Israel planning strike on Iran

[Bob The Mercenary]

Right now the headline on the Drudge Report reads "Paper: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran". It doesn't give a link, but refers to the London Times and says they will be reporting it tomorrow.

So, do you think this has any substance to it? Or is it a really really cool scare tactic?

[Mr.Bookworm]

I think it's probably just some rumor blown way out of proportion. Still, anything like this, even in rumor form, is scary.

[Flarecobra]

Agreed. Until I see some offical proof, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

[Bob The Mercenary]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

They posted an article finally.

[Azisien]

This sounds like tactical planning to me. I think I'd be thoroughly surprised if they didn't have a plan involving nuclear weapons.

[Lockeownzj00]

I'd be surprised if there isn't a first-world nation planning an attack/defense strategy on Iran right now. They're too virulent not to.

[Darth SS]

I'd be far more surprised is Israel wasn't making plans for dealing with Iran. They've only claimed that Israel must be wiped off the planet.

The fact that it involves nuclear weapons is a bit bothering, but (as odd as it sounds) at least the plan involves very small nukes.

[Ryanderman]

My first thought after reading the first post was that while Drudge is a very good source for breaking news, and is often the first one to break a story, he doesn't have the best track record for accuracy.

But after reading more about it, and reading the replies here I have to agree. This is most likely tactical planning as a respons to further moves Iran might make as opposed to a plan that is intended to be put in action immediately. Frankly, I'm glad someone does have a plan to stop Iran if necessary, though I wish they could avoid using nuclear weapons.

[Lockeownzj00]

Hey. Even if it was "pre-emptive" I can see it being morally justified. While the imminent need for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was entirely falsified (even though Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard), I would lose no sleep at night if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mysteriously disappeared (or however they might topple the theoretical/kind of real Iranian imperialist regime).

[Bob The Mercenary]

This morning they were discussing, or semi-discussing, the repurcussions of a bunkerbuster strike on Iran. Someone mentioned how a rapid escalation would occur and not even the U.S. would support an action like this.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Hey. Even if it was "pre-emptive" I can see it being morally justified. While the imminent need for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was entirely falsified (even though Saddam Hussein was an evil bastard), I would lose no sleep at night if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mysteriously disappeared (or however they might topple the theoretical/kind of real Iranian imperialist regime).

Sorry, after seeing the mess we've got with Iraq, how anyone can think taking on an entire country, just for one man, is beyond me. Yes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not somebody we necessarily want in power. But on CNN, after a recent Iran election, where Mahmoud's party lost some seats (thanks to Mahmoud's hard liner positions), the office of Iran's president doesn't offer all that much power.

I wish I had a better head for details, but I don't. But the short version is, Mahmoud is a loudmouth, but don't equate what he says with action.


And on the flip-side here's a story that broke back in 2005:

"Vice President Cheney’s office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That’s "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi’s article.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050822.htm

I admit the source is a bit fringe for my tastes, but of the links I found, this was one of the better ones. Its a story that's from 2005, so I don't know how applicable it is to the current political situation.

Still just the idea of it makes me question any justification for dealing with Iran...

SWB

[Lockeownzj00]

Sorry, after seeing the mess we've got with Iraq, how anyone can think taking on an entire country, just for one man, is beyond me.

That's a little short-sighted, isn't it? Sure, the phrase "one man" seems to stand alone in and of itself, isolated and trivial, insignificant. But you and I both know the power that one person can hold--the influence they can have. Note that I also said "or however they might topple the theoretical/kind of real Iranian imperialist regime," implying that it could be more than just Ahmadinejad.

I'm not really equating what he says with action yet. Here's what I do know: Iran, despite bing a relatively "moderate" country politically and religiously speaking, has a strand of Islamic extremism within it. We have a nation that vehemently insists it must have nuclear energy. All well and good, except the Middle East doesn't exactly have a history of using technologies to peaceful ends. Spice it up with a little Holocaust denial, anti-Zionism, and support of North Korea, and you've got a country that everybody should keep their eye on.

[Archbio]

except the Middle East doesn't exactly have a history of using technologies to peaceful ends

As opposed to what subcontinent or continent?

and support of North Korea

A feat that could only be achieved through the efforts of the Western World's best minds.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

That's a little short-sighted, isn't it? Sure, the phrase "one man" seems to stand alone in and of itself, isolated and trivial, insignificant. But you and I both know the power that one person can hold--the influence they can have.
Yes, I understand this. However, I also understand power can be fleeting, and suggested that recent elections in Iran at least leave hope for that.

I'd pefer circumventing normal diplomatic procedures & dealing w/ other elements of the Iran government, rather than jumping into any kind of fight.

I'm not really equating what he says with action yet. Here's what I do know: Iran, despite bing a relatively "moderate" country politically and religiously speaking, has a strand of Islamic extremism within it. We have a nation that vehemently insists it must have nuclear energy. All well and good, except the Middle East doesn't exactly have a history of using technologies to peaceful ends. Spice it up with a little Holocaust denial, anti-Zionism, and support of North Korea, and you've got a country that everybody should keep their eye on.

Watch them, sure. But you were talking about (in your view, not mine) justifiable pre-emption. That's where I draw a distinctive line that nobody should ever again, cross.

Edited to Add:
Apparently, the US is starting to position a number of additional ships into the Gulf, suggesting to some (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)that a war w/ Iran is already planned for.

SWB