Cabinet minister says Israel will “attack Iran” over nuke program
Well, it’s the Transportation Minister, and he’s campaigning to take over Olmert’s job, so take a grain of salt with this. But just a grain.
According to the newspaper report, Mofaz — a former chief of staff and defense minister — has concluded that international sanctions haven’t curbed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
“If Iran continues its nuclear arms program — we will attack it,” the newspaper quoted Mofaz as saying. “The sanctions aren’t effective. There will be no choice but to attack Iran to halt the Iranian nuclear program.”
There is a precedent for Israeli military action: In 1981, Israeli planes destroyed an unfinished Iraqi reactor.
There’s actually a lot more recent precedent than that, of course. Wonder why the AP reporter left that out?
I’ve got to imagine this will resonate well in Israel. Right now they must realize that given his latest Kerryesque three-sixty half gainer triple-lindy flipflop about Israel and Palestine, Obama will be at best a fair-weather ally if he is elected, and probably (given his growing portfolio of endorsements from anti-Israel thugs like George Galloway) not even that.
And McCain–who knows?
As Captain Ed notes,
Their window of opportunity may be closing. If Obama wins the election, Israel would have two months to conduct an attack that would hopefully devastate Iranian nuclear facilities.
This would be a much trickier attempt than the Iraq or Syria missions, of course. In 1981 the bombing run on Saddam’s Osirak reactor was an amazing feat of logisitics and planning, stretching the range and capabilities of Israel’s new F-16s. Iran’s even farther, and its nuclear program is spread around the country so much that it would be a matter of weeks instead of days to really cripple its nuclear capacity.
Well, time’s a wastin’.
_________________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Israeli official says Iran attack "unavoidable" - Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums
- Israeli official says Iran attack "unavoidable" - Political Wrinkles
- Michelle Malkin » Good news! Gasoline supply to be increased, with seven new refineries!
- World Wide War Warning–100 Day Countdown! « Pronk Palisades
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 2008 campaign, Iran, War
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, ganderPower Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A PlaneWeekly Standard
» A Run on Guns, Just in Time for the HolidaysStop The ACLU
» Hillary Clinton Will Say Yes to Secretary of State Job
I did my time too.(SAC 380th FMS ‘69 to ‘73) You may love your country, but I bet you will vote for Obambi, and that will be the kiss of death for life as we know it. We need to stop the Islamofascists any way we can!
love2rumba said: “Tantor, at some point the Iranians-many of them pro-western Persians - need to take a stand against Ahminejihad and make it stick. Otherwise we are not far apart in opinion.”
Moderate Iranians are already fighting the mullahcracy in small scale by fighting the religious police who try to arrest women on the street for un-Islamic dress. They also have quite a vigorous blogosphere in opposition to the regime. They sprout satellite dishes to receive forbidden TV in defiance of the mullahs’ fatwas.
While there is an amorphous mass of resistance to the regime, it is a big step to organized resistance. The regime can simply arrest you or your family members to snuff it out. My guess is that some massive overreaction by the mullahs or some acute internal stress will be required to activate organized resistance.
We can do much to help form this resistance so as to be ready for when the moment comes. For example, we could be beaming a TV feed full of news from a satellite perched over Tehran. We can be helping them communicate covertly with each other. We can be squirreling them out of the country for training. We can help them in many ways prepare for their moment.
On June 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am, Tantor said:
Moderate Iranians are already fighting the mullahcracy in small scale by fighting the religious police who try to arrest women on the street for un-Islamic dress. They also have quite a vigorous blogosphere in opposition to the regime. They sprout satellite dishes to receive forbidden TV in defiance of the mullahs’ fatwas.
Only thing is we’re on a very dicey timeline shrinking with the clock. Zero hour for the pro-westerners to effect reign-change is the minute when Iran mills out that first ingot of plutonium. Before that, any understandable pre-emptive strike to obliterate its nuke facilities will be seen by ALL Iranians as the equivalent to our response at Pearl Harbor. Not good at all. It will take nothing less than a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city directly traceable to Iran to assuage pro-western Iranians that our attacking their nuke sites is justified. A vicious circle.
James Greenidge
Queen NY
I’m with Boomer and others of like thinking. What could be more insane than waiting around for Iran to nuke Israel or some other country first, or bomb a major city through terrorist tactics? Apparently the libs and peaceniks think appeasement will prevent a WMD attack. Nothing…repeat…nothing will appease islamic fanatics. And as long as Iran and other islamic countries are controlled by religious fanatics we must not allow them to own nuclear weapons. Strike first, fast, and hard to prevent this from happening.
We’ve been at war with Iran since 1979.
Tantor and Rumba,
I think we are on the same page here; My point was if Israel makes the first move, taking out nuclear facilities (a very defensible move IMO based on the continuous threats made to wipe them out), the US could speak to the pro-westerners on the side and say “Get rid of the extremists in your government and we will help you build a democracy like we are doing in Iran.” I think that would be the best outcome we could hope for in this day and age.
Does anybody really know if Iran ACTUALLY has the capability of nuclear weapons…..or is this merely the “bogeyman” justification for more war?
IndieTom,
You can wait until your family is glowing if you want. I believe a good defense is a strong offense. As far as justification, if you came up to me every day,got in my face and threatened to one of these days punch me in the nose, the day would come when I got sick of it and actually knocked your block off as soon as you got within arm’s reach. Most people would say you had it coming. No liberals mind you, but most reasonable people.
In response to SpeakEasy….
Your analogy doesn’t hold in my opinion….
My family isn’t going to glow due to any action by Iran….
While I can respect your opinion…the idea of most “reasonable people” presupposes the idea that the state’s interests coincide with those of individual citizens.
Given the fact that most of the reasons given for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be dubious at best, is it logical to assume that the current push for war with Iran..(even by proxy using the state of Israel) would lessen tensions in the middle east?
Let me be clear….I do NOT reject the necessity of war….I believe that war …IF it is necessary, should be punitive. If war is deemed necessary it should be fought without restrictions. War is war….
My position is that war should be a last resort…and that conscious and thoughtful debate as to the necessity of such action is within the purview of our public consciousness.
To personalize…..I don’t threaten…I don’t get in anyone’s face…I respect the idea that people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit, and by extrapolation this extends to other sovereign nations. If I am actually threatened I deal with it appropriately.
The bottom line?….I don’t reject the possiblity that a pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran might be necessary…..but I think that a knee-jerk endorsement of such a position without a thoughtful consideration of the consequences would be a rejection of the responsibilities of citizenship.
This is the usual Liberal response to anyone that does not have the Kumbaya feelings that they do.
It is one of the most immature responses that could be made. I enjoy football, but must I play for the Niners in order to be a fan or encourage them to win? No.
You people also do not ever consider for one second whether or not the people making such statements have either served in the military, are serving, have attempted to serve but were turned away for whatever reasons, or have, like myself, served this country and their community in other aspects such as firefighters, police or other civil service capacities.
I, myself, went to the recruiter when I was 19 to join the Air Force and was turned down due to the fact I had received injections for allergies with the belief they held that i could not go to some foreign country and have a severe allergy attack. they did not wish to reason about how, having had the injections, i would NOT have said attacks. They merely closed the file they had begun and escorted me out the door.
Again in 1990, when the first Gulf War broke out, I went to the Army Recruiter and was told the only way he would sign me up is if I wanted to have a career in the military, for if I was just signing up to fight in that war, it would be over before I got out of basic training. Sure enough, he was right.
Then came 9-11. I again called the recruiter, and was told that i was better off at my age, staying in the fire service for that is what was needed at home…they had more than enough people at the time and would not talk to me.
I am now a disabled fireman, retired out due to my injury on the job helping my fellow man. I could not sign up now no matter what.
Is it your contention, then, that I have not done enough as it is and am no longer allowed to say we should take care of business with these Islamic thugs who have repeatedly destroyed the good will and peace of this world, making it near impossible to travel in many places without fear of hijacking, kidnapping, death and/or dismemberment? I should not be allowed to speak my mind, according to our basic fundamental rights, and express my belief and opinion that we need to, once and for all, finish what was begun BY THEM a long time ago?
Seems to me that you and those of your nature and beliefs, who constantly scream and yell about how us mean old Conservatives are denying and removing your right to Free Speech are, in fact, demanding that we no longer be allowed to practice that same right.
i suggest, sir/madam, that you keep that opinion to yourself, for you know NOTHING about the people you demand do what the people who say such idiotic statements such as that, want them to. Unless you know for sure, keep it to yourself, for you are nothing buit a thug yourself.
You WARMONGERS! You’re all insane! Iran is no threat. Their budget is puny compared to ours.
Bender,
I really hope that statement was sarcasm.
Israel has proven thier resolve to keep the Middle Easwt nuke free by taking out potential reactors in Iraq and Syria. Why think they would do something different here? I gurantee you, Israel knows precisely where the Iranians have all of thier nuclear material. A couple of planes will swoop in early one morning, the clean up crews will spend the afternoon clearing the rubble and the whole dance will begin anew.
It will be Russia and China who are upset because all the time and energy they spent arming our enemies in order to divert our attention from economic factors will have been wasted.
Then again, to quote a line from arguable the last good movie from the Indiana Jones serial, “You wanna meet God, let’s go together, I’ve got plenty of time!”
bender: “You WARMONGERS! You’re all insane! Iran is no threat. Their budget is puny compared to ours.”
Al Qaeda’s budget was even punier. They perpetrated the September 11 attacks for about $500,000. That’s one-six millionth of the US federal budget of $3.1 trillion. Unfortunately, wars are not fought by accountants with spreadsheets.
Or would you claim that those three thousand dead people in the World Trade Center were killed by an accounting error?
Tom,
This is hardly knee-jerk. Iran has been flagrantly pursuing nuclear technology. Yes, they say for energy– and they are sitting on beds of oil. Right.
My main point (earlier in the thread) is if Israel feels threatened– and I think they have a much better feel for this than you or I, they should protect themselves through an offensive military strike. I will not shed any tears for Iran and will thank the Israelis for doing what we and the rest of the world does not seem to have the courage to do. Oh, and the Iranian people will be better off losing only a nuclear facility than being caught up in a full-scale war.
The glow comment was aimed at allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and let them get out of positive control. Never happen right? About as unlikely as bringing down the twin towers with an airplane?