Israeli Losing Patience for Iran Talks

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Israeli Losing Patience for Iran Talks

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

(06-06) 14:24 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

A senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government
suggested Wednesday that his country is running out of patience with
a U.S.-backed diplomatic overture to head off Iran's nuclear ambitions.

-snip-

"Iran continues a military nuclear program," said Shaul Mofaz, Israel's
deputy prime minister and transportation minister, following a meeting
with Rice.

"I believe diplomatic efforts should bear results until the end of 2007,"
Mofaz added without elaboration.

Although cryptic, his remark was apparently a sign of declining Israeli
confidence that carrot-and-stick diplomacy will persuade Iran to give
up parts of its nuclear program that Israel and the West fear could
lead to a bomb.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/06/national/w142146D51.DTL

[Me.]

1. So Israel Is Running Out Of Patience With Us

If they have a problem with Iran why don't they take care of it themselves? We don't need any more dead soldiers or money spent on wars.

[Tempest]

2. Does Israel want a repeat of Lebanon?

Only on a much greater scale?

The only option available would be to nuke Iran, and that won't go over well in the Arab world.

[Shaktimaan]

6. Why is a nuke their only option?

This doesn't seem anything like Lebanon. One or two large targets. No ground invasion. No murky objectives. No stateless entity on a shared border.

Not that I think it wise or even probable that Israel'd go down this path. I just don't see a similarity between Iran and Lebanon. Isn't it more like the last anti-nuke strike against Iraq in the 80's than like last summer's disaster?

[Tempest]

7. Osirak and Iran's facilities are apples and oranges

Osirak was above ground and centrally located. Also, Iraq's military was tied up in a war with Iran at the same time and could not retaliate.

Iran learned from the Osirak attack and has dispursed it's nuclear program all over the country. According to intelligence, there are more than 40 locations in Iran that would have to be hit in order to put a dent in their program. Also, many of the critical locations are buried deep and are heavily reinforced. The Pentagon said the current bunker busters would have little effect. It would take a nuke to put them out of operation.

It's not necessarily the attacks on the nuclear facilities that will need the nukes, it's the shitstorm that will be created by the attacks.

If Iran retaliates, Israel's only real line of defense will be to nuke Iran.

[UndertheOcean]

11. But is such a strike possible ? Iran is farther away than Iraq , and its sites

more fortified.


Even that can possibly only slow the Nuclear acquisition process , the science is simple , and the Engineering while hard is not as intricate is not that hitech.


The world were Nuclear proliferation among nations is rampant is coming , and few strikes here and there will not solve the problem.

It may come in 10 years , 100 years or a 1000 ....

[bemildred]

3. World: Former U.S. Official Says Democratic Transformation 'Is Possible'

One dishonest blowhard deserves another ...

---

RFE/RL: What should be done about Iran now?

Richard Perle: Well, I'm saddened by the fact that we don't have a political strategy for Iran. It's an unpopular regime -- and deservedly unpopular, because it's an oppressive regime. Most Iranians would rather be governed differently, and we're doing, as far as I can tell, almost nothing to help those Iranians.

RFE/RL: What should be done? What political strategy should be adopted?

Perle: Well, one thing we should be doing is communicating a great deal more with the Iranians and facilitating the communication among Iranians. You and I are broadcasting right now. We should be doing a lot more of that into Iran. We should be working with those Iranians who want to change things inside Iran in a multiplicity of ways. We did it during the Cold War with Solidarity in Poland. We did it in Spain and Portugal when they had dictatorships. We had political strategies for encouraging the evolution of free institutions. And we should be doing that in Iran, as well.

RFE/RL: But in the United States, Iran seems to be threat No. 1 of the day, and you're saying Washington doesn't have a political strategy for the country?
I believe that if democracy takes root in Iraq, it will be noticed by Iraq's neighbors and, one hopes, emulated by Iraq's neighbors. But the immediate task is a rather narrow one. It's to achieve a level of security in Baghdad and a few other places so a government can function and then evolve.

Perle: I'm afraid we have no political strategy at all. And one result of that is that we will find ourselves, because of a failure to have a political strategy, with only a military option.

RFE/RL: Do you think that's a reasonable option right now with Iran -- the military option -- if things reach a critical mass with their uranium enrichment?

Perle: It's important to define what is meant by a military option in the Iranian context. It is not an invasion of Iran. It is nothing like what has happened in Iraq. But no one can exclude the possibility that precision air strikes against critical infrastructure supporting a nuclear-weapons program could be undertaken as a last resort. And I believe that such strikes, if it came to that, would be effective in significantly impairing the Iranian nuclear program. I'm not advocating it. And as far as I know, no one else is advocating it. But in the real world, if you're the president of the United States, and you're informed that the last moment has arrived at which it is possible to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, but it will require precision strikes against a dozen targets, can you rule that out?

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/06/9ae56786-a66e-4f83-914d-b4999e7da8bb.html

[roguevalley]

4. I suggest that Israel, whom I have historical and emotional ties with,

should decide that they've had it, then they need to GO IT ALONE. Do whatever, Israel, but don't expect us to help. I hope. SIGH! Whatever happened to peace?

[Shaktimaan]

5. When haven't they?

They certainly went it alone last time this happened with Iraq.

[Tempest]

8. The odds were very much in Israel's favor at the time

Iraq was a year into a war with Iran at the time of the Osirak attack.

Iraq could not afford a two front war so retaliation was out of the question. Israel knew this.

It's completely meaningless to compare 1981 Iraq with 2007 Iran. The differences are galaxy wide.

[Shaktimaan]

12. I did not suggest otherwise.

I asked if there was a time that Israel did not take responsibility for their own defense.

[LeftishBrit]

9. There's a lot of sabre-rattling on both sides...

Though the leaders of Iran are nuts, I doubt that Iran will have nuclear weapons in the near future, and I doubt that Israel will attack Iran.

In any case, Olmert's country is certainly running out of patience with HIM, and he won't have much influence for much longer. A lot depends there on whether the next government is more dovish (I hope) or more hawkish.

[bemildred]

10. And it is all empty blather on both sides. nt