Attack on Iran, Possible!!

[ambushb]

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down

London: President Bush has given Israel the go-ahead to begin preparations for an attack on Iran, in case talks over the country's nuclear programme fails to yield results, a media report said.

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down, the ‘Sunday Times’ said quoting a Pentagon official.

The American President has given Israel the "amber light" to start preparing for an offensive, the official told the ‘Sunday Times.’


"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official as quoted as saying to The Times.

The US President's support comes despite his military officials' opposition to an attack on Iran, given the risks of an aerial strike.

However, the US would not deploy its forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on its military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

Washington would also not give a "green light" to the attack without unquestionable proof that the Islamic Republic is involved in military preparations of its own, the report said.

Iran last week test launched a series of medium-range ballistic missiles it claimed were capable of striking Israel.

The tests prompted a threatening message from Israel defence minister Ehud Barak, who said that the Jewish state will not hesitate from taking military action against Tehran.

Source: IANS http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1557557

It is interesting to note a few seemingly quirky points in the article above. Some questions to which answers ar sought are:-
1. Why is it that the US, which is perfectly capable of launching these attacks on its own, if they ever were to be launched rather asks Israel to undertake the same?
2. What is the realpolitik behind the denial of the use of US bases for logistics?
3. What can be the ramifications in the real sense of such a military adventure by Israel? (Apart from the seemingly gloomy picture of launching of Nuclear tipped missiles as a response by Iran)
4. The msl capability of Iran, if to be used as a response to any attack, would naturally be a potential initial target in the preparatory or initial bombing. Is there any perceived mobile based launch capability of the same, or any initial countermeasure that is perceived?

Well, being new to this forum, It would be interesting to read from keen followers of international affairs.

 

[Feanor]

Why is it right to assume that they don't have the capability?

Please, elaborate. I seriously want to know why you think so.

Also, didn't they come within 200 meters of USN ships with speedboats before?

Can you demonstrate that they do? If not, then we're wasting time. I don't see anything Iran can use to take control of the straight of Hormuz. No way of stopping oil convoys, no way of dealing with the KSAF, or the USN/USAF assets in the region. All their ships will be left as sitting ducks. Even the speedboats that you love to talk about. No way of stopping a protracted air war. No way of retaliating against Saudi or USA in a meaningful fashion (beyond intensifying insurgencies).

Every economic, energy, military or political deal/agreement you see being made between Russia and Iran is made because Russia wants to buy influence with Iran (even if temporary) because it allows it to play a major/larger role in resolving the nuclear issue. Not because it views Iran as regional counter-balance to US influence.

Russia may use this "larger role" to pressure the West into making some concessions to it in other issues more important to Russia.

Russia joined on the sanctions against Iran. Seriously. I'm tired of everyone trying to find an Iran-Russia alliance that simply doesn't exist. Russia used Iran as a regional proxy to counter US influence, and that's it. It also sold Iran weapons. Tiny amounts of them. For hard cash. That's not politics, that just business.

I can't comment on China's relations with Iran. But I suspect the China has relatively close relations with Iran for other reasons more important to it than just as "a regional counter-balance" to US influence. Energy may be one of them.

If you can't comment then lets leave that part out of the discussion, shall we?

 

[eaf-f16]

Can you demonstrate that they do? If not, then we're wasting time.

This is a thread discussing what Iran may do in retaliation to an attack on it's nuclear facilities.

If you feel that it's a waste of your time don't involve yourself in the discussion. Pretty simple.

Part of what they may do is close the Strait of Hormuz. They threatened to do it if attacked and even before they threatened to do it there were alot defense analysts who said that they have the capability to close it. The IRGC's threat just confirmed their fears.

I don't see anything Iran can use to take control of the straight of Hormuz. No way of stopping oil convoys, no way of dealing with the KSAF, or the USN/USAF assets in the region. All their ships will be left as sitting ducks. Even the speedboats that you love to talk about. No way of stopping a protracted air war.

Who said Saudi Arabia would be involved at all? And what's "KSAF"?

Did you mean the RSAF (Royal Saudi Air Force)? They don't have anti-shipping capability.

And USAF doesn't have anti-shipping capability either. Just the USN and USMC.

And I think for ships going through Strait of Hormuz that the biggest threat is from Iranian mines and anti-ship missiles.

No way of retaliating against Saudi or USA in a meaningful fashion (beyond intensifying insurgencies).

And this isn't significant to you? Please go read about what Iran does in Iraq and their involvement there.

Russia joined on the sanctions against Iran. Seriously. I'm tired of everyone trying to find an Iran-Russia alliance that simply doesn't exist. Russia used Iran as a regional proxy to counter US influence, and that's it. It also sold Iran weapons. Tiny amounts of them. For hard cash. That's not politics, that just business.

You're the one who said the East is allying with Iran because it "hates" the US after I said it isn't! Why are you going around in circles?

If you can't comment then lets leave that part out of the discussion, shall we?

Shall we not seeing as how the vast majority of Iran's anti-ship missiles are from China?

Also, seeing as how China expects trade exchanges between them to hit $30 billion this year, I'd say that it would be wise to talk about their relations. Wouldn't you?

I said that I couldn't comment in hopes that some one with more knowledge about the issue would contribute to the discussion. Clearly, you are not that person.

 

[ROCK45]

USAF anti-ship

eaf-f16
And USAF doesn't have anti-shipping capability either. Just the USN and USMC.

That's not correct the USAF does have some anti-ship capabilities their B-52 can deploy anti-ship mines. Also starting in 1989, an on-going modification incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adaptor beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions and additional smart weapons capability. All aircraft are being modified to carry the AGM-142 Raptor missile and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Also some F-16 are AGM-119 Penguin capable as well or can be made to.

Link
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/b52.htm

 

[eaf-f16]

That's not correct the USAF does have some anti-ship capabilities their B-52 can deploy anti-ship mines. Also starting in 1989, an on-going modification incorporates the global positioning system, heavy stores adaptor beams for carrying 2,000 pound munitions and additional smart weapons capability. All aircraft are being modified to carry the AGM-142 Raptor missile and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

Also some F-16 are AGM-119 Penguin capable as well or can be made to.

Link
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/b52.htm

Thanks for the info, ROCK45.

Do the teen-series fighters in USAF have anti-ship capability? Or are they being upgraded to have it?

Edit: The smiley at the top of the post is unintended. I'm typing and clicking with one hand (I have a cut on the other) so forgive any typos on my part.

 

[stigmata]

Perhaps i'm straying away from the war-thing this site is about, but, wat if Jerusalem was declared open city, under UN protectionate, could this defuse the whole thing, and would the involved believers feel content about it ?
i.e would Israel accept it in return of being accepted by muslem community, and muslem community accept Israel ?
Is it even possible to make a diplomatic solution to this menace..

 

[SABRE]

Ahmedinjad isn't top dog (doesn't decide foreign policy) in Iran so don't point to him when you want to say Iran is run by loons (and it isn't).

Moreover, Bush says things like "Crusade" and "Jesus told me to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan". And unlike Ahmadinjad, he is top dog in the US. The US is capable of doing much more damage to the world (as we saw in Iraq) than Iran can ever hope to do.

Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.

 

[eckherl]

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down

London: President Bush has given Israel the go-ahead to begin preparations for an attack on Iran, in case talks over the country's nuclear programme fails to yield results, a media report said.

The Bush administration is said to have informed Jerusalem that it would back an Israeli plan to hit Iran's nuclear sites with long-range aerial weapons, if diplomatic talks over Tehran's nuclear programme broke down, the ‘Sunday Times’ said quoting a Pentagon official.

The American President has given Israel the "amber light" to start preparing for an offensive, the official told the ‘Sunday Times.’


"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official as quoted as saying to The Times.

The US President's support comes despite his military officials' opposition to an attack on Iran, given the risks of an aerial strike.

However, the US would not deploy its forces for such a strike nor would Israel be able to depend on its military bases in Iraq for logistical support, the official said.

Washington would also not give a "green light" to the attack without unquestionable proof that the Islamic Republic is involved in military preparations of its own, the report said.

Iran last week test launched a series of medium-range ballistic missiles it claimed were capable of striking Israel.

The tests prompted a threatening message from Israel defence minister Ehud Barak, who said that the Jewish state will not hesitate from taking military action against Tehran.

Source: IANS http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1557557

It is interesting to note a few seemingly quirky points in the article above. Some questions to which answers ar sought are:-
1. Why is it that the US, which is perfectly capable of launching these attacks on its own, if they ever were to be launched rather asks Israel to undertake the same?
2. What is the realpolitik behind the denial of the use of US bases for logistics?
3. What can be the ramifications in the real sense of such a military adventure by Israel? (Apart from the seemingly gloomy picture of launching of Nuclear tipped missiles as a response by Iran)
4. The msl capability of Iran, if to be used as a response to any attack, would naturally be a potential initial target in the preparatory or initial bombing. Is there any perceived mobile based launch capability of the same, or any initial countermeasure that is perceived?

Well, being new to this forum, It would be interesting to read from keen followers of international affairs.

I would not place too much faith in that article, if the U.S was for real communicating this type of war posturing with Israel, no one would know of it until a actual attack occured. looks like the empty saber rattling will continue.

 

[SABRE]

Perhaps i'm straying away from the war-thing this site is about, but, wat if Jerusalem was declared open city, under UN protectionate, could this defuse the whole thing, and would the involved believers feel content about it ?
i.e would Israel accept it in return of being accepted by muslem community, and muslem community accept Israel ?
Is it even possible to make a diplomatic solution to this menace..

Jerusalem is part of the conflict not the conflict itself. The main problem is Palestine and the question is the viability of Palestinian state. Search 'viability of Palestinian state' on google. You'll get good info on it.

Also read UN Resolution 184 (I think) on Israel-Palestine state. In 1947-8 Israel accepted and became a state while Arabs rejected it and attacked Israel. Today Israel has almost thrice the land allocated in the resolution while Arabs want Israel to go back to Res 184. Its an irony but reality. King Abdullah of KSA offered Israel acceptance by almost Arab and Muslim states if it returns to Res 184.

 

[SABRE]

Part of what they may do is close the Strait of Hormuz. They threatened to do it if attacked and even before they threatened to do it there were alot defense analysts who said that they have the capability to close it. The IRGC's threat just confirmed their fears.

To add:

They have their Strategic Missile fleet installed at upper and lower Tunb Islands, which can target any state in the Gulf and/or any thing in the sea of Gulf.

They are only state in the Gulf to poses submarines - not just proper conventional subs but they have developed smaller submarines (midgets) just for the purpose of disruption.

The idea would not be to conquer the Straight Hermoz, all they have to do is disrupt the flow of oil. The price of oil will go high as a sky (its already killing us).

 

[ROCK45]

Iran

SABRE
Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a

) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.

* He only has a few more months overall and please no US President is going to use nukes unless it’s really called for.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.

*That’s how many years ago was that. Russia and the United States learn never to use them during the peak of the cold war sorry I don’t feel that way about Iran.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.

* The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing? You make this council sound so peace loving and filled with happy people that pass out flowers or something. The same council that hates my country I don’t think so, that’s your opinion and of course you’re entitled to it. I’m sure everybody blames my country for all the worlds problems it’s very easy to do that. There are more senseless killings in the Middle East then in any part of the world and that’s not entirely Americans fault? Countries that have religious scholars or council’s running them usually seem internal problems that spill into others. People blowing up women and children following so called “religious scholars” orders happens in the Middle East. Muslim’s blowing up Muslim’s and that’s America’s fault too? Were thousand times safer controlling nuclear weapons then Iran or Pakistan will ever be and that’s my opinion.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.

* Religious scholars shouldn’t have a thing to do with WMD’s or nuclear weapons period they should be dealing with religion issues. Leave these types of issues to the governments and military. Do we want some religious scholars in Iran to say if it alright to use a dirty bomb or not? What the hell does that have to do with religion? It is so ass backwards having religion leaders controlling anything like this, its crazy. Look how well it’s working out in the Middle East for countries that let religion run them. No place on earth has so many senseless killings where life has such little meaning, but those religious leaders must be right.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.

*No we have one maniac run government trying to get weapons that even the countries around Iran don’t want them to have.

 

[eckherl]

Interesting you pointed this out. Lets say we have two people (Bush & Ahmedinijad; I would like to call them maniacs but lets be mature here) who have nukes at button at their disposal. Now lets see how their authority to use them works:

a) BUsh: He doesn't need congressional approval to push the button. He can use it, kill millions and give an emotional speech on TV saying no other option was left and he is sorry for the death toll - of course it all being a big lie.

Truman didn't loose a nights sleep when he approved the bombing of Heroshema & Nagasaki and nor did the pilot of Enola Gay who dropped the bomb - in fact the pilot stated he would do it again given the circumstances.

b) Ahmedinijad: Assuming Iran has the bomb and delivery system can he push the button? "NO" - he would need an approval from Vilayat-e-Faqih - approval of the religious council whose members may agree or disagree when it comes to '1st use' - unless a majority agreement is not reached amongst the religious scholars Ahmedinijad cannot approve the use of bomb.

Many (in fact majority) of religious scholars in Iran and in the Muslim world see WMDs as unethical and inhumane. Significant number of them don't allow acquisition of such a weapon while others say it can be acquired for defensive (deterrence) purpose but its use should only be limited to 2nd strike.

So we got 2 Manianc here and only one appears to be in a position to use the bomb without any rational reason. In addition Iran only posesses capability to target US interests in ME but not the US mainland itself. While we all know US' capability.

Come on Sabre,


No U.S president has the right to start launching nukes without a darn good reason, like for example purposes, all out war, Iran is not a good reason to kill millions of innocent people world wide, I am quite surprised to see a post like this coming from you. You already know that the U.S nor Israel is *not* going to cross that thresh hold by attacking a country that has the capability to pretty much destabilize the entire world economy without approval from other major countries, what is the justification for such a foolish thing to do.

Yes - we dropped Nukes on Japan to end a terrible war quickly, thus saving the lives of possibly a few hundred thousand U.S service personnel, do I need to remind everyone that we were at all out war with a country that attacked us.

I am quite sure that Iran will get the message that if they even attempt to launch any type of WMD attack against Israel in the short or long term future that they will be permanently erased as a nation, and rightfully so.

Fellas, all this anti U.S and Bush BS is getting real old.

 

[Chrom]

a
*
* The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing? You make this council sound so peace loving and filled with happy people that pass out flowers or something. The same council that hates my country I don’t think so, that’s your opinion and of course you’re entitled to it. .

Be very careful, not fall to usual propaganda about "terrorists". In Iran eyes they are honor fighters for they motherland / religy / ideals. In US eyes they are terrorists. Things much, much too subjective here. Either way, West generally and US government specifically give far, far more money and support for terrorist like-organizations than anyone else (not because they are evil - just because they have more money and power than rest). Even inside Iran US support own anti-Iranian government terrorists - or, as they call it - "democratic freedom fighters".

I should however note, i dont blame US or West too much for it. Every other country do the same in they interests. I just hate when smart and seemingly knowledgeable peoples behave like supporting such groups is something exclusive to "evil" states. That is just self-blinding double-standards, which in long run will not lead to any good results on the Earth.

 

[eckherl]

Be very careful, not fall to usual propaganda about "terrorists". In Iran eyes they are honor fighters for they motherland / religy / ideals. In US eyes they are terrorists. Things much, much too subjective here. Either way, West generally and US government specifically give far, far more money and support for terrorist like-organizations than anyone else (not because they are evil - just because they have more money and power than rest). Even inside Iran US support own anti-Iranian government terrorists - or, as they call it - "democratic freedom fighters".

I should however note, i dont blame US or West too much for it. Every other country do the same in they interests. I just hate then smart and seemingly knowledgeable peoples behave like supporting such groups is something exclusive to "evil" states. That is just self-blinding double-standards, which in long run will not lead to any good results on the Earth.

Thats a good point Chrom, eventually when the U.S is done with their big adventure in the Middle East and we come home, Russia will again more than likely will start feeling the effects of terrorist attacks inside of Russia, alot of that funding for those attacks will come from major players in the Middle East, you do know that Iran hates Russia as a nation also.

 

[Eeshaan]

Militarily, it is more than possible for a USA & Israel joint operation to defeat Iran's miliatary. They will take heavy losses, no doubt about that. Iran is much better prepared than Iraq was to withstand an invasion from USA. But they will win the war. Thats certain. The Iranian military cannot defeat a combined USA-Israel assaulton it's territory.

Unfortunately, as we've seen in Iraq, a military victory against Iran's armed forces is just the START of the real fight. That would be the easy part. the hard part, where the casualties REALLY start to pile up, is the insurgency & terrorist attacks that USA & Israel would have to withstand after the invasion. That would take a huge toll on both nations.

Also, one can't imagine how high the price of oil would go during that time:shudder So it's not exactly a favorable situation for both sides lol.

 

[ROCK45]

Iran capabilities

Hi Eeshaan
No one said anything about an invasion that wouldn't serve any useful purpose nor do I think the US has any intentions on doing that. Iran's only thump card are it's missiles and rockets they have. These rockets and missiles could hurt surrounding countries but will have little effect on the 200 to 300 aircraft attacking it. Don't judge the fighting in Iraq as a way the US would fight/attack to take out the reactor and other important targets. If Iranian missiles/rockets are pick up outbound and you know how many radar's are pointed at Iran the response back would be massive. The US does "big" very well Iran would be hit hard from basically all sides. I wish the reactor was never sold to them.

 

[Eeshaan]

Hi Rock
You're right. I was just saying, incase of a full ground campaign involving US & Israeli troops, in order to remove the current Iranian government, just like they did in Iraq would be very costly.

But even an attack with missles & long range weaponry, the result would be extremely high oil prices & the entire region might erupt into a warzone. Any major attack on any middle eastern nation would turn the entire region into a fireball.

ATM neither Israel, nor USA have any intention of attacking Iran. It's just the last resort for them. Because, frankly, no one knows what Iran will do once it has the ability to make a nuclear weapon, except for the Iranian government of course.

And given the fact that the president has openly said that Israel should be wiped off the map, Israel's fears are not without good readon.

All-in-all, the situation in the middle east is very tense atm. The best, no loss way for both parties is for Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program and let the Israeli-palestinian peace process continue peacefully ( pardon the pun ). This way, its a win-win situation, and both israeli & palestinian people can finally be at peace with each other, thereby ending a decades-old dispute.

 

[ROCK45]

Oil prices

Hi Eeshaan
I'm sorry I knew I left out something yes I agree oil prices and I'm sure natural gas prices as would go up big time, Iran produces a lot of natural gas too. It's complex so many economies are involved on so many levels.

Don't take it wrong but I get tired of every Middle East problem, conflict, etc always tied to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Not much was said much when Egypt, Syria, Jordan kick out Palestinian's and dump a lot of this on Israel's door step, always easier to pass on a problem. Israel didn't take any land from Iran did they? There just another outside party like Syria that don't belong there and make things worse. All the surrounding countries around Israel have tons of their own problems and have a hard enough keeping Palestinian's and their own people in line. So it's easy to get them pointing to the other guy as your problem. The Palestinian's keep listening to outsiders and the kids I watch on the news many years ago throwing rocks, now their kids are doing the same thing. Has it got them anywhere in 30+ years? All the money giving to so called "great cause" could paved the roads with gold ten times over instead used in twisted hate. Keep following these religious leaders it's working so well maybe the kids will have more kids and find some of the same rocks they use throw. How could somebody listen to somebody tell them to blow themselves up? How messed up and twisted do you have to be to think it's the right thing to do to have somebody's 12 old son or daughter do that? How people in this one region accept that and do nothing and you wonder why there's no peace.

 

[Eeshaan]

So I gess the general consensus is : peace, not war.

Yes, the middle east peace process has been just as violent as any other war lol ( sorry if this offends anyone but its true ).

Good thing is, recent developments show that the peace process is finally coming to an end. Hopefully this will defuse tempers in the middle east. Then there will be no reason for any middle eastern country to attack Israel, or vice-versa. That may also take the starch out of the extremists who want to destroy Israel & USA ( Because then they dont have any reason to fight. This is THE reason why they became USA's enemy in the first place ).

If the peace process comes to an end, finally, then the whole argument on wether Iran should be attacked or will Iran stike Israel is over. If Iran & Israel want to have peace with each other, then there's no need to plan an attack on Iran's military. All the rhetoric & propaganda goes out the window. This also allows the individual nations to sort out their own internal problems ( like Turkey's kurdish situation ) once & for all.

Like I stated before, peace is a win-win situation, war is a lose-lose situation. It just takes away the terrorists main EXCUSE to blow people up.

 

[eaf-f16]

* He only has a few more months overall and please no US President is going to use nukes unless it’s really called for.

Really?

Didn't a US official once hint that after 9/11 happened that if the US knew which country or was harboring the people who masterminded the attacks that the US would have nuked that country? I really can't remember so if anyone here has more information on that, please contribute.

Also, there was a BBC documentary a while back about the USS Liberty that said that after the USS Liberty was sunk by the Israeli Air Force, it was assumed that Egypt had carried out the attack. In response the USN sent up one A-4 Skyhawk armed with a nuclear bomb and an F-4 escort fighter and told the DoD that they had two "ready" planes ready to go to Cairo.

...sorry I don’t feel that way about Iran...

Everyone (including US intelligence agencies) knows that Iran isn't going to make a bomb as soon as their nuclear facilities are completed.

At very worst, Iran just wants the capability to be able to build one and mount it on a reliable delivery system very quickly in the case that it's attacked.

The same religious council who approves terrorist support and killings and I’m suppose thing there to be trusted to do the right thing?

Nope. The suicide bombings in Iraq are done by Al-Qaida (very small segment of Sunni insurgency) and the revenge killings in response to those suicide bombings are done by rogue elements (i.e. Death squads) of Shi'a militias (again very small segment). Iran has never supported the killings of civilians in Iraq at all. Clandestinely or otherwise. It has, however, supported fighting between different militias.

There are more senseless killings in the Middle East then in any part of the world and that’s not entirely Americans fault

Actually, previous to the 80's (when America threw its support behind Saddam who was committing genocide against the Kurds and waging an unjust and brutal war against Iran) the Middle East didn't have so much "senseless killings".

Instead, it just had alot of conventional wars. This had mostly ended when Egypt and Israel signed the cease-fire in 1973 and the peace treaty in 1979.

People blowing up women and children following so called “religious scholars” orders happens in the Middle East.

Not just any "religious scholars". Wahhabi "religious scholars" from Saudi Arabia whose ideology first gained popularity in the 80's.

IIRC, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan your country was actively supporting Wahhabism and it ideological derivatives. All of sudden now you're against it?

Or does your country only support "senseless killings" when it serves its interests?

Muslim’s blowing up Muslim’s and that’s America’s fault too?

Nobody on here said it was. But this is not something alot of Muslims tolerate either.

Religious scholars shouldn’t have a thing to do with WMD’s or nuclear weapons period they should be dealing with religion issues. Leave these types of issues to the governments and military

The Vatican regularly involves itself in politics as well. This isn't something ME is unique in.

No place on earth has so many senseless killings where life has such little meaning, but those religious leaders must be right.

Again. The only religious leaders in the ME who encourage this type of behavior are Wahhabis. Everyone else (including all other scholars) hate them.

The world is not so black and white. The US is not the "good guy" in this. Israel is no more humane than most other ME nations and I bet you there are Muslim countries that have a better Human rights records than Israel.

PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

This thread is WAY off-topic. Can a mod please close it? There are others just like it except with more coherent and better informed discussions.