All options including military action open on Iran: Israel

[oberliner]

Source: AFP

Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Thursday that all options including military action were on the table in the face of the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Speaking to public radio as crunch talks on Iran's nuclear programme continued in Switzerland, Steinitz said Israel would seek to counter any threat through diplomacy and intelligence but "if we have no choice we have no choice... the military option is on the table."

Asked about possible US objections to Israeli military action, Steinitz pointed to Israel's unilateral attack against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1981.

"This operation was not carried out in agreement with the United States," he said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/options-including-military-action-open-iran-israel-105611579.html

[Fred Sanders]

1. War drum beating is boring. Peace is interesting.

[Fearless]

2. And we will be cutting funding when??

[Orrex]

3. When Bibi tells us to, and not one second before.

[oberliner]

4. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan

We certainly are not averse to bombing countries if we feel that it is in our interests to do so.

[geek tragedy]

21. And Israel immediately cut off all the aid they had been giving us. nt

[oberliner]

24. No they continued to provide aid

In fact, the US relied on Israel to provide intelligence and support in both cases. In spite of the risks involved for Israel, they agreed.

[geek tragedy]

25. What money did Israel pay the US after that? nt

[2naSalit]

45. Yeah, like THEIR Intel

isn't skewed or anything.

[sendero]

5. If Israel wants to go that route..

.... that is an option but the US should stay out, it's NOT OUR PROBLEM.

[oberliner]

7. Seems like that's what they are thinking

They will go it alone like they did with Iraq back in the day.

Of course, the current situation is a lot tricky, and even the Israelis themselves admit they most they can do is stall Iran's development of nuclear weapons by a few years.

And once Iran has nukes, can Saudi Arabia be far behind?

[Shadowflash]

6. Yawn.

They sure like TALKING a lot about it and beating their chests but it's never gonna happen.

They are waiting for us to do it for them. You know 'let's you and him fight'.

[oberliner]

8. Hopefully it is just talk

Though I wouldn't be surprised if they took action at some point.

I certainly don't think they are under any delusions that the US will do anything militarily against Iran anytime soon.

[HereSince1628]

10. I sorta think cyber-war is more the reality and there have already been attacks

I have little doubt that the US and Israel put together and launched the stuxnet attack. Then there was the AC/DC worm...

There is no reason to think additional cyber weapons aren't available and being used as threats or in actual attacks.

[Geronimoe]

9. All options are on their table

Of course all options are always available, otherwise they are not options. DAH

Unilateral attack? Don't think that is an option given how Bibi was here trying to convince Congress to follow his cries for US war against Iran.

If I want to watch bullies fighting, I'll visit local park playground sandbox.

There is a reasonable and logical solution, everyone disarm of nuclear weapons and stop wasting everybody's money.

Zero tolerance, yeah that's the ticket. If you don't join the civilized world, zero trade.

[jwirr]

13. I like the zero option but then we would have to enforce it. We would probably find ourselves at war

with Israel.

[still_one]

11. First of all it is just saber rattling I suspect. The Osirak nuclear attack is not even comparable

to what they would need to do to attack the Iran nuclear facilities. Most of Iran's nuclear facilities are not easy targets.

An attack on Iran by Israel, without Iran attacking first or solid evidence that that an attack was immenent would be a disaster for Israel.

This would not simply be a few days operation, there is a real chance it could turn into a major war, and could result in a world war.

[cosmicone]

12. Israel cannot attack Iran

It is too far, too mountainous and well defended with Russian S-300s. Plus Israel will have to fly over Saudi Arabia and as much as the Saudis hate the Iranians, they are unlikely to give overflight permission.

Israel could lose every one of its planes and not have a single successful strike.

[oberliner]

14. So why the rhetoric?

What do you think the political calculus is here?

[cosmicone]

15. It is psyops on Iran and the US. n/t

[bemildred]

17. The idea is to spook the foreign public so as to put pressure on the government.

Sometimes it is to spook the government, but that requires a naive foreign government to work.

And sometimes it just makes them feel powerful when things are not going well. The US does that a lot too.

Israel cannot improve its position by attacking Iran, no matter how much they want to. Size does matter. Mutual destruction is the best deal on the table, if Israel picks a fight with Iran, it will destroy them both, and a lot of bystanders.

And it is a very, very, very stupid and primitive tactic.

[oberliner]

19. So you think the rhetoric is hollow?

Or can you envision a scenario where they actual do try to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities (should any exist)?

[bemildred]

20. Bibi is an idiot, he might do anything.

Whether the Israeli security apparatus would try to stop him or obey I cannot tell.

I can however guarantee you that everybody with the means and the desire will unload on Israel the day he does it, or soon after. I live in Los Angeles, and I think I will be at risk if he does that.

[oberliner]

23. Fortunately, he can't

He would still have to overcome his own military to take the action he wants.

[bemildred]

32. Right, you think they will.

And to be fair they have not been silent.

Let's hope you are right.

[bemildred]

36. This is the other half of the issue:

Iranians expect big benefits if nuke talks succeed

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/04/iranians-expect-big-benefits-nuke-talks-succeed-150401095542313.html

Iran is big, it has huge economic potential and is in an absurdly favorable geographic position. They WILL dominate the region if they are allowed to modernize, and they are well on their way.

[oberliner]

37. The Saudis are not going to like that

It will be interesting to see what their response is, both public and private.

[bemildred]

38. They do not.

They agree 100% percent with Bibi about that particular facet of the situation.

[karynnj]

44. I think the rhetoric is an attempt to derail the deal

If we learned nothing from the run up to the Israeli elections, it is that Netanyahu will say anything to get what he wants - even if he disingenuously then declared them not what he meant the day after he gets his way. I don't know why anyone would trust him at this point.

However, consider this is an international FRAMEWORK for a deal - and if there is ultimately a deal, it will be an international one. If there is no PROVABLE Iranian violations, I would assume that ALL the international powers will react very negatively.

I hope that if there is a final detail, the US would PUBLICLY as well as privately make the statement that they are not in support -- and will not support - any unilateral Israeli action. They could add that if Israel has proof of violations, bring them to the international powers. We can not allow Israel - in the person of the very right wing, hawkish Netanyahu - to dictate US foreign policy. He can, of course, disagree. (The problem is our right wing thinks that we can't disagree with Netanyahu! )

In addition, as many have said - even for the US - this type of action would be nearly impossible without an invasion. Iran is far larger, far stronger than Iraq was -- and Iraq is still a problem for us.

Obviously, you (as well as any long time poster here) would not see me as unbiased as to whom to believe - Netanyahu, who just lied on every important issue (2 state solution, settlements and even Iranian/Jewish history) and Secretary Kerry, whose word was always seen as good while in the Senate.

Netanyahu also knows very little on nuclear energy and got most of it wrong when he went to the UN with his bomb cartoon. Kerry, while not a nuclear physicist had the Secretary of Energy with him - who is. So, both on expertise and trustworthiness -- I trust Kerry. I don't trust Netanyahu further than I can throw him.

Not to mention, look at Netanyahu's comments over the last month - he essentially has said NO DEAL could work because Iran will cheat (In true Netanayhu fashion, days later - he contradicted that and argued for a "better deal". I seriously do not believe that there was ANY deal.

In his column today, Kristoff in the US suggested that many supporting Netanyahu - in addition to many other things would want Iranian baklava for all Americans ... and a pony. ( (Though his point was there was no agreement they would accept, having gone to an excellent Persian restaurant in Morristown, NJ -- I want not just the baklava but an entire dinner!)

[lark]

16. Total fucking assholes

They want to bomb Iran, then run and hide for cover under the wings of the US. They know that when Iran retaliates, the US will not let them go down and we will be on the ground fighting for them, sending them tons of munitions, etc. If they attack, they should be on their own and have to suffer the consequences of their warmongering. Should, but won't happen. We'd go rescue them from their own hubris, at great cost to us of both American lives and $$. Israel should be left to deal with the aftermath of their idiocy if they take that stunning move. US should give them no protection at the UN, none at all. Israel is a rouge country and we need to stop enabling their murderous ways.

[oberliner]

18. They think Iran may use nukes against them

They want to make sure that doesn't happen by destroying their nuclear weapons capabilities.

Given some of the rhetoric over the years emanating from the Supreme Leader towards Israel (which they won't even call by name) - it's not a completely unfounded concern

Israel has always been on its own in the various conflicts it's been involved with. The US has never ever sent ground troops to fight for Israel. That is not going to change.

Israel has actually suffered the consequence of American warmongering.

As a point of fact, the US specifically instructed Israel not to retaliate when Iraq hit them with scud missiles in retaliation for the US invasion.

[geek tragedy]

22. Well, Israel helped drag us into the Iraq war, so there is that.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/31/1117211/netanyahu-iran-iraq/

Iran is more justified in worrying about an Israeli nuclear attack than vice versa. Israel would calling a nuclear strike on Iranian facilities 'self-defense.'

Anyhow, Israel will have to learn to live with the reality that it is not the emperor of the middle east and does not control the entire planet.

[oberliner]

26. Absolute BS

But I can certainly see why some people want to push that narrative.

[geek tragedy]

29. "Israel to US: Don't Delay Iraq Attack"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.

"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.

And, of course, the Israel lobby in the US also helped push us into war.

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2007/10/03/179634/aipac_and_iraq/

Israel wasn't the only reason we invaded Iraq--oil was the main reason--but they certainly wanted us to fight their battle for them.

They contribute nothing and ask everything from the US. If our foreign policy was driven by reason we would have cut them loose long ago.

[sulphurdunn]

40. Absolute BS?

Which rhetorical saber rattler has the nukes, is contemptuous of international law, has subjugated a foreign population and annexed their land, runs the world's largest ghetto and periodically provokes then launches massive military strikes against its captive population? Is that the narrative you're talking about? While it is a narrative, it sure as hell isn't fiction.

[lark]

41. They've been scaring their people with this bogeyman for years and years.

Even Mossad has said that Iran wasn't anywhere near having a nuclear bomb, but the hack in charge keeps promoting this theme.

Israel has also pushed heavily for the US to go into Iraq, so any suffering they've caused has been because of what they wanted and requested.

Also, war with Iran would be a complete game-changer, not like any of the others. They are the most heavily armed (outside Israel) country in the mid-east. Iran can actually hurt them. If a Repug is president, it would be 100% certain that we'd get involved and with a Dem president probably 99%. Yeah, we probably wouldn't start with boots on the ground, but flying air missions against them, providing air support for the country's defenses, that would be immediate with the rest certainly following if Iran tries to invade Israel.

[sulphurdunn]

27. The Israeli government

needs to be reigned in. That process will only begin in the US by cutting its foreign aide and dealing with the domestic money funnel its backers use to threaten and buy American politicians. That begins by making those who control the funnel register as foreign lobbyists and by revoking the non-profit status of those lobbying organizations. If that proves insufficient, then the whole idea of dual citizenship should be examined.

[oberliner]

28. Threaten and buy American politicians?

"the whole idea of dual citizenship should be examined..."

Can't believe we are still reading stuff like this here.

[sulphurdunn]

39. What "stuff" exactly

can't you believe?

[Aristus]

30. I fucking hate this. A country that possesses nuclear weapons threatening to invade a country

that doesn't for the crime of investigating the possibility of building nuclear weapons.

[oberliner]

31. The US would do exactly the same thing

If a belligerent nearby country made moves towards developing nuclear weapons we would shut that down in a heartbeat.

And we have a lot more nuclear weapons than anybody else.

[geek tragedy]

33. Like we shut it down with the USSR?

Like India did with Pakistan?

[Aristus]

34. Oh yeah, I know.

The USA: always up for an international dick-measuring contest...

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. I wonder how Iran would respond. I'm sure it would be quite interesting.

[lark]

42. Think devastating would be a more accurate description of the Iranian response.

So the question is, is Israel really that stupid and suicidal of a country? So far, despite the heavy saber rattling, the security folks haven't let this happen. Hope they continue to show a lot more common sense than the murderer, Bibi.

[mylye2222]

43. F... those war mongers.

They ll do anything to punish Obama and Kerry for not being Israel RW puppys

[2naSalit]

46. +1

and that's all I will say for fear of being flamed and then TSed.