When Will Iran Be Attacked?

[Reub]

I understand that there is a huge armada of American and British ships nearing the Straits of Hormuz. The U.S. election is rapidly approaching. Netanyahu says that time is running out with Iran supposedly only a few months away from getting the bomb. So, what is your best guess if and when Iran will be attacked and by whom?

I will venture a guess that it happens on October 15th, which I believe is a moonless night. I also believe that it will be Israel going it alone with the international armada taking care of the Straits.

[craigr]

I hope never. It will not be a cakewalk.

[Reub]

If Iran is not attacked and acquires nuclear weapons is that a better alternative?

[Pointedstick]

Yes. Once they get nuclear weapons, what are they going to do with them? This is the eternal problem that confronts two-bit dictators who acquire weapons of mass destruction. If they use them, they'll be obliterated in the counterattack, and if terrorists anywhere use similar weapons, they'll be where fingers are pointed. Once Iran has nukes, I think they'll realize how silly it was and how impossible actually using them would be.

[craigr]

If Iran is not attacked and acquires nuclear weapons is that a better alternative?

North Korea has them and we are still here. Not to mention Pakistan who is no friend either.  

Maybe it will finally get Israel to admit they have them as well. That way all parties will be at stalemate in terms of saber rattling.

[craigr]

Who is doing the attacking anyway? It won't be Hillary Clinton's daughter, nor Obama's, nor the Bush's or Romney's five sons. The pols never send their own kids to die in these supposedly dire national emergency wars.

[Benko]

North Korea has [nuclear weapons] and we are still here.

I can't imagine you need me to point this out, but the difference is that martyrdom has no apeal for north koreans and Iran has repearedly stated that they will wipe out isreal.  Perhaps Iran won't actually do it, but if you were in charge in isreal, would you take that chance?

[Pointedstick]

North Korea has [nuclear weapons] and we are still here.

I can't imagine you need me to point this out, but the difference is that martyrdom has no apeal for north koreans and Iran has repearedly stated that they will wipe out isreal.  Perhaps Iran won't actually do it, but if you were in charge in isreal, would you take that chance?

If they wipe out Israel, the Israeli submarine-launched nuclear counterattack will wipe them out right back, and whatever remains will be obliterated by U.S. warheads. The Iranians know this. They aren't stupid. They hate Israel, true, but their political leadership isn't suicidal. I think they want nukes partly as a status symbol, partly to intimidate their conventionally-armed neighbors, and partly to show Israel they they have a nuclear response capability of their own to deter and prevent a feared Israeli-initiated nuclear attack.

[craigr]

North Korea has [nuclear weapons] and we are still here.

I can't imagine you need me to point this out, but the difference is that martyrdom has no apeal for north koreans and Iran has repearedly stated that they will wipe out isreal.  Perhaps Iran won't actually do it, but if you were in charge in isreal, would you take that chance?

I do not speak Farsi. A friend of mine does. She will tell you that many of these supposed speeches saying these things are being mis-interpreted or blown out of proportion. I don't trust the news media to translate these issues correctly. Given the reputation of the news, would anyone trust them to report theses issues fairly based on what they've done in the past to other causes?

Why would Iran release a nuclear bomb to be used against the US anyway? What does it buy them except total annihilation? Same for Israel. What do they get out of it except a really bad suntan that turns them into vapor?

[smurff]

There was a brief (82 pages), semi-satirical book about this that came out in early 2008, "Where to Invade Next."  Iran is the first country on the list, that includes 7 countries:

Iran
Pakistan
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Syria
Sudan
North Korea  

[dualstow]

I also hope Iran will not be attacked, and I don't think they will be.
The Sunnis may be suicidal, but Shia Iran is actually far more rational than most of us think.
Unfortunately, they just have very different interests than we do.

If someone does take out Iran's nuclear capability, it's just a matter of time before they build it up again, deeper in the ground and with better ultra  high performance concrete.

[craigr]

...reminding Americans of the devastating repercussions of failed intelligence.

Certainly attacking Iran would be the biggest failure of intelligence we've had in a while. So he's right on that one...

[notsheigetz]

I just saw an article quoting Netanyahu warning about Iran's imminent acquisition of nuclear capability and the need to do something about it before it is too late. It was dated 1992.

Somehow lost in the whole debate about Iran and nukes is the fact that our own intelligence agencies still say that there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons - and yet it has somehow gotten to the point where it is just assumed to be true. It reminds me of the quote from Goebbels how if you say something often enough and loud enough, people will believe it.

[dualstow]

It reminds me of the quote from Goebbels how if you say something often enough and loud enough, people will believe it.

I hate to be a Picky Patty but that quote is misattributed. Still, it is misattributed so often that most people believe it, so whoever said it has a point! 

At least these days we have Snopes so we can discover that the Chevy Nova sold just fine in Latin America despite the alleged "No go/ doesn't go" connection.

Unlike Iran's populace, the government has certainly brought some trouble upon itself. When you spew hatred (even if it's not as extreme as some of the translations) and say "Don't look in here" often enough and loudly enough, inspectors want to look in there.

[notsheigetz]

I hate to be a Picky Patty but that quote is misattributed. Still, it is misattributed so often that most people believe it, so whoever said it has a point!  :)

At least these days we have Snopes so we can discover that the Chevy Nova sold just fine in Latin America despite the alleged "No go/ doesn't go" connection.

Unlike Iran's populace, the government has certainly brought some trouble upon itself. When you spew hatred (even if it's not as extreme as some of the translations) and say "Don't look in here" often enough and loudly enough, inspectors want to look in there.

Okay Picky Patty, now that I think of it, I remember reading about that quote being misattributed to Goebbels but in this case I think it is true nonetheless. Say after me - Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons and as soon as they get them they will launch them against Israel - Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons and as soon as they get them they will launch them against Israel......

Heard Bill O'Reilly last night pronouncing the way he does that it is just a given fact that we will have to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities militarily - it's just a given - everyone knows it - no doubt about it. I used to like Bill O'Reilly but I think he's turned into a blowhard. He was saying the same things about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

[murphy_p_t]

"Another thing I do not understand about this is Obama's and Romney's willingness to allow Netanyahu to dictate when America goes to war. "

To understand this, I'd suggest considering the following:

-AIPAC influence in the political process
-The number of "Jews" in the US who seem to put the interests of the state of Israel above those of the US.
-The number of "Jews" in high-level government positions within the US, including dual nationals
-The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong.

[brick-house]

From the Onion a few months ago...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-w ... r-w,27325/

TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.

[dualstow]

Just curious: Why is "Jews" in quotation marks? Are they impostors merely posing as Jews?

Because he doesn't want to be labeled an "antisemite." Naturally, some of those "Jews" are otherwise good non-Semitic people who have been misled by Jews and are part of the whole Protocols thing.

Oh well, you can't have a gold-related forum without a little paranoid conspiracy theory.  :(
----
Edit: I've seen that Onion article. It's great!

[Pointedstick]

"Another thing I do not understand about this is Obama's and Romney's willingness to allow Netanyahu to dictate when America goes to war. "

To understand this, I'd suggest considering the following:

-AIPAC influence in the political process
-The number of "Jews" in the US who seem to put the interests of the state of Israel above those of the US.
-The number of "Jews" in high-level government positions within the US, including dual nationals
-The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong.

Oh dear, we didn't think you would figure it out so quickly! I'd better get rid of my copy of The Protocols of The Elders of Zion and that bowl full of the blood of Christian children in the back of my fridge.

[dualstow]

"Naturally, some of those "Jews" are otherwise good non-Semitic people who have been misled by Jews and are part of the whole Protocols thing."

Do they have horns too?

Yes, but not shofar grade.
Darn it, now Pointed Stick has me wondering which is worse: to get caught lapping from a bowl of that blood at home, or go out with that girl and guy again and get stuck with their bar bill.  ???

[stone]

Wouldn't a true follower of Zionism want Israel to be self reliant, making its own peace with its neighbours, protecting its own boarders with its own means?

Acting as a dependent of the USA seems to fly in the face of all of that.

What is the point of the whole Zionist ideal if Israel acts in such a way that it needs to muster the US military (with the global reserve currency financing that military) as a back stop for Israeli beligerance? That seems to me to be the exact opposit of everything Zionism is supposed to stand for.

[dualstow]

Wouldn't a true follower of Zionism want Israel to be self reliant, making its own peace with its neighbours, protecting its own boarders with its own means?

Acting as a dependent of the USA seems to fly in the face of all of that.

What is the point of the whole Zionist ideal if Israel acts in such a way that it needs to muster the US military (with the global reserve currency financing that military) as a back stop for Israeli beligerance? That seems to me to be the exact opposit of everything Zionism is supposed to stand for.

Within Israel, there are various opinions on the course Israel should take. There are religious Jews in Israel that think the state shouldn't exist yet.
In Iran, there must be people asking, "What is the point of xyz ideology if we sell oil to the infidels?" But, they are the stupid ones, and would bring about the end of Iran.
Although Israel produces all kinds of technology, has mandatory military training for both young men and women, and does its best to protect itself, it would be stupid not to get as much help as possible from nations like the United States. Better to survive and have someone on the Internet accuse them of straying from the path of Zionism than to become extinct.

And my goodness, framing things in the context of "Israeli belligerence" is akin to saying England is belligerent toward the Irish Republican Army.

[stone]

dualstow

And my goodness, framing things in the context of "Israeli belligerence" is akin to saying England is belligerent toward the Irish Republican Army.

The situation in Northern Ireland has only started mending since the Good Friday Agreement which entailed talking to and sharing power with self proclaimed previous terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
I do think the whole Northern Ireland conflict grew from all sides having dogmatic positions and it only started to be resolved when people realized that what mattered wasn't who was right or wrong but what would allow people to live together peacefully.
The IRA got a lot of financial support from Americans of Irish ancestry. That seems uncomfortably similar to US support for Israel.  It seems to me extremely unfortunate when people express their cultural heritage by supporting violence in a far off country where they don't actually have to live with the consequences.

[dualstow]

The IRA got a lot of financial support from Americans of Irish ancestry. That seems uncomfortably similar to US support for Israel.  It seems to me extremely unfortunate when people express their cultural heritage by supporting violence in a far off country where they don't actually have to live with the consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly that with the last sentence, although I am not so sure that I would equate the state of Israel with a terrorist organisation.
Yes, there are Irish Americans who send money specifically to the the IRA, and I don't understand why they would do that. Is that the same as Americans giving aid to Ireland? Does the IRA = Ireland?

[stone]

The IRA got a lot of financial support from Americans of Irish ancestry. That seems uncomfortably similar to US support for Israel.  It seems to me extremely unfortunate when people express their cultural heritage by supporting violence in a far off country where they don't actually have to live with the consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly that with the last sentence, although I am not so sure that I would equate the state of Israel with a terrorist organisation.
Yes, there are Irish Americans who send money specifically to the the IRA, and I don't understand why they would do that. Is that the same as Americans giving aid to Ireland? Does the IRA = Ireland?

I think I'm failing to work out your meaning (I'm a bit thick).  Are you making a rhetorical question to show how wrong I am to compare violence by a nation state to violence by a terrorist organization? The fact that Israel is a nation state makes the consequences of that violence no easier to bear for anyone personally harmed. I think supporting attacks by a nation state requires just as close scrutiny as supporting any kind of violence.