Iran vows to strike Israel immediately if attacked

A senior cleric within Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard on Tuesday reiterated warnings that Tehran would strike Tel Aviv immediately if Israel and its Western allies attacked Iran.

"The enemies know if they fire a missile toward Iran, the dust from explosions by Iranian missiles will rise in Tel Aviv even as their missile is still in the air," a report by the semiofficial Fars news agency on Tuesday quoted cleric Mojtaba Zolnour as saying.

The cleric issued a similar warning in October, when he said Iran would blow up the heart of Israel if the United States or the Jewish state attacked it first. His comments are not unusual.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has since 2005 often called for Israel's destruction and predicted its demise.

Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has voiced skepticism over the effectiveness of any further sanctions against Iran in the dispute over its nuclear program, saying he still supported a diplomatic solution.

more....

to return war.

You know, like Saddam did during the First Gulf War?

Saddam attacked Israel because he believed that Israel would strike back and if Israel retaliated the alliance created by Papi Bush would fall apart. He was probably right. That is why the U.S. set up defensive missile batteries in Israel. swore to protect Israel, and why Israel stayed out.

Now, in most cases, Israel can not attack Iran without traveling through U.S. controlled Air Space. I don't think Turkey would let them fly over, as they did With Syria. The route down the Red Sea and across the Indian Ocean is possible, but requires a lot of tankers. They can fly over Syria or Jordan without their permission. Neither country has a reliable air superiority and could not do shit to stop them. But the U.S. controls Iraq. If they fly over Iraq it would only be with our permission. We have the assets in theater to take down any Israeli attack craft. Also, Israel is flying U.S. equipment that we sold to Israel and that we, technically, have some veto power of how they use. They are a client state of the U.S., so Iran has leeway to attack the U.S. if Israel hits them and attack Israel if we attack them. The rules of warfare allow for self defense, and they could make a credible argument either way it happens.

But, I don't think President Obama will approve an attack on Iran. The entire Shia South of Iraq would rise up against us. It would close down the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, shutting off a lot of oil. Obama at this time seems intent on using diplomatic means rather than military. He certainly isn't going to do it before November.

It would seem to go against everything he stands for...

Would it be the same to say the US would have the right to attack Russia if Iran attacks (using Russian bombs)? I don't think anyone is going to be attacking anyone else any time in the near future, but I do find it interesting that any attack on Iran means Iran can justifiably attack Israel, even if Israel isn't the one doing the attacking.

Strawman!!

"The cleric issued a similar warning in October, when he said Iran would blow up the heart of Israel if the United States OR the Jewish state attacked it first."

The US and Israel are allies, and that wasn't talking about an independent attack. For someone who claimed they didn't bother replying to my posts or questions, yr pretty intent on responding a lot...

According to your logic, Iran is justified to bomb ANY American ally and not just Israel.

In case you missed it, that statement was clear in that any first strike by either America OR Israel will result in Israel being attacked. That implies nothing about a joint American/Israel attack. Reading comprehension 101.

Though I was amused at yr attempt to make out Israel is only on the same level as Turkey and Europe when it comes to its relationship with the US...

And who cares whether Israel is closer or not to America than Europe or Turkey? An ally is an ally. Allies work together so they should all be attacked, right? Or wrong? Just Israel?

Weak.

Maybe I'd care more if you actually read and digested what's said to you, but you haven't shown any indication that yr wanting to do that. Trying to make out that Israel's relationship with the US is on the same level as that of Turkey or Europe is just ridiculous. And as I've already said, allies work together in attacks, so I don't know what the hell yr going on about, or why anyone with a shred of intelligence would disagree with that...

I dunno. It all still comes across as rather ridiculous and like someone's set up a bot to churn complete nonsense out...

Maybe if I read it a third time something will change?

btw, good to see you again kayecy! :)

any allies of the person who engaged in aggressive warfare (Or pre emptive warfare, choose your term) Iran has not stated they would attack all NATO powers, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. They have specifically, over the last decade, said that a strike by Israel or the U.S. would be treated as an attack by both. They are allowed to act in their own self defense, and neither the World Court, the UN, the ICRC would blink at Iran linking Israel and the U.S.

We should all remember that Iran hasn't started a war since th 17th century. They don't have a border with Israel or the ability to project power across the middle east to get there. A war would be Iran launching missiles and Hezbollah (Iranian supported organization) launching an attack to draw Israel's armed forces into Lebanon, and Hamas launching attacks from the Gaza.

Israel is probably the strongest military power in the region, but they could not invade Iran because they could not project power across Syria and Iraq. A war would be bombing Iranian nuclear sites followed by an invasion of Lebanon and the Gaza to stop or limit attacks from those areas.

But, of all the players, Israel is the most likely to attack Iran. What would probably stop them is that Iran has at least 9 hardened nuclear sites. Taking out all 9 is far more difficult than taking out Osirik or the nuclear site in Syria.

The U.S. and the entire world has too much to lose to start a war with Iran. That is not going to happen. If Iran should develop nuclear weapons, it is something that we will just live with as we live with North Korea having nuclear weapons.

Yes, we could hold the Russians responsible, but it is unlikely for those reasons. Also, Iran is not the client state of Russia. Their relationship to Russia is nothing like that between the U.S. and Israel.

The U.S. has placed limits on what Israel can do with the weapons we sold them. That has been part of the weapons deals going back decades. And Israel is considered a client state of the United States by the world, and they have a well known special relationship.

Also, the U.S. is not going to attack Iran. Shutting off the oil form the Persian is not in U.S. interests, and would be a disaster for our struggling economy. Obama is dedicated to using diplomatic means to cut Iran off from the countries that support it. A war with Iran would be a disaster for us.

Israel is far more likely to attack Iran as they did both Iraq and Syria because it is not in their national interest to see Iran with nuclear weapons. They have been very open with their threats. There has even been talk that they would do it before November in the hopes that the resulting economic disaster would be good for Republicans in the U.S. and, therefore, good for Israel.

Like any other nation in the world, Iran can act in their own defense. The U.S. special relationship with Israel makes the U.S. a target if Israel attacks. Iran, acting in their own self defense could also strike at any close ally of the U.S., and Israel qualifies (as does Jordan and Saudi Arabia).

Whether we like it or not, it is fairly easy to justify a war. Once someone drops bombs on Iran and kills Iranian citizens, the gloves will come off.

We should all remember, that Iran has not started a war since the 17th century, and they fought the longest conventional war in the 20th Century against Iraq. I don't expect Iran to attack, but they can make the position the U.S. in the region untenable and cost a lot of American lives and break our fragile economy.

But the real question is would they. In all the wars with Hezbollah, who have been armed by Syria and Iran, Israel has not openly attacked either country. A war with Syria or Iran wold be a much more difficult war. Syria came very close to breaking through in the Golan heights in the 1967 war. Their military is not as good as it was then, but they are a very serious threat and Israel would do little more than protest. Iran, unless they are actively shooting missiles at Israel, wouldn't be attacked. Other than launching an air raid, there is little Isreal can do. A war with Hezbollah would stay in Lebanon.

Most people in the US appear to have better sense than to think that an attack on Iran would be a good idea; most people in Israel don't.

If the situation changes such that the US launches an attack on Iran and Israeli diplomatic pressure is *not* one of the primary reasons behind it, then clearly it would not be reasonable for Iran to attack Israel in response.

However, I think that unlikely. I think it unlikely that the US will attack Iran at all, and if it does, I think it almost certain that one of the main reasons will be the pressure for it exerted by Israel and its supporters.

And if that *were* a significant contributing factor to an attack, I think retaliation against Israel would be reasonable.

Underneath the tough Likud exterior Netanyahu is a colossal wimp. He's had numerous opportunities to bomb Iran but cowers before Obama who also hasn't got the stomach for a war with Iran. Obama won't go along because oil prices would rise and snuff out the feeble recovery. Netanyahu won't bomb because he really doesn't believe in an independent Jewish state on the Jewish homeland. If he did he wouldn't have endorsed a 2-state solution and frozen construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (no construction even in the latter now despite official posturing). All the Jewish holy sites, the graves of Joseph, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Leah, Rebecca, Rachel, Zachariah, Samuel and Joshua and the Wailing Wall of the ancient Temple of Solomon are all on the West Bank, known sites where Jews go to pray. Regardless of your view of a two-state solution, a Likud leader who abandons these holy places because of a piece of paper is no proud Israeli and he has no faith in his own country. Such a person will never have the fortitude to bomb Iran. Netanyahu is a total wimp. You can listen to his speeches for days and it is all empty blather with no real pride or sense of Jewish faith and heritage. Underneath the Likud exterior he's a total nebbish. A wimp.

Consider this: According to the New York Times Iran recently transfered nearly all of its deeply-buried low enriched uranium to above-ground sites for further enrichment to 20%. What does that mean? Firstly, uranium comes in two main isotopes, U-235 and U-238 (among others). U-238 is radioactive but not radioactive enough to produce an atomic explosion. U-235 (with 3 less neutrons in the nucleus) is much more radioactive and can be used to make a bomb. In nature uranium is naturally mostly U-238 with only a fraction of one percent U-235. So the U-238 has to be weeded out, a process called enrichment. Thus a huge stock of hundreds of pounds of low-enriched uranium enriches down to only a few pounds of 20% enriched. From there you have so little volume that you can store it in any tunnel anywhere in Iran, nobody will be able to find it to bomb it and you can finish enriching to 90 or 93% which is atom bomb-grade.

Iran now has nearly all its low-enriched uranium at a surface-level site for further enrichment to 20% and has begun that enriching process to 20%. Once Iran enriches to 20% no one will be able to stop them from getting the bomb. And all indications are that they already have everything they need to build a bomb and are only waiting for the highly enriched uranium to put it into.

Iran is also nearly finished completing its nuclear plant at Bushehr and its heavy water plant at Arak, both of which can be used to rapidly make huge quantities of plutonium, which can be used to make an atom bomb instead of uranium. Those sites are also above-ground and yet Netanyahu hasn't bombed them either even with the hour getting late. All the key sites are now at ground level, sitting ducks, and yet Netanyahu does not bomb because he is afraid of WHAT WOULD THE WORLD SAY and losing trade with Europe, and so forth. He's an utter weakling. If Mexico kept threatening to destroy the US and were building a bomb you can be sure that any US president, even Obama, would have bombed Mexico by now. Netanyahu doesn't bomb Iran because underneath the "Likud" exterior he is really the weakest prime minister Israel ever had.

In fact, some years ago the IAEA, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, found traces of polonium-210 in Iran, which is not found in nature and is used almost exclusively to make atom bomb triggers. Polonium-210 is so radioactive that it is actually warm to the touch (not that you would want to touch it). It has a half-life of only 138 days. This means that it is so perishable that it is half gone in less than half a year. This means that you can't store it for long and it is pointless to smuggle it in as it is quickly gone. It's also not that hard to manufacture. In other words, Iran is making and experimenting with polonium-210, in order to construct an atom bomb.

And nearly all of Iran's low enriched uranium is now at ground level.

It's a sitting duck.

If Netanyahu hasn't bombed Iran by now he never will. This is the man who gave up Hebron, where the Cave of Machpela is located, also called the Cave of the Patriarchs, in which are buried Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and most of their wives including Sarah, Rebecca and Leah. That cave is actually mentioned in the Bible, Abraham bought it as a permanent resting place for the patriarchs and matriarchs and 300,000 people visit the cave and pray there every year. Any prime minister who would give this up is just a shabby politician with no cojones. He will never bomb Iran. Netanyahu is a wimp, a nebbish, a shlemiel and a woos. He spends more time looking in the mirror to make sure he looks smooth, suave and debonair at all times. And all he wants is for the world to love him. His wife is a total lunatic who tells her servants that she is the Queen of Israel. But a fish rots from the head first and she does this because her husband is the same kind of pompous idiot. He is obsessed with going along with Obama and even modeled his campaign website after Obama's. See here:



This fool is a man who has absolutely no sense of his own identity and only wants to please the world. Compare this to Menachem Begin who bombed Iraq's nuclear plant and ended their nuclear program without US approval, knowing full well that Israel would then be on the outs with the international community including the US for a while. Today everyone in the world acknowledges that taking out Iraq's nuclear program was a beneficial development. But Netanyahu is too much of a wimp to do that with Iran because he has to be loved at all times, 24/7/365 and can't stop checking himself in the mirror. His brother Yoni, who died rescuing Jews in the Entebbe hostage crisis as leader of the rescuing commandos, would be spinning in his grave to see what a total wimp his brother Benjamin has turned into. Even Netanyahu's own brother-in-law periodically denounces him publicly as a wimp and coward and sellout.

Forget it. Netanyahu will never bomb Iran. He's nothing but a total woosie-wimp-nebbish and if you compare his policies to those of past Labor and Kadima prime ministers they are actually to the left of what those predecessors did. That is a fact. All this speculation that Israel is going to bomb Iran is all ploy, designed to try to goad Obama into doing Israel's dirty work since Netanyahu hasn't the balls to do it himself. Within Likud nobody thinks Netanyahu is a real Likudnik and they all hate him and don't trust him. In their view he talks tough in campaigns and the moment he gets into office he starts selling out.

:shrug:

PB

Not, of course, Jerusalem.

All countries say that they will retaliate if attacked. That's what armies and weapons are supposedly for: to deter attacks by the threat of retaliation. (Though they can get used first, once they exist!)

Israel also says that it will retaliate if attacked by Iran.

Of course, it's also no secret that Iran would like Israel to disappear in any case. I don't think they will attack Israel (not unless they're suicidal), but they do have some very nasty rulers.

NEW YORK - Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities by this November unless the US and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” a former Israeli defence official warns.

In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, former deputy defence minister Brig-Gen Ephraim Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011. “An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable,” he said. Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.” November is the time for elections in the United States.

Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.” Sneh says he does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran. In a recent report for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.

“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.

Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added. While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the US tell Newsmax, an online magazine. “Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defence and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran. “For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.” Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”



<more>

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=528201&mesg_id=528201

Israeli officials have been making similar threats for some time now. The facts of life remain the same. An attack on Iran is at best a risky proposition with disastrous side effects, including active resistance by the US. Sure, it's possible, but it's also really unlikely.

which makes the Iranian statement appear to be an unprovoked threat, when in deed it may have been in response to this statement

also I found the statements about the timing and it's possible effect on Obama "interesting"

with this.

as a counter point to the OP, you are familiar with the territory and know that Israel has been saber rattling about Iran for quite some time now on a regular basis IMO Israel will not attack Iran who has the capability to respond with nearly the same force, it would be suicide in more than just a political sense