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.

___________________

Electric Zoo 2010! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVE-RutexSE

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

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.

___________________
"You won a new refrigerator, great! Where you gonna put it?" - Tony Danza

Just another example of Western hypocrisy.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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 .

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.