Israel plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran, according to reports, in order to destroy uranium enrichment facilities that are deeply fortified in Iran. That is interesting if true, but often these sort of military reports are red herring blusters, propaganda or outright fabrications. If it were really going to happen I don’t think Israeli military planners would be talking about it beforehand, do you? So the report should be treated highly suspect, but we’ll see what happens.
Clearly Iran has tacitly declared war on Israel already with repeated and clear promises to destroy the country. Iran has announced their intentions and unfortunately nobody is listening except for Israel. There is no question that an Israeli military action should be viewed an act of self-defense. But it won’t be viewed that way by 99% of the world, which creates a large problem.
The challenge for Israel is to find the best means to defend herself. One must question, however, if such a nuclear strike would be in Israel’s long-term interest. Perhaps it would be since that may be the best route to survival, but I doubt it. Even more dubiously, one questions if such an act would be in the strategic interest of the United States. I think not.
Why doesn’t Israel just send Mossad in and poison Ahmadinejad? The guy travels. Hello. Get this over with already. And I’m inclined to believe that democratic forces in Iran WILL triumph ultimately. There is more than one solution to Iran and Israeli simply can’t exist long-term while in a perpetual state of conflict with her neighbors.
And as Part-time Pundit has noted, this story may even be coming from Iranian sources.
The full story is here.
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.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels�? into the targets. “Mini-nukes�? would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,�? said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
January 7th, 2007 at 12:24 am
This just looks like another one of “them” stories out of the UK to me McCain, but you never know.
BTW-I saw this lit up in red on the Drudge Report site earlier today, but it wouldn’t pull up when I clicked on it. I figure they were editing it at the time. That said, it kind of makes me wonder how many adjustments they had to make to this story in order to make it suitable for publishing, or even believable?
January 7th, 2007 at 9:59 am
I find it interesting that they mention Hiroshima because the government who appears most concerned about nuclear weapons usage is the ONLY country to have ever used them. Now our govt wants to do it again but will send our little puppet friends in to do it instead.
The millions of affected civilians don’t care what the politices were behind the fact that they are bombed and dead. Nuclear weapons are an ugly thing, period.
By the way, if you poison Ahmedinejad, that wouldn’t change anything. Most Iranians hate their government because it is oppressive. They would thank you yes. They would even begin to embrace freedoms that they deserve, yes. But they would still pursue nuclear power. The desire for this is universal.
Cheers
January 7th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The removal of that nut would change a lot. Related, the eventual democratization of Iran will remove the danger from their nuclear ambitions. Democracies don’t war with each other, ever. That is why nobody cares that much when democracies obtain nuclear weapons.
You have a misguided notion that Israel is a puppet on this issue. They are far more in danger from Iranian ambitions that us so they care more, as they should. And it isn’t in our interest for Israel to strike with nuclear weapons. It might certainly be in Israeli interest, so they will be acting alone. But it isn’t going to happen. This is a phony story.
The liberal view of the world that all matters are controlled by the USA is quite farcical. It is part of anti-American propaganda to attribute all world events to your homeland. That keeps people hating us. If only we had the influence that such rage requires!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hmmm…
LEt’s say for the s
January 8th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Let’s say Ahmedinijad is pursing nucelar weapons and not just nuclear power. Our government has lied to us about the clandestine activities of other countries before (think Iraq), but I think it’s not beyond belief.
You say democracies never attack democracies. I would agree that they don’t as much as other regimes, but I can think of a few cases (Israel vs Lebanon, both elected officials by the people).
I would say what is MORE true, is that nuclear powers don’t go to war with nuclear powers, ever. See how, for example, everybody attacked non-nuclear Iraq, but not nuclear armed North Korea. Other nations now see this and there becomes a great incentive to have nuclear arms as a deterrent for other nuclear powers to attack them. I don’t think Israel would have attacked Lebanon if they were nuclear-armed.
Likewise, Iran would never nuke Israel because they know they would get it right back. It’s a nonbody wins situation. So, what I am saying is that yes the people there despise their leader, but they are united in their right to nuclear power, or perhaps nuclear weapons.
So now Israel is free to flex its muscle in the region, bomb countries when it pleases and occupy other people’s land and nobody can react. So, in a way, when other countries in the region have nuclear weapons, it keeps Israel in check and they can no longer be the bullies that they are. And since Israel has nuclear weapons too, the threat of full scale war goes away.
One great danger, in any country, is if the nuclear weapons somehow get into the wrong hands. But this goes for all countries. Think of the crazy Zionist settlers in the West Bank who still hold onto the belief that a thousand Palestinians are not worth a Jewish fingernail. I think if that lot got their hands on nuclear weapons they would very likely nuke Ramallah in a heart beat. There are Americans who would like to nuke the middle east too if they were in charge.
Bottom line, nuclear weapons suck. Nobody should have them. But the fact that some have them makes everybody else want to have them. That’s why I have to support the NRA. Not because I am into guns so much. But I can’t accept that our government have all the weapons and us as citizens can’t protect ourselves when things fall apart.
Cheers
January 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Those are well considered arguments, but you are avoiding one important fact. Iran has stated on numerous occasions it intends to destroy Israel. Do you expect them to laugh it off the same as everyone laughed off H1tler’s announced intentions?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
McCain
Let me correct you:
Ahmedinejad has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. This is different than saying ‘Iran’ intends to destroy Israel. True, you will find alot of anti-Israel sentiment among the other people in the middle east because Israel is seen as an aggressor. Whether you agree with that or not, most people are NOT going to actually commit violent acts against Israel. Most people do not want confrontation.
Ahmedinejad is a poor leader. Ok, let’s call him a total moron even. We are not in disagreement, although our specific views may differ.
Right now, every educated young person in Iran is desperately trying to get out of the country. Because Ahmedinejad is being fanatical without doing anything for his people or his economy. So, the hope is that he will be replaced from the inside. Sanctions are probably good for Iran in the long run because they will expedite the process of a revolution.
I think it will prove very difficult to overthrow the supreme council, so things will have to get pretty dire to spark the momentum to get rid of them.
On the other hand, the same sanctions will still stoke anti-western sentiment among Iranians. So once there is a new government, relations with the west will be tense. And, although perhaps they will not seek to antagonize Israel, I don’t believe they will recognize them either until they withdraw from the occupied territories, which is a whole other mess.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Okay okay, we can split hairs about what someone with nuclear weapons means when he says Israel should be wiped off the map, over and over again.
But yes, I’m with you on a long-term view for Iran. That has been US policy for the last two administrations, which is why a strike by Israel does not support US policy. Things will change there eventually.
But until they do, we’ve tried putting intense pressure on their nuclear weapons program thru the UN. But the problem with the UN is there isn’t unanimity on sanctions and so they will not be effective. And all of this leaves the little country of Israel in an untenable postion with their very survival threatened in the short run.