Bibi to Barry: Stop Iran, or we will
Blunt words from the new prime minister of Israel, and it's high time it came out. Barry just wants to make nice with Iran, give them concessions so that we can all play nice. The problem is Iran doesn't want to do that, and they're laughing themselves silly at the new president:
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”
But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”
Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”
He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”
Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”
He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.
Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.
Iran has enjoyed virtually unfettered command of the region as they interfere with our efforts in Iraq, collude with the Chinese and Russians for more advanced missile technology, and uses it's surrogates -- like Syria -- to get better nuclear technology. this is not for peaceful purposes. It's to get a nuclear weapon. and while some may argue that the nuclear age is over, and there's no need to worry about the Iranians obtaining such a weapon, others, like myself and Marcie, are concerned about them getting such a weapon.
Let's say they don't use a nuke on Israel. Let's say they sit on their minuscule arsenal, and continue to build it up. Has it occurred to anyone how Iran could use such weapons against the region? Has the term "nuclear blackmail" entered their minds? And what if it extends beyond the region itself, and they obtain missile technology to threaten Europe, or even us? And what if their desires extend beyond nuclear weapons? What if it goes to chemical and biological weapons? Will the world fiddle as Rome burns yet again?
The idea of Israel striking Iran isn't an easy one to grasp. The mission itself, even with external drop tanks, wouldn't be easy, to say the least. More than a few Israeli military experts claim that they may lose a few pilots, and not just to the Russian air defenses that were sold to Iran. They could lose those pilots and planes in the flight there or back, easily. But if they do what they feel they must do, then we shouldn't complain about this.
Of Barry won't back such an operation. He doesn't want to. In his mind he thinks we can make nice with a regime like the one in Tehran. You can't make nice with a pitbull willing to rip your throat out. The best way to deal with such a threat is to eliminate it.
Publius II
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”
But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”
Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”
He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”
Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”
He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.
Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.
Iran has enjoyed virtually unfettered command of the region as they interfere with our efforts in Iraq, collude with the Chinese and Russians for more advanced missile technology, and uses it's surrogates -- like Syria -- to get better nuclear technology. this is not for peaceful purposes. It's to get a nuclear weapon. and while some may argue that the nuclear age is over, and there's no need to worry about the Iranians obtaining such a weapon, others, like myself and Marcie, are concerned about them getting such a weapon.
Let's say they don't use a nuke on Israel. Let's say they sit on their minuscule arsenal, and continue to build it up. Has it occurred to anyone how Iran could use such weapons against the region? Has the term "nuclear blackmail" entered their minds? And what if it extends beyond the region itself, and they obtain missile technology to threaten Europe, or even us? And what if their desires extend beyond nuclear weapons? What if it goes to chemical and biological weapons? Will the world fiddle as Rome burns yet again?
The idea of Israel striking Iran isn't an easy one to grasp. The mission itself, even with external drop tanks, wouldn't be easy, to say the least. More than a few Israeli military experts claim that they may lose a few pilots, and not just to the Russian air defenses that were sold to Iran. They could lose those pilots and planes in the flight there or back, easily. But if they do what they feel they must do, then we shouldn't complain about this.
Of Barry won't back such an operation. He doesn't want to. In his mind he thinks we can make nice with a regime like the one in Tehran. You can't make nice with a pitbull willing to rip your throat out. The best way to deal with such a threat is to eliminate it.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home