The Jerusalem Post has this today. It’s not any kind of a threat but Iran should wake up and smell the potential for vaporized desert. Why?
Because as much as they bluster about wiping Israel off of the map and as much as they loudly proclaim their right to a (peaceful) nuclear development program there is one small point they seem to be missing. Or ignoring.
Israel already has nukes. Lots of them. And they’re not the peaceful kind, either. And it appears that by a wide margin the Israeli public would back their use. In “certain circumstances”, that is. If Iran thinks for a second that Israel will allow them to finish the building of a bomb then they had better think again. They will not. It’s sort of like having a poisonous snake loose somewhere in your house. You can either ignore it and hope for the best - or you can find it and kill it before it bites you.
I don’t think the Israelis will ignore this snake for much longer.
The Iranian people need to wake up and realize that their grinning buffoon of a psycho president is doing his very best to make them those “certain circumstances” that Israelis would need before launching a pre-emptive strike.
The entire anti-Israel crowd needs to realize that bluster and bragging and threatening are all fine, but Israel will not go down without a fight to the death. They won’t surrender either. Remember Masada? Anything even close would be another of those “certain circumstances.” Iran is playing with a fire that can very quickly get out of hand.
The clock is ticking, Iran, and as much as you like to think you’re in control, well, it ain’t your clock.
Original article
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
Israel cannot leave it to chance; for them it very well could be a matter of life or death.
Masada became famous after the First Jewish-Roman War (also known as the Great Jewish Revolt) when a siege of the fortress by troops of the Roman Empire led to a mass suicide of the site's Jewish Sicarii fugitives when defeat became imminent.
Not a great analogy chief, otherwise, well said.
The Israelis deal with any "repercussions" that come their way, and have proven time and time again, they can handle themselves, and withstand whatever happens as a result of their actions.
What exactly do YOU see as the "repercussions" for Bush taking a "pre emptive" stance on war ???
I don't exactly see the sky falling because he dared to break some silly taboo *chuckle*
Ditto for the Jews, they'll be fine.
The hell they're not ... Israel has never threatened to wipe any Arab/Islamic country off the map.
They will not get more security or safety by having nukes.
They will not get nukes.
If they did get nukes all the other Arab countries would want to get nukes as well, then we have a nuclear Middle East, and the already poverty stricken people who live there will even have less as their leaders spend less money on them.
Israel can simple not take the chance that Iran is joking. No sane person, let along national leader gets to talk like that and not be taken seriously.
But this time, some rather advanced weaponry will be involved. I'm convinced that's the only reason Israel hasn't responded in harsher measure to the provocations of the last couple of decades.
Muslims are so fearful of people being given the choice to break away from their totalitarianism they are making a huge show now of trying to shut down the soft-partititoning of Iraq in Sunni Shiite and Kurdish sections.
If they can do this in Iraq, it would justify the Jews wanting to get out from under the thumbs of these fascist terrorist thugs too, and they cannot have that.
Mario, you mean like when they were being bombarded by SCUD rockets from Iraq during the first Gulf War and held back due to American advise?
If you are trying to say Israelis are intelligent and pragmatic, I would agree.
If you are saying Israelis are spoiling for a fight, I'd disagree.
Sure, why not. Tehran can be easily "flattened" by a few well-placed conventional weapons--never mind nuclear. But even so, try to imagine the outcome--how would other nations (aside from the U.S.) react to the use of weapons in their hemisphere? China? Russia? EU? Any takers? Or lets just turn the question around--what did we nearly do during the Cuban Missile Crisis? We nearly sent the whole world to hell with one ignored phone call and listening to one really stupid advisor. What are the implications of "first strike" by Israel in the Middle Easy--better yet, assuming Iran lands a conventional weapon on an Israeli target, what will be our response. We cannot assume that America is the only nation capable of defending itself--we should set a better example, rather than attacking and occupying nations prior to the manifestation of any real (or imagined) threat. Other nations (if they have the power) might borrow this ideology for their own "national defense." While I don't buy into any stupid policy of "aggression" as a deterrent to "aggression", it is a fact that an overzealous defender against a particular foe takes on the very attributes of his (real or imagined) foe.
You can talk all that nice anti-war stuff, but there are some nasty people out there, and I do not care on whit if the calculus say that to come out on top we have to be proactive. It is trying to ignore it or put your smiley face on the world that is what always seem to embolden these nasty people who like to see how much mischief they can get away with before someone puts their foot down. And if no one does ... well, think WWII.
(1) Wars and Wars by proxy in Latin America
(2) Continued occupation of the Middle East in the last decades
(3) Supplying both Iran and Iraq with weapons during the 80s
Judging by the past adventures of the U.S. in procuring its "national interests" in other nations around the world, one might get the impression that the U.S is out to get a lot of nasty people--and that perhaps anyone who stands in the way ends up being the doctrinal enemy.
The boldness of an enemy is not the supreme metric to determine threat level. There is no argument strong enough to claim that inaction "emboldens an enemy" without leaving out the antithesis (proactive involvement) as its counterpart. I don't see the Iraq war as being a good example of "wiping out the enemy," nor do I think the enemy is any less emboldened. So if you have to stack the deck in order to prove that this enemy is emboldened by inaction, be prepared to accept a corollary that includes ineffective "proactive" intervention--i.e. the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. A proxy war of Iran and Iraq supported by the U.S. on both sides didn't stave off the "emboldening" of the enemy, nor did the first Persian Gulf War discourage the enemy, nor did the brutal sanctions imposed during the Clinton Administration discourage the enemy, and so by extension neither does the current "fashionable" conflict against. Since the Nixon administration the "proactive" intervention of the U.S. in the middle east has brought much less emboldening of the enemy than was originally thought--or perhaps they knew the repercussions.
Bush has as much competence as determination we would have
had regime change in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and we would
have Japanese Buddhists snapping photos in Mecca.