WAR: Sabotage an Option Against Iran"s Atomic Plans

As the Iranian nuclear crisis builds, recent revelations have come to light regarding a third option to deal with the problem: Sabotage. A veteran of the Mossad, Gad Shimon, has pointed out that Iran has had nuclear aims since the 70"s and they have gone no where to date. He says that may be because of covert sabotage efforts to derail or slow progress on the program.





There is a historical precedence for this type of activity. Prior to the Israeli strike on the Osirak, a concerted covert effort to sabotage the Iraqi project was played out. From the blowing up of equipment in Italy to the assassination of an Egyptian nuclear physicist in his Paris hotel, these could have been covert efforts on the part of Israel or even the United States to stall the development of the reactor there. A 1993 Counterproliferation Initiative gives Washington the legal basis for covert activity against illegal WMD programs. The concern is that any attempts at sabotage would result in tit for tat retaliation against the U.S. or its allies anywhere in the world

well i wouldnt rule out an air strike. they did it before on iraq's nuclear reactor. they will do something you can count on that. there's no way in hell they will let the iranians have a nuclear reactor. they have some big balls. expect something soon. and they wont care if any iranians civilians get killed

I think it'll be more subtle than an airstrike.

How about a car crash killling the top techie? or a mysterious fire? or material going 'missing'. Much better than an air-strike, since it can't be blamed on any nation.

I rememberber about 12 years ago here in England that about 5 scientists killed themselves over a 2 week period. I remember one news report where this guy drove at speed into a wall. Never been suicidal til that day - no note, no reason.

Makes you wonder. . .

If Iran's plans are truly peaceful then any attack would be considered terrorism wouldn't it? I mean what would we call it if someone attacked one of our nuclear facilities?

It's only terrorism if they catch you, and besides one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

So true lister. Plus terrorism cannot be carried out by the US government. It can only be carried out by others against us. If Iran's intentions are pure then people should be complimenting them on their efforts to move away from oil consumption instead of plotting ways to attack them for doing so.

Iran will correctly assume that any event that stops their
nuclear program will be because of the US government and
Israel. An air strike, sabotage, assassination of key personal..
these would all be acts of aggression against a sovereign nation,
in violation of international law.


[edit on 11-10-2004 by mockan]

Is sabotage an option against America or Israels nuclear facilities?
Funny how whats not good for us is good for others.
Why are you allowed nukes and others aren't? What with Americas attack first, ask questions later policy, no wonder other countries want nukes...not for first strike, but as a deterrent....It's kind of obvious that America and Israel don't have the balls to pick on anybody their own size...or those that can defend themselves.

Exactly Zero. Thats why the war on terror hasn't been extended to Pakistan, Israel and the are no concerns about unstable places like North Korea having them. Well there are concerns but we aren't going to do anything about it because these places have the ability to defend themselves. And IF Iran wanted nukes it would be a good way to keep us out. And has anyone considered that with the way we destabilized Iraq that maybe Iran wants to defend itself from the nuts in Iraq?

It will have to be an inside job, but it is very plausible. If I was Iran I would ask what the Isreali's just bought all those 'bombs' for?

Well.. if Israel were to do something and I were Iran.. I'd use any and every WMD at my disposal to hit Israel back with. Frankly I wouldn't miss either country.

Originally posted by Zero Point
Is sabotage an option against America or Israels nuclear facilities?
Funny how whats not good for us is good for others.
Why are you allowed nukes and others aren't? What with Americas attack first, ask questions later policy, no wonder other countries want nukes...not for first strike, but as a deterrent....It's kind of obvious that America and Israel don't have the balls to pick on anybody their own size...or those that can defend themselves.

Huh, that's funny because I thought that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were all bigger than Israel. Oh, you mean the "Palestinians"--e.g. the terrorist state created by Egypt and Jordan by refusing to accept their own citizens or territory back from Israel. Right. I got you. So, you mean Israel picks on Arafat--funded heavily by the Soviets during his little debacle in Lebannon, and, oh, Hamas, funded and trained by Iran (you know, that country with a much larger population and landmass than Israel). Yeah, I mean obviously Israel just goes around and finds the weakest countries to pick on. You know, like in 1948. Or 67. Or 73. Don't give me Lebannon, which, you know, is pretty much about the same size as Israel.

As for the US....well directly picking on people our size is suicidal. You can't just start a fight with Russia or China. So that claim is sort of ridiculous. We have, however, done a very lovely job of ringing both Russia and China with military bases all along their borders. I'm sure we don't mean them any ill will over it.

As for Iran, you cannot sabotage their nuclear program. They've already widely distributed much of the infrastructure around the country and put it into hardened facilities. You'd need a rather extensive special ops force that could operate freely in the country to take out every facility. And as soon as one got hit under any suspicious circumstances, they'd sort of step up security everywhere else and that's about all she wrote. But Iran is pretty much setting itself up for destruction. They are not going to be permitted to become a regional power independent of US influence. That is totally unacceptable. Having nukes, long range missles and a fairly strong oil based economy is not a combination that is compatible with long term US interests in the region. They are pretty much putting a big target on themselves and asking for us to bomb the hell out of them. Of course the long range missles and nukes and chemical and biological weapons that they actually have (as opposed to Iraq's imaginary ones) make attacking Iran a little trickier. But it just isn't going to go on. Maybe we just overthrow the government again and install another puppet regime or something--but an indepedent Shiite state with nukes is out of the question. Pakistan is at least a client state for the time being and usually falls in line. Yeah, its going to be a fun next four years....

Uh, like this isn't going on already.

The problem is not like in Iraq, where Iraq relied totally on foreign tech and materiale. Iran has the materiale, the technicians, the resources, and the infrastructure to do it entirely in-house.

Also, air strikes won't do jack. You'd need a full-on air campaign and bomb a majority of the country back twenty years. Then, you'd have to keep up the air bombardment almost indefinitely.

Iran has played its cards right. At the going rate, it will be nuclear.

Originally posted by lister
It's only terrorism if they catch you, and besides one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Thats why are freedom fighters are there in Iraq killing those murdering terrorist. Iran here we come

I believe as mentioned above, that if a strike occurs against Iran, it will come from Israel. I honestly think that the US and Israel are trying to get Iran to strike first. I believe that they will try to instigate a strike from Iran in order to bomb it.