It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Growing And Real Theory That Israel Will Soon Bomb Iran...

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM

There has been a documentary made by the BBC which is ample entitled "will Israel bomb Iran" which was made just after the unrest which took place in Lebanon and although that conflict was pretty intense which seems to have stopped now it is not the end of the story as Israel is certain Iran is supplying Hezbollah with their rockets to fire into Israel.

Fair enough, but there is a greater threat which Israel sees, which is that Iran is building and producing nuclear fuel which they say is for peaceful use, but most world leaders suspect that Iran is producing it for a atomic bomb, and when or if it attains this it will be untouchable in many respects as its common sense not to invade or attack a country with a nuclear bomb, just as its been shown with North Korea.

But the reason Israel has to worry about this emerging nuclear Iran is that its president has declared and stated in many public speech's that Israel should be wiped off the pages of history and Ahmadinejad (Iran's President), who has a history of similarly fiery rhetoric, said "Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear."

America doesnt want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons but because of the politics and the failure in Iraq it is unlikely that America would be able to take any direct action due to politics, so as unbelievable as it might seem Israel might go it alone and take out key targets in Iran. This is not a far out conspiracy theory but top government officials in Israel are even making plans with how to deal with the crisis if the UN lets it go unchecked.

But all in probability Israel will not allow Iran to come close to making weapons grade fuel and the prime minister even says "Iran would have a price to pay if it doesn't back down from its nuclear ambitions" hinting broadly that Israel might be forced to take action - his strongest words yet about the Iranian threat.

But to sum it all up if Iran is left to continue its program, there is no doubt among the leaders, former leaders, generals etc of Israel that something must be done, so its only option would be a military one as it has done in the past to Iraq's nuclear program 25 years ago by destroying its compounds.

In the BBC documentary i downloaded it predicts that Iran will reach the point of no return no later than summer 2007, so Israel will need to act before that time, and as far as the leaders mind-set's are.....will.

Then who knows what will be unleashed if or when this happens, but the price of oil will most likely shoot through the roof.

I'm telling this second hand from the video i viewed which if you want to download is available here

BBC Program.. Will Israel Bomb Iran

Interesting stuff but sadly could point to a bigger and much more serious unrest in the middle east

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:40 PM
If Iran really just wants nuclear technology they would have a much easier path if they would just do so and not also state they want Israel wiped off the map in the same press conferences. How dumb are they?

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:04 PM
While I am not sold on the idea that Israel intends to bomb Iran, it isn't because Israel can't do it.

One of the most interesting things about the recent war between Israel and Lebanon is that the IAF only used their F-16A, F-16B, and F-16C models, and thier F-15A and F-15C models over Lebanon. The reason this is interesting is because Israel held thier F-15i's and F-16i's, their most advanced fighters, in reserve, and never committed them to action.

The F-15i and F-16i each have a combat radius of around 2000km without refueling. When you factor in the 10 operational tankers, and 10 reserve tankers in the IAF, the IAF could potentially put 20+ F-15i's and 60 F-16i's in Iran without much trouble by going through Syria and Iraq, and still have well over 100 fighters for dealing with any threats Syria might throw at an IAF strike.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:13 PM
IMO, I thought it would have already happened by now. Now we must be at the door to Pandora's Box. I think since Iran is being so cocky in the last while is because they are intimidating the threat that they see, Israel. They must truely beleive or have something to beleive in already and are ready to defend there interests maybe? We unfortunely will most likely see very soon.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:32 PM
It all depends on how much intellegence Israel has gathered as to how far along Iran is in its nuclear program. Iran has been making veiled threats against Israel for quite some time now and i do not think they are bluffing. However, i do not think Israel will allow them to get close enough to actaully carry those threats out. Not sure how this will play out but since I dont see either side backing down, im sure it will be interesting.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:44 PM
Well, lets think about the North Korea situation with this one. When North Korea was about to test those missles we knew where they were. We watched them as they fueled them up. We could have stopped the launch but this would involve attacking a country which wouldn't be the best thing to do.

The underground test would be a little harder to find before the test but for any real threat the weapon would have had to be transfered to a missle. Do you guys think they US would have let NK launch a missle if they had loaded something that could have potentally harmed us?

We were traking every step.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:09 PM

Iran is no existential threat to Israel, says ex-Mossad chief

Melissa Singer

DESPITE Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s declaration this week that Iran poses “an existential threat to Israel”, a former Mossad chief who is visiting Australia said Tehran lacks the military and strategic capability to destroy the Jewish State.

“Israel is indestructible today. It’s not so simple just to think you can have a device on your hand and you will able to hurl it on to a certain location and wipe out a nation,” Efraim Halevy told an Australian Friends of the Hebrew University dinner at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on Monday.

Halevy, who ran the spy agency from 1998-2003, rejected assertions that Israel faced an “existential threat” during its recent war with Hezbollah. Such claims have “eroded Israel’s self-confidence”, he said.


All just a big crock. They don't like the competition and they want to involve and sacrifice other peoples children. If they want it so bad then let them take them on for themselves and suffer the consequences themselves. They offer no proof other then what they claim as being the truth even though IAEA and others say differently, including their own former Mossad chiefs. They already pulled the wool over our eyes by introducing Chalabi, Mossad reports and the phoney South African Yellowcake documents to get their boots on the ground in Mosul with the Kurds without shedding any blood or incurring any costs, yet they reap the contractual benefits of Iraqi (American) $ and now they are trying to do the same with Iran. Let them have at it.


posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:11 PM
It's just a matter of time now. Iran, far from backing down, is said to be expanding its enrichment program rapidly. ( ) And now Israel's PM has a new deputy - Avigdor Lieberman - a notorious strong-arm (even by Israeli standards...) bought in specifically to deal with "strategic threats"!


You think this guy will advocate the wait and see approach? Maybe setup a meeting with Iran over tea and cookies? Think again. This guy means business. It's pretty much like the Israel PM just hired himself a hitman

If the UN fail to come up with the goods within the next couple of weeks, or if Iran continue to be stubborn, expect an Israeli attack. Actually, count on it.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Curio]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Curio]

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:08 AM
I believe they will try to bring their government down from the inside via cia or israeli intelligence.

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:26 AM
Israel wouldn't be able to fight Iran on its own, many experts even question the possibility of solely attacking Iranian facilities and strategic targets from the air as many stocks of chemical and biological weapons are expected to be stored underground; even to deep for bunkerbusters as the following animation shows:

Bunkerbusters on Iran

Besides, what former colonel Gardiner said pretty much clarifies what is currently going on:

AMY GOODMAN: And, Colonel Sam Gardiner, finally, Israel. Where does Israel fit into this picture?

COL. SAM GARDINER: …. I think Israel has convinced the United States that it is better for the United States to do it by itself, rather than to have Israel do it, in terms of the potential reactions in the Middle East. So I think Israel's policy statements are, you know, it's a world problem that translates to being it is an American problem that has to be dealt with.


Last, if Israel would decide to do so it should count on attacks from the North (Hezbollah - God knows what advanced weapons/missiles they have in reserve), East (Syria - enormous number of artillery units, which would be able to significantly destroy parts of Israel), and most likely missile attacks from Iran.

This war won't be as easy as Iraq and definitely will cause more deaths than any other recent war not to speak of the possibility that it will expand throughout the region and perhaps even further.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Mdv2]

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 04:05 AM
maybe that is the one i do not see." isreal to bomb iran". here is what i see,#1dommino, iran causeing problems in the gulf, U.S.A to invade iran in late february 07 due to the escalating problems with oil and nukes. time magazine to give tips on what is going on with oil in the gulf. #2 i do not see, no nukes tho, is what i get.. #3 more north korean gov't problems, and china involves itself further.#4 a nuke blast in ocean, where i do not see yet. i think our go'vt should do something about this ongoing nation problem of oil depleting. we are all just going to fight over this. why do they not use the technology we have to try to correct this problem. at the current rate of what is happenning now, we are still on the path of starvation and a revolution. the powers at be, i can do nothing but state what i see. i wish the powers at be would do something about this, but all they do is blog one another and cut each other down. it is all stupid, power idiots.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by littlebird]

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 06:40 AM
Why not just seal off the entire ME. Let them all fight it out, and only let one coutnry out. If it is Iran, fine. SA, fine, Isreal, fine. But since that isn't going to happen,

If Isreal bombs Iran, is that not an act of war? What is the American position on defending Isreal should they be the ones to start something? Would the UN even denounce it?

If Iran struck back and took out much of Isreal(Whether you think they can or not, just use the hypothetical), would the UN then denounce it? Would they denounce both sides, or just one?

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 09:17 AM
There are many people who point to how quite legally the political institutions of the western world are influenced by pro-Israeli groups. Often this is through sponsorship such as through the infamous Friends of Israel organisation. It effects the vast majority of our mainstream media, mainstream political parties and think tanks. Sometimes we have to ask whether without this support almost unrestricted arms sales would be flowing from the West into Israel’s war on Lebanon. This is because of Lebanon’s power stations, international airports, particular bridges and other very questionable terrorist targets. Perhaps it might be there use of cluster bombs (something which got pretty barbaric in the last 3 days of that war).

And if we are “natural allies” of Israel it is very questionable whether we would have supported them in an operation that cost them 115 Israel soldiers not to save 2 Israel soldiers. If their abduction was the true reason for the Israeli war (as Israel and much of the pro-Israeli media would have you believe) then it was absolute madness to embark on the war in the first place. And as an ally of Israel it makes it wrong of us to support them so encouragingly in such a folly.
Of course you expect the Israeli public “to be made stupid” by the fact they naturally want to support their own troops in a time of war, as indeed any country does.
It is different for our politicians and political elite in the West because we were never under this pressure. If we are not Israeli slaves, but merely allies; then its just plain weird how we did not give Israel more independent advice when it needed it most.

If the nations of the west are politically Israeli slaves then of course we will be going to war against Iran. In all probability the intellectuals most influenced by Israel’s (rather overt) lobbying will say…
“We can’t let Israel go to war against Iran because that will harm Israel, in stead we should go to war because that will harm “only” you-me. We are bigger than Israel and hence it’s undeniably the lesser of two evils.”

Reality is if the West does a pre-emptive war this is what will probably happen…
1. The mass arming of terrorist (with relatively) extremely good equipment-support
2. The major disruption of oil supplies (we only have a few million barrels a day global spare capacity as it is).
3. Worldwide recession as a result (possibly as bad as the wall street crash if oil can be kept over a hundred dollars a barrel for long enough. This is extremely conceivable as if you only need a few landmines, rocket propelled grenades (let alone full on missiles which Iran has and is more than likely to give) to disrupt terrorists, attack Iran and terrorist everywhere will use them (independently to what we may have achieved to our own political objectives regarding Iran).

This is quite a positive outlook. If the bombing of Iran is too intense (like say we go in for regime change) then before that regime change happens Iran is more than likely to fire its existing biological weapons at Israel.
They know that they’ll be going the way of Saddam-Iraq, they’ll hardly trust us anyway, and presides many have suicidal religious tendencies.
Everyone knows biological weapons aren’t as good as nukes, everyone also knows Israel has nukes. But it’s also a matter of fact that only a few bio-weapons can kill millions, and Israel only has a population of 6.25 million to start of with.

The Alternative…
“Amazingly” if Israel does the pre-emptive disarming strikes alone everything looks a lot more rosy. America can do pre-emptive strikes on Israel’s behalf but then the oil supply is instantly threatened. If Israel does them (independently of what America does) (or in it’s masterfulness publicly saying); then it’s a lot harder (a lot less rational) for Iran to instantly start of loading trucks of neat weapons into the hands of terrorists, so that they can attack oil supplies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and anywhere else in the Middle East the terrorist organisation(s) may wish.
Of course unless it where to publicly seem Israel had at least slightly defied America by going it alone, I doubt very surprised if (funnily enough) several bombs did not go at various oil refineries ect. But the more it seems Israel went it alone, then the less likely, less politically justify within Iran and all importantly less intense the terrorist action-support will be.

What Will Iran’s Response Be?
If they don’t want world war (just yet) then not too much. If they do want world right now; then there isn’t much we can do about. My idea of letting Israel do the first pre-emptive strike is just “a let out cause” of Iran’s “world war three” option.
As always the decision lies in the hands of the Ayatollah (wanna be) Nucklers.

They will certainly be pissed of at Israel there can be no doubt about that.
1. But Iran will know that attacking the world’s oil infrastructure through terrorism kind of defeats the point of us not attacking them. Should Iran attack it too much then (from our view) there becomes no point in not going for full scale total regime change war (with or without Israel’s support this time).
Of course such a war needn’t officially be about their nuclear problem. It need only be about their grossly disproportionate hostilities to us as an ally of Israel. Such a war is entirely stupid no matter how the Ayatollah’s look at it; and therefore should be 100% avoidable.
2. (Again) If Iran is truly crazy it may decide to launch a war against Israel for its pre-emptive strikes. Though undesirable this suits us fine; because we need only supply Israel with all the cash and weapons it needs.
3. Furthermore: Iran should know that this business of just supplying Israel will not last forever. It should be aware-informed that we will do a troop build up and then join in. Failing our direct involvement; then if Israel should wish to use its own nuclear weapons against Iran first; than that’s pretty much its business. Nobody will expect little old Israel to fight a big Iran alone forever without some mushroom clouds. Israeli officials responsible will truthfully be able to claim it was a choice between that and economic collapses, surely followed by military defeat.

But These Are All Possibilities…
What’s certain is that if Israel does a selective pre-emptive strike against Irans nuclear facilities the disruption to western-global oil supplies will be minimised than if America just does it. Iran isn’t stupid it knows Israel and America work together; this makes using America to conduct the strikes the worst option. Sure Israel may enter a war afterwards, but then it might do if America does the strikes. Like the 1991 Gulf War showed when Saddam fired scuds at Israel; Arab leaders know the Israeli-American relationship to be so transparent that they don’t need an excuse to attack America by attacking Israel.
But it does put America in a stronger position (globally and diplomatically) and Iran in a weaker position (internally) if only Israel does the self-defence strikes. (Just the ones targeted at only nuclear facilities of course).

And Let’s Not Forget…
That the Iran president said Israel and not America should be wiped of the map, that Israel (not America) should be relocated. What this underlines, and what we shouldn’t forget (even if we accept it) is that pretty much the whole reason for Iran’s bad relationship with America and Middle East pritty much boils down to our bias (support) for Israel (selling civilian-unfriendly doggy cluster bombs to Israel during the Lebanon war is a prime example).
We do this (publicly) on the grounds that they are an ally-some sort of satellite democracy. But if they can’t do anything when its practical and needed, if its left to us to tolerate their political grip of our system, and for us to do the first strikes (even though Iran threaten then by a factor of ten them more than us) then we are indeed Israeli slaves. Shame really because it might be better for all if Israel did what was what needed and we indirectly paid for it (as usual) (through “military aid”). This is on the assumption that Israelis too are part of the global economy, and that if selective strikes happen, they do so because there is no other option.

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:22 PM
As I've already said on this site a while ago, I think it's possible that we'll see Israel and Syria involed in a conflict first, followed by unilateral action against Iran, sadly. It may be a multifaceted strike, with the NATO/US naval armada already in place to contain any fallout and attempt to stop the conflict from spreading. No idea of timeframe. Given that such a scenario unfolds it may be possible that European and US naval assets are targetted in the Med and of course in the Gulf. It's possible that a wider regional conflict could ensue from there which engulfs the region. Turkey moving wholesale into Iraq would be a tipping point which would escalate the conflict to a much wider theatre. How it all ends is anyones guess.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 07:44 PM
I really don't think Israel would bomb Iranian nuclear facilities while the USA has a strong presence in Iraq.

The US could not hide the fact they green lighted the operation or had no knowledge of it. As the US airforce in the area would have to see the raid crossing Iraq/Kuwait regions. And when the planes returned to go back to Israel, then what would the USAF do?

This would be a huge political risk of the USA. Israel really would like to take out as much as possible in Iran, since Iran gets to use Hezbollah puppets to do its dirty tricks.

Israel already has nuclear weapons, and the Iranians want them too. (well they are not publicly saying it.) In my opinion Iran should be able to whatever it freaking wants, as long as they don't accidently give one of their nukes away to some terrorist organization. But going that far would result in world response that would be unfortunate for the people of any country that gave a nuke to an organization to do its dirty work.

Doesn't mean Israel will not attack Iran, but I feel it is unlikely.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:31 AM

What this underlines, and what we shouldn’t forget (even if we accept it) is that pretty much the whole reason for Iran’s bad relationship with America and Middle East pritty much boils down to our bias (support) for Israel (selling civilian-unfriendly doggy cluster bombs to Israel during the Lebanon war is a prime example).

Are you sure that it isn't because the US engineered a coup in 1953 to overthrow Iran's first democratically elected president, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, in favor of re-installing the pro-US Shah, whom the US then propped up (despite his despotic, authoritarian rule) for decades afterwards?

Because that's what I think it is.

posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:26 AM
actually sbob, if israel attacked iranian plants it would use missiles not aircraft. Submarines with nuclear missiles, ballistic missiles from an Israeli installation?

I know their main deterrent is a small nuclear submarine fleet of 4 or 5 subs, on call 24/7.

especially considering Iran has recently been recieving shipments of advanced Russian radar/anti-aircraft missile platforms that are mobile. Forgot what theyre called, was reading it in the military forum here a few weeks ago, and on Debka file, an Israeli media website.

these systems are supposed to be the most advanced in the world aside from maybe the USA's, infact they're probably equal or better. check up on it and you will see.

this means any aircraft strike with F-15s and F-16's would be too risky, and could result in failure. the only aircraft capable would be USA's Stealth aircraft like the B2 and the F117. ballistic missiles are even harder to shoot down than fighter jets, and this would be the likely route taken by Israel OR the USA .. aside from the USA doing a stealth attack.

and on the subject of Iran's existing biological weapons, we have 144,000+ uniformed services personnel in Iraq right over the western border. Most of our bases are in the eastern Iraqi region where the Iraqi Shia are a bit more tolerable of them. Iran would be able to hit our american personnel with those weapons much, much easier than it would be to hit Israel; it could even go back to the 1980's playbook and do the same strikes as the last war w/Iraq. Plus biological missiles might land astray in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or the Palestinian Territories, so I find that idea highly unlikely. But it is possible..

oh yeah, Iran would attempt to attack our naval assets in the persian gulf with ballistic missiles of their own such as the Shahab-3, as well as any installations or bases we may have in Iraq/Kuwait.

much like in Desert Storm in the early 90's, when the USA attacked Iraq, Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel and Kuwait, as well as Saudi Arabia i think? If Iran gets hit by Israel, they'd attack the American targets in the area creating a regional conflict anyways, because it would be easier for them to inflict casualties on our armed forces at the moment due to their precarious position.

[edit on 12/10/2006 by runetang]

posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:32 AM
Once again Israel will not attack Iran. First of all it would increase tensions between Israel and it's neighboring Arab countries and secondly, they would not be able to destroy Iran's underground facilities with nuclear bunker busters as the following animation shows:


What do you think would happen if Israel does not succeed in taking out the entire Iranian chemical and biological underground stocks, while attacking Iran on full scale? Iran would fire off a decent amount of chemicals into Israel, Syria a from the north West and Hezbollah from the North would simultaneously launch guerilla and rocket/artillery attacks on Israeli settlements. Bear in mind that Syria has massive amounts of artillery units.

I wish the Israeli conscript army all the luck fighting a war on three fronts. Who will be the losing party as usual? The Palestinian, Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, and Iranian civilians, but who cares? These days no one cares about a human more or less.

Israel will not launch an attack on Iran It is ruled out, Israel would not be able to defend itself against the related consequences, unless it uses nuclear weapons, which I'd doubt. Apart from Israel's slave boy the US I wonder how many countries would support Israel in a war against Syria, Hezbollah and Iran in case Israel starts the aggression.

There is only two scenarios I could possible imagine:

-a joint attack by Syria and Hezbollah, financially supported by Iran.

After all, there's no doubt in my mind that the war between Israel and Lebanon acted as a blueprint for Iran and Syria on how to tackle the Israeli defence.

or a joint attack by US and Israeli forces on Iran. Bush does have the power to give the green light, however, I doubt whether it would really happen as the home front would not take it easily.

In today's news paper I read that an Israel general claimed Syria to be preparing for war We'll see.

top topics


log in