What would happen if Israel attacks Iran? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 01-12-2009, 06:00 AM

All I know is that it would be bad. It would cause problems throughout the middle east. And while I don't want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon, bombing a few facilities will only slow them down and make them want to use a nuclear weapon even more in the future.

Report: U.S. rejected Israeli plea to attack Iran - CNN.com

Would Russia help Iran out? Does Iran have a nuclear weapon that they've kept secret? Would it unite the middle east? Or would it deter Iran from wanting to do nuclear research (peaceful or weapons)? Do you think it is just paranoia or false information from the media that suggests that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?

Derwood · 01-12-2009, 06:36 AM

From everything I've read, Iran isn't close to having a deployable nuclear weapon right now. It's something that is constantly put out there, but I've read articles by some terrorism experts who say that despite 20+ years of state-funded nuclear programs, they still haven't accomplished their goal of a nuclear weapon, and that an invasion by the US and/or Israel isn't going to make one magically appear.

RetroGunslinger · 01-12-2009, 07:30 AM

Well, we wouldn't have to worry about Israel ever again.

roachboy · 01-12-2009, 07:40 AM

unless it were to happen in the next 9 days, i don't see it at all.
the obama team is going to take a very different approach to iran, so that condition is about to change.
the israelis--who knows what damage they're doing to themselves in gaza and what that'll mean in the longer run.

the only shred of optimism i have about this cluster of problems is that the logic of the situation is about to change.

Wyodiver33 · 01-12-2009, 08:41 AM

Wow. I will NOT miss GW at all. Putz.

Telluride · 01-12-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyodiver33

Wow. I will NOT miss GW at all. Putz.

Me neither. I'm looking forward to having a president who is willing to negotiate with fanatics who hate Jews. It worked so well when that British guy named Chamberlain tried it.

roachboy · 01-12-2009, 09:17 AM

i dont suppose you know anything about iran, telluride.
with a position like that, you don't need to, so i expect that actually knowing what you're talking about would just get in the way.

Willravel · 01-12-2009, 09:28 AM

Iran may not have nuclear weapons, but they're not Palestine. They have a standing military and would be able to respond in a significant way. More still, Iran being attacked by Israel would likely enrage other Arab nations in the area. I'd be surprised if Jordan and Syria, which share borders with Israel and are within artillery range of populated areas, didn't get involved.

Worse still, as roachboy said unless it's in the next week or so, Israel could find itself without the backing or protection of the US.

It would be a very, very stupid move on the part of Israel to attack Iran.

roachboy · 01-12-2009, 09:45 AM

iran has been playing a double game for some time--ahmadinejad remains a politically quite weak president who has used anti=israeli rhetoric to legitimate himself politically for domestic consumption, much in the way that the bush administration used the discourse of "terrorism" to legitimate itself. at the same time, iran has been consistently interested in diplomatic contact with the united states and offered extensive assistance with iraq--which the united states did not avail itself of.

the claims about the nuclear program being diverted to weapons production are contested and in the main quite weak.

it makes little sense not to engage iran.
if ahmadinejad is a problem---and in many ways, he is---such engagement might undermine his position in part by undercutting at least some of the rationale for his rhetorical posturing.

all that and i think it safe to assume that if the bush people, operating within their blinkered and incompetent policy logic, did not think it a good idea to back an israeli raid last year, it ain't happening now.

Leto · 01-12-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Iran may not have nuclear weapons, but they're not Palestine. They have a standing military and would be able to respond in a significant way. More still, Iran being attacked by Israel would likely enrage other Arab nations in the area. I'd be surprised if Jordan and Syria, which share borders with Israel and are within artillery range of populated areas, didn't get involved.

Worse still, as roachboy said unless it's in the next week or so, Israel could find itself without the backing or protection of the US.

It would be a very, very stupid move on the part of Israel to attack Iran.

Except that there is no love lost between the Arabs and the Persians as the long war between Iran & Iraq so pointedly demonstrated. Jordan should just be rebranded Palestine. I can't see any reason not to, and it would relieve the unbearable, and unfair stress that the Palestinians feel these days.

Willravel · 01-12-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

Except that there is no love lost between the Arabs and the Persians as the long war between Iran & Iraq so pointedly demonstrated. Jordan should just be rebranded Palestine. I can't see any reason not to, and it would relieve the unbearable, and unfair stress that the Palestinians feel these days.

You're absolutely right that there's still animosity, but just like before there's a "who's next?" feeling that follows an attack on Iran. Since we all know Israel would wipe the floor with Iran in the long run, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would be next on the list, possibly even followed by Egypt. It would be in their interest to attack simultaneously as Israel is distracted by an attack on Iran.

dlish · 01-12-2009, 11:38 AM

if iran was attacked, it would definately draw the outrage in shiite element of the muslim world, namely hezbollah. so that would automatically bring in lebanon into the picture. if lebanon was involved, then its big brother syria would more than likely step in.

jordan on the other hand i think would stay out. they have an understanding between israel, so i think they would try to stay neutral, same with saudi and egypt. even though the majority of the population would have diferent ideas. any attack from those countries would be by individuals and not by the government.

theres always been a religious as well as a racial divide between the arab and persian worls. stemming from the sunni/shiite differences. so im not sure if the arabs actually want to get involved in it.

Leto · 01-12-2009, 12:15 PM

just out of curiousity, and I am actually trying to understand the differences, is there really a racial difference between the Persians and Arabs? Or is it better described as a cultural difference. I suspect that both these groups of people are considered to be caucasians in the broadest of terms.

But yes, I see where you are going, dlish, there is a cultural and of course, religious (being a big part of culture) difference between these two groups of people.

Willravel · 01-12-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

just out of curiousity, and I am actually trying to understand the differences, is there really a racial difference between the Persians and Arabs? Or is it better described as a cultural difference. I suspect that both these groups of people are considered to be caucasians in the broadest of terms.

They are different ethnic groups.

highthief · 01-12-2009, 03:05 PM

So, what's Iran ever done? Have they invaded or attacked any other sovereign nations in the last 70 odd years without being attacked first? They rattle their sabres and yeah, they do offer support to some terrorist groups, but the US and many other "advanced" nations have been doing that for the last 100 years.

Willravel · 01-12-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

So, what's Iran ever done? Have they invaded or attacked any other sovereign nations in the last 70 odd years without being attacked first? They rattle their sabres and yeah, they do offer support to some terrorist groups, but the US and many other "advanced" nations have been doing that for the last 100 years.

They're just the bogeyman du jour.

powerclown · 01-12-2009, 03:48 PM

The question I would have is what would happen if Iranian attacks against Israel intensify through its proxies hamas/hezbollah, which could soon include nuclear materials being shipped to both groups with the intent of making good on hamas/hezbollah/iran's stated claims to eradicate Israel. It would be a disaster for the entire region.

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/

roachboy · 01-12-2009, 04:06 PM

what makes you think that hamas is an iranian proxy?
what makes you think hezbollah is an iranian proxy?

i expect the response will be that these groups get some material support from iran.
but by that logic, israel is an american proxy. if you think in terms of tomato trade, the united states is an israeli proxy. if you think in terms of economic exchange, france is a german proxy. if you think in terms of aid and support, and half of africa is either a french, british, american, canadian, belgian, russian or chinese proxy.

the other assumption is that political rhetoric is transparent and necessarily characterizes the actual policies of a country. so for example when the united states has said that it favors democratic self-determination this was transparently the case as is reflected by vietnam, chile in 1972, the war against nicagarua, the invasions of panama and iraq and the refusal to recognize the results of the election in gaza.

unless you mean that political rhetoric is transparent and actually reflects the policy of a country when it's convenient to argue that, but that it's not the case when it isn't.
but who determines which case is which?
are world leaders calling you on the phone to help them figure out which case obtains?

Wyodiver33 · 01-12-2009, 04:06 PM

A good road to WW3. Like it or not, Israel is America Jr. If Iran nukes Israel, directly or indirectly, the US would have to act. If we didn't that would tell the rest of the Arab countries that they can pretty much do as they please with Israel. Bush would love to make a parking lot out of Iran but I don't think Obama will just sit by and let Israel be destroyed. Toss in the Russians and a great time would be had by all.

ASU2003 · 01-12-2009, 04:09 PM

Iran has made threats about wiping Israel off the map, and Israel is understandably worried about them getting a nuclear weapon. Now, it can't be confirmed if Iran is even trying to build a nuclear weapon at this stage though. However, if there was proof, I think someone would have acted on it by now.

I am trying to figure out how they would go about attacking Iran. Would Israel send bunker-buster missiles to specific targets? Do they have a navy in the Red Sea that could refuel or transport their planes if they go the long way around? Or do you think Jordan and Iraq will let them fly over? Will they even notice or be able to do anything if they do fly over?
-----Added 12/1/2009 at 07 : 12 : 12-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyodiver33

A good road to WW3. Like it or not, Israel is America Jr. If Iran nukes Israel, directly or indirectly, the US would have to act. If we didn't that would tell the rest of the Arab countries that they can pretty much do as they please with Israel. Bush would love to make a parking lot out of Iran but I don't think Obama will just sit by and let Israel be destroyed. Toss in the Russians and a great time would be had by all.

And that is why the UN was formed. Hopefully, there can be talks between Russia, the US, France and Iran over what is going on.

roachboy · 01-12-2009, 04:14 PM

the assumption was that the israelis would launch an air attack.
same basic idea was tossed about publicly by the bush people a couple years ago.

it seems to me that this is a dangerous game by any number of standards--not least of which is that if nuclear weapons proliferation is in fact the problem that it should be, at least for rational people, you'd think that the israeli nuclear arsenal would be every bit as much a threat as the possibility that at some future date as yet unspecified that iran might acquire them. because, you know, the israelis actually have nukes.

but frankly, neither of these countries, no matter what i think of their policies, worry me as much as the fact that pakistan has nukes. *that* is a problem, but i don't see anyone threatening to launch air strikes to knock their capabilities out.

powerclown · 01-12-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Iran has made threats about wiping Israel off the map, and Israel is understandably worried about them getting a nuclear weapon. Now, it can't be confirmed if Iran is even trying to build a nuclear weapon at this stage though. However, if there was proof, I think someone would have acted on it by now.

I am trying to figure out how they would go about attacking Iran. Would Israel send bunker-buster missiles to specific targets? Do they have a navy in the Red Sea that could refuel or transport their planes if they go the long way around? Or do you think Jordan and Iraq will let them fly over? Will they even notice or be able to do anything if they do fly over?

Check out what the IAEA has to say about the Iranian nuclear weaponization program. In general, it seems the Iranians are being less than forthcoming about their work as they report it to international monitoring agencies. I would say that reasonable, informed people would be correct to harbor some suspicion over the matter. It is not just Israel's concern, but all the countries in the area. (including China and Russia.)

As far as getting at the reactors, your guess is as good as mine. From what I understand, the most sensitive materials are buried very deep underground, and dispersed over many different sites. Sounds like a job for 007...

Wyodiver33 · 01-12-2009, 05:23 PM

This might irritate some people, but I'm going to say it anyway. Who is the US, or any government, to tell a country that they can or can't have nukes? Trust me, I'd rather that Iran did Not have nuclear weapons but who are we to tell them they can't? Because they sponsor terrorism? Doesn't the US? A lot of people in the world think so. It's ok for Pakistan and India to have nukes but not Iran? Maybe while the Soviet Union was developing nuclear weapons after WW2 we should have told them no? If we are going to bomb every country that does something to annoy us, well, we will need a friggin' lot of bombs. (Just for clarification, I served 8 years in the USAF so please don't start calling me a liberal or a hippie, or anti-American, whatever. Thanks.)

Side note; When Iran has their first major nuclear accident, and they will, I don't want to help them in any way. They are making the choice to pursue nuclear weapons. Deal with the consequences.

Derwood · 01-12-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyodiver33

This might irritate some people, but I'm going to say it anyway. Who is the US, or any government, to tell a country that they can or can't have nukes? Trust me, I'd rather that Iran did Not have nuclear weapons but who are we to tell them they can't? Because they sponsor terrorism? Doesn't the US? A lot of people in the world think so. It's ok for Pakistan and India to have nukes but not Iran? Maybe while the Soviet Union was developing nuclear weapons after WW2 we should have told them no? If we are going to bomb every country that does something to annoy us, well, we will need a friggin' lot of bombs. (Just for clarification, I served 8 years in the USAF so please don't start calling me a liberal or a hippie, or anti-American, whatever. Thanks.)

Side note; When Iran has their first major nuclear accident, and they will, I don't want to help them in any way. They are making the choice to pursue nuclear weapons. Deal with the consequences.

It's called protecting your national security. Nuclear weapons + despotic regime + hatred of US = big trouble. Better to nip it in the bud before it gets to crisis level

ASU2003 · 01-12-2009, 06:00 PM

The problem is that we fear that they would use them first. These wouldn't be used as a deterrent, but as an offensive weapon. We would wake up one day and Tel Aviv is gone, millions dead, radioactive fallout all over the place (making people live indoors for 7-14 days or at least 2 and then fleeing).

If Iran has a nuclear accident, they will cover it up or blame it on sabotage by Israel or the US. Which isn't to say that it didn't happen...just that it would be put in the paranoia section.

01-12-2009, 06:00 AM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What would happen if Israel attacks Iran? All I know is that it would be bad. It would cause problems throughout the middle east. And while I don't want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon, bombing a few facilities will only slow them down and make them want to use a nuclear weapon even more in the future. Report: U.S. rejected Israeli plea to attack Iran - CNN.com Would Russia help Iran out? Does Iran have a nuclear weapon that they've kept secret? Would it unite the middle east? Or would it deter Iran from wanting to do nuclear research (peaceful or weapons)? Do you think it is just paranoia or false information from the media that suggests that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?

01-12-2009, 07:30 AM	#3 (permalink)
RetroGunslinger eats puppies and shits rainbows Location: An Area of Space Occupied by a Population, SC, USA	Well, we wouldn't have to worry about Israel ever again. __________________ It's a rare pleasure in this world to get your mind fucked. Usually it's just foreplay. M.B. Keene

01-12-2009, 07:40 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	unless it were to happen in the next 9 days, i don't see it at all. the obama team is going to take a very different approach to iran, so that condition is about to change. the israelis--who knows what damage they're doing to themselves in gaza and what that'll mean in the longer run. the only shred of optimism i have about this cluster of problems is that the logic of the situation is about to change. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2009, 08:41 AM	#5 (permalink)
Wyodiver33 Just here for the beer. Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Floriduh	Wow. I will NOT miss GW at all. Putz. __________________ I like stuff.

01-12-2009, 09:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont suppose you know anything about iran, telluride. with a position like that, you don't need to, so i expect that actually knowing what you're talking about would just get in the way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2009, 06:36 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	From everything I've read, Iran isn't close to having a deployable nuclear weapon right now. It's something that is constantly put out there, but I've read articles by some terrorism experts who say that despite 20+ years of state-funded nuclear programs, they still haven't accomplished their goal of a nuclear weapon, and that an invasion by the US and/or Israel isn't going to make one magically appear.

01-12-2009, 09:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Iran may not have nuclear weapons, but they're not Palestine. They have a standing military and would be able to respond in a significant way. More still, Iran being attacked by Israel would likely enrage other Arab nations in the area. I'd be surprised if Jordan and Syria, which share borders with Israel and are within artillery range of populated areas, didn't get involved. Worse still, as roachboy said unless it's in the next week or so, Israel could find itself without the backing or protection of the US. It would be a very, very stupid move on the part of Israel to attack Iran.

01-12-2009, 09:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	iran has been playing a double game for some time--ahmadinejad remains a politically quite weak president who has used anti=israeli rhetoric to legitimate himself politically for domestic consumption, much in the way that the bush administration used the discourse of "terrorism" to legitimate itself. at the same time, iran has been consistently interested in diplomatic contact with the united states and offered extensive assistance with iraq--which the united states did not avail itself of. the claims about the nuclear program being diverted to weapons production are contested and in the main quite weak. it makes little sense not to engage iran. if ahmadinejad is a problem---and in many ways, he is---such engagement might undermine his position in part by undercutting at least some of the rationale for his rhetorical posturing. all that and i think it safe to assume that if the bush people, operating within their blinkered and incompetent policy logic, did not think it a good idea to back an israeli raid last year, it ain't happening now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2009, 11:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	if iran was attacked, it would definately draw the outrage in shiite element of the muslim world, namely hezbollah. so that would automatically bring in lebanon into the picture. if lebanon was involved, then its big brother syria would more than likely step in. jordan on the other hand i think would stay out. they have an understanding between israel, so i think they would try to stay neutral, same with saudi and egypt. even though the majority of the population would have diferent ideas. any attack from those countries would be by individuals and not by the government. theres always been a religious as well as a racial divide between the arab and persian worls. stemming from the sunni/shiite differences. so im not sure if the arabs actually want to get involved in it. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

01-12-2009, 12:15 PM	#13 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	just out of curiousity, and I am actually trying to understand the differences, is there really a racial difference between the Persians and Arabs? Or is it better described as a cultural difference. I suspect that both these groups of people are considered to be caucasians in the broadest of terms. But yes, I see where you are going, dlish, there is a cultural and of course, religious (being a big part of culture) difference between these two groups of people. __________________ You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey And I never saw someone say that before You held my hand and we walked home the long way You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

01-12-2009, 03:05 PM	#15 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	So, what's Iran ever done? Have they invaded or attacked any other sovereign nations in the last 70 odd years without being attacked first? They rattle their sabres and yeah, they do offer support to some terrorist groups, but the US and many other "advanced" nations have been doing that for the last 100 years. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-12-2009, 03:48 PM	#17 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	The question I would have is what would happen if Iranian attacks against Israel intensify through its proxies hamas/hezbollah, which could soon include nuclear materials being shipped to both groups with the intent of making good on hamas/hezbollah/iran's stated claims to eradicate Israel. It would be a disaster for the entire region. http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/ Last edited by powerclown; 01-12-2009 at 04:00 PM..

01-12-2009, 04:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what makes you think that hamas is an iranian proxy? what makes you think hezbollah is an iranian proxy? i expect the response will be that these groups get some material support from iran. but by that logic, israel is an american proxy. if you think in terms of tomato trade, the united states is an israeli proxy. if you think in terms of economic exchange, france is a german proxy. if you think in terms of aid and support, and half of africa is either a french, british, american, canadian, belgian, russian or chinese proxy. the other assumption is that political rhetoric is transparent and necessarily characterizes the actual policies of a country. so for example when the united states has said that it favors democratic self-determination this was transparently the case as is reflected by vietnam, chile in 1972, the war against nicagarua, the invasions of panama and iraq and the refusal to recognize the results of the election in gaza. unless you mean that political rhetoric is transparent and actually reflects the policy of a country when it's convenient to argue that, but that it's not the case when it isn't. but who determines which case is which? are world leaders calling you on the phone to help them figure out which case obtains? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2009, 04:06 PM	#19 (permalink)
Wyodiver33 Just here for the beer. Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Floriduh	A good road to WW3. Like it or not, Israel is America Jr. If Iran nukes Israel, directly or indirectly, the US would have to act. If we didn't that would tell the rest of the Arab countries that they can pretty much do as they please with Israel. Bush would love to make a parking lot out of Iran but I don't think Obama will just sit by and let Israel be destroyed. Toss in the Russians and a great time would be had by all. __________________ I like stuff.

01-12-2009, 04:14 PM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the assumption was that the israelis would launch an air attack. same basic idea was tossed about publicly by the bush people a couple years ago. it seems to me that this is a dangerous game by any number of standards--not least of which is that if nuclear weapons proliferation is in fact the problem that it should be, at least for rational people, you'd think that the israeli nuclear arsenal would be every bit as much a threat as the possibility that at some future date as yet unspecified that iran might acquire them. because, you know, the israelis actually have nukes. but frankly, neither of these countries, no matter what i think of their policies, worry me as much as the fact that pakistan has nukes. that is a problem, but i don't see anyone threatening to launch air strikes to knock their capabilities out. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2009, 05:23 PM	#23 (permalink)
Wyodiver33 Just here for the beer. Location: Ft. Lauderdale, Floriduh	This might irritate some people, but I'm going to say it anyway. Who is the US, or any government, to tell a country that they can or can't have nukes? Trust me, I'd rather that Iran did Not have nuclear weapons but who are we to tell them they can't? Because they sponsor terrorism? Doesn't the US? A lot of people in the world think so. It's ok for Pakistan and India to have nukes but not Iran? Maybe while the Soviet Union was developing nuclear weapons after WW2 we should have told them no? If we are going to bomb every country that does something to annoy us, well, we will need a friggin' lot of bombs. (Just for clarification, I served 8 years in the USAF so please don't start calling me a liberal or a hippie, or anti-American, whatever. Thanks.) Side note; When Iran has their first major nuclear accident, and they will, I don't want to help them in any way. They are making the choice to pursue nuclear weapons. Deal with the consequences. __________________ I like stuff.

01-12-2009, 06:00 PM	#25 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	The problem is that we fear that they would use them first. These wouldn't be used as a deterrent, but as an offensive weapon. We would wake up one day and Tel Aviv is gone, millions dead, radioactive fallout all over the place (making people live indoors for 7-14 days or at least 2 and then fleeing). If Iran has a nuclear accident, they will cover it up or blame it on sabotage by Israel or the US. Which isn't to say that it didn't happen...just that it would be put in the paranoia section.