At Rishon Rishon David writes about his thoughts on war between Israel and Iran . He posits that both Bush and Kerry must understand that Israel will not sit by and watch Iran develop nuclear weapons and that because of the War on Terror the U.S. cannot allow Israel to attack Iran.
The end result he proclaims is a US attack on Iran. It is a sensible conclusion given the circumstances we see. Iran does not acknowledge the existence of Israel. It is a primary supporter of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations that attack Israel. We even saw during the Olympics that the Iranian athlete refused to compete against an Israeli athlete.
Bush is already laying the groundwork, making sure that the Iranians understand that there will not be a compromise on their acquiring nuclear capabilities. If Bush remains in office, I would not be surprised to see something like David’s suggestion of a US attack on Iran.
OTOH, I am not convinced that Kerry will do the same. At this juncture I rather suspect that Kerry will try and bring international pressure to bear on Iran, but I am not convinced that will be effective either.
An interesting thought to consider. Russia and Israel agreed to work together to fight terror. Traditionally Russia would not work with Israel and would be hesitant to irritate their Arab allies. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Putin apply pressure on Iran on behalf of Israel. We live in strange times and stranger things have happened.
“Eventhough i would have nothing against a precision strike on iraq’s nuclear processing plants”
Oops…Ofcourse i meant iran.
Eventhough i would have nothing against a precision strike on iraq’s nuclear processing plants, i would strongly disagree to start an all-out war with iran. The US army is already stretched to it’s limits occupying iraq and managing the civil war there, opening a second front in the middle-east would water down efficacy dramatically and give the flexibility of terrorism an overwhelming advantage.
Reason for me supporting a strike against iran would be the political regression of the reformists and the shift to absolutism coming from the shiite clergery. A possible second iranian revolution isn’t unimaginable and the thought of this time nuclear weapons being in the game can generate consequences to dangerous to fathom.
But it must remain a strategic objective and must absolutely not transform, along the way, into ideology like we see in iraq. I have nothing against using military force for strategic purposes, because you have a concrete objective with a clear military agenda, but not when it strands into megalomanic intentions such as ‘democratizing’ an entire nation that doesn’t want you there in the first place.
Get in, eliminate threat, get out. That’s what i would prescribe if i was advisor of the white house.
Zeruel
I think that there are a few issues. First, Iran is an implacable enemy of Israel and has stated it’s goal of destroying Israel. When you factor in their support of terror you can see that Israel would never accept a situation that would make Iran’s goals easier.
The question is whether the US is concerned about how this will affect the War on Terror, not to mention that Iran is on the list of the Axis of Evil.
This is a big issue that will get more airplay.
I should not try to post comments when I have no time to do so. I do not think that Bush could get the support to go to war with Iran from the American people. If we do strike it will be sudden and with out warning. It will also be before the elections. For some reason we have I think the international community will be more effective in dealing with Iran. I know Bush had told us to ignore the UN but I still have a bit of faith in them. But, I think that the UN will also place demands on Israel that will be rather unpopular. Thus the UN will chase its tail in a circle. I still think Israel may strike and quickly lure the US . What are the US supplied bunker buster bombs for?
Yet, we still ignore N. Korea