Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

G

griffinbradley

Banned
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.

The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move, which could trigger a wave of regional retaliation.

The debate over possible Israeli military action has reached fever pitch in recent days with newspaper leader columns discussing the benefits and dangers of hitting Iran.

Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."

But he said Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.

The inside of reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran, 1200 Kms south of Tehran, where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant

The reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to report on the state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities on November 8, and that assessment is likely to influence Israel’s decision.

Western intelligence officials estimate that Iran is still at least two to three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Israel has long made it clear that it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear capability that could threaten the Jewish State.

Publicly it is pushing for a diplomatic offensive against Iran - including the imposition of sanctions - rather than a military strike.

But prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that all options are on the table.

Israel's former defence minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Haraatez newspaper that he feared a "horror scenario" if Israel attacked Iran.

Washington is also strongly opposed to Israel taking unilateral action.

Any strike on Iran could trigger retaliation from Iran and across the region.

Syria, a close ally of Tehran, could also launch attacks, along with the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in Lebanon.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552
 
Pity the Iranian people didn't get the support they needed to overthrow the crazy mullahs so a situation like this could be avoided
 
Now what if Iran has nuclear weapons and responded in kind to being pre-emptively attacked. Israel has a lot less country than Iran and you hate mongers will be singing a different itune.
 
griffinbradley said:
Now what if Iran has nuclear weapons and responded in kind to being pre-emptively attacked. Israel has a lot less country than Iran and you hate mongers will be singing a different itune.
Click to expand...
Hate mongers? You are addressing your own supporters. I am convinced they have nukes or are close to having them so I say go for it Israel !! Iran threatened you, is sponsoring terror in your country, thats an act of war.
 
griffinbradley said:
Now what if Iran has nuclear weapons and responded in kind to being pre-emptively attacked. Israel has a lot less country than Iran and you hate mongers will be singing a different itune.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... Pot. Kettle. Black. You posted this thread. You knew what the responses would be.
 
marine1 said:
Would make me very happy. Strategic strikes against NUCLEAR installations. Go for it !! See they wont target innocent civilians unlike the type you support....
Click to expand...

Can you please tell us what you think will happen when they hit the reactor?

The attack is coming, it is only a matter of time. The end of the world will come from the middle east according to some prophecies.

One thing is for sure russia and china will not sit back quietly this time around. Attack iran you won't have to worry about the regional countries. It would be a massive mistake to take on iran. The odd thing is the US have nuclear power stations and the ability to make nukes yet that is fine and considering they have in the past used them and come very close to using them we trust that they will be responsible :eek:


The US have their forces in iraq and afghanistan for a reason. Iran is looking somewhat surrounded at this point actually.

Yea alan neither did the people of bahrain so cry me a river bud :D.
 
Like marine1, this would make me very happy! How long do we have to damn wait, already?
 
griffinbradley said:
Now what if Iran has nuclear weapons and responded in kind to being pre-emptively attacked. Israel has a lot less country than Iran and you hate mongers will be singing a different itune.
Click to expand...

Israel would not use nuclear weapons against Iran, they would use conventional weapons and Air attacks to neutralise Iran's Nuclear facilities.
If Iran then "responded in kind" as you say.... well, we all know how that would end.
How did the last three invasions of Israel end?
 
marine1 said:
Hate mongers? You are addressing your own supporters. I am convinced they have nukes or are close to having them so I say go for it Israel !! Iran threatened you, is sponsoring terror in your country, thats an act of war.
Click to expand...

Now what stops Iran from interpreting Israels pre-emptive actions exactly like you have and pre-pre-emtively strike Israel with nukes to protect themselves like you said.
 
Garyvdh said:
Israel would not use nuclear weapons against Iran, they would use conventional weapons and Air attacks to neutralise Iran's Nuclear facilities.
If Iran then "responded in kind" as you say.... well, we all know how that would end.
How did the last three invasions of Israel end?
Click to expand...

What if they nuked israel to end the war like the US? wouldn't that save many lives though? You guys said the US did the right thing by ending the war that way so surely if israel attacks and gets nuked because of their aggressive behaviour it should be fine right?

Imagine how many lives would be saved gary.

Who needs conventional warfare when you can slaughter 200000 people and end a war?

Not that i am saying they must do it but it was accepted when the US did it so i don't see why people would have an issue with it.
 
Would surprise me if they actually did. The time for an attack has passed if they are offloading fuel. They destroyed the Iraqi reactor under Begin. If memory serves me it was 1981, Ilan Ramon was actually involved in the strike, the same pilot who died in the Columbia tragedy.

GTI, why do I think you and Marine are happy for different reasons.
 
For all the noise they make about attacking Iran, the Iranians unlike the Palestinians can bite back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X