Israel Plans Nuclear Attack on Iran

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
...according to British media

Israel denies it’s planning Iran nuclear attack

U.K. newspaper reports Israel intends to strike up to three targets in Iran

LONDON - A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike as many as three targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons, aiming to halt Tehran’s uranium enrichment program. The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called “bunker-buster” nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s office said it would not respond to the claim. “We don’t respond to publications in the Sunday Times,” said Miri Eisin, Olmert’s spokeswoman.

Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that “the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions” and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

The United States and its allies accuse Tehran of secretly trying to produce atomic weapons, but Iran claims its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, including generating electricity.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned as invalid and illegal the U.N. resolution.

Diplomatic solution sought
Though Olmert has not explicitly ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, he has repeatedly said the issue should be dealt with diplomatically.

Because an Iranian nuclear bomb would affect the entire world, Olmert has said, the problem must be solved by the international community.

The Sunday Times reported that Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, believes Iran could produce enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons within two years. It also reported the top three targets for the Israelis were Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed, a heavy water reactor at Arak and a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan.

Israeli pilots, the newspaper reported, have made flights to the British colony of Gibraltar to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets.

The Israeli army declined to comment when asked by The Associated Press on Sunday whether the Israeli air force was training for an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran,” Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. “It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say ’someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.”’

Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report.

“No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times,” Kam said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16509109/
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
I don't buy it.

A surgical conventional attack? You bet. But not nukes.

Yeah.

Although I completely understand the need for Israel to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, I doubt they would go nuclear to do so.

The problem seems to be Iranian preparedness.......deep hardened bunkers, perhaps inpervious to conventional weapons.

I would understand the Israel need to pre-empt any development of nukes by Iran, by any means necessary......but the rest of the world would go insane.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I will prepare for the wave of BS spreaders that will undoubtedly run through this very forum balling in agony. Defending those that would wipe Israel off the map, all the while pointing their chbby swastika tatoo'd fingures at the big bad Israel.

"Never Again", means just that. Pre-emptive self defence is not a bad idea. Well as long as you live in the real world and fully grasp the mechanics of the mechisms of potential destruction. ie Israel knwos exactly what they have their nukes for, deterents. Iran is not under any real threat from its neighbours, so what do they need nukes for? They don't. If you truly trust a group as out there as the Iran government to be doing this, just to have cheap nuclear energy, after all that has been offered them, I have cheap land in Florida for sale.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The problem is, if you don't have nukes you're accused of having them and thus invaded. If you do have them you don't get invaded. Is it any wonder why the rush is on to build nukes?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Israel's neighbors have all stated they would be very afraid of a nuclear attack anywhere in the ME. It's a pretty tight bundle of countries there and it's likely they'd all be affected by fallout. Israel won't use nukes because it'd be as affected as any other country there. Bad strategy. And all it needs right now is every single one of its neighbors really pissed at it. There are more options than nukes.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The problem is, if you don't have nukes you're accused of having them and thus invaded. If you do have them you don't get invaded. Is it any wonder why the rush is on to build nukes?
There lies the reason i have always liked the Israeli strategy. Percission strikes. Little colateral damage. Ends justifying the means. No invasions, just safety on the home front.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
There lies the reason i have always liked the Israeli strategy. Percission strikes. Little colateral damage. Ends justifying the means. No invasions, just safety on the home front.
I consider it more of strategic blunder by Bush to declare his main three evil empires then begin the invasion process. While enemy #1 gets invaded the other nuke up to defend themselves against Bush jihad.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
An Israeli nuclear strike against Iran would likely be unfortunate for the whole world. China is currently dealing with Iran for their own energy needs, and they would have a lot to say about such an attack. I can understand that Israel doesn't want any competition in the M.E nuclear game but as far as I know, nobody has appointed Israel as a world nuclear monitor.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I consider it more of strategic blunder by Bush to declare his main three evil empires then begin the invasion process. While enemy #1 gets invaded the other nuke up to defend themselves against Bush jihad.
I couldn't agree more, his foriegn policy is absolutely horrifying to say the least, stupid would be a more appropriate term.
What's funny is that Junior has help to come up with these strategies. :D
Not Israeli stategies. Those are better thought out then anything his camp could conjure up.
Poor Georgie Jihad.
I hope to see him in front of the International war crimes tribunal real soon. I won't hold my breath though.
An Israeli nuclear strike against Iran would likely be unfortunate for the whole world. China is currently dealing with Iran for their own energy needs, and they would have a lot to say about such an attack. I can understand that Israel doesn't want any competition in the M.E nuclear game but as far as I know, nobody has appointed Israel as a world nuclear monitor.
It's hardly fear of competition, and you can not be that absurdly obtuse to not recognise the serious threat Iran would pose to Israel if it used its Uranium for weapons. Then again, if I measured your thought processes by what you post and can not support, I guess you could be just that empty headed.

Hardly the "world nuclear monitor". More like the NIMBY's of the ME.

I wonder how sympathetic you would be if the nearest Native reservation to you, started to amass conventional weaponry and military surplus vehicles?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Originally Posted by #juan
An Israeli nuclear strike against Iran would likely be unfortunate for the whole world. China is currently dealing with Iran for their own energy needs, and they would have a lot to say about such an attack. I can understand that Israel doesn't want any competition in the M.E nuclear game but as far as I know, nobody has appointed Israel as a world nuclear monitor.

It's hardly fear of competition, and you can not be that absurdly obtuse to not recognise the serious threat Iran would pose to Israel if it used its Uranium for weapons. Then again, if I measured your thought processes by what you post and can not support, I guess you could be just that empty headed.

Hardly the "world nuclear monitor". More like the NIMBY's of the ME.

I wonder how sympathetic you would be if the nearest Native reservation to you, started to amass conventional weaponry and military surplus vehicles?

You will note Bear, that my post does not contain personal insults. Personal insults seem to be an integral part of a debating strategy that I have had enough of.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
You will note Bear, that my post does not contain personal insults. Personal insults seem to be an integral part of a debating strategy that I have had enough of.
Apparently you've had enough with backing your shyte up to eh?

Now I'm insulted, you have no problem hurling insults at ITN, but I don't get a rebuttle.:angry4:
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Nuclear capable nations face nuclear threats.

If Iran wants to join the "big boys club" and have nukes then it has to realise the downsides.

Iran seems like a kid who wants to be an adult because he can stay up as late as he wants, while remaining ignorant of the fact that as an adult he'll be burdened down with bills, a job etc etc.
 

Logic 7

Council Member
Jul 17, 2006
1,382
9
38
I don't buy it.

A surgical conventional attack? You bet. But not nukes.


Then what is the point of having them, and still making them?? like united states, they will find a reason to use them. I guess some books will come out and say that an invasion would have made more casualties, better to drop couple nuclear bomb than loosing 50 000 us/isrealis soldiers