Paper (Sunday Times): Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran

drudge ^

[Mariner]

Col Hunt is probably right

The Dem leadership in Congress would be privy to such a plan and the US DOD would have to support it procedurally and materially. By leaking to the BRITISH press they avoid the possibility that the recipient of the info would be REQUIRED to testify where the info came from.

The Dems hope to prevent this eventuality (strike) politically...before it gets off the ground. And it APPEARS they also hope to damage US-Israeli military cooperation for the long haul.

My bet is that the Dem leadership in Congress leaked this info in a treasonous effort to undermine the Western fight against Jihad.

[Jacquerie]

Then how about explaining the reason for your ridiculous tagline.

Where have you been? I've used that tag for years without negative comment. Could it be you took offense to my comments regarding the usual denizens at DUH?

Try reading Robert Spencer's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." If you are not a muzzie they are directed by the word of allah to kill you. It is that simple. After that try David Horowitz's "Unholy Alliance." There you will learn why the American left is a natural ally of islamofascism.

However, in the newfound interest of democrat comity, since my old tagline bothered you, I've changed it. Hope you can appreciate it.

[plain talk]

Who the heck are you and what is your point?

[Candor7]

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I do not think this is a true context of any plan. Its just propoganda from the liberal left, who want to vilify Israel.

1)First of all, the F-15s have no permission to overfly Iraq, or Syria or Jordon, so they would have to avoid being shot down over these countries. Pilots flying nuclear weapons , nor their governments, would contemplate the slightest risk of a plane carrying a nuke being shot down over a non-beligerant nation.

2) Secondly, the USA would never sanction a nuclear raid on Iran, unless the Iranians used the bomb first.

3)Thirdly the Israelis Air Force f-15s can carry enough fuel to perform such an attack, but would not have enough to return, so they would require refuling in the air, a capacity that Israel does not have, and the USA would not help them.

4) Fourthly, if the Israeli government WAS planning such a nuclear attack, it would hardly be doing mock up attacks observable by any reporters. They don't need such mock ups. Not with nukes. It wouldn't matter if a bunker buster nuke is 200 yards off target.

5) Fifthly,Assault forces would NEVER be used in such a strike becuause of lethal levels of radio activity. Its a joke to think that anyone would actually believe this.

6) Sixthly, there wouldn't be any leaks to any press. Any leaks would mean the death of the leaker and likely the death of any reporter foolish enough to write about it.

If Iran is struck with nuclear arms it will be from an ICBM.And it will be retaliatory.

People SHOULD know propaganda when they see it, as this story most definitely is.

[ExSoldier]

I have no problem with using devices that make Hiroshima look like a firecracker. In fact, that's better since it will kill millions of Iranian and not a hundred thousand or so. This is a war to the knife. The survivor is the winner.

Really? You'd have no problem with that level of nuclear ordinance being used so close to a couple hundred thousand US troops right next door in Iraq? You'd just write them off to radiation poisoning or total electronic paralysis from the EMP? That would fry the ignitions of the Humvees, tanks, trucks, fuel pumps, everything. Possibly even the greatest US advantage (night vision equipment) might be neutralized. Still think it's a great idea? There is no way that use of nuclear weapons in any size bigger than Hiroshima/Nagasaki leaves anybody on the planet untouched.

[UKrepublican]

'They believe. What if they're wrong? Ahmanutjob is like a con in the yard: He won't back down.'

Indeed. It is a quite surprising revelation to me, because everything I know about these islamo facists running the show in Iran tells me if they are prepared to risk war, they are prepared to risk more.

The notion a 'nuke' would shut then up is insane.

Automatically we could potentially find ourselves at war with several mid eastern countries, if not all of them de facto.

[UKrepublican]

Thank you.

I think there are far to many people who really do a diservice to republicans/conservatives in general in the way they talk about Islam, and the WOT in general.

And I consider myself an extremely strong supporter of the Bush WOT doctrine, but it baffles me to think some of these people also subscribe to that and seek to turn it into the extremist faculty the left already likes to portray it as.

[flynmudd]

The only way forward I see is for the major powers to agree to dismantle their program. Yes that means the U.N. So this will probably never happen. As a result I see absolutely nothing happening of any significance except a lot of talk and posturing.

I wasn't aware that the UN had nukes. You are probably right about the US never dismantling our program, only pacifist want us to anyway.

[plain talk]

An invasion to occupy and send soldiers down into their bunkers to dismantle the program does not necessarily require the UN or anyone to use nukes on them. A conventional invasion could accomplish it. Doesn't matter because it will never happen anyway. Nothing will be done except talk.

So I guess I don't understand your point.

[flynmudd]

I think you have US in the lost column in Iraq. I haven't heard the fat lady sing yet. So the fight is still on. I should know.

[plain talk]

The discussion and my comments were in regard to Iran not Iraq.

The only comment I would make on Iraq as it relates to Iran is that we don't have the political capital to unilaterally invade Iran based on fears of WMDs because significant stashes of WMDs in Iraq were not found (probably buried in the sand but we can't prove it). We also now have dems controlling Congress. Therefore a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iran by the U.S. is not going to happen.

I also believe we will prevail in Iraq but that's another subject.

[I Like Lincoln]

I could care less about the feelings of democrats. The fact two books have been published that say all Muslims would like to dance on my dead body doesn't mean they're worth the paper they're written on.

Your new tag is delightful, but I hope you didn't change it for my benefit!

[Black Republican for Bush]

Pres Bush said some time ago that he would understand it if Israel attacked Iran. So would I, as long as they limited the attack to non-nuclear weapons.--Mark

[rwfromkansas]

lol...not gonna happen.

[upcountryhorseman]

It seems like smart conventional bombs (bunker busters,etc.) would be the better
choice. Because there are multiple targets all over the country.

[Jacquerie]

"The fact two books have been published that say all Muslims would like to dance on my dead body doesn't mean they're worth the paper they're written on."

Spencer is 30 year Koranic scholar.

Horowitz as you know, is a red diaper baby and prolific author who figured out a long time ago that leftist societies are incompatible with freedom.

Well worth the paper.

[plain talk]

I'm not convinced conventional weapons would take out these facilities that are deep underground between a mountain or two. I know some have argued bunker busting bombs could do it but I don't buy it given these tunnels are cut deep into mountains. Plus you need boots on the ground to verify the facilities have been destroyed. I've heard up to 14 separate sites. Some sites are supposedly trenches covered in concrete camouflaged to look like a mountain. So some sites could be taken out by conventional weapons but probably not all and certainly not the ones deep under mountains.

Not an easy task. So while I cheer Israel on I'm not sure they are up to it given they couldn't even get rid of Hezbollah's conventional weapons by bombing them.

[Recovering_Democrat]

A nuclear strike? Fer real? I've gotta take a shower.

[The_Reader_David]

It was non-news when Drudge reported it. It's non-news when The Times reports it.

Of course Israel has secret plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. And the US has secret plans for a nuclear strike against Russia, and Russia has secret plans for a nuclear strike against the US, and the US has secret plans for a nuclear strike against. . .

Every nuclear power (even the undeclared ones) always have secret plans for nuclear strikes against all possible adversaries, or at least all possible adversaries that might present a serious problem to their conventional forces.

[I Like Lincoln]

No, actually Spencer is NOT a Koranic scholar. He freely admits that he has no formal credentials regarding any religion other than Christianity. What he has done is read and write about Islam in his free time over the last 26 years.

In any case, there are certainly a fair number of Islamic leaders who would like engage in Jihad with the hope of converting or killing nonbelievers. Fortunately, 99.9% of Muslims do not subscribe to this or I would have been dead long ago.