Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear assets

[mawilson 2,133]

Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear assets

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has implied in an interview

that Israel may take unilateral action to disable Iran’s nuclear programme

since Tel Aviv views it as a direct threat to its security.

In an interview with Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post published on Sunday,

Olmert was asked if regime change was the only way to stop Iran. He replied,

“I can think of many different measures. The guideline has to be that this government

and the people of Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of

the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” Pressed further and asked

direct if he would not rule out a “military option,” the Israeli prime minister said,

“I think my words were clear enough.”

Pressed further and asked if Israel would consider taking military action in case

the international community does not act, Olmert said, “It is absolutely intolerable

for Israel to accept the threat of a nuclear Iran. I prefer not to discuss the Israeli

options. Israel has many options.”

The Israeli leader who meets President George Bush here this week, when asked

how he sees the “threat posed by Iran,” replied, “This is the first time in many years

that the official leader of a major nation with more than 70 million citizens has talked

publicly and officially of the liquidation of another nation that is a member of the

United Nations. Ahmadinejad is a man who is ready to commit crimes against humanity,

and he has to be stopped. When Hitler began to talk about the liquidation of the

Jewish race, people heard it. But they hardly did anything to stop it. And then for

generations, nations and leaders had to explain why they didn’t speak up. So we

have to have a world campaign to emphasise the moral commitment that no one

will be able to ignore what he says and what the possible ramifications may be.”

Olmert continued, “There is also the process of negotiations. My position is clear:

if there can be a compromise that will stop Iran short of crossing the technological

threshold that will lead them into nuclear capabilities, we will be for such a

compromise. But I don’t believe that Iran will accept such compromise unless they

have a very good reason to fear the consequences of not reaching it. In other words:

Iran must start to fear.”

Asked if he would talk to President Bush about Iran, he answered that Bush is

“the last person on earth who needs to be reminded of what should be done to stop Iran.”

He added that if there is one person he can trust, it’s him. “I trust his moral integrity,

I trust his moral commitment and I trust his determination,” he told his interviewer.

Source

[GaryC 7]

I wonder what the "new direction" in the war on terrorism will take in regards to Iran. Unlike Iraq there are few that can deny that Iran is a direct threat to the region and to the stability of the world. I am not dem bashing, only wondering what the response will be to this very real threat.

[mawilson 2,133]

I wonder what the "new direction" in the war on terrorism will take in regards to Iran. Unlike Iraq there are few that can deny that Iran is a direct threat to the region and to the stability of the world. I am not dem bashing, only wondering what the response will be to this very real threat.

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people will deny that and argue

that Israel and the U.S. -- not Iran -- are the biggest threat to the

region (and the world.)

[GaryC 7]

I wonder what the "new direction" in the war on terrorism will take in regards to Iran. Unlike Iraq there are few that can deny that Iran is a direct threat to the region and to the stability of the world. I am not dem bashing, only wondering what the response will be to this very real threat.

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people will deny that and argue

that Israel and the U.S. -- not Iran -- are the biggest threat to the

region (and the world.)

That makes no sense to me at all. Israel and the US are not threatening to wipe a country off the map. Iran is. We are not going to give WMD's to terrorists, but I bet Iran would if they could. I just don't understand the thinking of those who say we are a bigger threat.

Edited November 13, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[mawilson 2,133]

That makes no sense to me at all. Israel and the US are not threatening to wipe a country off the map. Iran is. We are not going to give WMD's to terrorists, but I bet Iran would if they could. I just don't understand the thinking of those who say we are a bigger threat.

Let's wait -- they will eventually see this thread and explain.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That makes no sense to me at all. Israel and the US are not threatening to wipe a country off the map. Iran is. We are not going to give WMD's to terrorists, but I bet Iran would if they could. I just don't understand the thinking of those who say we are a bigger threat.

Let's wait -- they will eventually see this thread and explain.

You just egging me to comment.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

What has Iran done military to threaten the U.S. or its allies?

[GaryC 7]

That makes no sense to me at all. Israel and the US are not threatening to wipe a country off the map. Iran is. We are not going to give WMD's to terrorists, but I bet Iran would if they could. I just don't understand the thinking of those who say we are a bigger threat.

Let's wait -- they will eventually see this thread and explain.

You just egging me to comment.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

What has Iran done military to threaten the U.S. or its allies?

Not so much what they have done but more what they say they will do. Their leader has stated many times he will "wipe Israel off the map". He has been sending EID's into Iraq to blow up our troops. He has been financing the Hezbos. I would say he has made his ententions very clear.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Iran is Key to Course Change in Iraq

By Trita Parsi, IPS News

Both events open up opportunities for Washington to find new avenues to resolve its many problems with Iran. The key to the elections -- and to Iran -- is Iraq. In light of the soon-to-be published Iraq Study Group report, it is increasingly clear that headway can neither be made on Iraq nor the nuclear stand-off with Iran unless the two are linked.

The victory of the Democrats and the firing of Rumsfeld have shifted the balance between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives in the administration. As secretary of defence, Rumsfeld was closely allied with Vice President ####### Cheney in opposing every effort to open up diplomatic channels to Tehran.

According to Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran's May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah, recognise a two-state solution and cooperate against al Qaeda. Rumsfeld was also a driving force behind using the Mujahedin-e Khalq, an Iranian terrorist organisation opposed to the ruling clerics, to weaken Tehran.

Robert Gates, however, belongs to a different school of Republican foreign policy thinking. Gates' entrance and the Republican leadership's exit have created a precious opportunity to change the course on Iraq -- and on Iran. For years, the Bush administration has pursued a maximalist policy based on rejecting any links between the Iranian nuclear programme and the many other areas where the U.S. and Iran clash. By refusing any linkages, the Bush White House has aimed to gain maximum concessions from Iran in all areas without ever having to reciprocate or offer any concessions in return.

This was clearly seen in Afghanistan, where President Bush's envoy opened up talks with Iran to coordinate efforts to dispose the Taliban regime. Bush's intentions were purely tactical -- accept Iranian help in Afghanistan without permitting the cooperation to lead to a shift in attitude towards Iran. The Iranians, on the other hand, were hoping that their assistance in Afghanistan would have strategic implications with an entire new relationship between Tehran and Washington as the ultimate outcome.

Once Iran's help in Afghanistan was no longer deemed necessary, Washington's approach to Tehran cooled significantly, much thanks to the influence of Rumsfeld. Only weeks after the Bonn Conference in December 2001 where Tehran's assistance was crucial in finding a compromise between Afghanistan's many warlords, Bush put Iran into the "Axis of Evil". Tehran's goodwill gestures were for naught.

"Iran made a mistake not to link its assistance in Afghanistan to American help in other areas and by just hoping that the U.S. would reciprocate," Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif, who was in charge of Iran's negotiations with Washington over Afghanistan, told IPS.

The Bush administration's insistence on rejecting all forms of linkages has made a bad situation worse. On the one hand, the lesson of Afghanistan for Tehran has been to run a very hard bargain with the United States where no help is offered for free. As a result, Washington has been left to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq all by itself.

On the other hand, Washington's efforts to put a halt to Iran's nuclear programme have run into a dead-end. Washington has reduced U.S.-Iran relations to a zero-sum game about enrichment. Either Iran has enrichment, or it doesn't. The Bush administration has not permitted any middle ground to exist in hopes that it could completely deprive Iran of all nuclear know-how.

But in this game of the winner takes it all, Iran has so far been winning. Washington has not even been able to get the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution imposing travel restrictions on Iranian officials involved in Tehran's nuclear programme.

Much indicates that the only way out of this dead-end is to do what Bush -- and Rumsfeld -- have refused to do all along: link Iranian cooperation in Iraq to Washington's willingness to find a compromise on the nuclear issue, where enrichment will be seen as a continuous rather than a binary variable. The White House refused such linkages in the past since it sought complete victories. Now, creating linkages is necessary in order to avoid complete defeats in both Iraq and in Iran.

James Baker's Iraq Study Group has already paved the way for dealing with Iran over Iraq, though Bush is yet to sign off on the idea of linkage. Earlier in October, Baker met with Javad Zarif at the Iranian ambassador's residence in New York. The meeting lasted three hours and was deemed as very helpful by both sides. Baker was told that Iran would consider helping the United States in Iraq if "Washington first changed its attitude towards Iran," a euphemism for Bush administration's unwillingness to deal with Iran in a strategic manner.

While the recent political earthquakes in Washington have raised hope that a shift in both Iraq and Iran may be forthcoming, President Bush is still the final decision maker. Neither a Democratic Congress nor a pragmatist in charge of the Pentagon is likely to change the course on Iraq and Iran unless the president recognizes the reality on the ground -- without Iran, the United States cannot win in Iraq, and without linking Iraq to the nuclear issue, Tehran's services are not available.

Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Triangle -- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" (Yale University Press, 2007).

That makes no sense to me at all. Israel and the US are not threatening to wipe a country off the map. Iran is. We are not going to give WMD's to terrorists, but I bet Iran would if they could. I just don't understand the thinking of those who say we are a bigger threat.

Let's wait -- they will eventually see this thread and explain.

You just egging me to comment.

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

What has Iran done military to threaten the U.S. or its allies?

Not so much what they have done but more what they say they will do. Their leader has stated many times he will "wipe Israel off the map". He has been sending EID's into Iraq to blow up our troops. He has been financing the Hezbos. I would say he has made his ententions very clear.

If guilt by association is the criteria, we (US) need to take a hard look in the mirror, Gary. We've armed and supported notoriously bad people doing bad things to other people. I'm not justifying it if that is exactly what the President of Iran is doing, but let's not be simple about how we decide whether we should bomb Iran or not. Holy cow, you guys scare the sh!t out of me.

[GaryC 7]

If guilt by association is the criteria, we (US) need to take a hard look in the mirror, Gary. We've armed and supported notoriously bad people doing bad things to other people. I'm not justifying it if that is exactly what the President of Iran is doing, but let's not be simple about how we decide whether we should bomb Iran or not. Holy cow, you guys scare the sh!t out of me.

I wasn't asking for yet another hit piece on Bush and Cheney, we all know your hatred for them. I want to know what the "new direction" will be. Just because in your opinion we made some wrong choices in the past does not lessen the threat posed by Iran. They have a stated goal of destroying Israel. The linkage between Iran and terrorist is clear. If we scare the sh!t out of you then Iran should also. Is your idea to negotiate with Iran? That has been tried and it failed. Are you saying we should make nice and trust them yet again? If so that scares the sh!t out of me!!

[mawilson 2,133]

Holy cow, you guys scare the sh!t out of me.

What, me too?

[Hornet 2]

I don't like the extremist's in the Iranian Govt either, but WHO has Iran invaded??? They live in the region shouldn't they have influence there???

What if the Iranians had 100,000 troops in Mexico? Wouldn't we be worried and pissed off?

It's more complex then just saying Us=good Them=bad

And why wouldn't they want nukes????

India developed them.

Pakistan developed them.

Israel has them but won't admit it!! And has never signed the NNPT, never once allowed inspectors in to their facilities.

I'm sick of US foriegn policy being tied to Israel. When I took my oath in the Marines, I swore to protect and defend the US Constitution!!!!!! NOT ISRAEL!!!!

Their troops have never once shed blood with ours! Like the British, French, Australians, Filipinos, South Koreans, and Canadians.

If fact they have only shed our blood and gave BS excuses for that. See the USS Liberty!!!

http://www.ussliberty.org/

Israel doesn't have the ability to hit all of Iran's Nuke sites anyway. They would have to fly over Iraq to do it and would need refueling. It's too far. Even their strike on Iraq in the 1980's was a long shot and that was only one site!!

Unless they plan on using their WMD's???

[mawilson 2,133]

Their troops have never once shed blood with ours! Like the British, French, Australians, Filipinos, South Koreans, and Canadians.

Don't think for a second that they wouldn't.

The US has never asked for Israel's help -- due to their markedly negative reputation

in the region, Israel is one staunch ally we can never use.

Israel ... would have to fly over Iraq to do it and would need refueling.

Which is impossible because ... ?

[GaryC 7]

Their troops have never once shed blood with ours! Like the British, French, Australians, Filipinos, South Koreans, and Canadians.

Don't think for a second that they wouldn't.

The US has never asked for Israel's help -- due to their markedly negative reputation

in the region, Israel is one staunch ally we can never use.

Israel ... would have to fly over Iraq to do it and would need refueling.

Which is impossible because ... ?

We wouldn't ask them because they already have their hands full because they are surrounded by people that want them dead. Their plate is already full.

I think that if they decided to take action they would do a suicide mission to take out the threat. Why not? They have had enough suicide missions taken against them!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I want to know what the "new direction" will be.

The 'new direction" will have to be one that recognizes the value of working in concert with the international community and through the established processes that have kept the world from descending into WWIII. That route has proven time and again to be much more efficient and effective than the Yahoo type operations of the sort of O.I.L. - which is the sort of thing that really scares the shite out of me. If one good thing will come out of Iraq, it is the lesson that unilateral action against the international community is a failed strategy. Well, some haven't quite learned that lesson yet. The Israelis, for one, seem to be a bit slow on that uptake.

Edited November 13, 2006 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If guilt by association is the criteria, we (US) need to take a hard look in the mirror, Gary. We've armed and supported notoriously bad people doing bad things to other people. I'm not justifying it if that is exactly what the President of Iran is doing, but let's not be simple about how we decide whether we should bomb Iran or not. Holy cow, you guys scare the sh!t out of me.

I wasn't asking for yet another hit piece on Bush and Cheney, we all know your hatred for them. I want to know what the "new direction" will be. Just because in your opinion we made some wrong choices in the past does not lessen the threat posed by Iran. They have a stated goal of destroying Israel. The linkage between Iran and terrorist is clear. If we scare the sh!t out of you then Iran should also. Is your idea to negotiate with Iran? That has been tried and it failed. Are you saying we should make nice and trust them yet again? If so that scares the sh!t out of me!!

hehehe...Gary, that wasn't a hit piece on any specific Administration. Did you ever see the movie, Falcon and The Snowman as an example of what was refering to?

As for trying diplomatic relations with Iran, the article I posted said this is James Baker's view. No offense, Gary, but you honestly seem to be so entrenched into the neocon philosophy of the this Bush Administration, you've lost your Conservative Republican bearings. Things are never black and white.