- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
Would that be a problem between both nations, or just Israel? Iran has allies an dproxies/connections in that area, but not Israel.
Iran
- Thread starter s0nny80y
- 458 comments
- 27,931 views
Would that be a problem between both nations, or just Israel? Iran has allies an dproxies/connections in that area, but not Israel.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
There's not really a problem of getting one's army into the borders of the enemy (and beyond, in a full-scale invasion). Neither country considers such a possibility I'm sure. It's what can be sent through the air that matters.
And, regarding air superiority I have no doubt Israel is largely superior.
However, that doesn't win wars, so Israel can scream whatever they like, as long as the USA aren't convinced there's a real threat to their own interests ... nothing big will happen. A few assassinations here and there, carried out by both countries and that's about it.
- 38,957
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Israel wouldn't be able to attack Iran, but Israel could easily defend itself. They'd have to fly 100s of planes across unfriendly airspace, and re-fuel mid-air in order to make the trip home. They don't have that capability. That's why their intelligence hasn't been particularly concerned with ratcheting up the situation.
The last thing the world needs right now is another war.
The last thing the world needs right now is another war.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
Israel striking what they believe to be nuke sites is a real possibility, so is Iran closing the straight. I'm not sure what the true U.S. interests are but I believe we will be arming rebels in Syria, could isolate Iran and also create another one of those regimes we all love.
Lets not forget Israel kicked some serious ass not to long ago, I bet we reeled them in at that time due to greater concerns over China, or was it Russia, China iirc. I wish we had let it be way back then.
Lets not forget Israel kicked some serious ass not to long ago, I bet we reeled them in at that time due to greater concerns over China, or was it Russia, China iirc. I wish we had let it be way back then.
- 17,343
- United Kingdom
And Iran, I ran so far away,
I just ran, Iran all night and all day,
...
I just ran, Iran all night and all day,
...
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
...got to get away
- 2,335
- United States
- Dooblewasur
- Dooblewasur
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I wouldn't put it past Iran to use them against Israel and claim that it was God's will that the Jewish people were wiped from the face of the earth. They would also probably expect that the rest of the world would cower in awe and/or fear at the display, and would think twice about bombing Iran in retaliation. Because the only way anyone could do that would be if they were absolutely sure that they were targeting each and every single Iranian nuclear facility. During the Cold War, the lynchpin of Soviet nuclear strategy was called the "dead hand". In the event that Moscow was hit in an attack that destroyed the Soviet high command, a signal would be sent, simultaneously firing every single warhead that was targeted at something (and sending a second signal to all mobile units instructing them to fire as soon as they were ready).
The problem with Iran is that the country is not being run by rational people, and so unlike rational people, they will not respond to rational ideas, like mutually-assured destruction. If they had a nuclear device, they would likely point - and then fire - it at Israel. And when the West retaliated and bombed Tehran, they would happily accept it as martyrdom, and fully expect that every fundamenalist - overjoyed at the destruction of the Jewish state and enraged at the West's decimation of Iran - to rise up and continue the fight.
Iran with a nuclear device is like a hostage-taker with a gun demanding the "truth" - but they will never be satisfied with any version of the truth except the one they want to hear, which only validates them and their actions futher.
- 1,654
- UK
- JacksHereR
hmm, I don't know where everyone else gets their world news, seems some of you need some balance, try RT.COM/on-air, the Keiser reports are funny.. if you like Charlie Brookers Newswipe.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
I think the western world is so intoxicated with fear mongering propaganda that sometimes the focus is totally lost and people state opinions as if they were facts. Iran IS run by rational people and, in fact, is one of the most culturally advanced and structured societies (and states) you can find in the region.
- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
If you're talking about the "Israel must be wiped from the map". that was actually an improper translation.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm aware that Ahmadinejad's comments were not properly translated. I'm also aware that if Iran developed a nuclear device, Ahmadinejad would not be in a position to fire it. Iran is run by the Ayatollahs, and there are about twelve of them, all of whom out-rank Ahmadinejad considerably. They are the ones who would launch the weapon. And Ali Khamenei, the most-senior Ayatollah in Iran, has said that the country's stance on nuclear weapons will not change, regardless of pressure, sanctions or assassinations. He is the one who would press the button to launch a nuclear device, and if he thought Israel might try and make some pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear targets, he probably wouldn't hesitate to launch his own attack first.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That sounds quite rational to me. Furthermore, it's also pretty rational to want to arm yourself to the teeth if a nuclear state is threatening to attack you.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It depends on whether or not Israel were actually preparing a pre-emptive strike. A pre-emptive pre-emptive strike only makes sense if the person you're attacking is actually planning on attacking you. If Israel are not planning a pre-emptive strike, then the "but they were going to do it anyway!" argument probably wouldn't win them any favours. After all, Iran is the aggressor here - they're the ones the world is unwilling to trust with nuclear weapons.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
The world doesn't trust Israel either to become a nuclear power, and if you ask to make an inspection there to search for WMD they'll just say "no". In the corrupt society of nations that we live in, if you have a good friend up there in the "board of directors", people don't mess with you. That's Israel in world politics. A friend of the big bully. And the funny thing is that the big bully would probably have a more peaceful life in the yard if it wasn't for his litle irascible fellow.
About Iran, they're following their own path, an harder one to be respected in the world because they have no close friends among the big bullies of world politics. I wouldn't call them aggressors, in fact I'm not aware of serious aggressions made by them. Of course Iranians live according to laws and rules I find retarded (and that's being nice about it) but that's also true for many other countries.
- 24,016
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Israel's 'Samson Option' ensures that any nation who starts a nuclear war with them, will without a doubt be starting WWIII/nuclear armageddon. It's Israel's way of saying to the rest of the world "Protect us from our foes, or you're all ****ed". They don't care who their missiles are pointing at, allies or enemy, they're willing to just let rip as soon as someone fires one at them.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I too cannot see how Iran are 'the aggressors here' - Israel is openly debating whether or not to attack Iran on the basis that they cannot tolerate the threat posed by Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program (if it exists). But that is a bit rich coming from them, given that they have made themselves an existential threat to Iran by virtue of their own clandestine nuclear arsenal (of which there is little doubt it exists). Both Iran and Israel deserve short shrift from the international community if they both continue to obstruct UN nuclear inspectors and thus not allow transparency to occur, which could diffuse the situation. The problem is, it is likely (if not certain) that both countries are at it - Israel almost certainly does have nuclear weapons it has not declared, and Iran most likely is attempting to make their own nuclear weapons.
The only rational and peaceful basis for persuading Iran to abandon it's nuclear ambitions is to prove to them that Israel is not an existential threat. Unfortunately, Israel most likely is an existential threat at the current time, and therefore there is no realistic possibility of placating Iran. Attempting to disuade Iran from their nuclear ambitions is about as realistic as persuading Israel to get rid of their own weapons - and that is not going to happen any time soon.
The only rational and peaceful basis for persuading Iran to abandon it's nuclear ambitions is to prove to them that Israel is not an existential threat. Unfortunately, Israel most likely is an existential threat at the current time, and therefore there is no realistic possibility of placating Iran. Attempting to disuade Iran from their nuclear ambitions is about as realistic as persuading Israel to get rid of their own weapons - and that is not going to happen any time soon.
This applies just as well to Israel as it does to Iran.prisonermonkeys
Sounds like the attitude of a truly trustworthy nuclear power...
- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
Speaking of Ayatollas and Ahmadinejad being the President, I thought it would be important to tell you all that after this round of elections, and the next term of a president, Iran will not have a president anymore.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...ah-khamenei-eliminate-the-iranian-presidency/
After this event, he confirmed it about a month ago, as I read on BBC Persian.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...ah-khamenei-eliminate-the-iranian-presidency/
After this event, he confirmed it about a month ago, as I read on BBC Persian.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I think the difference lies in how each country would use them. Israel may have nuclear weapons, but they are not plotting the destruction of their neighbours. I'm by no means a defender of Israel, but nor am I opposed to them. I just think that if both Israel and Iran had nuclear weapons, Iran would use them to attack and Israel would use them to defend.
It's called a fail-deadly, and the Soviets had a similar strategy in place. Not because they wanted to blow up the world, but because they were genuinely afraid of being wiped off the map. So they put in place a strategy that would guarantee that any enemy who attacked them would be destroyed in kind. Nobody could attack the USSR without putting themselves in harm's way. Israel evidently feels the same way. The "Samson Option" has never been confirmed as being an actual nuclear strategy, but if it does exist, it is a nuclear deterrant and falls under the "no first use" group of policies - in other words, if a war starts, Israel will not be the one to fire the first shot.
Last edited:
- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
Wait a second. If Iran gets rid of Israel, what will it gain in terms of monetary value?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Nothing.
Who said they were doing it for money? They're not James Bond villains.
Who said they were doing it for money? They're not James Bond villains.
- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
I was just wondering. Another question:
Why doesn't Israel receive any sanctions for its crimes against humanity and its hostility? I mean, its adding gas to the fire too...
Why doesn't Israel receive any sanctions for its crimes against humanity and its hostility? I mean, its adding gas to the fire too...
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I can only theorise:
1) The West feels guilty about its failure to act sooner to prevent the Holocaust.
2) Israel was created by the British at the end of World War II, and given the violent history of the region since then, the West probably feels that they need to support Israel because they put the Jewish people there in the first place.
3) If the West withdrew support for Israel, Israel's enemies would probably take that as a standing invitation to do whatever they pleased to Israel, and without fear of the consequences. This could easily result in the destruction of the Jewish state, and the West would feel responsible for putting Israel in a position whereby it was over-run.
1) The West feels guilty about its failure to act sooner to prevent the Holocaust.
2) Israel was created by the British at the end of World War II, and given the violent history of the region since then, the West probably feels that they need to support Israel because they put the Jewish people there in the first place.
3) If the West withdrew support for Israel, Israel's enemies would probably take that as a standing invitation to do whatever they pleased to Israel, and without fear of the consequences. This could easily result in the destruction of the Jewish state, and the West would feel responsible for putting Israel in a position whereby it was over-run.
- 3,204
- 2.2L Camry
- NissanSkylineN1
- Xbox??? Who is this Xbox??
Damn British Colonialism...
What will it take for the West to withdraw their support?
What will it take for the West to withdraw their support?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It's not colonialism. At the end of World War II, the Jewish people were displaced. The Nazis may have been defeated, but there was still an element of anti-Semetism in Europe, and most of the Jews' homes had been sold to others. They literally had nowhere to go. Europe was in ruins, and the British assumed responsibility for finding somewhere for the Jewish people to live. It was decided that a new state would be formed out of Mandate Palestine, mostly because Palestine was under British rule at the time, but also because Palestine was where the promised lands in the Old Testament were. Of course, that's just a simplified recount of what happened. I've probably skimmed over or forgetted a few details that I should have expanded upon or included.
As for "what it will take" for Israel to lose support of the West ... well, they would probably have to do a lot to upset their allies in America and Europe. Israel needs the West's support to stop itself from being crushed, but the West needs Israel to survive because of the collective responsibility for the Jewish diaspora. So if ever Israel lost the West's support, it would probably because they bombed a neighbouring state that presented no real threat to them.
As for "what it will take" for Israel to lose support of the West ... well, they would probably have to do a lot to upset their allies in America and Europe. Israel needs the West's support to stop itself from being crushed, but the West needs Israel to survive because of the collective responsibility for the Jewish diaspora. So if ever Israel lost the West's support, it would probably because they bombed a neighbouring state that presented no real threat to them.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
...WHAT?
Israel are at the ready all the time, they've conducted covert missions using the mossad to kill Iranian national scientist just to thwart the on going creation of a nuclear product. Stuxnet being used on Iran was also something that they probably had a hand in. Iran isn't the aggressor and it is once again Israel who have nuclear weapons.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
I heard that is was the Jewish influence on the US government that makes international anti Israel stands unacceptable. But a Jew once told me it was fundamentalist Christians that pressure the US government to keep Jerusalem and Bethlehem under a friendly Jewish reign compared to a hostile Mouslim one.
However I never read any serious journalism about this, so it could be hearsay only.
The point is where will this support lead us to if Israel really attacks Iran?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Ah, the whole Zionist idea which many call a conspiracy.
