11 thoughts on “IDF Plans Bombing Iran With Nuclear Weapons – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Man, this is some scary s**t. If that happens it will unleash a chain of events that is impossible now to oversee. They must also be doing lots of scenario making for varying aftermaths and some of those aftermaths could look quite grim regionally and globally. If seeing a possible scenario like that doesn’t scare the hell out of enough politicians and military leaders to prevent it from happening, then we are truly being led by madmen; people whose reality and mind set are so removed from ours; people who are living apparently in their own crazy world, unleashed and gone mad in their own virtual multi-player game of Stratego. Scary.

  2. This is probably as true as Robert Fisk’s claim that Israel was using uranium enriched weapons against the Lebanese.

    And, like last time, when it’s proven wrong, RIchard Silverstein will not retract and apologize, but instead lamely protest “Hey, how do you expect me to catch every development on this issue?!”

  3. This is probably as true as Robert Fisk’s claim that Israel was using uranium enriched weapons against the Lebanese.

    So which is it–did the Times of London reporter NOT talk to Israeli military sources & made that part up? Or were the sources authetic but didn’t know what they were talking about?

    Haaretz today asked both the PM & the cabinet minister who’s supposedly in charge of Iran strategy, Lieberman, for comment. They refused.

    Haaretz claims that the Foreign Ministry denied the report, but the only actual quotation it provided fr. an actual ministry representative didn’t at all deny the report but rather claimed that Israel intended to rely on diplomacy. Which of course begs the question: what happens when Israel decides that diplomacy no longer works??

    And you’re an outright liar (or else just plain ignorant) about the Fisk story. Another reader pointed me to the story of the UN investigation & I replied to it in the post I wrote about Fisk’s report. (see under “Update”). 2 separate research groups surveyed Lebanon for radiation fr. weapons. One, the group Fisk covered, found such radiation evidence. The 2nd, which surveyed diff. spots, found none. This IN NO WAY disproves the first report. If the 2nd group had surveyed precisely the same spots as the first & not found radiation, then this would’ve been news and my reaction would be diff. And how can you claim Fisk’s report was disproven UNLESS the two surveys went over the same ground???

    I have nothing to retract or apologize for. You have much to apologize for, but alas never will because true believers never believe they’re wrong even when they are (as you are so much of the time).

  4. I’ve certainly never said an untruth on this board. I’ve just pointed out some of your more egregious misrepresentations. When I’m wrong, I admit to it.

    The thing is, I rarely make such sweeping assertions of fact as you do. I just call your bullshit when I see it,

    And it’s really funny how you have now stooped to editing and partially deleting posts to remove the facts that you don’t like. What a pathetic and hateful man you are.

  5. I’ve certainly never said an untruth on this board.

    That itself is a lie. You’ve lied through yr teeth about everything I say & believe. Virtually any time you characterize anything I say without quoting me, you lie. Then there are all the ‘sweeping assertions of fact’ (which you indeed make–all the time) for which you often provide no proof & which are almost universally wrong.

    Talk about bullshit. Whenever I see a notice in my Inbox that you’ve published a comment I detect a distinct whiff of the stuff.

    I routinely edit comments by those who merely post links which provide free publicity to bolster their ideological point of view. Besides, your link had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which you posted it. And further, you exhausted our discussion of the National Brands matter with comments containing thousands of logorrheic words on the matter & I told you discussion was over. But being the extremely mature & civil ideologue that you are, you feel it’s incumbent on you to continue to try to get a word in edgewise by trying to publish both this inappropriate link & a related comment trumpeting the Israeli “economic miracle” 5 times or so. Your lack of success in publishing doesn’t stop you fr. trying again. Like all good bores, you never stop trying.

  6. Richard, what’s your take on Mubarak’s comments recently about wanting to acquire an A-bomb of his own in response to Iran? And don’t you think many Arabs in the area would be content, albeit secretly, if Israel hits Iran’s nuclear facilities?

  7. There is no doubt that the ranting mullahs of Iran have stirred up much hatred against them within the Arab world as well as outside it. No doubt, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & other countries feel threatened by their A-bomb pursuit. You’ve pointed out an additional problem w. Iran’s proliferation. Once Iran has the big one, they’ll all want to have it. That’s why the West should do everything in its power short of start WWIII in order to prevent this fr. happening.

    But the flip side is also true. If Israel attacks Iran in order to stop Iran’s program, every nation which supports Iran will do its best to help it resume its program. Some nations may also start programs that don’t yet have them in protest of Iran’s treatment. It’ll be an unholy mess.

    I by no means intend to say that I support Iran’s pursuit of nuclear club membership. I just don’t believe it’s worth mass murder in order to stop it fr. happening.

    Yes, the Saudi royals will be extremely happy to see the Iranian facilities disabled (that is, IF Israel or the U.S. CAN do this, which is debatable). But if I were a far-sighted Sunni leader, I’d realize that if Israel can (try to) bomb Iran back to the Stone Age for pursuing nuclear weapons, then Israel could very well next decide to do this to my country using a much less dire pretext. It’s a slippery slope. Once you allow one ME nation to use nuclear weapons against another, you can no longer control the rules under which they’ll be used in the future.

  8. Richard,

    The Iranian nuclear threat is an extremely complex problem to deal with.

    You are correct in much of your analysis of possible consequences of an Israeli strike: terrorism against Israel, World Jewry and America; retaliatory rocket strikes; and changing of the ‘rules of the game’ in terms of Nuclear Weapons use and pursuit in the Middle East and beyond.

    The problem is, as you mention in your other post, that “I think the Iranian extremists are so intent on a confrontation with Israel”. It seems that Iran is positioning itself more and more for a serious confrontation with Israel. This summer was round 1, and only encouraged Iran to come back for more.

    So, if Israel acts there will be terrible consequences. If Israel doesn’t act, there will also be terrible consequences. I take Iran’s talk of destroying Israel and its Holocaust denial extremely seriously, backed up as it with weapons programmes and financing of Hizbullah and Hamas.

    It all looks very grave, and I don’t have much confidence that the diplomatic path will have any success.

  9. if Israel acts there will be terrible consequences. If Israel doesn’t act, there will also be terrible consequences.

    I’m glad to hear that we agree on so much in this particular situation. But I’m nowhere near as convinced as you that Iran will provoke a confrontation w. Israel unless there is a causative agent. In other words, Iran will not have for nuclear weapons for another 5-10 yrs. (as most analysts predict except for Israel & Aipac which seem to believe this will happen imminently). There is much that could happen in that period that might convince Iran not to complete the program (depending on how well & seriously western nations negotiate w. Iran on this matter). Even if Iran gains nuclear weapons, this by no means means it would use them. Israel has not yet used them. I see no reason why Iran would unless it felt under imminent or direct threat.

    While we both find Iran’s leaders to be irrational, bellicose & extremist, I, unlike you, find Israel’s leaders to be almost equally irrational, etc. If we both agree that it is unlikely Israel would use its nuclear weapons, I find it credible to say that Iran is unlikely to use them as well.

    For Israel to have nuclear weapons destabilizes the ME to an extent. For Iran to have them adds to the destabilitzation. But it doesn’t necessarily send things to the tipping point guaranteeing their use. Whether or not one party or another actually uses them depends on how insane ea. side is willing to be in pursuing its perceived national interests. As Hamlet says: “That is the question.”

  10. You really think that Americans will care if 10,000 Iranians die? 650,000 Iraqis have died thanks to our war. Most of America really doesn’t seem to care much about that. No, I have lost faith that the American people will be outraged by the use of nuclear weapons. Some will – the 20% of Americans who are still reasonable, rational and humane. But most won’t care.

    I’m sorry to be so negative and cynical but that’s what I think. And I’m really sorry if we do attack Iran with nukes, because this will make it more likely that some terrorist will attack us back with nukes. I have not credited the ben-Laden-nuke-on-a-container-ship scenario much, but if we nuke Iran, well. Why wouldn’t they try to nuke us that way?

    Of course, whether the whole “Arab world” will be outraged at an attack on Iran is another question. Remember, we’ve got this huge SUnni-SHia split happening at the moment, and Iranians are not Arabs, etc. But it will piss people off. Also – Dubai and all those prosperous cities of the Gulf are very close to Iran. I have many cousins working in Dubai and a few in Qatar. What a nightmare. Floating radiation clouds, etc. The bastards.

  11. Leila: I wasn’t even thinking of the American reaction. And in most every case I’m with you regarding the callousness of the American public. But nuclear weapons are such a clear taboo (even though we’ve already dropped the “big one” twice), that I think breaking the taboo will be a huge shock even to Americans. I’m just not convinced that the vast majority of Americans think the issue of Iran getting the Bomb is so critical that it would be justified breaking this sanctified taboo. That’s why I think Israel’s ‘rep,’ already in the tank, will sink much lower here if it used nuclear weapons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *