How to avoid an Israeli strike on Iran?

How to avoid an Israeli strike on Iran?

As diplomacy falters and the potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon edges closer, public discourse has increasingly focused on U.S. and Israeli options for preventing such an outcome by other means. And of late, the option most thoroughly debated in government and on the pages of the policy journals is an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

With his recent National Interest article and last week's accompanying talk to a small group of journalists, academics, and think tank analysts in the journal's Nixon Center office space, Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, veteran policy advisor, and current Brookings senior fellow, not only predicted that an Israeli attack on Iran would be calamitous but added that preventing it would require us to turn our focus from Iran's nuclear program to Israel's.

I found this eye opening editorial rather interesting and ominous. It's a telling perspective on the current situation between Israel and Iran. I'd highly recommend reading it before posting the usual Iran/Israel [ He said, she-said, who struck Paul] etc rhetoric.

The crux of Riedel's argument? Convince Israel that it is safe to abandon its decades-long policy of maintaining a monopoly on Middle Eastern nuclear weapons. This argument might be easier for Americans to swallow, but if the goal is to dissuade the Israelis from attacking Iran, it will be a tough sell.

Your thoughts?

reply to post by SLAYER69


No replies?

Now that is a conspiracy!

This will be nice option in fair, rational, logic world.
But we all know we are not living in fair rational world.

The Iran nuclear question is a side issue.

In the meantime, the Arabs are doing anything and everything possible to take over the international banking community with the last of the wealth they can wring out of their oil wells before the oil runs out.

With a fair share of U.S. and European allies in the upper world of international finance..

Originally posted by Zmurfix
This will be nice option in fair, rational, logic world.
But we all know we are not living in fair rational world.

One can agree that it should be discussed out in the open without rhetoric being tossed back and forth.
There can be no progress otherwise.

reply to post by poet1b


Do you feel it is that widespread?
Can you post any collaborating links or info please.

This sentence sums up the problem. "As diplomacy falters and the potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon edges closer".

I don't know if you have read the full speech that Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made at the UN, but if you have not you most definitely should. The press have taken portions in isolation but during the speech he reiterates yet again that Iran has no interest in a nuclear weapon, thus the term 'potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon' epitomises the attitude towards Iran.

I am afraid I do not know where you get this document as I received it in a PDF Found it The relevant part is:

The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to provide member States with technical and legal support.

The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament. Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear bomb holders have done:

They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and
upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.

When the United States takes this man at his word about not wishing to proliferate nuclear weapons then, and only then, can we move forwards towards a solution to the Middle East problems that will not involve and Israeli/American strike on Iran.

Of course the cited article is correct, Israel should declare it's arsenal and should come under the wing of the NPT, but this does not mean they should dispose of their weapons for if that was the case then all countries who are signatories should have done so. (And of course they should but let us be realistic America is never going to disarm.)

The problem has always been keeping Israels weapons a secret. But now, they are all but admitted, at least by everyone BUT Israel.

Iran has stated it has no intentions to build a nuke. Iran has not had any sort of external conflicts since the Iran/Iraq war in the early 80s. Iran has signed the NNPT. Iran has let IAEA inspect their sites.

Israel has somewhere around 250+ nuclear weapons, much built with stolen plans from the United States. Israel refuses to become a member of the NNPT, therefor no inspections of its facilities have been undertaken. Israel has constant conflicts with its neighbors and calls for attacks on nations like Syria and Iran.

I just don't understand how we as a nation (The United States) keep having this blind, unfaltering support for Israel. Perhaps if they would join the NNPT they would have a leg to stand on. But to keep calling for strikes on Iran because they "might" "someday" "perhaps" build a nuclear weapon is ridiculous.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

No replies?

Now that is a conspiracy!

Most of the people here are only here to bash Israel, so unless you somehow connect this to the horrors of the flotilla and give these people another topic for them to say "OMGGG IZRAEL IS MARDERER COUNTRY!!!!!!!!111" you won't get any replies.. Sorry..

I personally think Israeli leaders don't have the guts to pull it off, it's too risky.

reply to post by Eliad


It only becomes an Israel bashing post because people come in here and will immediately start throwing around the word "anti-semitic". Leaving out the religious aspect, it is easy to see that if any other nation in the middle east behaved the way Israel does, peoples opinions would be far different.

There is a very easy solution to this problem.

The western nations should stand up and offer to HELP Iran build their nuclear facilities.

It would give Israel the assurances neccessary to not pre-emptive strike.

It would show the Iranians that the world welcomes you to the world nuclear stage.

And, finally, it gives everybody unmitigated access to the program, thereby making it almost impossible to build weaponry during the helping.

After Ahmadinejad called out Obama to a public debate, he would be very hard pressed to refuse help.

reply to post by Eliad


Hi Eliad, I think you are right about that.

I personally think Israeli leaders don't have the guts to pull it off, it's too risky.

I also consider if very unlikely that even if Iran were to have a nuke, that they would give one to Hezbollah. To use a nuke there would probably be tantamount to suicide unless it was a very small one, and any nuclear war in the Middle East is going to adversely affect many Arab nations, as well as Israel and Iran.

Now of course it could be argued that this would be a reason for them to give one to Hezbollah since the Iranians have no love of the Arabs, and the feeling is mutual, but overspill into Iranian territory would not be acceptable for them I am sure.

reply to post by peck420


Peck420, it is actually the DUTY of members of the NNPT to assist other member nations in this task. We are SUPPOSED to be helping the Iranians. Yet we are not. We are however, giving aid to Israel, which is against the rules of the NNPT.

Any country thatt has signed the NNPT
is REQUIRED to offer assistance for the
peaceful development of nuclear power
for any other signatory.

reply to post by DerekJR321


Oh I know that, but thank you for adding it to the discussion.

I was just illustrating how simple the solution to this problem is.

100 million from the world (NPT - 10 million each) vs unknown billions for war. It's really sad that, to our leaders, the unkown billions (plus loss of life) is the seemingly better option.

reply to post by SLAYER69


hi slayer69
to me it is almost a non-event. goldman sachs and other financial interests have recently applied for licences to operate their 'banks' within iran. to me it seems warfare by another means if the stench of aggression becomes evident. the ball is firmly in the iranians court.
regards fakedirt.

reply to post by SLAYER69

You can't avoid greed my friend, greed for power. They are going to free the crap out of them with love from above.
And as usual they are going to sign the bombs with love from children. Those people are still untouched from them, more pure, more innocent. Libarate then prepare to mix the population, gene mixing. Not even the people mixed want this.

reply to post by DerekJR321


We won't go into this to avoid side tracking this thread, I would just say that the only threads getting attention here are either Israel bashings, or America bashings, and most topics talking about anything that might make Israel look good are immediately side tracked and converted into Israel bashing, if you need proof just look at all the big threads, has nothing to do with antisemitism, or anyone shouting antisemitism for that matter..
As for your second point- In Iran people are being slaughtered in the streets, women are stoned to death, and their leaders are openly calling the destruction of Israel.
In Egypt the police and military put nerve gas in the smuggling tunnels to avoid endangering themselves.
In the Gaza strip they brutally murder the opposition.
In Lebanon people who are protected by Hezbollah who are convicted of crimes don't obey their sentences.
In Turkey there has been a genocide of the Armenian people, millions were killed, and with the Kurds, where tens of thousands were killed and 3 million displaced..

So what you say is completely false, also there tens of other ongoing world conflicts going on around the world, most of them (if not all of them) are far more brutal then the Israeli conflict (whole villages are being raped and murdered with machetes in Africa), and nobody seems to care.

Please do your research before jumping to false conclusions. Or before posting at all..
If you want to reply to this we can do it in PMs, don't want to side track this thread..

reply to post by PuterMan


Nukes are a funny thing- Everyone wants to have one, but nobody wants to use them.. I mean, it's the world as we know it that we're talking about, and even one nuke would have grave ecological, and thus economical consequences.. Nations will collapse, and nothing will be the way it used to be..
So yeah, the people who are in power don't want that, but the ones who have nothing to lose don't care either way...

Well this has been an interesting discussion thus far.
Thanks

reply to post by SLAYER69


The answer is simple for Iran. Invite J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs to open a bank there and borrow a hundred billion dollars or such.
End of bomb threat!