What Will Israel Do?

A unilateral military strike against Iran is much more likely following the latest intel report about Tehran's nuke program.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: yeshu2004@yahoo.com @ 09/29/2009 6:40:17 AM

    Michael Hirsh is wrong in saying that Bush held the view that 'nothing has changed.' 9/11 changed the whole outlook of Bush. Like Roosevelt who responded to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, Bush also responded quickly by bringing Kabul and Baghdad under American control. Only a fool of a president would keep quiet for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Future historians will laud Bush's bold ation. By this act, the entire political map was changed by Bush. Obama may speak about 'change. but there is no discernible change till now. His 'change' is losses for America and gains for rogue countries. Iran and North Kiorea are examples. Obama is more a demagogue than a practical politician like Bush or Reagan.

  • Posted By: yeshu2004@yahoo.com @ 09/28/2009 11:43:58 PM

    Answer to Gray 307
    Iran could have developed the Bomb as India and Pakistan did. But Iran iwants a nuclears aggression by 1. eliminating Israel and 2 to dominate the Middle East, even by conquering Saudi Arabia to bring Mecca under Tehran. So this rogue Iran should be destroued, as the Romans were bent upon destroying Carthage.

  • Posted By: yeshu2004@yahoo.com @ 09/28/2009 11:36:56 PM

    Jimmy Carter betrayed Israel. He had to leave the White House in disgrace after Iran held Americans captives for 444 days. Clinton sponsored the idea of a Palestine State. He was immersed in the Lewinsky scandal and spoiled the chances of Gore. Whoever rises against Israel will ne smashed. That is what history tels us right from the days of Egyptian Pharaoh. Is Obama the new Pharaoh?

  • Posted By: wnnr2 @ 12/10/2008 8:20:42 PM

    I just read an article about Iran suffering from a sudden economic downturn due to the drop in oil prices--a drop that, hopefully will continue under the new administration. When the Bushies, in search of great wealth and world religous domination staged the huge oil price increase, they also provided Iran with the enourmous wealth needed for it to pursue the nuclear path, without which there would be still only empty rhetoric--how ironic. Now that Iran is also entering a deep economic crisis, are the Iranians still going to be financially capable to pursue their nuclear mission at the present breakneck pace in fear of being attacked? To me, that is the question.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/01/2008 3:05:45 PM

    How the times have changed. In 2007,Hirsh held the NIE up as sacred writ in castigating the president[undoubtedly whipped on by Seymour Hershs certainty that the US was to ''invade Iran by September of this year''[2006],for being Wrong On Iran.
    Yet the NIE failed to keep track with what El Baradeis IAEA was coming up with. ''It could be two years before Iran has a nuclear weapon. Perhaps less'',the head of the IAEA observed in May of this year,making sure that the international community,particularly the Russians and Chinese,were being assured that the IAEA was hitting Iranian -made stone walls in trying to find out more about its enrichment program. I was left with few doubts that the 2007 NIE was a failure when it was first released,and I am largely vindicated in this belief by the sheer numbers of nations including the normally surly Russians and Chinese that Iran is indeed,seeking nuclear weapons,although there is disagreement over whether or not this is a bad thing,keeping their UN ambassadors veto-hands at the ready,should things even greater than sanctions appear on the horizon. A paranoid Hersh lost no time in this weeks NEW YORKER,again asserting through his usual ''anonymous sources'',that the Bush adminstration was again dusting off the old 2006 attack plan [which turned out to be a figment of Hershs imagination],to ''attack Iran before the end of his presidency''. Israel,justifiably,is upset in that the failures of the American intel community keep making things more dangerous,leading former MOSSAD officials to conclude that they ''are not getting anything right'',in what is appearing to be the foreign intelligence comparison to baseball,where a weary Casey Stengel,then manager of the 1962 Mets,asked of them, ''Can't anyone play this game''? As it now stands,Iran in the 5th is leading with at least two runs.

  • Posted By: Gray307A @ 12/22/2007 1:46:16 PM

    Can anyone answer a question for me? This may seem like an elementary question, but I would point out that the article doesn't answer it. Nor, amazingly, do any of the dozens of news articles I've read on the issue. Nor do any statements I've heard from American political leaders. My question is this: WHY does Israel oppose a nuclear Iran so much that it would be worth bombing them and going to war? Why does the U.S. feel the same? Before anyone answers, I'd like to clarify that I am not seeking anyone's OPINION of what the reasons are, rather I am interested in actual stated reasons given by Israeli and U.S. leaders and the general populace. I used to feel stupid for not knowing the answer to this question until I noticed that it is the American media that perpetuates this ignorance by never providing the necessary answers to important questions such as these. The media are failing to do their duty now as they failed to do so in analyzing the evidence for going to war with Iraq. Our political leaders are no better. All they do is keep repeating their mantra, "Iran must not acquire 'new-kyew-lur' weapons," without ever deigning to tell us WHY. Is the American media that dull-witted that they don't think an answer to that question is worthy journalism? Do they really just expect us to take the politicians' word for it after the Iraq debacle? Perhaps they consider the question too basic or self-evident to waste ink answering, but I imagine if a poll were conducted on the issue, most Americans would be as ignorant of the reasons as I am. Perhaps an older generation is more aware of the reasons than I, having lived through more of Mideast history than I, but I happen to be of a younger generation, and if we are ignorant on these issues, it is because the older generation, which runs the government and the media, has failed to enlighten us. Since my leaders and media have failed me, is there anyone out there who would answer that question for me? I would also like to know why other Arab nations fear a nuclear Iran, as the article mentions, yet fails to explain. Again, I seek not opinions, but actual stated reasons from the concerned parties.

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 12/22/2007 2:37:30 PM

      I can answer the question. Isreal and the US both oppose a nuclear Iran because they are afraid.

      Israel opposes a nuclear Iran because Iran has publicly stated it's intentions to "drive all the Jews into the sea." Iran has said so repeatedly, as have several other of Israel's neighbors. A nuclear weapon would make this goal much easier, since conventional weapons have not worked - the Israeli's have proven very effective at staying dry and on land, and would like to remain so. A nuclear Iran could finally have the power to drive all the Jews into the sea.

      Until very recently, the US opposed a nuclear Iran because Iran has, or effectively influences, oil, and the US desparately needs oil. The fear is that with a nuclear weapon, Iran can withhold the oil and we would be too afraid to attack Iran to get the oil, because of fear of nuclear retaliation. Since 9/11, the fear is heightened: if terrorists can attack with 2 airplanes and threaten lower Manhattan, think what they could do with a nuclear bomb.

      The real question is not why Israel and the US oppose a nuclear Iran, since the answer is fear; fear is the motivating factor for almost all of our foreign policy, and a good portion of our domestic policy. The real question is - are there other ways to deal with our fears concerning a nuclear Iran besides going to war with them?

      After all - many countries - Israel, Russia, China, France, and India among others - have had nuclear weapons for several decades, and we have managed to avoid going to war with them. Why can't we avoid going to war with Iran? Or North Korea?

      Maybe the real fear isn't that Iran will use nuclear weapons - maybe the real fear is that if Iran has them, some crazy American might feel so afraid that we will use our nuclear weapons first.

      After all - we've done it before.

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 06/30/2008 1:46:13 AM

        All I know is that whomever ends up being our next US President they better have bringing all our nations in the world together somehow (United Nations) as Bush has totally alienated us as a country over the last 8 years. With the way this world is today and talk of nuclear development in e.g. IRAN should be engaged in working with the UN moving forward to address the whole nulcear issue. I think strengthening our ties with all nations (mending wounds that our current cowboy prez has made) will be so important going into the next Presidency, as well as troop withdrawal in a safe and responsible manner and getting us out of this economical mess we are currently in and continue to spiral downward. God Bless America.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/29/2008 7:46:29 PM

    bomb bomb bomb iran !!! drop it like its hot and hit the right spot no nukes for iran bomb iran hell yeah bomb iran !!! we mean nothing to iran neither does israel !!

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/27/2007 2:52:45 AM

    Hillary Clinton voting for the war, and a blank check for the war is against everything she stands for, unfortunately there are forces that control individuals in Washinton that is beyond our realm. Inotherwords if a politician is in trouble they will go against their own principles just to save themselves. This is why I say Hillary should be appointed to a health and childrens welfare committee under an Obama presidency. That way she will not be susceptible to scandal. The Clintons have shown time and time again that they are too political. Their decisions are based on what's best for them first and the people second. Hillary Clinton laughs at the fact that there are individuals who can tell her what kind of president to be. If going negative assists her she will do it, if going family helps her she will do it. These individuals in Washington have been programed to adhere to the will of special interst lobbyists. Why do you think we fund Israeli security forces. The politician is guided by their own narrow interests. This the conclusion I have come too over the holidays. The democrats that have been in the Senate and in the Congress for the last 6 years and have done nothing on a national scale. Edwards has done nothing as a Senator, his voting record indicates he has gone along with whatever the mainstream has wanted him to do, Clinton has done what ever the mainstream has wanted her to do, and pelosi has been playing games and is getting schooled everyday. I have no choice but to vote for OBAMA, what other hope is exist. We need someone who is not programmed and that can bring unity. Obama has not flip floped, he has run a steady and unified campaign even when he was down in the polls, his campaign has stayed focused and positive. Clinton went from negative, to bashing, to family . What is going it is like a script has been written everyday and Hillary is just the actor reading the lines. Like I said there are those that think they are far more experienced and knowledgable than us, but when you look at their individual record it is as if they never had experience. We are stupid and this is why our candidates act stupid. Remember our candidates are a reflection of our society, do what you half to do to get ahead even if it means going against your principles. Experience.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 06/29/2008 7:16:22 PM

      Eddie, you DO know that Hillary Clinton is out of the picture for President now, right? You need to get with the program and focus your efforts of support for Obama vs. McCA. Unless you have that incurable disease called Clintonian Syndrome.

  • Posted By: badjuju66 @ 06/05/2008 12:24:31 PM

    The US state of Israel has no right to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East. They seem hell bent on attacking Iran. The US should disown this rogue nation before something bad happens. They regularly attack and kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza and have no respect for anything or anybody that isn't Jewish. Time to wake up and smell the coffee I think.

  • Posted By: new_york_loner @ 01/13/2008 10:11:38 AM

    Mike Hirsh wrote, "The Israelis also know that the Arab states are terrified of an Iranian nuclear power, possibly to the point of looking the other way at another such strike."

    How can Mike, or anyone else, reach that conclusion? Where's the hard evidence supporting that dangerous assumption? Justification for an Israeli strike on Iran is a shaky argument based on faulty or dubious premises, wishful thinking and pro-Israeli emotion.

    We Americans have heard rosy, pre-war predictions before, from the same pro-war crowd. The Israel lobby helped push us into an ill-concieved war in Iraq.

    Now, the Israel Lobby, through highly-silled shills like Mike Hirsh, is orchestrating American sympathy for any future, unilateral, Israeli aggression against Iran.

    If Iran should respond to an Israeli airstrike or misslile attack, by launching a counter-attack on the Jewish State, this pro-Israel sympathy would grease the skids for US military action against Iran, as Israel would then be facing another "existential threat".

    China and Russia would not sit back quietly while Uncle Sam delivers "shock and awe" destruction upon Iran. All hell could break loose quickly.

    Under such dire circumstances, Israel might have the last word, by way of the Samson Option; the ensuing "Armageddon" would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Mike, someone needs to inform you, what's good for Israel is not always good for the USA, or for mankind. .

  • Posted By: Door to Perception @ 01/12/2008 1:47:45 PM

    Also.... air attacks on Iran are not enough; history has proved this time and time again. Only a massive land invasion could accomplish the mission. ................... actually at this point in history we don't want Iran to go nuclear and be a dominant player because we see them as the enemy... but in fact history has shown us that we often make the wrong assessments. In the 70's we were supporting the Taliban against the Communists in Afghanistan when it turns out that the people that were closest to us (the West) were not the Taliban but the Communists. What a better place Afghanistan would be today if we had supported the Communists. And how much weaker the global Jihad movement would be!!! Similarly, in the long term the Iranians will prove to be better friends for the West than the Arabs. We should support friendship and mutual beneficial relationships between the West and Iran....

  • Posted By: Door to Perception @ 01/12/2008 1:42:36 PM

    The NIE was a political document, drafted at the behest of the White House in order to let Bush back down from his hawkish rhetoric on Iran and his promise not to let them get the Bomb. Now he can leave office without launching a war and if the Iranians get nuclear weapons later it can be someone else's fault. Even his team of lunatics are rational enough to know that an attack on Iran by the USA would cause havoc in the Persian Gulf, the world and here at home., not to mention in Iraq. So they just don't have the stomach for it... thus they ordered a new NIE. I am surprised so few commentators point this out.

  • Posted By: yuriy @ 12/31/2007 10:12:27 AM

    Iran is curently nazi ruled state. Israel Must do whatever it sees fit to protect itseff

    • Posted By: yahshua22 @ 01/11/2008 10:30:24 PM

      Amen to it. Necessarily Yirael defends self against whoever curses Yisrael: thus, YHVH bless Yisrael via Abraham .

  • Posted By: awalsh8174 @ 12/20/2007 7:05:16 PM

    What? , A U.S. Intelligence agency make a mistake? Nah!

    • Posted By: mongoman @ 12/21/2007 1:58:16 AM

      The intel people make very few mistakes. Everyone should relize that the intel agencies of the different countries are the controlling power. What goes on behind closed doors would shock this world, if it were to be made public. Don't believe that people like Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Tony Blair or Olmert decide their policies of the countries. The intel people do.

      • Posted By: justwaiting @ 01/01/2008 1:49:59 AM

        If the U.S turns it's back on Isreal, the US will no longer exist. As of Isreal Yes they will attack Iran and the that will make Russia Mad and they will go at war with Isreal and the will lose two. the US is not the only Super Power in the world Isreal is more Powerful the us. The US gets attacked and we alway ask for help, If no one wants to help we back down, Isreal get attacked nobody wants to help the do it themselves. Isreal is the US,s Musles we alway hold them back.

  • Posted By: yuriy @ 12/31/2007 10:07:29 AM

    and Iran is for Whom? You are missing the point, Israel has the right indeed the duty to protect itself. Iran is curently ruled by the Nazis

  • Posted By: TheWatchman @ 12/30/2007 10:00:38 PM

    Israel and the surrounding area belong to Israel, as God has spoken it. There is no palestine, period.

  • Posted By: the raprot @ 12/29/2007 5:40:51 PM

    oh, and one little thing, israel is for israelis, period

  • Posted By: the raprot @ 12/29/2007 5:39:40 PM

    alright, so before you listen to people like the one below me, let someone like me (israeli) to comment- so really, things are not like you read here on the internet, come for yourself and have a look how those terror groups pretend they are regular people. and ill tell you waht, i am not that yound and about to enter the israeli army, and articels and people 9like that one below me for example) makes me wanna go there even more, so chill before you say something about israel alright?

  • Posted By: mdvlstn3 @ 12/28/2007 9:10:09 PM

    Why does Isreal....think it can treat Palistinians....like the Nazis...treated them
    As long as they have the military and financial backing of the US.....they do anything they want
    You have to lie in the bed you make.....I would like to see them do this on their own...
    Is their anyone more aggressive....or quicker to violence then Israelis....

    • Posted By: frenchpatou @ 12/29/2007 1:05:22 PM

      YES, PALESTINE BELONGS TO THE PALESTINIANS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BUT HALF THE TROUBLES IN THAT REGION, BUT WE DO BECAUSE OF THE NAZIS OF THAT AREA, THE PEOPLE OF "ISRAEL", ISRAEL IS PALESTINE !

  • Posted By: mdvlstn3 @ 12/28/2007 9:06:30 PM

    why does Isreal....think it can treat palistinians like the nazis treated them....
    and think things are going to work out in their favor....(as long as the Us bails them out, militarily and financially)....they should have to sleep in the bed they have made....on their own

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse