Iran The Big Topic Of Israeli PM's Visit
The visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Washington is focusing on the issue of how Israel would best like the United States to deal with their enemy, Iran.
The fact that U.S. interests in the broader Middle-East will be irreparably damaged by an American military attack on Iran is not really a concern of Israel and it's neo-con facilitators in Washington.
David Landau , editor in chief of the Israeli daily Haaretz, said Monday that Israel hoped to link its need for a stronger defense against the Iranian nuclear threat to its stated willingness to pull out of more occupied Palestinian land.
The agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's official visit this week was dominated by Iran and the controversy over its nuclear potential, Landau told Washington Post columnists and reporters. Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, which it does not openly acknowledge.
Iran's nuclear ambition "is hanging over this visit like a black cloud," he said. But he added, "Maybe this black cloud could have a silver lining."
The silver lining would be a package linking Iran's nuclear threat and Israel's defense needs to the sea change in Israelis' attitudes toward occupation, which could spell further unilateral withdrawals from Palestinian lands after last year's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
Unlike his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, Olmert will not be able to "soft-pedal the Iranian issue," given the anxiety over the rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in recent months, said Landau, who arrived Sunday evening from Israel...
"Israel cannot countenance a nuclear Iran. It crosses . . . even the dovish fringe of the Israeli spectrum," Landau added.
Having no military credentials, Olmert would be politically vulnerable if he told his countrymen the Iranian issue should remain on the back burner, he said.
Nice, so they have the chickenhawk phenomenon in Israel too.
He said bringing Israel under America's nuclear defense umbrella, with early warning systems and diplomatic and economic pressure, was necessary in a situation in which "a balance of terror" alone was insufficient, "because Israel is so small and close to Iran."
Maybe Landeau should get a refresher course on international security. "Balance of Terror" and "Mutual Assured Destruction" strategies do not bother overmuch with irrelevancies such as geographical size and proximity. The only operative factors are the size of a country's nuclear arsenal and their willingness to use them.
Despite what the wingnut right insists, Iran will not launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack upon Israel. The guarantee that Israel would strike a retaliatory death blow will force any aggressor--including Iran--to hold their fire.
Nuclear strategy has been thoroughly studied for decades. Scenarios have been wargamed by computer since the invention of the IBM mainframe in the 1950's. The experts know that a "rational actor" will not initiate nuclear war against an enemy with a superiority in nuclear weapons.
That's why those who are pushing for war with Iran are stressing the "crazy" leader of Iran, and claiming untruthfully that he has stated an intention to "wipe Israel off the map."
Without the "irrational actor" premise, a first strike against Iran cannot be justified by the facts.
No matter what the bedwetters say.
The fact that U.S. interests in the broader Middle-East will be irreparably damaged by an American military attack on Iran is not really a concern of Israel and it's neo-con facilitators in Washington.
David Landau , editor in chief of the Israeli daily Haaretz, said Monday that Israel hoped to link its need for a stronger defense against the Iranian nuclear threat to its stated willingness to pull out of more occupied Palestinian land.
The agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's official visit this week was dominated by Iran and the controversy over its nuclear potential, Landau told Washington Post columnists and reporters. Israel has its own nuclear arsenal, which it does not openly acknowledge.
Iran's nuclear ambition "is hanging over this visit like a black cloud," he said. But he added, "Maybe this black cloud could have a silver lining."
The silver lining would be a package linking Iran's nuclear threat and Israel's defense needs to the sea change in Israelis' attitudes toward occupation, which could spell further unilateral withdrawals from Palestinian lands after last year's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
Unlike his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, Olmert will not be able to "soft-pedal the Iranian issue," given the anxiety over the rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in recent months, said Landau, who arrived Sunday evening from Israel...
"Israel cannot countenance a nuclear Iran. It crosses . . . even the dovish fringe of the Israeli spectrum," Landau added.
Having no military credentials, Olmert would be politically vulnerable if he told his countrymen the Iranian issue should remain on the back burner, he said.
Nice, so they have the chickenhawk phenomenon in Israel too.
He said bringing Israel under America's nuclear defense umbrella, with early warning systems and diplomatic and economic pressure, was necessary in a situation in which "a balance of terror" alone was insufficient, "because Israel is so small and close to Iran."
Maybe Landeau should get a refresher course on international security. "Balance of Terror" and "Mutual Assured Destruction" strategies do not bother overmuch with irrelevancies such as geographical size and proximity. The only operative factors are the size of a country's nuclear arsenal and their willingness to use them.
Despite what the wingnut right insists, Iran will not launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack upon Israel. The guarantee that Israel would strike a retaliatory death blow will force any aggressor--including Iran--to hold their fire.
Nuclear strategy has been thoroughly studied for decades. Scenarios have been wargamed by computer since the invention of the IBM mainframe in the 1950's. The experts know that a "rational actor" will not initiate nuclear war against an enemy with a superiority in nuclear weapons.
That's why those who are pushing for war with Iran are stressing the "crazy" leader of Iran, and claiming untruthfully that he has stated an intention to "wipe Israel off the map."
Without the "irrational actor" premise, a first strike against Iran cannot be justified by the facts.
No matter what the bedwetters say.
posted by Effwit at 12:46 PM
7 Comments:
Ahmadinejad has made it clear that anyone who looks at him sideways will get a,in his words,"historic slap". Nice.
That was preceeded by their testing long rage missiles and admitting they are done with the enrichment process.
Jenn:
"Admitting they are done with the enrichment process."
You clearly know nothing about nuclear weapons. And you are repeating talking points of those equal to your understanding.
Iran has constructed a 164 cenrtifuge cascade. And a malfunctioning one at that. According to nuclear physicists, Iran is capable of enriching uranium to 3% of weapons-grade purity. They have no prospects for another decade of getting weapons-grade uranium. That's not a wild ass guess, thats the intelligence community consensus in the most recent NIE of early 2005.
Most gooper trolls are not as sloppy with the facts as you.
Bravo for that rebuttal but first and foremost a Bravo for the post. That's schticking it to those incontinents.
That's why I took a patent on adult diapers. Just study the Bell curve, dear Watson and ye shall find your worldly riches.
M1:
It figures that you would think of the better approach. A patent.
A truckload of product disappearing from the inventory of a megacorp was more like what I had in mind.
The Israelis try to portray themselves as "poor, little, pitiful Israel" battling the goliaths of the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Israel is powerful both politically and militarily and they are as ruthless as they come. And they don't even flinch at doing anything - ANYTHING - that furthers their interests.
What is most amazing is how the Israelis are able to lead the U.S. around like a mutt on a short leash. I've often wondered why that is and why the U.S. allows itself to be exploited like that by the Israelis. Is it geo-political expediency on the part of the U.S., or is there something deeper that allows Israel to keep the U.S. toeing the Israeli line?
DrewL:
The conventional wisdom is that Israel is one huge military base that will be available to the United States if (and more likely when) the shit hits the fan so badly that a standoff military posture will not allow us to adequately defend our interests in the Middle East.
This idea is somewhat antiquated these days since we now have vast areas of the Iraqi desert available if further projection of American power becomes necessary. These are the perminent bases that are "not-perminent."
But you are not alone in suspecting that deeper motivations lurk beneath the surface in the costly U.S./Israel relationship. Like with most real enigmas, there are forces actively trying to keep the truth from becoming known.
Post a Comment
<< Home