Israel Iran war

  Quote

 

JERUSALEM — Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Sunday that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely, days before a report by the UN's nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme.

"The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option," Peres told the Israel Hayom daily.

"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.

"I don't think that any decision has already been made, but there is an impression that Iran is getting closer to nuclear weapons."

His comments came after he warned in an interview aired by Israel's privately-owned Channel Two television on Saturday, that an attack on Iran was becoming "more and more likely."

"The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon," he said.

In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of an pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

On Wednesday, the Haaretz newspaper reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were seeking cabinet support for an attack.

And the military last week carried out what Israeli media called a "ballistic missile" test, as well as a large-scale civil defence drill simulating the response to conventional and non-conventional missile attacks.

Officials said both events were long-planned, but they drove talk here about whether Israel is ramping up plans for an attack.

On Sunday, Haaretz reported that US officials had failed to secure a commitment from Israel that it would coordinate any attack plans with Washington.

Citing unnamed US officials, Haaretz said US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had used a recent visit to Israel to make clear Washington did not want to be surprised by any Israeli attack, but received only a vague response from Netanyahu and Barak.

Still, media reports suggested no final decision has been taken and that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear watchdog on November 8 or 9 would have a "decisive effect" on decision-making.

Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material -- uranium and plutonium -- that can be used for power generation and other peaceful uses, but also for the core of a nuclear warhead.

However the new update, which diplomats say will be circulated among envoys on Tuesday or Wednesday, will focus on Iran's alleged efforts to put the fissile material in a warhead and develop missiles to carry them to a target.

On Monday, Barak denied reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to attack Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.

But he said "situations could arise in the Middle East under which Israel must defend its vital interests independently, without having to rely on regional or other forces."

Haaretz said a majority of the 15 members of Israel's security cabinet were still against an attack on Iran, and a poll published by the newspaper found Israeli public opinion divided, with 41 percent in favour, 39 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.

Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and Western governments fear masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear programme is for power generation and medical purposes only.

In comments published on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of "political" behaviour and said its report would be "baseless."

"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying.

"We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said.

It's good to see the media is doing us a disservice as usual. There's absolutely no new information whatsoever. This article might have been a copy-paste from the last 10 times Israel urges the international community to act on Iran. Has something changed significantly from the last time? Obviously, the media skates past it like it's unimportant. You know facts don't matter. The smoke is more important than the fire.

Hopefully they blow each other up and that will be the end of that.

I wonder about situations like this, when a war is being stoked by PR people in whose interest it is to facilitate war. It seems as though an important part of forwarding a war like this is to stimulate discussion amongst people, favorable or otherwise, so that this idea is on the mind of a majority of people, who will inevitably debate amongst themselves the merits and morals of doing so, thus contributing to an atmosphere favorable to war. Whether the people speaking disagree or not their talk highlights the idea and draws attention to it, which can make it that much easier for the pro-war factions to ease towards their goals, instead of giving the appearance of a beginning a war out of the blue and with no provocation.

As someone who thinks this could be another push by the U.S. and it's allies to destabilize the Middle East, I wonder whether it is worth discussing this topic in such a public forum and acknowledge reporting that may very well be meant to forward a pro-war agenda. On the other hand, there is something to be said about remaining ignorant to what is happening, so it may very well be important to increase awareness of this push towards war for preventative reasons. I'm divided on this point.

Am I worrying too much, or Is there merit to the strategy I've suggested is being used to help incite an atmosphere favorable to war-mongering?

  On 11/6/2011 at 5:40 PM, azatoth said:

Hopefully they blow each other up and that will be the end of that.

  On 11/6/2011 at 5:52 PM, Jonas said:

  On 11/6/2011 at 5:40 PM, azatoth said:

Hopefully they blow each other up and that will be the end of that.

 

yep, I hope they nuke the fuck out of each other.

awww, thank you guys, such sweethearts

i have family in iran. i'm going there next august.

Israel would have to be insane to want to engage in war with Iran, oh wait...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html

  Quote

Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so.

:sup:

i support any action that gives eugene more crispy iranian foetuses to eat

This sounds like a wonderfull plan, only good can come from it.

  On 11/7/2011 at 10:53 AM, Gocab said:

This sounds like a wonderfull plan, only good can come from it.

oh i get it they blow up some cities and declare amenijob or whatever dead and WOOOOT VICTORY everyone goes to bed so happy

  On 11/6/2011 at 6:00 PM, Wall Bird said:

this could be another push by the U.S. and it's allies to destabilize the Middle East,

I don't think any western leader wants to destabilize the Middle East. More instability means potential for extremist activity and volatile oil prices. It's in the best interests of everyone if the Middle East stays quiet, keeps the oil coming and takes baby steps towards human rights to keep public opinion happy. That doesn't necessarily coincide with the interests of some of the factions involved. It sounds like some are begging for a valid excuse to open war with public opinion on their side. If that's the case, regardless of whether it's a justifiable war or not, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

it depends how happy our gov'ts are about the status of middle east countries. if we are happy, then of course we don't want to destabilize the region. however, if we wish to restructure their society/economic systems, maybe we want to poke around and shuffle the decks.

this of course at extreme cost of human life

good thing the jews are armed to the teeth though, i think we're all relieved about that.

  On 11/7/2011 at 5:24 PM, kokeboka said:

  On 11/6/2011 at 6:00 PM, Wall Bird said:

this could be another push by the U.S. and it's allies to destabilize the Middle East,

 

I don't think any western leader wants to destabilize the Middle East. More instability means potential for extremist activity and volatile oil prices. It's in the best interests of everyone if the Middle East stays quiet, keeps the oil coming and takes baby steps towards human rights to keep public opinion happy. That doesn't necessarily coincide with the interests of some of the factions involved. It sounds like some are begging for a valid excuse to open war with public opinion on their side. If that's the case, regardless of whether it's a justifiable war or not, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

With their antics in the Middle East for the past 10 years they've pretty much soiled any chances of getting it to be stable for the foreseeable future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

I hope this comes out on dvd... The first season of Iran vs the Jews made for good Tevo®

  On 11/7/2011 at 8:55 PM, enxyme said:

http://www.guardian....-attack-nuclear

 

I hope this comes out on dvd... The first season of Iran vs the Jews made for good Tevo®

Did that senior Whitehall official just admit to the West inflicting Stuxnet on Iran?

  Quote

One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.

lol

*krokodil*

*krokodils out*

This is serious and horrifying and all, but whenever you read about Shimon Peres do you guys also grab your crotch and go "YOU KNOW IT! SHIMON!, beacuse I have a feeling this happened a lot to Shimon Peres and this is his way of saying, for himself this time, "and the whole world has to answer right now, so I'll tell you once again who's bad!"

I'd stake my reputation as a foreign policy analyst on it.

  On 11/7/2011 at 11:50 PM, baph said:

This is serious and horrifying and all, but whenever you read about Shimon Peres do you guys also grab your crotch and go "YOU KNOW IT! SHIMON!, beacuse I have a feeling this happened a lot to Shimon Peres and this is his way of saying, for himself this time, "and the whole world has to answer right now, so I'll tell you once again who's bad!"

 

I'd stake my reputation as a foreign policy analyst on it.

I want a 4,000 word paper on it by the end of the month - we'll get it published in that new journal - Michael Jackson's Foreign Policy Issues.

I actually was working on a paper for this, but I got cobwebbed by my higher-ups in the CIA.