The Iran War

Atras wrote:
Malor wrote:

Or the occupation of Palestine.

That's so unfair! Israel owns that land not because someone thought it was a good idea, but because it is in the Bible!

Spoiler:

It's better to open a new topic on this subject , because Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with early-mid 20th century Palestine. As far as I heard "historic right" doesn't mean anything in international laws. The British were the previous land lords after the Ottoman-Turks . The British got control over than land from the League of Nation under the British mandate (1922). This topic is extremely broad.

I don't really have much to add on the topic. All I heard on the news is that Netanyahu will soon set a vote to disband parliament which means an early election. I heard Ehud Barak and Netanyahu are starting to distance themselves from each other because likud Voters don't like Barak (both of them ) and Ehud Barak doesn't have much of a chance unless he move to center/left and show some "independence " ( like the name of his party). As far as I've heard Ehud Barak is generally a forerunner for attacking Iran . Netanyahu and Ehud Barak get along pretty well and they know each other from a long time because served in Sayert Matkal together.

I'm not sure about if and when but recently there are more missiles flying at our general direction. Yesterday someone got lucky when he was uninjured after his house was almost leveled by a direct hit from Grad rocket . I don't think they have an Iron dome system in Netivot. I also saw some scare article which counts the number of missiles of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas (they talked about 100000). The article is generally irrelevant because it won't affect the government's decisions . I once heard someone on the radio ( I think it was a high ranking officer) who said that the future outcome like civilian casualties don't play any significance when starting a war and the decisions are always strategical/tactical and the cost is never a factor.

I heard Netanyahu is going to visit the USA soon and give a speech ( I think at the UN). They were debating if Obama would meet with him and generally agreed that he will. They also said it's kind of risky if Netanyahu say something that may compromise Obama's election standings.

Debka (conspiracy theory site ) claims the time is running out. They didn't translate the article to English yet. Iran should hit the nuclear threshold this month . As far as I remember in order to build a nuclear bomb you need about 40kg of U235 . When Iran hit 200kg of Uranium enriched to 20% the nuclear bomb will be within their grasp.

Niseg wrote:

Iran should hit the nuclear threshold this month . As far as I remember in order to build a nuclear bomb you need about 40kg of U235 . When Iran hit 200kg of Uranium enriched to 20% the nuclear bomb will be within their grasp.

So "within their grasp" now glosses over the requirement of further enriching that HEU to weapons grade, an 85% concentration of U238 at minimum? Of course, that also overlooks the fact that a sh*tload more than 200kg of HEU would be required to get to the 40kg or so of weapons grade uranium. And that overlooks the fact that it would take Iran months or years to do that further enrichment. And that overlooks the fact international inspectors would notice that weapons grade enrichment, something Iran doesn't want to be caught doing since it would definitely move their nuclear program from civilian to military in nature and put them in violation of international law.

200kg of 20% enriched uranium isn't a nuclear threat to anyone. While HEU can be used to make a weapon, it would be an exceptionally crude and terribly inefficient weapon, likely in the single digit kiloton range, if it even worked. Additionally, there'd be no way for Iran to deliver such a device to Israel since it would be way to big and bulky to fit on any of their long-range missiles.

If Iran is truly developing nuclear weapons there are loads of things that it has to do before Israel needs to start worrying about nuclear annihilation. Iran has to produce weapons grade uranium and in sufficient quantity to make multiple weapons. Iran has to actually make--and test--a nuclear device, something that requires loads of supporting technologies. And then Iran has to figure out how to fit that device on top of a Shahab-3.

Either way, Israel isn't under any actual threat now or in the near future.

Considering the level of animosity between Israel and Iran and the national pride that is at stake if Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, Iran would never use crude HEU device on Israel because that would simply show that they haven't truly mastered nuclear weapons. Instead, they'd wait until they had a weapon design and delivery system that was reliable enough and powerful enough to carve the heart out of any city in Israel. And that will take years and years to happen *if* Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons, something that isn't entirely clear right now.

OG_slinger wrote:
Niseg wrote:

Iran should hit the nuclear threshold this month . As far as I remember in order to build a nuclear bomb you need about 40kg of U235 . When Iran hit 200kg of Uranium enriched to 20% the nuclear bomb will be within their grasp.

So "within their grasp" now glosses over the requirement of further enriching that HEU to weapons grade, an 85% concentration of U238 at minimum? Of course, that also overlooks the fact that a sh*tload more than 200kg of HEU would be required to get to the 40kg or so of weapons grade uranium. And that overlooks the fact that it would take Iran months or years to do that further enrichment.

Ah 20% of 200kg is 40kg which is the amount needed for U235 to make a bomb, so they wouldn't need anymore of the correct isotope of uranium just the last step of enrichment. The time of that enrichment is a question but they have the tech to get there, as far as I remember reading it would only be a matter of months for the enrichment to take place using the centrifuges that we know about.

Zaque wrote:

Ah 20% of 200kg is 40kg which is the amount needed for U235 to make a bomb, so they wouldn't need anymore of the correct isotope of uranium just the last step of enrichment. The time of that enrichment is a question but they have the tech to get there, as far as I remember reading it would only be a matter of months for the enrichment to take place using the centrifuges that we know about.

Ah, you are correct. 200kg of HEU (20% enrichment) will become about 44kg of weapons grade uranium (90% enrichment).

While it is technically possible, the Iranians would have to keep all international monitors away from those centrifuges for months and months, which would be incredibly difficult.

Either that or they'd have to set up separate, secret centrifuges to carry out the further enrichment free of prying eyes. But then they'd have to account for 200kg of missing HEU, something that the international inspectors would be keen to locate.

Even then, they'd still have to develop and test all the other technology required for a nuke--sophisticated shaped charges, special fuses, etc. And, even then, they'd still have to test their bomb design, which would use up that weapons-grade uranium...

So we're basically back to where we are now. The Iranians haven't moved past the limits of existing international law (enrichment to 20%, which is allowable for research reactors and the production of medical isotopes). Moving beyond that would signal that they were pursuing nuclear weapons, but it would take them several months to years to actually crank out a functioning weapon, if then. That's hardly a position of "time is running out" that Niseg claimed.

YnetNews: Netanyahu: World powers have no moral right to block us

Netanyahu wrote:

"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,"

I guess it's time to check the condition of the bomb shelter (well, he might be bluffing) . Big rockets can blow up a building while Grad rockets can't (it's a good idea stay away from outer wall). The last time I was in a bomb shelter was in 1990~ when Iraq shot Scud missiles at Israel . At first we sat at home in a sealed room with gas masks but after a few weeks the government instructed us to use the bomb shelter instead.

Long range rockets attack usually don't last too long because they are pretty expensive and few .I think during the gulf war we got hit by about 140 and the siren went off only in areas were the rockets were aimed at. I heard today's radar systems like Iron Dome can calculate the exact landing point of a rocket in less than a second.

I think that's why the US warned Iran not to attack it. Iran might have long range missiles but that's about it . They'll have to retaliate with WMD to do any significant damage . I'm not sure how much Iran can rely on Syria and Lebanon got hit with more damage than what they ever did to Israel. Assad is currently fighting a civil war and I'm not sure if the Lebanese wants the IDF to bomb them again ( read the IDF already finished the renovation plans).

It has been in the news here in Canada that we have recalled our diplomats from Iran and given Iranian diplomats 5 days to leave the country.

Our current government is conservative, which still makes him more liberal than Obama, but they are fairly pro military so I would not be surprised if Canadian forces supported American forces if it comes to it. Granted it would mostly be symbolic but there you have it.

Kier wrote:

It has been in the news here in Canada that we have recalled our diplomats from Iran and given Iranian diplomats 5 days to leave the country.

Our current government is conservative, which still makes him more liberal than Obama, but they are fairly pro military so I would not be surprised if Canadian forces supported American forces if it comes to it. Granted it would mostly be symbolic but there you have it.

I saw that news a couple of days ago and did a double-take. If Canada thinks you're beyond diplomacy there may be things happening behind closed doors that are pretty scary.

Funny how he morally equates defending yourself with invading another country. Oh wait, it is not funny, it is despicable.

DSGamer wrote:

I saw that news a couple of days ago and did a double-take. If Canada thinks you're beyond diplomacy there may be things happening behind closed doors that are pretty scary.

Canada has had a major role in our Afghanistan adventure, so it's not like their government is resistant to using force in a foreign adventure. They should be considered in the Britain/Australia/New Zealand crowd of anglophones that are up for a fight in someone else's yard, provided it doesn't cost too much.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Funny how he morally equates defending yourself with invading another country. Oh wait, it is not funny, it is despicable.

While reading that piece I was actually reminded of the US arguments leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

"We can't wait for a mushroom cloud" being the excuse for mass slaughter is a chilling reminder of the past.

Today on the radio (Galatz) They talked about how some people said "don't burn bridges" (mostly people with no electoral power) while other said Netanyahu's demands are reasonable. Ehud Barak wanted to get the discussion done in secret but they talked about how the diplomacy today is mostly public and a lot of it is done over the media.

They think Hillary Clinton got Netanyahu really mad about The US and they talked about how Leon Panetta's statement (The US will have a year to stop Iran if it start making nuclear weapons) was too vague to be acceptable. Obama talked with Netanyahu over the phone yesterday. The guys in on the radio said they hate each other .

Let wait and see what they say tomorrow. Maybe because of the riots this topic would go back to the back seat (feel free to open a new thread - I'm lazy ).

White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama

The White House's response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the U.S. as prime minister without meeting Obama; PM to meet with Clinton

I'm thinking Netanyahu will make it a point to start hostilities before the US election, to try to sabotage Obama's chances, and to deprive him of the ability to tell Israel to take a long walk off a short plank -- doing that right before an election would not be wise.

Malor wrote:

White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama

The White House's response marks a new low in relations between Netanyahu and Obama, underscored by the fact that this is the first time Netanyahu will visit the U.S. as prime minister without meeting Obama; PM to meet with Clinton

I'm thinking Netanyahu will make it a point to start hostilities before the US election, to try to sabotage Obama's chances, and to deprive him of the ability to tell Israel to take a long walk off a short plank -- doing that right before an election would not be wise.

Success in "sabotaging Obama's chances" will mean that the mess is pushed into Romney's lap. I recognize that Israeli don't give a damn who exactly is footing their credit card bills as long as it's done on time, but this seems to me as a very short-sighted way to establish the relationships with the incoming, new administration.

Right, and I think Netanyahu believes that Romney will be a good guard dog, and bite the f*ck out of the nasty bad man. Then Netanyahu can pat him on the head, give him a doggie biscuit, and get back to terrorizing Palestinians.

I think both Obama and Romney are practically the same. I guess the republicans' are more willing to hand out Israel cash and guns .

I don't think a war would sabotage Obama's chances it would just shuffle the cards and add uncertainty to the election. I don't understand what Romney would gain from a war unless Obama go anti Israel after an attack and lose the Jewish vote or something like that.

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator. He'll avoid fighting as much as possible. I'm still unsure why he got into the Libyan mess ( Oil) and not into the Syrian mess ( lack of Oil). Israel can probably do whatever it wants and Obama would swallow the poison pill and pretend nothing happened

The whole world is telling Israel not to do it but it's easier to say that when your country isn't threatened with annihilation. With the experience we had with the Arab countries they mean business. If the world want to convince Israel to get off the war horse it has to convince it that the Iranians are bluffing and that would be really hard to do considering the number of times we got attack by their proxies.

I don't understand what Romney would gain from a war unless Obama go anti Israel after an attack and lose the Jewish vote or something like that.

If Obama didn't support Israel in a war he would likely lose a large portion of the Christian vote (otherwise known as 'the vote' in this country). Although amusingly enough that would probably be one of the few things he could do at this point to win my vote back.

No one in this country cares about the Jewish vote directly. They have a very, very small population here, and unlike the Cubans the Jews are not all concentrated in one location giving them a huge impact over a large swing state.

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator. He'll avoid fighting as much as possible.

Just goes to show what bizarro world you live in, Niseg. Obama more or less successfully (to the extent possible) extricated us from two wars while effectively dismantling al Qaeda as an entity and nailing its chief... The State Department, the foreign diplomacy function of Obama's administration, is generally liked throughout the world, wherever we have meaningful partnerships, that is. Looks like in your part of the world, the only way to come across as a strong president in terms of foreign policy is to start wars left and right.

As Yonder said, there is no such thing as "Jewish vote" in this country. There is only Jewish (read Israeli) lobby.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Looks like in your part of the world, the only way to come across as a strong president in terms of foreign policy is to start wars left and right.

It likely has much more to do with the widespread--and racist--belief throughout Israel that Muslims are essentially savages who only understand and react to violence.

Niseg wrote:

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator. He'll avoid fighting as much as possible.

Wanting to annihilate your dissenters around the world is not a strong foreign policy, it is a policy of extremism and violence. Fighting wars should always be the last resort.

Niseg wrote:

I'm still unsure why he got into the Libyan mess ( Oil) and not into the Syrian mess ( lack of Oil).

Maybe all you get is Fox news over there, but there were reasons to get involved in Libya beyond oil. If oil were the deciding factor, I think Syria and Iran would both be licking wounds from US bombs right now. The revolution in Libya had multinational support, and did not need a heavy dedication of US troops and treasure, but would benefit greatly from US assets in the area. With fairly minimal involvement, Libyans were able to take control of their country with some help from abroad. It can be argued that Obama overreached on military powers with his decision to get involved in Libya at all, but that is, frankly, an internal argument, and has no bearing on other nations. Syria is a dramatically different situation, and US involvement is unlikely to add any short-term relief or long-term solutions.

Niseg wrote:

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator. He'll avoid fighting as much as possible. I'm still unsure why he got into the Libyan mess ( Oil) and not into the Syrian mess ( lack of Oil).

Being strong in foreign policy has never been purely a matter of how often you use military force. In fact, most analysts today give leaders more credit for accomplishing their policy goals without dropping bombs. The Libyan situation was something that Obama helped with because our European allies were so intent on deposing Gaddafi. I didn't get the sense he was pushing for it. I thought his handling of the situation in Egypt was about as good as we could expect. At some point you either have to stand with the dictator or watch him go, and I don't think U.S. policy in the region over the long term would have been helped by propping up Mubarak.

Regarding Iranian nukes, Israel destabilized the region by building a nuclear weapon. Of course its enemies will build their own nukes. It's no different than the U.S. and Russia after WW2. The Russians were not going to let the military situation be too one-sided. Israel is going to have to deal with mutually-assured destruction theory at some point.

You make it sound like other nations simply don't understand an existential threat. For decades the U.S. has been sitting across the water from an enemy that is capable of destroying it in a matter of minutes. Welcome to our world, baby!

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator.

That means he's a much stronger president than he otherwise would be. Being strong does not mean waving your dick in people's faces.

And he's not getting into Syria because we so massively overstepped in Libya. Russia and China saw how we twisted what we claimed we'd do into something completely different -- we changed 'impose a no-fly zone' into 'overthrow the regime'.

They will now veto every initiative we ever make for the foreseeable future, because they know we can't be trusted.

OG_slinger wrote:

It likely has much more to do with the widespread--and racist--belief throughout Israel that Muslims are essentially savages who only understand and react to violence.

I guess you don't know much about Israel or Muslims. Muslim make up at least 15% of the country's population and we are aware of their cultural difference but that doesn't mean they only react to violence. Some Muslim communities in Israel are trying to fight the violence within them. The Israeli police force and IDF usually try to minimize violence and tend to use non lethal weapons (less lethal is the correct term) to deal with riots and uprisings. If there is non violent protest the police rarely intervene unless they do something illegal (like blocking traffic) .

In terms of foreign policy we don't have a whole lot of problems talking and negotiating with all Arab states or even terrorists entities . Sometimes it's a waste of time but it doesn't mean Israel doesn't try. Maybe if Obama talked with Osama instead of kill him he could have found a better solution than going to war with them. The Muslims of the world can do just fine without the US intervening. Their culture might value human life a little less but that doesn't mean they are savages. They live by their own code of law . The only problem the Muslims might have is that some brutal group of people take over their country and dictate how they'll live their life. It's not really uncommon in the world to have a strong minority ruling a weak majority. This might not seem "proper" in Western countries but it doesn't mean we can't Tolerate dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, China , and North Korea. There are many other countries that have democracy just for show.

I guess only history can judge if Obama's foreign policy was good or not. Some of the US's allies are not very happy with it. Israel is freaking out because a nuclear threat (we don't want an assured destruction or to destroy another country). I heard the Turks are not super happy with Syrian pouring in. Mubarak was basically stabbed in the back and was replaced with the Islamic Brotherhood (we are still debating here if it was a good change or not).

Obama can still claim he did better than former presidents because the US have had a fair share of mistakes in its past.

As I said I'm generally neutral. I don't think Romney would do any better than Obama in the foreign relations field. I guess the president say the general direction he wants to go in and his advisers come up with all sort of operational foreign policy plans.

I still don't think a war would be that bad for Obama because I don't think the public would rush to replace a president during a war. It's a war that Romney isn't really against so If the public would get the same outcome regardless they might as well keep the current president in power so he can concentrate on the job at hand.

Niseg wrote:

Obama isn't a very strong president in terms of foreign policy. He might have a big military at his disposal but he's a negotiator. He'll avoid fighting as much as possible.

In terms of foreign policy we don't have a whole lot of problems talking and negotiating with all Arab states or even terrorists entities . Sometimes it's a waste of time but it doesn't mean Israel doesn't try. Maybe if Obama talked with Osama instead of kill him he could have found a better solution than going to war with them.

I am confuzzled.

Funkenpants wrote:

Being strong in foreign policy has never been purely a matter of how often you use military force. In fact, most analysts today give leaders more credit for accomplishing their policy goals without dropping bombs.

Sun Tzu wrote:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

:-p

I heard on the radio there is a surprise IDF drill. Ynet also has an article (goggle translated) in Hebrew about it. Some reservists woke up in the morning after the holiday and were ordered to leave everything for the military drill that involves rapid deployment in the north and the article stated there would be a live fire drill in the end.

I'm hoping that this is just a drill. They didn't talk about the size of the drill I guess that's classified . There are some drills that turn into a war and things like that have happened in the past.

This is why Israel should never be considered an ally of the US...

The asshat suggesting this is Patrick Clawson, the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy(WINEP), a notoriously pro-Israel think-tank. WINEP was founded by the former research director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the #1 pro-Israel lobby group in the US, because he was tired of no one in Washington taking his outlandish claims seriously.

He fixed that by creating a separate group focused on producing "independent" research that would help steer US government policy decisions in a direction that would help Israel, such as having their Research Directors claim that the US should start a false flag operation to jump start a war with Iran.

Incendiary rhetoric between Isral and Iran as always.

"On the question of Iran, we are all united in the goal of preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weaponry. On the day on which we pray to be inscribed in the Book of Life, a stage was given to the tyrannical regime of Iran which seeks at every opportunity to sentence us to death," Netanyahu said.

"On Yom Kippur eve, sacred to the Jewish people, the Iranian tyrant chose to call publicly before all of the world for us to vanish. This is a black day for those who chose to remain in the auditorium and hear these hateful words."

The Israeli leader did not name any U.N. member state in particular. The United States delegation chose not to attend Ahmadinejad's General Assembly speech, while other allies of Israel walked out.

"In statements I will make before representatives of the nations at the U.N. General Assembly, they will hear our response. As prime minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, I am working in every way in order that Iran does not have nuclear weaponry," Netanyahu said.

"History proves that those who wanted to wipe us off the map failed in that objective, while the Jewish people overcame all obstacles."

...
Ahmadinejad's speeches in the U.N. forum included a prediction that Israel would be "eliminated".

On Wednesday, with Israelis observing a solemn silence for Yom Kippur, he told the Assembly that Iran was under a "continued threat by the uncivilized Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation".

...
Netanyahu's senior advisers privately shrug off Ahmadinejad's incendiary rhetoric, saying he has no policy-making role in Iran's nuclear development program.

Probably reading too much into the standard sabre rattling dialogue but was Bibi implying that anyone who bothers to even listen to Iran is an enemy of Israel?

You should try sitting through some of the sermons the rabbi gave this past week. Nothing says Happy New Year like railing against Muslim fundamentalism and talking tough on Iran. My wife has had to stop me from getting up and walking out a couple of times in the past couple of years during these sermons because they are so over the top. Disclaimer - my wife and kids are Jewish while I am just the supportive heathen husband and father. So maybe you need to be of the tribe to get it but the whole nation worship thing just bothers the hell out of me. And yes if you dare question Israel then you are against Israel. Just my take ...

Yipes. Not in a Reform congregation, I take it?