TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington


ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran�s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear �bunker-busters�, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open �tunnels� into the targets. �Mini-nukes� would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

�As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,� said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad�s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran�s nuclear programme:

Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment

A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran�s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a �second Holocaust�.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that �Israel must be wiped off the map�.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a �last resort�, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel�s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval �after the event�, as it did when it crippled Iraq�s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran�s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world�s oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: �The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.�

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310_1,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ok we know alot of you like to rip into Israel every chance
you get but let's keep it in your pants and not let your panties
get in a bunch. Let's stay civilizied ladies.

A nuclear Iran would not help stabilise the world.
But instead of tactical nukes these weapons would be better:
New Bomb Drills for Bunkers
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002177.html

I don't think they are negotiating in good faith:
Iranian negotiator boasts of fooling Europeans
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006...1493547376.html

I can't find the article but it's been stated widely that
if Persian Shite Iran gets nuclear weapons, Sunni nations
like Jordan, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and others would begin
developing their own to counter Iran's which wants to be
a bigger power in the region and influence the others.

Moderates in recent elections have won over allies of the
Iranian President, seems the populace has seen where his
etremist policies has gotten them and they don't like it.
Ahmadinejad Opponents Leading Elections
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061218/D8M39GHO0.html

Before people accuse others of hating Iranians, think it's
safe to say the Iranian people are good decent people, it's
just their 'leaders' are too hardline. And reformists are
banned from running in elections on top of other controls.
Sure you complain about Bush getting more power over people
but THEY have it REAL bad and you'd be even more furious if
you lived under those conditions. We have it easy compared
to them.

Also they like other cowards place these facilities in
populated areas. Just like terrorists use mosques and human
shields for their purposes. It is their responsibility
if civilians are hurt because they place it in the middle
of population centers. They put them in danger.

Dang, you just beat me to this article - I was about to post it as well.

This is, to say the least, a bit troubling no matter how pro-Israeli one might be. I would also say the backlash on Israel would be pretty intense not just by her enemies but her allies as well. Throwing nukes around via Bush Doctrine means is a pretty dangerous step in the wrong direction. Furthermore, most analyst reports indicate that Iran is at least 8-10 years away from successfully creating a nuke anyway. Taking such a drastic step of nuking Iran, let alone killing countless numbers of innocent civilians either with the blast itself or the radiation and fallout that proceeds it simply cannot happen.

I also recall the most recent elections (to which DevilDog posted here a coupla weeks ago) that demonstrated the will of the Iranian people directly countering the extremist leaders in Iran.

Besides, can someone explain how Israel has nukes to begin with? Isn't that against a few U.N. Resolutions, by chance?

With all that said, I do not deny that Israel has every right to protect itself. I also think that their involvement with engaging Iran versus the U.S. engaging Iran, sadly, might actually be the lesser of two major problems. It's easy to see how a number of pundits and neoconservatives deliberately tangle up Israeli problems as being 100% U.S. problems as well. While one cannot deny that there is a shared number of issues between Israel and the U.S., I think the degree of what those issues are shared needs to be separated a bit more.

So while I don't necessarily disagree entirely with Israel engaging Iran, I simply cannot agree with the extreme stance of nuclear warfare is the most viable answer. The consequences are just too great at this time. It seems that diplomacy and summit talks are such a thing of the past anymore.

I agree.

The use of even ONE tac-nuke is enough to spin a whole lot of resentment from all angles and justifiably so.

All I can say is that Israel's preemptive strike (sans nuke) better have concrete evident before they do it however Iran's (read Iran's current government) doesn't give everyone the warm fuzzies either...

With regards to a potential middle east nuclear arms race, I think it would be interesting to see what the political spin on the situation would be. If Iran were to get a nuke, then as mentionned before, the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians and maybe even the Turks would want them.

These countries are all friendly to the US and it's interests.

My question is would the US change it's tune on the allowance of nulear weapons because these countries are buddies? There certainly wouldn't be talk of sanctions against the Saudis...

All in all, any nukes in the region are destabilising to say the least, and I'm honestly surprised that bombs haven't been bought somehow instead of developing them yourself.

A pre-emptive strike on Iran (nuclear or not) would have to carry some seriously damnning evidence that Israel should have to prove publicly, otherwise sanctions should be brought on them (though I doubt the US would allow that lol)

Wow, a nuke strike? I never want to see that. A nuke test sent the entire world into a frenzy. The real thing will turn everything upside-down.

Just another example of Western hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Just another example of Western hypocrisy.

where were you in 1981?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo where were you in 1981?

Not yet born lol .

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse My question is would the US change it's tune on the allowance of nulear weapons because these countries are buddies?

It's already happening. Egypt got the go-ahead from the US a few months ago to develop its own nuclear arsenal, and Israel hasnt resisted that option either.

If Israel were to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities (and it's a big if), you can expect Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, as well as the country of Turkey, to be somewhat in the loop. While there would be outrage in Arabic and Moslim media, the leaders of many Middle Eastern countries would actually be happy with Israel's decision as it would save them from trying to take down Iran themselves. Same deal with Europe and the US, and this is one of the main reasons why back in the 60s France supplied Israel with nukes to begin with.

Do I think this will actually happen? Not necessarily, as there are many forces within Iran that are trying to bring back a more moderate leadership. Former Iranin leader, Khatami, who has decent/good ties with the West, just stated the other day that Iran's current problem should be blamed on Ahmedanijad. Many in Iran are also embarassed by the recent holocaust denial conference that took place in Tehran. The Arab media didnt come out and say it directly, but it too frowned upon such an extreme conference.
Several years back, I also recall that when Iran called for the elimination of Israel, even the PLO condoned the statements, and said it recognizes Israel as a country.

If Syria and Israel will enter into peace talks in the coming years, and you can bet Egypt and the Saudis will try to make it happen (alongside the US), Iran will have a much tougher time threatening Israel. Once Syria and Israel enter into a peace agreement, Lebanon, Sadi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE are also expected to follow suit quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Not yet born lol .

well, it shows.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles It's already happening. Egypt got the go-ahead from the US a few months ago to develop its own nuclear arsenal, and Israel hasnt resisted that option either. If Israel were to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities (and it's a big if), you can expect Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, as well as the country of Turkey, to be somewhat in the loop. While there would be outrage in Arabic and Moslim media, the leaders of many Middle Eastern countries would actually be happy with Israel's decision as it would save them from trying to take down Iran themselves. Same deal with Europe and the US, and this is one of the main reasons why back in the 60s France supplied Israel with nukes to begin with. Do I think this will actually happen? Not necessarily, as there are many forces within Iran that are trying to bring back a more moderate leadership. Former Iranin leader, Khatami, who has decent/good ties with the West, just stated the other day that Iran's current problem should be blamed on Ahmedanijad. Many in Iran are also embarassed by the recent holocaust denial conference that took place in Tehran. The Arab media didnt come out and say it directly, but it too frowned upon such an extreme conference. Several years back, I also recall that when Iran called for the elimination of Israel, even the PLO condoned the statements, and said it recognizes Israel as a country. If Syria and Israel will enter into peace talks in the coming years, and you can bet Egypt and the Saudis will try to make it happen (alongside the US), Iran will have a much tougher time threatening Israel. Once Syria and Israel enter into a peace agreement, Lebanon, Sadi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE are also expected to follow suit quickly.

+1

Bush just put an Admiral in charge of CENTCOM. what does that tell you people?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo where were you in 1981?

That's when Israel successfuly took down Iraq's nuclear facility. This implies that if Israel did something like this in the past, it might risk doing it again over in Iran.

Israel has nukes?I thought they a are a peaceful nation with no bad intentons?


I said it before I ll say it again,Israel has NO BALLS to do such attacks in Iran.If they are stupid enough to do so it ll turn into a bloody war for a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo +1

Agreed. Good analysis.

quote:

Bush just put an Admiral in charge of CENTCOM. what does that tell you people?

Coupla things. CENTCOM doesn't just include the Iraq War, but Iran as well. Any confrontation with Iran will most certainly entail Navy operations both maritime and air operations. Furthermore, it's quite strange to put a Navy leader in charge of two ground wars. IOW, Iran is very much in the crosshairs.

If anyone considered the neocons down and out after these most recent elections, if anyone thought they no longer whispered sweet nothings into Jr.'s ear, think again. Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, AEI, McCain, Lieberman, all very much in the game for at least the next two years:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/2...nation/15154990

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If anyone considered the neocons down and out after these most recent elections, if anyone thought they no longer whispered sweet nothings into Jr.'s ear, think again. Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, AEI, McCain, Lieberman, all very much in the game for at least the next two years:

thats the main difference between you and i. this whole effort since 9/11 has been about something much more substantial than winning power on Capitol Hill or looking good for the primaries or shaving off points for the latest poll.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer it ll turn into a bloody war for a long time.

can we hazard a guess on who's side you'll be on?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats the main difference between you and i. this whole effort since 9/11 has been about something much more substantial than winning power on Capitol Hill or looking good for the primaries or shaving off points for the latest poll.

Funny, you really should be telling that to your GOP members that wore out that 9/11 scare tactic/Dems. are pro-terrorist bullshit long ago.

And don't blame anyone but Bush himself for his shitty poll ratings - the guy's at 30% not because of anyone else but Bush. That excuse is beyond pathetic. I thought you and Bush were finished playing the little victim card?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well, it shows.

I think it's rather amusing (and sad) how an individual like yourself, someone much older than me, hasn't grown out of their juvenile, primitive, externally dependant & pathetically extroverted mindset. You've barely grown beyond the mentality of a high school sophmore. Not surprising coming from a brainwashed grunt like yourself. Phrases like "my leader" with a big smile on your face as a reference to corrupt oil men who stole an election to become Resident (aka President) demonstrate how little you've grown or evolved. You're a pathetic partisan hack, and a fucking savage as demonstrated by comments like "Some people deserve to be in naked human pyramids." Go fuck yourself you pathetic peice of shit. And get that fake Texan/Bush/NeoCon cock out of your mouth already. The jizz is oozing out of every oraphase in your body, it's rather unpleasant really. It obviosly flies out every time you open your mouth.

Interesting.

quote:

Navy Admiral Goes to CENTCOM: Be Very Afraid Also at Kos. The "new way forward" team is taking shape. Robert Gates is in as Secretary of Defense. John Negroponte will move from Director of National Intelligence to Assistant Secretary of State. Retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnell will take Negroponte's old job as DNI. Raw Story reports that Lieutenant General David Petraeus, the former day-to-day commander in Iraq, to replace General George Casey as the overall commander of U.S. forces in that country. The news that has everyone a bit agog is that the head of Central Command, General John Abizaid, will be relieved by Admiral William J. Fallon. ABC reports that "Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual." I think ABC is missing the point. It seems highly unusual for a navy admiral to take charge of CENTCOM until you consider two interrelated things. First is that Bush needs a senior four-star in the CENTCOM job who hasn't gone on record as opposing additional troops in Iraq. Second is that Fallon's CENTCOM area of responsibility will include Iran. A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia. If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it's "Fox" Fallon. No Check, No Balances The legislature's options for keeping Mr. Bush from sending more troops to Iraq is limited, but if he decides to unilaterally attack Iran, there's virtually nothing Congress can do to stop him. Bush and his legal beagle Alberto Gonzales could probably claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from September 2001 gives the executive power to exert armed force against Iran, especially given the echo chamber's recent rhetoric about Iran being responsible for the violence in Iraq. And if you've been listening closely enough, you've heard the subliminal message associating Iran with the 9/11 attacks. But Bush and Gonzales have a fallback position that's darn near bulletproof. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives a president up to 90 days to commit forces to combat without permission from Congress. Ironically, the resolution was passed in the wake of the Vietnam conflict to prevent a president from waging extended conflicts without a declaration of war or "specific statutory authorization" from Congress, but today it gives Bush all the ammunition he needs to start a war with Iran (or anyone else, for that matter) on his own say so. It's doubtful the Supreme Court could stop him; and even more doubtful that it would if it could. The only chance of checking whatever aggressive ambitions Bush may have on Iran would be a passive coup by the senior members of the administration's civilian and military security team through a group resignation, and hoping for that is, well, hopeless. After the latest round of musical deck chairs is complete, everybody still on board will have signed on to the program in blood (somebody else's, of course). What's even more frightening is that the escalation strategy--that includes more troops in Iraq, an expansion of the military and use of armed force against Iran--comes from the core neoconservative cabal headed by Bill Kristol and supported by Dick Cheney that got us into our Middle East miasma in the first place. # Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2007/0...om-be-very.html

I'd be hard-pressed to think the U.S. will be going to war with Iran anytime soon, however. Bush and the neocon ideologues have shown their utter failures with the current debacle in Iraq, not to mention the Taliban continuing to gain strength and the corrupt warlords still running the country of Afghanistan. The backlash of invading yet another country while being completely overstretched and bogged down in Iraq will be far too much for even the recalcitrant President to ignore. Then again, it will likely seal the deal and destroy the neoconservative movement in full - it just sucks it would be at the expense of so many on a number of different fronts.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I think it's rather amusing (and sad) how an individual like yourself, someone much older than me, hasn't grown out of their juvenile, primitive, externally dependant & pathetically extroverted mindset. You've barely grown beyond the mentality of a high school sophmore. Not surprising coming from a brainwashed grunt like yourself. Phrases like "my leader" with a big smile on your face as a reference to corrupt oil men who stole an election to become Resident (aka President) demonstrate how little you've grown or evolved. You're a pathetic partisan hack, and a fucking savage as demonstrated by comments like "Some people deserve to be in naked human pyramids." Go fuck yourself you pathetic peice of shit. And get that fake Texan/Bush/NeoCon cock out of your mouth already. The jizz is oozing out of every oraphase in your body, it's rather unpleasant really. It obviosly flies out every time you open your mouth.

don't cry because you aren't old enough to pass sound political and foreign policy judgement on a forum full of techno junkies. it's not your fault.

...and whats with your fixation on my cock and jizz?

if israel uses nukes it will be a disaster on so many levels. even the centrist moderates like myself will be calling for the death of israel

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'd be hard-pressed to think the U.S. will be going to war with Iran anytime soon, however.

i agree. if we do it won't be total war.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if israel uses nukes it will be a disaster on so many levels. even the centrist moderates like myself will be calling for the death of israel

Israel is aking itself would they rather be dead or hated...they're already hated.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I thought you and Bush were finished playing the little victim card?

not at all. i'm saying that polls aren't as important to him as they are to you.

congrats on the mid-terms btw, yall proved my point

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo not at all. i'm saying that polls aren't as important to him as they are to you. congrats on the mid-terms btw, yall proved my point

You're using that victim card again, Q. Don't blame anyone but the GOP's corruptness and lack of postwar planning in Iraq on the voters or the Democrats - have your GOP take a good hard look in the mirror. Actually, a healthy number of them already have and came to the same conclusions.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.