Iran could launch pre-emptive attack on Israel, says Iranian senior commander

[natina]

Iran could launch pre-emptive attack on Israel, says Iranian senior commander


An Iranian brigadier general said they would not start a war, but could launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel, if they were sure Israel was planning an attack.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0923/Iran-could-launch-pre-emptive-attack-on-Israel-says-Iranian-senior-commander

[hippifried]

They can't do it for the same reason Israel can't do it. We control the airspace between them, & we're not going to allow it. It's just that simple. I don't know why anybody even bothers to listen to either of the fanatical bullshitters who control these 2 countries.

[JenniferParisHusband]

They can't do it for the same reason Israel can't do it. We control the airspace between them, & we're not going to allow it. It's just that simple. I don't know why anybody even bothers to listen to either of the fanatical bullshitters who control these 2 countries.

Sort of, we control Iraq's airspace. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt are kind of the wildcards in this. You'd think this group would have learned from the 6 days war, but Islamic nations tend to stick together.

In theory, you could rule out Egypt. Even though their government is currently controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, they like the money that America provides as a subsidy to honor the Camp David peace accords.

Saudi Arabia? Probably not going to happen there either, as there is still a large American presence in the kingdom, and the current King is somewhat alligned with US interests. However there are members of the Royal Family who openly call for them to cut ties with the US and support an Islamic revolution. Most likely they won't go against Israel because they don't want Iran to be seen as a power in the region, they are the major Islamic power in the gulf, and might allow Israel flyover rights to deny their major competition from gaining a nuclear weapon which also could threaten Saudi Arabia, and diminish their standing. Fly out through the gulf of aqaba and over Saudi Air Space and you're only adding about 45 minutes to the trip.

Jordan, just won't take sides.

Syria, Bashir is still in power, even if it doesn't seem that way. Russia keeps the US from entering Syrian airspace to deal with Iranian jets, and the close ties between Syria and Iran would be the most logical route into Israel. Turkey would probably deny them flyover rights for an attack, but they could stage aircraft at Syrian air-bases, as they have done in the past.

Or they both could pull a page from history and do as Israel did in their rescue of hijacking hostages from Entebbe, and fly through the gulf of aqaba. But then refuel in the air, around the gulf of Aden or the Persian gulf, and on into Iran. While this is highly unlikely, it is physically possible to carry out.

What is more likely than air strikes however, is that Israeli Special Forces have already made their way into the Persian Gulf clandestinely, and their Mossad contacts have helped them scout the locations for ground assaults, and are already building up weapons and intel for a mission of this sort. It's harder to do without air support, but that is possible as well.

[danthepoetman]

Not launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations is something we could regret forever. Yet the point is, in my opinion, that we know the Iranian regime is now a dictatorship. It always was a hard liner, bloody regime, but there were good reasons to think that it was popular after the Islamic Revolution and still a long while after. But today, we know that the population is not behind the State anymore, we know that the last elections were rigged, we know that there is terrible repression and we know that there is a strong opposition that could eventually take power in Iran. The risk of a pre-emptive strike is to turn even the opposition against an outsider enemy, the aggressor.
In the mean time, I can very well understand why most Israelites would fear the building of nuclear power in Iran.
As you said, Hippifried, as long as America is in Iraq, everything should hold on. But I just wander how long before Iran possesses nuclear devices, and missiles to reach far distances?

[danthepoetman]

Syria, Bashir is still in power, even if it doesn't seem that way. Russia keeps the US from entering Syrian airspace to deal with Iranian jets, and the close ties between Syria and Iran would be the most logical route into Israel. Turkey would probably deny them flyover rights for an attack, but they could stage aircraft at Syrian air-bases, as they have done in the past.

Or they both could pull a page from history and do as Israel did in their rescue of hijacking hostages from Entebbe, and fly through the gulf of aqaba. But then refuel in the air, around the gulf of Aden or the Persian gulf, and on into Iran. While this is highly unlikely, it is physically possible to carry out.

What is more likely than air strikes however, is that Israeli Special Forces have already made their way into the Persian Gulf clandestinely, and their Mossad contacts have helped them scout the locations for ground assaults, and are already building up weapons and intel for a mission of this sort. It's harder to do without air support, but that is possible as well.
The suggestion of a possible strike by Iran on Israel is chilling, JPH. With nuclear weapons, it would be.. is there a word? much beyond terrible. Israel has a very small population. The destruction could be unimaginable.

[Prospero]

but would Iran seriously contemplate a nuclear attack on Israel with the collateral killing of Palestinians that would involve?

[nina_lisa]

They can't do it for the same reason Israel can't do it. We control the airspace between them, & we're not going to allow it. It's just that simple. I don't know why anybody even bothers to listen to either of the fanatical bullshitters who control these 2 countries.

If you look at a map, between Iran and Isreal you have two countries on the way: Iraq and Syria. Both are allies of Iran.

Iran have been actively sending arms to the Syrian regime, using Iraqi air space, and the US is unable to do anything about it, they tried to apply pressure on the Iraqi president to which his reply was around: why don't you find me some proof, and i'll have someone look at it.

If a strike happen or not will more depend on them not having the air force to do it, rather than something having to do with airspace.

[Prospero]

If you look at a map, between Iran and Isreal you have two countries on the way: Iraq and Syria. Both are allies of Iran.

Iran have been actively sending arms to the Syrian regime, using Iraqi air space, and the US is unable to do anything about it, they tried to apply pressure on the Iraqi president to which his reply was around: why don't you find me some proof, and i'll have someone look at it.

If a strike happen or not will more depend on them not having the air force to do it, rather than something having to do with airspace.

I gree

[nina_lisa]

The suggestion of a possible strike by Iran on Israel is chilling, JPH. With nuclear weapons, it would be.. is there a word? much beyond terrible. Israel has a very small population. The destruction could be unimaginable.

When was the last time, a nuclear power attacked another nuclear power? Iran knows very well if they attack Israel with a nuclear bomb, that the second day every single Iranian city will be nuked by the Israeli.



Yet the point is, in my opinion, that we know the Iranian regime is now a dictatorship. It always was a hard liner, bloody regime, but there were good reasons to think that it was popular after the Islamic Revolution and still a long while after. But today, we know that the population is not behind the State anymore, we know that the last elections were rigged, we know that there is terrible repression and we know that there is a strong opposition that could eventually take power in Iran.

Can the USA still use this an argument?

Saudi Arabia is dictatorship that have the full support of the US. Pinochet oppression of the chilies was support by the US, So was Suharto in Indonesia, he killed millions of people yet US governments where thrilled with what he did.

Last time we have seen the US use human rights as an excuse, what we seen is US soldiers torturing civilians in Iraq till death in Abu Gharib, of course the soldiers had a big smile on their face while doing so.

A simple air strike is not going to change a whole regime, yes there is a strong opossition in Iran, even protests in the region started in Iran long before Tunis and Egypt, but at the same time the only people that can change the situation is the Iranian.

A US strike will just make the opposition look like US puppet, while Iranian hate their regime, they also hate the regime that existed before, and have a history where the US was against their first democratically elected president, and where they supported the dictatorship that existed before.



As you said, Hippifried, as long as America is in Iraq, everything should hold on.

US was in iraq, while they still have a few soldiers there and a big embassy, the USA also gave a lot of money, training and arms to pro iranian militia. And the country having control over Iraq is not any more the US but Iran.

Even the Iraqi prime minister makes part of an organization that was responsible for attacks against US interests in the region, during the iraqi/irani war.

[nina_lisa]

but would Iran seriously contemplate a nuclear attack on Israel with the collateral killing of Palestinians that would involve?

Iranian supported militias committed lot of massacres against Palestinians refugee in Iraq, so they couldn't care less about collateral killing of Palestinians.

On the other side they wouldn't attack another power that also have the nuclear bomb.

[yosi]

They can't do it for the same reason Israel can't do it. We control the airspace between them, & we're not going to allow it. It's just that simple.


you are absolutly wrong if missiles are involved , it's just that simple.......

[Prospero]

See my eariier post on MAD - the principle that (just) kept us all from incineration during the cold war. It maybe doesn't apply anymore since Ahmadinejad has other more troubling beliefs ... he is a member of a sect of Shi'ism (who revere the so called Hidden or occluded Imam) who believe that paradise is at hand and will be brought about by a great conflict in which millions will die.

[danthepoetman]

When was the last time, a nuclear power attacked another nuclear power? Iran knows very well if they attack Israel with a nuclear bomb, that the second day every single Iranian city will be nuked by the Israeli.
Of course, a nuclear attack would call for immediate retaliation. But this is a regime of fanatics. No, I don’t think they are totally crazy, but who knows what’s coming. And worst, how do we know such a nuclear capacity won’t be exported? How do we know it won’t serve terrorism against the West? It seems a little frivolous not to consider such possibilities with a regime that entertain such a rhetoric as the Iranian.



Can the USA still use this an argument?

Saudi Arabia is dictatorship that have the full support of the US. Pinochet oppression of the chilies was support by the US, So was Suharto in Indonesia, he killed millions of people yet US governments where thrilled with what he did.

Last time we have seen the US use human rights as an excuse, what we seen is US soldiers torturing civilians in Iraq till death in Abu Gharib, of course the soldiers had a big smile on their face while doing so.

A simple air strike is not going to change a whole regime, yes there is a strong opossition in Iran, even protests in the region started in Iran long before Tunis and Egypt, but at the same time the only people that can change the situation is the Iranian.

A US strike will just make the opposition look like US puppet, while Iranian hate their regime, they also hate the regime that existed before, and have a history where the US was against their first democratically elected president, and where they supported the dictatorship that existed before.
Nina Lisa, my argument was not that the US would use human rights as an argument! God help me… The argument is of course that it’s much easier to wait on the regime to fall on its own rather than intervene. And that now, they do have reasons to envision such a possibility.



US was in iraq, while they still have a few soldiers there and a big embassy, the USA also gave a lot of money, training and arms to pro iranian militia. And the country having control over Iraq is not any more the US but Iran.

Even the Iraqi prime minister makes part of an organization that was responsible for attacks against US interests in the region, during the iraqi/irani war.
I’m sorry, Nina Lisa, there is obviously a strong Shiite population in Iraq, but to say that it is “controlled” by Iran is absurd. This country is still under occupation and especially unrest. You still have a Kurd element in the North, Sunnites in the center, it is still wild and crazy down there. And the American aviation, as Hipifried said, is still in control of the air space.

[nina_lisa]

See my eariier post on MAD - the principle that (just) kept us all from incineration during the cold war. It maybe doesn't apply anymore since Ahmadinejad has other more troubling beliefs ... he is a member of a sect of Shi'ism (who revere the so called Hidden or occluded Imam) who believe that paradise is at hand and will be brought about by a great conflict in which millions will die.

Which is what Iranian militia are doing in Iraq. If you want to start a conflict, will he choose a weak neighbor and do it, or choose the strongest country military wise in the region to do it?

Religion also played a big role in US invasion of Iraq, with many churches and religious fundamentalist strongly supporting Bush back then, because of the believe in Harmageddon. But did bush decide to attach China that has a strong military, or instead decided to attack country that was starving?

If i am troll that love to start a fight, i will not choose to fight the 500 pound gorrila, and will not start a fight where i have a big chance of loosing.

[danthepoetman]

Iranian supported militias committed lot of massacres against Palestinians refugee in Iraq, so they couldn't care less about collateral killing of Palestinians.

On the other side they wouldn't attack another power that also have the nuclear bomb.
Once again, why would you say that, Nina Lisa? Why do you talk as if we were dealing with purely rational people? Their rhetoric as been fanatical from the get go! We are beyond ordinary politics with Iran, I'm affraid.
And even if it wasn't the case, even if they were just "talking", and not being serious "for real", why wouldn't we be rational enough ourselves take precautions against people who shows such a radical logic?

[danthepoetman]

Religion also played a big role in US invasion of Iraq, with many churches and religious fundamentalist strongly supporting Bush back then, because of the believe in Harmageddon. But did bush decide to attach China that has a strong military, or instead decided to attack country that was starving?
Are you saying you believe that Bush attacked Iraq because of Jesus, Nina Lisa? Really?? Do you really mean to say you think America attacked Iraq because of Christian fanatics? I’m sorry, once again, but I don’t follow you one bit, here…
If I don't get your point, please explain, because that one just beats me...

[nina_lisa]

Of course, a nuclear attack would call for immediate retaliation. But this is a regime of fanatics. No, I don’t think they are totally crazy, but who knows what’s coming. And worst, how do we know such a nuclear capacity won’t be exported? How do we know it won’t serve terrorism against the West? It seems a little frivolous not to consider such possibilities with a regime that entertain such a rhetoric as the Iranian.


Difference between been a fanatic and crazy, also Iranian religious leads sit on billions of dollars of wealth, more important for them to try to expand their control to other countries, and suddenly instead of having 60 million people giving 20% of their income to the religious institution in Iran, have 100 million doing so.

doing something crazy as using nuclear bomb against anyone that have it, let it be Israel or the west would be to break their own teeth.



I’m sorry, Nina Lisa, there is obviously a strong Shiite population in Iraq, but to say that it is “controlled” by Iran is absurd. This country is still under occupation and especially unrest. You still have a Kurd element in the North, Sunnites in the center, it is still wild and crazy down there. And the American aviation, as Hipifried said, is still in control of the air space.

Northen Iraq i agree, can even be considered independent from iraq. The rest is strongly controlled by Iranian via the current government. One reason US/european sanction is not as effective against Iran as it should be, is because Iraq sell most of their foreign reserves in $$ currency to Iran, despite the fact that it create economical problems locally, even when Prime minister if Iraq visit Iran, Irani refuse to show or raise Iraqi flag

[nina_lisa]

Once again, why would you say that, Nina Lisa? Why do you talk as if we were dealing with purely rational people? Their rhetoric as been fanatical from the get go! We are beyond ordinary politics with Iran, I'm affraid.
And even if it wasn't the case, even if they were just "talking", and not being serious "for real", why wouldn't we be rational enough ourselves take precautions against people who shows such a radical logic?

Iran couldn't want better than to invade the whole region, and have it under the control of their Ayatollah.

Israel have no oil or lot of natural resources, now the golf region and many countries in the region, have loud of money and oil, and that is what Iranian regime want, as it make them more powerful. And this is something Iranian gov don't hide and say it publicly, what they want is to build an empire that belong to them in the region.

Now would they attack Israel or the west? If i am a bully, i will not choose the strongest person in the playground to start a fight with.


Are you saying you believe that Bush attacked Iraq because of Jesus, Nina Lisa? Really?? Do you really mean to say you think America attacked Iraq because of Christian fanatics? I’m sorry, once again, but I don’t follow you one bit, here…
If I don't get your point, please explain, because that one just beats me...

I wouldn't say Bush attacked Iraq because of Jesus, that would be a huge insults to many Christians that are against Bush and his wars.

Now yes i do believe Christian fanaticism played a big reason in his decision, it is not only about fanaticism, interests of oil companies and military industrial complex does play another big role. unless i am wrong Pat Roberson was a big supporter of Bush in that regard, even when Bush was talking with French President, he was non stop making reference to religion and why he should invade iraq because of it.

[danthepoetman]

Difference between been a fanatic and crazy, also Iranian religious leads sit on billions of dollars of wealth, more important for them to try to expand their control to other countries, and suddenly instead of having 60 million people giving 20% of their income to the religious institution in Iran, have 100 million doing so.

doing something crazy as using nuclear bomb against anyone that have it, let it be Israel or the west would be to break their own teeth.
What you are saying there is exactly the opposite of what this government has said and is still saying over and over again. Wealth is the last of their concern, if you believe them. Assuming they will follow such reason, assuming your logic is their logic, is simply giving a blank check to a Nation that never had anything but a hostile, crazy rhetoric. We are letting things go which we could immensely regret eventually. A government which calls for the destruction of Israel, for death to the West, people who believe that if they die they will go to Heaven with particular privileges (70 virgins for each of them), are actually developing nuclear weapons. I can’t think this as being frivolous or even just another matter of politics to be thought of in the morning with my coffee… And if you are, lovely Nina Lisa, your pills must be stronger than mine… ;)

[danthepoetman]

Iran couldn't want better than to invade the whole region, and have it under the control of their Ayatollah.

Israel have no oil or lot of natural resources, now the golf region and many countries in the region, have loud of money and oil, and that is what Iranian regime want, as it make them more powerful. And this is something Iranian gov don't hide and say it publicly, what they want is to build an empire that belong to them in the region.

Now would they attack Israel or the west? If i am a bully, i will not choose the strongest person in the playground to start a fight with.
I admit that what you’re saying here is very logical, Nina Lisa. It’s good reason. But can you rely on this to let Iran develop a nuclear capacity? I wouldn’t.
Once again, don’t get me wrong: every thing you’re saying makes sense. But we're playing with fire by letting this go imho.



I wouldn't say Bush attacked Iraq because of Jesus, that would be a huge insults to many Christians that are against Bush and his wars.

Now yes i do believe Christian fanaticism played a big reason in his decision, it is not only about fanaticism, interests of oil companies and military industrial complex does play another big role. unless i am wrong Pat Roberson was a big supporter of Bush in that regard, even when Bush was talking with French President, he was non stop making reference to religion and why he should invade iraq because of it.
Of course, the support Bush had from the fundamentalist Christians was an important factor for election and re-election. But I think it’s a little exaggerated to compare that in any way with the role of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran.

[nina_lisa]

What you are saying there is exactly the opposite of what this government has said and is still saying over and over again. Wealth is the last of their concern

No one will admit wealth is among their concerns, at least not a dictatorship. But they do sit on a huge pile of money.

In Iraq, a few ayatollah control part of oil export, some in a few years via either controlling part of the country wealth, or via religious taxes, had made a fortune of $100million-$300million, and this is in a country where infancy death because of lack of medication, clean water etc... is huge.

Their talks about exporting the revolution to other countries is not because they make better kebab across the border, it is about more wealth money and power. tyranny also want more power.

I am not saying they are angels, but a war will not make them go, and can backfire, can the economy survive a $200 oil price. Sometimes only thing you can do is just hope the regime collapse from the inside faster than later, the soviet onion did not collapse from the outside but from the inside.

Just think how much Iraq war did cost? a few strikes, will not prevent Iran from having the bomb.

[danthepoetman]

Yes. I think your last point is precisely the reason there is no pre-emptive strike, especially considering that there is a real, strong opposition in Iran now, and that the Government maintains itself through violence only.
For the rest, you will make us all pray for those religious fanatics to have greater greed than convictions. It doesn’t reassure me too much, but it’s not such a long shot either… :)

[hippifried]

If you look at a map, between Iran and Isreal you have two countries on the way: Iraq and Syria. Both are allies of Iran.

Iran have been actively sending arms to the Syrian regime, using Iraqi air space, and the US is unable to do anything about it, they tried to apply pressure on the Iraqi president to which his reply was around: why don't you find me some proof, and i'll have someone look at it.

If a strike happen or not will more depend on them not having the air force to do it, rather than something having to do with airspace.
Bullshit!

We've been in total control of Iraqi airspace since 1991, & we still are. Nobody's flying arms between Iran & Syria. Overland's a different story. There's a pretty long border there, but smuggling is still dicey because they have to avoid the Kurdish region in the north. Iran's been supplying Hezbollah for years, but they aren't the "Syrian regime". Iraq has no airforce or missiles to shoot down anybody else's. It's all US as far as military anything goes over there. Iran doesn't have much of any kind of air power to speak of, & their crop dusters can't avoid detection or fly that far.

All of this hysteria is just a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense. Iran can't attack Israel because they don't have the capability & they couldn't get past us anyway. We have them surrounded. Israel can't attack Iran because they can't get past us & we won't allow it. We're not going to attack Iran on Israel's behalf either. All this hype is nothing but a bunch of bullshit. All bluster & lies.

[nina_lisa]

Bullshit!

We've been in total control of Iraqi airspace since 1991, & we still are. Nobody's flying arms between Iran & Syria. Overland's a different story. There's a pretty long border there, but smuggling is still dicey because they have to avoid the Kurdish region in the north. Iran's been supplying Hezbollah for years, but they aren't the "Syrian regime". Iraq has no airforce or missiles to shoot down anybody else's. It's all US as far as military anything goes over there. Iran doesn't have much of any kind of air power to speak of, & their crop dusters can't avoid detection or fly that far.


So let me get this right, when John Kerry Warns Iraq Over Flights Into Syria, it is just for the fun of making a warning?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/world/middleeast/kerry-says-iraq-aid-could-be-tied-to-halting-flights-to-syria.html?_r=0

Fugitive Iraqi VP confirm this and even go as far as saying that thousands of Iraqi militia fighters have crossed into Syria to support Bashar Al-Asad
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/16/uk-iraq-hashemi-idUKBRE88F07X20120916

Even in Syria Iranian army officers were caught by the opposition army, with Iran not having borders, guess how did they manage to arrive in Syria?



Iraq has no airforce or missiles to shoot down anybody else's.


You are 100% right here, but even if Iraq had an airfoce and missiles, they wouldn't use it in that case.

Iraqi prime minister him self is the leader of Dawa Party, that backed the Iranian Revolution, always supported Khomeini and even get financial support from Tehran, the headquarter of that party used to be Iran, during Iran-Iraq war they were behind an attack on the US embassy, with one of the people convicted Jamal Jafaar Mohammed, currently member of Iraq's parliament and member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ruling coalition.

It is not about them not been able to do anything as much as it is their loyalty been with Iran, saying the contrary is like you having a ts girlfriend and saying: the only reason she did not get pregnant is because she took anti- pregnancy bills.

While i don't think they will attack each others, i don't think it is because of Iraq not been on their side.

[hippifried]

Yawn...
You talk as if Iraq & Iran are the same place. They're not. They're different cultures & don't speak the same language. No border? Really? Ask those (so called hiker) clowns who tried to sneak into Iran during the post election riots. The only thing they have in common is majority Shia, the liberal wing of Islam. Shiites aren't a problem for us. All of the assholes who are giving us fits; including the Taliban, alQaeda, all the 9/11 perps, & Saddam Hussein; were/are Sunni.

Kerry's gripe is the same gripe that's been going on since 2003, that all kinds of things & people are crossing from Iraq into Syria. Movement across that border is allowed by us because Syria's not our enemy, & the full country 'no-fly-zone' has been lifted. It's still in force for anything flying in from Iran though. Nobody's flying from Iran to Syria. Well, maybe commercial airlines, but that's not what were talking about is it?

Iran cannot attack Israel!
Israel cannot attack Iran!
The uprising in Syria is an entirely different topic & irrelevant to this one. Well, except that Syria probably has the wherewithal to shoot down a bunch of any Israeli bombers headed toward Iran over their airspace. If not, I would imagine Hezbollah does.

Regardless, this speculative beginning of "Armageddon" ain't gonna happen. It's all just bullshit to get people scared & looking somewhere other than the the assholes who have their hands in your pocket.

[Prospero]

Hippiefried... you are correct to say that al-queda springs from a radical form of Sunni islam (the Wahhabist sect which comes originally from ibn Wahib in Arabia) but wrong to describe Shi'ism as the liberal wing of islam. There has been a binary rift in islam since it's very earliest days - in a dispute over the true heir to the prophet. The two parts have been in conflict ever since. The bulk of the world's Muslims are Sunni. But the Shia are not exactly friends of the west - as evidenced in Iran since the revolution. Iran is Shia. The Shia in Iraq while maintaining an independent stance are the natural allies of the regime in Teheran. Iran supports Hezbollah in the Lebanon (who are Shia) and Hamas in Gaza 9who are not). Bahrain has a primarily Shia population - hence the struggle there over the rule of the Khalifa regime. There as a small but troublesome Shia population in Eastern Saudi Arabia. The particular version of Shi'sm followed by President Ahmadinejad is an apocalyptic version of the faith - and the Shia's are generally not disposed well to the West (anymore than the radical Wahabist and Salafi elements of the Sunni faith.)

[nina_lisa]

Yawn...
You talk as if Iraq & Iran are the same place. They're not. They're different cultures & don't speak the same language. No border? Really?

I said no border between Syria and Iraq, not no border between Iraq and Iran.

I never said it is the same place, i know that the language, culture, food ... is different, what i said is that Iraq is under Iranian control with a loyalty to the Ayatollah in Iran.

[Queens Guy]

See my eariier post on MAD - the principle that (just) kept us all from incineration during the cold war. It maybe doesn't apply anymore since Ahmadinejad has other more troubling beliefs ... he is a member of a sect of Shi'ism (who revere the so called Hidden or occluded Imam) who believe that paradise is at hand and will be brought about by a great conflict in which millions will die.

Not enough people talk about this.

Also, the only way for a Muslim to be guaranteed entry to Paradise is to die a martyr in jihad. Not to live the best life you can, helping people, etc. Only martyrdom does that.

Westerners want to live, the Soviets wanted to live. Most people want to live. Orthodox Muslims enjoy death. Especially if it gets them into Paradise.

[Prospero]

Queens Guy - no that is not true of all Muslims. Only the tiny minority who follow this particular path. Jihad does not denote war or suicide. It denotes struggle. For many Muslims a personal Jihad is the struggle in their own day to day lives to lead a good and observant life. The vast majority of Muslims believe they will go on to paradise by living a good observant life. The Jihadists who are suicide bombers and the like are a TINY TINY minority of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe. But certain radical imams (and the brand of Shi'ism which i was talking about) embrace and promote the idea of suicide as a path to paradise. This has been grossly misunderstood - and sometimes quite deliberately misrepresented - by those who should know better including those with a wish to tar all Muslims with this. That is a form of racism.

[hippifried]

I said no border between Syria and Iraq, not no border between Iraq and Iran.

I never said it is the same place, i know that the language, culture, food ... is different, what i said is that Iraq is under Iranian control with a loyalty to the Ayatollah in Iran.
Oh, that's what you said? Well you're wrong, & you have no evidence to back up such an outlandish statement. This really isn't about religion. Iran is going to be a major player in the region, & everybody's just going to have to learn to deal with it.


Prospero,
Same goes with you. This isn't about religion at all. I already know the history of the various rifts in the monotheist religions, & none of it's relevant to this thread. This is a political mess. Even alQaeda is a political organization that uses religion to draw in zanies & get them worked up. They're the middle east version of the Klan. It's just land & resource grabs. Iraq already lost their oil. Now it's all about toppling Iran so their resources can be taken. They haven't attacked anybody & they're not a threat. But hey, let's keep making up excuses. Maybe we can get Reza on the "Peacock Throne", & hope he won't keep the oil nationalized like his daddy did. He's officially still recognize3d as the Shah of Iran you know.

[Queens Guy]

Queens Guy - no that is not true of all Muslims. Only the tiny minority who follow this particular path. Jihad does not denote war or suicide. It denotes struggle. For many Muslims a personal Jihad is the struggle in their own day to day lives to lead a good and observant life. The vast majority of Muslims believe they will go on to paradise by living a good observant life. The Jihadists who are suicide bombers and the like are a TINY TINY minority of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe. But certain radical imams (and the brand of Shi'ism which i was talking about) embrace and promote the idea of suicide as a path to paradise. This has been grossly misunderstood - and sometimes quite deliberately misrepresented - by those who should know better including those with a wish to tar all Muslims with this. That is a form of racism.

Prospero, I reject the claim that my analysis of Islam is racist.

I do not hate Arabs and I do not hate Muslims. I am not a Xenophobe. I do not have any phobia because a phobia is an irrational fear. I don't hate them because they look different, dress different, speak with accents, have different folk dance, etc. I am extremely critical of Islamists/Orthodox Muslims because of their political beliefs, which are anti-human rights. I am against their political system. Unfortunately, those political beliefs are one in the same with their religion.

Like any religion, there are people who call themselves members of the religion, but don't adhere to all the beliefs of the religion. Plenty of Catholics use birth control and have had abortions.

Jihad does indeed include war, and suicide, if that is one of the tactics used to accomplish the goals of that war. It can also include the day to day struggle but to say it doesn't include war is dishonest. Those who embrace it as a path to Paradise may cite the Koran and the Hadith, not just the sermon of their radical Imam and his 'misinterpretation' of those books.

Most Muslims may not be violent people. Although I don't believe their percentage is the 'Tiny Tiny Minority' you think it is. I wish it was, but I don't think it is. Certainly, those who have been polled and approve of the violence is no small minority. Even here in the West.

I believe that most Muslims here in the West are good people. But they are good people in spite of Islam and not because of it.

[loveboof]

I believe that most Muslims here in the West are good people. But they are good people in spite of Islam and not because of it.

Probably true.

(In fact, it must be true of all religions. Anyone who needs a religion to keep them a good person is already missing something...)

[nina_lisa]

Oh, that's what you said? Well you're wrong, & you have no evidence to back up such an outlandish statement. This really isn't about religion. Iran is going to be a major player in the region, & everybody's just going to have to learn to deal with it.


I agree you have a point when you say it is a struggle between powers, about how is a player and who is having more influence then other.

My point is more current iraq governement been loyal to iran and iran been the player in Iraqi politics. It is not about religion, even if what i wrote can be seen like that.

[yosi]

The Jihadists who are suicide bombers and the like are a TINY TINY minority of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe.


the problem is with what you don't hear , you never hear those average muslims of the majority who strongly claim against those suicide bombers.

just to remind you in case you forgot : the 9/11 was celebrated in many muslim countries ................

the latest events about this idiotic movie by an unknown producer show that it's certainly NOT a tiny tiny minority.

[danthepoetman]

The latest speech at the United Nations, by the great leader, Ahmadinejad, something totally reassuring once again…

Ahmadinejad addresses U.N. General Assembly amid protests
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News

Amid warnings from other world leaders—and planned protests outside—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, his last speech in front of the world body as president of Iran.
The outspoken Iranian leader called for a "new world order," criticizing capitalism and the United States and Europe for "trampling on the rights of others" and contributing to global poverty and humanitarian failures.
"The history of mankind is marked with failures," Ahmadinejad said in a speech that was not attended by the U.S. and Israeli delegations in protest.
Ahmadinejad ticked off a long list of those failures—including environmental atrocities, the killing of "millions" of people in U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "throwing of [Osama bin Laden's body] into the sea" without witnesses or a trial, and a world media sympathetic to "Zionism"—before lamenting "how beautiful and pleasant our lives and the history of mankind would have been" without them.
"Poverty is on the rise, and the gap is widening between the rich and the poor," Ahmadinejad said, blaming the "current world order, founded on materialism, that aims to monopolize power, wealth, science and technology for a limited group.
"There is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and fresh thinking," he said. "An order that aims to revive human dignity and believes in peace and welfare for all walks of life.
"Do people that spend hundreds of millions on election campaigns have the interests of people of the world at heart?" Ahmadinejad asked.


"Capitalism is bogged down in a self-made quagmire," he said, calling for a U.N. restructuring.
Ahmadinejad's speech came a day after President Barack Obama issued a stern warning to Iran over its nuclear program.
"Make no mistake," the president said. "A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations and the stability of the global economy."
On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad scoffed at the notion of an Iranian nuclear buildup.
"A nuclear weapon? For what? For what purpose?" Ahmadinejad said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Why would we do that? What would we use it for?"
The leader of Iran—who refuses to refer to Israel by name—also dismissed talk of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities, Agence France-Presse said.
"Uncultured Zionists that threaten the Iranian nation today are never counted and are never paid any attention in the equations of the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said earlier this week.
Demonstrators who have been protesting this week outside the hotel where Ahmadinejad is staying were expected to be outside the U.N. while he spoke.
In a statement issued before Ahmadinejad's speech, Erin Pelton, spokeswoman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said: "Over the past couple of days, we've seen Mr. Ahmadinejad once again use his trip to the U.N. not to address the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people but to instead spout paranoid theories and repulsive slurs against Israel."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ahmadinejad-u-n-assembly-speech-video-155849849.html

[broncofan]

the problem is with what you don't hear , you never hear those average muslims of the majority who strongly claim against those suicide bombers.

just to remind you in case you forgot : the 9/11 was celebrated in many muslim countries ................

the latest events about this idiotic movie by an unknown producer show that it's certainly NOT a tiny tiny minority.
In all fairness Yosi, I don't exactly know how the "good majority" is supposed to make their voices heard. It's like when I hear mumblings from people who say that Jews don't speak out harshly enough against Israel when it commits an atrocity. The average person does not have a global platform and the people who do have a platform have a specific agenda, whether they are civil rights activists or see themselves as the defenders of faith. You would never for instance see Abe Foxman of the Anti-defamation league speak out against the wrong he thinks a Jewish individual or organization does because that's not his group's r'aison d'etre.

Likewise, I don't know what the percentage of Muslims is who support extremist ideology but I wouldn't take the failure of the common man to speak against it as evidence of broad support for suicide bombings and the like. Muslims, like Jews or Christians behave as individuals not as an organized unit and so there will always be a silent majority. And the loudest voices are not representing the masses but themselves.

[rambo3]

A question for the experts.
Who gave Israel the right to build the H Bomb, how come nobody drew a red line then?.

[broncofan]

A question for the experts.
Who gave Israel the right to build the H Bomb, how come nobody drew a red line then?.
I don't think you need an expert to answer this question. It's not nearly as incisive or insoluble as you seem to think. Israel built its weapons during the Cold War when the non-proliferation movement was not as strong. As soon as the U.S.S.R dissolved and for some time after, I think most of the world's large powers realized that nuclear proliferation is a grave threat. Iran is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has been found to be in non-compliance with it. Being a signatory to a treaty of nuclear non-proliferation should provide additional responsibilities, one of them being not to weaponize nukes.

I'll also say, that while it's not a good reason, Israel's situation is fundamentally different from that of Iran. Israel was attacked by multiple nations in both 1948 and 1973, the latter war where their existence was threatened. This provided them more impetus to develop a defensive deterrent than Ahmadinejad has by stirring up international opinion, calling for the end of another sovereign, and then pretending that he only wants to defend his own people.

And despite all these differences, I think the Middle East should be a nuclear free zone. Had Israel never developed nukes and Pakistan as well the Middle East I think would be less dangerous. I don't think more nuclear weapons solves the problem of nuclear proliferation.

[Stavros]

A question for the experts.
Who gave Israel the right to build the H Bomb, how come nobody drew a red line then?.

The genesis of the Israeli bomb lies in the early 1950s when the USA, the USSR and the UK were the only states with the comprehensive knowledge and materiel and capital to build nuclear power plants and the enrichment facilities required to make a bomb. Crucially, France wanted a bomb, and so did Israel, although within the political class in Israel there were opponents to it on the grounds of cost and military doubt: would it, as Ben-Gurion believed, guarantee Israel's security, or would it create a more unstable region with other states pursuing the same objective?

The person most responsible for the practical realisation of the bomb was a refugee from Nazi Germany, Ernest Bergmann, an organic chemist who had studied in Germany and Manchester before the war, and who also cultivated friends in France. Bergmann was convinced early on that Israel should have -and could have- nuclear power and a bomb, based in part on small quantities of uranium found in the Negev desert where Dimona is now.

In effect, France and Israel were both shut out of nuclear intelligence in the early 1950s, and thus collaborated intellectually and financially on the development of their mutual plans, although the first nuclear plant at Nahal Soreq (1954) was in fact financed by the USA but meant to be a research facility and funded under the bizarrely named Atoms for Peace programme. The French development at Marcoule was more or less coincident with the development at Dimona.

The site for the nuclear plant was based in Dimona, at a time in the mid-1950s when the U2 spy planes that were being sent over the USSR regularly flew over the Middle East. Almost as soon as the Israelis began digging the foundations the CIA was monitoring its activities and realised early on what the digging was for. Eisenhower was shown photos of the emerging plant in 1958 but there is no written record of his views, but it is known that the White House made no comment to the CIA on the evidence they produced.

Intellectually, Israel's nuclear facility was built by Israeli scientists, with help from the French and also from those sympathetic Americans (Jewish and non-Jewish) for whom Israel was a unique political creation worth saving at a time when its security could not be guaranteed; although Eisenhower made commitments to Israel's security, he never did so publicly.

The finances were drawn from France, and from private donations from the global Jewish diaspora, although they were not told explicitly what it was for, other than 'defence'.

In context: in 1958 was the year that the USA became directly involved militarily and politically in the Middle East, depending on how political you view the older relationship through Standard Oil with Saudi Arabia.

There was an anti-Western/British revolution in Iraq which replaced the Hashemite monarchy with a republican/Ba'athist govt; it was the year that pan-Arab Nationalism was supposed to become a reality with the union of Egypt and Syria in the United Arab Republic (1958-1962); it was the year that the US sent troops to Lebanon to prevent the overthrow of the government, allegedly through collusion between pro-Egyptian/Syrian elements inside Lebanon and the United Arab Republic; and also when, on the collapse of the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq, the USA sent 'military advisers' to Jordan to buttress King Hussein against any attempt to export the revolution to Amman (although there is another theory that King Hussein wanted US support for a Jordanian invasion of Iraq...)

In other words, the key power: the USA, turned a blind eye to Israel's development of nuclear power, at a time when it was an ally in a region which at that time was at its most hostile to western interests, meaning Britain, France, and the USA (and in that order). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not enter into force until 1970 so there were no international legal instruments to deal with any nuclear development in the 1950s.

But it is also likely that the US did not expect Israel to get very far with it at the time, and that once it did, believed it to be an asset if, like Seymour Hersh, you believe that by the 1970s the primary target of Israel's nuclear weapons was the USSR.

Once created, hard to decommission -Moshe Sharett, who succeeded Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister of Israel (and also spoke Arabic unlike DB-G) was sidelined as a result of the 'Lavon Affair' in 1954 but was not keen on the bomb anyway, neither was Levi Eshkol who was PM at the time of the war in 1967. Interesting or not, the secretive nature of Israel's ambitions, and it was not discussed openly in Israel at the time, was supported by the 30-year old who was appointed by DB-G as Director General of the Ministry of Defence in 1953, Shimon Peres. Peres has been part of the nuclear story since before the first dirt was turned in Dimona, and has also repeatedly denied Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Make you own judgement of that.

[Stavros]

I should add two dates;

1958 -dirt turned in Dimona for the foundations of the reactor;
1968 - first production of nuclear warheads

[nina_lisa]

A question for the experts.
Who gave Israel the right to build the H Bomb, how come nobody drew a red line then?.

They did not ask permission to have one.

Who gave permission to India and Pakistan to have a H bomb? No one, they build it, the world was not happy, but then they learned to live with it.

Before you have it, some countries might not be happy, once you have it, the world have no choice but to accept it.

What can American do about the Israeli H bomb? They can stop selling hamburger to Israel, but as American food is not that healthy, the answer is: not much.

[broncofan]

Stavros,
that is a very good history and I think it does provide an answer to the question. I may be a bit reductionist here but would you think it fair to say that since 1958 a great deal has changed in the political stance respecting nuclear proliferation? When the nuclear club was very small, most countries including Israel were presumed not to have the materials, the scientific sophistication, or the will to develop nuclear weapons. It was over ten years prior to the consummation of the nuclear npt and with only a few major powers possessing such weaponry, the bomb was considered more of a bilateral threat than a multilateral one. Entities developing such weapons were doing so under the shadow of two major powers engaged in brinksmanship and latent hostility.

Many people may point to the nuclear npt as a mechanism by which the haves attempt to thwart the will of the have nots, but it could just be an untimely recognition that what's done cannot be undone. Once a country crosses the nuclear threshold it is very difficult to force them to disarm. It's difficult to force them to do anything or to take a strong stance on any issue respecting their internal affairs. Since 1958 you have India who developed their own bomb in 74 and then Pakistan in 1998, and North Korea as well. This is no longer a weapon that is used by two large superpowers to keep each other at bay, but a weapon that threatens war between regional rivals (Pakistan and India), and is used to maintain a totalitarian regime free from the specter of international intervention in the case of North Korea.

Of course, it's hypocritical to have countries with nuclear weapons who have been slow to disarm dictate to the rising powers of the world what weapons they cannot build to achieve military parity; but what is the world to do? A lot has changed since 1958, and with every new power that develops the weapons you have one more trigger, one more trigger finger, and one more regional dynamic to re-consider and weigh. That there was not a significant international will, or treaty attempting to regulate the proliferation of nukes in 1958 does not mean there should not be one now.

But where was the world when Israel developed nuclear weapons? Where was the world when India did or Pakistan did or North Korea did? Distracted perhaps? Unable to do anything about it? Is there anyone who maintains that the cure to the nuclear crisis is to aid in the development of nuclear weapons capability for all nations?

But I am curious to ask Rambo3 one question: As a policy matter what should be done? We cannot build a time machine and apply the sanctions necessary to deter Israel or anyone else? Do we remedy the problem by opposing development of nuclear weapons or do we address the lack of parity by encouraging development?

[Stavros]

Broncofan, the concept of containment that was developed during the Truman administration, via George Kennan's famous telegram, argued the US should match the USSR in some areas, exceed it in others, but never to let it gain an advantage. As an example you have the need to prevent the formation of a communist Korea -the US forced through the Uniting for Peace resolution in the UN as a way of legitimating a UN -rather than a US- military engagement which is why, for example, the UK joined it, even though this country could not afford it. Vietnam was no different.

What is interesting, in the light of the present day, was the use of game theory (particularly Prisoner's Dilemma) that the RAND organisation compiled in the mid-late 1950s, under the influence of Hermann Kahn's belief that an aggressive stand was not only necessary, but that actual nuclear strikes ought to be on the agenda. This was before the development of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD], when Kahn argued that the USA could and should target all the main cities in the USSR and even destroy them, and, moreover, that defence computers in the USA ought to be programmed to authorise retaliatory attacks on the USSR if they hit the US first. When he defended his position in his book On Thermonuclear War, in 1961, he wrote:War is a terrible thing, but so is peace. The difference seems to be a quantitative one of degree and and standards. It was Kahn who was being mimicked in Kubrick's film Dr Strangelove.

Although there was a threat of use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War, the defning moment came with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which led to the more coherent concept of MAD (and the removal of Khrushchev from the Politburo), and the realisation that actual use of nuclear weapons at that time was in practical terms, too destructive, crucially, that it offered no political solution to whatever the issue was between two warring states. It is noticeable, that the greater emphasis in the Brezhnev period was on the build-up of conventional armaments, while nuclear development was hedged in with the various SALT talks that followed detente in 1970-71.

The Cold War thus became the prism through which security issues were seen and it was not possible to get the US or indeed the UK to think outside this box; even as late as the mid-1980s I had an argument with a conservative American over South Africa, whose only concern was that the ANC was a front for the Communist Party and that support for the Apartheid regime was a reluctant stance to prevent the USSR from extending the foothold it had in Southern Africa in Angola and Mozambique. He really had no interest in South Africa as a place, it was just another piece on a chess board.

As it happens, what has changed most since 1958 is not just the end of the Cold War, but a belief among some US hawks that the US in the early 1990s actually had the opportunity to militarily strike the USSR's nuclear bases and render them useless, thereby giving them nuclear supremacy, indicative of the mind-set of the neo-cons and the Project for a New American Century.

Meanwhile the development of tactical -rather than theatre- nuclear weapons is intended to give the military a practical option in warfare. A senior officer in the Marines (in the UK) calmly explained to me the difference between strategic/theatre nuclear weapons, and tactical weapons -you see with these we can take out a target with a minumum of damage (quoting from memory)-the nuclear payload being lower than in a theatre weapon. Nevertheless, nuclear doctine is still based on deterrence, and that the actual use of nuclear weapons would not be acceptable, although I doubt Mr Romney or Mr Ryan think so. Incidentally, it is also illegal to use Nuclear Weapons because it falls foul of the use of weapons which have a biological and/or chemical impact on human societies and the environment.

When small states try to acquire nuclear weapons, what can large states do? France was instrumental in helping Israel develop its bomb, and vice versa -but do you really think a military strike on Israel barely 10 years after the end of the Holocaust would have been possible? What would have been the consequences? India and Pakistan were in a similar position when they began developing their systems in the 1960s -an attack on India would not have been politically possible in the 1970s, and although the Reagan administation was obliged to prosecute US firms found guilty of violating Congressional acts designed to prevent the export of materiel to Pakistan, the country at the time was an ally of the US in the war against the USSR in Afghanistan. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981, with US approval, and because it was in its infancy it was, as Cheney might say, 'doable', not many people cared then or now about Iraq. The reactor was named Osirak after Chirac as France was again giving someone in the region a helping hand.

Today, then, there are genuine, long term issues of energy resources in the Middle East which make nuclear energy a rational choice; deterrence does also seem to work -India and Pakistan have not used them, neither have North Korea or Israel. Anthony Cordesmann, the eminence grise of US stratetic thinking, as long ago as the 1980s suggested terrorists getting their hands on fissile material could create a dirty bomb, but even bin Laden, when he had the money couldn't do it -he might have been able to buy a dirty bomb, but how would he deliver it to its target?

If deterrence works, what's the problem? But it is an expensive, and dangerous way of replacing oil and gas....a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is still the preferred option.

[broncofan]

If deterrence works, what's the problem? But it is an expensive, and dangerous way of replacing oil and gas....a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is still the preferred option.
What a fascinating read; the part about the Marine assuring you that tactical nuclear weapons taking out a target "with a minimum of damage" rings especially true. It strikes me as the tone of someone very blase about the prospect of death and destruction.

I think a nuclear free zone is preferred as well. If deterrence works then there's no problem. But it's one of those things that works until it doesn't. I honestly believe many countries' leadership would use nuclear weapons if they faced a grave enough political threat. I say political rather than military because a suicidal dictator whose reign is threatened would not have much more regard for the lives of his own than those of his enemies. I don't mean to say Iran is necessarily more dangerous than Israel or Pakistan. I've made the argument that they are before, but I'm not sure any new nuclear country brings more danger except in the sense that they add an ingredient to an already volatile mixture and present an unknown as well. What you learn about a country decades after they've developed a nuclear weapon and not used it is not something you know when they first detonate the weapon; the time that passes is good for our collective peace of mind.

What you say about the difficulty in delivering a dirty bomb might foreclose one option (militias, terror cells). But I have a feeling that Israel and Iran will be encountering one another for decades through proxies and each time there will be a significant threat to world peace made more real by the presence of a Middle Eastern nuclear stalemate.

The proliferation of nukes might be about control as well and from the perspective of an American about hegemony. We maintain no control over the outcome of foreign affairs when we deal with nuclear powers; they are capable of nuclear blackmail and it's indeed a powerful inducement not to push our luck. In that sense, maybe nuclear capability is a democratizing force in international relations as more and more nations get a nuclear veto. The U.S will certainly be less likely to intervene in the affairs of other nations for better or for worse. But the mission of the United Nations also is weakened if their enforcement mechanisms become diluted by nations who would not fear an international force any more than an American one. It's a complicated problem when peace needs to be maintained through force.

[Stavros]

I honestly believe many countries' leadership would use nuclear weapons if they faced a grave enough political threat. I say political rather than military because a suicidal dictator whose reign is threatened would not have much more regard for the lives of his own than those of his enemies. I don't mean to say Iran is necessarily more dangerous than Israel or Pakistan. I've made the argument that they are before, but I'm not sure any new nuclear country brings more danger except in the sense that they add an ingredient to an already volatile mixture and present an unknown as well. What you learn about a country decades after they've developed a nuclear weapon and not used it is not something you know when they first detonate the weapon; the time that passes is good for our collective peace of mind.

Broncofan, I am not sure about the actual use of nuclear weapons. One problem is that it is normally assumed proportionality is a factor in strategic thinking, which means that either a nuclear strike is a retaliation for a first nuclear strike, or is a pre-emptive strike against another pre-emptive nuclear strike. Because of the damage they cause, they have not been used since 1945, but also because state a that attacks state b cannot be sure of what state b's response will be, it could be even worse -and I don't think that desperate dictators would use the bomb.

In addition, consider that even Iraq with all its oil money could barely fight a conventional war with Iran; its attempt to bomb Israel with scuds was, frankly, pathetic and suggests Iraq had not tried very hard to acquire long-range missiles; but its use of chemicals weapons was the closest we have come to an equivalent to nuclear war. And it was used on another part of the population of Iraq rather than another country. After all, if a state or Guerilla group doesn't have a nuclear weapon but wants to inflict maximum devastating damage on an enemy why not poison the water supply? Analysts have concluded that it is not as simple as it sounds -the right chemicals, in right proportion, safely delivered, released but without knowing in fact what the consequences might be. Tellingly, 9/11 was performed with box cutters and an aeroplane -using existing materials caused the real devastation, which was psychological as well as physical.

Using the same reasoning, it is a matter of strategic logic that when the Iranian Airbus was blown out of the sky by missiles from the USS Vincennes in 1988, Iran retaliated with a similar act -Lockerbie.

Having nuclear weapons can be a sign of virility, rather than threat of use -a demonstration by the new member of the club that they can also do it, that they also have the brains and the money -ultimately a nuclear accident is more likely than its deliberate use. And are Iranians any more crazy than some of the more aggressive neo-cons in the US?

[hippifried]

but its use of chemicals weapons was the closest we have come to an equivalent to nuclear war. And it was used on another part of the population of Iraq rather than another country.
Actually, they gassed the Iranians too. It was pretty devastating, but not enough to conquer the area needed for a port.

[broncofan]

Stavros,
I concede. You make a number of good points. One doesn't need nukes to self-implode or kill their own population. And there are strategic reasons not to use them. While I haven't abandoned my reasoning that every new nuclear country adds a certain indefinable x factor to the equation (though as you indicate an element of strategic balancing), I do concede that Iran is no nuttier than some of the powers already in possession of the bomb.

There is the issue of whether Iran's leadership is in the throes of religious mania and is therefore suicidal, but we've heard religious statements even from the neo-cons with their operation infinite justice and talks of crusades so I won't go there. And though Netanyahu is not explicitly religious, his talk about the prevention of a second Holocaust sounds fanatical and to the mind of this atheist not any more reassuring. Further, there is no clear evidence that the Iranian leadership does want to make themselves martyrs so I might have to concede on the general argument that there is anything exceptional about Iran.

Again, I think in the long run if the international community decides it cannot prevent countries from detonating their first nukes, there needs to be some strong incentives in place to encourage further dismantling of existing inventories. Why start with Iran? Frankly, the decision sounds cherrypicked but there is something long overdue about addressing the whole issue. Maybe we'll just have to learn to live with checks in place and the stockpiles will sit there unused, collecting dust!

[Stavros]

Actually, they gassed the Iranians too. It was pretty devastating, but not enough to conquer the area needed for a port.

An important amendment to my post, many thanks Hippifried.

[Stavros]

Stavros,
I concede. You make a number of good points. One doesn't need nukes to self-implode or kill their own population. And there are strategic reasons not to use them. While I haven't abandoned my reasoning that every new nuclear country adds a certain indefinable x factor to the equation (though as you indicate an element of strategic balancing), I do concede that Iran is no nuttier than some of the powers already in possession of the bomb.

There is the issue of whether Iran's leadership is in the throes of religious mania and is therefore suicidal, but we've heard religious statements even from the neo-cons with their operation infinite justice and talks of crusades so I won't go there. And though Netanyahu is not explicitly religious, his talk about the prevention of a second Holocaust sounds fanatical and to the mind of this atheist not any more reassuring. Further, there is no clear evidence that the Iranian leadership does want to make themselves martyrs so I might have to concede on the general argument that there is anything exceptional about Iran.

Again, I think in the long run if the international community decides it cannot prevent countries from detonating their first nukes, there needs to be some strong incentives in place to encourage further dismantling of existing inventories. Why start with Iran? Frankly, the decision sounds cherrypicked but there is something long overdue about addressing the whole issue. Maybe we'll just have to learn to live with checks in place and the stockpiles will sit there unused, collecting dust!

It is nearly 10 years old but this article from the Washington Quarterly -Putting WMD Terrorism into Perspective tries to explain why armed groups have found it so difficult to use unconventional/chemical weapons in attacks against their targets. Parachini notes four successful attempts, the earliest of which was an attempt to prevent Americans from voting in the 1984 Presidential election -it was in Oregon and committed by an obscure cult who poisoned food in a restaurant causing an outbreak of salmonella. Then in 1990 the Tamil Tigers attacked the Sri Lankan army with chlorine gas; followed by the 1995 sarin attack on the Tokyo metro, and the anthrax attacks in the US. None of these events caused mass casualties, serious though they were.
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/PPA%20730-11/Parachini.pdf

As for Iran, the core issue for the country is its status as an Islamic state. The Mullahs in the 19th century successfully campaigned against a tobacco concession, and one of the earlier attempt to get an oil concession (that was eventually granted in 1901). The clergy in Iran were major landlowners until the last Shah attempted to deprive them of their lucrative base, so they have a long history of battling for state supremacy and having achieved it under Khomeini the Supreme Guardian Council is not going to give it up lightly -but suicidal? I don't see them ordering the army to use chemical weapons, for moral reasons, and because in practical terms they are hard to control or predict. Ruling through fear is often more effective.

The Islamic perspective must also be taken into account. As far as I am aware, Muslims have agonied over the bomb, many were outraged when Pakistan's capability was labelled the 'Islamic Bomb' and few use this term to describe it. An actual attack on Israel , even with a tactical weapon would run the risk of damaging Jerusalem, because Israel is so small. Given Iran's desperate attempt to be taken seriously by the Islamic world such an attack would undermine their already shakey claims to be holier than thou. It is a matter of some scholarly debate as to whether Islam sanctions the use of a weapon of mass destruction.

Politically, Saddam did what he thought he could get away with; in the case of the Kurds it backfired eventually because his record in that part of Iraq was one justification for the no-fly zone that enabled the creation of a de facto Kurdish statelet. Using such weapons can never be ruled out, because nothing can ever be ruled out, but politicians play games, they stategise, they think through the implications, above all, they do things to get results. Too much unpredictability accompanies nuclear and biological/chemical weapons. They might look threatening and be part of the show, but they remain for the final act, which one hopes will never come.