Are America and Israel paranoid over Iran

[James1992]

In December last year the CIA Americas intelligence agency said that Iran had stopped its nuclear activities in 2003 so why is America and Israel still keen to bomb Iran....

[Keltoi]

Who says they are "keen" to bomb Iran? This situation has been politicized in an election season as a source of contention between the candidates. It is more of a "what if" scenario. At the current pace of events the prospect of any action against Iraq is highly unlikely.

[SixTen]

Who says they are "keen" to bomb Iran? This situation has been politicized in an election season as a source of contention between the candidates. It is more of a "what if" scenario. At the current pace of events the prospect of any action against Iraq is highly unlikely.

But is it fair on Iran, for anything to be considered, even on a "what if" basis? Doesn't put Iran in a good light does it.

[anatolian]

After knowing that british scientist who 'found dead' after declaring that there was no nuclear weapon in Iraq,,,I'm so sory for the guy who said that for CIA....

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

But is it fair on Iran, for anything to be considered, even on a "what if" basis? Doesn't put Iran in a good light does it.

I don't think the Iranian president needs much help putting Iran in a bad light, at least from a Western perspective. More to the issue though, it is something called "sabre rattling". Iran has done a little of that themselves lately.

[James1992]

Iran must have decent anti aircraft weaponery having said Iraq claimed to have them aswell...

[Keltoi]

Iran must have decent anti aircraft weaponery having said Iraq claimed to have them aswell...

Iraq did have a reasonably good anti-aircraft system in place before the first Gulf War, but it didn't do them much good. Superior technology in the air as opposed to the ground.

[James1992]

Iraqs army ran away whenever enemy troops came near them...I cant see Iran doing that they were fanatical when Iraq invaded them...

[Keltoi]

Iraqs army ran away whenever enemy troops came near them...I cant see Iran doing that they were fanatical when Iraq invaded them...

Yes, Iran liked to use the human wave technique against the Iraqis. Similar to what happened in Somalia when the Black Hawk went down. The U.S. soldiers at the crash site and those that attempted to rescue them, used up all their ammunition against the human wave coming down the street. More than a thousand died just to kill four or five U.S. soldiers, but I guess they considered it worth the price.

Iran's army might not run at the first engagement as the Iraqis did, but the Iraqis already knew what they were up against. The Iranians have no idea.

[The_Prince]

first of all there wont be a massive US ground force, if fighting breaks out it will only be from american planes, and some warships in the gulf. america doesnt have the capability to launch a major ground offensive, and on top of that neighboring gulf countries arent allowing them to use their soil as a base, hence a major ground offensive isnt happening.

if american troops cant even beat the taliban, you think they will be able to take down more than 300,000 iranian ground troops? you think the iranians are just gonna run into harms way? they know their land, they will use guerilla warfare tactics, and the americans are terrible at fighting guerilla warfare and it will become a graveyard.

iranians arent somalis, or iraqis, or even the taliban, these guys have been preparing for war for every single day, they have real professional millitary training, if the americans can barely deal with your average freedom fighter who has taken only a few weeks of basic insurgent training what do you think will happen when they come up against a real motivated army who is well trained and actually have better weapons? the americans will have NO CHANCE when the Iranians employ guerilla war tactics. the iranians will be attacking the americans from their left, right, up, down, every single side, the americans will panic call for air support but good ole air support wont be able to save them.

you americans think your so strong, lol but its only because you fight opponents who arent real fighters, then you brag and say look what we did to the iraqi army and taliban! even in ww2 it was the soviets who did most of the real work against the nazis. the iraqi army wasnt even an army, the taliban are a simple resistence group (and americans still cant beat them!) hence dont think it will be a walk in the park going into Iran where you might have some problems for a week or two at most and then it will be mission acomplished by 3 weeks, your in for a very very rude awakening if you think that trust me there.

[Gator]

In December last year the CIA Americas intelligence agency said that Iran had stopped its nuclear activities in 2003 so why is America and Israel still keen to bomb Iran....

Actually, the report said Iran suspended its nuclear weapons research.

The problem with this though is that they might have got to the point of a workable design (which isn't a hard threshold). At which point they would turn to uranium enrichment (which is the tough part and which they have done).

And when they get enough uranium, they can complete the bomb design and assemble it.

This is just to give you an idea of what the US and Isreal may be thinking.

Here's also an Op-ed piece from the times by a couple of contributors that puts the hawk case in prospective -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/op...nt+bomb&st=nyt


Thanks.

[Keltoi]

Good point Gator. There is a threshold, something referred to as the "red line", when all the technology and hardware is available to make a bomb rather quickly if a nation decides to do so. That is the issue with the Iranian nuclear program.

[Pygoscelis]

The problem with Iran and nuclear weapons is that all the warmongering of the USA pretty much neccesitates Iran to try to get them. It is the only proven defence against US agression. Iran would have to be stupid not to be secretly seeking nukes.

[Keltoi]

The problem with Iran and nuclear weapons is that all the warmongering of the USA pretty much neccesitates Iran to try to get them. It is the only proven defence against US agression. Iran would have to be stupid not to be secretly seeking nukes.

Not quite. It is that seeking of nuclear technology that will bring Israel to strike Iran. Which is what it will be, make no mistake. If any action is taken against Iran it will be by Israel.

As for "warmongering", you are basically referring to one war in one country. That is hardly warmongering. Not to mention that the war is over. I suppose you could call the U.S. a "occupation monger" for its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan...but Afghanistan is more of a NATO occupation.

[MKE Brother]

Not quite. It is that seeking of nuclear technology that will bring Israel to strike Iran. Which is what it will be, make no mistake. If any action is taken against Iran it will be by Israel.

As for "warmongering", you are basically referring to one war in one country. That is hardly warmongering. Not to mention that the war is over. I suppose you could call the U.S. a "occupation monger" for its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan...but Afghanistan is more of a NATO occupation.

Well lets be clear on this "NATO occupation". It is Americans doing the brunt of the work while everybody else pretty much enjoys the weather; http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...e-taliban.html

Israel may be the one who makes the run but who do you think will be fighting it by proxy? Israel also has to fly thru Iraqi airspace to get there and who needs to approve that, yep, the U.S. Whose intelligence will they be riding on mainly, right again, the U.S.

Yes, the war is over, "mission accomplished", never mind the few thousand troops and thousands of Iraqi citizens that have died after their mission was accomplished. All for oil and because "Saddam tried to kill his daddy". Iraq served no purpose other than politics and money and as soon as we leave there the place will destabilize and those waiting until we leave again will come right out of the woodwork. All those insurgents that the Americans brought in with them who have since laid back (no way to win vs the Americans) will turn the place into one crater after another.

So you tell me, is sabre rattling and bombing Iran through Israel not warmongering? Do you believe that Bush's intentions in Iraq were noble and he was somehow trying to protect us?

[James1992]

I Think Iran Just Likes Winding America And Israel Up..

[Keltoi]

Well lets be clear on this "NATO occupation". It is Americans doing the brunt of the work while everybody else pretty much enjoys the weather; http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...e-taliban.html

Israel may be the one who makes the run but who do you think will be fighting it by proxy? Israel also has to fly thru Iraqi airspace to get there and who needs to approve that, yep, the U.S. Whose intelligence will they be riding on mainly, right again, the U.S.

Yes, the war is over, "mission accomplished", never mind the few thousand troops and thousands of Iraqi citizens that have died after their mission was accomplished. All for oil and because "Saddam tried to kill his daddy". Iraq served no purpose other than politics and money and as soon as we leave there the place will destabilize and those waiting until we leave again will come right out of the woodwork. All those insurgents that the Americans brought in with them who have since laid back (no way to win vs the Americans) will turn the place into one crater after another.

So you tell me, is sabre rattling and bombing Iran through Israel not warmongering? Do you believe that Bush's intentions in Iraq were noble and he was somehow trying to protect us?

How did Iraq serve Bush in the arena of politics or money? It killed him politically and the U.S. is spending billions of dollars a week in Iraq.

Do I think Bush's intentions were noble? Yes, I do. Intentions and reality are two different things. In their clouded minds they thought deposing Saddam would be easy(correct), and that a new functioning government could be elected and put in place without any major civil or social disruption(incorrect).

As for the war being over, yes it is over. It is an occupation. That doesn't translate to all trouble being over. An occupation is usually more difficult than a conventional war. Primarily because you have to wait around for the enemy to do something and then react, instead of always being on the offensive.

I agree that the future of Iraq is up in the air. In the end it is going to be up to the Iraqis to make it work. The U.S. can't create a functioning government for them. The whole thing may fall apart after the U.S. leaves, or the absence of U.S. forces in Iraq may lead to more stability. Time will tell.

[Keltoi]

I Think Iran Just Likes Winding America And Israel Up..

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt they would like the result if they wind them up too much.