Israel Needs A Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

The Israel News Agency ^ | June 24, 2006 | Jonathan Ariel

[IsraelBeach]

Israel Needs A Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency

Jerusalem ----- June 24...... One of the best ways to ensure the world doesn’t get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.

In 1936, when Hitler marched into the Rhineland the allies appeased him, even though they could have been in Berlin in two weeks. In 1938 they once again let him off the hook, even though the allies could have been in Berlin within two months. Shortly after the appeasement of Munich, Russia signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, setting the stage for what it hoped would be his defeat of the West, which would pave the way for Russian domination of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Now we have Iran, a country led by Ahmadinejad, an equally deranged and evil maniac. He is driven by an ideology combining elements of Nazism and Mahdism, with a tad of Maoism as well, a lethal cocktail of three of the most evil ideologies of human political history.

By most current intelligence estimates, by 2008, exactly 70 years after Chamberlain announced on his return from Munich he had achieved “peace in our time”, the Iranian Islamo-Nazi regime will have succeeded in developing an atomic bomb. Although it seems that the international community has belatedly begun to awaken to the danger, it is still far from certain that this will actually lead to concrete and concerted steps to ensure this doesn’t happen.

Moreover, even if the West does get its act together, three is no guarantee that Russia will not revert to course, enacting a repeat performance of the Molotov-Ribbentrob pact. Putin seriously mulling double crossing the West.

This week new and highly disturbing evidence came to light that this is exactly what Russia is doing. According to a western intelligence report published earlier this week, satellite images showed large volumes of heavy Russian weaponry heading towards Iran. The weapons belonged to Russian military units evacuating Georgia, as part of the Russian-Georgian agreement signed in March, which calls for all Russian troops to be withdrawn from Georgian soil.

The Russians were evacuating their two big Soviet-era military bases in Georgia on the shores of the Black Sea – the 12th base in Batumi and the 62nd at Akhalkalaki to the north, 19 miles from the Turkish border. The mages revealed the retreating Russian units moving along not one but two routes. The first showed small groups of Russian officers and soldiers heading out of Georgia carrying only their personal kits, the second was jammed with convoys of trucks loaded with weapons and logistical systems, radar and ammo.

Freight trains were also pressed into service. This route wound out of Georgia and headed into Armenia where the vehicles halted at the Russian base near Gyumri. A Russian military spokesman explained this relocation by stating that “the property of the 62nd (Akhalkalaki), Georgia, would be reassigned to replenish Russia’s 102nd base in Gyumri, Armenia.” He added: “The transfer of this property to any other party is not envisioned.”

However Armenia was not the “the property’s” last stop. The close watch on the Russian supplies convoys continued and, lo and behold, a third route surfaced, this one heading out of the 102nd base in Armenia and into Iran.

Western military sources have traced the route these weapons took. From Gyumri, the trucks and trains rolled on to the Armenian capital of Yerevan. There, they were offloaded onto Armenian and Iranian trucks and trains, which turned south to the Iranian border. The freight crossed the border and halted at the Iranian town of Sadarak. Its next stop was the Iranian-Azeri town of Naxcivan and then on to Tabriz. Subsequent shipments by truck and rail followed the same route, They included APCs, heavy artillery, Grad rockets, BM-21mm missiles and anti-aircraft systems.

So far this year, Iran has purchased over $7 billion for arms from Russia, including anti-air, nuclear-capable Tor-M1 cruise missiles, considered by experts the most advanced of its kind in the world. Iran has purchased these missiles to secure the Bushehr atomic reactor and other nuclear sites. These sources say that Teheran is using the Georgian weapons deal as bait, to get Moscow to part with weapons and technologies it has so far refrained from passing over to the ayatollahs, specifically technology transfers enabling Iran to begin domestic production of the sophisticated Russian X-5518 nuclear cruise missiles, known also as Kh-55 or AS-15s.

Tehran already has a dozen of these missiles, which have a 3,000km range and are capable of carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. They were purchased on the black market of Ukraine in 2005. Teheran has reportedly promised to significantly increase its purchase of conventional weapons from Russia, if it agrees to the missile technology transfer.

Despite the uncertainty as to whether Russia (and possibly China as well) would cooperate with the West regarding Iran, the conventional wisdom has remained unchanged, namely that Iran is an international problem, being dealt with accordingly by the international community, and that Israel should therefore take a back seat.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The world needs to understand very clearly that Israel cannot and will not allow a Holocaust –denying regime that openly calls for its destruction to wield a nuclear bomb. Israel needs to make it very clear that the consequence of it having to face a nuclear Iran by itself will be a preemptive strike against Iran.

The more the international community gets the message that the consequences of appeasement will be worse than those of action, the better the chances of action. The growing evidence of Russian perfidy makes it even more important that there be no room for misunderstandings in this regard. The best way to get that message across is to make it very clear that if Israel is faced between an Iran nuclear bomb, or having to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to prevent that eventuality, it will opt for the latter.

The world must be told loud and clear by Israel that the only way to avoid the first nuclear strike by a nation since Nagasaki is to take whatever actions are required to ensure Iran doesn’t get the bomb, and to prevent an Iranian conventional weapons build up to the point where a preemptive nuclear strike becomes the only option for dealing with the rogue ayatollah regime.

Jonathan Ariel, was an advisor to the South African government and is a former editor-in-chief of the Israel on-line Maariv International. He has filled numerous positions with well known Israel and international media organizations such as Maariv, Makor Rishon, Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz, The International Herald Tribune, Israel Radio, SABC and the Independent Foreign Service. These include Managing-Editor of Makor Rishon and Editor-in-Chief of Maariv International. He has been interviewed and quoted by leading media organizations such as the LA Times, The Economist, The Guardian, The New York Sun, Times of India, The Australian, Sunday Times and the BBC. His articles have been translated into over a dozen major languages, including German, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, French, Arabic, Japanese, Korean and Chinese. He has degrees in Political Science and Journalism. He speaks English and Hebrew at mother tongue level, French, Dutch (Afrikaans) fluently.

[garbageseeker]

Thiis is from the Federation of American Scientists:

Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons.

Let Israel take care of Iran. She would do it properly and expeditiously.

[dljordan]

"President Bush, please take a new peek into Putin soul...you might have missed something."

He's already scanned Putin's soul dammit and Pooty Poots an ok guy.

[Polybius]

Your vastly under estimating the Israeli nuclear arsenal. They can clean out Iran. They can take out the entire Mideast if they wanted to.

Can Israel also take out Russia and China while they're at it before Russia and China take out Israel?

My point is not that Israel cannot unleash 30 nuclear strikes against Iran and every other Muslim country in the Middle East.

Sure. Israel could do that.

But, what happens after the first six Israeli mushroom clouds?

My point is that the Planet Earth does not only contain Israel and Islamic countries. It is also contains other nations, such as Russia or China or maybe even France, that would wipe Israel off the face of the Planet Earth with a few MIRVs if Israel ever unleashed such a nuclear attack on such a scale on the Middle East.

What you are proposing is nothing more than going straight to the Sampson Option where, in the end, Israel also dies.

[familyop]

Russia to be neutral in possible Iran-US armed conflict
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618125/posts

U.S. Air Force: Israel has 400 nukes, building naval force
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710830/posts

[Tennessean4Bush]

That should clear everyone's sinuses.

[MaDeuce]

We're not talking about completely destroying an entire country. We're talking about destroying the Iranian capability of developing and using nuclear weapons which they have stated they would use on Israel when they have the means to do so.

So, that would me eliminating the sites they are using to develop and research the bomb.

What is more important, what other countries might say about us or Israel if we act or watch as some 2 to 5 million Israelies get obliterated before taking any action. The economic disaster scenario you spoke of before would occur even if we play a reactionary role and not a preemptive role.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

What you are proposing is nothing more than going straight to the Sampson Option where, in the end, Israel also dies.

Unfortunately, I think you are right on this. I know a retired Israeli military officer and his take on all of this - (from about three years ago/when I asked his thoughts about Iran) - he said that most Israelis know (and in fact, take for granted) - that Iran 'quote' will be able to nuke Israel. 'end quote'
And he was very flip about it. Matter of factly - - in fact. :*(

[af_vet_1981]

This is note the policy of the Pension Party.

The new Goliath in Israeli politics ...

[af_vet_1981]

This is not the policy of the Pension Party.

The new Goliath in Israeli politics ...

[MaDeuce]

Explain how the rest of the world would react to the US and Israel if we preemptively attack a country that has promised to obliterate Israel when they develop the means to use nuclear weapons?

Dealing with a Nuclear Iran is NOT AN OPTION with their present government.

A preemptive attack (and a fierce and overwhelming one at that) needs to be communicated to Iran if there is any hope to solve this problem diplomatically.

Remember throughout history, peace only is obtained through victory, not through negotiations with madmen.

[garbageseeker]

Mutual Assured Destruction

[garbageseeker]

Bump

[garbageseeker]

I will not waiver on a preemption nuclear strike on Iran by Israel.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Remember throughout history, peace only is obtained through victory, not through negotiations with madmen.

And if we apply this to logic here - today - three years after that retired Israeli military officer told me the above, then it brings us to - this article. :*(

[HitmanLV]

Lets get Rabbi Schmuley to weigh in on this. Shalom in the Home! :-)

[garbageseeker]

What you are proposing is nothing more than going straight to the Sampson Option where, in the end, Israel also dies.

Mutual Assured Destruction is valid if your enemy has nuclear weapons.Iran does not have nuclear weapons so it may not be valid. The rest of the world may not give it a notice because the Russians does not have the nerve and the Chinese love the dollar.

[mysterio]

Prove this - - right here, right now, thanks.

LONDON, January 20 - If Israel is attacked, the United States will "obviously" militarily support its close Mideast ally, US Vice President Dick Cheney said in interview with CNBC television.

Cheney was asked if Washington would come to the military assistance of Israel if Iran or any of the terrorist groups it allegedly sponsors attacked Israel.

"I don't think there's any question but what we would support Israel under those circumstances. I think any administration would," said Cheney, according to AFP.

When pressed on the details of military assistance, Cheney said: "Obviously, we would support our friends in Israel under those circumstances were they attacked."

So Israel lobs a pre-emptive nuke, the Middle East attacks, and we are right in the middle of it. Any more questions, or would you like to toss out a couple more logically incorrect assertions?

[marron]

Israel would have to rely on nukes because she doesn't have the ability to launch a sustained aerial attack on Iran from such a distance. She doesn't have the ability to deliver conventional bunker busters again and again, as many times as necessary. She would have to do it with relatively small weapons that could be delivered by fighter-bombers, or individual missiles, so each weapon would have to pack a punch.

The only one who could take down Iran and do it without resorting to nukes, is the US. We are the ones with the carrier groups off the Iranian coast, we are the ones who can unilaterally close the straits of Hormuz to Iranian traffic, we are the ones who can protect non-Iranian traffic to keep the oil flowing, we are the ones who can sustain a continuous assault for as long as it takes, from bases just over the border on all sides.

We keep hoping Israel will do it and take the political hit, but if they do it, we'll be blamed anyway, because everyone will know they couldn't do it without our complicity or active support.

Its going to take a layered strategy. Our guys in Iraq will be particularly vulnerable to retaliation, so we'll have to be prepared for either the insurgency to go off the richter scale, or else a full ground assault. It could be handled, but we'd have to be expecting it and ready. We'd have to be ready for increased efforts to smuggle bombs into American harbors. We'd have to be ready to support anti-government rebellions in Iran, and that means our full-on assault on nuclear sites would have to be accompanied by an attempt to annihilate the Revolutionary Guard, and the clerical leadership, and the circle around Ahmadinejad.

Even we don't have the forces to occupy Iran, so we'll have to be ready with an alternate plan, maybe Northern Alliance-style contacts with forces inside the country, and that takes time to establish when they don't exist.

It would be nice to pass this off on Israel, but its the kind of job our forces are designed for. And the retaliation is going to be aimed at both of us no matter what.

Before we turn the military loose on them, though, we should at least make the effort to organize an Orange Revolution kind of overthrow, and be ready in the wings if that devolves into a revolution. Its complicated, but its better than full-scale warfare if it can be done. After all, we don't worry about an India with nukes, because they are ruled by sane people. We worry about Ahmadinejad with nukes, because he's insane. Taking him down may be easier than the kind of war we're contemplating. But we'd better be ready for full-on war, because if easy doesn't work, hard is next like it or not.

[LouD]

That is absolute, 100% sheer stupidity, and would destroy Israel.

Think about the public reaction in every country in the Middle East. Then think about what those governments would need to do to hold on politically. Israel is ringed by enemies, and would immediately be at war on all fronts.

Those countries that have historically supported Israel would back away, including the U.S. - Tell me how any U.S. president is going to go before Congress and tell them we need to renew aid to the Israelis after they have destabilized the entire Middle East.

Israel would be diplomatically isolated, would fight hard, but would eventually be overrun and destroyed.

If you said a conventional preemptive attack, then I would agree - but a nuclear preemptive strike is the worst possible course of action.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

A little wipe out of Hitler prior to WWII would have gone a long way towards saving millions of innocent lives. Wake up, fool, these terrorists want to slit your throat and throats of your children. You are the same folks that said let's humor Hitler, and all will be okay!!! You and the American Democrat Party are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, sad to say. I mean no malice whatsoever, just want to remind you that history over and over again proves people like you are dead wrong. The problem is not that you are wrong, but millions of innocents can die becasue of your foolishness. These terrorists understand only one language, POWER!!! Come to America and join the Democrat Party, you'll be right at home!!!