Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Israel threaten pre-emptive strike on Iran

Announcements Posted on
We're up for a Webby! Vote TSR to help us win. 10-04-2014
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    The uranium enriching is an important point and there's isn't much transparency in their enrichment process. Like I said, there's no need to go over 25%, even for medical purposes. However, this point is moot. Iran, if it may wish, buy weapon-grade uranium from China if it so sought to. You haven't addressed my points about their furthering of the Shahab-3 missile development (which I feel is a greater and more pervasive, overlooked issue) and its testing. I think that's an important thing to consider when talking about WMDs. Don't you agree that ballistic missiles serve no purpose unless attached with WMDs and are practically and strategically useless when used conventionally?

    If you take Mr. Ahmadinjead as truthful word, then do explain how he can be considered a rational leader when he explicitly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Add to that, a holocaust denier at the same time.

    The thing is, Iran would benefit greatly with having nuclear capability. With the US interest in the Middle-East quite apparent and overt, Iran being a nuclear state would solidify it's regional presence and influence in the Middle-East. If it were to have the capability of launching an ICBM on the East/West Coast of the United States or indeed, a NATO power, the MAD stalemate and doctrine that dominated American policy for the Cold War will certainly be applied to Iran. Iran will have a lot of political and strategical dexterity to carry out proxy wars in Israel and further, with Syria, express hegemony in the Middle-East.

    I would be inclined to see their nuclear programme as peaceful but from Iran's perspective, have nuclear capability has far more benefits then it does being a conventional power and thus, you can see the Western rationale. Iran's state-sponsoring of terrorism has long been a threat to Israel national security. Therefore, it is the United States obligation as an ally (morality aside, personally I believe Israel are an ally that give far more trouble then it does benefits) to protect Israel.

    Personally, I agree that Iran has no intention of using it as I believe they are pursuing a strategical stalemate rather than offensive, popular to contrary belief.
    What makes ballistic missiles so useless in a conventional role? Surely with a large enough explosive warhead they could be quite potent?
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What makes ballistic missiles so useless in a conventional role? Surely with a large enough explosive warhead they could be quite potent?
    But you're very limited in what explosive you need. It can be used as a demoralizer in combat because of it's accuracy but in strategic warfare it is useless as you need a lot of fuel, a lot of payload in order to give a devastating blow and to the best of my knowledge, the Shahab-3 doesn't have the capability of such payload. That and they are expensive so if you want to conduct a war economically and efficiently, a precise air-strike with a bunker buster or strategic bombing is the best way forward. Not to mention also that ballistic missiles on radar are near-impossible to distinguish from a nuclear-armed missile. Hence why in Operation Desert Storm, there was a priority for destroying SCUDs in the region as it is near impossible to distinguish between a missile that is armed with WMDs and ones that aren't. The consequences far outweigh the benefits.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Na. A Sunni defending Shia's. Imagine that.
    Whats so bizarre about that? We are all muslims at the end of the day.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Persia I)
    Are you telling me it would be invaded if it wasn't a US ally, of course it wouldn't.
    I doubt it would be invaded, but it would be subject to a lot of hostility (trade blocks from the US, bases surrounding them, etc). South Africa had nukes for a while, and the West took no notice because they were allies at the time. As South Africa became less close to the West, Western opposition to the weapons increased, and eventually South Africa disarmed.


    Starting their beef with Israel by funding Hezbollah when Israel had no hostility towards Iran is initiating it or do you have problems coming to terms with this.
    From the Iranian point of view, there's certainly an argument to be made that Israel started it by aligning itself so closely with the US.

    Should Israel have attacked the USSR during the Cold War? They supplied Egypt and Syria for a lot of it. Is there a difference between that and Iran?

    Also gotta point out the Israeli assassinations of Iranian scientists.


    I said they had nothing to do with the conflict and I'm right, what the hell has that got to do with 'global powers'. this is what I said... 'For example? The Shah seemed pretty content with staying out of it.' Staying out of the Israeli-Arab conflict which is what I was on about or are you not keeping up, then you randomly mentioned something about Mossadegh which implies you have no idea what you're talking about.
    And that's an exaggeration, as as I mentioned, events in the conflict did affect Iran (to give one example, the conflict led to the series of events in Iraq eventually leading to Saddam Hussein coming to power, and him invading Iran in 1980). And given Iran is actually in the region, it has far more grounds for getting involved in the conflict than the US.

    Is this about foreign policy?: 'I think you overlook the fact that the Iranian regime shoots people when they come out to protest and is helping Syria to do just that; BUT WAIT! That doesn't matter as long as they hate Israel and America. '
    So because Iran has an oppressive regime internally, that makes it fair game for any attack?

    Iran would have nothing to fear if it didn't keep poking the US and give it more and more reasons to justify an invasion which it is doing now, getting desperate, threatening to close the straits etc.
    So because they threatened to close the Hormuz Straits (which they said they'd only do if their oil exports were cut off), Iran is 'poking the US and give it more and more reasons to justify an invasion', but the fact that in recent decades, the US has sponsored an invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied the countries that border Iran, and surrounded Iran with American military bases, all means nothing? After all that, the Iranians should act as if nothing's happening and there is no US hostility towards them?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Whats so bizarre about that? We are all muslims at the end of the day.
    Just 1300 years of rivalry and accusations of Bi'dah and general wariness among the participants of Islam.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    An attack on Israel is very very unlikely. The Israelis know this. However the worry of a nuclear Iran is not that it would attack Israel but the other consequences and destabilisation that would come with a nuclear armed Iran.

    As for attacking nations does that really matter when they have constantly been supporting terrorist groups throughout the middle east as well as supporting dictatorship in Syria?
    Destabilisation? Please could you elaborate on this?

    Your very hipocritical here when we know the USA actively supports many dictatorships around the ME. Look at Saudi Arabia, it doesn't have a gleaming human rights record, or Egypt under Mubarak?
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidjones90)
    Destabilisation? Please could you elaborate on this?

    Your very hipocritical here when we know the USA actively supports many dictatorships around the ME. Look at Saudi Arabia, it doesn't have a gleaming human rights record, or Egypt under Mubarak?
    Other states pursuing nuclear weapons, the chances of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons becomes a higher risk. A nuclear arms race between Israel and Iran is always a possibility as is one with any other states such as Saudi Arabia who may pursue weapons.

    I don't really care if the US does it, it hardly makes it right.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I don't really care if the US does it, it hardly makes it right.
    not sure you can complain about iran doing something and then say you don't care that the US is also doing it to a greater extent...

    btw, problem solved everyone:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MxSK)
    not sure you can complain about iran doing something and then say you don't care that the US is also doing it to a greater extent...

    btw, problem solved everyone:

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=1&theater
    I complain about the US doing it just as much. However you can hardly justify the actions of Iran by pointing to the US doing the same. It does not make it right both nations are wrong to support dictatorships.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferdowsi)
    Well no they don't. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have both demanded the USA attack Iran, and Saudi has given permission for Israeli aircraft to pass through it's airspace to bomb Iran. This is the problem, the Obama administration is being pushed by the Saudis and the Israelis, who are both powerful into what would be a totally destructive and terrible thing from the perspective of the Iranian people. The thing is, attacking Iran from the air has been decreed by military experts as logistically impossible, so I don't think it will happen and is hot air to get Iran negotiating. It is a totally different situation to the Syrian and Iraqi nuclear sites (both of which were French built I think LOL) that Israel destroyed very easily. http://www.policymic.com/articles/27...clear-pursuits there is an article on this. Most of the military and regional experts in Israel and the USA have said that bombing Iran is a flat out stupid idea that wouldn't even work. The only real effect it would have is to make life more hellish for the Iranian people.
    Why does saudi and the uae, want iran bombed, do you know just curious.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I complain about the US doing it just as much. However you can hardly justify the actions of Iran by pointing to the US doing the same. It does not make it right both nations are wrong to support dictatorships.
    Well yeah, i wasn't trying to justify it obviously, but amongst the discussion of military strikes, "they support dictatorships and would get emboldened doing so" isn't really a justifiable argument in support of one imo. Especially when thrown in is the idea that the US doing the same thing is something you can just dismiss and irrelevant. Last time i checked no one was considering surgical strikes on the US.

    Unless you want to just put it straight minus the BS and say this is a matter of interests and the obviously stronger power has the ability to throw around its might to maintain them.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Other states pursuing nuclear weapons, the chances of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons becomes a higher risk. A nuclear arms race between Israel and Iran is always a possibility as is one with any other states such as Saudi Arabia who may pursue weapons.

    I don't really care if the US does it, it hardly makes it right.
    Yeah keep repeating your same one line arguments about why you want to unleash bombs on my country.

    And lol, you don't care if the US does it? **** you.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Other states pursuing nuclear weapons, the chances of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons becomes a higher risk. A nuclear arms race between Israel and Iran is always a possibility as is one with any other states such as Saudi Arabia who may pursue weapons.

    I don't really care if the US does it, it hardly makes it right.
    Its not right that Israel which has attacked many countries has nuclear weapons and Iran can't.... your struggling to tell me how many countries Iran has attacked! I'm still waiting for you to tell its, all you have said is the same old lines, Iran supports terrorist groups...groups designated by Israel and the States!
    • 28 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidjones90)
    Its not right that Israel which has attacked many countries has nuclear weapons and Iran can't.... your struggling to tell me how many countries Iran has attacked! I'm still waiting for you to tell its, all you have said is the same old lines, Iran supports terrorist groups...groups designated by Israel and the States!
    Of course its not right and the only situation we should want is a nuclear free middle east. However it wont happen and the second best situation and only practical situation is to stop any further nuclear proliferation in the region by any nation. How many nations Iran has attacked does not really tell us anything. North Korea only ever attacked one nation but you would be mad to claim they are a stable nation that should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons to their hearts content.

    Supporting groups like Hamas Hezboallah as well as allegedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban. Why does it matter that Iran has not directly invaded a country when they support groups like this? Saying |Iran has not invaded any one is generally thrown around as a reason that Iran should be allowed nukes when compared to other nations but given their state terror record and assassinations abroad I don't think that they have really invaded anyone matters or works to the credit of Iran.

    I think the risk of a Saudi nuclear bomb, a nuclear arms race in the region and the risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorist groups is hardly the same old lines. But if you think these are minor concerns....
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Of course its not right and the only situation we should want is a nuclear free middle east. However it wont happen and the second best situation and only practical situation is to stop any further nuclear proliferation in the region by any nation.
    Erm, only from the perspective of Israel.

    Supporting groups like Hamas Hezboallah
    Here we go Aj12's boring cliche one line machine.

    Hamas has broken ties with Iran.

    As for Hezbollah, maybe Israel should stop invading Lebanon.

    as well as allegedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency
    and the Taliban.
    The Iranians hate the Taliban, they even fought alongside the Americans at the beginning of the Afghan war?

    Why does it matter that Iran has not directly invaded a country when they support groups like this?
    Bah most countries do this. Israel supports groups like the Jundallah inside of Iran.

    but given their state terror record and assassinations abroad
    HA hah aha hahaha

    Iranian state terror is nothing on the scale of what the Americans have managed to achieve.

    I'm afraid the USA of all people has no moral authority on this issue, are you aware what those bastards did in places like Fallujah? The hundreds of thousands American death squads have killed in South America? What about Patrice Lumumba? Joao Goulart? Kwame Nkrumah? (to scratch the surface)

    Wanting another war makes you an evil bastard Aj, go fight it yourself you arse.

    and the risk of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorist groups
    What terrorist groups?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Of course its not right and the only situation we should want is a nuclear free middle east.
    Agreed. And that would have to include Israeli and Pakistani nuclear disarmament and NATO withdrawal from the region (including bases).

    Supporting groups like Hamas Hezboallah as well as allegedly supporting the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban.
    Iranian funding to Hamas was always minimal. Why would they support Hamas anyway? Hamas are Sunnis and very close to the Saudi regime, and Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other.

    Hezbollah probably owe their greatest debt to Israel - they wouldn't exist if there had been no Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

    The Iranian leaders like the Iraqi PM Maliki (a Shia Islamist) - why would they support an insurgency?

    The Taliban are a similar story to Hamas. During the 1990s Iran aided the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. They thought the Taliban were Pakistani puppets and therefore a threat. Their take on Afghanistan is that it's two of their enemies fighting each other, and as such they want it to be long and painful for both.

    Why does it matter that Iran has not directly invaded a country when they support groups like this? Saying Iran has not invaded any one is generally thrown around as a reason that Iran should be allowed nukes when compared to other nations but given their state terror record and assassinations abroad I don't think that they have really invaded anyone matters or works to the credit of Iran.
    Compare the Iranian record of state terrorism to that of the currently nuclear states and Iran would come off pretty favourably against most of them (though not India).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: March 24, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.