US Iran Isreal Hezbollah Circle

[White Doors]

Hopefully they convinvce them to give it up displomatically, but the threat of force has to be realistic.

Watch those gas prices!

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Israeli's, probably.

Maybe US B2's from North Dakota or Nevada, with Israel taking responsibility.

haha

yeah, that's plausible.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If their nuclear facilities/capability gets bombed, there's not much they can do... invade Iraq?

If the US does the raid on Iran, Iraq would be the obvious target. Iran's leaders are portrayed as crazy, are they crazy enough to attack?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't know if they would react militarily as a country, but were that to happen, I think it would be safe to assume that violence in Iraq would escalate exponentially, and you would probably see an escalation in terrorist activity in Europe.

Saudi reaction would be interesting as well.

That's why I think Israel will do the bombing. Iran will accuse
America and call for holy war against both of them and an increase in terrorism. They will of course get some response from Iraqis but,
not to the extent that they would get if American planes do
the actual bombing. Israel doing the deed would allow Iraq's
government to condemn the aggression and not look like they
are being unfaithful to their religion.

The Saud's will condemn the action but, secretly be relieved.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Or Iran could pull in it's horns as Libya did after Reagen bombed them.

Different scenarios.

First, Libya had no real means of reprisal, were never a very dangerous state, and compared to the rest of africa and the middle east, is quite a moderate, modernized nation. Their links to terrorism are/were also very tenuous. People often use the link to the bombing of pan am flight 103, but there is no evidence at all to suggest Libyan involvement. Paper tiger, really.

Iran is a much different situation, and needs to be handled delicately. Their ties to european oil reliance alone makes this a delicate situation, not to mention the amount of resources that would be needed to contain Iran should any sort of serious hostilities manifest themselves.

Though, there are 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, which would lead one to believe that open hostilities with Iran is atleast on the Radar.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by White Doors

haha

yeah, that's plausible.

Ya, it is.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If the US does the raid on Iran, Iraq would be the obvious target. Iran's leaders are portrayed as crazy, are they crazy enough to attack?

I think they're developing nuclear technology in the same sense that Kim Il is, to provide them with a feeling of security against military intervention so that they can do whatever they want within their country (for good or bad).

If that nuclear ability was taken away, I don't think you'd find a more agressive Iran, I think you'd find a meeker one. Once the West isn't fearful of Iran using a nuclear option they could probably push them around a lot easier. I think the US wouldn't mind Iran attacking Iraq, it would probably give them a great excuse to either A) fight Iranians or B) withdraw from Iraq and blame it on Iran.

That said, I don't see Iran invading Iraq, with or without nuclear weapons.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think they're developing nuclear technology in the same sense that Kim Il is, to provide them with a feeling of security against military intervention so that they can do whatever they want within their country (for good or bad).

If that nuclear ability was taken away, I don't think you'd find a more agressive Iran, I think you'd find a meeker one. Once the West isn't fearful of Iran using a nuclear option they could probably push them around a lot easier. I think the US wouldn't mind Iran attacking Iraq, it would probably give them a great excuse to either A) fight Iranians or B) withdraw from Iraq and blame it on Iran.

That said, I don't see Iran invading Iraq, with or without nuclear weapons.

Iran's motivation is to prepare the way for the twelvth Imam who
will conquor the world for Islam. Their president doesn't give a speech
in Iran without mentioning this goal.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Ya, it is.

No way they could pull it off and say that Israel did it and eveyone believing it. To thik that they could do that and no one be the wiser is naieve.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Iran's motivation is to prepare the way for the twelvth Imam who
will conquor the world for Islam. Their president doesn't give a speech
in Iran without mentioning this goal.

So... when Iran completes its nuclear weapons, it will obviously use them to destroy Israel and make way for the 12th Imam?

I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. I've always found that what leaders say, and what governments/bureaucracy's do, are very different things.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I think they're developing nuclear technology in the same sense that Kim Il is, to provide them with a feeling of security against military intervention so that they can do whatever they want within their country (for good or bad).

Meanwhile, they're calling upon things to take action, which 'only' nuclear weapons could accomplish....

I don't think Il is calling for Israel to be annexed.

IMO, that is the threat from Iran.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Meanwhile, they're calling upon things to take action, which 'only' nuclear weapons could accomplish....

If you mean genocide... there have been several in history, and none have required nuclear weapons.

I don't think Il is calling for Israel to be annexed.

So, obviously then you believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons for immediate deployment against Israel. I guess we'll see what happens. I find that scenario highly unlikely (regardless of what Iran's crackpot leader says), given that it would = the immediate destruction of Iran by the world community (that is, if it survives nuclear retaliation from Israel), and ruin any international support it ever had, from any religious group.

[Azure]

If you mean genocide... there have been several in history, and none have required nuclear weapons.

It would be pretty hard to carry out a genocide against a group of people, or a nation that is capable of defending itself...

So, obviously then you believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons for immediate deployment against Israel. I guess we'll see what happens. I find that scenario highly unlikely (regardless of what Iran's crackpot leader says), given that it would = the immediate destruction of Iran by the world community (that is, if it survives nuclear retaliation from Israel), and ruin any international support it ever had, from any religious group.

I'm only saying that based on what I hear coming from Iran. I also think NK with nuclear missiles isn't the 'best' idea, but I certainly don't feel they are an immediate threat.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm only saying that based on what I hear coming from Iran.

Maybe you should broaden your sources? Sometimes the things leaders say (especially about WMD's) don't quite reflect reality... we've witnessed it before.

[if.away]

The article makes sense and it shows a part of a very possible and well calculated plan leading to a likely military confrontation with Iran/Syria. My question is WHY was Hezbollah, therefore Iran, baited into making the first move? Assuming the "plan" was in effect a while before the kidnappings happened why would Hezbollah make the first move and basically step into a trap? Could they not have been aware? Was Israel aware that such a kidnapping might occur given Iran's referral to the security council and did they decide to retaliate with a surprisingly devastating attack which caught Hezbollah by surprise?

Iran has been playing the delay game forever now and such a move seems stupid. Despite all the claims of victory coming from well staged public events in Syria and Iran, Israel has emerged with the upper hand out of this situation. Hezbollah has been "disarmed" and vilified in front of the whole world, their grip on Lebanon has seriously weakened and I would assume they'll not gain nor maintain the same type of support as before. Israel reminded their enemies that it has no problems nor reservations using excessive force when provoked and that it fully takes advantage of a situation where it is “unleashed” by the US. What did Iran/Syria and Hezbollah get out of this whole deal?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by White Doors

No way they could pull it off and say that Israel did it and eveyone believing it. To thik that they could do that and no one be the wiser is naieve.

If the american public was fooled into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, a us warship was sunk in the gulf of tonkin, Libya shot down pan am 103, the US was winning the war in vietnam/iraq, the invasion of panama was necessary and a magic bullet killed Kennedy, you don't think a strategic stealth bomber strike could be passed off as being done by the dominating Israeli air force, who already have destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor?

Who's being 'naieve'?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by if.away

The article makes sense and it shows a part of a very possible and well calculated plan leading to a likely military confrontation with Iran/Syria. My question is WHY was Hezbollah, therefore Iran, baited into making the first move? Assuming the "plan" was in effect a while before the kidnappings happened why would Hezbollah make the first move and basically step into a trap? Could they not have been aware? Was Israel aware that such a kidnapping might occur given Iran's referral to the security council and did they decide to retaliate with a surprisingly devastating attack which caught Hezbollah by surprise?

Iran has been playing the delay game forever now and such a move seems stupid. Despite all the claims of victory coming from well staged public events in Syria and Iran, Israel has emerged with the upper hand out of this situation. Hezbollah has been "disarmed" and vilified in front of the whole world, their grip on Lebanon has seriously weakened and I would assume they'll not gain nor maintain the same type of support as before. Israel reminded their enemies that it has no problems nor reservations using excessive force when provoked and that it fully takes advantage of a situation where it is “unleashed” by the US. What did Iran/Syria and Hezbollah get out of this whole deal?

Well, that all depends on where you believe those Israeli soldiers were captured. It certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility that Israel suckered hezbollah into 'making the first move' by moving troops into southern lebannon.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So... when Iran completes its nuclear weapons, it will obviously use them to destroy Israel and make way for the 12th Imam?

I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. I've always found that what leaders say, and what governments/bureaucracy's do, are very different things.

I honestly believe the target would be America. Firstly, If they Hit Israel that would almost certainly effect their holy site in Jerusalem. They obviously don't care for their own people but seem to regard certain holy sites in high regard. Also, If Israel was able to hit the missile with a patriot missile then they might end up hurting themselves. Secondly, as you have pointed out hitting Israel with Nukes wouldn't give them Israel and America would almost certainly respond with a war and an occupation. I don't believe they are that dumb.

They could launch missiles at a few major cities in the US from ships in international waters. If they just succeeded in taking out New York America would take decades to recover. Look what happen as the result of just the twin towers being hit. Imagine millions with radiation to contend with and the industrial centers contaminated.

I'm not sure that America would respond with nuclear weapons as well. For one thing it would probably effect neighboring allies and either way it wouldn't change the situation they were in.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, that all depends on where you believe those Israeli soldiers were captured. It certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility that Israel suckered hezbollah into 'making the first move' by moving troops into southern lebannon.

Has Hezbolah made this claim?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I honestly believe the target would be America. Firstly, If they Hit Israel they would almost certainly effect their holy site in Jerusalem. They obviously don't care for their own people but seem to regard certain holy sites in high regard. Also, If Israel was able to hit the missile with a patriot missile them might end up hitting themselves. Secondly, as you have pointed out hitting Israel with Nukes wouldn't give them Israel and America would almost certainly respond with a war and an occupation. I don't believe they are that dumb.

They could launch missiles at a few major cities in the US from ships in international waters. If they just succeeded in taking out New York America take decades to recover. Look what happen as the result of just the twin towers being hit. Imagine millions with radiation to contend with and the industrial centers contaminated.

I'm not sure that America would respond with nuclear weapons as well. For one thing it would probably effect neighboring allies and either way it wouldn't change the situation they were in.

Wow, that's quite the scenario. A thousand monkey-Ian Flemings typing on a thousand typewriters couldn't come up with that one in a thousand years.