L.A. Times: No to warmongering on Iran
In an editorial Thursday, the L.A. Times argues against U.S. acquiescence to an Israeli attack on Iran. The editorialists write:
There are a dozen reasons why "If you want to whack them, we've got your back" is the wrong message for the U.S. to send Israel, publicly or privately.One is the increase in oil prices as a result of the war talk, which only enriches Iran. But here are two better ones: The consequences of an Israeli war with Iran are unpredictable, and it is nearly impossible to assess Iran's ability to make good on its threats to retaliate against the United States, presumably through its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah. The last thing the U.S. needs now is more instability, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen said Wednesday. And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran?
The consequences of an Israeli war with Iran may be unpredictable, but the consequences for Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran are less unpredictable.
Sure, Iran might go nuclear and not attack the Jewish state, but is that a risk Israel can afford to take? Even if Iran held off from attacking Israel – which may be the likelier scenario, were Iran to go nuclear – the Islamic Republic would be able to brandish its nuclear threat over Israel like a mobster with a baseball bat. Is that something with which Israel would be able to live?
As for the oil reason, what's worse: Expensive gas, or a nuclear-armed Iran? The warmongering serves the free world well, because it's one more method to get Iran to quit its nuclear program that doesn't involve actually bombing the place. Thus, regardless of whether or not President Bush actually would give Israel the green light to bomb Iran, it's helpful that it appears as if he would.
For more on the degree to which rising oil prices are related to Iran-Israel tension, stay tuned for Ron Kampeas' piece on the subject in JTA (coming out later today).
Meanwhile, Ha'aretz's Avi Shavit writes that the scenario of Israel attacking Iran in the sunset of Bush's presidency (which our Ron Kampeas wrote about here), may be far-fetched, but there's so much at stake that Israel needs to get its ducks in a row just in case. The conclusion: Israel needs new elections now.
Share
Facebook
38 Comments
Bush,
Iran,
Israel
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
“The consequences of an Israeli war with Iran may be unpredictable, but the consequences for Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran are not.”
Really? Where did you get the time machine?
The consequences for Iran of a nuclear attack on *anybody* would be dire, and they know it. They won’t do it. On the other hand, they also know that the U.S. has never invaded a nuclear power. So nuclear power is the only true defense they can provide against war-mongers like yourself.
If you want the Iranians to stop developing nuclear weapons, start treating them like human beings.
Israel is NOT threatened by Iran—this is entirely a manufactured fear in order to justify Israeli monopolization of victim-status and aggression. Too bad Israel won’t dominate Iran.
so what is human about an islamic state ? Have you been to a country and had seen how they operate. You people who kept on depending Iran will most likely regret your sentiments to this vain nation once they acquire or develop a nuclear bomb. For an islamic state, anything non islam is not a believer in Allah. If you dont believe in Prophet Mohammed & Koran then you are an infidel even if you claim you believe in God. There must be a regime change in Iran to make the world a safer way to live. So how do you regard Irans support to Hezbollah and Hamaz? Iraq could have been quiet with Irans meddling in its internal affair sending weapons and the Quds force. If Iran will be attack, Hezbollah & Hamaz will shutup then the palestinian people will accept peace accord with Israel and recognize the Jewish state. Palestinian state concept is not new. It has been plan since the birth of Israel but the arabs wont accept israel so the palestinian until now for 60 years had suffered. If only the arab nations already accept Israel as an independent nation then the Palestinian State could have been ratified in the mid 40s when Israel was accepted by the UN. I’m not Jewish, I’m asian but I support the bombing of Iran because that is the only way to keep the middle east peaceful. You need war to achieve peace. The case of Iran is a good example. I can’t wait for Israel or US to bomb this islamic state. I wish they do.
Let’s sit down at the table....
Ireland supports dialogue with Iran and support also the solidarity of a Palestinian State- the paltform of a true Profile in Courage.
Let’s address fairness in the Middle East and the festering cancer of hatred will have a chance.
No more wars- I can see an Israel and Palestine- side by side as equals- is that too difficult?
“....the Islamic Republic would be able to brandish its nuclear threat over Israel like a mobster with a baseball bat. Is that something with which Israel would be able to live? “
Does the author forget about the fact that Israel herself has nuclear weapons? The right to defend itself is understandable, but preemptive strike, give me a break. Smells like fear to me. Hey, who knows, if there is a war, both of these countries can wipe themselves off the map.
i find it rather interesting that a country, which possesses its own secret nuclear weapons and is not a member of NPT, together with another country, which is the only one to have used the nuclear weapons on a sovereign nation, are ready to go to war with a nation that is trying to deter this aggresion. what a hypocrisy!
Iran having a nuclear bomb will only serve as a defense measure for them. Both of their neighbors have foreign troops, they have been labeled as being a threat, they are smart to worry.
Iran would not use its nuclear weapons for offensive measures since at most lets say they have 10 the US has thousands and Israel hundreds, Iran attacks with nukes the entire country becomes desolate and a bowl of glass.
Them have nukes is not a threat ot anyone simply a defensive posturing for their own well being.
This said Irans ayatollahs are a virus on the Iranian people (and the wrold) but attacking them will only strengthen them
And who’are “human being”? Iranian government, supporting jihadist/hesbolla and other human waste that shooting in kindergardens schools and cribs, blowing supermarkets with shopping housewife s, running buldozer through pedestrians.
Are you sure that maniak-fanatic will not happened to push a “Start” button when he suddenly hears Mohammed?
I’d bet that last crazy buldozer operator did not know what he is going to do while approaching fatal intersection.
Only crazy people’d allow next Ali ben Jihad chance to get access to this button
Arkady Dashevsky
With the current situation, it is Israel that has continued to act like a corrupt mobster with a baseball bat. Iran going nuclear would merely result in what the US supports in every other region of the world: mutual deterence.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Claude S. on Connecting the dots: Susan G. Komen, J Street and Bill Clinton
- Yaakov Cohn on Connecting the dots: Susan G. Komen, J Street and Bill Clinton
- Herbert Kaine on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
- Lloyd Trufelman on Netanyahu doth protest too much?
- ASC on Times travel writer on Israel: ‘A politically iffy burden’
Mark Bristow
07/03/08 02:37 PM
The foreign policy of the worst president ever is like a comic book story or a fairy tale: fantasy, lies and nonsense. Even if the world was divided into good and evil, the United States is not good.