Force against Iran would be destabilizing: France

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Military attacks on Iran's nuclear program could create a "totally destabilizing" situation in the region, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Sunday, saying France would instead harden sanctions.

"We can still strengthen them (sanctions) to put pressure on Iran and we are going to continue along this path because a military intervention could create a totally destabilizing situation in the region," Juppe told Europe 1 radio.

"We must do everything to avoid the irreparable," he said.

Last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy criticized what he called Iran's "obsessional desire" to develop nuclear weapons and said France would not stand idly by if Israel were threatened.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/06/us-france-juppe-israel-idUSTRE7A50ME20111106

[defendandprotect]

1. Now Obama is "winking" at Netanyhu and his warmongering? Attacking Iran? This is what Biden has

calling for more than a year now!!

"Israel would be justified in attacking Iran" -- !!!

JUST WHAT LEVELS OF INSANITY ARE THOSE IN CONTROL OPERATING AT?

[woo me with science]

23. Not insane at all. It makes perfect sense...

to sociopaths.

OWS is threatening the PTB in a more serious way than they have been threatened for decades. People are massing in the streets, focusing their anger squarely on Wall Street, and demanding reform.

They need to divert and refocus that anger, and where better than on a ginned up threat overseas?

They need to justify more funding of the military industrial complex in a climate that is not currently sympathetic to that.

And they need to make the banks indispensable in order to circumvent the growing calls for reform. What better way to reestablish their clout than to create a need for massive war loans?

The neocons are alive and well in our government. They work for the banks and the corporations, and they will do whatever it takes to ensure that their profit streams keep flowing. That means protecting both the banks and the military industrial complex. The threat of a new major war would kill both birds with one stone.

Make no mistake about it; they will do anything and everything they need to do in order to maintain their power.

[defendandprotect]

26. Ah, yes -- the distraction -- agree with you ... but in the sense that it's suicidal, it's insane--!

And it is, of course, suicidal --

But wholly agree with you -- and think your thread should be a separate OP!!



Sharp thinking!!

[woo me with science]

31. We'll see.

I think they will try to do it obliquely at first. I think they will try to gin up the threat of conflict between Iran and Israel, or between Iran and Syria (remember the "plot" a few weeks ago?), rather than doing anything that will involve the US immediately with Iran. That way they can exploit the danger/fear of a potential world war and justify building up the MIC and defending the banks, while still claiming the role of attempted peacemaker in the eyes of the American people.

But, yes, it can't end well, can it. Maybe it is time to start reposting what we learned about PNAC.

[defendandprotect]

38. It should make clear who and what thinking are really in charge of the nation ---

Sy Hersh a bit back -- maybe a year ago -- was telling us that Cheney's networks are

still in place -- which is pretty far RW -- PNAC -- militarization of the skies and all

that.

They've long been after this -- and think your reminder about the "plot" a few weeks ago

is right on!

And just noticed, you're also mentioning PNAC --

which also has changed it name -- ah, the scoundrels learn their lessons well!!


It's also important to keep the MIC from being under attack -- need to show how needy they

are! What's the agenda now? Running 4 wars at one time?

Plus running drones over Pakistan -- !! We wouldn't be after the entire ME, would we?



:evilgrin:

[krabigirl]

27. it's just a continuation of the PNAC plan i think.

[woo me with science]

29. Oh, I think so, too...

that is, I think they would have gotten to it eventually.

But IMO the events surrounding OWS make the timing and justification even more compelling.

[defendandprotect]

39. +1 --

So sadly true -- !!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Oh, and meanwhile,...there's a huge chunk of the "defense" budget on the line.

:patriot:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. no shit

[defendandprotect]

3. More here ... Haaretz.com

U.S. Military Official: We Are Concerned Israel Will Not Warn Us Before Iran Attack
Senior U.S. military official tells CNN U.S. 'increasingly vigilant' over military developments in Iran and Israel, says 'absolutely' concerned Israel may attack Iran nuclear facilities.

The official also said that the U.S. does not intend to follow a military action against Iran, CNN said.

This past week, reports have surfaced regarding Israeli military action against Iran. A senior Israeli official said Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran.

On Friday, President Shimon Peres said that he believes Israel and the world may soon take military action against Iran


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-military-official-we-are-concerned-israel-will-not-warn-us-before-iran-attack-1.393834



As for Israel and nuclear weapons, Israeli and US weapons production is so closely intertwined

that "you can barely tell the difference between them."

US has also stored nuclear weapons in Israel --

[Prometheus Bound]

32. More from Haaretz: "Insanity, not logic, guides Israel's leadership"

Insanity, not logic, guides Israel's leadership

Published 03:06 06.11.11
Latest update 03:06 06.11.11

The mens' men who are threatening Iran now are the real cowards' cowards. The brave ones are in fact those who are trying to thwart the insanity, from former Mossad chief Meir Dagan to Interior Minister Eli Yishai.
By Gideon Levy

.....There is no way to rationally explain the beating of the drums of war against Iran. The risks of an Israeli attack are clear, and they are horrific. The danger of Iran using a nuclear weapon is nil, and yet Israel is playing with the fires of hell. Israelis, in fact, are saying they prefer a barrage of thousands of missiles - which will bring blood and destruction now - to the future imaginary risk of the suicidal weapon by "crazy" Iran; that they prefer system-wide insanity, with clear threats and open preparations for what could become an Israeli suicide mission.

.....The only conclusion from all of the above is that there is an illogical leadership in the Middle East, but it is not necessarily in Tehran. Fear, partly false fear, dwells in Jerusalem, the outcome of the fearmongering and demonization that is always present here, regarding everything from swine flu to the Iranian nuclear program. Alongside it is the megalomania that says that Israel can call the shots in the region as it sees fit. The mens' men who are threatening Iran now are the real cowards' cowards. The brave ones are in fact those who are trying to thwart the insanity, from former Mossad chief Meir Dagan to Interior Minister Eli Yishai.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/insanity-not-logic-guides-israel-s-leadership-1.393940

[BlueIris]

4. Destabilizing is one word. So is nuclear annihilation. nt

[Muskypundit]

5. But we all know that iran is a great peaceful loving country

That big bad u.s.a and Israel pick on for no reason. Poor Iran. Poor poor Iran. They are a gentle lovable stable country, that we definently should allow to get nukes.

We should just stop picking on Iran.

:sarcasm:

[krabigirl]

28. Yeah, it's great that all of these other countries can have nukes, but oh no, they can't.

Especially since we are the only one who has used them.

[dipsydoodle]

9. That's two words.

.

[BlueIris]

10. Nuclearannihilation, then. My number one fear since '04 is war with Iran.

We cannot go to Iran.

.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Weapons of mass destruction

was four words. At present nobody knows the actual truth about Iran.

[defendandprotect]

20. Iran seems to be on the agenda for a long time now -- one way or the other ---

US or Israel going for it --

VP Joe Biden has been calling for Israel to attack Iran for more than a year now --

Biden says, "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran" -- !!!



:nuke:

[Behind the Aegis]

21. For those interested in actual facts and truth...

Biden has never said; "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran!", despite this poster's constant repetition of this false talking point.

[rayofreason]

6. Fortunately the region is so stable now. n/t

[on point]

7. No to mention unwarranted and a war crime of aggression

Israel should face economic sanctions and a military embargo for threatening countries in the region and attacking others

[Mosby]

42. how many rockets were fired into israel last week?

Who funds hamas and hezbollah?

Any other country in the fucking world would have already lit up iran.

[on point]

44. Invaders do not get to keep their theft. Resistance with force is legitimate.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. So all of Israel is theft?

[JCMach1]

8. Meanwhile Saudis and the Emirates are allowed to build reactors

Not good

[golfguru]

16. Have Saudi's and Emirates threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Iran's PM has said something like that on more than one occasion.

[JCMach1]

22. Nuclear prolifereation is the issue... I think Israel has shown that it can

take care of itself pretty well.

[Celefin]

33. Funny you should mention that

reminds of a certain Israeli politician talking about 'turning Baghdad into glass'
back in the day. Such restraint. The blob of glass would at least have been allowed to stay on the map.

Could we please give up the pretext that there are any 'sane people' in power (or busy meddling) in that region and that any of those nutcases represents 'the good guys'?
If you want good guys, look at the average people in all those countries trying to make a living from day to day, being pissed on by their respective governments.

It would probably be far more conducive to regional stability if everybody down there had their own, declared arsenal of nukes and an internationally sponsored, sophisticated early warning system, removing any and all capability of an undetected first strike. You push that button, you die. Tends to be understood.
Mutually assured destruction seems to be the only proven method of achieving peace between gun-toting lunatics.
Wish it weren't so.

[golfguru]

36. MAD kept peace between USSR & USA for 30+ years

Another example, no shooting war has broken out between India & Pakistan since both became nuclear powers. Before that they had fought several wars.

[Prometheus Bound]

34. No he didn't. Not even on one occasion.

[golfguru]

37. A few links to keep the information flowing...

http://bluestarchronicles.com/2011/08/26/ahmadinejad-iran-will-eradicate-israel/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-vows-to-strike-israel-immediately-if-attacked-1.283990

http://www.stopahmadinejad.com/ahmadinejad-israels-end-is-near/

[Prometheus Bound]

41. Iran will defend itself if attacked? Is there something evil about that?

Also, predicting the end of a regime has nothing to do with threatening to destroy it.

[Lurks Often]

35. There are different kinds of nuclear reactors

and not all are suitable for making weapons grade material.

[golfguru]

40. Having worked in that lab where

the first ever in the entire world, sustained nuclear chain reaction was achieved, I know for sure you are correct. However I have no clue if Iran has weapons grade capability yet. But it is inevitable. Thay re friendly with Pakistan and N. Korea, not to mention Russia and Kazakhstan.

[jakeXT]

12. How about a no fly zone ? nt

[dipsydoodle]

13. lol.

.

[EFerrari]

18. lol

All hell is breaking loose in Libya and these people want to go kick in ANOTHER door?

Sheesh.

[harmonicon]

14. France has nukes, right?

If I remember clearly, number of wars of aggression France has launched in the last year: 1. Number of wars of aggression Iran has launched in the last year: 0. Clearly, it is Iran that is the threat.

[TomClash]

15. It will happen within six months

Terrorism, false flag ops and diplomacy have all failed to halt Iran's nuclear program.

But it is folly to go to war there.

[Little Tich]

17. I agree with the French.

I think a war with Iran would be far more destabilizing for the whole middle east than actually letting Iran get the Bomb. Let's find another way to stop Iran's ambitions than burning the Middle East.

[redqueen]

19. K&R

[CrackersMcGee]

24. Message to France---> A destabilized Iran wouldn't be able to create nukes.

That's the whole point, I think.
I doubt they plan to just missile strike a few factories every 5 years.

Forever.


Or permanently occupy Iran.

[krabigirl]

25. no, really? good for them. i disagree with sanctions also though.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. So nothing should be done?