Posted on 06/02/2004 9:56:45 PM PDT by FairOpinion
TEHRAN: Israel will suffer a "painful" response if it dares to attack any of Iran's nuclear facilities, the Islamic republic's top national security official warned on Wednesday.
"I do not think Israel will make such a stupid move because it knows fully well how we will respond," Hassan Rohani told a news conference. "Our response will be painful to Israel," he said, but dismissed all talks of an Israeli attack as "propaganda".
Last month Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Iran was "probably the main existential threat" to his country. Both Israel and the United States suspect Iran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of an effort to generate nuclear energy.
In 1981, Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear facility, and there has been speculation it may consider doing the same for Iran - which continues to call for the destruction of the Zionist state.
Rowhani's comments came as he answered to new revelations from the UN nuclear watchdog that bolstered suspicions over the Islamic republic's shadowy atomic energy programme.
US N-ALLEGATIONS: Mr Rohani challenged the United States on Wednesday to produce any evidence it has that Tehran is actively trying to build a nuclear bomb. "If the Americans have any claims or information they should hand it over to the (UN nuclear watchdog) agency, but it's clear they have nothing," Mr Rohani told reporters in Tehran.
He said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had only minor concerns about Iran and would soon be able to reassure the world Tehran has no atomic arms ambitions.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told NATO parliamentarians on Tuesday that he could not rule out that Iran's nuclear programme was linked to a military weapons programme. "The jury is out on whether (Iran's) programme has been dedicated exclusively for peaceful purposes," ElBaradei said.
The IAEA said on Tuesday in a confidential report on Iran, obtained by Reuters, there are two major issues it must resolve. First is the origin of enriched uranium traces found at sites in Iran, which some diplomats on the IAEA board say had raised concerns Iran was secretly enriching uranium for use in weapons.
The second is Iran's centrifuge programme, especially its interest in advanced P2 enrichment centrifuges capable of making bomb-grade uranium. The report said Iran had admitted importing P2 parts and may have had interest in parts for thousands of centrifuges - contrary to what it told the agency before.
The United States accuses Iran of running a secret nuclear weapons programme that is parallel to its declared atomic energy programme. Iran denies this, insisting its ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.
"I think the administration oversteps the evidence by saying it knows Iran has a weapons programme," said David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington.
"There's no evidence that's been found that shows they have an active nuclear weapons programme," Albright said. But he said Iran seems to be keeping the weapons "option" open by pursuing uranium enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants or in weapons.
"I think the US should be rightly criticised for not providing evidence of a weapons programme in Iran," he added. The United States accused Saddam Hussein of reviving Iraq's dismantled atomic weapons programme after UN inspectors were forced out in 1998, but no evidence was found to support this. This was one of the main justifications for the Iraq war.
While the IAEA report shows that Iran has been changing its story regarding its research in potentially weapons-related technology, analysts and diplomats close to the IAEA said it contained no "smoking gun" that Iran is working on an atom bomb.
Mr Rohani said the IAEA had only minor questions related to Iran's nuclear programme. "This report shows that Iran's nuclear case is approaching the end and there are no more important issues," he said.
I never said it would happen. I only presented it as a scenario. No one would ever consider nuking Israel or any country for that matter. The only place MAD doesn't fly is in the Middle East. Israel can destroy any country there within 1/2 hour.
The Arab world getting nukes is insurance that when they attack Israel again, Israel's threat is mitigated.
Thus triggering the Sampson Option. The Israelies would know that they didn't lose the ebola or whatever nasty bug their enemies chose.
Absolutely true. Now run the same scenario and Iran does have the bomb.
If most of Israel's population centers are destroyed in a nuclear attack, I wouldn't bet against them launching a massive strike against all of their Arab neighbors (particularly the hostile ones) to give their survivors enough time to gather together to hold off the ground attacks.
I feel the need...
...the need for speed!
You've been watching too many movies.
You'd need a much more robust agent (ebola and similar viruses are fragile) and a lot more than one vial.
After the first report of an outbreak, the UN would insist Israel close its borders and not let any flights or shipping leave the country. The wall Israel has built would enable the Palestinians to be isolated from the virus.
And Israel waits until the wind is blowing into Gaza, then releases a LOT of anthrax.
As the virus spreads, the Arab world will go to the UN and insist Israel is responsible for creating a killer virus and that God is punishing them for it.
Israel replies, "Nope, wasn't us. BTW, how's Yasser Arafat? Isn't pulmonary anthrax just plain nasty?"
European leaders and others would be slow to send in supplies and medical teams with only the US responding quickly.
And the US would be more than enough.
Meanwhile, other pulmonary anthrax outbreaks take place in Paris, Berlin, Brussels...
By the time anyone figures out that it's an attack, the only evidence points to Iran.
Within a week, Israel would be in panic mode. The hospitals would be overflowing, the infrastructure unable to sustain the casualties. It would be during this time that Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Egypt launch a massive attack.
And the Muslim global population drops down by about 30-40%...
Same result: Israel is destroyed as before, and so is much of the Arab world. The only difference is a few more NUDETs.
They don't have to use jets, the WMD's are in Syria and Lebanon.
What is the sampson option?
So it seems like the only option would be for Israel to take out the reactors. Since there is nothing to lose by doing it.
The Samson Option is so-called from Samson, who was one of the Judges in Israel (see the Book of Judges).
When they stood him among the pillars, Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them." Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to The Lord, "O Sovereign Lord, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes." Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, "Let me die with the Philistines!" Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived."
It refers to Israel, if confronted with certain destruction, saying "F*** it, if we're going, so's every Moose Limb we can lob a nuke at."
I call it the "Tom Lehrer Option," from his song, "We Will All Go Together When We Go."
It is my understanding Israel has made it known those two are most definitely on their "to do" list.
They still use the Sampson option, and hope that their BMD system does the job. After all, what additional have they got to lose?
Correct. But I don't believe Bashir Assad would be too keen on the idea of his nation (Syria) getting annihilated because of some crazy Mullahs in Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.