Bush stopped Israeli attack on Iran

[Sgt Joch]

and yet another twist...

"With co-operation from the United States, Israeli covert operations have focused both on eliminating key human assets involved in the nuclear programme and in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear supply chain," she said.

"As US-Israeli relations are bound to come under strain over the Obama administration's outreach to Iran, and as the political atmosphere grows in complexity, an intensification of Israeli covert activity against Iran is likely to result."

Mossad was rumoured to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top nuclear scientist at Iran's Isfahan uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances from reported "gas poisoning" in 2007.

Other recent deaths of important figures in the procurement and enrichment process in Iran and Europe have been the result of Israeli "hits", intended to deprive Tehran of key technical skills at the head of the programme, according to Western intelligence analysts.

"Israel has shown no hesitation in assassinating weapons scientists for hostile regimes in the past," said a European intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. They did it with Iraq and they will do it with Iran when they can."

from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html

I don't know if it is true or not, but assassination is certainly less public than an air strike...but the question remains, do the ends justify the means...

[Lars]

Guess they didn't get the memo that it's all rhetoric.

[Affentitten]

from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html

I don't know if it is true or not,

Bound to be. They did the same to some of the personnel helping Iraq with their reactor in the 1980s.

[FAI]

and yet another twist...

from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4640052/Israel-launches-covert-war-against-Iran.html

I don't know if it is true or not, but assassination is certainly less public than an air strike...but the question remains, do the ends justify the means...

A very fatalistic approach by Israel. Short of full scale invasion, Iran will get the nukes. Assasinating a scientist or two would only stoke the anger already broiling in Iran. It could be that Israel thought they couldn't get it any worse with Iran's attitude as it is now, but it also could be the straw that broke the back of the camel.

[costard]

You know, it could be that Iran acquiring a nuke or two would actually help the situation. Call me crazy, but I think the resultant behaviour on both sides would most likely contain a little more mutual respect, something the Iranians are probably aware of.

At the moment, Iran behaves like the little smartarse, daring the school enforcer to hit him and thereby win the sympathy of the non-aggressor types. {of course, this is from a western perspective - I understand that the media portrayal of Iranian behaviour is unlikely to be balanced} The moment Iran joins "the club", it is required to behave with the dignity commensurate with such an exalted position on the world stage. And Israel has to adjust it's risk analysis in terms of the likely outcomes of continuing assassination of another sovereign country's citizens.

[Stalins Organ]

BBC article on call for Jihad over Gaza -

Mr Nazzal told his audience: "Don't worry about casualties."

To laughter in the audience, another speaker noted that twice as many babies were born as children were killed during the war.

Every death, I was told, was a martyrdom on the road to liberation.

If "we" keep our current mindset "we" will lose whatever the format the "war" takes.

[ironbar]

You know, it could be that Iran acquiring a nuke or two would actually help the situation. Call me crazy, but I think the resultant behaviour on both sides would most likely contain a little more mutual respect, something the Iranians are probably aware of.

At the moment, Iran behaves like the little smartarse, daring the school enforcer to hit him and thereby win the sympathy of the non-aggressor types. {of course, this is from a western perspective - I understand that the media portrayal of Iranian behaviour is unlikely to be balanced} The moment Iran joins "the club", it is required to behave with the dignity commensurate with such an exalted position on the world stage. And Israel has to adjust it's risk analysis in terms of the likely outcomes of continuing assassination of another sovereign country's citizens.

Along those same lines, Have we turned the corner from non-proliferation to "Responsible nuke ownership"?

The technology and actual hands on know how seems to be much more readily available today. Rather obviates the tried and true high tech embargo that worked well in the eighties.

The threat that a nuclear capable state might hand off a weapon to a client or allied terrorist group, seems less likely than ever, why trade away your prestige to some group who might turn on you?

I'm not sure I'm happy with it, reminds me of the old westerns where everyone playing poker is armed to the teeth, you'd think it would preclude any funny business- but you also know that someone at that poker table's gonna end up with a smoking hole in their chest before the scene is over.

Non proliferation seems to be, for the politicians anyway, a desire that most conflicts can be contained and localized- that a few weeks (or months) of bloodshed can be settled at a conference table, status quo ante bellum restored; while most students of history can tell you that most often everything changes with the first shot, it's just a question of how long it takes to feel the effects. I suspect the third nuke used in anger would have a much more sobering effect than all of man's routine inhumanities.

[Sgt Joch]

The big problem is the Israeli nukes. Iran is increasingly becoming a major player in the ME, it does not feel comfortable knowing Israeli nukes are mere minutes away from delivery. Furthermore. Notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns of Israel, the increasing saber rattling coming from Tel Aviv will certainly not reassure Teheran.

Much like the USSR after WW2, Iran will not feel comfortable unless it has its own nukes so there is a collision coming between Israel and Iran. Whether it will be a balance of terror, like the Cold War or degenarate into a hot war, only time will tell.

I am very interested to see what President Obama will do to ease the tension.

[FAI]

The big problem is the Israeli nukes. Iran is increasingly becoming a major player in the ME, it does not feel comfortable knowing Israeli nukes are mere minutes away from delivery. Furthermore. Notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns of Israel, the increasing saber rattling coming from Tel Aviv will certainly not reassure Teheran.

Much like the USSR after WW2, Iran will not feel comfortable unless it has its own nukes so there is a collision coming between Israel and Iran. Whether it will be a balance of terror, like the Cold War or degenarate into a hot war, only time will tell.

I am very interested to see what President Obama will do to ease the tension.

The previous US administrations did not view allowing (and helping) Israel to have hundreds of nukes while saber rattling Iran for attempting to have a few of their own as hypocrisy. Of course, nobody could have suspected the US of sincerety in dealing with nuclear proliferation either.

[dieseltaylor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7905320.stm

responsible use of weaponry reported. The use of flechettes does seem particularly indiscriminate.

[Runyan99]

The previous US administrations did not view allowing (and helping) Israel to have hundreds of nukes while saber rattling Iran for attempting to have a few of their own as hypocrisy.

I don't understand this line of thinking. Is that a bit like saying giving cops guns while trying to keep them away from criminals is hypocrisy? Everyone should have guns? To believe that, you'd have to think that the cops and the criminals are morally equivalent. Obviously, the state has decided that supporting the cops at the expense of the criminals is in the interest of society.

In the same way, the USA has chosen it's allies and supported them. That's how rational actors behave.

Suggesting that nations should act contrary to what they see as in their interest is empty and irrational. In my opinion this kind of thought is born of perceived guilt, self doubt, and a self destructive streak.

If you are convinced that the USA and Western society more broadly is the primary source of evil in the world, then it makes sense to advocate regimes like Iran or North Korea going nuclear. Otherwise, I don't see how a clear thinking person can get there.

[dieseltaylor]

If you take the moral high ground and declare a non-proliferation policy and then its your non-nuclear allies who become nuclear one might think that was hypocrisy on a grand scale. OK so its politics .....

However the line of reasoning is very clear whereas including cops is in no way relevant.

National interest of the US. Interesting - would the US have been better served by being pro-Muslim rather than supporting Israel. I suspect it would have been cheaper over the last 60 years to have done so. An interesting what-if situation. However completely redundant topic : )

Your last paragraph seems completely strange as I cannot see any connection that suggests that any rational person would advocate ANY nation going nuclear. Surely the point of the thread is should you go to war to prevent another nation joining the nuclear club. I realise attacking Pakistan, China, and India was perhaps a tall order but ......

To think if the Shah remained in power the Iranians would have had a bomb some decades by now. It would have been interesting to see how the West would have reacted to a subsequent revolution. Of course no such thing would occur in Pakistan so no worries there then.

Joking aside you have to consider whether a country would initiate a nuclear exchange which results in its own destruction or is having the bomb a validation of your country as a world power not to be toyed with trivially by the former Great Powers.

[Runyan99]

I reject the implicit suggestion that if everybody has nukes, the world is a safer place because nobody will risk a hot war. It only ensures that eventually there will be a hot war with a nuclear exchange.

Those non-interventionists who advocate doing nothing physical to prevent regimes like Iran from going nuclear are by default in the proliferation camp. Unmolested, they will gain the technology. I can't see how that makes the world a safer place.

[Michael Emrys]

I reject the implicit suggestion that if everybody has nukes, the world is a safer place because nobody will risk a hot war. It only ensures that eventually there will be a hot war with a nuclear exchange.

You are depressingly likely to be proven correct on this point, especially with world population increasing and likely to outstrip food production some time this century, especially if some kind of agricultural disaster overtakes us. My own preference would be to see all nukes destroyed. But that is, if not technically unfeasible (because of the difficulties of proving that no one had secreted a few away, or at least not retained the capability of putting a few together in a hurry), probably politically impossible.

Michael

[FAI]

I reject the implicit suggestion that if everybody has nukes, the world is a safer place because nobody will risk a hot war. It only ensures that eventually there will be a hot war with a nuclear exchange.

Those non-interventionists who advocate doing nothing physical to prevent regimes like Iran from going nuclear are by default in the proliferation camp. Unmolested, they will gain the technology. I can't see how that makes the world a safer place.

The real suggestion is that you cannot prevent a select few from having nukes while you happily allow their natural enemies to amass nukes without being called out as a hypocrite.

Well, by similar default the US is in the proliferation camp for ignoring other proven nuclear weapons.

[Runyan99]

The real suggestion is that you cannot prevent a select few from having nukes while you happily allow their natural enemies to amass nukes without being called out as a hypocrite.

And since when are feelings a national security concern? We're supposed to allow the world to weaponize so America is not called nasty names? That's childish and foolish.

Of course, this focus on popularity, and seeking the approval of others, drives much leftist thought around the world, regardless of consequences. Better to be conquered than to be called a warmonger or a hypocrite.

This mentality might be conducive to dating, but fails in the harsh realm of international competition. The nation that loves his enemy, and turns the other cheek, cannot endure.

[JonS]

There is just a little more to diplomacy than trying to ensure you aren't called nasty names. You know that, right? Right?

But, anyway, I see you're back to the old strawman routine. What a surprise

[Runyan99]

Oh stop. If my arguments are ridiculous on their face, why don't you refute them, instead of playing rhetorical games? The answer is, you have no rebuttal, but dismissal. Fantasy is your probability.

[JonS]

Dude, pointing out that they're logical fallacies IS refuting them. Do you not understand that?

[Runyan99]

Spell it out. I'm not as smart as you are.

[FAI]

And since when are feelings a national security concern? We're supposed to allow the world to weaponize so America is not called nasty names? That's childish and foolish.

Of course, this focus on popularity, and seeking the approval of others, drives much leftist thought around the world, regardless of consequences. Better to be conquered than to be called a warmonger or a hypocrite.

This mentality might be conducive to dating, but fails in the harsh realm of international competition. The nation that loves his enemy, and turns the other cheek, cannot endure.

Excatly. Everybody grudgingly accepted and assumed that the US would only act based on her national interest and her allies', not necessarily for everyone else's benefit. Nobody actually believed that the US would lift a finger to disarm Israel's nukes, for example. And thus the US' idea of non-proliferation is doomed to fail partly because of its inherent hypocrisy. Unless the US is willing to enforce this non-proliferation by force, pretty much alone.

[JonS]

You can read though, right? Second post, page 6.

[Runyan99]

FAI - Your argument seems to be that since the USA aided Israel in achieving nuclear weapons, Iran is bound to obtain them too, since our plan wasn't to give them to everybody from the start. So the inherent unfairness in our policy will be it's undoing. Presumably then, had the Western powers not seen fit to arm Israel, the entire world community would now be united in it's efforts to prevent Iran from arming, since there would be no unfairness or hypocrisy to the policy. I can't agree with you there. From my perch, outside of the USA, the 'world community' is pretty passive and toothless in these matters. Iran would arm unmolested, but for American and/or Israeli intervention.

JonS - You certainly present an eloquent perspective. I am challenged by your informed and nuanced analysis of the situation.

[FAI]

FAI - Your argument seems to be that since the USA aided Israel in achieving nuclear weapons, Iran is bound to obtain them too, since our plan wasn't to give them to everybody from the start. So the inherent unfairness in our policy will be it's undoing. Presumably then, had the Western powers not seen fit to arm Israel, the entire world community would now be united in it's efforts to prevent Iran from arming, since there would be no unfairness or hypocrisy to the policy. I can't agree with you there. From my perch, outside of the USA, the 'world community' is pretty passive and toothless in these matters. Iran would arm unmolested, but for American and/or Israeli intervention.

Not just Israel's nukes, really. Everybody's nukes. The genie is out of the bottle now, and short of full scale military intervention, eveybody who wants nukes badly enough will get it. Even a full scale military intervention will not stop the proliferation since it would also give all the reason to go nuclear in the first place.

It is possible that the world community is only using Israel's nukes as a confenient raison d'être to sit on the fence. But that argument is untested, since Israel already have nukes anyway, thanks to the US.

[dieseltaylor]

I cannot see why this thread is pussying around. Who would start a war to stop another country getting nuclear weapons?

Well the US obviously did in the case of Iraq and that was only on the basis of possible WMD's. Was it a matter of oil, of possibly protecting Israel, of Bush Junior proving he was more macho than his Dad. Or all three.

Because there were no weapons the US and its Allies made themselves look stupid, greedy and inefficient - and incidentally killed a lot of innocent people. And also gave a boost to resurgent Islam militants.

The US cannot police the world no matter how butch it thinks it is. At one time it might have lead coalitions of the major powers however it has lost its credentials by its Iraq adventure. It is isolated and whilst China is probably its closest nuclear superpower friend in terms of self-interest it surely will not go to war to further US and Israeli interests.

The EU, Russia etc probably take the view that short of looking for repeated wars over the next century one has to be practical about nuclear power and weapons proliferation. Another words do everything short of war to stop proliferation. And possibly war for nutcase countries like Korea - which after all is small and politically isolated.

Iran does have elections and is not a one nutter state. It is not isolated politically or economically so war would seem a little unlikely and unpalatable for most countries.