Israel: You take them out or we will

[flyingtiger1013]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050...4709-2065r.htm

The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.
As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week.
"They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.
Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said the best hope was for the United States and other major powers to make it clear to Iranian leaders now there was "no chance they will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."
"Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it," said Mr. Steinitz.
Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party in the Knesset, added that Israel "will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."
"We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally" against Iran, he said.
Mr. Steinitz, a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud Party, stopped just short of a direct threat to bomb suspect Iranian nuclear sites.
Mr. Steinitz said Israeli officials estimate that Tehran is only two to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb and that time was running out for the world to act.
"We see an Iranian bomb as a devastating, existential threat to Israel, to the entire Middle East, to all Western interests in the region," he said.
"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."

The Bush administration has led the diplomatic campaign to pressure Iran, claiming the Islamic regime for two decades has secretly pursued a nuclear arsenal. The board of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna over the weekend concluded Iran had violated international pledges on its nuclear programs and said the matter could be referred to the U.N. Security Council.
Iranian officials harshly condemned the resolution and insist the country has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program to meet its energy needs.
Israel has acted unilaterally before to halt a nuclear program by a hostile neighbor, bombing Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. Widely condemned at the time, the surprise raid is now credited with dealing a major setback to Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Eldad said Israelis across the political spectrum see Iran as the country's most serious threat and one that cannot be ignored.
But he added that unilateral action by Israel was the "worst possible scenario," likely to inflame opinion throughout the Muslim world.
"If we have to do it, we'll do it," he said with a shrug. "If the United States and the world community do it, there is a chance the issue can be contained. If Israel has to do it alone, there is no chance the conflict can be contained."
Mr. Lapid said he was sensitive to criticism that Israel was trying to push Washington into a potentially armed conflict with Iran that many Americans now oppose.
"Our mission is to point out the dangers we see, to ourselves and to our friends," he said. "Avoiding speaking the truth does not mean you can then avoid facing the consequences of those facts," he said.
The lawmakers met with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with senior administration officials, saying they highlighted the Iranian danger in all their meetings.
Asked if he thought the message got through, Mr. Steinitz said, "I did not get the feeling we were talking to the walls."

[wskin44]

I don't see what the fuss is about. All nuclear material has a distinctive fingerprint that points directly to the facility that generated it, even after the material has been used in an explosion. The United States needs to have a policy that we will use nuclear weapons to destroy any country whose nuclear material is used to attack another country.

It worked with the Russians. It can work with Iranians, N. Koreans and whoever else. We can't keep all these countries from getting nukes. We can make sure that they don't use them.

[AlexRS]

I don't see what the fuss is about. All nuclear material has a distinctive fingerprint that points directly to the facility that generated it, even after the material has been used in an explosion. The United States needs to have a policy that we will use nuclear weapons to destroy any country whose nuclear material is used to attack another country.

It worked with the Russians. It can work with Iranians, N. Koreans and whoever else. We can't keep all these countries from getting nukes. We can make sure that they don't use them.

This would be horrible. This strategy worked against the Russians because Russian nukes were controlled by the government. Russian government's main goal was to stay alive and in charge of the country. I mean, it was fairly clear that the march of communism will not happen via nuclear power.

In countries like Iran, for example, there is a number of people who hate Israel and US. People who are willing to kill themselves for that hate. Suicide bombing was not invented by communists... Do you really think "we'll bomb you if you bomb our allies" strategy will work against suicide bomber mentality? No. It will NOT.

Saying the nukes will be available to these countries sooner or later does not mean we should allow or even help them to get nukes! We should do all we can to prevent them from getting nuclear devices, and I also think we should suspend all WMD programs we have. Seriously, is there a strategic or a tactical need for them? We can already kill as many people as we want. We are years ahead of other countries in technology. Continuing to make smaller and deadlier WMDs increases the chance that other countries will get them somehow. This is very expensive reasearch which these countries cannot afford. They can only affort to steal the bomb or the research itself. If we are reasonable with development of WMDs, we can really decrease chances of "every country getting nukes at some point"

[Kilmer17]

Im suprise Israel has let it go this far.

[wskin44]

The idea that we can control knowledge or how oil rich Moslem countries use it is a pipedream. All we can do is make them think twice about the consequences.

[Art Monk Fan]

Im suprise Israel has let it go this far.

Me too. I'm also surprised by this announcement -- it's more their style to simply blow up the sites first, talk later. I wonder what this signals?

[AlexRS]

The idea that we can control knowledge or how oil rich Moslem countries use it is a pipedream. All we can do is make them think twice about the consequences.

I am not saying controlling knowledge is the only way, neither I am claiming it's the most effective way. Yes we have to make them think twice about the consequences, but we also have to keep a watchful eye on nuclear materials, scientists, etc.

Simply threatening countries into not using WMDs is too narrow of a focus. That does not protect us from rogue groups obtaining nuclear material. They might not be able to make a nuke, but they can easily make a dirty bomb if given access to material. What are you going to do if you trace a dirty bomb detonated by a rogue group to another country? Do you obliterate it from the face of the earth??

Are you saying we should not worry about tracing nuclear material, not worry about countries getting nukes, not worry about how they handle them and what kind of security they have, but simply threaten to kill them all if anything bad happens? A little shortsighted perhaps? Maybe you are forgetting that our goal is to prevent nuclear or dirty bombs from going off, period. That's PREVENT, not have our vengence after they blow up. Would you be perfectly happy if a dirty nuke went off in an American city, as long as we get to bomb the hell out of another country??? Our plan to deal with nuclear devices should be comprehensive, and it should include control of knowledge, materials, etc., as well as the threat of harsh retaliation.

[SoCalSkins]

Israel would get heavy retaliation from Iran if it attacked. It is not as simple as a few air strikes. I don't see it happening.

[flyingtiger1013]

Nightmare scenario is IF Israel decides to attack (airstrikes), do we intercept them? They will have to fly through American/NATO controlled airspace. If we don't the Arab world will go nuts and then all bets are off.

[Art Monk Fan]

Nightmare scenario is IF Israel decides to attack (airstrikes), do we intercept them? They will have to fly through American/NATO controlled airspace. If we don't the Arab world will go nuts and then all bets are off.

Does Isreal have any weapons with the distance to reach Iranian targets on their own?

[Thiebear]

Israel could beat Iran with no problems....
there is no retaliation on countries with Nukes...
hence, Israel doesnt want Iran to have them....

[SkinInsite]

Does Isreal have any weapons with the distance to reach Iranian targets on their own?

If they don't, they can always "borrow" from us.

[wskin44]

I am not saying controlling knowledge is the only way, neither I am claiming it's the most effective way. Yes we have to make them think twice about the consequences, but we also have to keep a watchful eye on nuclear materials, scientists, etc.

Simply threatening countries into not using WMDs is too narrow of a focus. That does not protect us from rogue groups obtaining nuclear material. They might not be able to make a nuke, but they can easily make a dirty bomb if given access to material. What are you going to do if you trace a dirty bomb detonated by a rogue group to another country? Do you obliterate it from the face of the earth??

Are you saying we should not worry about tracing nuclear material, not worry about countries getting nukes, not worry about how they handle them and what kind of security they have, but simply threaten to kill them all if anything bad happens? A little shortsighted perhaps? Maybe you are forgetting that our goal is to prevent nuclear or dirty bombs from going off, period. That's PREVENT, not have our vengence after they blow up. Would you be perfectly happy if a dirty nuke went off in an American city, as long as we get to bomb the hell out of another country??? Our plan to deal with nuclear devices should be comprehensive, and it should include control of knowledge, materials, etc., as well as the threat of harsh retaliation.

The key phrase here is "if given access to material". Each country should be held accountable for the nuclear material that it produces. International inspectors should be auditing the material. If a country is complying with security procedures and they imediately report material missing and cooperate with the international community to find the missing material, then we wouldn't blow up their cities. But if a country was producing nuclear material and refused to comply with security standards and audits and "somehow" their material ends up leveling Manhatten, I for one would respond. But there is no point in responding after the fact if our intentions weren't made clear before the fact because by then it is too late.

[AlexRS]

But if a country was producing nuclear material and refused to comply with security standards and audits and "somehow" their material ends up leveling Manhatten, I for one would respond. But there is no point in responding after the fact if our intentions weren't made clear before the fact because by then it is too late.

All I'm saying is, maybe it's better to make sure we enforce security standards and audits before Mahnattan gets leveled. Prevent rogue nations from getting nuclear power, and carefully watch them if they do. You know, instead of sitting there and watching them being non-compliant, waiting for stuff to blow up so we can retaliate.

[Sarge]

Nightmare scenario is IF Israel decides to attack (airstrikes), do we intercept them? They will have to fly through American/NATO controlled airspace. If we don't the Arab world will go nuts and then all bets are off.

Actually, we'll probably give them mid-air refueling. I don't think the Israelis have the range to to do airstrikes on Iran.

Another scenerio would be they strike Iran and turn around, knowing they are going got run out of gas on the way back, and land somewhere in Iraq.