Should Israel attack distracted Iran now?

Should Israel attack distracted Iran now?

worldnetdaily.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Every year Israel has claimed that Iran will have nukes by the end of the year. Every year Israel has been proved wrong.

Is Israel going to use the heat of the moment to finally launch their attack on Iran?

If they are going to, then it would be this weekend, because Iran will have the "revolt" mopped up by then.

So will Israel attack Iran this weekend?

worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by MegaCurious

Is Israel going to use the heat of the moment to finally launch their attack on Iran?

That would be a tremendous mistake. Such an attack at this juncture in time would re-unite all of Iran, at a time when there is a chance that the regime may be overthrown.
I hope that Israel is not foolish enough to try it.

Why not?

In Israel's place, with the stated threats, I suppose any day is as good as another.

It won't happen right now.

Israel never, ever does the expected, when expected.

I imagine right now a number of people are thinking the same thing.

reply to post by MegaCurious


Exactly what justifies this attack? What has Iran done to Israel, or anyone else, that would justify war? A legitimate case could be brought to justify war against Israel for what they have done to Palestine, but I don't see anything justifying war on Iran.

Do you have a theory, or just a desire to attack them? Hatred and fear of true justice would not suffice. Has to be legitimate.

What about no? Israel attacking Iran would only bolster the regime and the iranian people would rally behind their leader... remember 911? Same thing.

People are screaming about NEDA, but what happens if Israel or the US go to war with Iran? Millions of NEDA that you won't see on TV.



[edit on 25-6-2009 by Vitchilo]

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.

Yes, I think they would and should. Iran is going to be a threat regardless of who is in charge. The more distracted the better.

Let the blasting begin. . .

To paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte " Never interrupt your enemies when they are making a mistake ."

I would imagine that the Israelis will sit on their hands a while longer , to see how this plays out .

If Iran came under attack , it could unify the opposing sides to some degree. This may not be worth risking , if your interest lies in regime change in Iran .

Who knows ....... Israel does like to keep everyone guessing.


After all that has gone on in Iran these past few days/weeks , one thing is for certain . Iranians are no longer faceless foreigners , large swathes of "westerners" now empathies with the protesters . To what extent the protests represent Iranians across the full spectrum of society is hard to decipher ... yet.

Would Israel risk replacing the T.V scenes of Iranian V.s Iranian , with Iranians pulling bodies from rubble . The fear of radioactive
contamination as a results of the bombings / maybe even a downed
Israeli plane .
All these things would cause Iranians to face their aggressor ....united .
Just like any nation would if it came under attack ,whatever the domestic situation.

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?

Israel should attack. It will not go well for them. Maybe that will shut them up for awhile.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It has some big friends. They WILL come to help. Israelis are the tough little bully who can throw some punches but when it will come down to a free for all, they will lose, and blame everything on everyone else, and claim for themselves another Holocost. Notice the powerful jewish elite dont even live in Israel. so it matters not to them what happens to Israel. Its all a game.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I was entering this thread to write...what you wrote. Almost exactly.

So star for you, you extremely wise person!

Isreal should take a long walk off a short peir.... overlooking an active volcano...


Religion as the State... what's next poison in our water......................

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.

Very good points True American.
The only thing that I can disagree with is that you trumphed up russia with the latest Russia vs Georgia skurmish.

""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 think that little battle showed just how much Russia lacks in its 'military comeback' Not saying that russia has not come along way in the last couple of decades but little Georgia socked them pretty good. I do not remember exact numbers but I believe that Georgia destroyed 50+ russian tanks in the first couple of days plus several fighter jets. And Georgia's little military arsenal pails in comparision to what Israel is packing. Russia put their foot on Georgia after about a week, but it was a tough week. Obviously In the (probable but not likely) event that Israel would have to contend with russia and or china in the event it went ape # on Iran, that might leave me more skepticle on Israels might.

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.

reply to post by MegaCurious


Could work the other way around too, swap positions of attacker and victim.

In the confusion of their state of affairs they could deny knowing who did what since their communications would be in disarray.

Would you punish a whole country for the actions of like 1 person or even a dozen?

Would be some tough choices for sure.

This article does not address the whole issue. It's far too simple to analyse it this way.

Bombing Iran now would be a disaster, the worst possible choice. It would force the US to have to defend allies who Iran attack. It would alienate the US,UK,Israel from the rest of the world. Let Iran show the world they are the bad guys, as they are doing.

The Islamic regime is digging its own grave, let it continue. Bombing them will kill civilians anyway. Why make things worse.

Iran would try and prevent oil tankers that go through the strait from reaching us.

The nuclear issue is not the top issue at the moment, we cannot let it cloud our judgement.

We must only act if the Iranian people ask for help directly as a collective or from the leader of the opposition. Only then can we intervene. Preferably we need to go thru' the UN to show the world that Russia and China don't care about Iranian's.

IMO Iran will not obtain nukes before the protestors (revolutionaries) ask for direct help, or the regime oppresses them even more severely that the opposition dies down.

So to tackle the nuclear issue now would be an own goal.

IMO Iran will attack abroad first and savagely destroy everything they can in their own country as the regime cripples from the inside due to workers strikes preventing the regime from obtaining income. Oil workers striking would the most effective. Before the mullahs leave for Russia for good. Therefore forcing us to take action to defend allies and our commerce interests in the region.

The news article states that the western world especially Britain are heavily invested in the opposition.

It fails to explain how exactly. IMO the author has let himself get taken in by this regime propaganda about Britain. He/she probably made the assumption that the regime have to tell the truth occasionally, but surprisingly they don't ever tell the truth, unfortunately, from what I can gather.

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?

Hmmmm..... Gaza, oh thats right, the military action against a terrorist organsiation using human sheilds that was launching rackets at innocent civilians? Yea, Israel "started" that war.

You people always claiming Israel is going to attack this one or that one really ignore history. Israel has never STARTED a war against anyone. They only FINISH wars.

As far as Iran, don't hold your breath. Israel wont and can't do anything without the permission of the US president, and last I checked the current one is a closet muslim.

I'm so tired of Israel. I wish someone would just bomb them into a great big hole and then perhaps we'd have a chance at peace in the middle east!

Let's see how some of you warmonger people like the shoe on the other foot!

IRM

[edit on 25/6/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by Tank2/8

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.

Are these the threats you are referring to? I can't find anything threatening from Iran other than twisted misquotes and bold faced lies?

www.nydailynews.com...
"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

en.wikipedia.org...
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.

In reality, Iran has never threatened Israel, or anyone else. However, Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran. Israel has, and continues to, violate international laws, yet they continue to escape any viable repercussions? Fabricating pretexts to war is not only violating the law, it devastates any hope of diplomatic resolution.

www.campaigniran.org.../2362
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.

www.countercurrents.org...
“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”.

www.reuters.com...
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.

www.timesonline.co.uk...
“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.

Any arguments from those that support Israel's warmongering have all been shown to be lies and fabrications. Accusations of Iran "wiping Israel off the map" has been proven a misquote. So is talk about Iran developing nuclear weapons. There just is no basis on which to make this claim. Just as there's no basis for attacking them.

www.mohammadmossadegh.com...
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.

Israel's government is equivalent to any terrorist regime. Israel is making the threats. Israel is encouraging, and perpetrating, terrorism. Israel is disrupting chances for world peace. Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel is a threat to the Middle East. While there's a case for attacking Israel, for Iran there's none.

You cannot prove otherwise. Without the lies and propaganda, you can't.