| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Arabia | ||
| UAE leader: Israel would destroy Iran if attacked | ||
| 2011-12-06 | ||
| The prime minister of the United Arab Emirates has rejected the threat of a nuclear Iran, saying that if Tehran were to attack Israel, it would be destroyed the next day. In an interview with CNN, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the absolute monarch of Dubai, said that he does not think Iran would develop a nuclear weapon since it would be of little use to it. "What can Iran do with a nuclear weapon?" al-Maktoum asked CNN. "For example, will they hit Israel? How many Palestinians will die? And if you think Iran hits Israel, their cities will be safe? They will be gone the next day."
According to the Telegraph report, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Mohammed Ali Jaafari issued a command to raise operational readiness, fearing what the report called "potential external strikes and covert attacks." | ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 Meh, I had a liberal tell me,with a straight face, that the events in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" actually transpired. The proposition that al-Maktoum wants us to buy is that Iran is run by leaders who think rationally about MAD. HE may think rationally, but the leap from HIM to Iran is somewhat over-ambitious. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2011-12-06 15:54 |
| #9 What I don't get is how so many conservatives accept liberal tropes at face value. How many here realize that Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" was completely made-up and had no basis in reality? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-12-06 15:22 |
| #8 So instead of retaliating against just the one Muslim state that attacked it, they should retaliate against all Muslim states that *could* attack it, as well as wiping out those religious things central to Islam, Mecca and Medina, with particularly "dirty" bombs, leaving them uninhabitable for thousands of years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt pretty much after the rubble was cleared away, and those bombs were way dirtier than anything we're making today. Anti-nuke activists have seriously exaggerated the post-explosion impact of nuclear strikes. Someone in the blast area at the time of the explosions will have serious issues, but the effects on anyone who wanders in after that are seriously limited. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-12-06 15:21 |
| #7 A nuclear Iran will at least be a state sponsor of terrorism and a safe haven for terrorists protected by a measure of nuclear deterrence. The Iranian leadership will look at the precedent of non-nuclear Afghanistan where an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor, an attack directed at the last superpower's nerve centers did NOT result in the destruction of the Afghan nation or even the Taliban. The Iranians may not intend to use their nuclear weapons but their nukes will turn them into fearless terroristic aggressors. Saddam once said that the West's weakness was that Western nations can't accept casualties. Maybe it is the other way round; after 9/11 Western leadership refused to name the enemy and to defeat the enemy because we would have had to inflict significant casualties on the enemy. That just wasn't acceptable. The Mullahs noticed this and this is why a nuclear Iran will be a game changer even without any nuclear first strike by Iran. |
| Posted by: Jumbo Shaviting1744 2011-12-06 13:23 |
| #6 to Iran - that is a feature not a bug if it brings out the 12th Iman out of his hidy-hole and they can get to their real passion of slaughtering jews and Kufirs.... You can bet the mullah's will be deep, deep, underground when the launch is done. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-12-06 12:33 |
| #5 The prime minister of the United Arab Emirates has rejected the threat of a nuclear Iran, saying that if Tehran were to attack Israel, it would be destroyed the next day. I think it would be a lot quicker than that. The missiles would probably cross paths over Iraq |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-12-06 12:23 |
| #4 You might not have noticed, but Muslim overlords tend to have the Asian indifference to human life, especially their own subjects, who they see rather like chess pieces. Were it not for Israel, the typical Muslim would care less for Palestinians than they would for crab lice. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-12-06 11:35 |
| #3 The fallout would also affect nearby countries such as Jordon, the Paleo territory, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, etc. Rids them of all those pesky Sunnis and other wannabe Salafists. Also mitigates that whiner Nasrallah and his money-grubbing, attention-seeking minions. But the 'Twelfth Imam©' would be somewhere hiding in a well that day, all safe and sound. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2011-12-06 11:08 |
| #2 If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, it would also wipe out much that is Muslim; shrines, and part of the islamic population in Israel. The fallout would also affect nearby countries such as Jordon, the Paleo territory, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, etc. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-12-06 10:26 |
| #1 Israel has yet another card, and it's a strong one. If they are attacked with a nuclear weapon, they probably calculate that were it successful, the effect would be so devastating, that Israel could no longer defend itself for many years. So instead of retaliating against just the one Muslim state that attacked it, they should retaliate against all Muslim states that *could* attack it, as well as wiping out those religious things central to Islam, Mecca and Medina, with particularly "dirty" bombs, leaving them uninhabitable for thousands of years. This is the horrible, awful, but crystal clear logic of Mutually Assured Destruction. If you can imagine a list of 160 targets, leaving 40 nuclear weapons in reserve, less overkill, which would not be great as Israel would use quality missiles and nukes. Strategically, Israel has little choice but to do this, as they are surrounded by enemies only kept back by Israel's military strength, and who have time and again demonstrated resolve to destroy Israel. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-12-06 09:11 |