Israel To Strike Iranian Reactors ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Not_Whistlin_Dixie, Jul 3, 2004.

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. From United Press International, an opinion piece by Arnaud de Borchgrave.

    He notes that U.S. House of Representatives passed, on May 6, a resolution authorizing the administration to use "all appropriate means" to stop Iranian nuclear weapons development. (As far as I know, it has not been put to a vote in the Senate.)

    He says that a proposal has been "bruited" (he doesn't say by whom) for a joint USA/Israel airstrike on three Iranian reactor facilities.

    He seems to doubt that such a joint strike will happen.

    He says that direct participation, by US planes and pilots, would harden Islamic attitudes against the USA.

    He also says that USA public opinion might be somewhat skeptical about the alleged Iranian military threat to America. (The realization is dawning, possibly accelerated by Mr. Moore's latest movie, that the administration is prone to wild exaggerations, or worse, to get a free hand.)

    Consequently, de Borchgrave thinks that Israel may launch this attack by itself. He draws a comparison to the IDF strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor.

    "Commentary: Israel To Bomb Iran?"
  2. Quite an insightful bloke this Arnaud, isn't he? 8O
  3. Israel or the US ? Doesn't matter. The links between them are seen to be so close that they tend to be seen as the same enemy. So the same change in opinion either way.
  4. it would be better to bomb the reactors anyway, however you do it.
    i wouldn't want to face a mad suicide bomber with a nuclear charge strapped to his body/car
  5. If iran had nuclear capbility wouldnt it stop the USA and Israel traeting the middle east as there own fireing range .Its not as if it could ever acheive parity with us or israel but would act as a detterent so stoping bushs crusade dead
  6. Absolutely right. Saddam had no WMD and isn't here any more, Kim Jong Il does and despite being a complete nutter pain in the rear is still in charge. These facts have not been lost on the rest of the world, including Iran.

    The other thing to think about is that we completed the initial military phase of Telic relatively quickly and easily because few Iraqis wanted to die for Saddam. Taking on the Iranians who will be pretty motivated and have had a good year watching the US tactics in Iraq will be an entirely different experience.

    Arguably the US are even more at risk from Iran as they have stationed large numbers of troops next door. The US and ourselves are stretched enough as it is, could we cope with an Iranian invasion and a max effort insurgency campaign ? As always we'd win the air war but if all that means is that we get a good view of the Iranians over running our positions that's not necessarily a benefit.

  7. far be it from me to be picky, but do a Google search on "hallabjah" and tell us how many he killed with nerve agent, would you?
  8. Having nerve gas weapons in '88 isn't necessarily the same thing as having them in 2003, is it?

    And having nerve gas right now isn't the same thing as having atomic bombs, or hydrogen bombs, either.

    So far, Kim Jong-il has not been touched. (Though I would not be eager to sell him a large life insurance policy.) Even if his rumored possession of atomic weapons had nothing to do with his so far undisturbed reign, other countries could reasonably assume otherwise.
  9. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Not saying he had them recently, but he has had, and has used, nerve agents.

    Concerning K-J-I: the N Koreans could fir around 40,000 artillery pieces simultaneously, each one pointing south. remember these are the people who axed to death two US Army guys because they could. IMO, the north would not hesitate to go Nuke.
  10. That's what I figure. I've heard rumors that the NK Taepo-dong rocket could deliver a payload as far as Alaska. If he has a warhead that can be reliably delivered by missile, he could obliterate Tokyo.
  11. I was referring to Telic rather than previously ... and I still maintain that if he'd had a credible WMD capability in militarily significant quantities we probably wouldn't have gone in. One of the lesser publicised reasons we didn't drive on Baghdad during Gulf One was Saddam's WMD capability. He wasn't about to use it and risk massive retaliation over Kuwait, he would have used it to defend Iraq.

    However, 12 years, massive sanctions and the much maligned inspectors all reduced said capability to effectively zero by the time we did go in.
  12. i don't think they will try it as the Iranian will be fighting a war on 2 fronts as US army is also in afghanistan also the population are already disaffected with the current govt so motivation is not so high as in the Iran-Iraq war.

    the biggest pity of all is that Saddams Ba'ath party was multi ethnic, multi religious and would have been a force for positive change for the middle east.
    Traiq is a christian, the Iraqi minister for information is Shi'te, saddam himself is sunni. it only went wrong in that saddam went down the meglomaniac dictator route :roll:
  13. It strikes me that the sudden outbreak of Iranian honesty about their nuclear weapons research is because they don't really need it any more.... and personally, I don't blame them for checking out their options. After all, if Iraq managed to get a bomb, they aren't exactly going to be able to get under the USA's nuclear umbrella, and Saddam had already killed a few hundred thousand of them when he attacked in Iran/Iraq Rd.1

    While they had a neighbour who was known to be working towards a bomb, it made sense to investigate how they could develop one pronto. This has the advantage that small-scale theory exercises are much harder to detect than trying to buying or build an A-bomb production line; you're at less risk of ruining your attempts of international reconciliation; and at worst you're not too far from having a bomb if your aggressive war-starting neighbour gets one of his own and starts rattling sabres....

    .....of course, you could suggest that the reason that they were willing to hold it to "research only" (and remain undetected) is because they had a degree of confidence that Saddam had no nuclear WMD. They were just hedging their bets.

    Now that Saddam is out, and the WMD thing isn't going to happen, and they've got no real beef with Israel; they can achieve more through being "good boys" internationally. After all, when South Africa came clean about its nuclear programme, no-one could really start yelling about more sanctions....
  14. "The October Surprise?," by William S. Lind, 9 July 2004.

    He says that the Iranian army is massing at the Iraqi border.

    He says that it's unlikely that they will do anything unless there's a strike on Iranian nuclear plants. He says that, in that event, all bets are off:

    "America has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, a formidable army by local standards. But their disposition makes them vulnerable. Confronted by a guerilla war, they are spread out in penny packets all over the country. If Iran could mass quickly and use effective camouflage and deception to conceal at least the scope of its concentration, then suddenly attack into Iraq with two or three corps, we could face a perilous situation."

    The Islamic clerics now running Iran would be taking an awful chance attacking the US military. On the other hand, if the reactors are hit, these clerics might reasonably conclude that they'd be taking a bigger chance doing nothing. "If they did not respond powerfully to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, they might well lose legitimacy with the hard-line base they now depend on."