Israel might go at it alone

[WethePeopleUS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/w...adiness-for-lone-strike-on-iran.html?ref=iran

In an article published two days ago, Israel has stated that they are capable of carrying out a military strike alone against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Israelis are growing impatient and are getting ready to strike Iran, without the US if necessary. This obviously won't happen, for if Israel strikes Iran, Iran has said they will launch missiles at US bases in the region. If Iran chooses to attack US bases, the US will have no other option but to respond militarily. The general of Iran's military has stated that the US would not engage in a war with Iran because of their "military might." I think they smoke a little too much opium in Iran if they think their military is anywhere near the level of the US's military.

Should the US let Israel go at it alone? Or should we commit to Israel and carry out joint attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities?

Russia has strongly advised the US not to start a war with Iran, but I imagine that is because Iran provides Russia with a lot of oil, and a war could jeopardize that. I do not think that Russia would actually help defend Iran, but who knows.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let them.

 

[Jos]

Israel might go at it alone

They also might not as it would be a war crime

International Atomic Energy Agency
GENERAL CONFERENCE
GC(XXXIV)/RES/533
October 1990
GENERAL Distr.
Thirty-fourth regular session
Agenda item 10(f)
(GC(XXXIV)/939)
MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN MATTERS
RELATING TO NUCLEAR SAFETY AND RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION
Resolution adopted during the 332nd plenary meeting on 21 September 1990
PROHIBITION OF ALL ARMED ATTACKS AGAINST NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS
DEVOTED TO PEACEFUL PURPOSES WHETHER UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR IN OPERATION
The General Conference,
(a)
Having considered the agenda item "Prohibition of all armed
attacks against nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes
whether under construction or in operation",
(b)
Recalling resolution GC(XXIX)/RES/444, in operative paragraph 2 of
which the Conference considers that "any armed attack on and threat
against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a
violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international
law and the Statute of the Agency"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&client=firefox-a&hl=es&nfpr=&spell=1&ct=clnk

 

[BreezeWood]

is taking out Iran's nuclear facilities worth having Iran send missiles into Israel ?

if so then it is up to Israel to make the decision - Iran would not necessarily attack US interests if the US were not involved.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

is taking out Iran's nuclear facilities worth having Iran send missiles into Israel ?

if so then it is up to Israel to make the decision - Iran would not necessarily attack US interests if the US were not involved.

Israel has said that the dangers of fighting Iran are for less serious than having to deal with a military nuclear armed Iran.