So, the Sunday Times (UK) had an article discussing a supposed plan drawn up and trained on by the Israeli Air Force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

So, three questions come to mind...

 

1. Do we believe that Israel would do something like this?

 

2. If so, what is the trigger? Do they wait until they have intel about weapons development? Or attack prior to that?

 

3. If this did happen, nuclear or conventional, what do people think would be the cascade of events after?

I'm going to step back from actually discussing the report and go after the source here.

 

September 3, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340486,00.html

 

April 09, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...25207_1,00.html

January 27, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19...2011570,00.html

 

December 11, 2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

 

and as long ago as March 14, 2005

Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Con...0649061319.html"

And More from the right-wing Pajamas Media. This is just a Rupert Murdoch owned paper either trying to sell papers or rattle the sabre on its own, I'd say.

Edited January 7, 200719 yr by Balta1701

I'm going to step back from actually discussing the report and go after the source here.

 

And More from the right-wing Pajamas Media. This is just a Rupert Murdoch owned paper either trying to sell papers or rattle the sabre on its own, I'd say.

I don't find the nuclear aspect likely, but I do think that the general idea of them having a plan of this type is not at all far-fetched.

Isreal didnt hesitate to destroy Saddams nuclear reactor so there's no reason to believe Isreal won't do the same thing if they feel threatened enough. Threatening and provoking Isreal as the Iranians have done is not a good idea.

I don't find the nuclear aspect likely, but I do think that the general idea of them having a plan of this type is not at all far-fetched.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the general staff in Myanmar had some sort of plan for an airstrike on Iran. Doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the general staff in Myanmar had some sort of plan for an airstrike on Iran. Doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen.

And that is an excellent comparison.

 

Israel has a history of preemptive military action, they have the military hardware to do it, and they would likely have U.S. support (tacit). Somehow, I don't think Myanmar can say the same.

And that is an excellent comparison.

 

Israel has a history of preemptive military action, they have the military hardware to do it, and they would likely have U.S. support (tacit). Somehow, I don't think Myanmar can say the same.

I think my point may have eluded you.

 

My point is that it shouldn't be a story at all that a country has potential plans to attack Iran. The U.S. probably has 87 versions of that plan. Israel probably has just about as many. That's what general staffs do, they come up with contingency plans so that in the event the politicians make that decision, they aren't starting from scratch.

 

The thing that would be worth reporting would be something beyond the plan being drawn up. If, for example, a leader went around for 6 months saying how they needed to invade some country, that makes the plans that much more newsworthy. Or if there was some additional level of preparation, like training on mock targets or a call-up of reserve forces or something like that.

 

I just don't see how its does anything to report 5 times in 2 years that "Israel has plans to attack Iran". Especially when nothing happened the other 4 times the same thing was reported.

I think my point may have eluded you.

 

My point is that it shouldn't be a story at all that a country has potential plans to attack Iran. The U.S. probably has 87 versions of that plan. Israel probably has just about as many. That's what general staffs do, they come up with contingency plans so that in the event the politicians make that decision, they aren't starting from scratch.

 

The thing that would be worth reporting would be something beyond the plan being drawn up. If, for example, a leader went around for 6 months saying how they needed to invade some country, that makes the plans that much more newsworthy. Or if there was some additional level of preparation, like training on mock targets or a call-up of reserve forces or something like that.

 

I just don't see how its does anything to report 5 times in 2 years that "Israel has plans to attack Iran". Especially when nothing happened the other 4 times the same thing was reported.

Whose point eluded who?

 

My interperetation of "plans" in this case is more than just military scenarios like you describe. I think the story they are getting at here is that the "plan" is something on the table at a high level. also note that the article discusses the air force training for this, just as you say would be interesting. And I'm pretty sure that ain't happening in Myanmar.

 

Also, for the most part (Iran aside), most countries don't have leaders "saying they needed to invade some country" for 6 months, even when they are planning it. That would be idiotic.

 

And I'm thinking there is a good chance it still will happen. Your argument about it not having happened yet, and so its a non-story, misses a key element. The fact that Israel, being fairly smart, wouldn't use such an option until they were reasonably sure of two things: Iran being on the verge of actually making a weapon, and the rest of the world not acting. So, the fact that they haven't acted yet means exactly zero.

Edited January 8, 200719 yr by NorthSideSox72

So, the Sunday Times (UK) had an article discussing a supposed plan drawn up and trained on by the Israeli Air Force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

So, three questions come to mind...

 

1. Do we believe that Israel would do something like this?

 

2. If so, what is the trigger? Do they wait until they have intel about weapons development? Or attack prior to that?

 

3. If this did happen, nuclear or conventional, what do people think would be the cascade of events after?

 

 

Isreal didnt hesitate to destroy Saddams nuclear reactor so there's no reason to believe Isreal won't do the same thing if they feel threatened enough. Threatening and provoking Isreal as the Iranians have done is not a good idea.

 

That's a perfect response to the first question.

 

#2 will happen when they are on the verge of going live, much like when Israel destroyed Iraq's capabilities.

 

#3 will be exactly what has happened for 60 years now. There will be some kind of conventional war with Israel getting invaded/and or attacked. Israel will viciously kick the s*** out of whoever tries to attack them, and then the invaders will give up, and claim victory, dispite their losses, all of the while calling for Israel's destruction.

 

With history in the middle east as a guide here, this is going to be the same chapter we have seen over and over again.