Mofaz: Israel attack on Iran 'unavoidable' if nuclear program continued

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of Western sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said Friday.

"If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff who later served as defense minister.

It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should United Nations Security Council sanctions fail to achieve the desired abandonment of nuclear development by Tehran."

more

[LakeSamish706]

1. And maybe Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth with that attitude! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

2. One of these days the entire human race may wipe itself off the face of the earth...

But I certainly hope not!

I also hope neither Iran nor Israel attacks each other.

[LakeSamish706]

4. You and me as well, and I wish like hell they would stop with this attack talk....

Israel has weapons of mass destruction (nukes) and they are not supposed to either, so why do they think that they have so much say in what Iran does?

[LeftishBrit]

7. Perhaps it would help if the Iranian leaders weren't constantly rattling their sabres as well!

I don't like the warmongers on either side, or the treatment of either country as some sort of special bogeynation. But at least Israel, even when dangerously hawkish, doesn't state that 'the criminal Persian entity' has intrinsically no right to exist in any form - in contrast with Ahmadinejad's continual remarks about 'the criminal Zionist entity'.

I am less pessimistic than some, in that I am reasonably sure that, whatever happens, neither Israel nor Iran will ever nuke each other, as nuking a close neighbour will bring dangerous fallout to one's own country - quite apart from the likelihood of retaliation.

However, though nuclear war is unlikely, non-nuclear war is possible and is quite bad enough.

[LakeSamish706]

10. But the thing that the Israel's have to understand is that President Ahmadinejad...

basically does not have much power anyway... It is Ayatollah Ali Khamanei who holds the power in Iran and with this in mind it is against the Koran to posses nuclear weapons......

[LeftishBrit]

11. Sorry - to be fair I think I know what you mean...

but it's a little funny to think of the Koran laying down rules about nuclear weapons!

But *in spirit* both the Bible ("Blessed are the peacemakers") and the Koran are against such things as nuclear war. This, however, has sadly not prevented predominantly Christian nations (e.g. the USA, Britain, France) or Muslim nations (Pakistan) from possessing nuclear weapons.

As I said earlier, the threat of 'self-assured destruction' by nuclear fallout will do far more to prevent nuclear war than religious laws.

[TomClash]

3. This would be a

profound violation of international law, especially as the UN has not produced evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It is an unprovoked act of war. Sound familiar?

It is the ultimate irony that a nation with at least 150 nuclear weapons will attack another nation for allegedly obtaining "technology with bomb-making potential."

[sabbat hunter]

6. we do know

via the UN that Iran is enriching uranium. Now the question is to what level are they enriching it? to the level needed for a lightwater nuclear power reactor or for weapons (which requires the uranium to be more highly enriched)

Also Iran is a signatory to the NPT so if they are making weapons grade uranium, they would be in violation of that treaty. (note Israel is not a signatory to that treaty)

[azurnoir]

8. If Israels weapons are OK

because Israel did not sign any treaties, then it would seem that all Iran has to do is withdraw from the treaty it did sign, like Bush did with the ICC. In fact perhaps not just Iran but any Arab League country who signed the non-proliferation treaty should with draw, then they could all have nukes, balance of power and all that:sarcasm:

Thanks though I knew someone would explain why Israels nukes were OK, Iran's or any other country in the region weren't

[sabbat hunter]

12. Iran

isnt an arab country.

[azurnoir]

13. Gee really Iran isn't an Arab country

I thought hat's why Iranians were also called Persians:sarcasm:, or could be that 's why I wrote "any Arab League country" to separate the two, sorry you misunderstood

[Shaktimaan]

15. That's true.

Any state can leave the NPT after giving 90 days notice, one of the reasons the NPT provides poor protection from those who would wish to skirt the rules for their own gain of nukes. Of course they would have to develop nukes before they left the NPT because once they leave they can not legally obtain any more supplies or nuclear material for their reactors.

Considering that Israel has no intention of using nukes at all, it doesn't seem worth the political and economic backlash for any state wishing to do real business with the west to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't really give them anything in the way of security unless the state has no plan to engage the west in peaceful economic trade and development, like N. Korea or Iran.

[azurnoir]

17. Or China n/t

[TomClash]

9. Thank you -I am familiar with this argument

Let's assume you are correct in all your assertions.

Then let's assume Iran is enriching uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

Under no circumstances does international law allow a nation to strike another nation for violations of international law without UN Security Council authority unless attack or humanitarian catastrophe is imminent and there is no moment for deliberation.

[yellowwood]

5. Not without the help of the United States

Here's the point. The United States provides a lot of money for Israel. If the United States and the United Nations didn't support an attack, Israel would be a "rogue state," which means that Americans could not send money privately, either. And what would Israel do then, poor thing?

[Shaktimaan]

16. Why?

Israel did this before, without the support of the US or UN, and while they were roundly chastised for it they were hardly labeled a rogue state. In fact, they recently did this in Syria.

It would take a lot more than Israel attacking Iran over this issue for Israel to become labeled a rogue state by the entire world. Yes, it would be an illegal attack and yes, people would be really pissed off at Israel. But realistically, if they knew that Iran was really developing nuclear weapons then they don't have much of a choice in the matter.

Iran has been none-too-subtle in their threats lately, predicting Israel's imminent demise. Worse, they have been supplying Israel's enemies with hi-tech weapons and training which have been used in attacks against her recently. It is in Israel's best interests to try every other possible avenue of preventing Iran from obtaining nukes first, but should they fail at that then they'll probably have very few options aside from attacking their nuclear facilities directly. A nuclear weapons armed Iran is not something that Israel can reasonably risk. And I doubt that America would chastise Israel in any meaningful way. We would be none-too-secretly happy about it.

[Scurrilous]

14. U.S. rejects Mofaz comments on 'unavoidable' Iran strike

<snip>

"White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday that the United States was committed to solving the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomatic multilateral means.

Perino was responding to comments made earlier Friday by Transportation Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said that an Israeli attack on Iran appeared "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential.

"I understand that Israel is very concerned about their future and their safety when they have a neighbor in their region - Iran - that says they want to wipe them off the map," Perino told reporters. "We are trying to solve this diplomatically," she explained.

Asked whether the United States was keeping military options open as a last resort with Iran, she said U.S. President George W. Bush had always said he "would never take any options off the table" but that Washington was pursuing multilateral diplomacy.

"The international community deserves to have the verification that that is true," she said of Iran's assertions that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful.

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel, asked specifically whether the United States would support an Israeli strike on Iran, said, "I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals. I think we've been pretty clear in recent weeks and months about our approach on Iran."

more