Posted: 3/5/2009 12:33:54 PM EDT
|
Israeli incoming PM Benjamin Netanyahu is considered a hard-liner against Iran (by many in the Arab world).
Do you believe that Netanyahu will attack Iran? If so, will Obama support Israel or try to sit it out? EDIT: The poll allows more than one selection. |
|
Quoted:
BennyTheNut will start a war with SOME ONE. Maybe Iran, maybe Lebanon (again), maybe Russia but probably Syria. 5sub Like a broken record. 
Israel had better take care of the nuke production capability soon, or they will be in jeopardy of going down. A story that got almost no attention last week was that Israel is secretly offing Iranian nuke scientists and other pivotal individuals in the Iranian nuke program. Israel will do what it has to do, and I support them. |
|
This was put out by WINEP
HH –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 'Israel seriously considering Iran military op' By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT IN WASHINGTON http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236103158937&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Israel is seriously considering taking unilateral military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a report by top US political figures and experts released Wednesday. Israel seriously considering launching military strike against Iran The report also says Israel's time frame for action is growing shorter, not only because of Iranian advances, but because Teheran might soon acquire upgraded air defenses and disperse its nuclear program to additional locations. The report, "Preventing a Cascade of Instability," was put out by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). It also argues that international sanctions against Iran need to be intensified urgently for the engagement the Obama administration is planning with Teheran to be effective. An early draft of the report was endorsed by Dennis Ross before he withdrew upon joining the Obama administration, in which he is serving as a special adviser dealing with various countries in the region, including Iran. Senator Evan Bayh of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Congressman Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, were among the signatories. The bipartisan group also recommended increasing security guarantees and the supply of missile defenses and other protective measures to allies in the Middle East, both to reassure them of America's commitment to them and to dampen the perceived effectiveness, and hence appeal, of nuclear weapons for Iran. But the report, several of whose authors met with high-level Israeli officials to assess their perspective, notes that Israel is not interested in becoming part of an American nuclear umbrella, even as Gulf countries want more assurances on that front. "A declared US guarantee would clarify a situation of ambiguity that may already work to Israel's advantage," the report notes. Also, "many Israelis fear that a declared US guarantee could come at the price of circumscribing Israel's freedom of action in confronting existential dangers." "It's quite serious in acting on its own about a nuclear-armed Iran," former US ambassador to the United Nations Nancy Soderberg, one of the task force members who traveled to the region to research the report, said at a WINEP event held Wednesday on the report's release. She noted that the timetable for an Israeli attack might be "significantly" moved up if Jerusalem believed Russia was going to make good on its pledge to supply Iran with the S-300 surface-to-air missile system, which would greatly complicate any Israeli attack. If the delivery does occur, the report recommends more arms sales to Israel, such as more modern aircraft, so it can maintain its military edge. Later, she said that the aim of the report was to come up with strategies where neither the United States nor Israel was at the point of launching military action. "You've kind of lost the ballgame at that point," she said. To that end, the 10-page document urges more international sanctions and expanding financial pressure taken by the US Treasury, by creating similar programs at the US Commerce and State Departments. The study stresses the importance of having a united global front and pushes for intensified diplomacy with Russia to both make sanctions more effective and to persuade the Russians not to deliver the S-300 system. "Iran does not want to be isolated on the international stage: It is not North Korea. The broader the international consensus, the better. The repeated shows of unanimity by the UN Security Council seem to have impressed Iran more than the limited economic or security impact of the sanctions imposed thus far," the report states, in making the case for more sanctions. At the same time, it contends that aggressive engagement is needed because "another important goal is to show the Middle East and the world that the United States will go the extra mile to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. Some circles in countries friendly to the United States now wonder - without reason - if Washington is as much an obstacle to resolving the nuclear impasse as is Teheran." Even if engagement, sanctions and other measures prove ineffective, the report warns against sanctioning a "fallback" policy where Iran is allowed to have some, even if limited, capacity to enrich uranium in its territory. "Iran's having a latent capability to quickly make nuclear weapons could lead to much the same risk of cascading instability as an Iran with an actual weapon," it reads, pointing to the risk for nuclear proliferation, Iranian regional hegemony and more. The report makes no mention of the presidential elections in Iran this June, which could see the more moderate Muhammad Khatami replace fiery current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Some analysts have suggested that the Obama administration wait to either engage or press for further sanctions until after the campaign, so as not to increase the likelihood of Admadinejad winning. But the task force calls for immediate action, arguing that the president is less important than Iran's supreme leader, Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, in making decisions and that the top priority should be creating leverage heading into negotiations. An Iranian professor in the audience at Wednesday's WINEP conference, however, said that increasing pressure would increase extremism and Iranian hard-line leaders' sticking to the nuclear program. WINEP executive director Robert Satloff, who presided over the conference, responded that the report's recommendations also included many incentives for Iran should it cooperate with the United States. He also said Iran was already beginning to reap some of the rewards of influence just by having been successful in advancing its nuclear program, and that this report was intended to stanch that progress. "Even without testing a nuclear weapon or declaring the ability to do so, Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons capability is already having a substantial impact on the Middle East," it says. "Time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success." |
|
This is not a common viewpoint but I'm begining to think Iran may attack Damascus, blame it on Israel, and then attack Israel with the help of Russia.
I do not think Israel will attack Iran. In the past, Israel usually pre-emptively attacks with out much talk prior about it, like they did in Syria and Iraq. However with Iran they are making a ruckus. I assume this means Israel would rather not strike Iran and cause a full scale, possibly international, war. Seccondly, Iran made a strange threat to Syria just the other day. This may be due to BHO's recent interest in expanding relations with Syria as a strategic partner and Iran seeing their influence dimished. Could be a motive but i dont know. We will probably find out soon either way. |
|
Quoted:
This is not a common viewpoint but I'm begining to think Iran may attack Damascus, blame it on Israel, and then attack Israel with the help of Russia. I do not think Israel will attack Iran. In the past, Israel usually pre-emptively attacks with out much talk prior about it, like they did in Syria and Iraq. However with Iran they are making a ruckus. I assume this means Israel would rather not strike Iran and cause a full scale, possibly international, war. Seccondly, Iran made a strange threat to Syria just the other day. This may be due to BHO's recent interest in expanding relations with Syria as a strategic partner and Iran seeing their influence dimished. Could be a motive but i dont know. We will probably find out soon either way. I must've missed that one. Can you find the article and post it here? HH |
|
Quoted:
I must've missed that one. Can you find the article and post it here? HH Sure thing, it took a little while to track down but here it is. What's Behind Iran's Warning to Syria By Tariq Alhomayed In a joint-press-conference with Syrian Prime Minister Mohamed Naji al-Otari, Iranian Vice President Parviz Davoudi called on Syria to be "more alert to the enemies' tricks." But the question is; who are these enemies? Of course the answer will be quickly proposed that this enemy is Israel, but Iran did not warn Syria of Israel with such transparency during the Turkish brokered non-direct negotiation between Tel Aviv and Damascus. Iran did not even do so when there was talk of the possibility of direct negotiations between Syria and Israel, indeed the Gaza War made all observers forget the Syrian announcement of its readiness to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. In which case why would Tehran give advice, and even more, a public warning, to Damascus now? And why has President Ahmadinejad decided to strengthen ties with Syria [now]? For of course it is no secret that Iran's warning comes at a time that Syrian foreign relations are experiencing a political breath of fresh air. And so the political doors have opened to Damascus, both internationally and in the Arab world. There is the Saudi rapprochement, and it seems that the Egyptian coolness towards Syria is less than it was, while internationally it seems that Washington has begun with positive steps to test the waters with Syria, and things are progressing. This is what is new in the Syrian relations with the Arab world and the international community, and it seems that this is what caused the Iranian Vice-President to speak out publicly, contrary to what we have come to expect of the shrewd Iranian policy of media caution with regards to commenting about Syria, or its [other] allies in the Arab region. Iran's rush to publicly advise Syria of the "enemies' ticks" raises concern over the coming days with regards to the open [battle] fronts in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, especially with the arrival of the far-right into power in Israel. Whatever the Syrians intentions are regarding Arab reconciliation, or their international ties, in the end we must remember that Damascus has interests that it will do the impossible to honor. For with Damascus we are dealing with a government, and not an armed militia such as Hezbollah. This is why Damascus simply cannot afford four or eight years of sharp disputes with Washington, especially since there is a real wind of change with the arrival of Obama to the White House. There is also a new economic reality that Damascus and the Arab world cannot ignore, and stalemate now costs a heavy price. Tehran is well aware of all of this and is concerned, therefore what is important with regards to the Arab reconciliation brought about by King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz's speech during the Kuwait summit, and the international rapprochement towards Damascus, is not Syria's response, but Iran's. We have known Iran's reaction to the easing of relations between Syria and the Arab world and the international community since the statement by the Iranian Vice-President, however the question is; what are the practical steps that Tehran will undertake in order to disrupt Arab reconciliation, and Syrian – American rapprochement. That is what is important. |
|
Thanks, darg...that's a very interesting article. I have read other opinions that Iran may attack Syria, blaming it on Israel and then all hell breaks loose, but I don't buy it. I think Israel will go alone against Iran-if they do-and that'll then cause Syria's defense treaty with Iran to kick in. Imagine Hezb, Hamas and Syria engaging Israel in retaliatory actions.
HH |
|
I voted that Benny won't do anything. Israel's whole public strategy looks to be about goading the US into doing something about Iran. Israel knows that an Israeli attack on Iran would be disastrous for US strategy in the region, hence all the Israeli sabre rattling. An actual Israeli operation against Iran's nuclear programme would almost certainly guarantee a wider war in the region, with no guarantee of destroying Iran's nuclear capability. Pressuring America to do the job is the safest and cheapest option for Israel.
If the Obama administration's strategy of rapprochement with Syria works, and Obama trades missile defence for Russia cutting Iran off, AND, most importantly, the oil price stays low, Iran's finished anyway. Mind you, I would consider bargaining away strategic assets away to Russia far more dangerous to US interests than a nuclear Iran, but Obama's hated BMD from the beginning, so I suppose from his point of view, if he can kill it off and be hailed as the Middle East peacemaker at the same time, then so much the better. I doubt that it will work out so neatly for him, but then again, I don't have much faith in th power of hope and change 
|