Breaking: Israeli Ambassador threatens to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities

[farmbo]

From an interesting (and scary) firsthand account of the Ambassador's speech today in Washington from a HuffingtonPost'er, James Forsyth:

Israeli ambassador refuses to rule out attacking Iran


Home » blogs » James Forsyth

Thu, 07/13/2006 - 3:43pm.
I've just returned from a lunch with the Israeli ambassador to the United States, hosted by the Israel Project, which reinforced just how quickly this situation could escalate into an all out war in the Middle East. The ambassador was introduced by Congressman Brad Sherman (D), who set the tone by declaring that the only way you could think Israel's actions were disproportionate were if you thought they "should be doing more." He pointed the finger of blame at Tehran, stating that the abductions wouldn't have happened without approval from the highest levels of the Iranian government.
Ambassador Daniel Ayalon gave a polished speech, accusing Iran and Syria of being behind the whole situation. He reiterated that Israel, like the Bush administration, sees no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. Intriguingly, his remarks implied that disengagement had failed.
But it was in the Q&A that things got interesting. He answered with a simple "yes" when asked if Israel was at war. Ayalon refused to rule out attacking Iran's nuclear facilities if the captured Israeli troops were transferred to Iran or using force to rescue them, warning Tehran and Damascus "that they were playing with fire." When news broke of the rocket attack on Haifa, he described it as a "major, major escalation" and announced that Israel had to leave its adversaries with "no capability to do what they can do." The nightmare scenario is that Israel and Iran could end up at war, which would then result in Iran launching an offensive against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and the whole region going up in flames.
There also has to be concern that Iran is attempting to use Israel's policy of deterrence to its own advantage. Iran believes that pushing Israel into actions such as the bombing of the Beirut airport helps achieve Iran's policy of radicalizing the whole Middle East. What is certain is that recent events have - understandably - strengthened those in Israel who favor using force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The only hopeful note struck by Ayalon was when he stated, "I can guarantee Iran will blink first" if the UN Security Council produces a really tough resolution. What he left unsaid was what would happen if it didn't.
James Forsyth<snip>

So this is how it happens...Israel uses two "kidnapped" soldiers as a pretext to do what the NeoCons have wanted to do since last year: take out Iran's nuclear facilities by an air strike. No doubt they'll be using US F-16s, weapons systems, munitions and KC-135 re-fuelers. (Isn't it convenient that we control the airspace over Iraq? No one needs to know about that little detail)

So it looks like Bush gets his new little war after all.

:nuke:

[spotbird]

1. Was there any doubt?

Do you have a link?

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. Bush N Liebermans War

[xchrom]

3. but i remain convinced that it's the u.s. who will do the bombing.

which makes me think differently about the kidnappings than i did originally.

this will be interesting to watch as it unravels.

[cliss]

14. I sure wish we didn't have such god-damned

idiot in the White House. Not good.

[xchrom]

23. not good indeed, cliss -- not good indeed.

[tocqueville]

4. Israel have limited technical options to bomb Iran

They hardly can do it by plane, they lack ballistic missiles for that distance and it's dubious if they have sufficient capacities with their submarines.

Even if they succeeded, the damage would be minimal, unless of course they nuke. But it's not likely. Maybe the plan is to make the US intervene and do the job they probably can't do...

[watrwefitinfor]

10. So, what did Israel use the first time they bombed Iran?

And wasn't it nuclear facilities they hit then? I tend to think if they could fly deep into Iran to strike in 1981 they could do it now. We've given them a few newer better models since then, too. Why would we have to fake it or do it ourselves, with a proxy like this?

Wat

(edit for spelling)

[ugarte]

12. You're thinking of the Israeli attack on Iraq, not Iran...

Iraq is much closer to Israel and possessed only one nuclear site, a reactor. The Israelis knocked it out in 1981.

[watrwefitinfor]

13. Boy ,are you ever right. Apologies to all.

I can't believe I got that one so wrong. Too late for an old codger to be trying to post.

Still, I wonder if they couldn't do it? I guess maybe we will know by morning, the way it's escalating.

Wat

[Massacure]

15. Whats wrong with planes?

You think the U.S. is seriously going to deny giving Israel Airspace over Iraq???

[Tarc]

25. I believe the issue is of range and accuracy of the bombing

Osirak was a wide-open sitting duck that was only a stone's throw away fm Israel in `81. Getting out to Bushehr(sp?) and other suspected Iranian sites is more of a challenge; get there, bomb facilities that are deep undeeground, then the return flight.

There's also the question of other nations in between Iran and Israel's potential aerial routes; namely Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

[Last Lemming]

5. Or maybe

Israel has noticed a certain cooling on the part of the Bush administration re: a war in Iran and is now trying to force Bush to take a stand.

[farmbo]

20. Oh sh@!... you may be on to something.

If so...we are truly fu@!'ed!

[rzemanfl]

6. They are probably painting Israeli markings on USAF planes

right now.

[Joe for Clark]

7. You read too much into it.

If an attack was really coming down, the DJIA would have fallen 1500 points today.

Maybe more.

Joe

[BigYawn]

16. I can't recall market dropping much when Israel destroyed Saddam's

Nuclear facilities. If Isreal has the means and the balls
to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and if they succeed,
the stock market will actually have a strong rally since it
will remove the threat of the mullah's of Iran getting nukes.

[Joe for Clark]

17. It did.

Nobody likes uncertainty.

[BigYawn]

22. It was probably a one day drop, not a prolonged drop as I

remember it. The uncertainty of Iran being able
to use nuclear blackmail is actually removed if
Iran's nuclear facilities are bombed.

[readmoreoften]

8. Great. More doom and gloom.

It's like a the doom and gloom express today.

[whistle]

9. Bingo, this is what it has been all about, neo-cons wet-dream

...Cheney's war!

[bananas]

11. direct link

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/1137

[joe_shmoe]

18. **PETITION AGAINST MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN**

Attack on Iran = WWIII and the collapse of the US. This madness must stop.

It is with grave concern that I observe the growing threat of a new U.S. war--this time against the people of Iran.

For a collection of articles and resources on this subject you can visit this link: http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html

I'm starting up a petition which I will be sending out to as many members of Congress as possible. I'm asking for help to get this signed by as many people, possible in the next month. Send it to as many people you can.

http://www.petitiononline.com/n0war1rn /


thanks,
J-shmoe

[leesa]

19. Of course, Israel's been working towards this end for years now.

Of course our soldiers will fight their fight for them as usual and we'll pick up the tab like we always do.

[Terran1212]

21. While they're attacking EVERYONE else they might as well

Right right am i right Bush?!

[gasperc]

24. I think you might be on the money

provoke Iran into attacking Israel and then hit their nuclear facilities, clever but ultimately diasterous, $100 oil ha, $150 minimum!!!!!

Let's see 42 gallons of gas in a barrel

$150/42=3.57 plus about a buck for refining, taxes, distribution and PROFIT??

so $4.50ish is possible in the near future if this continues to escalate.

We just put a pool in since I figured we'd be staying home alot more.