Israel/Palestine discussion

[yedidyak]

Except that more assassinations will lead to more escalation.

[Iulus Cofield]

Possibly. It's easier to deescalate from this than to deescalate from a blockade\blockade breaking situation.

[yurell]

Except that more assassinations will lead to more escalation.

Israelis assassinate a bunch of Iranians, Iranians respond by assassinating a bunch of Israelis, the cycle continues until someone someone breaks it. Until that time, everyone's at fault. Besides, it's easier to stop fighting over a bunch of dead individuals that the states have been denying than it is to de-escalate from a military strike into another's country.

[Panonadin]

I don't know where to call in any of this stuff these days. I can't even make up my own mind.

Do they pose a threat to your ally? Should we help? Should we stay out of it? How long until they pose a threat to us if left alone? Do we have the right to intervene?

Why cant everyone just get along!?!?!

This really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Actually I think EVERYTHING is damned if you do damned if you dont.

Options: 1. Level everything, seize control. 2. Build up your borders, lock down your country.

[yedidyak]

And another attempted attack in Thailand, possibly the worst bungle of a terrorist attack ever.

Israelis assassinate a bunch of Iranians, Iranians respond by assassinating a bunch of Israelis, the cycle continues until someone someone breaks it. Until that time, everyone's at fault. Besides, it's easier to stop fighting over a bunch of dead individuals that the states have been denying than it is to de-escalate from a military strike into another's country.

The thing is that Israel's (alleged) assassinations are extremely targeted. The targets have all been working on Iran's nuclear program. Its clear what Israel's aim is. Iran's (alleged) targets are diplomats in foreign countries.

[yurell]

'Your civilians were a much more legitimate target than our civilians!'
I don't buy that crap for one instant. Even if we accept that there are degrees of civilians that are 'more legitimate' targets (which I don't for a second), how are people treating global politics and trying to obtain allies in other countries any less 'legitimate' than a scientist?

[yedidyak]

'Your civilians were a much more legitimate target than our civilians!'
I don't buy that crap for one instant. Even if we accept that there are degrees of civilians that are 'more legitimate' targets (which I don't for a second), how are people treating global politics and trying to obtain allies in other countries any less 'legitimate' than a scientist?

I'm not claiming that one is more legitimate, I am claiming that one has a clear goal in mind.

Killing nuclear scientists could delay the nuclear program. Blowing up diplomats in other countries isn't going to stop them being allies.

[Zamfir]

If the Israelis and Iranians are indeed doing the assasinations, then presumably the Iranian aim is for the Israelis to stop?

[yedidyak]

If the Israelis and Iranians are indeed doing the assasinations, then presumably the Iranian aim is for the Israelis to stop?

If they were interested in deescalation, the way to get that is clear - remove the reason for Israeli assassinations.

If they want to deescalate but keep their nuclear program then that's a problem. Assassinating Israeli diplomats is not a way to deescalate based on Israel's history of reacting to diplomats assassinations.

If they want escalation, this is a good way of getting it.

[Zamfir]

Well, yeah, giving in to demands is always a way to deescalate a conflict. It's rarely attractive, though.

[yurell]

If they were interested in deescalation, the way to get that is clear - remove the reason for Israeli assassinations.

Oh bugger off. "If you want us to stop threatening you and murdering your civilians, all you have to do is give us everything we want!" All that does is show that the country can be bullied into submission, which is especially bad for Iran since it relies on a strong government. What it says is "if you do something we don't like, we'll begin murdering your citizens until you take the only 'reasonable' option for de-escalation is for you to stop doing things we don't like." Stopping murdering Iranian civilians would also help de-escalate the situation, does that mean that Israel isn't at all interested in de-escalation? No. It's just that both parties want it while maintaining what they perceive as the sovereign rights of their country.
Think of it from Iran's view. Whether or not they actually are after nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter. They saw Iraq invaded and conquered over the rumour of WMDs, not even nuclear ones. They've seen throughout history Israel launching unilateral attacks against civilian nuclear reactors. They've also seen that no nuclear-armed country has ever been invaded by a foreign power. From that point of view, pursuing nuclear weapons is the only way to secure themselves against an attack by Israel or the USA. Why should we accept that the reasonable, clear way to de-escalate tensions is for one party to back down entirely?

If they want to deescalate but keep their nuclear program then that's a problem.

If Israel wants to de-escalate and keep hegemonic power in the region then that's a problem.

Assassinating Israeli diplomats is not a way to deescalate based on Israel's history of reacting to diplomats assassinations. If they want escalation, this is a good way of getting it.

Edited formatting. It's a way to show that they're not intimidated. I don't condone Iranian assassinations because I believe murder is wrong, whether Israel does it or Iran does it, but it is their attempt to show they won't be cowed. De-escalation can occur when either or both side backs down, not only when the side that you're on gives into all demands.

[yedidyak]

You missed my point.

Of course for Iran giving up their nuclear program would be giving in. But given the fact that Israel sees it as a serious threat, anything else would lead to further escalations. And assassinating Israeli diplomats has a history of sparking wars.

[yurell]

Your point? Your point was that for a sovereign nation to de-escalate a situation in which its civilians are being murdered by a foreign power is to kowtow to said foreign power and allow it to dictate internal affairs. Of course that's an option, but it can be applied to anyone in any situation and it would still work. Why should it solely be Iran's duty to de-escalate, and not the Western powers? There were so many possible deals that could have been struck, all of which were deemed 'unacceptable' by someone or another. Surely if it's reasonable to state that 'if Iran really wanted to de-escalate things they could stop their attempts at using nuclear anything' it's reasonable to state that 'if country n really wanted to de-escalate things, they could take action x'.
All that the statement serves is to make it seem that power doesn't 'really' want de-escalation, which isn't the case — one may want de-escalation and maintain what it sees as sovereign rights.

[yedidyak]

The same applies to Israel. Israel sees Iran with nukes as a serious threat. Iran sees giving up its nuclear program as vital for sovereignty. Both are prepared to kill the other side's people (Iran's nuclear scientists and Israeli diplomats) to achieve their goals. If neither backs down then there will be an escalation. For there to be a deescalation one needs to back down.

Because I was talking about Iranian actions I said what Iran could theoretically do to deescalate and not what Israel could.

[Zamfir]

The same applies to Israel. Israel sees Iran with nukes as a serious threat. Iran sees giving up its nuclear program as vital for sovereignty. Both are prepared to kill the other side's people (Iran's nuclear scientists and Israeli diplomats) to achieve their goals. If neither backs down then there will be an escalation. For there to be a deescalation one needs to back down.

Ideally, both sides build up enough trust in each other that they can live with a compromise. That's not easy, to say the least, but probably still a more realistic bet for long-term peace than hoping that one side gives in totally.

What worries me: there seem to be enough people on both sides who are quite happy with heightened tensions, with having an enemy around. You can get a lot of kudos for heroically standing up to the dangerous other. And both Iran and Israel have a tradition of seeing themselves as the brave underdog, with good reasons of course.

Perhaps there's an mutual-masturbation equilibrium, where Iranian hawks point at assasinations and bomb threats as evidence of the danger, and get kudos for bravely continuing the nuclear program. While Israeli hawks point at the nuclear program as evidence of the danger, and get kudos for the assasinations and bomb threats. With a bit of luck, they can keep that up for many years.

[yedidyak]

This opinion piece sums it up.

Spoiler:

A friend recently told me that he was surprised by my support for an Israeli strike in Iran. Why do you think I support it? I asked. The friend said he based it on my recent column where I wrote that a war against Iran is unavoidable and is at our doorstep.

To my regret, other readers took my column to mean that I crave an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, even though I did not write that. So in the interest of clarifying my remarks I hereby state that the purpose of my article was not to call for or oppose a strike on Iran. I only wanted to describe the conditions where a war between Israel and Iran would be unavoidable, and remind my readers that at this time most if not all of these conditions have been met.

However, there was no deterministic approach here: Even now it would be easy to avert what seems inevitable. Should the government in Tehran open up all his nuclear facilities, including the secret ones, to IAEA inspectors and freeze its military nuclear program, it would avert a clash with Israel.

Renouncing nuclear weapons will not be undermining the regime’s credibility in the eyes of Iranian citizens: The regime will in fact gain credibility by proving its international pledges to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes only.

However, given a failure to change Iran’s nuclear policy and Tehran’s desire to quickly acquire nuclear arms, soon development shall reach the red line; beyond it, Israel only has one option left: A wide-ranging military operation. Not because someone wants it, but rather, because there is no other choice.

In an international forum on the subject I was once asked whether there is an Israeli prime minister who would assume the historic national responsibility to send bombers and missiles to attack Iran’s nuclear program. I responded by saying that there is no Israeli PM who would assume the terrible responsibility of failing to use the bombers and missiles under such circumstances.

No middle ground
There is some kind of hidden assumption in global diplomacy that Israel will be blinking at the last moment. But it will not. Those who doubt Israel’s determination shall be losing their wager. The State of Israel, as the national home of the Jews, has decided to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. It would be better to do so via brains, but if there is no other choice, it will be done by using force.

In addition to the clock of diplomacy and secret war, there is another clock ticking on the Israeli prime minister’s desk, one that gauges Iran’s progress towards a bomb. The moment this clock approaches zero hour, a military operation will do the same. No begging will stop Israel at that point. There will be a war.

The international community can go ahead and offer numerous plans for a situation where Iran acquires military nuclear capabilities and aim to create a new balance of terror between Tehran and Tel Aviv: All these plans and attempts are a waste of computer space. There is no point in discussing the state of the Middle East in an era of a nuclear Iran, for the simple reason that Israel would simply not accept Iranian nukes.

Israel will only bomb Iran’s nuclear military industry as a last resort – and as a last resort, Israel will indeed go ahead and bomb.

On this principled issue, Israel has nowhere to retreat to. The concessions and compromises will therefore have to come from the Iranian side.

The situation is similar to the state of affairs that prevailed on the eve of the first Gulf War. The US Administration and American public opinion were united in the approach that should Saddam Hussein not withdraw from Kuwait under diplomatic-economic pressure, the US military will remove him from there by force.


Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was certain that the Americans are bluffing and that they would not dare get entangled in a war against an Arab state located thousands of kilometers away from home. To his misfortune, America did dare – twice.

Israel will also dare. Either Iran doesn’t possess nuclear arms, or we’ll see a war. There’s no middle ground.

[EdgarJPublius]

The same applies to Israel. Israel sees Iran with nukes as a serious threat. Iran sees giving up its nuclear program as vital for sovereignty. Both are prepared to kill the other side's people (Iran's nuclear scientists and Israeli diplomats) to achieve their goals. If neither backs down then there will be an escalation. For there to be a deescalation one needs to back down.

Ideally, both sides build up enough trust in each other that they can live with a compromise. That's not easy, to say the least, but probably still a more realistic bet for long-term peace than hoping that one side gives in totally.

What worries me: there seem to be enough people on both sides who are quite happy with heightened tensions, with having an enemy around. You can get a lot of kudos for heroically standing up to the dangerous other. And both Iran and Israel have a tradition of seeing themselves as the brave underdog, with good reasons of course.

Perhaps there's an mutual-masturbation equilibrium, where Iranian hawks point at assasinations and bomb threats as evidence of the danger, and get kudos for bravely continuing the nuclear program. While Israeli hawks point at the nuclear program as evidence of the danger, and get kudos for the assasinations and bomb threats. With a bit of luck, they can keep that up for many years.

More or less a 'Cold War writ small'.

[Iulus Cofield]

I don't buy the Gulf War analogy. Iraq had invaded a sovereign country and ally of the coalition countries. War is the appropriate response to war. Israeli hawks, including the writer despite his protests otherwise, fail to consider that unlike every country (except Israel's best ally) has never used nuclear weapons offensively and, in fact, Iran has more to gain from using them defensively.

Israel and its hawks just don't want an unfriendly nation to be immune to their threats or have a feasible counter to Israel's own nuclear. It's not a stretch to say the greatest threat to (the currently bad) peace is Israel's willingness to use violence. I'm rather surprised, Yedi, that you see the reactor as the one who must be concessive in order to maintain peace, not the aggressor.

[yedidyak]

The thing is that I don't trust the Iranian regime. Not even a little bit. Living here in a suburb of Tel Aviv I really really don't want to literally bet my life on the sanity of the person with his finger on the button of a Iranian nuke. Not at all. Even knowing that I might have to live through (and even fight in) a war to stop that threat.

[Zamfir]

The thing is that I don't trust the Iranian regime. Not even a little bit. Living here in a suburb of Tel Aviv I really really don't want to literally bet my life on the sanity of the person with his finger on the button of a Iranian nuke. Not at all. Even knowing that I might have to live through (and even fight in) a war to stop that threat.

I sort of understand that, though I'm too young to remember much of the cold war fears here in person.

But are you really that sure that you would decisively win a war? It's after all a bit of a double-or-nothing gamble. You need a seriously big victory, on their territory. Either a collapse of the government, or something like permanent domination of Iranian airspace to prevent any rebuilding of facilities. Without active US military support, both seem far from certain.

[Jahoclave]

The thing is that I don't trust the Iranian regime. Not even a little bit. Living here in a suburb of Tel Aviv I really really don't want to literally bet my life on the sanity of the person with his finger on the button of a Iranian nuke. Not at all. Even knowing that I might have to live through (and even fight in) a war to stop that threat.

I sort of understand that, though I'm too young to remember much of the cold war fears here in person.

But are you really that sure that you would decisively win a war? It's after all a bit of a double-or-nothing gamble. You need a seriously big victory, on their territory. Either a collapse of the government, or something like permanent domination of Iranian airspace to prevent any rebuilding of facilities. Without active US military support, both seem far from certain.

Active U.S. Military support to Israel seems like one of the most certain bets you could make.

[yedidyak]

But are you really that sure that you would decisively win a war?

Any strike would be a limited air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Everyone agrees that that won't disable the program, but delay it for probably three years. That gives three more years for sanctions etc to have an effect, and / or for the uprising of a year and a half ago to continue. Either way, it buys a few more years of no Iranian nukes.

The problem is that Iran has missiles, and it has Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon, but that is less of a problem than a nuclear Iran because Israel can deal with that. Also with sanctions on Iran and the uprising in Syria Hezbollah's position is weakening.

Active U.S. Military support to Israel seems like one of the most certain bets you could make.

Especially if Iran responds by closing the Straits of Hormuz, or by attacking US bases in the Gulf.

[Iulus Cofield]

The thing is that I don't trust the Iranian regime. Not even a little bit. Living here in a suburb of Tel Aviv I really really don't want to literally bet my life on the sanity of the person with his finger on the button of a Iranian nuke. Not at all. Even knowing that I might have to live through (and even fight in) a war to stop that threat.

I thought about this thread while taking a shower (I take long showers, so I had some time to think). I have trouble understanding the Israeli hawk mindset because I believe that all people (except perhaps some people suffering from certain kinds of mental illness) are rational in the Adam Smith sense of acting to fulfill what they think to be their own (or their group's own) interests.

From an outside perspective without a vested interest in either Iran or Israel, Iran's working towards nuclear weapons seems exceedingly rational. They can use them defensively to obvious political benefits. They have no conceivable interest in using them offensively, at least against Israel, because Israel is believed to have at least 100 nuclear weapons and in a nuclear exchange, while the Iranian people will be devastated but will no doubt survive and eventually rebuild, the Islamic Republic will almost certainly cease to exist. They will undoubtedly cease to exist if they start the nuclear exchange, as they could in no way maintain their fragile support base after bringing down the ruination of the country.

From an Iranian perspective, I can't imagine it being much different except for the fear that Israel will preempt the nuclear program and bring ruination before the nuclear shield can be built. And then we are in Prisoner's Dilemma territory.

But the Israeli perspective was the hardest for me to find the rationality. Israel has no visible interest in destroying Iran. Iran has used indirect means to inflict limited attacks on Israel, but these attacks have never presented a substantial political threat to Israel's sovereignty and therefore can not rationally justify escalation to full war actions, because such an escalation would only increase Iran's attacks, perhaps even to the point of becoming a real threat to Israel's continued sovereignty. In fact, I could not reason any way in which Iran having nuclear weapons would pose any kind of threat on Israel's sovereignty in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I could not fathom the reason why Israel would continue to risk their sovereignty for what is essentially not in any possible future for the purposes of political planning. After all, if you can not foresee it, you can not plan for it.

So no matter how I tossed the ball around in my head, I could not understand how Israel could be acting in its own interests in this matter. But then a thought creeped into my head. At first I dismissed it, but it kept coming back. I wondered, what if the Israeli hawks are rational, but paranoid? For a paranoid individual, their interests expand from not only the normal interest in preventing threats, but in preventing all threats, real, potential, and imaginary.

Israel's belligerence makes sense if you assume that Israeli hawks look at any action, even benign ones such as, hypothetically, supporting China in some endeavour entirely unrelated to Israel or even every other place in the Middle East, because supporting China in something Iran has zero interest in potentially means China would support Iran in something China has zero interest in, such as a UNSC veto on actions against Iran while Iran launches a bajillion nuclear bombs at Israel.

If we assume that Israel is both rational and paranoid, then Israel is acting rationally by doing everything in their power to undermine Iran as long Iran is a non-zero threat to any of Israel's interests. After all, if an Iranian is holding a rock, then Iran is a non-zero threat.

I am sorry to say that you have not only failed to dissuade this depressing line of thought, but you have also given it credence.

[yedidyak]

It's not the benign Iranian actions that Israelis worry about. It's the others.

It's the repeated rhetoric from Iranian leaders calling Israel a cancer that must be eliminated, that must be wiped off the map. It's the support for groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

It may be just rhetoric. But I won't bet my life that it is.

[Iulus Cofield]

The tragedy of the hunter-gatherers.

[yedidyak]

You have to understand the Israeli psyche. Here the threat of being blown up is not theoretical, its an everyday reality. Every building has a clearly signed bomb shelter. Every apartment built in the last two or three decades has a bomb shelter in the apartment. Air-raid sirens are tested regularly, just tomorrow is a test in the whole South. To get into a bus or train station you pass through what you would have called airport security until a few years ago, metal detectors, X-ray machines for bags etc. Same for shopping malls.

Everyone has a relative or friend who has been killed or injured in an attack. Everyone has their story of the one they missed. (Mine was the first bulldozer attack in Jerusalem which killed three people on the main shopping street.)

Just yesterday I was eating lunch in the center of Jerusalem and went to take the tram back to the bus station. As I got to the train the driver announced that they were stopping until further notice because of a suspicious package further up the line. What struck me, as it still does no matter how many times I see a 'hefetz hashud' (suspect package) is how calm Israelis are about it. There's no drama at all, and this in a notoriously loud and irritable country. Everyone either sat calmly on the train or got off and walked. This happens all the time, and its just a normal part of life.

Threats here are real, and are treated as such.

[Iulus Cofield]

Just because they're after you, doesn't mean you're not paranoid.

[sardia]

You have to understand the Israeli psyche. Here the threat of being blown up is not theoretical, its an everyday reality. Every building has a clearly signed bomb shelter. Every apartment built in the last two or three decades has a bomb shelter in the apartment. Air-raid sirens are tested regularly, just tomorrow is a test in the whole South. To get into a bus or train station you pass through what you would have called airport security until a few years ago, metal detectors, X-ray machines for bags etc. Same for shopping malls.

Everyone has a relative or friend who has been killed or injured in an attack. Everyone has their story of the one they missed. (Mine was the first bulldozer attack in Jerusalem which killed three people on the main shopping street.)

Just yesterday I was eating lunch in the center of Jerusalem and went to take the tram back to the bus station. As I got to the train the driver announced that they were stopping until further notice because of a suspicious package further up the line. What struck me, as it still does no matter how many times I see a 'hefetz hashud' (suspect package) is how calm Israelis are about it. There's no drama at all, and this in a notoriously loud and irritable country. Everyone either sat calmly on the train or got off and walked. This happens all the time, and its just a normal part of life.

Threats here are real, and are treated as such.

You have to understand that this psyche is going to get you all killed. And you're probably going to take the middle east with you as you go down.

[LaserGuy]

But are you really that sure that you would decisively win a war?

Any strike would be a limited air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Everyone agrees that that won't disable the program, but delay it for probably three years. That gives three more years for sanctions etc to have an effect, and / or for the uprising of a year and a half ago to continue. Either way, it buys a few more years of no Iranian nukes.

A strike against Iran is very likely to galvanize the people against Israel and in support of their leadership. Nothing is better at quashing opposition to an unpopular government than an external threat, or international terrorism. An Israeli strike against Iran would almost certainly undermine a popular revolt against the regime, as are, I would suspect, the terrorist attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists. I can't find anything more recent, but skimming through a few polls from 2007 and 2010, a large majority of Iranians are in favour of the country having nuclear technology in general, and a slim majority are in favour of having nuclear weapons specifically; the issue went essentially uncontested in the most recent elections. Repeated attacks on their country's infrastructure is likely to, if anything, make the Iranian public much more in favour of having nuclear weapons specifically as a means to deter future attacks.

And if it buys a few more years, then what? Is Israel just going to keep bombing Iran for the foreseeable future?

Active U.S. Military support to Israel seems like one of the most certain bets you could make.

I wouldn't be so sure about this. In the Yom Kippur war, for example, Israel had to use nuclear blackmail in order to get any support from the Americans. Especially in an election year with a war weary populace, I could imagine the US dragging its feet and hoping that Israel can deal with matters on their own, so long as the Iranians don't do anything to provoke the Americans directly. If Israel can hold off until 2013 and the Republicans win, well, sure, there will be American support.

[yedidyak]

And if it buys a few more years, then what? Is Israel just going to keep bombing Iran for the foreseeable future?

The we try anything over those years to stop the weapons program. Letting them get nukes just isn't an option.

[Zamfir]

And where would 'anything' stop? Iranian knowledge of centrifuge technology is not just going to go away, and that has a bit of an exponential learning curve. Current capacity is something like 5000 to 10000 swu/year, but the next step would be tens of thousands, both by improving centrifuges and by getting better at mass production and running them. To fuel Bushehr would require a low 6-figure capacity.

So destroying their present capacity has not much effect on the long-run schedule. It might delay ongoing production with a few year, but that's not the same as setting back the program by a few years. It means they have to learn further while rebuilding instead of while expanding. But if the bombings lead to more budget out of national pride, they might just as well catch up with the old schedule.

[EdgarJPublius]

Why not?

[Iulus Cofield]

What happens when, during a protracted war that they're losing, Iran finishes their first bomb? Backs getting closer to the wall, peace talks utterly refused unless they abandon all nuclear technology?

Israel is sure eager to give Iran a reason to use nukes against them. Heck, if this takes five years maybe other world leaders might feel bad enough for them to not make them even more of an international pariah.

Actually, I think Israel is probably going to make this a repeat of the Yom Kippur war, except Iran will be turning to Russia and China to beg for enough military support to avoid using nukes. Ye gods, this really could turn into world war if we have a Republican in office.

[EMTP]

You missed my point.

Of course for Iran giving up their nuclear program would be giving in. But given the fact that Israel sees it as a serious threat, anything else would lead to further escalations. And assassinating Israeli diplomats has a history of sparking wars.

I presume you're referring to Lebanon?

That would be a bad analogy for a few reasons. First, the attempted assassination was a pretext used to justify a long-planned invasion. Second, the attack wasn't carried out by either the PLO, whom Israel targeted in invading Lebanon, nor by the Lebanese. The attack was committed by a splinter group at open war with the PLO, whose leader Yasser Arafat had sentenced to death. So the lesson, such as it is, would seem to be that assassinating Israeli diplomats leads them to start wars with your enemies, not you, and only when they planned to start those wars anyway, and only needed an excuse.

[sourmìlk]

This is all very silly, let us not act as though Iran is acting appropriately, because it's not. This isn't a question of whether Iran is behaving, it's a question of how we should respond to Iran's misbehaviour. Iran has been attacking Israel by proxy for decades, they've been threatening genocide, and they're acquiring the means to commit genocide. Iran isn't simply a victim of circumstance reacting to whatever happens around them, they're initiating hostilities. As such, it is solely on Iran's head to make sure this works out. Iran is making real threats and they're trying to carry out those threats, so Israel is not to blame for attempting to defend itself, Iran is to blame for making that necessary. Even if Israel is overreacting (which I'd dispute), it's still entirely up to Iran to diffuse the situation.

Iulus, this isn't going to be a Yom Kippur war. Iran won't need to use nuclear weapons, they're not existentially threatened. Nobody's planning an invasion of Iran, just a targeted military strike.

A chronic problem in this thread is that people ask Israel not to defend itself because of the consequences that has for others. Yeah, a strike on Iran would probably be messy. It's up to Iran to not make that necessary, not Israel to lie down and accept the whims of one of their enemies.

[Iulus Cofield]

The only break in the logical chain from Israeli air strike to Iran losing a full blown war is how Iran would launch a ground strike on Israel. If Iran can convince or bully Iraq into letting them send troops through, if the Syrian government doesn't topple, and if neither side backs down, it would be really easy for an Israeli air strike to become a multinational war.

So cheers to the stability of Iraq and the instability of Syria!

[sourmìlk]

The Arab countries really support Israel's actions against Iran. They even let Israel set up listening posts in their countries so that Israel could listen in on Iran. Iran will likely just increase pressure with Hezbollah and Hamas. But the thing is, even if it did lead to a full blown war, let's recall that Iran would still be to blame.

[Iulus Cofield]

How so? It's the responsibility of the UN to enforce the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel has no legal basis to engage in acts of war against Iran without direct provocation. A pre-emptive strike can't be justified without some level of paranoia, which is not persuasive to non-Israelis.

[sourmìlk]

By threatening to annihilate Israel, engaging in the means to do so, and getting the means to more effectively do so, Iran has made it such that Israel cannot simply wait and hope that Iran doesn't make good on their threats. Israel has the lives of hundreds of thousands of its citizens at stake, it is unreasonable to request that Israel do nothing and hope Iran is simply lying. If a guy is walking around with a knife stabbing at people, and then he's reaching for a gun while telling you that he'll shoot you when he gets it, you grab the gun.

[yurell]

If a guy is walking around with a knife stabbing at people, and then he's reaching for a gun while telling you that he'll shoot you when he gets it, you grab the gun.

Which is exactly why Iran may be trying to get a nuke.