Netanyahu Backs Pre-emptive Strike Against Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, Dec 5, 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:


    Netanyahu is a pretty tough guy and I think that he would order non-nuclear strikes against Iran, but to what effect ? If the program is dispersed it will be hard to take out. Of course the reactor could be destroyed but how would that delay the nuclear weapons program ?
  2. Hmmm. This is all going to go very horribly wrong! Who the hell wants to go to Iran?! If Israel does, they can bloody well do it by themselves!
  3. If Israel goes to Iran it will be via airmail and not by snail mail.
  4. If he's determined to do it, he'd better do it quickly and do it properly. Even then, a HUGE sh1tstorm would ensue.

    I think it's posturing. He's trying to set the agenda for the March elections, steel support for the RW hardliners and maybe remind the people that are wavering in the middle that they "can't" follow Sharon.
  5. Quite likely.
  6. And not just a shitstorm. Remember how far the crud from Chernobyl went ? The radiation meant that sheep in Scotland were declared unfit for human consumption. ( Q Black Watch jokes...). Bombing reactors is NOT a good idea !
  7. Only if the Natanz enrichment plant became fully functional again and ElBaradei has said that full functionality would take two years. Trust the Jpost to forget that crucial detail :roll:
  8. Of course, the thing that really has me puzzled is how he would go about doing it. Most of the Iranian facilities are at least 900 miles (on a great circle route) from Israel, even if the IDF get permission to overfly Baghdad, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This means that either a) the packages would have to have plenty of tanker support- which Israel doesn't have or b) it would be a one-way trip. No fcuking way could helos with SF types aboard get there.

    Their cruise missiles (Popeyes) can only carry a 200kg warhead and unless it was nuclear, with the limited numbers they have, it'd be as useful as t1ts on a fish.

    IMHO, I don't think even the current bunch in Washington would let this happen. There is an existing precedent from GW1- the coalition, worries about reprisals following the Scud attacks, refused to give the Israelis the coalition IFF codes and they risked being shot down if they incurred on Iraqi airspace.
  9. hmm this one is definatelty a spectator sport i feel

    the 2 leaders of both countries leaders in the simpilist form are sabre rattling nut jobs

    Plus throwing are lot in with isreal would cause huge amounts of problems for us with Islamic world not least of which our own islamic community.

    A situation i feel our current government is in no way capable of dealing with
  10. worryingly, seen a snippet on the tellybox tonight, saying the religous authorities in Iran are expecting the coming of the messiah at some point, to be preceded by some sort of apocalypse. So their leader may not necessarily view a catastrophe as a terrible thing. 8O
  11. If Iran keeps on rattling the sabres,somebody is going to have to call their bluff.Netanyahu,would love to vapourise Iran just to flex his muscles,he´s a very dangerous man,that´s why they kicked him out of the top job a few years ago.They realised they´d voted for a smooth talking,Right wing maniac.

    Can´t think of an easy way out of this,there is no way on earth that the US or Israel wiil allow Iran a Atomic Weapon capability.
  12. If it was any other country, I'd classify it as BS. But the Isralies have previous. They've done it before and would no doubt be willing to do it again.
    However, Iran is a very difficult target to hit, givin the distance from Israel and the way it's nuclear facilities are spread out around the country. And depending on what they hit and when they hit it, there is the chance of fallout reaching the oil producing areas of the Middle East.
    The Iranian president is potentially far more dangerous than Saddam ever was. Saddam was a gangster; The Iranian is a true believer.
    There is nothing more dangerous than a man stupid enough to die for his religion.
    IMO, it's a question of when military action is taken against the Iranians, not if.