Israeli attack on Iran 'would not stop nuclear programme'
Source: The Guardian
An Israeli attack on Iran would delay but probably not stop its nuclear programme, the most senior US military officer has claimed. General Martin Dempsey reinforced Washington's opposition to unilateral Israel military action as he made clear that US military chiefs were equally wary of getting ensnared in Syria.
In common with Nato's supreme commander, US admiral James Stavridis, who wrote about Afghanistan for the Guardian on Thursday, Dempsey put a brave face on the situation there. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was speaking to journalists in London, where he attended the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games as head of the US delegation.
Distancing himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran, Dempsey said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear
liberallibral
(272 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It wasn't the Israelis that stopped him in that regard; it was the '91 Gulf War.
Neither Israel nor iran is going to try anything; Israel lacks the firepower to actually do anything to Iran. iran doesn't want to end up squaring off against the US. Neither has any incentive to strike first, and every reason to let the other make the first move.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)With regard to your reply, do you think Iran actually having nukes would be a deterrent to nuclear confrontations?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I frankly don't think "nuclear confrontation" is even really an issue these days.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)If Israel was going to strike, my read of the political calculus would put the attack after the RNC and BEFORE the DNC.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)I suspect Israel does not have an American "green light" until that point.