Posted on 09/11/2012 9:12:17 AM PDT by mojito
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday said the United States had forfeited its moral right to stop Israel taking action against Iran's nuclear program because it had refused to be firm with Tehran itself.
In comments which appeared to bring the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran closer, Netanyahu took the Obama administration to task after Washington rebuffed his own call to set a red line for Tehran's nuclear drive.
"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time'. And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?'" said Netanyahu, speaking in English.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Even the French would nuke Iran.
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.se/2006/01/france-has-nuclear-retaliation-option.html
Thursday, January 19, 2006
France Has Nuclear Retaliation Option
Kim Rahir in Paris, Spiegel Online:
So much for European softness on Iran. French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday threatened states developing weapons of mass destruction with nuclear retaliation. He’s also trying to reposition France on the world political stage.
After months of unusual reticence, French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday returned to character. In a speech about France’s nuclear policy, given on the atomic submarine base Ile-Longue off the coast of Brittany, he made clear that countries which support terrorism or desire weapons of mass destruction are at risk of a nuclear attack. READ MORE
The new tack is new in that it allows France, similar to the United States, a much more flexible reaction that previously — namely timely, concentrated attacks rather than the threat of mass destruction. It also indicates France’s willingness to resort to nuclear weapons to protect allies.
“Faced with a regional power, our options shouldn’t be restricted to either doing nothing or destroying them completely,” said the president. The meaning of this message was clear: France wants Iran to be put under a lot more pressure from the international community in the row over nuclear power.
As Chirac gave his strategy speech, French Foreign Minister Philippe Doust-Blazy was in Moscow discussing with the Russian leadership how to present a united and strong stance against the ambitious Persian Gulf power. The message to Tehran, however, is not the only implication of Chirac’s speech. The French president is likewise eager to find a new position for France’s status as a nuclear power on the international stage. After all, experts believe that France, as a stand-alone state with nuclear weapons, will not be able to continue playing much of a role: It will be forced to become an integral part of a European defense alliance or deepen its ties with the US.
Iran’s “nuclear extortion”
France’s ability to intimidate is quickly approaching its expiration date, says Louis Gautier, the strategy expert for the opposition Socialists. “Our country can no longer play the role of the mini-superpower like it did during the Cold War,” Gautier said in an interview. “France can no longer isolate itself strategically within Europe” he says.
But while Gautier, in the face of the “nuclear extortion of Iran,” takes nuclear capabilities very seriously, there are plenty of politicians looking to save money who are pushing for a cut back in the French arsenal. The country’s some 350 nuclear warheads, with their submarine and air support, cost tax payers approximately €3.5 billion a year to maintain. At a New Year’s ceremony, General Henri Bentégeat, chief of staff of the French armed forces, said that this stately sum arouses “the constant greed of people who will only understand its worth when it is too late.”
The newspaper Liberation sees the timing of the nuclear resuscitation as particularly opportune for Chirac, “who is very attached to his bombs.” Chirac, it seems, is using the current dispute with Iran to continue the push for a gradual transformation of France’s nuclear policy — a push that he started back in 2001.
Originally, the basic idea of the French deterrence was that of protecting the weak from the strong. Were France to be attacked, in other words, it could quickly take extreme measures to defend itself without a large troop mobilization. But in a crisis situation with Iran, such a thought process is far from convincing. Who would be in favor of immolating an entire country merely because its leadership is building an atomic bomb behind the backs of the world community?
The strong against the crazy
Indeed it is precisely for that reason that Chirac himself questioned the principle of a massive nuclear attack in a 2001 speech on nuclear strategy. “The deterrence has to allow us to confront threats posed to our vital interests by regional powers in possession of weapons of mass destruction,” Chirac said in the speech. At the time of the speech, of course, Iraq was suspected of developing nuclear weapons and other WMDs. Nevertheless, the principal was the same. Instead of the “weak against the strong,” the idea had become “the strong against the crazy.”
According to Chirac, the logistical reorganization of France’s nuclear arsenal has already been carried out along those lines. The flexibility of its arsenal already allows France to respond quickly to nuclear attacks by retaliating against power centers and destroying its opponent’s capacity to act. “All of our atomic weapons have been configured with this in mind,” Chirac said on Thursday.
The decisive step in the direction of embedding the French arsenal in an international context, however, is the expansion of the notion of “vital interests,” Chirac said. Such interests include threats to supply lines and allies.
With such a position, France would have reserved for itself a new political weight and a new strategic role at the European level. Indeed, its nuclear weapons could help give greater muscle to European foreign policy.
Domestic considerations
Chirac’s Thursday speech, in fact, was also directed at his European partners. The French president, after all, has taken more than a few punches during the past year. First there was the embarrassing debacle that ensued when the French referendum on the European constitution failed. Angela Merkel’s election as Germany’s new chancellor didn’t exactly come at a great time for Chirac, since he could earlier count on Gerhard Schröder’s shoulder to lean on in difficult times. People close to Merkel say she enjoys good relations with Chirac’s archrival and would-be successor, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy who, incidentally, is part of small camp in the French right-wing who remain unconvinced of the utility of maintaining France’s nuclear arsenal.
But Chirac’s speech was clearly aimed as much at domestic considerations as at the situation in the Persian Gulf. During the course of the past year, the president has suffered from an unprecedented loss of stature. One election loss for his conservative UMP party followed the other, the EU referendum failed and on top of everything else, the president suffered from health problems last autumn. In September, the 73-year-old suffered from a light stroke and was incapacitated for several weeks.
When the youth began to riot in the Parisian suburbs in early November, Chirac didn’t speak publicly about the violence for days. When he finally did appear on television, he appeared absent, resigned and old. Just a few weeks ago, when he gave his annual New Year’s speech, he had trouble reading from his manuscript — a development his spokesman later blamed on problems with the TelePrompter.
But a groundbreaking speech on French nuclear policy, a domain reserved exclusively for the decisive push of a button from the president, finally provided Chirac with the opportunity to once again make a successful appearance before the French people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562341/posts
Iran is not just a threat to Israel.
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/01/false-prophet.html
Ilan Berman, National Review Online reminded us that Ahmadinejad’s animus isn’t simply directed toward Israel. Ahmadinejad has announced: “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny . . . a historic war between the oppressor [Christians] and the world of Islam.”
The Case for Bombing Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838186/posts
Iran: President Ahmadinejad wants to ‘annihilate corrupt powers’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999860/posts
AdnKronos International ^ | April 10 08
Posted on Fri 11 Apr 2008 02:10:54 AM UTC by camerakid400
“Mashhad, 10 April(AKI) - Iran’s hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his country’s objective was to destroy what he called corrupt western powers.”
HOLY cow - Israel and the U.S. are going at it. Obama is being taken to the wood shed by Israel today. Hard to believe all of this is being stated to the public. Typically one would expect much of this to be behind closed doors.
Israel is obviously pissed off.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The US obviously has the right to withold support and aid, all of it. But to block Israel, no, we don't. To block Israel is to support the mullahs.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsC6FJNKKoI
Chilling. Sept. 25 deadline.
He actually says, “Yes, we can” in reference to a strike on Iran.
You know? I can tell you are very motivated on Iran . They haven’t done a thing to us. Right? What have they done? But here is the question you did not answer. Assume they said all these ugly things— WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO with your life and your money. Just answer that question and I will cease to trouble you so much right after I make my closing salvo.
I really don't want to nuke all 73 million of them. It would be very helpfull if you could gather together the approximately 500 thousand we DO want to nuke, in one secluded spot.
Feel free to include all in-country Russian advisors in that number.
I proof read my post for gibberish, and did not find any.
Are you willing to go personally to kill 500.000 people and discriminate favorably against the 72.5 million innocent people as you go? Or do you envision a nuclear devise that seeks women, children and old people and avoids incineration to achieve your Israeli goal?
If they strike first, voters will see what a fake he has been as a ‘friend and ally’ when he doesn’t support Israel and the world will see who he really is. It will be an eye opener for those who haven’t woken up yet. He will throw Israel under the bus and he will loose the election by supporting a terrorist govt such as Iran.
http:/www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/iran-hezballah_they_already_hit_the_homeland_10_years_ago.html
Thanks to you and all. Looks like marygonzo is gonzo. Probably a retread, IIRC.
Well yes, that is my forte, after all.
Included among the multitudes of things she/he/it is ignorant of, is weapons targeting.
I notice marygonzo didn't want to gather the troublemakers all together in one location for me.
Sigh.
And yes, our Air Force now has the conventional weapons to do the job on Iranian nuclear facilities without damage to civilians in civilian cities. It’s been in the public news off and on for a long time. Israel is also, no doubt, equipped to do it with conventional weapons to avoid civilian casualties.
The nuclear option has obviously not been in the top three tiers of “choice” selected. Pity. While the employment history is limited, the attrition level is acceptable, given certain heinous alternatives.
There is no such thing as “avoiding civilian casualties” in warfare, particularly in nations who intentionally position offensive military operations(AKA high value targets) in high civilian population areas.
But let me give you a basic survival tip, familyop.
If the leaders of your nation openly declare themselves to be at, or desirous of waging war against another nation...either don yourself a uniform, overthrow your leaders, or get the hell out of that country. I see Israels regional role in different terms. Israel has habitually blocked the USA from attacking all those Islamic nations who have self-declared themselves to be the mortal enemies of the USA. Perhaps they all have played their sick semantic games too long, and believe themselves immune from real world consequences. They want to go to hell, we want to send them there. Win/Win. The rest of the world can avoid civilian casualties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.