, a senior defence ministry official, told Israel Radio. "One cannot say a priori that any option for the future is being ruled out. But presented with the specific planning, as laid out so artfully in the article, this, I can say, is not correct."

He was referring to a Sunday Times report that the armed forces had been ordered by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to be ready by the end of March to strike what the paper said were secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. The paper said defence sources in Israel believed that the end of March would be the "point of no return", after which Iran would have the technical expertise to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.

Israel has become increasingly concerned at the threat from Iran because of the statements of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who last week followed up a call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map" by voicing doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggesting that Israel be moved to Europe.

news.scotsman.com...



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 2005/12/11 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Denial is a weapon best utilized as to keep your enemy guessing.




seekerof



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
With what exactly [military hardware] is Iran going to make a sufficient preemptive strike of Israel with?
seekerof


I believe that it is called the Shahab ( spelling) Since I am Persian ( Iranian) I wrote it sorta phonetically but it means falling star or shooting star...anyways its range could easily hit Israel. You only need one bomb to make a preemptive strike. The country only cares about Israel being "wiped off the map" I dunno I doubt anything will happen though, but I am pretty sure that Iran most likely has missiles already in their control. Whether they have purchased them from Russia or from that general idea, or made them themselves.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by The_Final]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I appreciate the response, The_Final.

Thank you for taking the time to explain what you feel would be used militarily by Iran to do a pre-emptive strike. I am aware of the missile you speak of and indeed it does have the range and beyond to hit Israel.

Thank you again.





seekerof

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Doesn't Iran have a mutal defense pact with Syria? Also, Russia has close ties to Iran.



but you think they will hep iran if a shooting war breaks out? whos russia gonna attack? isreal? the US? europe? just cause they are business partners dont mean they have to fight on the same side. russia will probally stay nutural



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Interesting. Is there still any evidence Iran is doing anything that breaks the NPT? If there is I haven't seen it, maybe Riwka has some?

Maybe Iran can accept terms that forgo its right to nuclear power if the Israelis dismantle their own secret nuclear weapons arsenal?

With regards to starting wars with Iran? I highly doubt it, Iran is only speculated to have nuclear weapons. Look at North Korea, Kim Jong Ill is a nut job of the highest order and he is confirmed to have nuclear weapons and the appetite for war against him is non-existent. What makes people think Americans would tolerate a war against Iran before North Korea?

Israel doesn't have the man power to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, any one who thinks they do is dreaming. As mentioned in the opening post, "this is no Osirak". The Iranian facilities are all sub-terranean and short of Israel launching nukes (not going to happen) they will not be able to take them out without an invasion force. Any Israeli invasion force would have no chance of getting out alive and would have to number in the hundreds, perhaps thousands, to get the job done.

Indeed I believe this sabre-rattling, which is intentionally leaked, is for Iranian consumption. It is an attempt to up the ante and deter Iran from its nuclear programme. It's not going to work, Israel knows this but has to be seen by its people to be hard-line. It will be North Korea all over again.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka

No, if Israel had put forces on alert, there would have been a raise of the alert level (at least to special forces) and several standby-calls, which is NOT.


from the original news article:



Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week


i'm admittedly no expert on israeli defense forces, but this sounds like a raise in the alert level to me.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Interesting. Is there still any evidence Iran is doing anything that breaks the NPT? If there is I haven't seen it, maybe Riwka has some?

Why are you singling out one member, when there are a significant number of us who have already shown such? Come out of ATSNN sometimes and visit the War On Terrorism forum, k? All kinds of discussion to be had concerning the matter you speak of.




Maybe Iran can accept terms that forgo its right to nuclear power if the Israelis dismantle their own secret nuclear weapons arsenal?

Though that may be a novel and utopian idea to you and some others, not going to happen. Furthermore, Israel has shown itself to be quite responsible in having that nuclear arsenal. Seen them threaten to "wipe" anyone "off the map" yet? Seen them talk of using their alleged nuclear arsenal to destroy anyone yet? Compare and contrast those two questions to a nation, Iran, that has not yet acquired such a nuclear arsenal and the rhetoric and threats they are already making and have made there, subz...

Incidentally, maybe the message is sinking in? With the Iranian mullah hardliners, I seriously doubt it, but hey, we can all wish, right?
Iran Offers U.S. Share in Nuclear Plants






seekerof

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join