It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
With the Tehran regime distracted by growing opposition protests, is now a good time for Israel
to strike Iran's nuclear sites?
Iran is defying the international community and thumbing its nose at President Obama's proposed dialogue over the nuclear issue. Israeli intelligence is warning it could be a matter of months – not years – before Iran has enough uranium that, if enriched more, could produce one or two nuclear devices.
Is Israel going to use the heat of the moment to finally launch their attack on Iran?
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Israel shouldn't attack anyone who isn't already attacking them.
But if I were to play along and entertain the thought for a minute (just a minute), it poses a double edged sword really.
On one hand some might argue that Israel attacking Iran at this time would be bad because it would unite the country against an attacking foreign enemy. When in reality the country is tearing itself apart at the seams already because of the rigged elections and the resulting dividing factions- all the way up to cleric and Revolutionary Guard level. So why upset the divide? But perhaps a better question would be will there be any difference in Iran's disposition towards Israel even if the people get who they want in power? I venture not much, if any- unless some serious negotiations and mutual understandings were put in place- and the vitriolic rhetoric stopped.
On the other hand, an attacking enemy is not necessarily a trumping force when it comes to national unity. And obvious recent cases in point are Iraq and Afghanistan. While many joined the "insurgents," many also joined the US terrorism force in toppling Saddam and respectively, the Taliban.
While the long term effectiveness of these campaigns remains to be seen, the point is that the CIA-sponsored terror machine can be quite effective in splitting national unity. Even when backed up by an invading US military.
Israel could take a chance and attack Iran's nuclear facilities while the Mullahs have their hands full, and perhaps catch them a bit off guard. But would it really make a difference in the long run? Not really, imo. And worse, there is still Russia's and maybe even China's response to contend with. And if Georgia was any indication, I'd say Israel better think long and hard about such a decision.
I might also mention that a wildcard here is what North Korea might do in response as well- seeing as they have some Iranian sympathetic military interests. Not to mention Syria and Lebanon.
Ok, minute's up, and I really gave ya two or three. Back to point 1.
Originally posted by Psynarchist
Israel doesn't need a legitimate reason for war, and as long as those who start the wars are safely tucked away they will start them whenever, wherever.
Did we forget about Gaza '09 already?
If I were Israel, I would do what ever it took to keep a country that threatened my existance from having the capability to do so.
"Those who think, that by using such decayed tools as psychological warfare and economic sanctions, they can stop the Iranian nation's progress are making a mistake," Ahmadinejad said yesterday outside of Tehran. www.nydailynews.com...&D
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
"The fiery calls to destroy Israel are meant to mobilize domestic and regional constituencies. Iran has no plan to attack Israel with its nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional military capabilities. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni summed up his country’s stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict by stressing, '[The] Palestine issue is not Iran’s jihad.'" In fact, Bahgat says that according to most analysts a military confrontation between Iran and Israel is unlikely.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in response to a question in April 2007 regarding whether military action would be an option against Iran said, "...It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear program but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be set back years... it would take 10 days and would involve the firing of 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles", the letter added.
“The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means. International economic and political sanctions on Iran, as crucial as they may be, are only an initial step and must be dramatically increased,” Olmert said. “The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating.”
With less than a year left of Bush’s second term, the Israeli government is pressing for tougher US action against Iran. In a front-page story yesterday, the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, citing sources close to Olmert, reported that the prime minister would tell Bush that “time is running out” on efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear programs by sanctions. According to Yediot Achronot, Olmert intended to say that the US should therefore attack Iran.
When Bush visited Israel last month, the Jerusalem Post, citing a senior Israeli official, reported that the president and Vice President Dick Cheney told a meeting that “military action [against Iran] was called for”.
Peres told Israel's Kol Hai radio that Israel would respond with force if U.S. offers of dialogue failed to persuade Ahmadinejad to halt Tehran's uranium enrichment program.
"We'll strike him," Peres said in the interview.
Netanyahu and several of his military aides made clear in an interview with Atlantic magazine last month that the government was weighing the military option in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.
“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.
For close to two years, the media has stubbornly clung to a long discredited story about the Iranian President's alleged threat to "destroy Israel" with nuclear weapons Iran doesn't have and denies any intent to acquire. 'Wiped off the map, wiped off the map,' they bleat incessantly, even though his actual words, "The Imam [Khomenei] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," were paralleled with the fall of regimes like the Soviet Union and Iran's former U.S.-installed monarchy [see: "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century for a thorough disassembly of this claim]. From the start of his Presidency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rhapsodized regularly about the demise of the 'Zionist regime' in various metaphorical terms. He and his associates in the Iranian government have compared its fate to the Pharaohs of Egypt and the former apartheid regime in South Africa (which they also did not recognize), but never have they threatened to start a war with any country.