Israel
The Palestinians
Two States
Neither, some other State or people rule.
Neither, mutual destruction.
One State, two peoples
One State, one people (intermarriage)
I agree with most of it. I think this serves two purposes:Originally Posted by Martin
-internal, to boost Israeli domestic morale specially after this summer fighting
-pressure on rest of the world, specially US, saying "if there is no diplomatic solution we'll use military". Specially as these type of announcements always add that Israel destroyed Iraqi facility
For those who have access to it, magazine AirForces Monthly had an article about various military options against Iranian facilities few years back. How US could do it, how Israel could do it, limited/all out strike etc.
Historic-Battles forum moderator
Plutonium Found in Iranian Waste Facility
Excerpt...
From the AP report:
International Atomic Energy experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran and have asked Tehran for an explanation, an IAEA report said Tuesday.
The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.
And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness.
"The agency will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," without additional cooperation by Tehran, said the report, by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
Such cooperation is a "prerequisite for the agency to be able to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," it added.
As expected, the four-page report made available to The Associated Press confirmed that Iran continues uranium enrichment experiments in defiance of the U.N. Security Council.
Both highly enriched uranium and plutonium can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads, and Iran is under intense international pressure to freeze activities that can produce such substances...
UK commentator, edited content....
...elections on 15 December were held to the Assembly of Experts, the 86-member congressional body that has the power to select, dismiss and supervise the Islamic republic's ultimate source of political authority, the supreme leader.
The fundamentalist faction that revolves around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hoping that its candidates will perform strongly in the elections, thereby paving the way for a successor to the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who favours a weaker parliament and a stronger presidency. However, clerical traditionalist members of the powerful Guardian Council, which vets election candidates, have reduced the chances of substantial fundamentalist gains by eliminating a number of the faction's candidates. Independent or clerical traditionalist candidates are likely to perform strongly in the elections, though a low voter turnout could favour the fundamentalist faction in areas outside the capital Tehran. The election's outcome is unlikely to affect the position or policies of the supreme leader.
The elections will be contested primarily between personal and political networks that revolve around influential figures. In the capital Tehran, the contest between former president and current Assembly of Experts deputy-speaker Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Mohammad Mesbah-Yazdi, the favoured candidate of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be especially significant. Rafsanjani has been mobilising centrist and reformist clerics and candidates in a bid to prevent the fundamentalist faction from increasing its presence in the assembly and in this appears to have the support of circles that are close to Khamenei. Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad have been locked in a power struggle since they contested the June 2005 presidential election and Ahmadinejad's assertive campaign to remove corruption from the oil industry is threatening Rafsanjani's interests and reputation.
Candidates who are perceived to be loyal to the Islamic political system but as threatening Khamenei's position were sidelined during the selection period; they included three current assembly members and one former member of the Guardian Council. In the capital, which often provides a good indication of national election trends, fundamentalist candidates will only contest 12 of the city's 16 seats. Overall, vetting has reduced the number of candidates to less than 30% of the initial 492 candidates who originally declared their intention to stand, meaning that some seats will not be contested.
Iran's clerical traditionalists broadly support a patriarchal Islamic government; the incorporation of Islamic concepts of law and society into the political system; and in preserving the wealth of the country's influential merchants. "Reformists" also want to ensure the survival of the Islamic regime, but hope to achieve this through opening the country up to the West economically; introducing socio-cultural reforms that address the desires of many young people; and increasing popular participation in the political system.
Within the clerical traditionalist movement is the fundamentalist faction to which Ahmadinejad and several other government officials belong. Fundamentalists share a political outlook that combines nationalist and Islamist ideology and believe that the "old generation" of leaders who took part in the 1979 Islamic revolution has allowed the revolution to denigrate into corruption, inefficiency and concessions to the West. They want to establish a key minimum of support through the holding of elections under restricted conditions, patronage and economic development, while also asserting Iran's culture, independence and regional status....
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Companion Piece...
Here is another article from the same issue that talks about the military preparations for a mission such as this - Focus: Mission Iran.
I never underestimate Israel's desire to exist and take risks to maintain that existence.
Strike one: Israel took out Saddam’s reactor in 1981
IF Israeli forces attack nuclear sites in Iran, it will not be their first pre-emptive strike against a perceived nuclear threat. In 1981 Israeli jets bombed a reactor in Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein getting nuclear weapons.
The Iraqi dictator had built a 40-megawatt research reactor just south of Baghdad with the aid of France, which supplied technology, expertise and about 27lb of uranium-235.
Fearing this could be used in the long term to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, Israel decided to destroy what became known as the Osirak reactor. Israel’s first move was in 1980 when war broke out between Iraq and Iran: its chief of army intelligence urged Iran to bomb Osirak.
A pair of Iranian jets attacked the site, but damage was minor. So Israel decided to bomb it, secretly building a dummy site and carrying out full dress rehearsals. On June 7, 1981, Israel launched Operation Opera: six F-15I and eight F-16I jets flew over Jordanian and Saudi Arabian airspace and caught Iraqi defences by surprise.
The raid crippled the reactor. Many countries, including the United States, condemned the attack. Opposition parties in Israel claimed that it had been cynically timed to coincide with a looming election.
Some Iraqi scientists later said the attack spurred Saddam to redouble his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Attempts were made to rebuild the Osirak facility. However, Saddam’s nuclear ambitions were again halted when coalition forces bombed Osirak during the 1991 Gulf war.
This "sabre rattling" on the part of Israel has been going on for a long time....an article back in Aug 04 from CNS/MIIS:
A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences
...In Israel, planning and rhetoric appear to have progressed quite a bit further; it appears that some in Israel are seriously considering a preemptive attack similar to the June 1981 attack on Osirak that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Meir Dagan, the Chief of Mossad, told parliament members in his inaugural appearance before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran was close to the "point of no return" and that the specter of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to Israel since its inception. On November 11, 2003, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel had "no plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran." Less than two weeks later however, during a visit to the United States, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession" and just six weeks earlier, Mossad had revealed plans for preemptive attacks by F-16 bombers on Iranian nuclear sites. This report will examine the following: The Iranian nuclear facilities most likely to be targeted and their proliferation risk potential; the likely preemptive scenarios involving Israel or the United States; and the possible consequences of any preemptive action...
Israel Denies Planning Iran Nuke Attack
7 January AP - Israel Denies Planning Iran Nuke Attack.
A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran's uranium enrichment program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.
Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman...
I like this part the best...
IRAN barks back..."I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say 'someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"
Teheran: Israel will regret any attack
In response to a report on Sunday that Israel planned to attack Teheran's nuclear sites, Iran declared that any attack would provoke a reaction and that "anyone who attacks will regret their actions very quickly."
According to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Muhammad Ali Husseini, the report published in the London-based Sunday Times proved that Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons.
Last edited by Culpeper; 01-07-2007 at 06:12 PM. Reason: Added content
Five Scenarios for the Iranian Crisis
...This essay explores five broad pathways by which Iran and the international community can try to resolve the nuclear standoff. It emphasizes that the Bush Administration after years of indecision has invested seriously in a diplomatic strategy to induce Iran to forego uranium enrichment and is prepared to pursue behavior change rather than regime change in Iran. However, Iranian resistance continues to raise the prospect that the international community will favor the competing approach of capitulation, which in turn would re-raise the prospects of military attack.
1. Capitulate to Iran and welcome limited uranium enrichment.
2. Offer sanctions and positive incentives to persuade Iran not to produce nuclear fuel (for an agreed substantial period of time)
3. Attack Iran's nuclear facilities and/or military assets.
4. Foster regime change in Iran.
5. Try options 1 or 2, while strengthening deterrence and containment...
Courage and Desperation
We recently saw some students protesting against the autocrats and they've done it before, which gives us hope but most likely resulted in a few of them simply disappearing later, never to be seen again. We have a ready force to start destablization and bleed assets via the Kurds. They are already in action against the bassiji and Iranian security forces but full support from us would make Turkey very nervous and unhappy and I don't think the Kurds would settle for just a small piece of Iran to call their own either- it's whole hog with them boys or none IMHO. How about discreetly slipping IDF a few billion with a note attached requested Iran's nukes be taken out? That seems the only real option. Iran's infrastructure and energy capabilities remain intact, China continues to gets its energy, Europe doesn't have to worry about retaliation and it will greatly encourage internal forces for regime change as well. Let the world condemn the Jews - they're used to it. Does anyone really think Iran would want to try slug it out with us on 3 flanks if IDF does what they did to saddam?
Osirak Attack Not Model for Iran
YesDoes anyone really think Iran would want to try slug it out with us on 3 flanks if IDF does what they did to saddam?
The Israeli reactor strike was a simple operation compared to what Iran would require. More importantly, the vote on the effectiveness of that strike is still out; SSI published a paper recently on the issue of preemption and the Israeli reactor strike was cited as a key factor in pushing Saddam to broaden his efforts in WMD and especially the "supergun" program.
The Kurds know us better than we know ourselves when it comes to using them as instrument of destabilization. With the Shah's support, we used them against Iraq and then abandoned them. You are absolutely correct when you say the Turks would not want us in such a game.
Jed listed options; I would pick 5 at this juncture.
Best
Tom
Hardline Iranian leaders do not fear an invasion from us.
They know they will lose the majority of their major conventional weapons in our "march-up" but they accept that. Elements of their conventional military will stand and fight, national pride demands it regardless of how fool hardy it is.
Their tactic is/will be to establish weapons and ammo caches throughout the country and bleed us through the occupation. During the march up, the IRGC will disappear and blend with the population and they will form the cadre of the Iranian opposition and provide leadership and technical and tactic expertise while the basij will be used as the grunts of the opposition: IED planters and simple direct fire ambushers. Also, if they can, I think you will see more religiously fanatical supports infilitrate from Lebanon and Palestine to serve as the suicide bombers and VBIED drivers.
They believe they will be able to cause casualities on a scale that would force us to withdraw due to the political cost. At that point, elements of the deposed regime will reappear and claim victory over us.
Obviously, Iran has political interests they are attempting to further in Iraq. But they are also using it as an ultra-realistic CTC of sorts as well as a range where they can test munitions, such as improved EFPs, against our vehicles, especially our M1A2 SEPs, Bradleys, and Strykers.
They would do exactly what you suggest... if we were stupid enough to try to invade/occupy. But why would we ever want to invade Iran on the ground, and how could we, considering our committments with their neighbors to the East and West? Iran's CoG is its Navy/IRGCN. If we eliminate that threat, they lose any type of asymmetric leverage against us as well as their ability to control the SOH and the oil that flows through it.
I am in favor of a preemptive strike against their Navy, Nuke facilities, and selected leadership targets if other options fail to keep them contained. I know this is the Small Wars Council, but this problem needs a big dose of American firepower, not another COIN fight. If it's not us, the Israelis will do this, with the fallout that would bring to the Arab world.
What are the 2nd/3rd order impacts of a US strike? 1) Iran may try to step up the fight in Iraq or outside using Hez as a proxy, but I think we are ready for that. 2) The Muslim world hates us, but not much new there. 3) Iran is put back in the box for at least another decade, and hopefully the people, largely untouched by their nation's military defeat, will see that their leadership aren't doing them any favors.
Just a thought here, my guess is there would be some impact on the oil flowing out of the Gulf of Hormuz.
Them With the Most Teeth
listen least to the UN. We see how Saddam was able to defy the UN despite the horrendous attrition he suffered from Desert Storm and the embargos and air corridors imposed on him. Compare his situation to present day Iran and it becomes apparent the notions of containment and sanctions as a means of curtailing Iran's nuclear pursuit are but pipe dreams. Mullahs with oil revenues and hot-tipped missles can equal only one thing: expansion of influence and control. They sure aren't going to be putting their money and energy into the expansion of human rights and equal opportunity at home. The southern Shia corridor of Iraq gives access to Jordan and a destabalized Jordan give access to Israel, the only real obstacle in the ME in path of the Caliphate. Destabalize Jordan, cripple Israel and the suez canal is yours for the taking. Those would be my goals if I were a mullah with alot of cash and nukes. Who would stop me, a willing coalition of Liberals with the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Obama Barak at the helm?
The Caliphate is a purely Sunni concept; it has nothing to do with the more radical Iranians' notions of gaining greater political influence throughout the region.
Power Is Power
Muahmmad al-Mahdi , assuming he makes his appearance, probably wouldn't quibble much over the term applied to controling the Ummah and I don't think the likes of Hizb ut-Rahrir much care what word or words and are used to describe the spread and influence of Islam and what sects/branches of Islam are in the forefront of it. It's all masking rhetoric and a front for power.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
This week's column - Iran: This emperor has no clothes.
Americans swallow enemy propaganda at face value, subjecting us to knee-jerking manipulation by fiery orators. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with a few choice phrases, successfully elevates himself to the status of a Muslim "Hitler." But this populist windbag is already losing his grip in Tehran, giving Washington a strategic opportunity we don't yet appreciate.
While American neocons and Israeli hawks would bomb Iran today, lest it continue enriching uranium, try viewing the situation less emotionally...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks