| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Israel could do it alone |
| 2007-01-04 |
| But I really hope we help (or lead). The Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said in its annual report, released Tuesday, that Iran will possess nuclear weapons unless military action is taken against it, and Israel would be capable of carrying out such an attack. "Time is working in Iran's favor, and barring military action, Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is only a matter of time," the institute said in a statement distributed at a news conference where it released its annual assessment of the Middle East's strategic balance. Israel considers Iran to be its most serious threat. It dismisses Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is designed solely to produce energy and is worried by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls to wipe the Jewish state off the map. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, but has said he hoped other ways could be found to keep Tehran from becoming a nuclear power. In 1981, Israel destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor in a surprise air attack. The INSS think tank stopped short of calling for an Israeli military strike to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Although experts elsewhere have questioned Israel's ability to cripple the Iranian program, which is scattered and built in part in underground bunkers, analysts at INSS said Israel would be capable of carrying it off. A member of the institute's board, Brigadier General (res.) Giora Eiland said there would not be a military strike without a full "strategic and military" understanding with the U.S. "Even if, at the end of the day, Israeli jets are going to carry out, or execute, this attack, it might be perceived - and rightly - as an understanding between the United States and Israel," Eiland said. INSS head Zvi Shtauber, a retired general who also served as Israel's ambassador in London and senior policy adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, said Israel was "technically" capable of striking alone and would have to do so if it takes action, because no other country would agree to work openly with Israel. Taking issue with Eiland's assessment that the U.S. must sign off on such an attack, he said, "There are certain things that it's better the U.S. not know about." Institute analysts, while doubtful that international sanctions would sway Iran from its nuclear ambitions, said the time had not yet come to decide on military action. "We should do it only when it's clear we've exhausted all other means," Shtauber said. The institute also said in its report that although it was skeptical about the Syrian president's recent peace overtures, it was worth exploring. The report expressed doubts that Assad could "come up with the goods" during negotiations with Israel, in terms of both his ability and his readiness to go through with talks. Eiland, told reporters at a Tel Aviv press conference Tuesday that the summer war in Lebanon will have serious and far-reaching repercussions on Israel's power of deterrence. He said that both Israel's neighbors and the United States have taken note of the failures during the war. "From the perspective of our friends in the U.S., we failed to come up with the goods in an embarrassing way," he said. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #23 The Israelis will put far more pressure on everyone if they let it be known they will nuke the oil fields around the Persian Gulf if a single nuke ever goes off in Israel, from any source whatsoever. The Islamofascists care nothing about their own populations, but the source of their power is oil money. Most of the world cares nothing (or actively hates) Israel, but really needs to keep that oil flowing. If the oil money stops, the Muslim populations supported by it will starve. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-04 19:24 |
| #22 #21 DG - Works for me. ;-p |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-01-04 19:20 |
| #21 Old Patriot - Your points are valid but honestly, can you fathom a situation where either the US or Israel unilaterally strikes Iran without prior knowledge of the other. (If not outright consent) How do suppose that phone call would unfold? HowÂ’s it going Mr. President? And the wife? GoodÂ…good ta hear it. Oh by the wayÂ…those blips your generals are seeing over Iranian airspace right now are our planes. Yeah...I'm not shitting ya here...and we figure itÂ’s gonna take a few sorties to take care of businessÂ…sooooÂ…if some should scramble past your guysÂ…be sure and tell em itÂ’s just usÂ…mmmK. Oh yeahÂ…By the way...sorry to give ya the short notice and allÂ…but we thought it best if we kept this one under our hat till shit got started. AnyhooÂ…prolly gonna be some pissed off IraniansÂ…dontcha think? Prolly stir up the rest of them Jihadi fucks too. SooooÂ…just thought IÂ’d give y'all a heads up. Have a good one and IÂ’ll Catch ya later. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-01-04 19:17 |
| #20 Depot Guy - it's called "plausible deniability". Israel knows the State Dept. leaks like a collander in a rainstorm, and Defense isn't much better. Let them strike, let the Iranians attack the US Forces in Iraq, and watch the US and Israel really kick some butt. Israel MUST strike first, because it has no other option. A nuclear-armed Iran is Israel's death sentence. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-01-04 16:38 |
| #19 "We should do it only when it's clear we've exhausted all other means," Shtauber said. The sign of a leftist. Why do otherwise intelligent people believe that the adversary will actually see the light somewhere along the path to destruction ? I guarantee the adversary is using the constant next chance syndrome to prepare for your surrender do to lack of interest. He believes the delays are do to your inability to gather the necessary numbers to make a stand. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-04 15:41 |
| #18 STENNIS, anyone? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-01-04 14:09 |
| #17 What you people gota ask yourself is "Are Iranians going for MAD with Israel, or are they going after the oil?" |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-04 13:51 |
| #16 Arrogance? After the last elections we had better get used to it. Why would any other nation take us seriously now? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-01-04 13:26 |
| #15 Taking issue with Eiland's assessment that the U.S. must sign off on such an attack, he said, "There are certain things that it's better the U.S. not know about." IÂ’d say that statement is arrogance embodied. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-01-04 12:45 |
| #14 To follow-up BA's comment, note that the 'moderate' Rafsanjani has made it clear in the past: if it cost Iran a fourth of its population in a nuclear exchange with Israel, with the end-result that the 'Zionist entity' was completely obliterated, -- -- why, that would be just fine with him. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-01-04 11:05 |
| #13 dang it, bad (#10), you beat me to it. I heard something the other day about Israel that really opened my eyes. On Discovery Channel or somewhere. Anyways, grom, Israel CAN'T afford a first strike from an enemy. If Iran were to get a large enough nuke (granted, even their first gen nukes would be small), something like 80% of the Israeli population could be wiped out with just a couple of them (think: most Israelis live in the few large cities...Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, etc.). Sad to say, but even we in the U.S. could survive a couple of our larger cities being hit (some might argue it might do us some good, lol), but Israel doesn't have that luxury, geographically/demographically speaking. And, international "fallout" be damned in my book. This punk should've been assassinated just for spewing the Hitler-like crap he's already said (much less actually going through with it when the time comes). Remember, "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to sit back and do nothing." Religio-fascist govt's must NOT be allowed to posess nukes, PERIOD. That just ups the ante too much for us to negotiate with, and actually, will lead to a "final solution" one way or the other. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-04 10:46 |
| #12 ...and guess what, the Osirak reactor and facility is still tits up. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-01-04 10:00 |
| #11 Israel has withstood "international condemnation" several times and lived through it. They got the stink-eye from the UN in 81 for that little Osirak expedition, but they never apologized. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-01-04 09:57 |
| #10 Can Israel deal with the subsequent international fallout? Probably much better than dealing with nukular fallout... |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-01-04 09:21 |
| #9 Israel should make things abundantly clear to the entire Moslem world. If anyone launches a nuclear weapon against Israel, Israel will wipe out as much of the Moslem world as it can. There, now you guys hash it out among yourselves. Unless the Arab world, 80% of Moslems, control the 20% of Shiites that are out of control, you are ALL going to die together. If the entire Arab world has to go to war to defeat Iran, so be it. But you had better get started soon, because the clock is ticking. And all Iran has to do to destroy you all is to launch a single missile. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-04 08:56 |
| #8 Israel is so vulnerable to short range missiles that US shock-and-awe would be needed in any attack on Iran. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2007-01-04 06:18 |
| #7 Press Conference talking points right after Israel attacks Iran. 1) Today Israel struck Iran's nuclear weapons facilities in an attempt to save the World and Israel from a massive extinguishing of life; to save the World from an apocalyptic Holocaust promised by non other than Iranian Ayatollahs themselves and their President. 2) In order to wipe that f*cking smirk off the clown's face, Israel Bombed the Crap out of Iran today. 3) We waz just following orders from #12. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-01-04 04:49 |
| #6 If that was the case, why didn't they march north in the Israel/Hezbo war of last year? Don't get me wrong.. the pickings were ripe, although their leadership wasn't. What's different now? |
| Posted by: Dunno 2007-01-04 03:13 |
| #5 If we had things under control in Baghdad and Iraq, I don't think Iran would be so difficult to deal with. And yes, Irael could easily do it alone, dealing a blow to Iran that would produce some real shock and awe. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-01-04 02:29 |
| #4 Yep, I can visualize the Israelis 'buffing down' the nose cones of 50 of their "Light Of GOD" warheads; and should just one Iranian wmd land in Jerusalem (even off course), will trigger the 'Final Solution'!! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-01-04 02:02 |
| #3 UN Sanctions? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-04 00:53 |
| #2 Yeah, I mean universities will refuse to business with them, Arab countries will boycot businesses that deal with them, the EU will bring charges against their generals, and the UN will denounce them. So, what have they got to lose? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2007-01-04 00:22 |
| #1 Iran will possess nuclear weapons unless military action is taken against it, and Israel would be capable of carrying out such an attack Can Israel deal with the subsequent international fallout? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-04 00:03 |