Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

[occuserpens]

Killing NPT one threat at a time

ISRAEL'S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

Uzi Mahnaimi, Sarah Baxter. Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3182412,00.html

[jaysunb]

1. This would be a disaster

for the whole world.......

[cantstandbush]

2. So what does Israel care about the whole world? n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Almost as great a disaster as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with deliverable nukes

and I am capable of distinguishing between a targeted strike against munitions works and a general strike against population centers. (Hint: There is a diference in degree and also under international humanitarian law - but do not take my word - I may be biased and/or uninformed - get Louis Henkin's "Cases and Materials On International Law."

[Darranar]

4. Which he will use, if Israel tries to strike "pre-emptively."

This sort of reckless aggression is what could well cause a nuclear war.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. Which is why neither side will use them

unless it feels its survival is at stake.

Sharon may be a bully and a high stakes gambler, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have his own psychological problems -- but neither one is that crazy or fanatic.

[occuserpens]

6. Yes, there are lots of differences

<I am capable of distinguishing between a targeted strike against munitions works and a general strike against population centers.>


However,
-- Tageted strikes send international law to hell
-- Why repeat? Khomeinists won't wink.
-- Consequence-wise, striking Iran is not much different from striking N.Korea.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Say again please

Dialog

I posted--

I am capable of distinguishing between a targeted strike against munitions works and a general strike against population centers.

You responded

However,
--Tageted strikes send international law to hell

I am really not following you. If, as you state (and I do not disagree) "Tageted strikes send international law to hell", then general strikes at civilian targets, not against specific military targets is a war crime as an act of aggressive war.

And the argument that all Israelis are in the reserves therefore all Israelis are legal targets is so legally incorrect as to be deranged- even Gonzales wouldn't make that kind of argument and expect to keep his Bar License.

References:

1. Louis Henkin et al., Cases and Materials on Internatinal Law
2. Burdick Brittin, International Law for Seagoing Officers

[occuserpens]

12. Why unrelated issues?

<If, as you state (and I do not disagree) "Targeted strikes send international law to hell">

OK, this is perfectly true. Unlike propaganda, military strike against any targets in another country is an act of war. This is exactly like with Pearl Harbor!

<then general strikes at civilian targets, not against specific military targets is a war crime as an act of aggressive war.>

-- There is no if-then relationship here, these issues are not related. I have no idea why you start discussing this issue, it has nothing to do with my argumentation.

<And the argument that all Israelis are in the reserves therefore all Israelis are legal targets is so legally incorrect as to be deranged- even Gonzales wouldn't make that kind of argument and expect to keep his Bar License.>

Same. I have no idea what all this has to do with my argumentation.

[sabbat hunter]

5. back in 1982

israel attacked iraq in a targeted strike on their nuclear facilities. i dont think anyone here on DU thinks that strike was wrong. Iran is a rogue nation who if they dont develop a nuclear bomb themselves may very well give nuclear material to terror groups they support for a dirty bomb and claim no responsibility for it.

on the other hand if israel does strike iran and sucessfully destroy its nuclear facility, it probably will embolden iran to do more secretive building in the future.


a tough decision. but i think that too many nations already have nuclear weapons and this must be stopped. hopefully peacefully.

[Wordie]

9. And then the denials...sorta...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475720368&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Israel denies plans to attack Iran
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND AP

The British Sunday Times reported Sunday that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered the IDF to prepare to attack Iran's nuclear facilities at the end of March 2006, after Israeli intelligence supposedly discovered a number of secret uranium enrichment sites that were disguised as civilian buildings.

In response to the Sunday Times article, Maj.Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's foreign policy department, said in an interview to Israel Radio that while a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities could not be ruled out, Israel was a partner in international diplomatic efforts to address the threat from Teheran.

The article goes on to say that ElBaradei, UN nuclear watchdog chief warned Israel (without directly mentioning Israel's name) against such action in remarks he made on Saturday. He was at the time in Oslo, Norway, where he accepted the Nobel prize, awarded jointly to him and the IAEA.

"You cannot use force to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear weapons. By bombing them half to death, you can only delay the plans," he was quoted as saying by the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten. "But they will come back, and they will demand revenge."

Israeli officials declined to respond to the report directly, but Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissin did say, "Israel has no intention of launching an attack against Iran, definitely not before all diplomatic options have been exhausted."

Well, that last statement was definitive, wasn't it?

[Coastie for Truth]

10. I trust Sharon and his Kadimiaists more then I trust Bush and his Neocons

The article states

Israeli officials declined to respond to the report directly, but Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissin did say, "Israel has no intention of launching an attack against Iran, definitely not before all diplomatic options have been exhausted."

I would not believe that from Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfield, Bolton, Libby, etc. If they said - sitting on stack of Bibles "The US has no intention of launching an attack against (fill in the blank), definitely not before all diplomatic options have been exhausted." I would translate that as "The US has no intention of launching an attack against (fill in the blank) until the cruise missile submarines are on station."

But, the great deterrent for Israel is three fold

(1)A first strike by Israel would not, in all likelihood, take out all of Iran's capability -- they would still have enough left for a "second strike."
(2) A second strike by Iran would destroy Israel -- and kill lots of Palestinians in gaza and the WB, and lots of Egyptians and Lebanese and Syrians, and Jordanians, and audis. Distances are small - there are counties in the West bigger then Israel.
(3) Likewise for a first strike by Iran.

Mutually assured destruction.

Where were you on October 28, 1962?

[Wordie]

13. I would not trust either.

I quoted the article: ... Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissin did say, "Israel has no intention of launching an attack against Iran, definitely not before all diplomatic options have been exhausted." ...to point out the internal contradiction in the statement. To say there is no intent at all to launch an attack, means there is no intent, period. To then go on to add the qualifier of when one might attack is to demolish the entire denial anyway, isn't it? So, this doesn't appear to be a denial at all.

Consequently, it still appears to me that the neocons and Bush, and the Sharon forces are pretty much on the same wavelength.

You mention that such hawkish statements are deterrents for Israel, but you appear to fail to see how the statements by Israel about bombing Iran can also easily be seen as threats by Iran, thus increasing the pressure on Iran to continue its nuclear program. Israel has been making such statements for a while: does it appear to have helped?

And as for this:
Mutually assured destruction.

Where were you on October 28, 1962?

Mutually assured destruction = mad (and it is madness that propels us on such a path).
And on or about that date there is a strong possibility I was hiding terrified under my school desk, crouched down on my knees with my arms crossed over my head (a pacifist is born due to "drop drills" - I'm probably not the only one). Who is to say we would be as lucky again, and that this conflict would have the same outcome?

[Coastie for Truth]

14. I remember exactly where I was

Where were you on October 28, 1962?

Mutually assured destruction = mad (and it is madness that propels us on such a path).

And on or about that date there is a strong possibility I was hiding terrified under my school desk, crouched down on my knees with my arms crossed over my head (a pacifist is born due to "drop drills" - I'm probably not the only one). Who is to say we would be as lucky again, and that this conflict would have the same outcome?

Second floor of "Science Hall" in the Organic Chem lab doing some silly lab exercise - with the portable radio playing.

And I had class mates who were ROTC cadets and also Reservists.

[Wordie]

15. Ok...and your reply to my points??? eom

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Mutually assured destruction works

as long as each side assumes it has something to lose. This is the gist of Henry Kissinger's PhD dissertation (Henry Alfred Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy by Kissinger, - yes, I do have a copy, and I have read it ;))

[Wordie]

17. Do you see Henry Kissenger as a progressive source? eom

Edited for brevity/clarity.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. That is not a relevant question

although DUers get all hung up on the politics of the sources. I see him as a factual and knowledgeable source, and one who has studied the "models" of "mutually assured destruction" and "deterrence."

And, if one assumes some degree of rationality on the part of the actors, his "models" have fit the data pretty well for over 50 years.

(Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction "probably" go out the window with "non-state actors" - but Iran is a state actor)

[Wordie]

19. Oh yeah? HK's model molded our Vietnam policy. How'd that work out?

And why is it that the "politics of the sources" are only deemed irrelevant when the particular source doesn't support one's own position? (Perhaps we are all somewhat guilty of this.)

And, speaking of deterrence, what about the death penalty, the other instance in which the "deterrence" argument is frequently used. Do you think deterrence is a viable approach in that case as well?

Unfortunately, because a source is "knowledgeable" does not necessarily mean that source is right. There are knowledgeable sources on both sides of most political arguments.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Gee - I'm sorry

Didn't mean to give you a hard time. See my usual meme about Bronislaw Malinowski's "Argonauts...." as a teaching tool in my freshman history class back in the 1950's. -- Read widely, many sources, compare, contrast, analyze, synthesize.

One does not need to agree with a Marx's analysis to use it as one of many analytical tools - same with Kissinger's analysis.

You first asked "HK's model molded our Vietnam policy. How'd that work out?". Our VietNam policy was NOT about "mutually assured destruction" and "deterrence" but about the "domino theory" and "containment." A pair of failed cold war doctrines.

As a harassment technique one could easily go to and use it as a start off point to Wheatcroft's review of Fisk's "The Great War for Civilization" in today's -
especially the critical attacks - almost ad hominems, viz., "For most of the 1970's and 80's he worked for The Times of London, covering Belfast before he moved to the Middle East in 1976. Eleven years later he switched papers, and has since then been writing for The Independent, which has itself changed character since its birth less than 20 years ago and is now a daily version of the weekly "viewspapers," using its front page more for campaigning and debate than for hard news. Fisk fits in there very snugly."(and continuing on for several paragraphs).

You have answered your question "And why is it that the "politics of the sources" are only deemed irrelevant when the particular source doesn't support one's own position?" It as, as you correctly observed "Perhaps we are all somewhat guilty of this."

You also posited "And, speaking of deterrence, what about the death penalty, the other instance in which the "deterrence" argument is frequently used. Do you think deterrence is a viable approach in that case as well?" which is a shift in logic - since I had positively stated "(Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction "probably" go out the window with "non-state actors" - but Iran is a state actor".

While I agree that "Unfortunately, because a source is "knowledgeable" does not necessarily mean that source is right. There are knowledgeable sources on both sides of most political arguments." - when you completely disregard the source you do so at the risk of throwing out some gems. Even Halper and Clarke, which you cited in while not probative for the purpose cited - did have two snippets about the early pre-history of the neocon movement. (The NYU "Alcove 1- Alcove 2" snippet, and the disorder of the 1960's).

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

22. ...

While I agree that "Unfortunately, because a source is "knowledgeable" does not necessarily mean that source is right. There are knowledgeable sources on both sides of most political arguments." - when you completely disregard the source you do so at the risk of throwing out some gems. Even Halper and Clarke, which you cited in When in I/P, I look at I/P issues...so here's a link while not probative for the purpose cited - did have two snippets about the early pre-history of the neocon movement. (The NYU "Alcove 1- Alcove 2" snippet, and the disorder of the 1960's).

The issue is what you find relevent - their politics or some gravitas they bring to the situation. The trick of course is knowing what the limitations are of the source. Even some sources which people think useful are actually very weak for one of several reasons or can only be used in very limited context.

To take an example of such a source outside the relevance of I/P, consider Barbara Tuchman's book _A Distant Mirror_, which supposedly takes a glimpse of the 14th Century and attempts to show relevance to today. The general public and lay-reader goes ape over it, historians of the period grimace at the sloppiness of the research, over-generalizations, inconsistencies, errors and even novelization. It is a book by someone who could publish something "academic" outside of the normal academic channels and peer review process (ie mass-publication). As such at best it just captures the flavor of some elements, at worse it results in erroneous statements. It is generally not useful for citation at anything beyond the lower-undergraduate level.


L-

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Similarly

1. One can use either Marx's "religion is the opiate of the working class" or Frank's analysis What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America when discussing the Bush-Rove political capture of the evangelicals. And that does not make one a Marxist.

Although I prefer Rev. Forrest Church and Rev. Jim Wallis and Rabbi Michael Lerner and Thomas Frank to Marx - Marx's analysis of using religion to divert the working class is still valid.

2. Similarly, one can analyze oil autocrats of the ME using the first chapter of Marx without being a Marxist or suggesting a Marxist remedy.

[bemildred]

37. There is no accurate and complete description of the truth.

That is a covenient fiction in history as it is in science.

There is only what is illuminating or useful, and what is not.

Any attempt to be accurate also requires that one also be complex. Even where the hinges of events, the levers that move history are well-defined, they are so only in the context in which they operate, which must also be examined with care. The pebble that starts a landslide is only in a shallow sense the cause of the landslide.

And of course it must be admitted that writers in all times and places, many of them, are dishonest of biased in one degree or another, and their words cannot be trusted.

I've been reading Gibbon, 1500 pages for $9.95, great stuff, and intesting to contrast with J. B. Bury and others on the same period and places.

[Wordie]

26. Thanks for the apology.

...and perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comments about HK. Let me correct that here. He was instrumental in shaping our Vietnam policy. His modeling ability in general is therefore suspect, imho. Generally, I put more faith in progressive sources.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Like Halper and Clarke?? NT

[Wordie]

39. Cambridge University Press considers their work of sufficient gravitas to

publish (Halper and Clarke). I'm sure a multitude of posts with a zillion reasons why they are not acceptable sources will ensue. Hey, go for it. I say, let the reader decide.
http://www.cambridge.org:80/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521838347

[bemildred]

40. Heh. Cato is not exactly a "progressive" source.

But they sometimes have something interesting to say. That looks like an interesting book, although I already see several bones to pick in the blurbs, e.g. "neocon thought" is an oxymoron.

[Wordie]

41. True, but they seem almost leftist relative to hyper-hawkish Kissinger.

It was primarily the highly "non-progressive" nature of Kissinger to which I referred in the earlier comment. Perhaps my comment was too backhanded to be entirely clear. I believe Kissinger's overall model of how the world works has been proven by events to be deeply flawed.

I also think that it is a good idea to get info from a variety of sources, and that even sources with which I generally don't agree often have a POV on a particular issue which can offer valuable food for thought.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Defense Min. official: No plan to attack Iran 'at the moment'

To believe the story published by Rupert Murdoch's The Times of London, one has to presume that Israel has allowed Murdoch access to secret information that Israel has never shared with anyone in the past.

Defense Min. official: No plan to attack Iran 'at the moment'

By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press

The senior Defense Ministry official for diplomatic policy refrained Sunday from ruling out a future Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, saying that "at the moment" the emphasis was on international diplomatic pressure, and that the details in a British newspaper report saying plans were being prepared for such an operation appeared "more imaginary than real."

Army Radio, meanwhile, quoted officials of the Prime Ministers Office and the Defense Ministry as denying the report by the Sunday Times, which wrote that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told military officials to prepare for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear targets to take place at the end of March.

The Times said it received confirmation from military officials that both ground and air forces would be employed to impede Iran's nuclear development. The paper said the intelligence was gleaned in part from cross-border operations apparently launched from Iraq, and from what it said was a base established by Israelis in northern Iraq.

<snip>

An attack on Iran at this time would coincide with general elections in Israel, which are set to take place on March 28. In 1981, days before Israeli elections, then-prime minister Menachem Begin ordered an air strike on Iraq's nuclear facility in Osirak, near Baghdad. As a result of the attack, which was strongly supported by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon, Iraq's nuclear armament plan was thwarted.

Referring to the Sunday Times report, Defense Ministy diplomatic policy chief Amos Gilad said that with respect to the description of "The order that was given, linked to a date, an operation in north Iraq - this appears more imaginary than real."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/656093.html

[shraby]

23. Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.

The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.

(more)
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html>

What gives them the idea that Iran will just sit there and wait for them to attack? Some time ago, Iran said they reserve the right to pre-empt any attack. Farther into the article it says Russia is selling arms to Iran.

[MidwestTransplant]

24. Iran has a limited first strike capability.

Their best weapon would be asymmetrical attacks like terrorist attacks.

[tocqueville]

25. That's exactly what Iran wants

the strikes are not likely to really hurt Iran. But it will give them a good reason to turn the Hamas loose, besides creating havoc in Iraq, just for fun. Why do you think the little corpral is yelling at Israel from his Iranian tribune ?

[eyl]

32. "Turn Hamas loose"?

In cae you've missed it, Iran is already (and has been for decades) sponsoring attacks against Israel (something which is considered an "act of aggression" by the UN, BTW).

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Puh-leaze....

Like anyone cares, other than RW operatives in the Democratic party, care if what you say is true! There are no UNSC admonitions against Iran, so it must be a lie! :sarcasm:

[Wordie]

28. sheesh, pre-emption.

Iran said they reserve the right to pre-empt any attack

Gee, that sounds familiar. I wonder where they got that idea?

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Any difference?

"I will destroy your gun cabinet!"

you: "I will destroy your house!"

Are those claims the same?

[Wordie]

30. well, I actually was referring to Bush.

...and his new policies. ...and where Iraq may have picked up the idea that a policy of pre-emption might be a good one. ...and how can we argue, now?

It looks like you were thinking of Israel. And, this being the I/P forum, I can understand why you would think that.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. Understanding.

It is IP. So the assumption is not just justified by the forum, but the title of the post "Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran."

Considering the title of the post, I wonder why I was thinking of Israel?

[Wordie]

38. Can't argue w/ your assumption,as I said. At the same time, it was hardly

unreasonable for me to think of Bush, as the US too, is a player on this particular stage. No need to belabor the point any further, imho.

[guidod]

34. ISRAEL has been poised for an attack

for years now. There's nothing but rederic coming from both sides now. The new President of Iran is trying to stir up fear between the two countries. This is not the first time this has happened.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Be sure to read...

...the link provided in the OP at this link.