Guardian

I am an international relations student and I have been thinking about this scenario for almost a year now. What if everyone's worst fear is realized? What if Iran does not want nuclear power, but in fact a nuclear weapon to use on Israel? What if Iran makes the first move? What would the response be? From Israel? From the US? From the Islamic world? From the international community?

Dreadnought

Stand back and watch. Pick the pieces up afterwards. And hope Israel has won.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

T_igger_cs_30

__________________
FEAR NAUGHT

I don't work here ...I am an analyst!

highsea

Not sure there would be much left to pick up.

Paint some stripes and put in a Walmart, I guess....

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Guardian

If the US is as pledged to Israel as is believed, then the US would have to retaliate against Iran in order to not look weak to our enemies. I doubt it would be a nuclear retaliation.

The closer Iran comes to developing a nuke, the closer Israel is to giving the green light for an air assault. Only Iran wouldn't sit down like iraq did in the early 80s. Iran would launch a full scale attack if they were pre-empted by Israel. A sh*t storm would ensue.

__________________
The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
-Thomas Carlyle

Mustafa Kalif

It is highly unlikely that Iran could successfully launch any type of missiles against Israel without being brought down before leaving Iranian territory.

Israel and the US are believed to have assets on the ground in Iran. Israel has non-nuclear weapons much like the MOAB (18,000 lb) TNT bomb that could eliminate all life in Tehran, Iran. The nations of the world and the Islamic countries would scream that Israel used disproportionate response to being wiped out by the sociopathic Mullahs and president of Iran.

When a country and its people announce that their only goal is to destroy another people who are not threatening them, then that country must be prepared to receive what they have wished on others. There are no innocent civilians in a real war.

Asim Aquil

So technically Israel would be the one starting things up first.

The weaker side would wait it out. It's just a matter of who has what to attack. Judging from how Israel attacked Lebanon they would be attacking all civilians, military and perhaps religious targets. And the destruction would be massive.

Iranians can't compete with that sort of attacking so just use a nuke. One big bomb vs A gazillion smaller bombs.

The threat of nuclear annihilation is something Israel has to learn to live with. We all do. It cannot justify drawing first blood just because it is spooked. Iran, just like the US, should never waive off a first use policy. It would keep the Israelis from attacking.

I think Iran isn't as big of a dumbass nuke-trigger-happy nation as much as it is being made out to be. Israel keeps nukes, Iranians can keep them too.

Ironduke

I can't believe you're so naive, Asim.

Iran under its current government has shown that it will continue to act irrationally in its international relations.

You live in the UAE, which is at odds with Iran, to say the least. All of the Gulf States are.

If Iran gets nukes, other Middle Eastern nations are going to pursue nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah started firing dirty-nuke tipped rockets into Israel (supplied by Iran).

The current actors in Iran aren't rational people who can be reasoned with. Israel has never attacked or threatened Iran, but the reverse is true. Iran has consistently attacked and threatened Israel. It has supplied millions of dollars and weapons to individuals and organizations which were then used to attack Iran. Again, Iran has consistently attacked Israel again and again.

Israel has never attacked Iran.

I will not tolerate any further discussion that advocates Iran having nuclear weapons on this forum. Period.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Asim Aquil

Since when did YOU take that line when it came to discussions? Surprising! That too when it's clearly stated as a "Theoretical Discussion".

Israel has kept Nuclear weapons. In the absence of nukes from the middle east. It's justification has been the presence of a large number of enemies with a large amount of conventional weaponry. All fine n dandy and now the conventional balance is qualitatively in their favor.

Threat of nuclear annihilation and actually being annihilated are two different things. I can draw parity with the US as well which holds a first use policy too.

Asim Aquil

Btw, the UAE is at odds with Iran over a meaningless piece of land... IMO Iran IS even right and the UAE government has come to terms on it as well. They took the land on lease... Lease expired, it goes back. Much like Hong Kong.

The rest of the people have historically been against Iran cause its Shia. Now with the new ruler in Saudi, things have "significantly" changed. As it is symbols of Wahabiism like Mutawwas, (the religious police) are no longer backed by the government and are now a charity funded organization with no powers other than preaching and thus just being annoying to people on the streets.

Things further took a turn when Iran offered Saudi nuclear "tech". For the same reasons as I stated for Iran, I would be open to UAE and Saudi keeping nuclear weaponry as well. Would you have no issues with them going nuclear? This is going to be a nuclear armed region since everyone's trying to achieve MAD.

Perhaps Israel should take the first step and call for nuclear disarmament? So the fighting can go back to conventional methods.

Ironduke

Asim, I find it very difficult to believe that you're speaking a theoretical sense.

You have made the following statements in the past in reference to using nuclear weapons against Israel:

Asim Aquil

I believe much of that was "tit for tat". And I believe in many places a pre-emptive strike against US was being discussed. You can't just quote me like that and make me sound like a crazed lunatic.

If that was the case, I wouldn't be for a mutual disarmament. And those were pretty much theoretical scenarios.

Ironduke

Asim, you need to realize that Israel has not pursued hostile policies toward its neighbors when not attacked. You can argue all you want about the legitimacy of the Israeli state itself, but the fact remains Israel has sought peaceful relations with its neighbors when given the chance. They are denied that opportunity time and again.

Israel poses no strategic threat to Iran. Given the opportunity, Israel would seek to establish favorable relations with all of its current adversaries. Israel has a proven track record of not using nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. Sadly, the same cannot be said for states such as Pakistan, a nuclear proliferator whose actions created a situation which poses a serious threat to the world.

You sit here and talk about how Iran, and now, Saudi Arabia should have nuclear weapons, with no idea how many times the world has been a button-push away from nuclear annihilation by a drunk Russian or somebody viewing a faulty radar screen. The Middle East is a tinderbox, and nuclear-armed Middle Eastern states who have proven themselves to be immature and irrational actors on the world stage time and again would pose a far greater threat to the world than the US and Russia ever did during the Cold War.

The Saudi government is nothing more than a bunch of obese, corrupt, illiterate nomads living in palaces erected by oil revenues, three generations out of the Bedouin tent. The current Iranian government is half-ruled by a bunch religious wackjobs, and half-ruled by the Revolutionary Guards, a group of several hundred thousand mafioso-type thugs heavily involved in the most corrupt types of enterprises that bring easy profits.

Asim Aquil

Dude, Israel and the Middle Easterners are at cold war. The war is going to happen. Now if we dis-arm we can have it the conventional way and let Israel defend itself conventionally.

But we are no longer talking about an Israeli defensive posture. As the thread started omitted out in the beginning but later added, that Israel would be the one launching the preemptive strike.

The myth about Israeli readiness to form peaceful ties is kinda bogus too. The Israel-Pakistan warmin up process has met its most heavy resistance in Israel not the Mullahs from Pakistan.

At the end of the day everyone has to see its own interests first. Israel has time and time again supported the enemy of Pakistan (before the nuclear proliferation thing ever even came up)... They are going as far as to develop nuclear tipped missiles for India which we all know has a very faulty missile program and would only enable them in their nuking of Pakistan.

So seriously where's this Angel Israel you keep mentioning.

On a sidenote (as I must defend my reputation based on those unwarranted and out of context quotes) Much of that discussion was me advocating AGAINST the use of nukes infront of an opposing and nuke-willing western audience. Really Matt, I find that a little unfair.

Ironduke

Talk of Israel and the Middle East being locked in a cold war is rubbish. We both know that Israel and several Gulf nations have formed an informal alliance of sorts because of the threat posed by Iran.

If a war happens, it's going to be the Arabs and Iranians duking it out, just like last time. Iran has revanchist designs on Iraqi, Kuwaiti, and Saudi territory... Israel has no territorial ambitions beyond what it currently possesses.

You've said there's a Middle Eastern "cold war". You've said there's going to be a war. You've asserted that states such as Iran should have nuclear weapons and a first-strike policy.

You support the nuclear annihilation of Israel.