Israel to strike Iran soon?

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Great Thread!

UM_Gazz
Do you think this will force us to get involved and if so will do we have enough military power in the region to handle it???

Phoenix
I don't think we would get involved on purpose BUT we will be percieved to be involved by the Arabs if Israeli warplanes overfly Iraq even without permission, besides the fact that the weapons and planes will more than likely be of U.S. origin. I think Iran could be tempted to attack our bases and/or forces in Iraq.

UM_Gazz
I think it is quite possible Israel feels it has no choice but to attack Iran... But I wonder if they are in private hoping that the USA will join the fight.

Phoenix
If Israel's upgrades to its anti-missile systems fail then there will be heavy pressure for the U.S. to help before they get frustrated and resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in responce to successful Iranian missile attacks especially in the instance of chem/bio warheads by Iran.

The ironic thing about that scenario is the fact that we would get castigated by the very people we prevented a nuclear attack on, just like the average Iraqi doe's not realize the same thing from gulf I.

UM_Gazz
This will not have a good outcome no matter which way it goes... IMO


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by Eddie999
Why does everyone here believe it is acceptable for America (a country the has used nuclear weapons on civilians) to keep a massive nuclear arsenal and continue to develop new nukes, but no-one believes it right that Iran should build them.

Iran only wants them to fend of U.S agression. The same reason Saddam wanted them. If Saddam had developed nuclear weapons then the war in Iraq would never have occured.

First off, the US SAVED lives by using 2 nukes. Millions would have died in a full invasion - so it saved lives on both sides. And yes - no one thinks that Iran should have nukes because they - unlike the US - would be quick to attack an enemy with them. To say that Iran only wants them to fend off US agression is plain wrong. They would use them in any military plan they could.

Besides, who is to say that they will not be selling them to every rich terrorist organization that comes up with a feew million $$$$. To allow them to obtain nuclear weapons would present a clear threat not only to the US, but every European country as well. Basically - if you like major cities in the US, Europe or middle east then you should be against Irans nuclear ambition.

Immediately a map of the middle east opens up in my mind like a big Risk board.

I don't know *how* Iran could strike back at Israel except by flying around Iraq from the south. Any fly-overs of Iraq would be seen as a breach of "secure" airspace, wouldn't it?? If they go around south over Saudi Arabia and all that... do they just do a retaliatory air strike? If so: civilian targets, infrastructure targets, or will Iran's targets be limited to military installantions?

If Iran drops one round of any kind of ammo on Israel, I get the feeling we'll see an N-bomb or two dropped (and no I don't mean the racial slur) over Iranian soil.

US involvement: if they use S.A. as an "air bridge" to hit Iran, we could declare it a "no-fly zone" and force a semi-truce between the two that way. That'd also be a good opportunity to get our war on against Saudi Arabia. The way I see it, S.A. is gonna be America's next land grab, as many are expecting the 9/11 commission and Michael Moore's new film to blame Sept.11 on the Saudis, which could stir hawkish sentiments in the States. This could make promises to "hold the Saudis accountable through whatever means necessary" an election issue by mid to late summer. And since it looks like the effects of global peak oil might be kicking in, America's probably really eyeing all them nice perdy oil fields in Saudi Arabia anyway. War is brewing, somewhere, soon.

*cough* the draft *cough*

The possibilities are endless. I need to go play Risk.

Pray for peace, y'all.

Eddie, you asked me to elaborate on why I think Iraq pursued weapons of mass destruction (I'm not interested in whether or not we've found any there now, every human being agrees that Hussein actively pursued them).

You seem to think that he wanted to have them exclusively for defensive purposes.

I'll agree with that if defense means using them on people in your own country who disagree with your point of view and if defense means lobbing missiles at people and of course if defense means taking over neighboring countries. If, in fact, you can explain to me how those actions perpetrated by Mr. Hussein are defensive then I will agree with you that his quest for weapons of mass destruction are indeed for the purposes of defense.

Russia Pledges to Finish Iran Reactor

www.themoscowtimes.com...

I expect many people are suspicious that Iran wants to generate electricity from nuclear power when it has so much oil and natural gas. The fact that Russia is deeply involved makes me even more wary.

Obviously if Iran, Egypt or Syria got hold of nuclear weapons they would be on a more even footing with Israel who's remaining advantages would be the superiority of their military in technology, training & experience and the nearby American military support.

It is Iran's sworn goal to eradicate the state of Israel and as before Syria and Egypt are quite happy to help out. I would assume this to be one of Russia's unofficial policies also.

[Edited on 17/5/2004 by TenPin]

It is Iran's sworn goal to eradicate the state of Israel and as before Syria and Egypt are quite happy to help out. I would assume this to be one of Russia's unofficial policies also.

[Edited on 17/5/2004 by TenPin]

Welcome aboard Tenpin you may have an interest in this post,

Is Russia behind the attacks