nuclear strike against Iran?

[Lobotomy Boy]

Specifics? Citations? Good lord, where to start.

From the Christian Science Monitor, tomorrow's edition:

from the April 27, 2006 edition

A defiant Iran banks on a split at UN
The Security Council receives a report Friday that gauges Iran's latest nuclear activities.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – With neither side blinking, Iran and the international community are preparing to take the next step in their showdown over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
The confrontation returns Friday to the United Nations Security Council, where the Iranian regime is hoping a divide-and-conquer strategy will prevent the UN body from taking any coercive action to limit its nuclear program. It may be a bold gambit: Just a month ago, the Council acted - unanimously - to give Iran 30 days to show it had ceased uranium enrichment.

But the Security Council, in fact, is split over the need for action against a defiant Tehran - increasing the likelihood that steps such as economic sanctions will be taken not by the UN, but by a "coalition of the willing" of the US and equally adamant allies.
"Of course we have a strong preference for action by the Security Council, for legal reasons ... and [because] it sends a clear message to the Iranian people that action is against the regime and not them," says a French diplomat who requested anonymity because of the delicate nature of the negotiations. "But at the same time, we can't remain forever doing nothing in the case Iran goes forward with its process."

The United States as well has been emphasizing its preference for united Security Council action against Iran. But it is also floating with allies the possibility of steps outside the UN if the Security Council proves unable to bridge its differences - essentially with the US, Britain, and France on one side, and Russia and China on the other.

Beginning Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is to attend a two-day meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Sofia, Bulgaria, where the issue of Iran and its relevance to the Atlantic alliance is expected to be raised, according to NATO officials.

The 30-day pause in deliberations on Iran was designed to give the Iranian government an opportunity to cease uranium enrichment, reassure the world that it is not proceeding along a path to nuclear armament, and stave off further international action.

But if anything, Iran has used the days preceding a return to the Security Council to rattle the international community: not only to boast of a perfected enrichment process, but to do it with veiled references to secret enrichment sites and to accelerated nuclear development.

The Iranian game plan appears to be to set up a confrontation with the West that not only divides the international community but shatters any consensus against its nuclear program, analysts say.
"They seem to be trying to replay the good-cop-bad-cop strategy the US and EU [European Union] used against them, but in their own way where they play both the good cop and the bad cop," says Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert with the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

He points to Iran's diplomatic forays to Russia and Persian Gulf states, as well as toward Sudan, even as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taunts the West. And he says Iran is trying to look reasonable and cooperative to friends (like Russia) and Muslim countries, while also appearing to stand up to Western powers.

The Iranian strategy may be working, both at home and when it comes to the UN. Domestically, the outspoken Mr. Ahmadinejad is winning points with his anti-Western stance, even as he fails to deliver on the bread-and-butter issues that brought him to power.

"This could be part of his domestic political calculations," says Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "The more he postures as standing up to a US positioning itself for war, the more he consolidates his power."

Then there's the UN: A month after the Security Council approved a watered-down statement on Iran, world powers seem no closer to consensus on diplomatic action, such as "smart" sanctions aimed at Iranian officials.

Initially, the US, Britain, and France are set on seeking something more from the Council than the simple "presidential statement" that was approved a month ago. This time they want a so-called "Chapter 7 resolution," which would designate Iran a threat to international security - a step that would open the door to sanctions and eventually even military action.

In the days leading up to Council deliberations, the US is reiterating that it is not seeking sanctions at this time. "The resolution we are contemplating ... would not be a sanctions resolution," the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said Tuesday. "So from our perspective, we are going to take it one step at a time."

But for China and Russia, a Chapter 7 resolution puts the Council on a course of action, including sanctions, even if the text does not specifically call for it. And it also starts looking increasingly like the diplomatic road the US took before going to war with Iraq, some experts say.

That helps explain why neither veto-wielding nation is likely to go along with a tough new resolution. "I think the Chapter 7 route is dead on arrival," says Mr. Cirincione. "The US can keep talking about it, but our own policies have doomed it."

From the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145657412405&call_pageid=968332188492):

Will Iran be next on U.S. hit list?
Apr. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM
OLIVIA WARD
STAFF REPORTER


Shock and awe, or wait and see?

As the standoff between Iran and the United States continues ahead of next week's crucial meeting of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, media reports are a flashback to the events leading up to war with Iraq.

They claim that Washington is making a public pretence of diplomacy while it privately conjures up invasion plans.

"The Bush administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible air attack," says veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine.

The administration calls the reports "fantasy land." But Hersh quotes military and intelligence officials that targeting plans are underway, and "(U.S. President George W.) Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium."

Bruised by plummeting poll ratings, and stung by reminders of its mistakes on Iraq, Washington is now softening its media statements on Iran.

It is also aware that Russia has demanded "concrete proof" that Iran is planning a weapons program before it would consider even economic sanctions.

But experts on the region point out a propaganda war is already underway, conducted by the same cast of neo-conservative hawks that produced the Iraq invasion, confident they could go it alone against Baghdad.

Some analysts also believe the nuclear crisis is merely an excuse for the waning Bush administration to pursue an urgent policy of rebranding the Middle East.

"Prior to the Iraq invasion you saw lots of statements on the danger of the regime, the threat to U.S. security, the pursuit of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the violations of human rights, and the hostility to Israel," says Houchang Hassan-Yari, head of the department of politics and economics at the Royal Military College of Canada.

"With Iran you see many of the same elements. And in the background is the question of oil. In both cases regime change is an issue."

Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says he found it hard to believe Bush would consider a military strike, which would "only accelerate Iran's nuclear program." But he says talks with colleagues who have close ties to the Bush administration convinced him "they want to hit Iran."

Furthermore, he says, "I've come to realize that for some in this administration, Iran is just the continuation of the process they started in Iraq. The whole point was not just to eliminate Saddam Hussein, but to begin a regime change throughout the whole region. That includes, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries."

Cirincione believes that, "for the neo-cons, the nuclear program is just an excuse. As (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice said a couple of weeks ago, it's only one of the issues with Iran. The regime itself is a threat to international security. It's what the Bush administration sees as part of the axis of evil."

Many in the U.S. and other Western countries are nervous about Iran's nuclear intentions. Although Tehran insists it is interested only in ensuring a domestic energy supply, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed doubts about some aspects of its nuclear program.

Western countries fear that Iran's hardline government might develop deadly weapons that would threaten the West as well as the unstable Middle East, while increasing the chance of arming terrorists with nuclear materials.

But, says Sheldon Rampton, who has tracked the use of propaganda in the Iraq war, it may be more difficult now to convince the American public that an attack on Iran is in the country's vital interest.

"It's true that Bush administration people like (Defence Secretary) Donald Rumsfeld and (Vice President) Dick Cheney, who have perfected a pattern of propaganda, are still around," he says.

"But one of the lessons of propaganda that we have observed is that those who are most heavily deluded by it are the propagandists themselves."

In August 2002, U.S. media reported the creation of a White House Iraq Group that would "market the war in Iraq."


That, said New York Times columnist Frank Rich, was the "official introduction to the product" of a U.S. invasion: "the administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on," with rhetoric dwelling on mushroom clouds, sinister uranium shipments and terrorism. It's also a familiar refrain on Iran.

But Rampton, a co-author with John Stauber of Weapons of Mass Deception, and research director of the Wisconsin-based Center for Media and Democracy, says the propaganda weapon is a double-edged sword.

"They have built up a huge reservoir of skepticism in the American people. There are logistical barriers that I don't think are surmountable."
QUOTE]

From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5781777,00.html):

Azerbaijan Leader Staying Out of Iran Fray

Wednesday April 26, 2006 4:31 PM


AP Photo MOSB106

By BARRY SCHWEID

AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan opened a three-day visit to the United States on Wednesday by saying he would not allow his country to be used by the U.S. for any operations against neighboring Iran.

Aliev, scheduled to meet with President Bush on Friday, cited a ``very clear'' agreement with Iran that the two countries would not permit their territory to be used for operations against the other.

His visit comes at a time of rising U.S. tensions with Iran over its nuclear program, and Aliev said he would remain at arms' length from that conflict.

``Azerbaijan will not be engaged in any kind of potential operation against Iran,'' he said in remarks at the private Council on Foreign Relations.

The Caspian nation, which shares a border with Iran and Russia, is strategically important to the U.S. because of its location and its role in supplying the West with oil.

From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

Russia positions itself between Iran and the West
By Brian Bonner
Knight Ridder Newspapers
MOSCOW - Russia is standing on a small and shrinking patch of middle ground as it tries to protect its huge business relationship with Iran while finding a diplomatic resolution for U.S. and European concerns that Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program.

Russia opposes the spread of nuclear weapons, but it's building Iran its first nuclear-power plant and this year plans to deliver 29 short-range, Tor M-1 anti-aircraft missiles to the Iranian government, all over U.S. objections.

The Kremlin sees no harm in its delicate and, some say, dangerous position of cooperating with Iran on civilian nuclear energy and supplying it with defensive weapons.

But tougher choices face Russia if no negotiated breakthrough is found to ease concerns that an increasingly defiant Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons under cover of its nuclear energy program.

Russian diplomacy has failed so far to convince Iran to stop enriching uranium in compliance with Friday's deadline, set by the United Nations Security Council, for the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment and answer all questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

from the April 27, 2006 edition

US should call for direct talks with Iran
Communication could help alleviate tension from historical grievances.
By John K. Cooley

ATHENS – It's time to soften the Bush administration's hard position against direct talks with Iran. A good time for both Washington and Tehran to begin overtures toward such talks would be following the UN Security Council's April 28 deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which Iran rejects.
During her brief visit in Athens this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated that while "all options are still on the table" with Iran, Washington prefers that Iran and European Union states return to earlier multilateral nuclear talks to cajole Iran into suspending its uranium enrichment plans. Those talks have so far been singularly unsuccessful.

In remarks to the London Financial Times, US State Department counselor Philip Zelikov linked rejection of direct US-Iran talks to the nature of Iran's "dictatorial ... and revolutionary" regime. This is a flawed argument. If, since World War II, the United States had avoided negotiating with such regimes, including the former Soviet Union and China, what would America's world status be now?

Those are just a snippet of stories from this week. For more focused information you need to look back at least two or three weeks. For example, again from the Christian Science Monitor:

from the March 27, 2006 edition

Why Iran oil cutoff could be suicidal

By David R. Francis

Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States, Europe, and other nations has led to considerable speculation of $100-per-barrel oil and $4-per-gallon gasoline in the US. Such high prices might kick off a worldwide energy crisis and recession.
The West already suspects that Iran's uranium enrichment program is a cover for bombmaking. To try to put a stop to it, the United Nations Security Council could impose sanctions, or even riskier, the US or Israel might attempt to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities with an air or missile strike.

In retaliation, Iran could act against its own best economic interests and slash oil exports. Last September, the head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that "any sanction against Iran" could push the price of oil to $100 a barrel.

"It would be easy to see oil trading at $100 a barrel," says Milton Ezrati, an economist with Lord Abbett, a mutual-fund company in Jersey City, N.J. But if oil traders view the action by Iran as merely a short-lived "diplomatic stunt," he says, oil would rapidly head back toward today's $62 a barrel price.

Mr. Ezrati warns that a long-term action would cause energy prices to soar. That would set back the incipient recoveries in Europe and Japan and seriously slow the US economy as well.

Many Iranians say they are being treated unfairly by the US and its allies, that they are subject to a double standard. This is reflected in the questions being asked widely by the media and in blogs throughout the Middle East, notes A.F. Alhajji, an economist at Ohio Northern University in Ada.

"Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear bombs while Iran is not allowed to have even as much as a research program that some experts believe might lead to building a nuclear bomb? Why are Israeli actions against the Palestinians and the Lebanese considered 'self defense,' while the actions of Palestinians and Lebanese are considered 'terrorist' acts? Why can Iran not intervene in Iraq when the US and its allies have already occupied the country? Why has Iran been deprived of its economic rights by [two-decades old] economic sanctions?"

The US and its allies may well have answers to such questions. But Professor Alhajji wonders if domestic political pressures in Iran resulting from inflamed nationalism might force the Iranian government to retaliate by cutting its oil exports. Alternatively, given the country's high dependence on oil revenues, Iran could instruct its operatives in Iraq to sabotage Iraqi oil exports from the port of Basra. Shiites are the dominant religious group in both Iran and southern Iraq. That would reduce world oil supplies by about 1.1 million barrels per day (b.p.d.), a drop of 1.3 percent.

A US or Israeli airstrike could lead to outright war - "all bets are off," notes Alhajji. Iran might also try to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the vital oil exports of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States.

I'm not sure exactly what kind of information you want, so I've taken a broad approach. If you could be more specific it would help.

 

[default]

I hate nuclear "saber rattling", no matter who does it. Every nation that has an enemy or adversary that possesses nuclear weapons knows perfectly well that they will be used in retaliation for a provocation or attack of sufficient scale to merit a nuclear response. They also know that to threaten to use them is really a sign of political weakness, not strength. Therefore, the US, as the foremost nuclear power on Earth, and furthermore one that has at least in principle committed to not using them wantonly or randomly, should be the last nation to blather about keeping nuclear options on the table. Iran knows that that option is available, given a serious enough pretext. They may or may not be crazy enough not to care, but that is a different subject. To talk about it publicly is to encourage them to call our bluff on something not of sufficient scale to warrant nukes.

 

[gc70]

I'm not sure exactly what kind of information you want, so I've taken a broad approach. If you could be more specific it would help.

Sure, how about being specific about your reference:

The situation between Iran and the U.S. is getting serious, but it seems to me that only one of those countries has talked itself onto a ledge. Hint: It's not the one sitting on top of one of the largest deposits of easily recovered high-grade crude left on earth.

So compare and contrast the threats that the US has made against Iran to the threats that Iran has made against the US and the UN.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I'm sorry, GC70, the answer you seek consists of such basic common sense that I thought to explain it in detail would have been insulting.

Iran saw that the United States had squandered its moral high ground as well as its treasure and military strength tilting at windmills in Iraq. It thought, "Hmmm. The world's policeman is disgraced and hemorrhaging resources right across our borders. With the U.S. in this weakened state, this might be the perfect time to push ahead with our nuclear development? What will anyone do to stop us? The world is addicted to our oil so they will pay lip service to sanctions at best, and the U.S. is busy stepping on its private parts in Iraq. Let's get 'er done!" and began an uranium enrichment program. So the U.S. already headed out on the ledge when it engaged in an ill-conceived war of choice in Iraq. In other words, they called our bluff.

To make matters worse, we drew attention to the fact that we had painted ourselves into a corner by responding to Iran with blustery threats that most of the world believes we are not crazy enough to back up. Almost everyone outside the U.S. assumes we are bluffing, which amplifies the fact that we are out on a ledge.

I think the rest of the world may be underestimating just how complete has been the current administration's psychotic break with reality. Talk of a nuclear option against Iran makes this clear. As default has pointed out, threatening to use nuclear weapons illustrates just how weak we really have become. The thing that worries me is that the neocons are crazy enough to actually use them.

 

[gc70]

LB, an explanation in response to a question is never insulting (unless intended to be so ).

However...

responding to Iran with blustery threats

AND​

Talk of a nuclear option against Iran makes this clear.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your interpretation. When a reporter tries to paint the government into a corner with a leading question, I don't consider a response of "we're keeping all options open" to be a threat or talking up a nuclear option.

 

[Sam]

Iran has made no secret of it's intentions, and that was long before Iraq.
If we abandoned Israel, left Iraq and forgot that the middle east existed Iran still wants piece of us. Long ago crap that some folks cannot forget. Just like some people here still complain about the Great War of Northern Agression.

Make a real good effort to locate and verify their assembly facilities and lay a B53 Mk1 Y1 on it. Believe that there are about 50 in the stockpile. 9 Megatons worth of ugly with a U238 casing that will make the place uninhabitable for 30-40 years.
Don't say squat, don't take responsibility, nothing. Offer condolences to any survivors and express great regret that the Iranians were incapable of handling nuclear weapons and had such a bad accident and then get on with life.
Smart folks will know, bright folks will drop their programs and that's the end of it.
Tired of all the yammer, tired of being pushed around, make them respect you then leave them be.

Sam

 

[Cosmoline]

We have no right to use nukes against Iran or anyone else for violations of a treaty. Somewhere along the line the idea that atomic weapons could be used in a limited "tactical" capacity started to creep back into the thinking at DOD, at least in certain high levels. It's the same sort of bravo sierra Ike nipped in the bud half a century ago. We dare not go down that path.

 

[shootinstudent]

It's the same sort of bravo sierra Ike nipped in the bud half a century ago. We dare not go down that path.

What I wouldn't give for a leader like that today...

But, we have compassionate Dubya instead of Harry Truman. They say they have divine mandate? Nuke Mecca and Medina. A deity would not allow something like that, and so we disprove him atomically.

This kind of complete and total misunderstanding of the folks we're dealing with over there is going to cost us in the end.

The only thing out-brutalizing the terrorists will do is convince everyone they're right. I'm certain they welcome attacks on mecca and medina. They've destroyed most of the historical buildings themselves already...the Saudi regime and its extremist clerics are against any focus on the buildings/places of historical worship whatsoever.

All that striking out at their religious sites will do is give the terror gangs just shy of a billion recruits overnight, because we would in fact be the Great Satan if we were willing to kill millions of civilians just to try and scare arabs into submission.

 

[Cosmoline]

I have no qualms about being totally ruthless to the actual insurgents and terrorists and those who aid them. But as the greatest nuclear power we have to be extremely careful with those things. Above all else we MUST preserve the doctrine of MAD. If we start using "little" nukes for tactical strikes nothing prevents China from doing exactly the same thing. And it's a very small step from us nuking Iran's underground bunkers to China using a "small" nuke on Elmendorf and an array of other military sites to ensure the People's Navy can safely deposit the People's Army onto Formosa to "liberate" it. If we had gone down that road in the 1950's there's a good chance none of us would be alive today.

 

[shootinstudent]

If we start using "little" nukes for tactical strikes nothing prevents China from doing exactly the same thing. And it's a very small step from us nuking Iran's underground bunkers to China using a "small" nuke on Elmendorf and an array of other military sites to ensure the People's Navy can safely deposit the People's Army onto Formosa to "liberate" it. If we had gone down that road in the 1950's there's a good chance none of us would be alive today.

Agreed. Imagine "tactical exchanges" between India and Pakistan, Russia and the former client states...etc etc. It's a process that spins itself out of control.


I'm confused by the notion that "get tough" has to mean "kill lots of civilians or don't worry about killing civilians." I'm for killing terrorists too...I just don't think it should be intentionally done at a ratio of 1000 to one, civilian collateral per terrorist.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Terrorists have shown they do not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. Neither did the imperial Japanese. Truman and LeMay showed them the logical extrapolation of their doctrine and why it is unsustainable when facing an opponent that has and is willing to use WMDs. If Tojo had nukes, he would have used them; so would have Hitler. Truman got them first and saved millions of lives by an effective demonstration (or two).

All this leftist "feel good" "let's all live in the kumbaya" nonsense is why we are at the ledge. The Iranian crazies bet we no longer have the balls to use our weapons and thus believe they have a free reign of getting anything they want. They also know time is on their side. What is going on now is a circus of weakness and impotence of gargantuan proportions. The weakness is not in our military or our weapons. It is in our leaders and a large number of globalist/leftist/pacifist/idealist/impracticals that are rapidly dragging us to the dumpyard of history.

Give them an ultimatum to stop any and all nuclear development and agree never to resume it unilaterally. Give them two months to consider. If they do not agree and let inspectors in, completely glassify them with hydrogen bombs. Wait a month, then move in and claim the oil. End of story.

As far as leftists/dems go, I have yet to hear a practical solution as an alternative.

 

[fallingblock]

Looking forward to it......

"The thing that worries me is that the neocons are crazy enough to actually use them."
**********************************************************


Not the use of nukes on the general population of Iran, of course -
but their use as "bunker busters" against the Iranian facilities.

I'm betting (and hoping) the neocons will do it.

 

[gc70]

I'm confused by the notion that "get tough" has to mean "kill lots of civilians or don't worry about killing civilians." I'm for killing terrorists too...I just don't think it should be intentionally done at a ratio of 1000 to one, civilian collateral per terrorist.

So what's the alternative to waiting for the ayatollahs to create glow-in-the-dark monuments to Islamic rage?

 

[silicon wolverine]

Just use neutron bombs. While "clean" nuclear weapons are an oxymoron at least we woudlnt be spreading fallout over half the world. Or better yet hammer them with EMP bombs. You cant run your centrifuge when the computer controlling it explodes.

SW

 

[Thin Black Line]

Sigh....

1. Israel has no problem defending herself and has a proven track record
of doing so. She had shown GREAT restraint given past provocations.

2. If I were a third country listening to the "we will use [real] nukes to
take out their [possible] nukes" I would think Americans have completely lost
their minds. Yes, from a tactical standpoint, I understand the whole
"don't rule out" thing, aka sabre-rattling, chest-beating, etc. Nice to
see the majority of humanity has yet to come out of the freaking cave
and the ones that have are throwing rocks at the moon again. No
wonder some people who stand upright have retreated into the jungle
and gotten out of politics althogether.

3. What's next? A projection that Micronesia might develop nukes in
150 years? Should we nuke them now and remove the potential threat?

4. I've checked the Consitution again and again and fail to find the clause
that mandates the US to be World Globocop. As I've wrote in other posts,
our involvement in stabilizing the Middle East is of more benefit to the EU,
Russia, and China than us. Those three can sell Iran weapons make money,
we can then take them out later, and everyone can cut some new oil deals.
Yes, all this is about oil. Let's start drilling off CA for oil if they're not
going to carpool and use mass transit instead of the LA freeways. US gas
price problem solved for the rest of us

5. Wouldn't it be nice if we had as a country remained isolationists and
continued being the world's greatest monetary LENDER and innovator of
technology? Things might be very different today......Oh, well, mousse up
the mo-hawks, boys, --let's go raid the fuel tanker and maintain the
suburban soccer minivan lifestyle a little longer.....it's far easier to send
<1% of our population out to raid for oil resources rather than actually
change anything here by having people conserve and live more simply
like my grandparents did on their farms. After all, someone important
might lose an election or federal paper-pushers lose jobs when this
Roman Circus comes to a halt.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Give them an ultimatum to stop any and all nuclear development and agree never to resume it unilaterally. Give them two months to consider. If they do not agree and let inspectors in, completely glassify them with hydrogen bombs. Wait a month, then move in and claim the oil. End of story.

The above logic is astounding. I think it might take a bit longer than a month to "move into" a "glassified" Iran and "claim the oil." In the meantime, we'd find ourselves on the stinky end of a World War III stick, one that would likely "glassify" the entire planet.

The most frightening thing is that this sort of lunatic thinking is taking place at the highest levels of our government.

 

[carlrodd]

AMERICA does NOT EQUAL ISRAEL! We are NOT ISRAEL. And really, what has backing Israel gotten us? They're not a democracy, they've been led by a succession of religio-zealots. We don't get any resources from them, we don't get any regional influence from them...what we DO get, is every time they mouth off, they duck, and the return punch from their enemies hits US in the face.

Why? What does supporting their every action get us? Besides dead Americans here and abroad?

We really need to be more isolationist in some instances, and I DO THINK that includes telling Israel "You're on your own."

Enough taking the punches for them. And you can't say "because supporting them is right", in some nebulous definition. If we did what was "right", Kim Jon Il would be a grease spot and we'd invade and free North Korea. We'd say we will defend Taiwan's right to be a free state no matter what, because they "want democracy". We can't, it'd not be practical at this juncture. And we need to be pragmatic here...we CANNOT continue to take the hits for Israel, for which we get NOTHING in return, no benefit, no nothing.

Even the crusaders, zealots in the extreme, knew when to fold and get the heck out of Jerusalem when it became plain that staying would just be continued attrition that'd weaken their rule at home. Are we going to fail in long term planning so badly that we can't even see what a bunch of people with broadswords saw, back then? At some point, you HAVE to weigh continued losses against the desparate hanging onto of the unwinnable..and weigh what benefits you're getting, if any, from hanging onto it. I don't see any benefits to our continued support. Not in terms of tactical advantage, not in terms of resource benefits (Israel doesn't have much oil!)...nothing. I don't see any reason WHY we support them so unquestioningly.

Do you?-Manedwolf

i fully agree that the US should be more hands-off internationally, but i don't feel this way about Israel. Israel certainly does not duck and allow the US to take the punch, as you say.

that nation is forever antogonized and threatened by its neighbours, and it simply responds to the aggression, balls out. the reason we seem to get 'hit in the face', is because our support of their nation is wishy-washy. you can't claim to be a close ally to a nation, and continually take steps to sell it out.

peace in palestine will be achieved only by Israel continuously asserting its right to exist, and letting its neighbours know that it will not be taken advantage of. if we fully supported that line of thinking, there would be no appearance of us taking punches for them. it's nothing they do....the repeated hits we take in this situation are solely a product of our feeble attempts at peace-making in the region. you have a conflict there that has been continuous for thousands of years. it's presumptuous to think that we can accomplish some peace that has been elusive for that long.

the two choices are to pick a side, or to bow out of the situation completely. we pretend to be a strong ally to Israel, yet we placate arab nations because of the oil....it's a no win situation that way...we will inevitably take punches.

carlrodd's answer....ween ourselves off the oil, and be a true friend to Israel. i know it won't happen....no delusions. internationally, there is no such thing as friendship or loyalty.

 

[shootinstudent]

you have a conflict there that has been continuous for thousands of years. it's presumptuous to think that we can accomplish some peace that has been elusive for that long.

Huh? When's the last time (before the 1940's) there was such a conflict in this region?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I've been reading a book called: "How Hitler Lost the War." It's fascinating to see the blunders world leaders made back then, blunders that they continue to make today. There are those who refer to Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement when urging aggressive action today. Those folks have, at best, a preschooler's understanding of history. From a tactical geopolitical standpoint our current actions are more akin to Hitler's than to those of England or France in 1938-1940. (Those with the same third-grade understanding of history will now start mewling about me comparing Hitler to Bush, but that is to be expected. Their same childish understanding of history will prevent them from understanding a tactical geopolitical comparison versus a political comparison. Let the mewling begin.)

Because of this, I suggest that we give the upcoming invasion of Iran an appropriate and historically accurate name: "Operation Barbarossa."

 

[seeker_two]

I.R. Israel & the Middle East...

During the times where the US has stayed out of the way & allowed Israel to handle their own security issues (Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, first strike @ Iraq nuke, Operation Wrath of God, etc.), Israel would get the job done, and the region would end up peaceful & stable for a time. All the US had to do was sell Israel the equipment...

When the US tries to get actively involved and muscle Israel into compliance (occupation of Lebanon, PLO peace talks, Gulf War I, etc.), the result tends to be an increase in violence and instability in the region while peace becomes more fleeting...

Best bet...the US needs to step out of the way & let Israel handle their own national and regional security issues. We just provide the equipment and financing. Works every time we do it...

 

[shootinstudent]

Because of this, I suggest that we give the upcoming invasion of Iran an appropriate and historically accurate name: "Operation Barbarossa."

HA!

That's reaching a bit far back, but sure seems appropriate to the situation.

 

[seeker_two]

I've been reading a book called: "How Hitler Lost the War." It's fascinating to see the blunders world leaders made back then, blunders that they continue to make today. There are those who refer to Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement when urging aggressive action today. Those folks have, at best, a preschooler's understanding of history. From a tactical geopolitical standpoint our current actions are more akin to Hitler's than to those of England or France in 1938-1940.

+1, LB....

...but the policies of Germany in the Middle East actually started with Kaiser Willhelm prior to WWI. Hitler & Co. simply took advantage of the networks already established.

Refer to THE FIRST WORLD WAR by Hew Strachan, either in print or in the television series on the Military Channel ...

 

[rmgill]

How many here advocate the principle that you should be shot before you shoot the other guy? When you have an avowed enemy attempting to get first strike weapons that you know will be used, what are you supposed to do? Wait until they pick up the new, larger firearm in lieu of the knife they've been using and wait for them to shoot first?

Its not that ANY country has nuclear weapons. Its not that a Theocracy is working towards nuclear weapons. Its not that an enemy has nuclear weapons.

Its that a violent theocracy that has....

1. availed itself of terrorism as a means of international diplomacy

2. eschewed basic concepts of open diplomatic negotiations

3. has announced that Israel should be wiped from the map

4. has sought to bring neutral nations into wars between it and it's neighbor on multiple occasions

5. has continued to avail itself of terrorism as a means of foreign policy including even closer coordination with Hamas

6. has provided material support to the insurgency in Iraq.

7. has obtained BM-25 missiles

and is working to obtain nuclear weapons.

By by all means, lets let Iran develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes and then develop nuclear weapons and then count ourselves lucky when they only raze the heart out of Israel and destroy the border areas of Jordan, Lebanan, Egypt and perhaps Syria with the after effects not to mention the fall out. Then we'll count ourselves even more lucky when Israel's counter strike (you know they'll have birds on 5 minute standby) utterly destroys a nation of what, 50 million people and fallout lands on countless other nations in the area.

If Iran gets nukes, I have no doubt based on their past history, that they'll use them and Israel will respond. And there'll be at least 100 million dead in the region. Contrast that with limited use of some small 1kt bombs, 200 feet under ground that'll have negligible thermal effects and limited radiation effects and leave the iranian Nuclear program an utter wreck.

 

[Waitone]

Lobotomy Boy, why is it you insist on insulting those who disagree with your positions? The credibility of your positions is diminished by disparaging those with whom you disagree.

 

[CAnnoneer]

I am still patiently waiting for the bleeding hearts to propose just ONE practical solution to WMD proliferation.

The rant on oil does not take into account simple facts about how modern technology works and how much oil is spent to produce electrical power and plastics. Even if all the SUVs magically convert into hybrids overnight we'll still need increasing amounts of oil in the near future. That has been beaten to death - just do some searches.

I am all for Israel handling their own security. What I still have to be convinced in is why we should pay for it. Countries are not intrinsic friends. We should only keep allies that are at least as useful to us as the resources we spend on them. Israel is not. If we get their lobbyists and sympathizers out of WashDC together with the UN crowd and the globalists of all sorts, we'd be much better off as a free country. All of the above push us to global imperialism that will ruin us.