Will Israel attack Iran or is this just a bluff? We hope the latter but we must be prepared for the prior. However, we understand the need of Israel to insure that Iran does not get nuclear capability. It would completely de-stable the Middle East even more. Additionally, Iran has made it plenty clear that it is intent to wipe Israel off the map. Israel must prepare. It is in their own self defense.
So, what do you think?
Conservative Tom
Krauthammer: Israel 'will strike' Iran to 'prevent a second holocaust'
Jeff Poor - The Daily Caller, February 11th, 2012On Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer doubled down on an assertion he made last week about the inevitability of an Israeli strike on Iran to limit the Islamic republic’s nuclear capabilities.
Krauthammer referred to a Washington Post column in which David Ignatius indicated, generally, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thought such an attack might happen.
“Our own secretary of Defense has said it’s highly likely and he gave a timeframe — April, May, June — which means the Israelis think that the moment, the zone of immunity where they can no longer attack successfully, is approaching,” Krauthammer said.
“I think he is right. I think the Israelis are serious unless happens between now and midyear or even November that will threaten the regime, because it won’t change the policy. I think Israel will strike because it cannot live under the threat of annihilation from Iran.”
Krauthammer also had some strong words about why he thought an attack was likely.
“Unless something intervenes,” Krauthammer replied. “I cannot imagine the Israelis are going to allow Iran to go nuclear and to hold the Damocles sword over 6 million Jews all over again. Israel was established to prevent a second Holocaust, not to invite one.”
It is easy for this Krauthammer guy to sit back and urge Israel to start a war with Iran. If Israel blows up a nuclear reactor in Iran, the radiation will be falling on --and killing -- hundreds of thousands of Iranians, not on Mr. Krauthammer's house.
ReplyDeleteIran can't "wipe Israel off the map" with a nuclear bomb without wiping out their own country in the process. Israel also has nukes, a sophisticated missile defense system, and better overall military technology than Iran.
Finally, it is not at all clear that Israel can take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. And even if they could, they would have to continue bombing indefinitely to prevent Iran from rebuilding. They would be locked into a semi-permanent state of war with Iran, and on a much larger scale than with Hamas in Gaza.
It is time for saner heads to prevail here, and Mr. Krauthammer's comments are not helpful.
--David
Israel has no choice but to take Out the nuke plant. It cannot live with the treat of nuclear blackmail or worse from an overtly hostile neighbor which has repeatedly announced its intentions.
ReplyDeleteEvery nation has the right of self defense.
Nonsense. Israell has a choice. According to to what I have read, they are debating the choice in their parliament and -- so far -- the majority of members do not want this war. I have also read that their own military has serious doubts about the feasibility of the mission. This is not going to happen.
ReplyDeleteAs for "self-defense", I think Iran wants the bomb for self-defense (after seeing the Iraq invasion), and all the talk about bombing Israel is dog barking. Considering what happens to their own country if they did this, it would be suicidal.
From the Libertarian foreign policy perspective, a country can build bombs and threaten their neighbors, but so long as their military remains on THEIR side of the border, no war against them is justified. That was my answer to you hypothetical Canadian government that says they intend to kill me, and it's the same with Iran-Israel.
Since you like hypotheticals, try this one: You are a black man and you buy a home in an all-white neighborhood in Alabama in 1922. Your next door neighbor is a white racist. He threatens to kill you and shows you his gun. You tell him you are not moving, and show him your gun. Your gun is bigger than his gun. The first night after you move into your new home, you sneak into his house to try to take away his gun. You have to kill half his family to get the gun. After this happens, do you think he will go get another gun? Also, this man has friends with guns on the same street. If I may borrow your own question from the Canada story, "Do you have a problem with that?"
--David
David, Ok, I bite. In 1922 if the black man was hung because he stole the guns, he had it coming. He took the law into his own hands. However, it makes no sense to compare Israel with someone who takes guns. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who want them to disappear in the middle of the night.
ReplyDeleteThe Arabs want the state of Israel to be incinerated in a new Holocaust and the world is cheering them on. Israel does not want war, would rather exist without the need for a strong military, without the need for military spending, without the need for constant surveillance of its neighbors and without the constant fear that one morning they will see a mushroom cloud over one of their cities.
Going back to your hypothetical black man in Alabama 1922 where not only his neighbor anti-black but he is the only black man in a city of thousands. Every night he must stay up because his "neighbors" a throwing malatov cocktails at his house, shooting at his house, killing his dog. He must use his gun to drive off the perpetrators. All he wants to do is to live in peace, but his neighbors will not let him. So yes, he arms himself, he buys a bigger gun. It all is for self preservation. That is more the story of Israel.
No, no, no. You have changed my hypothetical. I did not say the racist is shooting at his house, throwing malatov cocktails at his home, shooting at his house, or killing his dog. All his neighbor has done so far is shout over the fence that he intends to "wipe him off the map" and showed his gun. He has not yet fired a shot. The black man responds by breaking into his house at 3 a.m., kills half of his family and takes the gun.
ReplyDeleteMy questions:
(1) Do you think the white racist will go get another gun?
(2) Is the hypothetical "self-defense" as I stated it (not as you reformulated it)?
Your hypothetical is not accurate as it does not in the slightest reflect the situation that Israel finds itself. Israel is fired on each day by their enemies, both domestically and in foreign lands. a couple weeks ago the Israeli Ambassador was targeted as was the Saudi Ambassador. Today Iran has sent terrorists to Bangkok to assassinate someone (current news does not know but one was caught and is being interrogated, however they got did not succeed. Attacking a nations envoys is just like war.
ReplyDeletecome up with a hypo that is constructed to reflect reality and I will answer the questions.
These things are not comparable. Israel sends agents into Iran to assassinate their nuclear scientist. That is on a completely different level than Iran dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel, or Israel blowing up a nuclear reactor in Tehran and killing hundreds of thousands of people. If the "gun" is analogous to "having a bomb" (which Iran doesn't even have) and "killing half of his family" is analogous to blowing up nuclear reactors and exposing hundreds of thousands of Iranian to lethal radiation, then I think the hypothetical represents the situation pretty well.
ReplyDelete--David
David, there is no proof that Israel had anything to do with the scientist. Iranians said so, but that does not make it so. Ironically, the latest bombings were done by placing magnet charges on cars and they were done by Iranians. Could the Iranians killed their own scientist? Possibly.
ReplyDeleteWho says that blowing up the nuclear reactor--which is not operational--would cause atomic fallout. If it is not operational, the damage would be controlled to the area.
Your example does not work, sorry David. Additionally, the information you are using is not accurate and is being spread by Anti-Israel sources.
My "Anti-Israel" source is about as mainstream U.S. media as you can get -- NBC news citing two high-level U.S. officials who confirmed that U.S. intelligence is aware that the Israelis are training Iranians to kill scientists...
ReplyDelete"Updated: 11:14 a.m. ET -- Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NBC-israel-assassination-attempt/2012/02/14/id/429385
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NBC-israel-assassination-attempt/2012/02/14/id/429385
The Israelis did not admit to doing it, but did not deny responsibility.
--------
Iran already has active nuclear reactors in densely populated areas. Any bomb with the power to destroy the reactor will release the radiation on all the civilians living in the area...
"In Iran, the impact of any military action on the civilian population could be acute. The notion that military strikes would be targeted and surgical is ill founded. Iran’s nuclear facilities are located near densely populated towns, and those living or working nearby would be at serious
risk. It is likely that US war planners would also target military assets beyond the nuclear facilities in anticipation of counterattacks, increasing the risk to civilians. Military action is not likely to be a short, sharp engagement but could have a profound effect on the region, with shock waves felt far beyond."
Is this "Anti-Israel"....
"Launched in 1998 and founded by the then Foreign Secretary, the late Rt Hon Robin Cook, with the former British Prime Minister Rt Hon Tony Blair as patron, the mission of the Centre is to develop a vision of a fair and rule-based world order. The Centre also has three Co-Presidents, representing each of the UK's major political parties..."
http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/838.pdf
Israel's own parliament and military have been negative on the idea, and they are not an "anti-Israel" source, either. If you want this war, then you should at least be honest enough to admit that hundreds of thousands of Iranians could be killed if it is successful.
--David
More fact-checking...
ReplyDelete"In January 2012 the IAEA confirmed that Iran had started the production of uranium enriched up to 20% at the plant."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
Nearly a million Iranians live in this area. If Israel successfully blows up this reactor, hundreds of thousands will be exposed to radiation.
--David
David, here is the entire assessment from the BBC.
ReplyDeleteNote the last sentence. Do NOT be so sure that the US will not attack when Gulf States are pressuring us!
What are the chances of an attack on Iran?
After the latest IAEA report, a US official told the BBC that nothing was off the table, but there was "plenty of space" to build more pressure through sanctions.
American officials have stressed the instability that would result from any attack on Iran. They appear to be hoping that even if Iran continues to develop its nuclear expertise, it will not try to build a bomb.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran, so the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains. However, some recent rhetoric by Israeli officials is widely seen as sabre-rattling.
In January 2012 Defence Minister Ehud Barak attempted to calm speculation about an Israeli attack on Iran by saying "the whole thing is very far away".
Wikileaks revelations have shown that Gulf Arab states have urged the US to attack Iran.
Man, you are preaching to the choir! I don't trust Obama or Romney to stay of of this war. That is why I am voting Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think there is a definite possibility that the Romney people stole the primary from Ron in Maine. Three counties did not report results, and one of them Ron won in 2008. I smell something fishy!
Meanwhile, Santorum is coming on strong. The question now is whether Romney's $30 million Super PAC funded by Wall Street can smear Santorum with negative ads the way they buried Gingrich in Iowa and Florida.
--David