Should Israel strike Iran because of new missile range?

[Rommelvon]

Will our friends in Israel kick the crap out of Iran's missile capability before Obama takes office?......with Iran boasting it's new missile can hit Israel and parts of Europe...will Israel send an airstrike to take them out? what say you? I say yes....and they should

[Terry_P]

Israel will do what is necessary to defend their country and will do so premptively unlike some of the morons in this country.

[durk]

I think that's just one of many reasons Isreal should strike Iran.

[Pistolenschutze]

Sooner or later Israel will hit more than just Iran's missile capability. Their real concern is Iran's development of nukes. I do not believe Israel will let that happen. The Israelis recently purchased a number of long-range F-16 fighter bombers from the US. I don't believe that was an accident.

[carver]

I think Israel should take out Iran's missiles and their nuclear facility. I also think that we should stand right in there with them. Having said that, I also believe that if Israel doesn't move quickly, they will get no support from the U.S., and I believe that the U.S. will lead the world in condeming them, and will most probably side with Iran! That's my oppinion, and I'm sticking to it!

[mrkirker]

Israel might attack Iran in a limited fashion, calculated to be just below the point at which other 'like-minded' nations might feel an obligation to 'join in' in retaliation. I don't think we'll condemn Israel, though. We’ll probably be supplying deep intel for the attack.

[artabr]

I would support an Israeli strike myself, but I think they would face universal condemnation from the Politically Correct crowd both here from a Bush or Obama administration and around the world.
It's a sad state of affairs the we find ourselves in nowdays.
It would not suprise me to find out that we would supply Israel with intell under the table and then condem them outwardly(sp) as a CYA, with Israel going along with the whole dog and pony show. I would still support it.

Art

[bigiron]

If Israel waits too much longer, there won't be an Israel. Don't expect osamabama to support Israel.

[USMC-03]

If it happens, my guess is that they have their final deadline set for any significant action. They probably pulled it out of the hat; somewhere around January 19, 2009. Just a guess though.

[artabr]

Originally Posted by USMC-03

If it happens, my guess is that they have their final deadline set for any significant action. They probably pulled it out of the hat; somewhere around January 19, 2009. Just a guess though.

Ya think?


Art

[HowardCohodas]

It is probably politically and militarily impractical for Israel to bomb Iran. Politically, the leftist government of Israel will do almost anything not to take any action that will reverse their drive to give up whatever it takes to bring their current version of peace. If Netanyahu wins the election, the political will to defend Israel's future may return. Also politically, our secretary of state would resist it mightily.

Militarily it is impractical without two or possibly three things on which the US must cooperate. The distance the planes must fly requires that they will be in airspace controlled by the US for a significant part of the trip. I doubt permission will be granted. Bush's legacy and Rice's capitulation to foggy bottom would not permit it.

Significant destruction or even delay of Iran's nuclear capability requires either many days of bombing or bunker buster bombs or use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not going to be used in a preemptive strike. Bunker buster bombs are being denied to Israel by the US and their own development and production are unlikely to be available very soon. Many days of bombing would be neither politically or militarily practical.

More advanced airplanes with the range to avoid encroaching on airspace controlled by the US are also being denied (delayed is practical denial).

Even if Netanyhu wins, I doubt that Obama would offer any of the support currently being denied by the US president who is viewed as one of the best friends Israel has had in a long time.

I am an optimistic person by nature, but I am pessimistic about the future of Israel. I can find no way out of the dilemma I discussed above. I hope others can offer options I have not thought of or evidence contrary to that which I presented.

[Shellback]

Welcome to our little forum Howard..
Tim

[Vladimir]

Now would be a stupid time to attack. Iran is looking to potentially deliver some massive upsets to our buddy Mahmoud's party here shortly. Last thing you want to do is deliver them a reason to support that nutjob. And Mahmoud himself is up again here in a year or two IIRC, all things remain the same I think we will be referring to a new president at that point.

[jim summers]

God told Abraham who was the patriarch of the Jewish nation "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you".

Israel will do what they need to do, they always have and always will. With the God of creation on your side how can you lose.

_________________________________
To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required.

[HowardCohodas]

Originally Posted by Shellback

Welcome to our little forum Howard..
Tim

Thank you kindly.

[UncleFudd]

Does anyone remember what Hussein Obiden said during the campaign about being attacked in the first 6 mo and for us not to get mad as we would not like what he and Obama were going to do?
I could not figure out what they knew but now I believe it is this very thing. I think Israel will attack Iran possibly before Obama takes office but very close to it and when they do, Obama is going to side with the Palestinians and throw the Israelis under the bus.
That is why he was telling us not to be angry and to stay the course with them as this young man has "steel in his spine" were his exact words.

We'll see but I honestly believe this is what will take place. After all blood is still thicker than water and once a Muslim Always......

UF

[jim summers]

Here Here UF well said, get ready for the rest of the middle east to stick their nose in, then china and Russia. Israel has been defending themselves since the beginning of time there is no reason to think they won't continue to do so.

They are not going to set ideally by and let Iran or any other nation try to wipe them off the face of the earth.

_________________________________
To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required.

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by jim summers

Here Here UF well said, get ready for the rest of the middle east to stick their nose in, then china and Russia. Israel has been defending themselves since the beginning of time there is no reason to think they won't continue to do so.

They are not going to set ideally by and let Iran or any other nation try to wipe them off the face of the earth.

_________________________________
To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required.

Russia is in the process of negotiating a deal to resupply their military with more advanced Israeli UAV's.

[armedandsafe]

"I will stand with the Muslims..."
Barack H. Obama

Pops

[Vladimir]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

"I will stand with the Muslims..."
Barack H. Obama

Pops

That is actually just propaganda... the quote supposedly comes from The Audacity of Hope, but the "paraphrase" comes from the following excerpt, which is, unfortunately as most of his "quotes" are, not actually something he said. What he actually said is essentially if we start going anti-immigrant (a-la the internment camps) he will stand with the immigrants, which included Muslims. The complete passage is...

Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

[Marlin T]

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon.

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.

While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the IAEA believe it will avoid the risk of attempting "nuclear breakout" until it possessed a larger uranium supply.

Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down. (IF; negotiations break down??? They already have!)

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.

Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."

In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran's main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency's last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report's total of 630 kilograms — an increase of about 150 — shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.

That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.

"They have a weapon's worth," Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.

He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.

"It's a virtual milestone," Cochran said of Iran's stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about "where they're going."

The agency's report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran's stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the IAEA report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would "within a few months." It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.

Whatever the exact date, it added, "Iran is progressing" toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.

Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. "They're very close," he said of the Iranians in an interview. "If it isn't tomorrow, it's soon," probably a matter of months.

In its report, the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.

A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.

The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.

"While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use," the report said, the building's features "along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site." Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs

[Pow ba te Pow]

Originally Posted by UncleFudd

I think Israel will attack Iran possibly before Obama takes office but very close to it and when they do, Obama is going to side with the Palestinians and throw the Israelis under the bus.

I agree completely. In fact, it's obvious to many of us. That's why I don't understand why American Jews voted overwhelmingly for Obama. If Israel is smart, it will attack while Bush is still in office, because Bush will support Israel, but Obama will do nothing.

Not to sound cold, but I'm not going to concern myself with Israel anymore. It's the conservatives that have been protecting them, but the American Jews prefer Obama? That doesn't make any sense. I'm truly baffled on that one. Frankly, I'm offended, and feel betrayed, but hey, that's their choice. Good luck with it.

Israel has proven they can take care of themselves. I'm inclined to just stay out of their way at this point. When Iran, Syria and Lebanon rise up and topple Israel, and Obama does nothing, the American Jews have themselves to blame, not me.

[Pistolenschutze]

I do think Israel will strike, and I do not think it will be long in coming. When they do, it will be a difficult and costly mission for the pilots who fly the jets and anyone else involved. Everyone (including Ahmadinejad) expects the Israelis to attack solely by air, but don't be surprised if other methods are employed as well. The Israelis have some of the best special operations troops in the world.

[GMFWoodchuck]

It doesn't really matter whether or not Iran developes a working nuclear weapon. Even the Iranians aren't stupid enough to send one Israel's way because they know that the Israeli's would lay waste to Iran with it's own and much larger nuclear arsenal.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by GMFWoodchuck

It doesn't really matter whether or not Iran developes a working nuclear weapon. Even the Iranians aren't stupid enough to send one Israel's way because they know that the Israeli's would lay waste to Iran with it's own and much larger nuclear arsenal.

That is undoubtedly true, GMFW, but do you think Israel would be foolish enough to risk the destruction of, say, Tel Aviv, and the death of millions on the hope that a madman like Ahmadinejad wouldn't toss a nuke anyway? If their history is any guide, Israel simply won't take that risk but will act preemptively to remove the cancer before it kills. Just my $.02 worth.