Should Israel destroy Iran's nuclear reactor like she did with Iraq?

Question

If Iran has a nuclear reactor and it seems that an attack against Israel is imminent, should Israel make a pre-emptive strike, as with Iraq?

EDIT: OLD KNOW ALL: You can't compare, for the simple fact that Israel has never threatened to 'wipe Iran off the map'. But Iran's fruitcake of a leader HAS vowed to do just that to Israel; he's said it publicly and repeatedly.

CHARLIE: oh, you're just too sweet...and great powers of debate there... Not.

THEO: Er, prior to Israel being on the map, there was the little matter of Judea, home to the jews for close on four thousand years - this is the area we now call Israel.

As for why it might be OK for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike: I agree with you, it's far from ideal! But you can't ignore that Iran keeps threatening to destroy Israel. So there just might come a day when Israel takes Iran at its' word and gets in the first punch. Again, not ideal - but it may prove necessary.

Answer 1

Well, somebody has to do the dirty deed.
Seriously, given the leadership of Iran and the current political climate in the Middle East it would be a lesser loss of life by destroying the nuclear facilities now rather than later. I see some will disagree and point out that Iran has not attacked Israel. That is not true however. Iran has attacked Israel by proxy using Hamas and Hezballah. Those with faint hearts have to answer the question would you rather have a thousand dead now or 10 million dead in five years. I think that is the question.
A U.S. legal point; if a person makes a viable threat against your person that is called assault. If that person physically touches you that is called battery, hence the term assault and battery. Most courts hold with the idea that once assualt has been committed a person is allowed self defense prior to the battery. It is called self defense.

Answer 2

I have one main reason why they shouldn't do such a thing. Israel does not have the right equipment to do the job right with either a moderate level of certainty. It would be a big mistake because it would politically give Iran a legitimate right to strike out against Israel in the eyes of most of the world and it would make Israel look inept in the eyes of the rest of the world for failure to achieve its goals. If the US wanted to do something jointly with the Israelis that might make some sense - but it would not make good political sense. I think this is an issue that is better taken up with the US and the UK with the support of other nations and/or at least the EEC nations (minus possibly France because you can rarely count on them when your back is up against the wall - you usually have to wait until its too late.

Good Luck!!!

Answer 3

Having a nuclear reactor is not the same as having the ability for an imminent nuclear strike.

If Israel did do that, however, it would have to be with US assistance; and both countries would have to deal with the dire consequences.

Add: Amazing the amount of people who don't know the history of the region, and about the 1981 attack.

Answer 4

For those that don't know, yes Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981 - It was a 40 MW light-water nuclear materials testing reactor (MTR) in Iraq, 11 miles south-east of Baghdad - designed by the French and monitored by the IAEA. The 1981 attack (Operation Opera) completely crippled the facility, and it was completely destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War by American aerial bombing...

Iran had previously attacked the same facility, in September 1980, shortly after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war.

As a piece of trivia, one of the Israeli pilots to have flown the Osirak mission was Ilan Ramon, who later became Israel's first astronaut, and who was killed in the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003...

Anyway - on to your question...

No.

Iran is attempting to enrich uranium, ostensibly for developing nuclear power. It's still at least some 10 years away from this objective, according to CIA reports - it's certainly not yet "an imminent threat".

Even if it could be proven that the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons, then the answer remains a no. Justifying a pre-emptive attack on Iran allows for the same ethical logic to say that, with all the warmongering going on toward Iran, it would be justified in launching a pre-emptive attack against the US, or against Israel, who constantly threaten military action against Iran.

If something is wrong for one person, it is wrong for another - the principle of universality underpins all ethical conduct.

And even if Iran *does* manage to produce nuclear weapons, despite crippling sanctions, despite threats of military action and everything else - they still couldn't use them - for exactly the same reason the Russians couldn't attack the US during the Cold War -

- Israel has enough nukes to level every Arab city across the Middle East.

Not even a loon like Ahmadinejad would bring that sort of armageddon on his own people. Any nuclear attack on an Israeli city would kill hundreds of thousands - but the reprisals would kill millions. Also - any attack on an Israeli city would, no doubt, damage and destroy holy Muslim sites - which Iran clearly wouldn't do.

Incidentally, Iran offered to host IAEA inspectors for its nuclear facilities during the same week that the US (the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons, lest we forget) refused to allow UN teams to fully inspect facilities at Guantanamo Bay...

Personally, I think that the President of Iran is trying to make a point about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. It's a dangerous (and probably foolhardy) game to play - but he has said that he would commit to a nuclear-free Middle East... That is, if Israel were to dismantle its nukes, then Iran would give up the aspiration to develop them...

Even the Americans didn't want Israel to possess nuclear weapons, and refused to supply materials... Yet the British, along with the Norwegians, supplied the heavy water needed... The Americans knew that nuclear weapons is exactly what the Middle East doesn't need!

In short, if it's right for one country to hold nukes, then it must be right for every country to hold them. The fact that they are the most abominable things to ever be created by the human race means that no country should ever have the right to possess them.

Apologies for the long answer - it's not an easy question.

Answer 5

Some people here should research history. Just a couple things. Six day war, bombed out reactors in Iran and Egypt.

Answer 6

Unfortunately, Iran's learned from Iraq's mistake and has everything spread out around the country. It won't be a matter of just bombing one site. The best solution would be helping the Iranian people overthrow the mullahs, an attack by Israel or the US would just get the populace behind them. But unfortunately, there might not be enough time to wait for that to happen. It's a tough situation, but something definitely has to be done. The whole world should see the problem with Ahmedinejad adn the mullahs having nukes.

EDIT: I have to disagree with Jim below on this point:

"Not even a loon like Ahmadinejad would bring that sort of armageddon on his own people. "

Ahmedinejad thinks world chaos is what will bring the Mahdi out of hiding, and I really believe that in his mind a few million martyrs will be a worthwhile trade for making this happen.

Answer 7

Iraq didn't have a nuclear reactor. But if Iran used it's nuclear reactor for attacking Israel then Israel have the right to destroy it as Israel will must defend itself.
note: I'm Egyptian

Answer 8

I have a good answer for all of this! Every Country in the world that has nukes or nuke reactors should come to an agreement and destroy all of them at the same time.

Making this world far safer.

Answer 9

So A-Man-In-Dinner-Jacket did call for Israel to be wiped off the map, but Israel was not ON the map before 1948. To say that the 1948 resolution of the UN was bungled is not a crime.

What is it with you people, what makes a pre-emptive strike OK but possession of Nukes by anyone else evil?

What is the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror"?

Answer 10

Should they, YES Will they, NO. Israel is a kind loving country and they don't wish to harm anyone but when they are pushed they can and will fight back with all their heart and strength. It would be too presumptuous for them to strike without provocation. Words are not enough but Iran is a shiitey little country with a terrorist president. Heaven help they should they go too far with Israel. That terrorist president is trying to get his people killed and he's doing a very good job of it.