Should Israel bomb Iran?

Iran is becoming the biggest issue of the Middle East.  Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, has been under considerable pressure since last summer’s war in Lebanon, which has been widely criticised in Israel for “failure to achieve its objectives”.  He is concerned to defend a moderate policy in Iran, which is a matter of controversy.  He recently told a meeting of his Kadima Party, “I believe that the world and we know how to deal with the present threat, but, please, we need to stop instilling fear of an existential threat just to grab the headlines.    There is no need to make the present threat worse than it is.”

The recently retired Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has commented, “Iran will have to be stopped, no doubt about it.”  There are hawks and doves in Israel;  there are certainly hawks and doves in Washington;  even in London, Jack Straw had to resign from the Foreign Office because he said it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran’s nuclear plants.  I sympathise with Jack Straw, but I think that the opinion in Israel and the U.S. is moving towards action against Iran, which has been supplying arms to militants in Iraq.  Which side of the argument is the right one?  Would Israel be safer if Iran was bombed, or, as the Israeli Prime Minister seems to think, would Israel become less safe?

Comments

[Winchester whisperer]

Unusually, I am on Jack Straw's side. We're all sick of killings in the Middle East and, to my mind, it is not obvious why bombing Iran would be beneficial to Israel. It would be fuel to the flames of anti-Americanism/Israelism, encourage terrorism and deepen the perceived divide between Islamic and Western cultures.

[Chris Sherwood]

Less safe; anyone who thinks the contrary is bananas.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

This is an unwise question.

[Peter]

Hummm... WITHOUT a nuke: Iran threatens Israels total destruction, denies the Holocaust, and launches deadly attacks on Israelis and Americans via its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq. One wonders what it would do WITH a nuke or two or ten ?

[Ian Burgess]

If Israel and Iran could learn to talk to each other each with respect for the existence of other that would be the safest solution.

[lamplighter]

It's not a question of whether or not Israel should or should not "nuke" Iran. Events seem to be spiraling out of control. In the face of Iranian threats to destroy Israel, whose people were once before threatened by another maniac who actually carried out the threat, fear may be the deciding factor. Fear, like religious obstinacy is hard to argue with. Also, do not discount the other pol of questionable sanity and intelligence who still has two years left in his term. What a powderkeg! If conflict is inevitable the everpresent question becomes "now or later?" (as in 1939).

[Sean]

This is one of the hardest political questions around. The biggest risk seems to be that by bombing you create all the negative effects foreseeen by Winchester whisperer below, but fail to do more than delay Iran's programme by a few years, and encourage an even more secretive, dispersed and hardened programme of research in the future. Result, in 10 years Iran has the bomb anyway but is now even more vitriolically anti-Israeli (if that's possible) and anti Western while the fall out from the bombing might result in a disaster such as a revolution in Saudi Arabia and the creation of another theocratic anti-western state, but controlling 25% of the world's oil. A very high risk game to be playing.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

The Israelis are surrounded by people who would sooner Israel was not there. Aside from the US Administration, no one enthuses over Israel any longer; many are luke cold and others variously hostile. In this climate of historical antipathy, Israel is about as safe now as it is ever likely to be. If bombing Iran had any effect on Israel’s safety, I suspect it would be negative if not terminal.

[donkykemore]

It may be blindingly simplistic for a member of a neutral state to overview the whole sorry road to Iraq thus ;
The transfer of the object of hatred from a genie like figure such as Osama to a specified country was necessary for all of the pre arranged military objectives – it was to give justification desperately needed by the military at the time.It was as necessary to find a legitimised target to give expression to the understandable US citizenry's collective wrath - as much so as was the bombing of negasssaki/ hiroshima , for pearl harbour - a catharsis was inevitable then but is was , even in it's ignomony ,m ore noble than the attack on Bagdad.
The military goons would have advised to choose an identifiable country , and if it could carry the lable of axis of evil ,so much the better – it had to be Iraq –a geopolitical entity, which could become the manifestation of the National bete noir.
And all this time the aircraft were being geared up on the runways.
Then the announcement of the ‘’shock and awe ‘’strategy – the bombing of Baghdad (as barbarous an act as the bombing of Dresden in WW2) – then the justification, and the black rabbit was pulled from the masked conjurers hat – No WMDs – so what he’s a despot and he killed his own people – the Kurds mind you – so by this time it was all down to the visuals
The bombing made great TV. There was no point in filming the bombing of the Torah Bora Mountains. Then the president dressed in a bomber jacket is flown 3 miles off shore to an aircraft carrier to announce – Mission accomplished.
But there was more to come – when they finally captured Saddam – another great TV moment – Ladies and gentlemen – we got him.
But you saw it all on TV and like in the film ‘wag the dog ‘ if you see it on TV- its for real.
As for Osama . A diabetic with renal failure holding out in the Tora Bora Mountains; unlikely. If indeed he is alive at all. - But you’ve seen the ethereal images he created on TV also- so he’s for real.
All he ever need to conjure up was to recreate something from the Arabian nights – a genie like creature – ephemeral elusive; maybe an illusion.
But what was not an illusion was the superb logistical precision which went in to levelling the two icons of Western decadence; Militarily this was an unbelievable stroke of terrorist genius; in logistical and strategic terms it was as inspired as the Israeli raid on entebbe;it left the US calling for Superman. But all they got was a befuddled, bumbling, cowardly President. And a new hero rose up from the ashes of the glowing towers – a New York Jew – who is now running for the next presidency.
And the manner of hanging of the despot and the US handing him over like Pontious Pilate while the Britts like janus looked the other way while they deplored the barbarity of capital punishmnet - this ensured forever Saddam's place beside the great Salladin .
now the road has been cleared for a nuke attack on Iran - a strategy that the overlords in the kinessetand whitehouse were agreed on ab initio.

donmacnamara

[Dom]

West vs Islam is a very different battle to Israel (Judaism) vs Islam. The stakes are much higher for Israel, they cannot endure another Lebanon debacle; but if diplomacy fails and Israel is threatened by Iran, it has a duty to protect its citzens. Better to be 'nuts' or 'bananas' than dead.

[Alex Swanson]

It's clear that Iran is being run by people who (a) hate Israel, and (b) are trying to build atomic weapons. Anyone who can't do the math on this one probably also thinks World War Two was our fault for provoking Hitler.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

The Israelis are surrounded by people who would sooner Israel was not there. Aside from the US Administration, no one enthuses over Israel any longer. Israel is nevertheless still generally tolerated which makes it about as safe as it is ever likely to be. If Iran attacked Israel today, world outrage would exceed more local satisfaction. Israel bombing Iran, however, could provoke largely dormant antipathy which might well get out of hand.

[paul wright]

The US and Israel only pick fights with military minnows, they are both big, hulking cowards.
So no attack.

[John]

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, advanced delivery systems, is not a signatory of the NPT, permits no inspections whatsoever, and has a long history of aggressive and over-reactive military actions. The the most recent example is the pulverizing of Lebanon and killing about a thousand civilians there after two soldiers were siezed by Hezbollah. Iran has not attacked any country for over 250 years, is a signatory of the NPT and permits extensive inspections, nothing to date beyond unsupported allegations and political attack indicates weapons grade enrichment is of evidence. Yes, the current President Ahmadinejad has made very inflamatory and unwise statements, but pre-emptive war with nuclear weapons on this account is entirely unwise in terms of the predictable consequences, as well as being unjustified on the merits.

[Charles Fiddes Payne]

Should Israel bomb Iran? Israel isn’t an American lackey, it will bomb Iran’s nuclear potential if it thinks that would increase its security against an Iranian threat. This has nothing to do with stopping Iran’s “supplying arms to militants in Iraq”, as noted in your piece above. Marechal Foch’s oft-recalled question in WW1 “De quoi s’agit il?” should be asked.

If you are asking if Israel should bomb Iran to further the UK’s interests, that is a different question again. Lord Rees-Mogg, what is your question getting at?

[Robin Bather]

Should Iran bomb Israel?

After all, it is Israel which possesses undeclared and uninspected nuclear weapons, and enough missiles to wipe it's neighbours off the map.
It is Israel which has expanded far beyond the borders granted to it by the United Nations in 1947.
It is Israel which has taken control of the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem.

[Peter Lewin]

What choice does Israel have? The rest of the world offers only appeasement and, at best, ineffectual sanctions.

As Sen. John Kery put it, "There is only one thing worsae than bombing Iran and that is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons".

Well that day is dawning and the USA alone, perhaps with the UK, will act with Israel to delay Iran's atomic bomb.

At present, delay and disruption is the best that can be expected from a pre-emptive strike.
The complete elimination of Iran's programme will require the use of tactical nuclear bombs, which is unlikely, although not impossible.

Israel will not wait for a moment more than is necessary. Iran has made clear its intention to wipe out the Jewish State and Israel needs no excuses to defend herself.

[Phil Barber]

Whilst I agree with the view that attacking Iran would fuel violence, what other option does Israel have?
If the leader of a neighbouring European country announced his utter hatred of the UK and his intention to wipe us off the face of the earth and his country made a serious attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. What choice would we have other than to make military preparations and consider a premptive strike?
Diplomacy and economic pressure must, of course, be applied, but the world may have to steel itself for the worst.
I hope and pray a peaceful solution may be found.

[Kevin Sullivan]

I do not think that Israel can even contemplate bombing Iran. The days when the US and Israel could act with impunity are over! Iran enjoys good relations with China & Russia (who increasingly provide a counter balance to US influence) and many other countries throughout the world. The world is moving on, individual countries will develope policies not always to the liking of the US (and Israel) but for the first time in many years consensus will play a more prominent role in developing solutions,or, god help all of us!

[Anne Klausner]

Israel is between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what she does she will be condemned, because that is the way the world is. If Israel does not bomb Iran she risks being obliterated, and the world will stand by and wring its hands and put up pretty monuments to those poor dead Jews. The world will also condemn Israel's feeble-mindedness in not attacking preemptively.

If Israel does bomb Iran she risks a counter-attack and no doubt worldwide condemnation, as happened after Israel bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor - no matter that the bombing would have helped make the world a better place without nuclear weapons in the hands of a messianic madman.

In the end Israel has to be the judge of her own security and will act as she sees fit, especially as the lily-livered world community seems in no rush to defend itself or Israel.

[Bozo]

Bombing Iran when its population seems to be increasing tired of the anti-semitic ranting and econominc incompetence of its current president would simply reinforce position of the radicals. It would probably also lead to an endless war with the world's Muslim population. But considered strategic thinking as never been a strong point of the current White House. They'll probably do it for the photo opportunity.

[Karen Jones]

"This is all so unpleasant. Cant we all just get along...blah blah blah"

Freedom is not free. In one short lifetime we have lost the lessons of a generation. Complacency and wishing will not make this monster go away. Talking and negotiating is what he is counting on - while he busily makes preparations for the 12th Imam.

[Karen Jones]

Cicero played while Ahmadinejad prepared for the 12th Imam.

[mikewhills]

Whether the US or Israel wants to bomb Iran or not, it's clear that neither has the strength in numbers to launch such an attack. Hopefully it'll stay like that...

[kas]

'It would be fuel to the flames of anti-Americanism/Israelism, encourage terrorism and deepen the perceived divide between Islamic and Western cultures.'

How much more could it encourage all of the above?
The 'perceived divide' is not perceived it is there. Islam in practically all its teachings is against the values held by western cultures

[Martin]

It's worth remembering that there is a significant percentage of the Iranian population that does not support its government, possibly even a majority.

Currently this opposition is being marginalised by repressive measures. If the US and Israel mount a charm offensive, rather than a bombing offensive, to keep this potential resistance onside, then a reversal of the status quo is not impossible.

The Iranians are not Arabs and don't align naturally with the Arab world. The activities of the Iranian Shia cadres in Iraq will not be winning them friends among the Sunni Arabs who dominate the Middle-Eastern world. The idea of a nuclear-armed Iran will be causing consternation in most Arab capitals.

Israel and the US can afford to be patient. They may well find the work is done for them.

[victor]

Israel will do what Israel has to do when they want or need to do it without reference to anybody apart from maybe the United States who will support them with very little question. The credibility of the UN and Europe has long since dissolved with their meanlingless words and allowing themselves to be controlled by Arab money and pressure groups with their snouts in the trough- Dream on Lord Rees-Mogg.

[Pel]

I read the lead article in Foreign Affairs today, urging confrontation in Iran, saying the country supports America's enemies and is developing nuclear weapons. What rot.
I am amazed America hasn't learnt from the vicious neocon propaganda and false intelligence that duped the American people into going into Iraq. I thought Foreign Affairs was a better magazine than just being a cheerleader for the White House spin machine.
I don't know where to start. Regarding the allegations that Iran is meddling with its neighbours, this is a bit rich from America. the US, which has just invaded Iran's neighbour and caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And a country, which in the 1980s gave its wholehearted support to Saddam Hussein's unrpovoked war on Iran, helped Saddam with chemicals munitions that killed tens of thousands of Iranians. And which, in 1953, mounted a coup against the then premier because he had the temerity to seek to remove western control over Iranian oil
Any negative meddling Iran had engaged in is trivial in comparison and essential defensive. Support for Hamas? So what: so does the EU. And the US supported unsavoury regimes everywhere. Support for America's enemies in Iraq? America has been very vague in its accusations of Iranian wrongdoing. The idea that Iran would supply weapons to both sides sounds ludicrous: the insurgency is mainly Sunni, so why would the Iranians support the Sunnis against the Shia dominated regime, to which Iran's own Shia regime is already allied?
As for nukes, both the IAEA and the CIA says there is no credible evidence Iran has a weapons programme. (See New Yorker)
Yet, in the bizarre logic of the "faith-based" White House (applied over the WMD allegations), no evidence means....Iran is hiding them. How can you argue with this? Of course Cheney is not stupid and it is only idiots who fall for this Alice in wonderland reasoning. He probably knows Iran poses no threat to the United States whatsoever and his knowing reasons for attacking Iran include: the desire to sustain and assert Israel's hegemony in the region, the desire to save Bush's reputation by obscuring an Iraq defeat with an Iran victory, the desire to control Iran's oil under the same absurdably favourable and unfair agreement that US oil companies have just signed with the Iraq government.
An unprovoked attack on a peaceful country - probably after the same kind of faked provocation as America used against Vietnam - is against international law and probably a warcrime. Cheney doesn't care about that. But he ought to be more worried about the strong possibility that the attack will make America's problems in the Middle East worse, not better. Iran cannot attacked successfully by land, and an air attack will be ineffective while destroying any hope of democratic reform in Iran as the country unites behind its mullahs ans America earns itself a powerful enemy forever, which will seek to destropy America through asymmetric warfare; the first counterattack being against Israelis through Hizbollah and against American ships in the Hormuz, blocking the straits and sending oil prices to $200 a barrel. Economies will collapse.
In fact, given Iran wants to avoid such a situation, it would be quite sensible - though there is no evidence - to indeed seek nuclear weapons. This will be enough ward off atack from the US; at the same time, though it does not threaten world peace, since Iran knows any attack on Israel wil be followed by its own destruction. Nuclear weapons might restore sanity to the middle east - not increase tension - because it is America, not Iran, that needs deterring.
A warning: If America attacks Iran, China, Europe and Russia will unite to tear America's head off. Maybe not immediately, but one day. And when the last American kneels in the car park of a bombed Walmart and begs for mercy the soldier from the world union will say: "Yours was the country that broke the rules of international law. Yours was the rogue state"

[Pel]

This would be insane.
Both the IAEA and the CIA says there is no credible evidence Iran has a weapons programme.
Yet, in the bizarre logic of the "faith-based" White House (applied over the WMD allegations), no evidence means....Iran is hiding them. How can you argue with this? Of course Cheney is not stupid and it is only idiots who fall for this Alice in wonderland reasoning. He probably knows Iran poses no threat to the United States whatsoever and his knowing reasons for attacking Iran include: the desire to sustain and assert Israel's hegemony in the region, the desire to save Bush's reputation by obscuring an Iraq defeat with an Iran victory, the desire to control Iran's oil under the same absurdably favourable and unfair agreement that US oil companies have just signed with the Iraq government.
An unprovoked attack on a peaceful country - probably after the same kind of faked provocation as America used against Vietnam - is against international law and probably a warcrime.

[John Alexander]

Why stop with Iran? There will always be the next biggest threat and so on, ad infinitum. I think that there is only one way to make the world safe for Israel... and unfortunately, that's to bomb the rest of the world into oblivion. What price security?

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Milord,

Normally I don't bother sending you my views since you seldom publish anyone's but your own. However, since you solicited mine ....

It's obscene to even doubt that a nation should hesitate to protect itself. If Romania had an anti-Belgian mania and insisted on buying nuclear bombs for the sole purpose of levelling Brussels, you'd be calling for NATO to intervene.

[Elizabeth GYLLENSVARD]

One question is: Should Israel be able to complain and play victim when Iran retaliates?

Another question is: Given the amount of noisy news about Israel's plans to nuke Iran, would Iran be forgiven if it, um, preemptively, bombed Israel?

Why can't Iran and Israel settle their differences without nukes? Because the US is urging both of them on!

[S. Shakiba]

Dear Bill,

Israel has been the 600 pound gorilla in the Middle East for the past 60 years. Not only has she pushed her neighbors around, but also stolen their lands, killed thousands of Arab Muslims. Furtherer, Israel is at the top of list of arms sellers among industrial nations. They don’t care who buys the weapons as long as it brings hard cash to the nation’s treasury.

Now, the Israelis are facing a 2000 pound gorilla in the name of Iran and all hell breaks loose. Iran is a sovereign nation and as such, they have as much rights to peruse their political agendas as anyone else. Way to go Barron.

S.Shakiba
Arcadia, California, USA

[Edmund Burke]

It is horrifying that this question should seem open and legitimate - and as such it demonstrates the extent to which George Bush, through the illegal invasion of Iraq, has torn up the UN Charter and landed us all in a political Wild West. Tony Blair is an Oxford graduate in Law. It's time he got off his backside and did something to rescue international law from sliding into the chaos of the saloon bar in Deadwood City.

[Gerry Weitz]

Do you think it hysteria to compare Hitler and the Nazi ideology with current day Iran and it's leadership? In both cases you have mad, militant ideology. You have megalomaniacs with a death wish. Both regimes said what they were going to do and did it. Iran has stated it will wipe Israel off the map. It is no joke. Iran does not fear the death of its' people in jihad. It is considered an honorable death. Iran believes it can survive a nuclear war with Israel. Even if Israel has 200 nuclear warheads, Iran could take out Israel in a surprise attack with 6-12 warheads. Iranian religious militants do not think like sane people, educated in late 20th century western society. Don't think about them through the prism of our way of life.

[Jeff Anderson]

Left unchecked Iran might develop a nuke that it will threaten to use against any country that provokes it. That's probably the best case. The worst case is left unchecked Iran might use the nuke anyway without provocation.
I suggest, let the Iranian leadership carry on deceiving the UN if that is what they are doing but as soon as a potential weapon is demonstrated and their president's ego probably wont allow him to keep it secret - employ pre-emptive action by the US to destroy Iranian nuclear sites and threaten to destroy their military if Iran continue to pose a threat to Israel or sponsor terror in the region. All of the above to be convoluted in a resolution passed as soon as possible by the UN Security Council so that Iran has the chance to choose a different road. Highly unlikely unfortunately as it sounds to much like a George Bush plan.

[Denis Low]

I can't see how bombing Iran would increase security for Israel. It is all based on the perceived threat that Iran would, when its nuclear capability is ready, will bomb Israel. Will Iran? I don't think so. Ahmadinejad may be extreme in his language but he is not Bin Laden. He knows (and more importantly, the Ayatollah Khamenei knows) that if Iran bombs Israel, there will be immediate and devastating retaliation from both the US and Israel, and no one will utter a word to stop them. Even Russia and China will be silent. Saudi Arabia will privately welcome an emasculated Iran.

The ramifications (for Israel and the West) however will be even worse. Bin Laden will have a new supporter and client state. And the educated, relatively urbane and youthful majority of the Iranians will be forced by any pre-emptive action to defend Iranian sovereignty and survival. Instead of allowing this vast army to (over time) move the Iranian hierachy towards a more moderate and sensible stance, we alienate them in one go.

The real enemy of Israel are the hawks within its ranks. It countenances no real concessions to the Palestinians and therein lies the issue. If these people can be marginalised, then there is a chance for peace. Will peace stabilised the middle east? That is a separate question. Like Said K Aburish, I don't believe an Israel Palestinian peace will bring stability to the whole region. For that to happen, Saudi Arabia must be reformed and the Wahhabis there diminished. But an Israel Palestinian peace will remove any arguments that Israel is the problem to the Middle East. And it will certainly show who the real culprits are.

[Shazza]

Who's threatening who? Iran calls for regime change in Israel (not it's destruction). Israel/US/The West want to start a war (possibly using their own nukes.)

Am i missing something or are we really living in some sort of Orwellian nightmare?

[Margaret Rowe]

History keeps on repeating itself
and it is happening right now .The way this country has been let go is no accident, it is to create conditions to give the government powers that it need s. American service men are being brainwashed daily on their forces radio
station, they are continually being told why they have to go into Iran this has been happening for quite a while now. Meanwhile Iran is being slowly surrounded and will be encircled,
eventually. The Commander In Chief of America does not want to lose his post,
will he decare Marshall Law before the next Presidents election? Meanwhile the Brits have almost run out of troops.
There has been bred in England over this last few years many who are educationally illiterate,a deliberate policy no doubt,many who do not respect the law.(who can blame them) many of whom
are unemployable but that does not matter the country is losing jobs thousands every year. Solution! Lets raise the school leaving age to 18 years. Another solution
lets bring back conscription,as the age of joining the forces has just been raised to 33 years. What a great way to
supply The European Army with troops when
we are intergrated into the EU. A game is being played right now by people with vested intrests.

[Dr. Simon barak]

Sitting here in Israel, it is strange to see people who sit comfortably in their countries conducting a debate about the lives of millions of Israelis as if it were no more than an intellectual exercise.
I sit here looking at my children and wondering whether we are going to die in a second holocaust while the world looks on and again does nothing.
Nobody here wants to attack Iran. We all prefer a diplomatic solution. But if the world does nothing and we have to choose between attacking and being cast as international pariah or dying, we all prefer the former.
One further point. The Iraninans now have missiles that can reach far into Europe. You Europeans have to ask yourselves what they are for. I believe that Churchill once said "Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile with everybody else in the hope that you get eaten last"!!!

[Utopico]

So far nobody has proved that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Is just the American and Jewis lobbys that try to instill that idea. On the other hand it will be no easy for Israel to attack Iran, due to geographical limitations, including the need to fly over several countries. Also, is no little detail, that Iran have means to ratalliate over Israel. It will not be a tour like the Lebanon, and many casualties and destruccion will fall in Israeli citys. If Israel claim to have WMD, all other countries in the region have the same right. But Israel did not belive in rights, wich breaches at all times, only belive in force and that triggers arms buidup in the neighbors to defend against Israel

[D Murray]

This is the phrase used by those posting above to claim Ahmadinejad said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map':- “een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”

That is what he said but he took it with reference from a speech made by the President Khomeini.
The actual translation is:
"regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time" and it was also lifted out of context.

All those misinterpreting and misusing are in the same place as those stating categorically that Iraq had WDM. That was done for a propaganda purpose without any proof and the purposeful vilification or demonisation of Iran now is much the same, to prepare sufficient reason for unprovoked attack contrary to the UN Conventions to which the intending countries are signatories.
The Holocaust denial story is similarly without foundation- see Der Spiegal / Ahmadinejad interview.

Perhaps if people and the media presented facts rather than selected fiction we'd all be in a better position.

[paul]

For years the United States and the Soviet Union had what was called mutual assured destruction because of the atomic might and prospect of retalliation that both side possessed. As it stands now it is quite likely that Israel has nuclear weapons and a delivery system.Knowing this it is doubtful that Iran is insane enough to launch a nuclear first strike against Israel but they surely feel threatened by the prospect of unchecked nuclear weapons in the Israel arsenal. The mistrust is unfortunately strong on both sides and the Iranians are concerned the could be hit with a pre-emptive strike by Israel.It would not be the first time Israel used a pre-emptive strike against a percieved and feared enemy.

[Peter]

Under normal circumstances, I would fully support military action. However, given the American's capability to lie and cheat to achieve their crooked intentions, can we really believe it when they say that Iran is "supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents"? Indeed, the Americans frequently paint a picture of crazy extremist zealots forming 100% of the country. Did we forget that Iran has a democratically elected government? People who have lived in Iran insist that the population is moderate, and they would never allow their President to use a Nuclear weapon as an aggresor. Why would they? Every person on the Planet knows that any country that uses a nuclear weapon aggresively will be obliterated by the warmongering Americans. Who is to say that Iran has no right to defensive nuclear warheads? Let us be reminded that the only country to have ever used a nuclear warhead is the US of A, and that if Iraq is anything to go by, the biggest threat to world peace in this day and age is the Americans.

[Percival]

After being thrown off their own lands, traipsing around Europe for over a thousand years looking for peace and finding only persecution and then returning to their homeland where they are now threatened with annihilation by their neighbours and willed to annihilation by Western liberal fundamentalists, I think the Israelis would be justified in destroying not just the Middle East but Europe as well.

[A realist]

The decision whether or not to bomb Iran will be taken by the Israels alone.
The Israelis now have the US-made bunker-busting bombs for their air-force to make such attacks on Iran's nuclear installations.
As soon as the Israelis fear time is about to expire for pre-emptive action, then if the political initiatives have been inconclusive, those raids on Iran will take place.
There is no more to be said.
Iran does not have to be able to make brand-new nuclear bombs from scratch.
There have been plenty of second-hands nuclear bombs available in the Black Market that simply require time overhauls.

[zankaon]

Alternatives to Israel Iranian discord

Admit Israel and Iran as permanent members to the security council. Have Israel sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow tight inspections. It would seem reasonable then for Iran to comply with such measures. Extend a hugh economic package to both Israel and Iran; so large that no Iranian nor Israeli could turn it down. Use the Egyptian Israel accord as a model in part. Include water as an instrument of foreign policy. Water from the Great Lakes for Israel and Gaza; and water from Siberian Arctic rivers to Iran and the Persian Gulf countries. Global warming allows access to such Arctic inflowing rivers by Russia. Also all nuclear technology and weapons, as well as all civilian wastes, would be deposited in a South Pacific site at 15000 feet depth. Hence Israel and Iran would serve as an example, leading the Northern Hemisphere in disposing of all nuclear breeder cores, weapons, and civilian wastes in such site. So do we hear the Middle East singing, or have the stones turned silent?

[John Whittle.]

According to press reports from Iranian newspapers, Resalat and Kehyan, Muslims worldwide are being encouraged to prepare for "A great war" to destroy Israel. However, Almighty God has this to say:- "No weapon that is formed against them will prosper" (There is no debate on this ... full stop). Britain betrayed the promise made in the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate agreement. The only chance is for our British Government to eat humble pie (If that were at all possible) and come up with a rescue plan to make up for their unfaithfulness. No wonder Britain is no longer Great Britain. It's sinking very deeply into it's own self appointed cesspit, and it will get worse. Believe.