An Israeli attack on Iran is suddenly back on the front burner. Threats responding to threats, escalating. You might want nukes too if you heard your neighbor beating these drums. (Thanks to Voskamp.) Washington Times' Abraham Rabinovich says the realists in the Israeli cabinet are losing out to hawks:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to execute a 1,000-for-1 prisoner exchange last week despite his frequently voiced opposition to such lopsided deals is seen by several Israeli military commentators as an effort to “clear the deck” before possibly undertaking an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities...
[Ami Oren] noted that Israeli leaders in the past have shown a readiness to absorb “a small loss” in order to attain a greater success, generally involving “some sort of military adventure.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are extremely concerned by the Iranian threat, and Defense Ministry Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs Amos Gilad believes the matter must be a top priority.
"You need to know what issues to prioritize. In my opinion – it's the Iranian front," he told students at the Ashkelon College. His statements were made in response to a Yedioth Ahronoth article claiming that Netanyahu and Barak were seemingly pushing for action against Iran.
According to Gilad, Netanyahu "was the first who heard of Iran's forecasted move on the nuclear missile path and he sees it as a massive threat. The defense minister understands the depth of the threat as well."
As I wrote on Larry Derfner’s post at 972,
“How is this night different from all other nights”.
The language is the same as its been for 6 years, each week predicted.
Others commented that the nuclear deterrent is meant as a deterrent not to Israel but to the US.
I commented that if that were the case, that Iran is likely regarding Israel as a hostage, in similar manner to Iraq fired large-scale missiles at Tel Aviv in the first Iraq War even though Israel was not a direct party in the war, and similar to Assad announcing last week that if Syria were the target of a NATO operation similar to in Libya, that he would insist of Hezbollah that they rain missiles on Tel Aviv.
Who’s the good guy here?
“Who’s the good guy here?”
The answer is “nobody”, at least not if one is looking at the governments involved. The Iranian government is a brutal theocracy. But it would be a huge step forward in the US if people started recognizing that the US and Israel are not the good guys here either.
very true donald, which makes me think that when folks are so busy telling us who the good and bad guys are, that tells us a lot about who they are… we are told regularly by the mainstream media here in the west how iran is the bad guy.. to me this just points right back to the usa and israel who keep on telling us this…
some folks don’t have that short a memory… we went thru this iraq is the bad guy exercise not too long ago and we see where it went… these f’kers never give up in trying to start a war..
as the post says -You might want nukes too if you heard your neighbor beating war drums on a regular basis..
This has no relevance to the war issue.
Iran has not attacked any country in more than a hundred years. Israel has attacked Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Turkey in the last five years alone.
Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear bombs. In the 1980s, more than twenty years after Israel had started its nuclear project, Mordechai Vanunu estimated Israel having close to 200 nuclear bombs. By now, Israel should have more than 400 if not 500.
Unlike Israel, Iran has no ally that is as militarily powerful as the US.
Whether Ahmadinejad chews his gum the wrong way or doesn’t wash his hands after he uses the bathroom does not make him or Iran the “bad guys” within the scope of this Israeli-manufactured conflict.
Iran is also a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It has allowed international inspectors into its reactors.
By contrast Israel is neither a signatory to the NPT, nor has it ever allowed any inspectors into its reactors. When it did, it built a false wall so as to hide most of the reactor from inspectors.
Moreover, in 1973 and in 1991, Israel threatened to use nuclear bombs against Egypt/Syria and Iraq respectively.
Iran’s Ahmadinejad has stated that the Zionist regime controlling Jerusalem should be erased from the pages of history. That, of course, didn’t stop Israel’s propagandists from lying and spinning those words.
In conclusion, posting a simplified “nobody” along with psudo-liberal
talk about Iran being a “brutal theocracy” is not only irresponsible, but further highlights the hypocrisy of someone who is so selfish as to support the exclusion of debate on Palestine from the OWS movement because he’s not smart enough, or simply doesn’t care, to recognize rhetoric that contradicts everything he claims to stand for, however hollow his claims may be, anyway.
avi – thanks for clarifying this for us.. people need this kind of education regularly and it is sorely missing in the discourse that is dominated by zionist thinking that is extremely one sided in its agenda, as opposed to being in any way ‘informative’..
Avi is clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
If Iran is constructing nuclear weapons, then it is violating the non-proliferation act, as well as lying in public.
If its not constructing nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, wonderful.
It is still holding Israel hostage for actions done by others in the form of proxy armies in Lebanon, and slightly less directly in Syria and Gaza.
To say that Iran has never undertaken any aggressive or unilateral action, is just a lie.
Does that mean that the only way to keep Iran from ambitions of regional empire is to bomb them? I think not.
Awareness of their policies and practices, and of their intent, is necessary though, even if it revolves around their silly attempt to manipulate the US to renounce support for Israel.
RICHARD WITTY- “Avi is clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.”
You seem to be affected by what I refer to as manichean madness. That is, rather than judging people and nations based upon their actions, you subjectively label them as “good” or “bad” and judge their actions based upon your label. If one were to look at the Middle East objectively and judge nations based upon the number of wars started and people killed, it would be quite obvious that the US and Israel are the baddest of the bad. Israel’s goal has for many years been to establish a mini-empire (Eretz Yisrael), and to be the local Middle East hegemon. This goal takes precedence over peace, and has been written about by high level Israeli planners. One example of this planning is the infamous proposal of Oded Yinon written in 1982 and published by the World Zionist Organization.
“The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.”
link to members.tripod.com
Hizbullah isn’t waiting for any instructions from Syria to do what it has to do; the tens of thousands missiles aimed at TA are for Lebanon’s and Iran’s benefit and not Syria’s. With all the talk about Israel planning to hit Iran, it has me almost wishing that Israel would go ahead and do it.
assad never insisted anything of hezbollah anyway, nor is he in any position to do so.
Here we go again
link to electronicintifada.net
WORDS THAT WORK
“When facing a fanatical enemy, you have two options: deter or destroy. Saddam was not deterred by inspections. He was not deterred by threats. He was not even deterred by military action against him in 1991. And if had possessed nuclear weapons, nothing would have deterred him. For ten years the United Nations talked about deterrence, and for ten years Saddam defied the international community. Just as America had no choice but to remove him from power, Israel has no choice but to protect its borders and its people from terrorists who mean us harm.”
7. Find yourself a good female spokesperson. In all our testing, women are found to be more credible than men. And if the woman has children, that’s even better.
8) Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people. It is likely that the most effective argument(s) you have right now are those that link the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom with the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by those who truly represent them. If you express your concern for the plight of the Palestinian people and how it is unfair, unjust and immoral that they should be forced to accept leaders who steal and kill in their name, you will be building credibility for your support of the average Palestinian while undermining the credibility of their leadership.
9) A little humility goes a long way. You saw this with your own eyes. You need to talk continually about your understanding of “the plight of the Palestinians” and a commitment to helping them. Yes, this IS a double standard (no one expects anything pro-Israeli from the Palestinians) but that’s just the way things are. Humility is a bitter pill to swallow, but it will inoculate you against critiques that you have not done enough for peace. Admit mistakes, but then show how Israel is the partner always working for peace.
Americans have been thinking and talking about the war on terror for almost a year and a half now, and they have come to conclude that
Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of world terror and is a particular threat to the democracies of the world. New and shocking revelations about the brutality of his regime are discovered daily, which only reinforces American support of military action. But the fact that Hussein was a direct threat to Israel is especially important. Israel opposed his cruel ambitions for decades – a decade longer than the U.S. Remind audiences that Israel and America have common values, but then stress that we also share common enemies.
THE ISRAELI AID MESSAGE TREE
(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.
(2) Prevention works. Even with the collapse of Saddam’s regime, terrorist threats remain throughout our region.
(3) Israel is America’s one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.
(4) With America’s financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort in the war against terrorism.
THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL)
This document is about language, so let me be blunt. “Saddam Hussein” are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now.
Without being repetitive, Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its boarders. Unfortunately, as a democracy, we tend to dwell on our failures (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) more than our successes. It is essential for the long-term support of a strong military and a commitment to national security that we remind people again and again…and again that there are times when it is necessary to take preventative action and that military intervention is better than appeasement.
Who’s the good guy here?
Stupid and ridiculous question, if you’re an American.
Not if you are a Manichean American
You’re talking complete garbage as always Witty. Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in 270 years. Iran has no nukes and is not even trying to produce them.
The bad guy is the criminally insane apartheid state you unconditionally support. That’s why most of the world regard it as a threat to world peace.
Nothing like an International Crisis to divert attention from the Palestinian move in the UN and international pressure to engage in bilateral peace talks.
It is better to bomb a far neighbor than make peace with a near neighbor.
smart
If they bomb Iran they have to start all out war. And Iran isn’t going to provoke one. So it would be illegal. And I don’t buy this distracting from the Palestinians. It’s like a man divorcing his wife. Would he burn his house down to avoid having a meeting to discuss who gets possession of the pets? Is it rational to potentially start WW3 instead of facing down the settlers ?
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are extremely concerned by the Iranian threat”
should of course read
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak areextremely concerned by the loss of regional hegemony and all that it entails”
How long did they think 5 and a half million Jews could tell 300 million Muslims what to do?
“So it would be illegal. ”
that has never stopped the usa or israel before… they don’t give a rats ass about international law..
I think an Israeli attack on Iran would be a sign of desperation. The chances of success would be low and the blowback could be massive. Imagine israel is a company in trouble and it places a bet equal to the assets on its balance sheet on horse number 4 in the Kentucky Derby. . Not an encouraging sign . Even Bush steered them clear of Iran.
war could be considered an act of desperation.. it is interesting which nations opt for this approach so often in the 21st century – israel and the usa in particular.. these 2 seem ‘hell bent’ on using their military power in a righteous manner, while losing any faith other countries and people round the globe might have held for them..
It is no wonder the hasbara doesn’t work any more. Israel has run out of excuses to delay talks with the Palestinians. How do they tell the US that democracy in the region is a threat?
link to electronicintifada.net
“With this in mind, we have identified four specific spokesperson themes and emotions that appeal to American opinion influencers when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whatever negotiations may or will take place:
OPTIMISTIC
“I am hopeful that with the end of this war, the peoples of the Middle East will celebrate life and freedom. I am hopeful that the scenes of Iraqis throwing off the yoke of tyranny and fear will serve as a model for all peoples of the region. Yes, I do have hope that by reaching out to the stars, we can bring something good back to earth.”
RESPECTFUL
“What we are hoping for is that the Palestinian people recognize the leadership they have right now has unfortunately a very different agenda than the agenda of the real Palestinian people…We do not have the right to tell the Palestinians who to elect to represent them but we hope they will choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. ”
THE HUMAN ELEMENT
“It’s very difficult for us. We know that going into these Palestinian cities creates hardships and dilemmas for the Palestinians. But it is even more difficult to look our own children in the face knowing that that there are people in these cities planning to commit terrorist acts and not go in there and try to stop them before they kill.”
DEDICATED TO DEMOCRACY
“We all know the importance of bringing genuine democracy and human rights to all nations and to uproot the ideology of terrorism. That is what we have tried to do, and we will keep on trying.”’
So now the terrorism has stopped and the Arab Spring is underway. And bombing Iran is a logical move? WTF?
Israel missed it’s window to attack Iran. Iran’s biggest threat right now is from the US/Saudi Arabia or from internal strife. The current upheaval in Syria along with Turkey’s acceptance of the NATO radar system has shown that their allies in the neighborhood aren’t what they used to be.
Israel loves war, as long as the US pays for it. Even when we were still bogged down in Iraq and Afghan they were pushing for a third war.
It would not surprise me if Israel attacked Iran before our next election.
2005
Iran was a main focus of this year’s aipac policy conference, which was held in May at the Washington Convention Center. Ariel Sharon and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, addressed five thousand aipac members.
One hall of the convention center was taken up by a Disney-style walk-through display of an Iranian nuclear facility.
link to jeffreygoldberg.net
Umm.. A couple of things, I think need to be mentioned here…
Ynet(same article):
According to a Nahum Barnea article in Yedioth Ahronoth, published on Friday, the heads of the armed forces – Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz, Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, Military Intelligence Chief Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Shin Bet Chief Yoram Cohen share the opinion of their predecessors and are opposed to taking action against Iran at this time.
—- I dunno, this seems to be an important fact to add.
Seafoid is right, a military attack probably leads to regional war; I don’t see how the military planners could allow this to happen. Israel, as it is, would be toast in very short order. Charon posted a great recently unclassified CIA article on this topic just the other day – the call up required would put massive stress on the domestic economy. There simply wouldn’t be enough workers.
An aggressive military strike would be illegal, and would more than likely draw the ire of most of the world; this could lead to boycott, refusal of access to ports and markets, Israeli professors and scientists might find themselves not welcome at foreign universities; the US can do alot for the Israeli’s, but the US cant make up for the rest of the world boycotting Israel. The Israeli’s know this.
I think this is alot of posturing – the Israeli’s are putting out the message to the new governments in the region that they are a crazed, “mad dog;” foaming at the mouth, ready for anything.
The idea of Iran “nuking” Israel is itself ridiculous. Where would they “drop it?” People really think the Iranians are going to run the risk of destroying holy sites, making Palestine uninhabitable and creating millions and millions of refugees – just to “kill jews?” That’s nuts.
“The idea of Iran “nuking” Israel is itself ridiculous. Where would they “drop it?” People really think the Iranians are going to run the risk of destroying holy sites, making Palestine uninhabitable and creating millions and millions of refugees – just to “kill jews?” That’s nuts.”
Iran wouldn’t attack Israel but if it had nuclear weapons the balance of power in the region would change irrevocably and Israel would be on the same level as the Muslims except with a much smaller population. Israel’s nuclear advantage and Egypt peace means it only has to commit a fraction of its population to the army even though it runs an aggressive military strategy and occupies land belonging to 2 countries. This would all change if Iran had nukes. Israel has invaded Lebanon 7 times since 1948 and if Iran had nukes this would no longer be an option. Neither would the regular beatings Israel gives to Gaza. The whole militaristic model that Israeli society is built around would be rendered redundant.
But they can only frame the argument around insane mullahs.
The wexner analysis :
“Acknowledging a cultural difference between Israelis and Palestinians (or Iranians) is stating the obvious – and good for your case. Even those Americans that have sympathies for the Palestinian struggle (or Iranian society) have an easier time relating to the Israelis because of the similarities between America and Israel in culture, tradition and values. ”
So we will be told 24/7 that Iranians are nuts.
Not logical. Like the story of the scorpion who cons a frog into ferrying him across a stream (“I wouldn’t sting you mid-stream, it wouldn’t be logical, I’d drown”) and then stings the frog (“Hey, I never said I was logical — this is the Middle East”).
Israel NEEDS WARS and NEEDS FEAR. At least its leaders do.
(QUESTION: assuming an attack on Iran actually occurs and Israel and USA survive the various outcomes and blow-backs and world reactions, WHAT COUNTRY DOES ISRAEL USE AS ITS NEXT TARGET? NORTH KOREA?)
Some of Iran’s leaders are blow-hards about Israel. So what? When Hitler began to talk about stuff, he controlled not much. Later he controlled a large and quickly militarizing industrial nation. Iran has not much just now. It will not soon rival Germany or USA as an industrial power. What’s the THREAT TO ISRAEL (OR TO ANYONE) JUST NOW? Nothing, to my thinking.
Does Iran need a nuke or two to offset Pakistan’s nukes? To offset Israel’s? Fine, I’m all for deterrence. Of course, an Iranian deterrence may be EXACTLY what Israel fears.
Iranian deterrence IS exactly what Israel fears. The Israeli doctrine is to maintain a monopoly on deterrence. The Israeli doctrine is essentially impunity: to harm its neighbors without suffering harm itself. The idea that Israel might attack Iran and Iran could strike back is unacceptable.
If Israel attacks Iran, Bahrain could explode because the Sunni ruling family are torturing the Shia who protested back in March and Iran won’t need much of an excuse to set the whole thing on fire again.
Especially as any Israeli attack on Iran would have the tacit support of the Saudis.
It could end up like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
seafoid – over and over again we hear that Saudi is supporting/fomenting a strike against Iran. Saudi denies it every time, says it’s neocon disinformation.
But the incursion into Bahrain wasn’t disinformation.
There’s more to Israel’s going after Iran than just Iran having nukes.
Iran use to be a semi ally/partner to Israel..Iran supplied Israel gas and oil and had considerable amount of trade and business with Israel.
After the Shah was deposed all that ended and Israel was put on Iran’s shit list… a huge blow to Israel compounded by the fact that Iran is a major influencer in the region and Israel didn’t at the time and still doesn’t have any favorable relations with any ME country comparable to Iran.
Even if Iran wasn’t interested in having nukes Israel would still be trying to “regime change” in Iran for several reasons…not the least of which is they don’t want the US to have diplomatic relations with Iran…it would reduce Israel , not as a strategic value since it isn’t anyway, but because it would take away from Israel using it’s “only ally “position with the US to intimidate other countries.
“Even if Iran wasn’t interested in having nukes Israel would still be trying to “regime change” in Iran for several reasons…not the least of which is they don’t want the US to have diplomatic relations with Iran…it would reduce Israel , not as a strategic value since it isn’t anyway, but because it would take away from Israel using it’s “only ally “position with the US to intimidate other countries.”
Ageing trophy wife syndrome
Israel needs this
link to lancome-usa.com
and this
link to loveyourlook.com
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are extremely concerned by the loss of regional hegemony and all that it entails”.
LOL they already freakydeaky have lost their hegemony! I mean when a alleged rag-tag hizbollah with its 2000 fighting men can send 30,000 idf boys weeping back to their mamas, as they did in the summer of 2006, I think we can be sure that they’ve darnwell lost it.
Don’t fall for the fear factor, mondo folk, it’s a bluff, this Iran thing.
Here’s some exchanges I’ve had in the last couple of days with American and Jeffery about an attack on Iran:
October 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm
October 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm
October 29, 2011 at 5:01 am
Remember, Barak and Natanyahu know how to play poker, but they ain’t never played Russian Roulette with the barrel pointing at israel’s head.
Barak and Netanyahu don’t know how to play poker,. They are political idiots who endanger the world with their unfettered dicks.
Taxi,
You are confusing me. Aren’t you in fact for Israel attacking Iran so there would be a regional war to obliterate Israel? Yet you do not seem happy at this opportunity, why is that? Is it because you know what the real result of this war will be?
eee,
You were born confused – don’t blame it on me friendo.
Dream on if you think israel wins by launching attacks. And dream on s’more if you think israel wins by not attacking.
It’s a lose-lose for israel either way. Regardless of the war crimes it’s scheming against it’s neighbors near and far.
You mean like how you knew the result in 2006 eee, when Israel got their asses handed to them.
You’re such a sociopath eee. Obviously the idea of many thousands of dead casualties is only a passing thought to you.
Sick man, sick mind.
link to mondoweiss.net
Taxi October 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Taxi October 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Taxi October 29, 2011 at 5:01 am
I end to agree Taxi,
If Israel were serious about attacking Iran, we wouldn’t be hearing all these leaked threats.
The pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq could also be a part of clearing the decks.
As long as the U.S. had troops in Iraq, they would have been sitting ducks in the event of war breaking out with Iran.
I was thinking the same but they will still have troops in Afghanistan
as well as the fleet that is based in Qatar. And all the expats in Dubai.
Yes, lysias, I agree with you. The plan for US combat troops to pull out of Iraq by the end of 2011 may be forcing the Israeli hawks into action against Iran, since they would prefer to use a “mousetrap” strategy to get US troops/ taxpayers dragged into the Israeli hawks’ war.
The prospect of the US getting “mousetrapped” into fighting a war with Iran provoked by Israel greatly worried Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff just-retired.
thanks for the link to Mullens, Bill in Maryland.
Two more links — first is a July 2010 forum at which Ian Lustick said a number of very interesting things that would be apostasy if he’d been of the Vatican persuasion:
Lustick hammered away at the idea that Israelis are “hysterical,” and maintained in that hysteria by the deliberate acts of Netanyahu & Likud.
When co-panelist Martin Indyk said Israel really didn’t intend to attack Iran, Lustick retorted he has been in private settings where Bibi was “like a rocket” demanding an attack on Iran.
Lustick basically agreed with Ahmadinejad — zionism is an anachronism; it has outlived its raison d’ etre; zionist Israel will “disappear from the pages of history,” in about 30 years:
Then, a member of the audience made this comment/question:
wow.
here’s Lustick’s answer: = “The only thing that – and all we have to do to stop any Israeli strike is don’t turn off the red light. “
That was in 2010, before a load of GOP candidates started playing how low can you kiss Israeli ass.
By now, according to a more recent article at the same Middle East Policy Council, there is No Exit for the US from its special relationship with Israel, because, according to Scott McConnell:
The US is stuck with Israel because any attempt to break the embrace could result in nuclear armed Israel going crazy and shooting up the neighborhood.
Don’t fall for that BS. The US were kicked out of Iraq. They didn’t leave willingly.
>> Don’t fall for that BS. The US were kicked out of Iraq.
Kicked out or not, American troops will soon be available to be deployed wherever “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” need to be rammed hard down someone’s throat…
“Live #and# let live!”
150,000 US troops have proved useless in both Iraq and Afghanistan Eljay. How are they going to have any affect on Iran?
>> 150,000 US troops have proved useless in both Iraq and Afghanistan Eljay. How are they going to have any affect on Iran?
I don’t know how – or even if – those troops would have any effect on Iran, but if the West (with the help of eager, Middle Eastern partners) is going to start bombing Iran, having an additional 150,000 troops at “our” disposal puts “us” in a much better offensive…I mean, pre-emptive self-defensive position.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to execute a 1,000-for-1 prisoner exchange last week …is seen …as an effort to “clear the deck” before possibly undertaking an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities
Told you so (recently…check my profile).
But Meir Dugan called Netanyahu and Barak classifiable assholes last January for doing this (Google it), or was it last May? Dugan said he and two others had to control these idiots before they got Israel in a war it couldn’t control.
Israel will attack Iran and Iran will do nothing much.
If they are rational as you claim, why would they overtly attack the US? What rational government would want an all out war with the US? They could attack Americans in Iraq using their proxies. That is why an attack by Israel will be after the end of the year, when the US leaves Iraq.
Iran could ask Hezbollah to retaliate at Israel, but why would Hezbollah do that? That would be Lebanon being the aggressor in a war with Israel. That would not end well for either Lebanon or Hezbollah. No Lebanese wants to see Lebanon burn for Iran.
Would Syria retaliate against Israel? Of course not, the Syrian army can barely keep the Syrian population under control so the last thing Assad needs is for Israel to weaken his army and allow the opposition to take over. Furthermore, how will he explain to the Syrian people why he is not willing to go to war for the Golan but is willing to go to war for Iranian interests?
The Egyptians have no will to shed blood for the Iranians and neither the Jordanians. That is obvious. So the whole notion that there will be a regional war is stupid. The Iranians will fire the few and unreliable long range missiles they have at Israel and that will be it. They will also try attacking Israeli interests abroad. But that would not be an immediate response.
But if the Iranians do attack the US fleet in the Persian Gulf or the Saudis, that will only prove that they are irrational and should not have an atomic weapon. That will be playing right into the hands of Israel. Instead of fighting Israel, Iran would be fighting the US and the the Gulf Arabs. That is quite dumb.
I’m sure you really want to believe that, but Iran will respond and it will be bad for Israel and bad for the US. The DOD has admitted that Iran can close the Straights of Hormuz and that there is little the US could do about it. They can bomb and bomb Iran all they want, but it will yield few results. The closure only needs to be a few days to a week and the world economy would collapse.
Then there is the therat of the war spreading. Pakistan and Turkey could easily get involved. The sentiment in Pakistan is very anti American and Hezbollah would pound Tel Aviv with rockets, leving Israel in a panick. Israel weer able to do nothing to curtial Hezbollah’s rockets in 2006.
You see eee, the lesson you pea brained hasbrats never learn is that all plans are usually laid waste once war starts, which is why the US was just kicked out of Iraq and is losing in Afghanistan.
There seems to be no limit to your stupidity. The above article has just explained to you that Washington and even Israel’s defense establishment are opposed to an attack on Iran. Those in favor of an attack are the lunicons (ie. irrational).
Bur according to your calculus, if Israel attacks Iran without being attacked first (based on claims Iran has nukes that don’t exist), that’s rational and does not raise questions about Israel owning nukes.
On the other hand, if Iran react to an unprovoked attack by Israel against US ships in the Gulf (that the US would have green lighted and given assurances that it will come to Israel’s defense if Iran retaliated against Israel), then that would prove Iran was irrational.
You’re so high on Ziocaine that you seriously believe the world thinks like you lunatics.
You belong in a padded cell eee.
Iran has no nukes to seter an attack, but OT does have a powerful deterrent. Iran knows that the closure of the Straights would bring the world economy to it’s knees and that this would inflict a massive blow to the US, the Saudis (and Gulf states) and Israel in an instant.
Iran would be foolish not to do so. That is why the US and Israel’s defense establish
3e, what brilliant strategic thinking. I hope Netanyahu’s people are reading this board.
If Israel attacks Iran, the odds of being able to do much damage to Iranian nuclear facilities is slim, if Israel is even capable of pulling it off militarily.
I suspect Iran will not take the bait of a military attack and do very little in a direct military response, though I do think they will do much over the longterm regarding Israeli targets around the world.
What Iran will do imho is nothing immediately except withdraw from the NPT and allow Israel to reap worldwide economic and diplomatic scorn from its attack.
The Earth and Mars meet in orbit and Earth says the following: I have humanoids on my skin. Says Mars: don´t worry, they will be gone shortly.
Forget Iran, our government and press keep us in fear so they can take more of our rights away.
Only a suicidal maniac would attack Iran and I don´t think the israelis are that far. At least not yet.
On Oct. 17, I posted the following on antiwar.com:
Avi – of course only a fool would believe that Israel will uphold its side of that bargain, now that it has its bouncing boy back.
Avi_G., you assume Hizbullah and Iran will do nothing while they get bombed. Nasrallah promised that the next war would be centered in TA. There is no doubt about Lebanon’s destruction in the coming war but also no doubt about TA’s.
RE: “2 reports say Israel may be preparing Iran attack” ~ Cap’n Weiss
ALSO SEE: Nahum Barnea on Israeli Strike on Iran, By Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 10/28/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to richardsilverstein.com
Who has advocated attacking Iran in the last couple weeks?
Who here? Who in the American, Israeli or international press?
What war drums are you talking about? I don’t see them.
you are clueless richard. what do you think this is?
“you are clueless richard. what do you think this is?”
Not advocacy for unilateral war. What do you think it is?
advocacy for war.
What do you think 20,000 rockets in Lebanon is?
Deterrence.
Germany is getting tired of Israel. Says the holocaust blame game has been wearing thin for some time and Germany also pissed with Israel’s I/P game.
Israel fears Berlin could scrap sub deal
Published: Oct. 28, 2011 at 1:15 PM
AVIV, Israel, Oct. 28 (UPI) — Israel is reported to have run into difficulties with Germany over the planned sale of a sixth Dolphin class submarine supposedly capable of launching nuclear-tipped missiles, potentially a vital factor in any clash with Iran.
The Yediot Ahronot newspaper said the problems arose from the failure of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government to move forward on peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Udi Shani, director general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, refused to confirm or deny there were problems about the submarine deal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly strongly criticized Netanyahu during a telephone conversation in September. She said she had “absolutely no understanding” of the Israeli government’s decision to increase settlement building in East Jerusalem, the former Arab sector of the holy city captured by Israel in 1967.
Germany has for decades sought to accommodate Israel in atonement for the Holocaust during the Nazi era but this has been wearing thin for some time, particularly because of the global economic downturn of recent years.
German opposition parties complain about exporting arms to regions in crisis, such as the Middle East.
The problem may have something to do with Netanyahu’s request that Berlin pay one-third of the $500 million-$700 million cost of the advanced submarine.
Netanyahu’s coalition approved significant cuts in the defense budget in September and this may have intensified the government’s efforts to convince Germany to defray much of the cost of the sixth submarine.
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported in July that the Berlin government had agreed to pay $189.5 million of the cost. It said the deal would be finalized within weeks but that hasn’t happened.
Israel initially bought three of the heavily modified diesel-electric Type-209 submarines, which it designated the Dolphin class, built by the Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG shipyards in Kiel, in the late 1990s. The Germans donated two and Israel paid $350 million, half the cost, for the third.
In 2006, Israel ordered two more Dolphins, with the Germans picking up one-third of the total cost of $1.27 billion.
Unlike the first batch, which have to surface frequently to recharge batteries, the second batch are upgraded models with an air-independent propulsion system, based on technology that allows for silent running plus a fuel cell equipped with oxygen and hydrogen storage.
It is believed that the Israelis want to maintain a permanent deployment of one or two Dolphins in the Red Sea-Arabian Sea region.
This is to hit strategic targets in Iran, in conjunction with Israeli airstrikes, if conflict erupts over Tehran’s reported drive to develop nuclear weapons, and to give the Jewish state an added second strike capability if it comes under attack from Iranian ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads
Read more: link to upi.com
A refresher:
Tony Karon, TIME: link to globalspin.blogs.time.com
“Former Mossad chief: Israel air strike on Iran ‘stupidest thing I have ever heard’”
link to haaretz.com
“Why Meir Dagan speaks out”
link to jpost.com
The thinking of Netanyahu et al. may be that a regional war is Israel’s opportunity to conduct some ethnic cleansing.
At last! Saudis are putting their money where it counts and giving Israel a taste of its own medicine. I’m suddenly a fan of the Saudis, from Haaretz today:
Saudi royal offers $900,000 reward for capture of Israeli soldiers
Khaled’s offer comes days after the prominent Saudi cleric, Awad al-Qarni, put $100,000 on the head of every Israeli soldier.
link to haaretz.com
RIYADH – A Saudi royal offered a $900,000 reward to anyone who captures an Israeli soldier, on Saturday. Prince Khaled bin Talal, the brother of business tycoon Walid bin Talal, told the Saudi-based broadcaster Al Daleel that the captive would then be released in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli prisons.
Khaled’s offer comes days after the prominent Saudi cleric, Awad al-Qarni, put $100,000 on the head of every Israeli soldier.
Al-Qarni’s statement – posted on Facebook – was severely criticized, and messages posted online even warned of death threats.
Khaled told the broadcaster: “My offer also comes in response to the threats made against Sheikh al-Qarni.”
The Saudi offers follows the recent deal between the Israeli government and Hamas, when Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit
The Iranians,if they were developing an A bomb,would incinerate possibly millions of fellow Muslims in an attack on Israel.The Israelis,as they have the bomb,would incinerate possibly 25,ooo Jews in Iran.Now who would be more likely to use it?And those Israeli nukes could only be used in a long range attack,as the close proximity of all their self made neighbor enemies precludes their use as then Israelis would die.
And remember that every bit of info we receive about Israels alleged enemies(other than the internet)is brought to you by serial liars with an agenda,that agenda being Zionism.Serial killers and serial liars,the new pre modern world.
there’s many more bomb iran reports here example: