Israeli Ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor declared Monday that Israel should always be prepared “to preempt, to deter and to defeat if we can” when speaking about the threats facing the country.
Chief among those threats was Iran, said Meridor, who called for a unified international as well as domestic American front to counter the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.
“This will take a united United States on this matter, that they would not have the illusion today that come January ’09, they [Teheran] have it their own way,” he said, referring to the inauguration of President George W. Bush’s successor, who could potentially change US policy on Iran.
This issue reminds me of the spoof movie “Mars Attacks†when the president (Jack Nicholson) asks the question “Why can’t we just all get along†He is promptly vaporized by the Martians. For those who read the Old Testament: God called Israel to Stay true to the faith and His law and stand firm against her enemies. The international question is: Will doing more cause Iran to do more or less, or doing less cause Iran to do otherwise? I hope a new US Democratic Administration (if that is the case) will not end up negotiating like Jack Nicholson’s character, or we may all be eventually vaporized.
This is the logical extension of our [i] edited [/i] President’s pre-emptive strike plan.
Slightly edited by elf.
# 2 Brian: If anything, it is the logical extension of having at least four countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lybia — who are trying ( or have tried) to obtain a nuclear weapon for the sole purpose of obliterating your country from the face of the earth.
And, for the record, the modern nation of Israel has used the pre-emptive strike long before this administration was ever in office.
btw — am I to infer that you believe that our President is a dimwit, but that his pre-emptive strike plan is sound? 🙂
So, BT19, how’d that multi-year, multilateral gabfest with the Europeans work out?
Brian: We’re in agreement on both your points, but let’s allow others to psychoanalyze ‘Shrub’ Bush, ok? 🙂
The trouble with this Administration’s foreign policy is enormous: If the US can pursue a ‘pre-emptive’ strike plan, why can’t everyone else?
That’s the problem with Mr. Bush and his neocons. They don’t like diplomacy, they want to be the schoolyard bully, flexing their muscles and scaring everyone (especially when it’s not their children being sent back home in bodybags or with permanent brain injuries).
This type of foreign policy may have worked for awhile after WWII, when the USA was the only Big Kid on the block. But we’re far from the only Big Kid in the schoolyard today. Such ‘saber-rattling’ (or even ‘pre-emptive’ strikes) won’t build peace in the long run, for either the US or Israel.
It would be much better for both countries to put their efforts into serious diplomacy, to build bonds (economic, political and cultural) between the many different parties.
But that won’t happen in the US until after the next election. (Are you counting the days? I am…)
Maybe Little Cabbage can answer my question re Iran and that nice, juicy diplomacy of the EU. How’d that work out?
Sorry. Yeah, the Israelis certainly didn’t do premeptive strikes before the Bush Doctrine. I also hear that the Israelis are so interested by the Bush Theocracy that they’re thinking of making themselves a Jewish State.
Little Cabbage: I think you missed the significance of some of the post WWII major events. On June 6th, 1967 I was on an aircraft carrier in the Red Sea. I remember hearing on the news that Gamal Abdel Nasser blamed the aircraft from my ship for wiping out his air force and tanks in the Sinai. It was impossible that the Jews could have done it.
After WWII the US was not the only big kid on the block. I remember it was JFK that stood up to Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He wasn’t even a “neocon†. What brought down the Berlin Wall?
It has been a recent news story about the significance of the Israeli precision attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. If they had not done it, Saddam would have had nukes.
BrianT19: I went for my annual physical last Thursday and discovered that my (anticipated elf edited?) doctor believes in pre-emptive strikes also. He gave me a flew shot.
Both Brian and LC either ignore or are not aware of the fact that Germany, Britain and France have been engaged in several years of precisely the sort of diplomacy with Iran they counsel for that insane cowboy in the White House. The problem is that this diplomacy has come to exactly nothing, with a maniacal and delusional tyrant within perhaps months of being able to lob some isotope surprise at the hated Jew.
Ah, for the days of yore that the port side’s plangent wails about the lunatics Reagan and Thatcher having nuclear arsenals. Now that Ahmonnajihad and Kim are getting them, the southpaws are positively insouciant. Why is that?
Come now Jeff, you don’t honestly equate mere brutal tyrants with such creatures of horror that they advocate [i]capitalism[/i] or, equal horror, [i]freedom[/i], do you? Why, how can you trust someone with atomic weaponry if they don’t pledge to use it to destroy a democracy and slaughter the innocent?
[quote]Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lybia—who are trying ( or have tried) to obtain a nuclear weapon for the sole purpose of obliterating your country from the face of the earth.[/quote]
How do you know this?
[blockquote] How do you know this [/blockquote]
Well…. for starters…
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke.htm]Iraq[/url]
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/syria/nuke.htm]Syria[/url]
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm]Iran[/url]
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/nuclear.htm]Libya[/url]
Oh I know what GlobalSecurity.org says about those countries’ programs. I just want to know how stevejax can say with such certainty that these countries are acquiring nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of obliterating the US from the face of the earth.
reactionary — I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. I was refering to Israel, as was the article. I’m really bad with my use of pronouns. Sorry.
However, I’m not so sure that this will relieve any/all doubt about my (revised) assertion.
stevejax,
Thanks for the clarification. Now I know exactly what national interest is being advanced in the calls for war with Iran.
Reactionary — maybe you didn’t read the article. But IT was about Israel’s thoughts on a pre-emptive strike with Iran. So YES, Israel was discussing its own inational nterests with respect to an Isreal pre-emptive strike with Iran.
You seem to be wanting to discuss other maters, however.
Reactionary and steve_jax:
What one knows or what one may exaggerate may be subject to scrutiny, but when we were dealing with the Soviet Union, it was assumed that we were dealing with a rational state. Put religious extremism into the equation along with despots that want to be the Grand Caliph, and one has to be concerned regardless of their world view.