world

Israel strikes targets in Syria after missile attack

19 Comments
By JOSEF FEDERMAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

More blowback from Trump's stupidity of completely disengaging from Iran on the nuclear restraint and inspection agreement.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

An eye for an eye? Huh? No equivalency here at all. No, Iran, none at all.

Striking pre-nuclear targets is one thing, yes, to slow down their construction, but shooting a weapon at an active online nuclear power plant is a criminal act that sets a horrific new world first.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Funny how the MULTIPLE Israeli regime's missile attacks just disappear when Syria fires a missile, which, of course is not 'in response', the way the fifth or so missile that the Israeli regime has fired at Syria somehow is.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Unilaterally attacking a power station in a sovreign country with which you are officially at peace is an overt act of war.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

And yes, there is no equivalency at all between a missile fired at the most aggressive war criminals in the region's supposedly (according to the official position of the US, completely inactive nuclear weapons program and the war criminals terrorist attacks on a functioning, IAEA inspected and certified peaceful civilian nuclear energy program.

To pretend that the Israeli regime isn't the nuclear weapons rogue state with a history of launching attacks on its neighbors, and that Iran's nuclear program isn't an NNPT compliant energy program is to pretend that Trump won reelection and the Capitol Rioters were peaceful prodemocracy activists.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Unilaterally attacking a power station...

but shooting a weapon at an active online nuclear power plant is a criminal act.

To be precise, the Dimona reactor is not a power station. It does not produce electricity. It's a military complex used for Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons program.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Semantics people!

Hit that thing and you release radiation over the wider area, including all over the poor long-suffering Palestinians.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Some interesting discussion of the results of an attack on the plutonium reactor at Dimona. Three scenarios of radiation release looked at, including fallout on the West Bank.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-06/features/should-israel-close-dimona-radiological-consequences-military-strike-israel’s

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

More blowback from Trump's stupidity of completely disengaging from Iran on the nuclear restraint and inspection agreement.

Iran never had any intentions on abiding the treaty, they (Obama administration) would have done so, but that was never the intention, not to mention their money that we confiscated from them, they wanted it back, but we help that used it over their heads as a sanction tool and Obama decided to undermine that most important detail. If you’re going to talk about why Iran is upset, let’s go to the beginning first to find out why

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Ah, OK, the mass media has blown this totally out of proportion. It now turns out that it was a stray anti-aircraft missile from Syria, and probably nothing to do with Iran after all. Phew!

https://news.sky.com/story/syrian-anti-aircraft-missile-strikes-near-israeli-nuclear-reactor-military-says-12283361

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Iran never had any intentions on abiding the treaty,

The historical record contradicts your claim. Even Trump certified that Iran was in compliance with the deal, it wasn’t a treaty, numerous times.

they (Obama administration) would have done so, but that was never the intention, not to mention their money that we confiscated from them, they wanted it back, but we help that used it over their heads as a sanction tool and Obama decided to undermine that most important detail. If you’re going to talk about why Iran is upset, let’s go to the beginning first to find out why

The cash the US had was a frozen asset of Iran, it was never used as a sanction tool, whatever that means. The actual sanctions on Iran were the sanction tools.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel for its apartheid regime.

You’d think a country founded by people who were persecuted wouldn’t be persecuting others.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If you’re going to talk about why Iran is upset, let’s go to the beginning first to find out why

1953 seems like a good place. Off you go.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Israel strikes targets in Syria after missile attack

Nothing new there. Israel is constantly worried about Iran and with the Assad government an Iranian client, they have been constantly taking out Iranian assets in Syria.

This one area where Israels policy needs to be checked. A Sunni Wahabi government in Damaskus would be horrible thing, much as the Israelis in their narrow interest would prefer it to the Assad government.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

psmith

The historical record contradicts your claim. Even Trump certified that Iran was in compliance with the deal, it wasn’t a treaty, numerous times.

Which "deal"'? The ridiculous deal with Obama that left holes for the regime big enough to drive a whole factory of centrifuges through? Remember all the critical sites that were excempt from inspection in that "deal"?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I want you to imagine this scenario.

Iran officially announces that in response to the Israeli regime's attack on Iran's IAEA inspected, NNPT compliant, nuclear energy and isotopes program, and the refusal of certain states to condemn such an attack, and to isolate the rogue state, it is going to eliminate the regime's ability to protect its nuclear weapons program from conventional attack, and then launches not two waves of a couple dozen missiles like it did against the American bases that were the source of the terrorist attack that killed a high ranking Iraqi military officer and an invited guest of the Iraqi government on their way to a meeting with the democraticallyelected President of Iraq, but a sustained stream of the newest version of those missiles to 'splash' all those missile batteries, armoured vehicles, and command centers that lit up yesterday.

They have the capacity to do that, and the US already set the precedent that such attacks are allowed by ignoring (Well, officially, but it was pretty clear they supported) Israeli regime attacks on rogue nuclear weapons programs.

Then, a few days later when their missiles are down to rearranging the smoking rubble of those military sites around the source of the regime's nuclear weapons, it sets a deadline by which either the IAEA has control over, and is dismantling Israel's illegal nuclear weapons program, or it will eliminate the threat to humanity it represents itself with sustained missile strikes on the regime's entire military.

The US won't be able to bully and blackmail a resolution against Iran through the UNSC, even if every one of the countries that abstained to appease the US in the UNGA sides with the US on a motion supporting the Israeli regime, it's going to fail by a wide margin, and direct US military intervention, even with the usual gang tagging along would take a long time to put together, or accomplish little but to give Iran all the legal justification it needs to eliminate every US base, warship, and military convoy in the region leaving isolated clusters of US troops scattered throughout countries where civil war against the regimes they've supported are breaking out.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Sigh. The Syrians did not try to attack Dimona with a missile. The missile that struck near Dimona was a late 1960s vintage Almaz S-200 (NATO reporting name SA-5 Gammon) air defense missile. It was fired at incoming Israeli missiles, missed its target and continued to fly until its fuel was exhausted. It then continued on a ballistic trajectory and hit the ground causing the warhead to detonate. The S-200 is a huge missile to give it long range. It was intended to shoot down bomber formations at long range and high altitudes. Because they are not very accurate and were intended to take out whole formations of bombers, they have a big warhead (217 kg, where most air defense missiles today have warheads on the order of 12-25 kg) to generate the necessary large blast radius. For size comparison they are ten meters long or twice the length of an RGM-109 Tomahawk about five times heavier than a Tomahawk.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Remember all the critical sites that were excempt from inspection in that "deal"?

That’s how the deal was setup by a complicit Obama/Biden administration. Selective inspections so Iran could pretend they are complying and Obama/Biden gives support to their Jew and America hating religious zealot pals in Tehran. Oh - and the pallets of cash were Obama/ Biden’s present to fuel more terrorism against Israel and American troops in Iraq. They knew Iran would use their gift to kill American soldiers but gave it to the Mullahs anyway. Disgusting and shameful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That’s how the deal was setup by a complicit Obama/Biden administration. Selective inspections so Iran could pretend they are complying and Obama/Biden gives support to their Jew and America hating religious zealot pals in Tehran. Oh - and the pallets of cash were Obama/ Biden’s present to fuel more terrorism against Israel and American troops in Iraq. They knew Iran would use their gift to kill American soldiers but gave it to the Mullahs anyway. Disgusting and shameful.

If any of this were remotely correct, why did your boy Trump repeatedly certify Iran was in compliance with the Nuclear Deal?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites