Analysis of the coming Israel, Iran tiff.

[aronnax]

If Israel really wants to find some way to forcibly stop Iran's nuclear program, I believe that they are more likely to use their intelligence and their version of the Secret Service to sabotage Iranian nuclear programs.

I believe that Israel knows that they cannot count on America for a while to try anything that might pull them into a massive war with Iran. Not while America is exhausted and Iraq is weak.

 

[Ramius75]

Iranian should really try to get Nuclear weapons... this will give them peace and security.

 

[Core Imposter]

Yeah, Israel will strike this year.

Every player in this has managed to paint themselves into a corner on this one and Obama is staring Bibi down from across the room. The only way to resolve this will entail blood.

The president has declared the US and Israel will act in lockstep on this one. I take that to mean that Israel has decided to go ahead in spite of Obama but have agreed to give a heads up.

All of Obama's policy is based on the date of the election. Recently Panetta announced those bunker busters didn't turn out just right and will have to be refitted. Take about a year. Just past the election, surprise, surprise.

I expect that those bombs are indeed mission ready and will be available for the spring strike. If Obama can't stop Bibi he will seek to control the outcome of this. The Saudi prince just pledged that they will increase production to ensure oil does not top $100/barrel regardless of events, this is the Saudi part in this process because Obama does not, above all other things, want to go to the polls with spiked gas prices.

It will have to happen in the spring because otherwise it will be too close to the election and Panetta already announced the schedule.

Iran is already putting troops into Syria, reversing position once again. Clinton has turned out to be an amazing hawk.

Its sure to be messy and I can't pretend to know how it turns out. Wide range of possible outcomes but imo near zero chance there won't be fireworks soon.

If we have a confrontation in the straits I almost hope we suffer some serious blows to our surface ships due to anti-ship missles. Almost but not quite because I don't want casualties but I really think that at this point the aircraft carrier is almost as obsolete as battleships were in WW2. Our military needs to cross the psychologial barrier of irrational belief in that doctrine and move on to the next evolution. Better to learn that lesson now than to wait and possibly learn it at the hands of the Chinese with a lot more at stake.

So, if you are cold bloodied enough, break out the popcorn and get ready to watch the show.

 

[Core Imposter]

Let me back up and say that its not clear as of yet if Iran has inserted significant Qods forces into Syria. If and when this happens and becomes clear I expect Clinton's head to explode. Que popcorn.

 

[Winner]

The 2 situations cannot in any way, shape, or form, be compared.....

Yes they can, and this is why I said that it all depends on the context.

Plus, history is written by the victors*. If Germany nuked Britain in 1940 to force its surrender, succeeded, and then still went on to lose the war, we certainly wouldn't read in our history books something like: "And then Adolf Hitler with heavy heart chose to use the newly developed atomic weapons. He knew a lot of innocent British civilians would die in Coventry and Bristol, the cities targeted for nuclear obliteration, but when he compared that with the estimated losses Wehrmacht and the British people would suffer in case of a full-scale invasion, he knew it was the right choice." Yeah, right

Spoiler :

(*I like to say that because it's my first name )

---

@Kaiserguard

Yes. Also, using small yield tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the most well-protected Iranian nuclear programme facilities would be nowhere as criminal as using nuclear weapons against primarily civilian targets.

It would still damage Israel terribly, but not as much as some Israel-haters choose to believe.

So, if you are cold bloodied enough, break out the popcorn and get ready to watch the show.

I will I've been waiting so long for this one, the big one.

 

[Core Imposter]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has more or less been commanded to appear before the Iranian parliament to answer for his handling of the economy. Might be tempting to hope he can be the fall guy and provide cover for Iran to back down. Not counting on it.

 

[Camikaze]

Not this debate again.

Moderator Action: Agreed.

Take it elsewhere please.

 

[HannibalBarka]

So the reasoning is basically:
1. Iranian are religious nuts that can not be trusted with nuclear weapons because they may have the bad idea of using them,
therefore,
2. the not religious and not nuts Israeli which can be trusted with nuclear weapons, are going to use them against religious and nuts Iranian pre emptively.
Brillant )

 

[Artifis]

I glanced through the article, and otago, the first thing I need to highlight is the date of the post: 8 November 2010. A lot has happened in the time since then. Syria, for instance, wasn't going through the convulsions of civil strife.

Secondly, I seriously doubt the Israelis will strike. With Egypt no longer an ally, relations with Turkey cold and an unstable Syria just next door, Israel is even more isolated than it ever was before. It can't even rely on the USA right now because of the election year. It would be madness to try attacking Iran.

Third, I think Iran knows just how a war would go for it, even if it had nuclear capabilities. Despite Israel being hated by the whole Middle East, Saudi Arabia detests Iran's guts too. And once open conflict starts, everyone will be drawn in because of the oil. Sure, Iran could possibly continue to profit from China for a while, but it will not be able to survive in the long run once the USA joins the conflict.

This being said, things are getting more tense as the Iranians continue developing their nuclear capabilities. And with Iran in the picture, I'm not sure that Mutually Assured Destruction would really apply...

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I just hope the Zionist Entity is utterly destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth, and the surviving Israeli citizens can go build a new Israel on Madagascar [Before they close all ports]. I dont care about Iran, as long as the Zionist blob is destroyed and a unified Palestine takes over. I'm also going to appeal in the case of war that my government declares war on Israel so they can see our might.

Moderator Action: Not at all appropriate. Please do not call for genocide. Banned for five days.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Silurian]

I just hope the Zionist Entity is utterly destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth, and the surviving Israeli citizens can go build a new Israel on Madagascar [Before they close all ports]. I dont care about Iran, as long as the Zionist blob is destroyed and a unified Palestine takes over. I'm also going to appeal in the case of war that my government declares war on Israel so they can see our might.

I don't think the USA is going to nuke Israel

 

[classical_hero]

I just hope the Zionist Entity is utterly destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth, and the surviving Israeli citizens can go build a new Israel on Madagascar [Before they close all ports]. I dont care about Iran, as long as the Zionist blob is destroyed and a unified Palestine takes over. I'm also going to appeal in the case of war that my government declares war on Israel so they can see our might.

This is what pisses me off about Muslims is that they can't even come to themselves to call them Israelites.

Moderator Action: Very trollish generalisation, not an appropriate comment at all.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

This is what pisses me off about Muslims is that they can't even come to themselves to call them Israelites.

When did a bunch of Europeans get a Time Machine and travel back over 2000 years to ancient Palestine? 'Israelites' refers to the biblical tribes, not the modern state. The modern term is Israeli, but Zionist Entity isn't a half-bad term if you are trying to distinguish between the physical-country of Israel and the idea-country of Israel.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: ...and time out.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Okay, you can continue, but please don't continue with the trollish/inappropriate posting.

 

[ParkCungHee]

'Israelites' refers to the biblical tribes, not the modern state. The modern term is Israeli

Who cares about them? The problem is that the Muslims they're concerned about the modern situation, rather then re-enacting the old testament.

 

[Winner]

So the reasoning is basically:
1. Iranian are religious nuts that can not be trusted with nuclear weapons because they may have the bad idea of using them,
therefore,
2. the not religious and not nuts Israeli which can be trusted with nuclear weapons, are going to use them against religious and nuts Iranian pre emptively.
Brillant )

It never ceases to amaze me how hard can the anti-Israel people try to relativize something that is so clear.

Iran is a pseudo-theocratic semi-totalitarian regime that seeks to arm itself with nuclear weapons in order to facilitate its pursuit of great power ambitions in the region. These ambitions go against vital Western interest and would in all likelihood lead to a war (a proper war, not that little skirmishes media have got used to calling "wars" these day). If Iran is armed with nuclear weapons and such a war erupts, the likelihood that they will be used goes up.

Israel is a pro-Western democracy (with some flaws) that faces many existential threats from pretty much everyone in the greater Middle East region. Its nuclear arsenal exists for purely defensive reasons and Israel is unlikely to ever use them unless its very existence is put to question.

So, anyone with any objectivity and comprehension of the situation left in them understand why nuclear Iran would be so much bigger a problem than nuclear Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

Israel is a pro-Western democracy (with some flaws) that faces many existential threats from pretty much everyone in the greater Middle East region. Its nuclear arsenal exists for purely defensive reasons and Israel is unlikely to ever use them unless its very existence is put to question.

Many Israel haters consider Israel's very existence to be undesirable, so that one's peanuts.

 

[HannibalBarka]

It never ceases to amaze me how hard can the anti-Israel people try to relativize something that is so clear.

nia nia nia

Iran is a pseudo-theocratic semi-totalitarian regime that seeks to arm itself with nuclear weapons in order to facilitate its pursuit of great power ambitions in the region.

The regime in place in Iran is not my favorite. I however had the impression that you however has no problem with fachist regime as long as they are friendly to you. You can't at the same praise Dictators like Assad and blame the Iranian for not having a Democracy

The fact that Iran as a state seeks to enhance its regional power ambition in ITS region is neither surprising nor shocking. All nations do the same.

These ambitions go against vital Western interest and would in all likelihood lead to a war (a proper war, not that little skirmishes media have got used to calling "wars" these day). If Iran is armed with nuclear weapons and such a war erupts, the likelihood that they will be used goes up.

Those ambitions go against reasonable western interest how exactly?

Israel is a pro-Western democracy (with some flaws) that faces many existential threats from pretty much everyone in the greater Middle East region. Its nuclear arsenal exists for purely defensive reasons and Israel is unlikely to ever use them unless its very existence is put to question.

Oh, so you do value democracies when it suits you.

You'd comdemn an Isreali use of nuclear weapon as a premetive attack agaist Iran, right?
And the country that has been repeatedly and openly threatened lately is not Israel but Iran.

So, anyone with any objectivity and comprehension of the situation left in them understand why nuclear Iran would be so much bigger a problem than nuclear Israel.

re nia nia nia

 

[classical_hero]

When did a bunch of Europeans get a Time Machine and travel back over 2000 years to ancient Palestine? 'Israelites' refers to the biblical tribes, not the modern state. The modern term is Israeli, but Zionist Entity isn't a half-bad term if you are trying to distinguish between the physical-country of Israel and the idea-country of Israel.

You are ignorant of the fact that there have always been Jews living in the city of Jerusalem for a very long time and it has been continuous ever since King David set the city up as the capital of Israel. The Jews always have held Jerusalem and the land of Israel very highly throughout it's existence and did their best to emigrate to the city whenever they had the chance to do so. Jews also hold deeds to lands far greater than all o the state of Israel in Arab lands, where they had been living for long times and well before even Christ was born. Jews have their history in that region and they belong there.