Is preemptive strike a rational reason for Israel to strike IRAN?

Question

No " poor Israel" " they are alone out there" " how would you feel if some one strip you of your land" " they are the chosen people" " they are scared"

Last time I checked Israel is the most dangerous country in the middle east.

Answer 1

they won't strike without a good reason to do so.

Answer 2

Poor Israel ? Left alone ?  They not only have the full backing from the US but also get $billions a year from the US. Poor my foot.  In my opinion they are just a bunch of land thieves who behave as bad as their n**i persecutors.

Answer 3

No. What would be rational would be for Israel to destroy the commercial airlines of Israel to stop Global Warming. Then for other countries to do the same to stop use of oil which contributes to Global Warming. Also destruction of cars which run on oil.  Without an end to Global Warming Humanity dies. Another point if anyone has learned something from The Holocaust it should be not to invite a nuclear one on this planet.

Answer 4

Israel is the most dangerous country in the middle east? I doubt that your assumption is backed by sufficient data, but for a moment, let's assume that it is.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, has made promises in "Inspirational" speeches to his people to "Wipe Israel off of the map."

With nuclear weapons in tow, you better be d**n sure that he could fulfill that promise.

I'd also like to note the irony in the fact that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, since (I'd say, at least), the most important message learned by Jews from the Holocaust, is that if someone says they want to Anihilate you, don't wait around to see if they mean it.

I don't know your stance on Israel's right to exist as a country, but if you honestly believe that a country should allow another country to kill and wipe out it's people without so much as a defensive strategy or counter-strike, then I would not want you as my president.

Answer 5

Israel has not stripped anyone of their land, that is just propaganda, ie not history. Yes it may be necessary and legal for Israel to take a pre-emptive strike on Iran as they had to against Iraq and Syria.

Answer 6

If you were all alone, with your back to the wall, and a gang of thugs was advancing on you saying things like, you don't deserve to live, and we're going to kill you etc. you'd probably consider a "first strike" to be self defense. In response to your statement that Israel is "the most dangerous country in the middle east", I'd say thanks for the compliment, and it's the anti-semitic idiots with their terrorism and overt threats that have made Israel that way.

Answer 7

Sure, it means we don't have to go in first. We can sit back and watch the much deserved pummeling Iran deserves from it's neighbor.

Answer 8

I understand this is a very delicate topic because it involves so many people's emotions, so I will try and be as neutral as I can.

Despite of what a previous user said a preemptive strike would not be legal, as war per se is legal only whenever another country formally declares war to your own. Or wages de facto war against you. and when I say de facto, i mean it. planes, troops, soldiers. A threat is not war. legislation about preemtpive strikes is actually missing, and to be honest, nobody really seems to care because when it comes to war, as everybody knows, rules are made by the stronger, and everybody else follow, no matter if this is right or wrong.

the real thing is that there is no such organism that can really judge countries  and decide what's legal and whats not and must be therefore punished or sanctioned, beside the international community, which, in such a case, would be most likely divided between countries condemning the attack, and countries more or less explicitly supporting israel's action. Israel seems to put a lot of trust in the intelligence supporting evidence of iran's planning to achieve nuclear weapons. I would be very cautious about such evidence, as we all remember that intelligence services, as good as they can be, are not perfect or flawless, by a long shot. Iraq docet.

I do not think that a nuclear Iran (assuming it is really pursuing to acquire nuclear weapons and not nuclear energy as they insist) would be a direct threat to another country, despite what Iran's president says. Let just remember thhat Iran's president does not hold any comparable power as the american president, the people who are really in charge and run the country are the Ayatollahs. And in spite of their president's language, they are a lot clever politically. they know better than just unleash a nuclear attack against Israel. Would Iran pose an indirect threat to the middle east? yes. first of all Iran's poorly tolerated leadership in the Gulf area would become hegemony. and most arabic countries want to avoid this.This is the reason why in case of Israel's attack many countries in the area would actually secretly rejoice. The real threat of course is the possibility that Iran, or someone in that country, not necessarily representing the will of the government, may supply a new, devastating weapon to the factions involved in the asymmetrical war that is going on in several zones of the middle east, certainly including Hizbullah in Lebanon. Israel has some strategic reasons to try and avoid this situation, but it faces strong tactical difficulties. The main one, according to my opinion, is that Israel possesses the capability to strike Iran, although we do not know how effectively, given the existence of several heavily armored and protected locations, some of which are secret (and we cannot evaluate how deep is israel's knowledge of their whereabouts), and for whose destruction special weapons may be required, but would not be able to deal with the day after. IDF and IAF is a tremendously efficient army, but i do not trust it (political more than military) capability to sustain a broad range of military actions on multiple fronts. Someone may object that it has already done so in the past (1967 for instance) but I would just like to remind you that war today is different. Western countries cannot afford a conduct of war that may make them look less than perfect to the public opinion. and thats a fact. the public opinion is not willing to tolerate abuses anymore, and, let's face it, Israel's room of action, even with full support of the US is limited. Everybody remembers the second Lebanon war, which Israel lost exactly because of that. because of the concern that the world opinion, but especially the opinion of the people in the neighboring countries could break the fragile equilibrium that keeps the peace in the area. Turkey for instance is a USA strong ally, it is Israel's ally and friend, and it has been for years. But turkish people, as secular as they can be, and they are not as secular as they used to be, to tell the truth, are still muslim, and I am not sure they could stand an excessive bloodshed as a consequence of war breaking out on multiple fronts because of the strike against Iran. I doubt that the shock and awe strategy (which failed in Iraq) would have chance of working in this case. For sure, no country would attack Israel. Not willingly. Unless the current regimes (and some of them are really weak, like mubarak or the saud dinasty) are shaken, if not overthrown by other powers,  emboldened and enraged by the events. And the chances of having the US set foot in Lebanon again, or in some other unexpected area to help out Israel are not so strong. Unless the situation becomes so deteriorated that Israel's survival is at stake, in the real meaning of the word. And this would also mean that the whole strategy, conceived to protect israel, has failed.

Answer 9

you have things mixed up rather badly on more than one point here----in answer---yes I would condone an Israeli strike on Iran since the president is threatening to annihilate them and is close to getting nuclear weapons that would turn Israel into a worthless crater----at the expense of the murder of all of Israel's peoples.

Answer 10

this can go either way! israel has ben judged by muslims for eons and to attack a country without being provoked is wrong and definatly build DOME OF THE ROCK is sacrelige!!!!!