• silverwhisper said on May 07, 2008....

  i think that in general, the US should defend israel against aggressors. if iran uses a nuke, that's a threat to everyone. having said that, i think that saying one would destroy another country is a bit excessive. i would support military action but i don't think that destruction of iran is intrinsically a good objective, to be honest.
  
  iran's big on running its mouth. as a rule, i don't think that's anywhere near as true of us.
  
  ed

• Trinov said on May 08, 2008....

  Hi, there may very well be a war with Iran, but I believe that Israel is more likely to react to this, and it could happen, as it happened in the Sixth Day War, that the military will act first and tell the idiot politicians after.
  
  Iran, under the Shah, had been an Israeli alley, and would send people here to study. With their revolution, those who had studied here suddenly were traitors to Islam and their lives were in immediate danger. Before the revolution, there was an intelligent middle class.
  
  It is always possible to destroy the military and industrial infrastructure of a country without killing the masses of people who have no say in anything going on there.
  
  About two thousand and five hundred years ago, it was a Jewish Queen of Persia (today's Iran) who was the agent to prevent the power crazed king and his Amalikite minister from murdering all Jews in the empire, and she did this with two dinner parties. Diplomacy today unfortunately, is not as effective. Also when Queen Esther won, she didn't ask for mass killings, only the right to fight those who wanted to actively murder her people. (Of course, G-d's Hand, albeit hidden, was behind all this, and today, also, G-d's Hand is involved in whatever happens to Isreal. There are many stories of miracles that I may try to blog about).
  
  

• Kemo said on May 09, 2008....

  Thanks for your insight Trinov....

• kelly said on May 09, 2008....

  God, schmod.  I feel certain that the US would defend Israel, AND I feel certain that this is all indeed a bunch of saber rattling.  I swear, people are actually addicted to drama.

• cotteralladams3 said on May 31, 2008....

  Syria and Iran are allies.  They both fund militancy in Lebanon.  Syria is an integral part of the peace process in the Middle East due to concerns on both sides over the Golan Heights.  Technically and politically, it is a part of Syria but has been annexed by Israel due to Syrian aggression against Northern Israelis and nuclear threats.  The reality on the ground is that the Israelis provide many jobs to the locals who are divided between loyalties to both.  This doesn't make their claim to the Golan Height legal or desirable but it does obligate both to certain conditions and negotiations in the peace process.
  
  Iran and Lebanon have decided on their own terms to aggressively threaten Israel and destroy it as a country, placing them in a position of self-defense.  Israel and Syria are nuclear powers.  Iran would probably face defensive measures by Syria against Israel.  Syrian soldiers and civilians are not really responsible for this government aggression.  It is related to their fascist government though many Syrians blame Israel entirely for the conflict and the Palestinian situation, which are different issues but they add to the tension in the area.  It is possible that military aggression against Israel would lead to retaliation and could set off Lebanon and Syria.  It is possible that nothing will happen.  It is incredibly risky but if they do nothing, they run a risk of possible nuclear damage.  There is a risk in taking action.  If Iran has a nuclear arsenal, it should be destroyed.  That all depends on whether or not they do.  Nobody is certain.  Bush could be exaggerating.  The CIA may be wrong.  It could be about racism and colonialism or it could be a legitimate concern about security and Middle Eastern extremism.
  
  The best thing the U.S. and Canada could do is support sanctions and the destruction of Iran's arsenal if necessary but direct military action (nuclear threats, occupation, a ground war) is bound to be disastrous.  They could also try diplomacy but that is not likely to work if Ahmedinejad is in power.  He may or may not be powerful.  He is a fascist in the tradition of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tze-Dong, etc.  They could also take Baha'i, Christian and Jewish refugees and ask for better treatment of ethnic Azerbaijanis and Sunni Arab Muslims in Iran as they have far fewer rights than Persians.
  

Comment on "What would they do if Irain attacked Israel"

Currently tagged	Israel Barack Obama iran politics Iranian craziness Kemo hillary clinton (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously