Israel to attack Iran before new President takes office?

The Ozzman

The Ozzman

Melted by feels
Sep 17, 2006
34,077
3,667
113
In My Kingdom Cold
John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...president-sworn-in,-John-Bolton-predicts.html
 
That is ridiculous. Israel should not be playing world police. I really fear for the future of the Middle East if Israel actually attempts to attack Iran.
 
Any attack on iran = ww3 for sure!
Not that i care about all these world politics bullshit, but ww3 with nuclear shit around sounds scary:eek:
 
I wonder if Israel would still be considering it if they weren't receiving 30% of the US foreign aid budget. I'm not saying that they wouldn't, but it is a thought.
 
nuncheon said:
I wonder if Israel would still be considering it if they weren't receiving 30% of the US foreign aid budget. I'm not saying that they wouldn't, but it is a thought.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Israel is like an annoying little asshole kid who runs his mouth then gets his big brother to kick some kid's ass that he started a fight with, and then kicks that kid while he is on the ground and yells, "Yeah take that you wuss!"
 
Iran should nuke Israel, and then a ton of problems would be solved in a matter of moments.

Though, I do find it funny that everyone is afraid of Iran.
 
Meh said:
Iran should nuke Israel, and then a ton of problems would be solved in a matter of moments.
Click to expand...

Heh...
Well, I suspect you're not being serious there, but I see your point.

It pisses me off because I support Israel's right to exist, but on pre-1976 terms. I don't think Israel had any right to extend its borders or take more Palestinian land than it already had, or anything of the like. I also hate how US foreign aid is what's allowing Israel to be able to currently take MORE Palestinian land for Israeli settlers. I don't think that Israel should make itself more unwelcome than it already is, i.e. bombing Iran. It's asking for serious trouble, and if the US wasn't there to bail it out then I don't think it would even have the means to consider offensive action in the first place.
 
Israel is not going to nuke Iran. If they do attack, they will launch strategic air-strikes against all their nuclear facilities, thus halting any threat, substantiated or not, that Iran will attack them with nuclear weapons.

A situation like that would not cause World War III, but Iran and Israel will go to war, in which case the US will enter on Israel's side and reduce Iran into submission. To make things go nuclear would be to accept Mutually Assured Destruction, which is the theory that kept the Cold War cold.

There is a chance, if the US does invade Iran (because Iran would have retaliated against Israel) that Russia may get involved, but even then they wouldn't necessarily press the nuke button. As for China, I see no reason why they would join either side, and Pakistan and India wouldn't take sides either. England and France would probably stay out of it too, given what we all learned from Iraq.

Outcome: if Israel attacks Iran before Bush is out, we'll eventually have another Iraq on our hands, but not WWIII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Ozzman
America to strike Iran nuke program within weeks
Replies
2
Views
524
GMD Social Forum
V.V.V.V.V.
V
H
  • Locked
Iran: Women to be stoned to death
Replies
66
Views
5K
GMD Social Forum
skeptik
S
MadeInNewJersey
Alright liberals, spin this one (Iran content)
Replies
118
Views
4K
RC
dorian gray
D
MetalAges
SYSTEM OF A DOWN Singer Condemns TRUMP's Attack On Iran: 'We're Saying No To Another War!'
Replies
0
Views
242
Metal News 2
MetalAges
MetalAges
General Zod
Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran
Replies
14
Views
1K
RC
lurch70
L
Top Bottom