If Israel attacks the US will back them- by staying out of the way.

Well I'm not in the mood to read through the almost 100 posts already in this thread, so I apologize if I'm just regurgitating points people have already made.

U.S. will not attack Iran at this point. We've been hearing rumours of a U.S. attack on Iran ever since Sept. 11 now. If there is an attack, it will be Israel going solo. Let's not forget thins such as the NIE report, which stated that Iran was not close to getting nukes operational.

Furthermore, with Afghanistan and Iraq still demanding the U.S's undivided attention, I don't think they have the resources to divert to an attack on Iran.

Anyway, here's an article posted on the potential fallout from an attack on Iran.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief warned in comments aired Saturday that any military strike on Iran could turn the Mideast to a "ball of fire" and lead Iran to a more-aggressive stance on its controversial nuclear program.



Mohamed ElBaradei, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, warned of dangers of a strike on Iran.

The comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came in an interview with an Arab television station aired Saturday, a day after U.S. officials said they believed recent large Israeli military exercises may have been meant to show Israel's ability to hit Iran's nuclear sites.

"In my opinion, a military strike will be the worst ... it will turn the Middle East to a ball of fire," ElBaradei said on Al-Arabiya television. It also could prompt Iran to press even harder to seek a nuclear program, and force him to resign, he said.

Iran on Saturday also criticized the Israeli exercises. The official IRNA news agency quoted a government spokesman as saying that the exercises demonstrate Israel "jeopardizes global peace and security."

Israel sent warplanes and other aircraft on a major exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean earlier this month, U.S. military officials said Friday.

Israel's military refused to confirm or deny that the maneuvers were practice for a strike in Iran, saying only that it regularly trains for various missions to counter threats to the country.

But the exercise the first week of June may have been meant as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record on the matter.
Don't Miss

• U.S.: Israeli air exercise likely message to Iran
• Israeli politician threatens Iran with attack over nukes
• Report: Iran protests threats from Israeli official

The New York Times quoted officials on Friday as saying that more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged the maneuver, flying more than 900 miles, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, and that the exercise included refueling tankers and helicopters capable of rescuing downed pilots.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said he prefers that Iran's nuclear ambitions be halted by diplomatic means, but has pointedly declined to rule out military action.

The United States also says it is seeking a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the threat the West sees from Iran's nuclear program, although U.S. officials also have refused to take the threat of military action off the table.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to comment on the Israeli maneuvers in an interview with National Public Radio aired Saturday, but said: "We are committed to a diplomatic course."

Russia's foreign minister warned Friday against the use of force on Iran, saying there is no proof it is trying to build nuclear weapons with the a program, which Tehran says is for generating power.

One Israeli lawmaker on Saturday urged caution, saying that the world should first do more to toughen and broaden the sanctions against Iran to persuade its leaders to halt the nuclear program.

Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in Israel's parliament, suggested steps including banning Iranian planes, ships and sports delegations from entering Western countries.

"There's a long way to go before diplomatic efforts are exhausted," Hanegbi said. "The sanctions aren't very strong, they are very shallow, there's a lot of room for enhancing them."

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel published Wednesday, Olmert said the current international sanctions against Iran would probably not succeed alone, saying there were "many things that can be done economically, politically, diplomatically and militarily."

Asked if Israel was capable of taking military action against Iran, Olmert said, "Israel always has to be in a position to defend itself against any adversary and against any threat of any kind."

Meanwhile, reaction to the Israeli exercises rippled across other parts of the Gulf.

In Dubai, the government-owned Khaleej Times newspaper warned in an editorial Saturday that an attack on Iran by Israel or the United States would have "disastrous consequences for the region."

"A nuclear Iran is in nobody's interest, but military action and armed rehearsals will also not be tolerated," the paper said.

The United States and many Western nations accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear bomb. Iran has rejected the charges saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity not a weapon.

A U.S. intelligence report released late last year concluded that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program, but Israeli intelligence believes that is incorrect and that work is continuing.

There is precedent for unilateral Israeli action. In 1981, Israeli jets bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility to end dictator Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. And last September, Israel bombed a facility in Syria that U.S. officials have said was a nuclear reactor being constructed with North Korean assistance.
E-mail to a friend Share this on:

Mixx Digg Facebook del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon Myspace

| Mixx it | Share

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

I have never declared that the leadership in Tehran is "stupid." But I am quite convinced that this leadership is comprised of apocalyptic zealots, who wish to hasten the return of the long-departed Twelfth Iman; and the only way to do so is to engulf the world in an unimaginable conflagration.

Those who are accustomed to viewing all national leaders as calculating, pragmatic types--as people who carefully analyze the cost-benefit calculus, according to a Western-style thought process--are typically incapable of imagining what quasi-religious zealots are capable of doing.

The zealots are not at all stupid; in fact, they are not even irrational. They simply operate on a very different level--a supra-rational level, which rejects both rationality and irrationality. So they are infinitely more dangerous than, say, a Kim Jong-Il, who merely wishes to perpetuate his own power; or a Leonid Brezhnev, who, in the 1970s and early '80s (prior to his death) wished to advance the interests of the USSR.

As deeply as I despise the Nazis--and it would be almost impossible for me to overstate my hatred of the evil ideology spawned by Mein Kampf--I will have to admit that a German soldier, in WWII, who shot and killed an American soldier, was doing nothing dishonorable. The same in WWI. These were examples of a warrior under one banner killing a warrior under an opposing banner. But non-uniformed insurgents who detonate roadside bombs are surely not warriors, in any meaningful sense of the word. What they do is far from honorable. No, it can accurately be defined as murder.

As for the suggestion that we "take US soldiers out of the fray," Iran was never a part of that "fray" when the US entered Iraq in March 2003. (The Iran-Iraq War had already been over for 15 years.) So Iran has no dog in this hunt, as the Southern provincialism goes--unless, of course, Tehran wishes to act opportunistically, in the most cynical possible way.

it was in their own interest to have a peaceful North Korea for trading purposes. China is north koreas largest trading power to the tune of 2 billion per year.

Please provide evidence or examples to corroborate your conclusions.

The only irrational actor involved, based on their actions, has been the US.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

I would agree. This media game of "paranoia reporting" and "what if?" scenarios seems to entertain the general public to eth point that we lose track of the ipmortant issues. I would think that if Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapon capabilities that they WILL be dealt with like any other country that is a threat to national security.

I wonder how many in this thread wouldn't mind if Iran had nuclear weapons? Anybody willing to comment?

Saber rattling is not an important issue?

Absolutely willing to comment.

On one hand I don't want anybody to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, in the current state of affairs, I don't really care if Iran has one or seven or seven hundred, because they will never use it.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

It's not a question of "minding". As a citizen of the only nation to ever toss nukes at another country in anger, I'd prefer we toned down our "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. It's a credibility issue, to chide Iran or NK for nukes when we have a massive arsenal ourselves.

__________________
An employee gets trampled to death by a frenzied, greedy mob at a Walmart sale, and customers actually complained when the store closed. Yet, I'm the bad guy for suggesting policies that assume people act like retarded herd animals that need government nannying and control....

I would suggest that you consider this January 2007 article on the subject, with special emphasis upon the sections entitled "Shia and Sunni: Different Eschatologies" and "Contemporary Shia Radicalism": RealClearPolitics - Articles - The War Against Global Jihadism

I find nothing at all irrational about America's response to a fanatical Iran; though I do find our response to date unacceptably milquetoast.

As to the apparent implication that I have named Iran as an "irrational actor," I have done no such thing. Please go back and re-read my previous post on this subject.