|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: Israel's Peres Warns Attack on Iran Getting 'Closer' |
 |
|
| Quote: |
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 is due.
"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 France meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe warned that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.
"We have imposed sanctions that continue to expand, we can toughen them to put pressure on Iran," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.
"We will continue on this path because a military intervention could create a situation that completely destabilises the region," he said.
"Everything must be done to avoid the irreversible."
In recent days, speculation in Israel has grown about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with Haaretz newspaper reporting 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.
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.
|
I think Israel will wait until until the 2012 election. If the Republicans get in they will definitely be joined by the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Catman wrote: |
| I think Israel will wait until until the 2012 election. If the Republicans get in they will definitely be joined by the US. |
Israel will attack if and when they deem it necessary. That is to say, when the consequences of not attacking outweigh the consequences of attack..... regardless of who is in the White house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a link to an article that speaks to the thinking 'justifying' an attack on Israel.
The "martyr state" myth is based upon two flawed assumptions. First, that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been uniquely willing to endure the deaths of its own citizens in order to achieve its policy goals. Second, that the Iranian Shiite regime's End Times theology actually induces it to trigger a conflagration.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/23/the_martyr_state_myth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Catman wrote: |
| I think Israel will wait until until the 2012 election. If the Republicans get in they will definitely be joined by the US. |
Israel will attack if and when they deem it necessary. That is to say, when the consequences of not attacking outweigh the consequences of attack..... regardless of who is in the White house. |
If you care about Israels future you better be hoping and praying that this doesn't happen. This is a nightmare scenario for the middle east, perhaps the worst thing that I can imagine happening, save from something in Pakistan.
Lots of interesting ideas about this here, some I agree with, some I don't.
http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/israel-iran/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is that you think that Iran is like Syria and Iraq. Iran considers it self a hegemonic power, and has more to lose than either Iraq or Syria. Not to mention that unlike Iraq or Syria it has a good deal of influence and control over Hamas and Hezebollah. Also, not to mention that it has great deal of power and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has a lot more power to respond to Israel indirectly than thoose other countries. Also Iran is very factionalized, with some factions being more moderate than others. All these factions are constantly vying for control and influence, which faction do you think would benefit from an Israeli attack? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe Iran would just throw a hissy fit. Their retaliation could be significant.
Imagine if the US participated in the attack using air bases in Iraq and Saudi? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
The problem is that you think that Iran is like Syria and Iraq. Iran considers it self a hegemonic power, and has more to lose than either Iraq or Syria. Not to mention that unlike Iraq or Syria it has a good deal of influence and control over Hamas and Hezebollah. Also, not to mention that it has great deal of power and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has a lot more power to respond to Israel indirectly than thoose other countries. Also Iran is very factionalized, with some factions being more moderate than others. All these factions are constantly vying for control and influence, which faction do you think would benefit from an Israeli attack? |
Iran: "We will attack...the streets will run red with your blood!"
Israel: "Sorry we didn't hear that...we were busy targeting Tehran with the mother of all airstrikes should you strike back...what was that again?"
Iran: "Oh never mind, sorry to bother you."
I don't think Israel needs to worry about retaliation should they make it very clear that any retaliation will be considered a declaration of war and responded to accordingly. That's what I'd do were I the Prime Minister. Iran has had fair warning from the international community.
Doesn't sound like they are too worried about retaliation as things stand anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
The problem is that you think that Iran is like Syria and Iraq. Iran considers it self a hegemonic power, and has more to lose than either Iraq or Syria. Not to mention that unlike Iraq or Syria it has a good deal of influence and control over Hamas and Hezebollah. Also, not to mention that it has great deal of power and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has a lot more power to respond to Israel indirectly than thoose other countries. Also Iran is very factionalized, with some factions being more moderate than others. All these factions are constantly vying for control and influence, which faction do you think would benefit from an Israeli attack? |
Iran: "We will attack...the streets will run red with your blood!"
Israel: "Sorry we didn't hear that...we were busy targeting Tehran with the mother of all airstrikes should you strike back...what was that again?"
Iran: "Oh never mind, sorry to bother you."
I don't think Israel needs to worry about retaliation should they make it very clear that any retaliation will be considered a declaration of war and responded to accordingly. That's what I'd do were I the Prime Minister. Iran has had fair warning from the international community.
Doesn't sound like they are too worried about retaliation as things stand anyway. |
The thing is that Iran can act through third parties and claim it wasn't responsible. Again, the initial blowout might be quick, just like when we "won" in Iraq, but the after effects would be long and far reaching. Irans nuclear sights are too well protected, much more so than Iraq or Syria, for the Israeli air force to definitively destroy. Also there are more sights than both Iraq and Syria, estimates peg it at around 12 or more. Many people in the Israeli military have doubts about their ability to do this. They would have one shot to do it right, and the sites are either underground or made of hardened material. They want the U.S. to do it for them.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/doubts-that-israels-leadership-believes-an-attack-would-work/61749/
Also, Iran is currently not so popular in the middle east, but it is more popular than Israel. This isn't true among the leaders, but among the general population. Striking Iran is a surefire way to make Iran more popular.
Also, if Israel strikes and it escelates, where does this leave the United States. Are we as a country willing to go to a third middle eastern country? If we couldn't handle the Taliban, then why would we think we can do better with a much more powerful Iran? Iran could easily hit us in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it already has as much influence as America.
Lastly I would note that I haven't heard too much of new proof of Iran's nuclear capabilites, but would mention that Netanyahu is unpopular domestically right now, and nothing moves you up in the polls like violence. Remember what happened the last time we went to war over wmds...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
