"Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Oct 17, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The author of the linked paper concludes that a US tac nuke strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is a lead pipe cinch.

    He outlined what he views as the expected precipitants:

    1. US State Department made a "finding" that Iran is in material breach of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    2. CIA says that Iran has stockpiles of blister, blood, and nerve agents, and suitable bombs and shells for delivery.

    3. Shihab-3 ballistic missile, claimed, by State Department, to have 1,300 km range.

    4. Couple of weeks ago, International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution asserting (on somewhat dubious grounds in my opinion) that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    5. Israeli Knesset is demanding that USA launch a strike against Iranian nuclear energy facilities or face the possibility that Israel will so act alone.

    6. Russian Atomic Energy Agency contemplates making first shipment of nuclear fuel to Bushehr by end of '05 or beginning of '06.

    7. Israel bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor shortly before fuel delivery. Author implies that history will repeat itself.

    8. Pres. Bush, in a famously self-contradictory formulation, has said that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Iraqi nuclear energy program.

    9. US House of Representatives, by overwhelming majority, called for use of all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    10. Latest Pentagon doctrine declares US willingness to make first use of nuclear arms to deter adversary state from using chemical, biological, or nuclear arms.

    "The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression."

    " Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come" by Jorge Hirsch. 17 October 2005
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649

    The author doesn't mention this, but the thought occurs to me that an assault on Iran might have some value to the administration in distracting the public mind from its growing annoyance and anger at Washington, a topic discussed here:

    "An Angry America" by Doug Thompson.
    http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7539.shtml
     
  2. Be afraid, be very afraid. Sounds familiar though doesnt it. I'm sure the shaved simian could continue to invade a row of countries until his time is up just to distract each previous fcuk up. I'm sure he could play a world game of Connect Four and end up just short of Hawaii.

    How suprising.

    At what point will they learn? Marble floored carpark stage or 'back into the stone age' stage?
     
  3. George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.

    The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".

    He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries.

    Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal.

    No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents"


    Bush to Blair: First Iraq, then Saudi
    By Marie Woolf, Political Editor
    Published: 16 October 2005

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece
     
  4. And we thought the Communists were attempting to push their world order on us back during the Cold War?

    Although, I'm sure we can slip France into his 'to do' list. No one would notice.

    How 'reliable' is the source?

    I very much doubt he would tackle Saudi Arabia (unless Israel or 'God' told him to).

    Not_Whistlin_Dixie, any idea if GWB will be travelling to Dallas in the near future? Open topped Lincoln X-100 would be ideal.
     
  5. There is a certain insanity on the left. The only solution to Nuclear proliferation you seem to have is blame Bush and all will be well. Nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more countries. The world with more nations having Nuclear weapons will become infinitely more dangerous.So how does the left handle the problem, blame Bush.

    The solution in the link scenario is to get the EU to place sanctions on Iran instead of the UN. It seems a rather simple approach that might do some good but you are blinded by Bush hatred If your only solution to solve the problem of Nuclear proliferation is to blame Bush.Let me suggest another Idea that is just as worthwhile. Build a bomb shelter. It may not do much good in the case of a nuclear exchange but in the mean time you will have lots of storage space.
     
  6. Blame Bush? Seems like a good idea actually. Not Bush personally but seeings how he is the bloke in the job at the time, he can take it on the chin. It's a chain of events that has its roots firmly based in US foreign policy dating back several decades. You can shift authority but not responsibility.

    Maybe the US should try uninventing the Nuke.

    The big bucket of sunshine option is a scary thought. Just remind me who the world terrorist is again?
     
  7. Part of the reason being that North Korea has proved quite conclusively that if you want to keep the Septics off your back, the best thing to do is to get a nuke.
    But won't nuking Iran mean that not only all the oil-fields in the area, but also the Israelis will be in danger from the fallout?
    I can't see it happening personally. But with Bladdered Bush and the dangerous bunch of clowns surrounding him, anything's possible!

    MsG
     
  8. You guys like to make fun of military.com but you are its leftist equivalent seeing things that dont exist. Get this through your heads - the US is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Its just not going to happen. Nor will the US take out Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US is prepared to live with a nuclear Iran. So have no worries about the US starting a war with Iran. But what is Iran up to ? Thats the real question. Do they want to live peacefully in the world or do they have ambitions to spread their brand of islam throughout the world ?
     
  9. I am not sure if these reports are correct but maybe someone will start a thread to ask the queation if God is talking to these guys. Equall time.





     
  10. It's just dawned on me, T6, that you might well be right. Until the Palestine/Israel problem is sorted out, there's not much chance of lasting peace in the region, but that also means that the Septics could expend much less effort to make their influence felt in the region. So they "allow" a little bit of uncertainty for the Israelis to creep into the equation.
    Hmmmm. I wonder who thought that one up. Certainly not Bladdered Bush, that's for sure.

    MsG
     
  11. Thanks, tomahawk. I have to say, I would like to believe that too.

    You are right, what is Iran up to? Its a fine line though isnt it. Do we pre empt like the last time by using the excuse of 'intel tells us' then change the reasons when it is dicovered that they didnt have a credible capability and just go for regime change? I dont think the rest of the world will be so understanding this time let alone the Muslim world.

    Or do we wait until they do something then react? That, unfortunaltey is the only proof positive way. Catch 22.

    If Iran is next, I'm sure it will be a catalyst to a point of no return. But wouldnt it be prudent for us, the supposed civilised industrial nations to be able to look further than the next objective?
     
  12. Bugsy, I have to agree too. Israel and that region are the little tinkers that enable this to continue. If the US 'stood back' a bit more, it would certainly relieve a lot of tension. Muslim states just see it as a red rag to a bull when they see Israel being the 51st state.
     
  13. As someone who has posted more than 1300 times, I think from you, the epithet 'you guys' is rather redundant.
     
  14. OK, do me a favour and look back over the past four years at what John Bolton was doing prior to becoming US Ambassador to the UN. You'll basically find that as Undersecretary of State, it was his job to get the US out of as many international agreements and treaties as possible. These include, but are not limited to, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (especially those pesky Articles V and VI) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Meanwhile the current administration has reneged on the CTBT and, with the help of Congress has continued to underfund Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

    Add to that the litany of peurile, thinly veiled threats the US has already made and you can begin to understand the rationale for Iran to tool up in the face of an overbearing schoolyard bully that has had a chip on its shoulder since it got kicked out of the country in 1979. The recent round of diplomacy by UK-Germany-France was always going to come to nothing as all the Iranians could hear was the sound of rattling sabres from across the pond.

    The quite frankly amateurish way that Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz and, most recently, Karen Hughes have handled the situation over the past has totally backfired. Like it or not, Iran is the closest thing to a democracy in the Persian Gulf Region, and the fact that the Iranian people have chosen to vote for a hardliner, rather than the moderate speaks volumes about how the US is winning the "hearts and minds" campaign. As with Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Iranians have no problem with the American people, it's just that there is always going to be an adverse reaction when you start threatening invasion and nuclear attack (ffs) against them.

    For all the hyperbole, the bottom line is as follows; the US is not going to get involved in a nuclear war over Israel and Israel knows it. Even in the extremely unlikely event that the Israelis are stupid enough to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran (which is quite beyond their capacity anyway), the backlash from the rest of the world would hit them like a ton of bricks. It's largest trading partner, the EU, would immediately impose an embargo. There would likely be a sanctions resolution before the UNSC, from which the US would almost certainly abstain, since there's no way that they could veto it with a straight face and still hope to procliam themselves leaders of the free world. The US Congress will undoubtedly end that sweet little aid package that Israel gets every year that funds 70% of its defence budget. Before they would know it, the Israeli army would be throwing rocks in the street with the Palestinians.
     
  15. Fcuk me! We agree on something! I still maintain that it would be better for all concerned if the Administarion cuts back on the snarling and baring of teeth though. We might actually talk them into climbing down a bit.