Is war inevitable between Iran and Israel?

[Flashy]

Wouldn't that polarize almost every Iranian against the U.S. and Israel? Everytime we rattle our sabres... the moderates in Iran lose elections and grow more fearful of being thrown in jail and or exiled.

There is a HUGE blowback to be associated with one of those blitzkrieg style bombardments by the West.

I too, was disheartened when the Iranians declined to allow Russia to enrich their uranium for them... they are just too proud of a people to do such a pansy ass thing though, even though it might save them from destruction. Pride could very well get them destroyed and there would be nothing that their pro-Iranian supporters in the U.S. could do if Israel or the U.S. decided to wage a quick but lethal bombardment against select targets.

Iran is fucked, I wish they would get their head out of their own ass long enough to realize that they have the power to end this ominous march to war with a few simple gestures.

1. Maybe it would polarize them against the US and ISrael. However considering the vast hatred for ISrael anyway, the ISraelis care more about their own survival then who likes them or is polarized by them.

2. As for the Iranians being polarized against us, well, to be honest, It is their fault that they have not gotten rid of the mullahs yet. They have genocidal fanatic regime controlling their country, that they cannot seem to get rid of.

Unfortunately, most revolutions take alot of bloodshed to complete. If people are not willing to shed their own blood for their own freedom, and leave a psychotic tyrannical religious fundamentalist group in charge, then they really cannot blame anyone when that religious fanatic government gets their country into a huge mess. Sad but true. Our misadventure in Iraq occurred because Bush wrongly assumed that people would be so thrilled by the prospect of being free, that they would immediately pound their swords into plowshares. Unfortunately, when dealing with the Sunnis and the SHi'ites, rational behavior does not exist. It is a backwards and stupid part of the world, that nobody would care to get involved with if there was not oil there.

3. I agree...but that is why they are not after peaceful energy...they want nukes.

Diplomacy would have worked by now if energy was what they were interested in. Their rejection of the Russians made it pretty clear.

 

[Jason]

Do you truly believe Iran would risk nuclear annihilation just to nuke Israel?

Yes. This is what is so frightening. It is the logical extension of the idea of the suicide bomber. Here we have the suicide nation. A nuclear strike on tiny Israel has the potential to destroy Israel absolutely. Yes there would probably be retaliation against Iran which could destroy even a nation as large as Iran, but the crackpots running Iran would see the martyrdom of themselves and their country as a fast-track to paradise. This isn't global politics; it is religion.

:frown1:

 

[B_Monster]

so true...on a large scale, religion probably causes more harm than good nowadays. it will cause the destruction of humanity as soon as technology becomes more available worldwide

I agree completely which is why im agnostic.

 

[B_New End]

Yes. This is what is so frightening. It is the logical extension of the idea of the suicide bomber. Here we have the suicide nation. A nuclear strike on tiny Israel has the potential to destroy Israel absolutely. Yes there would probably be retaliation against Iran which could destroy even a nation as large as Iran, but the crackpots running Iran would see the martyrdom of themselves and their country as a fast-track to paradise. This isn't global politics; it is religion.

:frown1:

I call Bullshit.

They are not crazy. They have run a country for 40 years now.

there is no indication they are willing to risk annihilation just for religious glory. In fact, no country has ever been so stupid.


They want nukes, simply to counter Israeli and American hegemony. And it is a wise desire. I would too if I were the Iranians. Iran not having nukes is crazy in the current geopolitical environment. Of course they are going for the bomb, they would be foolish not too. They have no nuclear allies, besides a sometimes blustering Russia.

 

[Flashy]

Do you truly believe Iran would risk nuclear annihilation just to nuke Israel?

Yes. I would never underestimate the lunacy of a regime that is guided by radical Islam. It would just be suicide bombing on a much larger scale. I anyone was capable of it, it is the Iranians. Do you doubt for one second if Al Qaieda had their own little country for example, and got a nuclear weapon, that they would have any trouble trading their lives and those of their countrymen, regardless of those coutnryman's feelings, to nuke New York?


Nukes are political bargaining chips, and they guarantee less invasions once obtained.

(no country with Nuclear Weapons has ever been invaded)

So? Who was going to invade Iran before they started their nuclear program? Iraq's military capability is gone and there is nobody else who would invade them. They did not need nukes to stave off invasion. They want nukes because they are interested in becoming the most powerful player in the region, being the shi'ite superpower. They will oppose Israel, and they are scaring the shit out of the Saudis, Egyptians and Lebanese with their nuclear ambitions and radical sh'ite theology. they are destabilizing the region completely. They are funding the sh'ites in every Sunni dominated country, and are fomenting chaos.

This is not just about Israel...this is about the rest of the Arab countries. Iranians are not arabs...they are persians, and there is a very large divide.


And Iran was backing the anti-Taleban Northern Alliance, before 9-11, and gave incredible support to the US after 9-11, to help defeat both the Taleban and Al-Queada (a SUNNI terrorist organization) and thought after 9-11, there would be a new era of diplomacy with the U.S.

Indeed, but they were not doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they were doing it because having radical sunnis right next door was not good for their Sh'ite sense of security.

Also, at the same time, their nuclear program was well underway, their support for terrorist groups was unabated as well. Not to mention they would not turn over senior Al Qaeida operatives to the US. If they wanted a new approach with the US, they had it all there for the asking. They blew it.


at the same time, the student movement was rising, and Iran was liberalizing.

then dumb-fuck gave his axis of evil speech, and all that disappeared almost over night.

Just because George W. Bush is a dumb fuck does not excuse the Iranians failure to seize a historic opportunity.

It required three minor things;

To stop the nuke program.

They could have concluded a historic pact with the U.S. for a peaceful supervised nuclear energy program, reopening ties with the U.S. after two decades of hostility.

To stop all support for Hizbullah and Hamas. two groups who have been totally destabilizing two states, Lebanon and Israel. With Hamas cut off from its money and training, a chance at peace with ISrael and the Palestinians could occur more easily. Lebanon's pro west, pro deomcracy government could free itself from the yoke of Hizbullah and Syria.

To turn over some terrorist operatives.


Iran could have changed everything back then.

Bush is a shithead,but that does not change the fact that it was Iran who blew a historic opportunity...not Bush.

Bush gave the "with us or against us" bit...Iran could have said..."we are with you...let's have a new era of cooperation and reconcilliaton".

They chose to go the other way. They chose to stay in bed with hamas Hezbollah and the nuclear program.

and here we are again.

 

[Flashy]

I call Bullshit.

They are not crazy. They have run a country for 40 years now.


It is has not been 40 years...it has been 29...and they have run a coutnry into the ground.


there is no indication they are willing to risk annihilation just for religious glory. In fact, no country has ever been so stupid.

If there is no indication, then why are they confronting the world over their nuclear program, taking British troops hostage on the high seas, challenging the Sunni countries in the region, funding the Shia insurgency in Iran and threatening to wipe a neighbor off the map forever (via nukes or by finding terror groups) when that neighbor has done nothing to provoke it other than existing?


They want nukes, simply to counter Israeli and American hegemony. And it is a wise desire. I would too if I were the Iranians. Iran not having nukes is crazy in the current geopolitical environment. Of course they are going for the bomb, they would be foolish not too. They have no nuclear allies, besides a sometimes blustering Russia.

That is not why they want nukes. The Israelis have no hegemony over the Iranians.

The Iranians are currently attacking Israel from three different sides, with no provocation whatsoever, other than Israel's existence.

The IRanians have enormous gas reserves, enough to make their country rich and modern and prosperous...but they want conflict and they want power....so that is why they are doing it.

They are a radical islamist regime.

There is nothing that excuses their behavior.

 

[B_New End]

Who was going to invade Iran before they started their nuclear program?

Perhaps the U.S., perhaps Israel. Perhaps only massive airstrikes a la Lebanon, or constant air incursions to knock out "terrorist bases"

And please stop replyying within quote with colored text, it confuses things.

Iran and threatening to wipe a neighbor off the map forever (via nukes or by finding terror groups) when that neighbor has done nothing to provoke it other than existing?

Stop making things up. they never said that.

The Iranians are currently attacking Israel from three different sides, with no provocation whatsoever, other than Israel's existence.

How much do you know about Lebanon's civil war in the 80's? Obviously, not enough.

Not to mention they would not turn over senior Al Qaeida operatives to the US.

I dont like having to remind people of simple facts, especially since I just stated them a few threads earlier.
Al Queada is Sunni.

 

[Flashy]

Who was going to invade Iran before they started their nuclear program?

Perhaps the U.S., perhaps Israel. Perhaps only massive airstrikes a la Lebanon, or constant air incursions to knock out "terrorist bases"

And please stop replyying within quote with colored text, it confuses things.




Stop making things up. they never said that.

The Iranians are currently attacking Israel from three different sides, with no provocation whatsoever, other than Israel's existence.

How much do you know about Lebanon's civil war in the 80's? Obviously, not enough.




I dont like having to remind people of simple facts, especially since I just stated them a few threads earlier.
Al Queada is Sunni.

Considering I was replying in blue, I don't know why you are doing it if we are trying to keep things clear.

1. I am well aware Al Qaeida is Sunni. AS a result, Iran wasn't acting in Afghanistan out of the goodness of their hearts.

2. Nobody was threatening Iran prior to their Nuclear program. Not the U.S. not Israel. Why would there be "massive airstrikes" on Iran prior to it?

3. I know plenty about Lebanon's civil war...and more then enough to know it is not Iran's civil war, and they should not have been involved.

Also, Hamas is not involved in lebanon's civil war. They are still funding Hezbollah, still funding Hamas.

 

[B_New End]

Considering I was replying in blue, I don't know why you are doing it if we are trying to keep things clear.

try replying to colored text.

1. I am well aware Al Qaeida is Sunni. AS a result, Iran wasn't acting in Afghanistan out of the goodness of their hearts.

Who cares as to the why? The fact is, they hated Al queada, and the taleban.

2. Nobody was threatening Iran prior to their Nuclear program. Not the U.S. not Israel. Why would there be "massive airstrikes" on Iran prior to it?

Israel oft does as it pleases. It is not exaclty a peaceful neighbor that respects sovereignity. Lebanon 2006 is a perfect example.

3. I know plenty about Lebanon's civil war...and more then enough to know it is not Iran's civil war, and they should not have been involved.

Should Israel have been involved? It was a clash of hegemonies, and when clashes of hegemonies happen, nations oft look to the core, and begin devising ways to knock out the source. A well trained and intelligent strategist knows this, and I ran would be foolish to think Israel had no plans or intentions, or desires to strike at Iran itself.

Also, Hamas is not involved in lebanon's civil war. They are still funding Hezbollah, still funding Hamas.

the funding of Hamas is fairly recent, after international funding was pulled from the PLO because Hamas was elected into power.

Its a good thing they are still funding Hezbollah, or Israel would be occupying the Litani river right now.

 

[tripod]

It's actually a big clusterfuck with everyone involved having the right to defend itself. The question is... who is in the right? Where is the real threat coming from and where does the blame lay?

What did the world think was gonna happen when the U.N. chartered the state of Israel? The Palestinian people are both Shia and Sunni, with Iran taking the Shiite side and Saudi Arabia taking the Sunni side. The Palestinian people have no land, no rights and no means of living a full and meaningful life while Israel continues their occupation of the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights. That is where the majority of refugees went to live after the partitioning of Palestine into Israel. They have no means of support, so they have to rely on outside funds from Hamas, and Hamas is a known terrorist group... I fucking hate this clusterfuck, it has no end in sight.

Only more heartache and killing.

 

[Flashy]

you should stick to things you know about.

1. They hated Al Qaeida, so what? They blew an opportunity to forge new relations with the USA. I have no clue what you are even arguing about now. Everyone knows they hated Al Qaeida because they did not want a radical Sunni threat on their Eastern flank

2. Israel "oft does as it pleases"? Perhaps...but can you cite one instance when Israel was threatening to strike Iran prior to the nuke program? Stop throwing out accusations without any proof.

AS for LEbanon 2006, you think the ISraelis just said, "ho hum, let's start bombing" ? They were in a war with hezbollah. Hezbollah is based in Lebanon. Where else should they fight Hezbollah?

3. Should Israel have been involved in Lebanon? Absolutely. It was a complex conflict, involving Israel's christian allies who actually would have been a peaceful neighbor, and israel's security against PLO and PFLP terrorism.

Now you are just going completely off your rocker..."It was a clash of hegemonies, and when clashes of hegemonies happen, nations oft look to the core, and begin devising ways to knock out the source. A well trained and intelligent strategist knows this, and I ran would be foolish to think Israel had no plans or intentions, or desires to strike at Iran itself."

When exactly did Israel go ahead and do that? The Syrians were the direct problem in Lebanon, and Israel fought the Syrians...not the Iranians. Though the Iranians have involved themselves in anti-Israel activity for decades now.

So tell me, since Israel has had for the better part of 30 years numerous ways to strike at Iran massively, why have they not done so? the fact, is that Iran is obsessed with the destruction of ISrael, not the other way around.


4. "the funding of Hamas is fairly recent, after international funding was pulled from the PLO because Hamas was elected into power."


So the funding of Hamas is "fairly recent" huh? That's a good excuse. You are totally ignorant...i hate to break it to you, but Iran has been funding Hamas for alot longer then just the two years since hamas came to power in the elections.


5. "Its a good thing they are still funding Hezbollah, or Israel would be occupying the Litani river right now."

It is good that they are funding a terrorist organization which is currently destroying Lebanon's democratic government? It is good that they are funding an organization that is going on murderous sprees against diplomats who disagree with them publicly? It is good that they are arming a group who wants to launch missiles into Israeli civilian areas, forcing Israel to respond by wit airstrikes to defend themselves>

Israel has no need need to occupy the territory up to the Litani. sending a couple of brigades in, to push Hezbollah back is hardly an occupation. Ironically, it served its purpose, since the UN is now in Southern Lebanon, and when and if Hezbollah starts up again, it and Iran will be defying the UN security zone.

You are a fool who knows nothing about the region, and even less about right and wrong.

 

[B_New End]

you should stick to things you know about.

You are a fool who knows nothing about the region, and even less about right and wrong.

such a shame you had to go there. I was actually enjoying the conversation.

Bye bye.

Maybe next time we can be civilized.

 

[Flashy]

It's actually a big clusterfuck with everyone involved having the right to defend itself. The question is... who is in the right? Where is the real threat coming from and where does the blame lay?

What did the world think was gonna happen when the U.N. chartered the state of Israel? The Palestinian people are both Shia and Sunni, with Iran taking the Shiite side and Saudi Arabia taking the Sunni side. The Palestinian people have no land, no rights and no means of living a full and meaningful life while Israel continues their occupation of the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights. That is where the majority of refugees went to live after the partitioning of Palestine into Israel. They have no means of support, so they have to rely on outside funds from Hamas, and Hamas is a known terrorist group... I fucking hate this clusterfuck, it has no end in sight.

Only more heartache and killing.

Tri, that is totally wrong.

1. The Palestinians are sunni, there are few shiites.

2. Israel has not occupied Gaza for nearly 3 years.

3.The Golan was never Palestinian territory. It was part of Syria, captured during the six day war.

4. The majority of refugees do not want to live in the Golan or Gaza. They want to Live in ISrael proper, or in the West Bank. That is the whole problem. They want to live inside Israel and the West Bank, thus turning ISrael itself into a minority jewish state, thusly effectively ending the state of ISrael as a Jewish state. they do not want just the West Bank...they want the right of return to the state of ISrael as well.

 

[Flashy]

such a shame you had to go there. I was actually enjoying the conversation.

Bye bye.

Maybe next time we can be civilized.

no thanks.

keep up with your ignorance of the real issues in the region.

which is sunni vs. shiite

 

[B_New End]

no thanks.

keep up with your ignorance of the real issues in the region.

which is sunni vs. shiite

very well.
welcome to my ignore.
Im done with name callers and immature debaters, I dont need the blood pressure fluctuations.

 

[faceking]

The answer is in diplomacy (I think... I could very well be wrong) but that is just my opinion and I have no real personal knowledge of the situation.

Diplomacy has worked only twice... out of countless and countless attempts. Including assumed successful attempts that were squashed years, if not months later.

It's f'ing LAUGHABLE to keep citing Egypt et al from decades ago... as proof-positive it can work.

What has Aqua-Velva Dad ever stated as a "consolation" in lieu of destroying Israel???

 

[Phil Ayesho]

What?

You smokin again, Face?

The answer is found in GAME THEORY.

A mixture of diplomacy, economic engagement, a firm stance on retaliation for aggression.... and AVOIDING being the instigator of aggression.


That is what works, time and time again thru-out human history.

Militarism has the longest history of failure of any approach.

In today's world, the real weapon is economics... people say we owe our souls to China...
Bull... China will bail US out because China's entire economy is dependent on us buying their goods.
China is becoming more capitalistic and more democratic every year... and its because we are engaging with them via trade.

Economic isolation is NOT gonna do any good at all... its like never letting your army actually engage the enemy.

 

[dong20]

Excuse me, where did i say ISrael would be involved overtly with the U.S. ?

I never did.

No you didn't, I did. But, unless you're seriously suggesting the two would act independently or in opposition in such a scenario, shall we move on.

there is a very subtle difference between invasion and bombardment.

Thge bombardment of Iraq went like clockwork, the invasion and occupation did not.

That was almost exactly my point.

THe "doctrine" of shock and awe happened to have worked briliantly. Iraq's weak military was defeated in a matter of days. What has happened since is insurgency, not at all part of "shock and awe"

Yes, and no. But, again, my point was that after 'shock and awe' (the 'razzamatazz'), comes the real, hard, dirty in your face long terms on the ground strategic work, and with due respect it's not something at which the US military excels.

This is in no small part because it typically follows a doctrine of force protection (often hamstrung in support of short term domestic political expediency) almost above all else, that's fine but recognise that such a doctrine has its flaws. And also remember while the US were initially welcome in Iraq, that warm glow faded pretty fast, for a number of reasons.

I don't really understand your reference to insurgency (in the context of shock and awe), because as you say the two are entirely different concepts with the latter not necessarily entirely the result of the former.

The fact is, some things need to be done, and considering only one country has the arsenal to do it, we all know it falls to the USA. The european countries may whine and complain overtly, but in private, they will be thanking their lucky stars that a radical islamist regime will not have nuclear weapons, to put on to cruise missiles which will eventually have the range to put all of europe within reach.

Are you sure about that, any of it?

The real 'fact' is ... that facts are the key elements almost entirely missing from this picture. Do you think Europe is alone in having cause for concern about any number of scenarios which may stem from unchecked or worse, unknown nuclear proliferation in the Mid East?

Doesn't change the fact that if Iran really wanted a peaceful energy program they would be happily only trying to enrich uranium to 5%...not to weapons grade near 100% enriched.

No it doesn't. But assuming it's for hostile intent it also makes no difference to the issue at hand, how to defuse a potentially explosive situation. I doubt a military pissing contest is of much use, for the reasons already well known to all concerned.

I am surprised someone would posit such an absurd parallel between aerial bombardment and invasion, which are two very different military actions.

But I didn't posit such a parallel, yes they are different, in a similar sense that the army is different to the air force, and in a campaign such as you're implying neither could be used in isolation, they work in concert. No, I was suggesting that a 'my guns are bigger than your guns' argument, therefore I'll win, was terribly short-sighted because while it may achieve short term 'victory' from a purely military perspective, it appeared to ignore the broader repercussions.

The possible consequences of a US invasion of Iran could eclipse Iraq by an order of magnitude. I'd imagine a few of the US top brass would quit before being party to such a misadventure, especially if it was seen as Bush's last twitch in office.

I'm suggesting, essentially, that as a viable, long term solution to this broad issue, a wholesale campaign of blowing shit up, however expedient it may appear to some, is unlikely to be the strongest candidate.

 

[Flashy]

No you didn't, I did. But, unless you're seriously suggesting the two would act independently or in opposition in such a scenario, shall we move on.



That was almost exactly my point.



Yes, and no. But, again, my point was that after 'shock and awe' (the 'razzamatazz'), comes the real, hard, dirty in your face long terms on the ground strategic work, and with due respect it's not something at which the US military excels.

In no small part because it typically follows a doctrine of force protection (often hamstrung in support of short term domestic political expediency) almost above all else, that's fine but recognise that such a doctrine has its flaws. And also remember while the US were initially welcome in Iraq, that warm glow faded pretty fast, for a number of reasons.

I don't really understand your reference to insurgency (in the context of shock and awe), because as you say the two are entirely different concepts with the latter not necessarily entirely the result of the former.



Are you sure about that, any of it?

The real 'fact' is ... that facts are the key elements almost entirely missing from this picture. Do you think Europe is alone in having cause for concern about any number of scenarios which may stem from unchecked or worse unknown nuclear proliferation in the Mid East?



No it doesn't. But assuming it's for hostile intent it also makes no difference to the issue at hand, how to defuse a potentially explosive situation. I doubt a military pissing contest is of much use, for the reasons already well known to all concerned.



But I didn't posit such a parallel, yes they are different, in a similar sense that the army is different to the air force, and in a campaign such as you're implying neither could be used in isolation, they work in concert. No, I was suggesting that a 'my guns are bigger than your guns' argument, therefore I'll win, was terribly short-sighted because while it may achieve short term 'victory' from a purely military perspective, it appeared to ignore the broader repercussions.

The possible consequences of a US invasion of Iran could eclipse Iraq by an order of magnitude. I'd imagine a few of the US top brass would quit before being party to such a misadventure, especially if it was seen as Bush's last twitch in office.

I'm suggesting, essentially, that as a viable, long term solution to this broad issue, a wholesale campaign of blowing shit up, however expedient it may appear to some, is unlikely to be the strongest candidate.

so then what exactly are you and i arguing about? :smile:

My assertion is only that

1. Israel would most definitely be involved, however in the least overt way possible...i.e. (intelligence, ground level intelligence, possibly special forces, but no aircraft likely)

2. I see any operation combining a high level assault on Iran, from the U.S. forces and bases that now ring them in several countries, being ultimately more successful then waiting till they actually have the bomb...by then it will obviously be too late.

We have nothing to really negotiate with them for, since what they want, (the bomb) is what we don't want them to have.


Ultimately, maybe the Brits will be with us, but it is something we are going to have to do sooner rather than later.

A radical islamist regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The potential consequence is simply too great.

 

[B_New End]

The possible consequences of a US invasion of Iran could eclipse Iraq by an order of magnitude. I'd imagine a few of the US top brass would quit before being party to such a misadventure, especially if it was seen as Bush's last twitch in office.

possible consequences would be world outcry, perhaps even embargo, as it would Appear americas bloodlust knows no bounds.

it would also guarantee an increase in terrorist attacks worldwide.

the retaliation could be quite a surprise in Iraq, the Shiite uprising could start making American casualties in the orders of dozens per day, on the level of Vietnam, and even possibly the loss of ships. Iran has chosen a very unsexy, but efficient strategic gamble on missile technologies, and their missiles are very good.. as demonstrated in Lebanon, when an Israeli anti-missile ship was damaged and had to go home.

In fact, any Israeli airstrike would pretty much allow Iran to declare war on the US, especially since the US would probably allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to reach Iran. Iran would be completely justified in declaring war on both.

So it would have to be a full out, shock and awe joint venture by both the US and Israel, Osiris style attacks are out of the question. this would mean full scale war.