Haaretz disagrees completely with the lobby-led New York Times: The great Israeli newspaper says that Netanyahu got slam-dunked by Obama on attacking Iran. "From his [Yossi Melman's] lips to God's ear," says Mike Desch, who passed this along:
Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.
All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending strong, clear hints that Israel
does not have permission to strike Iran. Yet, given their familiarity
with the Israeli client, they have not made do with simple hints and
intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."
Its sad that you put words into Gates mouth. But, it is good news that Israel seems to acknowledge that attacking Iran will place it alone in the world.
I wish though that you would drop the implication that the Shiites that would kill Americans in Iraq (fictionally), are innocuous or humane. Iraq is 600 – 1000 miles from Israel. Iran is 800 – 1800 miles from Israel. Neither are directly affected by Israel's relations to them. They need not supply arms, training, funding, PR even. When the US seems to support Israel in word and in money, you condemn, but when Iran supports in word, money, arms, that is somehow innocent?
To elaborate further. The radicals in the Islamic world urge all of Islam to speak with one voice relative to Israel. Criticism yes, but further than criticism, to the point of actually active enemy. (With the exception of Israel's immediate neighbors Egypt and Jordan, which realize that it is necessary to reconcile, to survive and to thrive). That is NOT a humanistic approach. That is NOT a universalistic approach, but in fact exclusive and viciously so. Given that solidarity from remote corners, it is rational by my eyes for Israel and for the US as a friend of Israel, to NOT adopt a patronizing attitude towards unconditional enemies. If the statement was clearly conditional, and feasibly posed, then the defensiveness of Israel would be irrelevant. But that is NOT the case. Iran is actively aggressing. Iran is actively fomenting against the US (indepedently of its relation with Israel) and US allies and supply chain for oil.
I don't find the Melman article plausible.
We have just heard a pile of nonsense Richard Witty that attempts to obscure the issue: the leadership of the United States government does not want Israel to attack Iran. Why? Because America subsidizes Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization of Muslim land and American Zionists have been clamoring for war with Iran. Iranians are not fools. They know very well that any attack by Israel on their soil can only take place with American compliance, even if it takes the form of sitting back 'helplessly' while Israeli aircraft fly through Iraqi airspace, which we control and are responsible for administering. Iranian Shiites have good relations with Iraqi Shiites, any Israeli attack on Iran would likely lead to massive increases in attacks on American forces in Iraq, both by locals and by Iranian forces fighting unconventionally. An Israeli attack on Iran will mean we would be fighting a third war, one that is not even remotely in our interest, and one which would seriously if not fatally degrade efforts in the other two wars. Neither [Iraq or Iran] are directly affected by Israel's relations to them. Err, yes they are, because Iran and Iraq have relations of their own. It is nonsense, and a Zionist wet dream, to think that you can always deal with 'enemy' countries individually. When you are hostile to many people, they tend to stick together against the common foe. Don't be fooled into thinking Iraqis all of sudden love Israel because American colonial Zionists lied us into a war that demolished their country after Zionist driven, e.g. Madeleine Albright, 'dual-use' embargoes brought their nation to its knees, killing one half million children. If a half million Jewish children died from malnutrition-exacerbated disease, like dysentery where you literally blow your life's water out your rectum and die, what would Jews think? I think you might be a little perturbed. Muslims, I know this is shocking for some colonial Zionists to hear, are actually human too, and get a little upset when their kids die for nothing. That is NOT a humanistic approach. Humanism? You have got to be kidding me. It's nothing so complex or esoteric. The lack or abundance of 'humanism' in the Muslim world is irrelevant. [if Israel attacks Iran, then Americans die for nothing] How hard is that to understand? Iran is actively aggressing. No more than Israel. How many times has Iran attacked anyone in the last 60 years? zero How many times has Israel attacked anyone in the last 60 years? LOL Iran is actively fomenting against the US (indepedently of its relation with Israel) and US allies and supply chain for oil. It is called strategic competition, and has been going on since the dawn of civilization. It is, in and of itself, no reason to go to war. Mr. Witty is implying that because Iran tries to use its oil to as a tool of foreign policy, e.g. selling to India and China to improve relations, we should attack it. This is astrodon dung. American should only go to war when it is in our interest to do so. There is nothing in it for us. The Obama administration is criminally negligent if it does not have contingency plans in place for an Israel attack on Iran without our permission. If Pres. Obama has been talking tough in private but making nice in public, he will have zero credibility with Netanyahu and his people, and they may call his bluff.
"That is NOT a humanistic approach." C'mon now, you cannot be a humanist and a Zionist. That's patently absurd. But Riochard Witty reminds of that old folk song I heard, "Oh, how he rambles".
Colin, Richard Witty is like a bad cook. He thinks anything is palatable if it's covered in schmaltz.
Calling Obama's bluff may be the last thing on earth Netanyahu has the nerve to do. And I doubt very strongly the US does not have a 'go to hell' plan if Israel should be so foolhardy to strike Iran, considering all the competent administrative and executive personalities this administration has on board who are also driving Obama's Middle East policies.
Iraqis do not require an attack on Iran to act as patriots and combat the foreign invaders with extreme prejudice. All Iraqis and Afghans should resist the occupation of their nations by any means. Iran helps Lebanese and Palestinians defend themselves, which is also the reason given for US aid to Israel. The difference between the two is Israel uses its defensive aid for offensives to acquire territory.
My parents are extremely conservative Muslims. Not once, not once, growing up was I taught about Palestine. They should have. I was ignorant until the 11th grade in high school. Israel came up for a discussion while I was visiting Pakistan and a family member, who's getting her mastes in Arabic, asked why is there a dispute between Israel and Palestine. She's extremely religious too, and she's wears a niqab, or covers her face and yet no one told her how all of Islam had to speak in one voice regarding Israel. That's a lie put out by Zionists.
LOL, You can play that nonsense with your fellow Kool aid drinking "progressives". Iran has been responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands of terror attacks all over the world including killing thousands of Americans. http://www.iranterror.com/fr/content/view/38/56/
Zionists speak with one voice, but Muslims do not.
He is not putting words into his mouth, he is asking him a question. Your judgment often is faster than your eyes or fingers.
When first I began monitoring Israel's activities vis-a-vis Iran, I called harvard emeritus professor Richard Frye to ask him the last time Iran attacked another country. "During the time of Nadir Shah," he replied. "When was that?" I asked. And he answered, "About two hundred and forty years ago." Clearly neither Israel nor the U.S. can match that record of forebearance. Iran will never preemptively attack Israel. But facts matter not, nor does reason among people so convinced of their own power and superiority that they really believe that everything is so simply because they say so. I guess that much as an individual can lose hold on reality, so can a nation.
You think that the radical Islamicists that seek to remove all infidels from the Islamic waqf, including shia and wahabi radicals, don't believe that they are speaking for all of Islam, for Islam as one undivided territory and community? You throw around the term "lie" too lightly.
Your source ignores the funding, arming, and encouragement of terror on Israeli civilians. If you want to call an Iranian made, Iranian trained bomb on Sderot, "not an attack on another country", then you are very skilled at rationalization (self-deception). The United States remains, and will remain, a friend to Israel. It will be its best friend by accomplishing peace in the region, which certainly Netanyahu (but also Hezbollah, Hamas and others) can subvert. But, to state that Iran is innocent, not saber-rattling with very heavy handed hips, is really self-intoxication.
Zionists speak with very different voices, as do Muslims. The government of Iran however seeks to be the leader of the Muslim voice in the world, and by military power (if not by conquering directly). Skillful for a skill-less goal.
Iran is in its local neighborhood, surrounded by whom? Nuclear Israel, the USA in Iraq, all those US Navy ships in the Gulf, for starters–What did the USA do when Cuba-USSR put missiles near its locality? What did Russia do recently in Georgia, so near its borders. Did Iran start the 8 year war with old Iraq? Yet Iran hasn't engaged in preemptive attacks even…. It has a memory of the US puppet the Shah…. Get real, thedhimmi…. if there is anyone to fear in the MIddle East it is Israel & its superpower enabler… Israel will do anything to retain its hegemony–including dragging the USA into a war with Iran.
Egypt and Jordan have been bought off by Uncle Sam to play nice with Israel. Add up the sum of foreign aid of total USA foreign aid just for those three. See anything? Israel's dole of course comes without stings attached, unlike the other two. Why should Israel be allowed to retain hegemony, which is to say, why shouldn't Iran be competitive? And which should be help? What's in the USA's best interest and in accord with its highest values? So far this question has not been mainstreamed in the USA.
Retired marine officer Scott Ritter stated in a recent radio interview that Israel simply does not have the conventional military power to destroy Iran's nuclear industry, And I doubt that even Zionist fanatics would launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. All the Israeli threats about going it alone are a bluff IMHO. They will only attack Iran if they quite sure they can get the US to join in.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran wants to use military power to lead or conquer the Muslim world. Iran's religious leaders are no more or less intransigent than any other religious leaders of any religion. They are, however, much less militant than the religious leaders of Israel and the US.
Pres. Obama must have contingency plans for the scenario where we refuse to participate or cooperate, and they attack anyway. The Israelis may attack and hope that either Iranian forces will attack American forces in response or that in the inevitable confusion the proximity of American and Iranian forces will lead to fighting not directly authorized by either's command authority, and it spins out of control. Lest we forget, we must be prepared to respond appropriately if the Israelis 'help along' the latter with a false flag operation, against either Americans or Iranians. Mullen warns against USS Liberty redux http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe... Assault on the Liberty http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe... If Israeli airspace isn't already monitored with other American assets, maybe that fancy new radar we installed in Israeli can give us early warning if P.M. Netanyahu decides to call Pres. Obama's bluff. A casually deployed radar system http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe... US bases powerful radar in Israel http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe... Israelis Wary of a US Radar Base in the Negev http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe... Israel supplied with long-range radar, but US to get missile warning first http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israe...
That is precisely the danger. Israel and it's sayanim collaboraters here are working hard to provoke Iran into some sort of action that would create a pretext for a miltary response. Seymour Hersh covered this in "Preparing the Battlefield": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080... I can't imagine that anything has changed under Obama.