Iran is the major security issue facing Israel, which sees itself confronting an extremist regime seeking nuclear weapons and stating openly that Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel believes the military option has to be on the table and credible if diplomacy and sanctions are to have any chance, and many Israelis believe a military strike on Iran may in the end be unavoidable. The Obama administration, on the other hand, talks of outstretched hands; on July 15, even after Iran’s election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “we understand the importance of offering to engage Iran”¦.direct talks provide the best vehicle”¦.We remain ready to engage with Iran.”
To the Israelis this seems unrealistic, even naïve, while to U.S. officials an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare that would upset Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world. The remarkable events in Iran have slowed down U.S. engagement, but not the Iranian nuclear program. If the current dissent in Iran leads to regime change, or if new United Nations sanctions force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, this source of U.S.-Israel tension will disappear. But it is more likely that Iran will forge ahead toward building a weapon, and U.S.-Israel tension will grow as Israel watches the clock tick and sees its options narrowed to two: live with an Iranian bomb, or strike Iran soon to delay its program long enough for real political change to come to that country.
Israel believes the only thing worse than bombing Iran is Iran’s having the Bomb, but the evidence suggests this is not the Obama view.
“not the Obama view” Of course not. He is more than willing to throw Israel under the bus. No skin off his nose.
On the other hand Israel knows that they are only one lost war away from total annihilation.
Hm – not a single mention of the Iranian elections or the Saudi Peace Plan. Nor does he mention the worry that the Arabs have about a Iranian powerhouse. His only solution: war. War war war. It is a shoddy analysis.
If I were a random country in the Middle East, worried about being bombed, I’d probably want a nuclear weapon.
As far as the realities of bombing Iran go, what would happen? What would the Shiite dominated government in Iraq do? Israel’s interests are not the same as America’s. As Eisenhower and the first Bush noted.
Well, the mullahs certainly played the EU like a drum. Of course, the EU is absolutely determined not to see things as they are as reality might provoke a rousing from their enervated torpor. And they really don’t like the Jews much, anyway.
And, who know, maybe with [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_rev_wrights_back_again__blaming_jews.html]them Jews[/url] out of the way, Obama would be ringing up his pastor now and then.
The Israelis will do whatever they have to do in order to survive, and if that means a first strike on Iran, then they will do it. Their Air Force…..the Heyl Ha’Avir…..is well organized, well equipped with modern up-to-date aircraft and weapons, and can strike very quickly. Their tactical doctrine is sound. The Iranians have every good reason to fear Israel, as they should. When they are cornered with their backs against a wall, what choice do the Israelis have but strike out in self defense, if they’re attacked? They may be a small nation, but they are a military powerhouse. Iran isn’t…..yet!
Jefferson, you are very funny in the way you confuse things. Are you saying that Obama is speaking to Wright behind Rahm and David’s back? Or that Iran is making a tactical strike against Obama’s advisers?
I love the blanket statements. Europeans don’t like Jews. You forgot to add that they don’t like Muslims, really, either Turks or Algerians or Pakistanis.
Cennydd, I’m confused a bit.
You state that Israel will do what it will do to survive. Then you note Israel’s military prowess. And then they will initiate attack on a country that doesn’t have military power.
Is Iran actually drawing up plans to bomb Israel? Where is the evidence? Compare it to the public discussions of when Israel will bomb Iran. If Israel initiates an attack, to what extent does Iran have the right to defend itself?
If Iran does attack Israel, then let the Israeli military do what it should. I bet it would have Saudi and Iraqi help along the way.
John #6,
Am I reading you right? Are you suggesting that Israel wait to be attacked and then respond? Nonsense.
I know, ain’t I a riot? No, I wasn’t suggesting the Obama was phoning his mentor and spiritual advisor of 20 years, I was suggesing the maybe the Prez was in a pews listening to the fellow during more than a few of those sermons about Israel, shouting “amen!”
And why on earth would Iran be striking against what is obviously a coterie of lapdogs panting to suck up to the mullahs? But don’t worry, John, [url=http://www.slate.com/id/2224026/]it’s Bush’s fault.[/url]
The governments of several Middle Eastern countries, notably Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, were quite happy to have the U.S. remove Saddam Hussein from power, and they would likewise be happy to see Israel eliminate the nuclear threat from the Shiite regime in Iran. You might see public blustering for domestic consumption, but they’ll give it the green light.
As to Iran, when its leaders say they want to destroy Israel, is Israel wrong to take them at their word? Assuming that Iran is not serious is a risky deal for Israel. It’s not a large country. A first strike by Iran could wipe half of them out.
#7. Should Iran wait to be attacked and then respond?
Katherine, Should we take a Muslim at their word when they want peace? Or should we ONLY take them at their word when they want war?
Right now, the Mullahs are worried. Why? Young and urban Iran is tired of religion. In another generation, the percentage will be quite lopsided.
One way to unite the country is to have a single enemy. For internal politics, the US and Israel are useful ways to suppress the internal opposition. The more the US and Israel rattle their sabres, the easier Ahmedinejad has it internally.
In 2003, Iran offered a peace treaty to the US. It was rebuffed, and Khatami lost the election. The conservatives decided that they could not really negotiate with the US, so they decided to threaten Israel, because they believe the Israel runs US foreign policy. In short, their “threats” to Israel are in fact meant to get the US in the game. This is not an unusual analysis, actually. Those who watch Iran professionally agree.
Iran, like other countries, has practical interests. War is useful only if it can win, and as one of the commentators noted, it won’t. Israel would win easily, but there would, of course, be lots of collateral damage – and we would probably completely lose Iraq. Probably, if Israel was bombed, there would be consequences for Jordan and the Palestinians.
You might also want to note what the Iranian supreme leader – the one who calls the shots – says about nuclear power.
Demonizing Iran merely obscures the fact that they are a political entity that wants power in the region.
Anyway, I stand by my claim that Abrams obscures a whole host of changes in the region, ranging from the Lebanese elections to Hamas’ recent statements to a reduction of violence in Iraq. He’s obscuring some of the positive consequences Obama’s foreign policy has had.
But as of now there is no evidence, no physical evidence, that Iran is going to attack Israel.
If you were a country and about to be attacked, would you retaliate?
How is it that Israel, and not Iran, has that right?
Should we be surprised if Iran decides to attack Israel back?
And why would anyone in their right mind want any of this to happen?
John Wilkins, it’s not clear to me how what you say directly addresses my point. All sensible people would obviously prefer that there be no war between Israel and Iran. This included the Bush administration and includes the current administration.
Area countries which have been reasonably calm about a nuclear Pakistan (because that threatens primarily India) are far less happy about a nuclear Iran, because Iran’s ideals of hegemony are aimed in their direction.
The best solution to all nuclear threats is increased funding for and the rapid installation of anti-missile defense systems around the world.
Israeli intelligence services are considered the best in the world. There is a history of attacks on Israel coming from surrounding Muslim countries. If the Israelis have information indicating they are going to be attacked, yes, I think they have the right to strike to prevent it. They surely know the possible consequences.
John, no one wants this to happen. No one wanted WWII to happen either. You seem to have the standard liberal mind set that no one will do what YOU can’t conceive off. The problem is that if you make a mistake its a big “Oh my!”. If Israel makes a mistake they all die.
Heh – they may be the best. They’ve even been spying on us!
Still, I don’t quite believe that Iran will attack Israel unless Israel attacks first.
But you raise the question about why we should believe Iran when they say they think Israel should be wiped off the map. I think of Ahmedinijad more like a cartoon character, or a 5 year old kid who threatens the 15 year old “I’m going to kill you some day.” Should the 15 year old be threatened? There has to be more than rhetoric. If there are troop movements or war games, then let Israel do what it must. Right now, its simply anxiety, carefully fostered.
The evidence – as far as I’ve read – is that Iran is not developing a weapon. The US has the same info as Israel, but they are reaching different conclusions.
Br. Micheal, are you saying that I can’t conceive of Iran attacking Israel? I can conceive of a lot of things. Like an asteroid hitting us in the next 25 years. Or that I might be struck by lightning. I’m simply looking for stronger evidence.
You did not refute a single point I made.
I think it is more likely that Israel will be the aggressor, and that this will create more chaos in the Muslim world than actually help.
Well Katherine, I admit, I don’t think a anti-missile plan will help, and it will be expensive. Shall we raise our taxes for that? Or for giving millions of people health care?
You also mention India. I suspect India would not support such an attack upon Iran. They have been close.
What’s to refute, John? All you’ve done is give opinions based on what you think and a few laughable analogies.
Is it bad form to point out that this “5 year-old” has been bombing the “15 year-old”‘s embassies and arming Islamic terror organizations that kill Israeli citizens, kidnap their soldiers and launch missiles into their country? Or that to slip a nuclear device to one of these terror outfits or launch it into Tel Aviv doesn’t require troop movements or war games any more than the missiles or embassy bombings did?
“The evidence – as far as I’ve read – is that Iran is not developing a weapon. The US has the same info as Israel, but they are reaching different conclusions.”
John what will you do if you are wrong? Iran is developing a weapon. Only a fool, a very dangerous fool, would say otherwise. If Obama is in accord with you, point made.
“I don’t think a anti-missile plan will help.” Why not? The U.S. can now shoot ballistic missiles out of the sky. I hope the Israelis are developing a network with this capability.
India is close to Iran? I don’t know what India would think of a strike on Iran. They have relations with and, I think, buy weapons from, Israel. India’s problem neighbors are Pakistan, Bangladesh, and to some extent China. I do wonder, by the way, why there is all this continuing uproar sixty years later about the descendants of people who fled the creation of the Jewish state of Israel by the UN in 1948, while there is no uproar that I know of about the descendants of the millions who fled, and the million or so who died, following the creation of the Muslim state of Pakistan following WWII. Apparently the “international community” can accept Muslim states where there were none before, but not a small Jewish state.
“And I will bess those that bless thee, and curse those that curse thee” Ring any bells John?
#17 – sure. “Love your enemies” Ring any bells, old soldier?
#15 – Br. Michael, what will you do if I’m right? What if our aggressive stance toward Iran is, in fact, giving them a justification for building a weapon?
Jefferson, it sucks that the US rejected the Iranian peace proposal, doesn’t it? I admit, you’ve been reading too many spy novels, or watching too many Bond films. It’s quite speculative. I suppose I could also imagine a KKK operative using a nuclear weapon they have taken from our supply of nukes.
You think that my statement that Iran might have other interests aside from an ideological hatred is an opinion? The plain fact is that 30 years of nonenagement failed, and Iran became much more powerful under the Bush administration.
From Roger Cohen’s article:
One of the first people I saw in Iran was Saeed Leylaz, an economist close to Moussavi. (Like many of Iran’s reformist intellectuals, Leylaz is now in jail.) He told me Obama’s outreach — his recognition of the Islamic Republic and pledge of “mutual respect†— had affected the campaign, unsettling hard-liners. “Radicalism creates radicalism,†Leylaz said. He was referring to the way President Bush’s talk of Iran as evil opened the way for Ahmadinejad to build a global brand of sorts through lambasting U.S. arrogance.
By contrast, a black American president of partly Muslim descent reaching out to the Islamic world — and demonstrating, by his very election, the possibility of change — had placed the Iranian regime on the defensive. One conservative Iranian official put it this way to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “If Iran can’t make nice with a U.S. president named Barack Hussein Obama who’s preaching mutual respect and sending us greetings, it’s pretty clear the problem lies in Tehran, not Washington.â€
Remember this, and remember it well: Iran’s government has as its president a raving lunatic who has sworn to “wipe Israel off the map.” Israel has a prime minister who has sworn to defend his country by every means possible. Whom would you support…..the president or the prime minister? If you were an Israeli, would you trust Mahmoud Ahmedinejad not to carry out his threat? I sure wouldn’t!
If I were Benjamin Netanyahu, I’d carry a big stick…..and I wouldn’t hesitate to use it in order to save my country……my home……from annihilation.