Israel 'Approved' to Strike Iran

cobra de capell · #1 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 08:17 AM

Israel 'Approved' to Strike Iran

Friday, July 13, 2007 10:00 a.m. EDT
Israel 'Approved' to Strike Iran

Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs said he has received approval from the U.S. and Europe for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

"If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the U.S. will support us,” Avigdor Lieberman said following a meeting with NATO and European Union officials.

Lieberman said the Western powers recognized the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel, Israel Today magazine reported. But military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities,” and they are sending the message that Israel should "prevent the threat herself.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...257.shtml?s=ic

It's a vague little article, but Hmmmmmm..........

Ron61 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 08:37 AM

Well this could get interesting. Wonder what Syria will have to say about it?

Ron

Bugman · #3 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 10:20 AM

Isreal nailed some middle eastern nuke facilities years ago and saved the world a lot of problems. I'm surprised something like this was leaked out.

4RE KLR · #4 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 11:53 AM

"W" put s a whole new meaning "W" "W" "III"

TampaFla · #5 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 12:28 PM

Israel knows that Iran will retalliate. Iran may (?) not have nuclear weapons but they do have "conventional" capabilities including those Russian made "tank killer" rockets which drove Israel out of Lebanon recently. That leaves Israel with only two backup options: (1) Paul Wolfowitz's original thesis to bring the US into a full fledged war against Arab Nations or (2) nuclear.

Backup 1 might have worked when Wolfowitz first came up with it (mid 90s), but our military by anyone's estimate is stretched pretty thin and the "draft" doesn't get a lot of support even amonst the hawks (or particularly amonst the hawks). So that leaves backup No. 2. Now, while everyone pretends Israel does not have nukes everyone really knows that the same US scientists who aided Pakistan in its efforts to produce nukes also aided Israel.

imagine2frolic · #6 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 01:10 PM

Well, nothing like sending in your little brother to start the fight! When dad comes home you can always claim that little Jimmy got into it, and of course I had to help him out. Can you spell Armageddon?

trularin · #7 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 02:40 PM

Rules or war include,

"Never fight a war on two fronts."

This should be interesting.

Michael4yah · #8 (**permalink**) 07-13-2007, 11:55 PM

Isnt anyone else tired of Israel running the foreign affairs of the United States? That bastard nation will drag us into yet another front just to keep us over there. Is anyone interrested in knowing that when the City of New York recently ran a radiation scan of their fine city they found one area that was HOT with radiation that they didnt expect. It was the Israeli Embassy.

TampaFla · #9 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 07:25 AM

Well, Pat Buchanan has been claiming for several years now that the "neo-cons" took over the Republican Party and that AIPAC took over the neo-cons (along with the American Enterprise Institute). Who knows, he might be right.

Excaliber · #10 (**permalink**) 07-14-2007, 10:47 AM

Israel reminds of my brothers, both of whom are older than myself. The oldest would think up some dastardly deed, the middle brother would go for it and then I would get blamed!

...we can always blame the Israelies, should work out quite nicely.

fsstnotch · #11 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 04:34 AM

Being in Iraq right now and on the Iranian side... this is not news i want to hear!

TampaFla · #12 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 09:04 AM

Two things...one recent, one past make me think this story is entirely possible: (1) comments made by Bill Kristol (noted neo-con, member of AEI, and editor of the Weekly Standard) to Juan Williams on PBS in response to Juan's comment that Israel will have the final say about when the US can withdraw from Iraq...Kristol replied, "Israel could care less" (we will see) and
(2) the Niger Papers and Bush's state of the Union address about them, are the reasons we are in Iraq now. They were forgeries and when the State Dept. investigated who forged them and why (and then dropped the issue), the State Dept. spokesman said it was a small time crook who did it for the money (said to be a few thousand dollars). In my opinion, it was more likely someone who's gain could be measured in the billions, not a small time crook. And, the reason the State Dept. squelched (sp) the investigation was more political than lack of interest. In fact, if it were a small time crook, they could sell the story "How I tricked George into going to war" for hundreds of millions today; afterall, NBC is willing to pay $1million for 15 minutes of Paris Hilton's time.

cobra de capell · #13 (**permalink**) 07-15-2007, 09:15 AM

Your (2) point sounds like a conspiracy theory. Do you drink a lot of Kool Aid?

TampaFla · #14 (**permalink**) 07-16-2007, 06:45 AM

Well, if you think the "war" is just a minor activity, you might be right CdC. I just find it difficult to believe that whoever forged the Niger papers did it for $5000 when they are worth, say, $10,000,000xthat... when you consider what they were used for ultimately (the State of the Union Address). So, if, as the State Dept. says, it was a small time crook not even worth persuing, why wouldn't a small time crook cash in today?????.

But, you are right, it's only a theory because we will never know who forged those documents and if you prefer to believe it was a small time crook....Come to think of it, if the State Dept. had said he was a small time crook but far too smart for anyone in our Govt. to ever catch, then I'd believe it. I'm just not that sure that considering the State Dept. has no idea who forged those papers, they understand perfectly why. I wonder if their opinion might change if the forger was working for Osama or any other source happy to see the US in Iraq for decades.

As for point 1. Read Kristols opinion piece yesterday. According to him, everything in Iraq is wonderful and we should be happy to be there and glad to stay indefinitely.

BeanCounter · #15 (**permalink**) 07-16-2007, 08:51 AM

Tampa,

I have more than just a few friends that are either there or have come back. Their opinions range from agreeing with you to agreeing with Kristol. I think a person's opinion on what is going on over there depends on their belief system. Some look only for the bad, some try to evaluate things realistically, and some hope for what they want things to be. I'm one of those kind of in the middle between realistic evaluation and what I hope for things to be. Problem is those looking for bad things hold back the aspirations of those who want the best. Who knows what would have happened if we had waged this thing correctly. I'm touchy because of my past experience with the left. My son was more fortunate and I hope my grandsons never see any of it. But I still believe Islam to be the biggest threat to peace in the world. Our two biggest so called partners are the biggest purveyors of this threat. And all the while I can't understand the calls for crapping all over the only reliable friend we have in the region. Doesn't anyone see how the Muslims are driving out, persecuting, and killing nearly all of the non-Muslims in the ME? I just don't get it.

TampaFla · #16 (**permalink**) 07-16-2007, 09:03 AM

BC, only history will tell for many of us (whether it was a good idea or a bad idea), but it will never change Kristol's opinion simply because he wanted it, prayed for it, and worked hard for it, for nearly 15 yrs (even long before the Gulf War). From his perch, having achieved it is the goal and having achieved his goal will forever be a good thing.