Does Israel have the right to strike Iran?

[Thunder]

Follow up question to my previous topic.

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?

I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

But, Iran does not have nuclear tipped missiles. They dont even have nuclear weapons..and it may be several years before they do.

Iran may indeed develop nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against Israel. Or..they may not.

I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Israel...is gonna have to wait.

[Darth Rotor]

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?
What does "having the right" have to do with this? See this post in your other thread in case you missed the point.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3760939&postcount=46
I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

But, Iran does not have nuclear tipped missiles. They dont even have nuclear weapons..and it may be several years before they do. Iran may indeed develop nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against Israel. Or..they may not.
I take it that Israeli politicians come to you for policy guidance?
I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Israel...is gonna have to wait.
Well, since you said so, I'll sleep secure tonight knowing they won't attack Iran, since they are gonna have to wait.

Wait until when?

Until they feel like it, I suppose. :p

DR

[Sefarst]

There are other ways of killing people than just with nuclear weapons. Every war since WWII and every war before it has proven that. Iran has expressed a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Therefore, any action taken against Israel with that respect should be viewed as an attempt to go that direction.

But I agree with Darth Rotor, Israel is going to do whatever it wants as long as it has the support of the US government. Seeing as how both presidential candidates have pledged full support to Israel, I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

[Thunder]

when i say "right" i mean a moral justification that would be agreed to and understood by most modern societies.

most modern societies would agree that if another nation is pointing nuclear missiles at you and is openly threatening to attack you with them, it is only prudent that you strike first to remove the threat.

however, without nuclear tipped missiles, without functional nuclear weapons, and without even 90% evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the world may not accept such an attack.

if israel attacks iran, without proving that it is justified or neccessary for its survival, resulting in a larger regional war involving the USA, Iran, maybe some Arab states, and even possibly Russia....Israel better be damn sure that they had a damn good reason to start it all.

of you are gonna start WW3..or even a regional war..make sure you're justified in doing so.

[Darth Rotor]

But I agree with Darth Rotor, Israel is going to do whatever it wants as long as it has the support of the US government. Seeing as how both presidential candidates have pledged full support to Israel, I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.
I didn't say the bolded part, you did. Just to make sure nobody attributes that to me. ;)

Israel will do what it takes to survive, with or without American help. Mind you, it'll be tougher for them with less or no help, but it won't stop them trying to survive. Funnily enough, I think that's true of most nations. :cool:

DR

[Thunder]

iran has no nuclear missiles. it has no nuclear weapons. all it has is an enrichment program and a big mouthed leader.

israel's survival is not at risk. only its itchy trigger finger and its insistance in attacking its neighbors or getting someone else to do it for them....is at risk.

[Sefarst]

iran has no nuclear missiles. it has no nuclear weapons. all it has is an enrichment program and a big mouthed leader.

israel's survival is not at risk. only its itchy trigger finger and its insistance in attacking its neighbors or getting someone else to do it for them....is at risk.
As I said, there are other ways to kill people. If Iran is supplying terrorist organizations with weapons to kill Israeli civilians, is that not a good enough justification for you?

[Thunder]

we arent talking about pinpoint strikes against 1 target. we are talking about 100 or so sites, using many many weapons, killing possibly thousands of people. iran will retaliate, the usa will strike back, the arabs will join iran's side (and possibly russia or china).

i dont want that. do you?

[Darth Rotor]

when i say "right" i mean a moral justification that would be agreed to and understood by most modern societies.
When has that stopped anyone?
most modern societies would agree that if another nation is pointing nuclear missiles at you and is openly threatening to attack you with them, it is only prudent that you strike first to remove the threat.
Oh? So most modern societies would agree with Japan attacking North Korea, and the US (and any number of UN nations) supporting them?

You might want to rethink that.
however, without nuclear tipped missiles, without functional nuclear weapons, and without even 90% evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the world may not accept such an attack.
Not sure I understand how this matters, other than in the political risk calculation the potential attacker goes through before making a choice to attack.
if israel attacks iran, without proving that it is justified or neccessary for its survival,
They might get hung out to dry. Israel isn't America's only ally, and a key ally/associate Saudi Arabia may not choose to cast its lot with the Israelis.
resulting in a larger regional war involving the USA,
Maybe, maybe not. US has a lot more to lose than Israel does, if Israel reaches the point of making this swan song attack.
Iran, maybe some Arab states, and even possibly Russia....Israel better be damn sure that they had a damn good reason to start it all.
Why would the Russians get into that war? Where do they benefit?
of you are gonna start WW3..or even a regional war..make sure you're justified in doing so.
Oh, great, a fan of someone starting World War III, "if the reason is good enough." Let's go back a few thousand years and discuss the concept of just wars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War)


Augustine
Firstly, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or as an exercise of power.
Secondly, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state.
Thirdly, love must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[41]
I love the smell of cordite in the morning . . .
Grotius
that there are some circumstances in which war is justifiable.

self-defense, reparation of injury, and punishment;
Which ignores the problem of surprise and initiative being significant force multipliers, and thus aids to victory, and that victory has its own justification, one being continued existence as a state.

Sorry, gonna have to vote against you on that one, parky.

*Pulls lever for "No World War III"*

DR

[Thunder]

israel can do whatever they want. but they shouldnt expect the world to support them....or defend them..if they attack iran when its not neccessary.

[Darth Rotor]

israel can do whatever they want. but they shouldnt expect the world to support them....or defend them..if they attack iran when its not neccessary.

I don't think the Israelis expect the world to support them in much of anything. If just a few of the Powers put up with them, it will probably suffice.

See UN General Assembly resolutions in re Israel for some pointers on what Israel can expect from "the world."

DR

[Thunder]

well, if the world does not want israel to possibly start a regional war, or even world war 3, maybe we should STOP israel from attacking.

[Newtons Bit]

Follow up question to my previous topic.

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?

I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

But, Iran does not have nuclear tipped missiles. They dont even have nuclear weapons..and it may be several years before they do.

Iran may indeed develop nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against Israel. Or..they may not.

I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Israel...is gonna have to wait.

No, no bombs that make the big boom. But they can make nuclear waste bombs in a couple of years(maybe months) and render Tel Aviv uninhabitable.

[WildCat]

well, if the world does not want israel to possibly start a regional war, or even world war 3, maybe we should STOP israel from attacking.
And how do you propose to stop it?

[Policenaut]

Bomb Israel of course. It's the only logical course of action. That way the Middle East will be a utopia and rainbows and gumdrops will be shooting out of everyones ass. Makes sense to me.

[Mycroft]

iran has no nuclear missiles. it has no nuclear weapons. all it has is an enrichment program and a big mouthed leader.

So what you're saying is if a guy is threatening to kill me and is actively seeking the weapons to kill me, that I'm not justified in doing anything about it until he's actually completed the weapon, armed it, and aimed it at me?

That doesn't make any sense, Parky.

well, if the world does not want israel to possibly start a regional war, or even world war 3, maybe we should STOP israel from attacking.

Israel didn't start any wars when it bombed the nuclear facilities in Iraq or Syria, there is no reason to suppose a war would start if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but if it does, you can't honestly claim Israel is the only party guilty of provoking a confrontation.

[Darth Rotor]

Bomb Israel of course. It's the only logical course of action. That way the Middle East will be a utopia and rainbows and gumdrops will be shooting out of everyones ass. Makes sense to me.
Finally, some out of the box thinking! Also, the element of surprise would be in our favor. They'd never see it coming.

What flavor gumdrops? The cost benefit is better for grape than lemon lime. The security of the Middle East hinges upon your answer.

[Darth Rotor]

Israel didn't start any wars when it bombed the nuclear facilities in Iraq or Syria, there is no reason to suppose a war would start if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but if it does, you can't honestly claim Israel is the only party guilty of provoking a confrontation.
Uh, wait a minute. If Isreal goes ahead and bombs Iran, they aren't provoking confrontation?

Yeah, sure, they aren't provoking confrontation, they are initiating armed confrontation.

[gtc]

If Israel bombs them hard enough then maybe there won't be anyone left to be provoked.

This reasoning can be applied to most conflicts, at least once.

[Darth Rotor]

If Israel bombs them hard enough then maybe there won't be anyone left to be provoked.

This reasoning can be applied to most conflicts, at least once.

The US has dropped a non trivial amount of bombs on Iraq in the past five years. It is still standing. Iran is a much larger kettle of fish. I don't think your observation can be taken as other than hyperbole.

Or are you suggesting Israel use nukes on Iran, preemptively? I don't think you are, but figured I'd ask.

DR

[Beerina]

Follow up question to my previous topic.

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?

I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

But, Iran does not have nuclear tipped missiles. They dont even have nuclear weapons..and it may be several years before they do.

Iran may indeed develop nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against Israel. Or..they may not.

I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Israel...is gonna have to wait.

...says someone safely ensconsed thousands of miles away.


One does not have to wait until one's neighbor, who hates you and states he wants you to die and would kill you if he could, gets a huge gun.


It's interesting that people with an attitude like yours, more likely than not, are also pro-gun control in the US and other places.


If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if it wasn't some kind of cowardly action, wanting to control those who will let themselves be controlled, but an angry opponent who you know would slit your throat and dance with joy afterward, you kneel down and worship, please sir, don't kill me, and I will tout your right to do nasty stuff.

But oh, Israel! You won't slit my throat. Give up your guns!


Yes, I'd wonder that. If I didn't know better.

[Polaris]

Finally, some out of the box thinking! Also, the element of surprise would be in our favor. They'd never see it coming.

What flavor gumdrops? The cost benefit is better for grape than lemon lime. The security of the Middle East hinges upon your answer.

Fig, of course. Jeez!

[Darth Rotor]

Fig, of course. Jeez!
OK, send it back to committee, we need to get consensus before this goes forward. :D

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought 'Wipe Israel off the map' was long ago seen as misinterpreted? It's a bit daft to consistently bring that up when you have all the holocaust denial to pick from.

Holocaust denial from a leader should be reason enough to prevent that leader getting a nuclear weapon.

[gtc]

The US has dropped a non trivial amount of bombs on Iraq in the past five years. It is still standing. Iran is a much larger kettle of fish. I don't think your observation can be taken as other than hyperbole.

Or are you suggesting Israel use nukes on Iran, preemptively? I don't think you are, but figured I'd ask.

DR


Actually, I was joking along the lines of 'nuke them till they glow'. My real opinion is that a nuclear armed Iran is a big worry but pre-emptive strikes are likely to be a big worry too.

[Ziggurat]

I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

If Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, then it's already too late.

I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...

And yet, the scenario in which you acknowlege a right to attack Iran is one in which that point of no return has already been reached.

but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Hypothetical: suppose Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and nothing short of an attack will stop them, but they are still a few years away. Why would waiting till the last moment to strike be preferable to striking now? And if the collateral damage from striking now would be lower, wouldn't it actually be preferable to strike now rather than at the last moment? Remember, this is a hypothetical: whether or not Iran is actually in this situation is beside the point to my question.

[Thunder]

if israel had conclusive evidence that iran was developing nuclear weapons to be attached to missiles aimed at israel, i would say israel would then be justified in destroying those missiles and that nuclear weapons program.

israel does not have conclusive proof of a nuclear weapons program aimed at them.

they have a ways to go before they are justified in attacking iran.

if every nation attacked every nation that they thought may be developing weapons that may be used against them, someday, there wouldn't be many nations left on this Earth.

[mr rosewater]

if every nation attacked every nation that they thought may be developing weapons that may be used against them, someday, there wouldn't be many nations left on this Earth.

Which may be the answer to global warming.:)

[Doctor Evil]

if israel had conclusive evidence that iran was developing nuclear weapons to be attached to missiles aimed at israel, i would say israel would then be justified in destroying those missiles and that nuclear weapons program.

israel does not have conclusive proof of a nuclear weapons program aimed at them.

they have a ways to go before they are justified in attacking iran.

if every nation attacked every nation that they thought may be developing weapons that may be used against them, someday, there wouldn't be many nations left on this Earth.

How do you know what kind of information Israel have about Iran's nuclear program. At least part of this information will come from intelligence sources. I would imagine that Israel would not share this information easily, as it could expose those sources.

So Parky, how would you know what kind of proofs Israel does or does not have? Note that I don't have any information, but I don't expect to get that information either.

[Thunder]

if israel has information suggesting iran is working on a bomb..they should share it with the world. but i think they would have done that by now..dont you?

[Ziggurat]

if israel has information suggesting iran is working on a bomb..they should share it with the world.

And likely compromise the source of that information? That would be awfully stupid.

You don't know what Israel knows. Neither do I. And neither of us can conclude that Israel will attack Iran. But the problem of what to do with uncertain intelligence will remain. Is Israel unjustified in attacking if they're 99% sure that Iran is working on nukes to use against them? 90% sure? Where's the threshold? Because if you claim 100% is required, well, that's functionally equivalent to saying that Israel can never be justified in attacking Iran. And that would be, quite frankly, a stupid position to take.

You also didn't actually answer my question about whether delaying an attack until just before Iran went nuclear made any sense at all.

[Bud Fox]

I thought 'Wipe Israel off the map' was long ago seen as misinterpreted?


There is some controversy as to the translation. Some believe that a more accurate translation is "Vanish from the pages of time". It doesn't really matter----the latter is more poetic, but has the same meaning. FWIW, al-Jazeera used the "wiped off the map" translation:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

[Darth Rotor]

I thought 'Wipe Israel off the map' was long ago seen as misinterpreted? It's a bit daft to consistently bring that up when you have all the holocaust denial to pick from.

Holocaust denial from a leader should be reason enough to prevent that leader getting a nuclear weapon.
Non sequitur, so no. Your criterion does not fit the situation.

If Putin denies the Holocaust, how you gonna get his nukes away from him?

If a Pakistani president were to deny the Holocaust, how do you intend to get his nukes away from him?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

If Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, then it's already too late.
Uh, no. That is where BMD comes in. See the Arrow missile, and similar US programs.
And yet, the scenario in which you acknowlege a right to attack Iran is one in which that point of no return has already been reached.
Indeed, it's a gotterdamerung situation.
Hypothetical: suppose Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and nothing short of an attack will stop them, but they are still a few years away. Why would waiting till the last moment to strike be preferable to striking now? And if the collateral damage from striking now would be lower, wouldn't it actually be preferable to strike now rather than at the last moment? Remember, this is a hypothetical: whether or not Iran is actually in this situation is beside the point to my question.
More important question: can you get away with it both physically and politically? These attacks and situations do not occur in a vacuum.

Force defecates on reason's back.

DR

[Policenaut]

That situation is lose-lose politically. If you do a strike early then the world will condemn you for "warmongering" and if you wait and the nuke is used the world will condemn you for not stopping it earlier.

[Darth Rotor]

That situation is lose-lose politically. If you do a strike early then the world will condemn you for "warmongering" and if you wait and the nuke is used the world will condemn you for not stopping it earlier.
They can't condemn you if you aren't there, if you are a lot of cosmic dust and radioactive waste.

This is what makes nuclear weapons so entertaining: they open up new possibilities with over the top consequences.

[Beerina]

Any free nation has the right to strike any non-free nation for the purpose of self-defense, or for the purpose of ending the dictatorship therein.

[lumos]

Wow. Iran is a nation run by a dictator who publicy admits he supports genocide, mass murder, and terrorism. One of his primary goals is to murder every Jewish person on Earth. He'd also like to murder every American and probably every non-muslim.

And you can even ask if anybody has the right to pre-emptively work to prevent genocide? Yikes.

[originalgagster]

Any free nation has the right to strike any non-free nation for the purpose of self-defense, or for the purpose of ending the dictatorship therein.


This isn't stated by any international law that I'm aware of, so I'm assuming this is something you are proposing. I think for a rule like that to be workable you first of all need to define precisely what you mean by your key words.

There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a "free" or "non-free" nation; perhaps you would you like to offer a definition? Who gets to decide which nations are "free" and which are "unfree"? The attacking nation? The United nations? Or who?

Who decides which methods of warfare are to be used by "free" nations on their "unfree" foes, is it acceptable to liberate an "unfree" people by dropping millions of tons of ordance on their heads? What if the people of an "unfree" nation exhibit no desire to be freed, is it acceptable to go ahead and free them regardless of their wishes?

"Self-defense" is also a troublesome concept. I can't think of a single example of a nation which ever went to war not claiming "self-defense". Even outright acts of aggression like Pearl Harbor or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were conducted behind a superficially plausible veneer of "self-defense".

How do you decide what constitutes a "dictator"? The concept is by no means clear cut. Hugo Chavez is often decried as a dictator despite being democratically elected. Was Salvador Allende a dictator? Nixon thought so and attempted to have him overthrown as a consequence, this is despite the fact that Allende was elected. Ahmadinejad likewise is elected, no doubt in an "unfree" election, but then the question arises of what constitutes a free election.

I suspect that in reality your rule would boil down to "might makes right" where the guys with the biggest guns get to decide what constitutes "unfree", "self-defense" and "dictatorship" and base their decisions on who to attack on criteria which have little to do with any of those words.

[Darth Rotor]

Wow. Iran is a nation run by a dictator who publicy admits he supports genocide, mass murder,
Evidence to support this statement? I suppose you could infer "mass murder" in from his desire for Israel, the nation state, to go away, as the Israelis are unlikely to do that short of bloody armed conflict.
and terrorism.
Terrorists, and only some. For example, he's not so hot on PKK, terrorists, who Iran and Turkey recently did some smacking of in Northern Iraq.
One of his primary goals is to murder every Jewish person on Earth.
Not quite. He wants the Jews out of Palestine/Israel, or so he has stated. His interview with Der Spiegel included his usual wheeze about why, since the problem that induced the Jews to flee Europe was European/German in origin, didn't Europe provide the solution on European soil, rather than in Palestine/ISrael.

That is hardly " I want all Jews on the planet earth dead." Of course, it's rather empty in substance, given that we can't turn back the clock, even if anyone wanted to agree with his position and implement it.

Can you provide evidence to support your assertion?
He'd also like to murder every American and probably every non-muslim.
Uh, no. Not quite.
And you can even ask if anybody has the right to pre-emptively work to prevent genocide? Yikes.
Since he's not in the genocide business, but rather "Israel as a nation state needs to go away, or at least away from Palestine" business, then your question is rather empty.

He may be a jerk, and up to no good in general, but that does not mean that what you said about him is true.

DR

[a_unique_person]

Any free nation has the right to strike any non-free nation for the purpose of self-defense, or for the purpose of ending the dictatorship therein.

Statements like this are often made, but IMHO they sound suspiciously like fascism. (I am not calling you a fascist, btw). Who decides who is free and who is not free? Why, you do, of course.

[DaChew]

Follow up question to my previous topic.

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?

I would say, if Iran had nuclear armed missiles pointed at Israel, and Iran was talking about attacking Israel with nuclear weapons, I would say "yes, it is only prudent that Israel protect itself".

But, Iran does not have nuclear tipped missiles. They dont even have nuclear weapons..and it may be several years before they do.

Iran may indeed develop nuclear weapons with the intention of using them against Israel. Or..they may not.

I believe in protecting oneself and preventing your enemy from reaching the point of no return...but that point is far from being reached when it comes to a nuclear attack from Iran.

Israel...is gonna have to wait.

OK. Take what you said above and where you have the word "Iran" substitute the word "Syria".

Israel had exactly this situation with Syria early in the year and they did exactly that - they attacked. They admit they attacked. They gave the reason they attacked. The were condemned by the usual suspects and they've moved on.

If Israel attacks Iran, why would world response be any different? How would the situation be any different? Maybe larger in scale but how would it be different? I can't think of any difference really.

[BenBurch]

...

Does Israel have the right to attack Iran?

...

They do to EXACTLY the same degree as Iran has the right to strike Israel.

And so, unless that is what we want, we need a sane President in office make it really clear to both sides that there will be consequences to that action.

[lumos]

Evidence to support this statement? I suppose you could infer "mass murder" in from his desire for Israel, the nation state, to go away, as the Israelis are unlikely to do that short of bloody armed conflict.

Terrorists, and only some. For example, he's not so hot on PKK, terrorists, who Iran and Turkey recently did some smacking of in Northern Iraq.

Not quite. He wants the Jews out of Palestine/Israel, or so he has stated. His interview with Der Spiegel included his usual wheeze about why, since the problem that induced the Jews to flee Europe was European/German in origin, didn't Europe provide the solution on European soil, rather than in Palestine/ISrael.

That is hardly " I want all Jews on the planet earth dead." Of course, it's rather empty in substance, given that we can't turn back the clock, even if anyone wanted to agree with his position and implement it.

Can you provide evidence to support your assertion?

Uh, no. Not quite.

Since he's not in the genocide business, but rather "Israel as a nation state needs to go away, or at least away from Palestine" business, then your question is rather empty.

He may be a jerk, and up to no good in general, but that does not mean that what you said about him is true.

DR

Evidence comes from speeches and comments made by the man himself. Some of these are summarized on Wikipedia but some key statements are:

"Israel should be wiped off the map"
"Israel must be uprooted and erased from history"
"In the world, there are deviations from the right path: Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these deviations. There are also false claims that these [religions] will save mankind. But Islam is the only religion that [can] save mankind."
"We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it."
"In a speech given in April 2008, Ahmadinejad described the September 11, 2001 attacks as a "suspect event." He minimized the attacks by saying all that had happened was, "a building collapsed." He claimed that the death toll was never published, that the victims' names were never published, and that the attacks were used subsequently as pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. [117]"

Quote from Wiki: (Sorry in advance that Bush is related to this quote. He and I disagree a lot.)
"The Bush administration considers Iran to be the world's leading state supporter of terrorism. Iran has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism since 1984,[108][109][110]"

And he is also a holocaust denier.
And he has denied that 9/11 WTC attacks occurred.

Feel free to look up this guys speeches on your own. He speaks for himself. I suppose I could be "misinterpreting" his comments but I doubt it. When the head of a nation makes these comments in public, he's probably serious about them.

[moon1969]

Sure they do. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is acting like Saddam Hussein they have the right to do Operation Opera again. Still I think they should be more worried about Lebanon and Hezbollah.