Isreaelis Urge US to Stop Iran's nuke Goals (Or they will act Unilaterally)

Washington Times on Drudge Report ^ | September 30, 2005 | David R. Sands

[Tenacious 1]

Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goals By David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 30, 2005

The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday. As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week. "They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.

[Tenacious 1]

Isreal is starting to feel backed into a corner. If our friends act unilaterally, I suspect our war effort would need to exand exponentially. I wish the UN would actually do something.

[ElTianti]

I fear this will not end well.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"I wish the UN would actually do something."

You're kidding. All the UN wants is bribe money and food for sex programs.

[misterrob]

The UN is a joke as are the so called allies that the democrats have claimed we have alienated.

[RexBeach]

Well, we can't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. But if we or the Israelis take out the Iranian nuke program with military action, do you think that would result in a new oil embargo against the US?

Bottom line, though: No nuke weapons for Iran. That would be a nightmare.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Iranians want to be liberated. I'm glad that Israel has some guts. Condi is playing the same stupid games that Powell did. We need to take action. The UN would sell us out. All they would do is give Iran a heads' up about what we're up to.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

It will depend on what Iran's friends do after Israel takes out the nukes. North Korea will have a lot to say but can't act. The PRC will condemn Israel, then go back to their own business. That leaves Mother Russia...

[Tenacious 1]

The UN put off discussing Iran for another month. At the same time, Mr. Bolton is posturing for them to get congress to pay their dues following our threat to hold funding until reform is in the works.

I think Isreali Leadership should start beating the drumb that they feel threatened by the constant call from Iran to have Isreal wiped off the face of the earth. Then they should claim pre-emptive self defense. In any event, I fear we are stalling the enevitable. I hope we can stall it enough to get Iraq in more stable shape before anybody commits to another war in the region.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"But if we or the Israelis take out the Iranian nuke program with military action, do you think that would result in a new oil embargo against the US?"

Then we should blockade the Persian Gulf until they change their minds.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"In any event, I fear we are stalling the enevitable. I hope we can stall it enough to get Iraq in more stable shape before anybody commits to another war in the region."

Iran is destabalizing daily. The only way to stabalize Iran is to take out the mullahs.

[CharlieOK1]

Click

[reagan_fanatic]

I fear this will not end well.

So do I. The problem is, Iran has had plenty of time to disperse its nuclear program and materials. It will be extremely difficult to hit them all.

On the other hand, neither Israel or the West can allow Iran to get its hands on nuclear weapons, since the primary target for them will be Israel itself.

Things are going to get very interesting indeed.

[Tenacious 1]

Ironically, The US has Iran surrounded. If we can just hold off until things are stable enough to refocus our resources and assets, it seems like the next logical use or our military in the war on terror.

I think having Isreal in the fight in the Middle East might not be a bad thing considering we may very well end up fighting several middle eatern countries if we have to attack Iran. They seem to be able to get far better intelligence in the region than we can and there military is battled tested and efficient, not to mention well armed.

[misterrob]

Who get's $85 per barrel of oil? Russia hold no alliance to Iran, they are simply a means to an end.

The real problem is the official kick off of WWIII with the Muslims against the Jews and her supporters in the U.S.

[Red Badger]

Does Israel have a missile that can carry a nuke warhead? One or two is all that would be necessary............

[RexBeach]

I LIKE that idea! Blockade the Persian Gulf until they say "infidel!"

Thanks for the note! Good one.

[Red Badger]

Your link is broke..........

[Shanda]

I am a very soft hearted person but for some reason it would not bother me if Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran. I think they have it coming.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"If we can just hold off until things are stable enough to refocus our resources and assets, it seems like the next logical use or our military in the war on terror."

That's an intelligent point, but consider this: things may continue to get less stable in Iraq until we push forward into Iran.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"I LIKE that idea! Blockade the Persian Gulf until they say "infidel!" "

They just might. In which case, we'd be nutcases to not have the neutron bomb ready.