Israel threatens Iran with direct aggression - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#1551141
An Israeli minister has said an attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be "unavoidable" if Tehran refuses to halt its alleged weapons programme.

In the most explicit threat yet by a member of Ehud Olmert's government, Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister, said the hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "would disappear before Israel does".

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mofaz, who is also Israel's transport minister, said in comments published today by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."

Iranian-born Mofaz is a former army chief and defence minister. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the US state department.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ju ... tworkfront
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551143
An Israeli minister has said an attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be "unavoidable" if Tehran refuses to halt its alleged weapons programme.


When the leader of Iran continues advocating Israels destruction I think that its a valid statement.
By Private
#1551152
Snap!

I hope you don't mind me Vladimire for advertising my poll which I just posted (nearly same time as you) re: same news story. Please take part.

:?: [edit] My poll got deleted, you can find my complaint in the basement.
Last edited by Private on 06 Jun 2008 19:14, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551159
Here ya go Priv.


Israel seems to be threatening Iran


I think Irans AmJ statement about destroying Israel is a threat, which Israel is responding to.

What could happen:

* Israel launches Air strike against Iranian Nuc sites. With high casualties Israel manages to cripple many sites, which sets back Irans Nuclear ambitions but doesnt fully destroy it.

* Iran retaliates with Long range Rocket(No WMD based on your preconditions Priv) attack against Israel which hits many civilian areas. At the same time they activate their proxies in Lebanon who immediately start katyusha attacks against North Israel again hitting mostly civilian targets.

* Israel launches immediate preplanned assault against Hezbollah learning from 2006 they do not rely on Airpower and Artillery alone and invade with full combined force cutting many Hexbollah Units south of the Litani while crippling communications, and infarstructure around Lebanon.
At the same time elements of Israeli Special forces and paratroopers in concert with local Christian Militias try to cut the head of Hezbollah in the North.

*In Gaza Hamas launches a preplanned coordinated mass suicide attacks and Qassam rockets into Israel.

*Israel retaliates and invades Gaza leading to intence urban fighting.

*Israel Launches second Air wave against Iran attacking Soft infarstructure sites supplying the Long Range rocket sites including communications, Roads, Bridges, Fuel sites etc.

*Gaza is taken over by the IDF and put under curfew

*UN calls for a cease-fire after backroom negotitions an agreement is reached between Iran and Israel.

*Soon after Hezbollah calls for a cease fire but the Sunni groups and other players in Lebanon take this chance to finish Hezbollah off as a serious player.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1551165
It's not the first time Israel has threatened Iran:
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

"Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program," Peres told Reuters, adding that "Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 5961301962

Good read that article, you can see two years ago they were trying to enforce the rules of a treaty they hypocritically hadn't signed up to.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551167
the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."


He was countering Irans threat.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1551187
^ One line troll + partially quoted sentence = no chance of feeding the boy any attention from me.

Has anyone got anything sensible to say?
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551213
One line troll + partially quoted sentence = no chance of feeding the boy any attention from me.

Has anyone got anything sensible to say?


Right since a description of text and a one sentence is a better way to troll Arthur.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1551263
^ So that's no-one then.
User avatar
By sazerac
#1551300
Iran wouldn't have any sanctions against it or any threats of aggression if it just minded it's own damn business! But they can't mind their own business because they hate the Jews too much to do that.

The poor Iranians versus big bad USA/Israel. :(
User avatar
By Lightman
#1551305
There is a great need to bring peace to the Levant, and there is much to say ill of the Israeli government, but Iran is not helping in the least. To say that it is unreasonable for Israel to respond to open threats in kind is absurd. Now, logistically, taking on Iran would be very, very foolish, but it could be done if need be.
By Sapper
#1551319
The poor Iranians versus big bad USA/Israel.

Is your sarcasm implying the Iranians are "big" while "USA/Israel" is "poor"?
User avatar
By Grunch
#1551329
Threatening violence against another state is illegal according to international law. Is Israel run by morons?
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551338
Threatening violence against another state is illegal according to international law


Well tell that To Amje over in Shariastan. The point is Iran is developing Nuclear weapons and threatend to destroy Israel, to which an Israeli minister replied.
User avatar
By Grunch
#1551347
It doesn't become less illegal if someone else also did it. This isn't preschool, you cannot run countries with the mindset of two wrongs making a right.

And again, if Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, they will. Turning their nuclear ambitions into a conflict will only drive the program underground and make it completely unaccountable to the rest of the world.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1551354
doesn't become less illegal if someone else also did it. This isn't preschool, you cannot run countries with the mindset of two wrongs making a right.


I dont remember you commenting like that about what Iran said.

And again, if Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, they will.


Sure but then they will face severe repocussions

Turning their nuclear ambitions into a conflict will only drive the program underground and make it completely unaccountable to the rest of the world.


Underground for good.
User avatar
By Arthur2sheds_Jackson
#1551371
In fact Israel has been stirring the shit up for years against Iran:
Monday, 25 September 2006, 15:47 GMT 16:47 UK
Iran's gulf of misunderstanding with US
By Gordon Corera
Security correspondent, BBC News

The US and Iran almost never speak to each other.

"It's the most unusual relationship we have with any country in the world," explains US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns.

"It's been 27 years since we've had a normal diplomatic, social and political relationship. And so for instance I am one of the people responsible for Iran in our government and yet I have never met an Iranian government official in my 25-year career."

The fiery rhetoric between Iran and the US of recent months has made it appear that the two countries are on a collision course. But did it have to be this way and could the two sides still sit down face to face?

9/11 opportunity

In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, there were some tentative steps.

In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute's silence at Tehran's football stadium.

Some of Iran's leaders also sensed an opportunity. America quickly fixed its sights on the Taleban in Afghanistan with whom the Iranians had nearly come to war just three years earlier.

With a common enemy in the Taleban, the two found grounds to co-operate.

After the Afghan war, US negotiators worked closely with Iranian counterparts to form a new Afghan government.

Some of the talks between US and Iranian officials moved beyond Afghanistan and there was hope that it could lead to tentative re-engagement and eventually a restoration of relations.

But back in their respective capitals, there were voices of dissent.

Debates in Washington and Tehran paralleled each other. Hardliners and moderates clashed about whether it was worth talking to the other side and whether it could ever be trusted.

US-Iran relations timeline

Hardliners in Iran, scarred by the past, cited Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's dictum that any friendship between the US and Iran was like that between a wolf and a sheep.

And just a few weeks after Iran and the US had worked so closely over Afghanistan, Iran was described by President George W Bush as part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address.

Javad Zarif, now Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said this was a big surprise at after the co-operation over the Afghan government.

"We were all shocked by the fact that the US had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago," he said.

But the hardliners in Washington had been bolstered by Israel's discovery just a few weeks before the speech of a consignment of arms alleged to be heading from Iran to Palestinian groups.

Surprise overture

Another potential opening came in May 2003.

America's swift march to Baghdad the previous month had led to fears in Tehran that it would be next.

So Tehran made a dramatic - but surprisingly little known - approach to the Americans.

Iran's offer came in the form of a letter, although Iranian diplomats have suggested that their letter was in turn a response to a set of talking points that had come from US intermediaries.

In it, Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah.

"I believe the nuclear issue could have been resolved long time ago"
Javad Zarif, Iran ambassador

What did Iran want? Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'".

The letter was the product of an internal debate inside Tehran and had the support of leaders at the highest level.

"That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues," explains Seyed Adeli, who was then a deputy foreign minister in Iran. But in Washington, the letter was ignored.

Larry Wilkerson, who was then chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, thinks that was a big mistake.

"In my mind it was one of those things you throw up in the air and say I can't believe we did this."

He says the hardliners who stood against dialogue had a memorable refrain. "We don't speak to evil'.

The problem was that at the very moment that Iranian vulnerability was at its greatest, thanks to America's swift march to Baghdad, Washington was at its most triumphalist.

Why talk to Iran when you could simply dictate terms from a position of strength?

Gift to the hardliners

The effect of America's rejection of talks was far reaching.

It would tilt the balance of power within Tehran towards the hardliners.

"The failure is not just for the idea, but also for the group who were pursuing the idea," explains Seyed Adeli.

Over the following years, the hardliners in Tehran who were far less supportive of dialogue moved into the ascendancy. And the balance of power between Iran and the US began to shift.

America's victory in Iraq began to look like something far more ambivalent as a bloody insurgency gathered strength. Meanwhile, Iran's influence both in Iraq and across the Middle East grew, augmented by rising oil prices.

In March 2005, the US announced it would back the EU's negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, which Iran says is peaceful but the US and others believe is geared towards weapons.

The possibility of talks is currently on the table. But the US insists that Iran must suspend its nuclear activity first.

At the UN, Iran's ambassador Javad Zarif argues that this is the source of the problem.

"Had it not been for those arbitrary red lines and the pressure that went along with those arbitrary red lines imposed on our negotiating partners, I believe the nuclear issue could have been resolved long time ago."

But the US believes that Iran has failed to be open about its nuclear programme and needs to abide by UN demands that it halt its activity first.

The two sides may be able to sit down and talk face to face in the coming months, if agreement can be reached regarding some form of Iranian suspension of nuclear activity. But if this chance is lost, there may not be many more.

Mixed Messages and Secret Diplomacy was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm on Monday 25 September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 377914.stm

No proof just a claim was enough to scupper any chance of restoring a normal relationship between the US and Iran.

Then you've also got this crap from Israel:
The United States has until now not done enough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official has told The Jerusalem Post while expressing hope that Wednesday's referral of the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council would prove to be effective.

"America needs to get its act together," the official said. "Until now the US administration has just been talking tough but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take tough action."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 9395573059

:|
User avatar
By Gletkin
#1551374
Isn't Mofaz Minister of Transport? :eh:
What's he doing blabbering about how Israel should bomb a foreign country?
Livni and Peretz should tell him should tell him to STFU and stick to his job.
User avatar
By Nets
#1551390
Gletkin, Peretz isn't in the Gov't and hasn't been for some time.

Mofaz was Min of Defense during the majority of Intifada II, also.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1551402
Israel uses its regional monopoly on Weapons of Destruction to colonize even more land than the original euroterrorists stole from the relatively unarmed locals.

This is not a sustainable political situation.

OK so lets get this clear, If I want to black m[…]

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/netanyahu-s-offer-for-[…]

EU-BREXIT

You haven't got one shred of evidence that proves[…]

Actually, Special Olympian already provided video[…]