Netanyahu must be stopped from attacking Iran

[bemildred]

Is it likely that Benjamin Netanyahu will announce at the United Nations that several Israeli aircraft have just returned from Iran? At first glance, no.

But worry over this issue doesn't stem only from the assurance given by the prime minister's friend, Dick Cheney, that Israel will attack; or from the messianic statements about a possible attack that Haaretz has recently quoted Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak as making in closed forums; or from former Mossad chief Meir Dagan's warning that an attack will occur in the waning days of September in response to Israel's increasing international isolation; or from heightened anxiety caused by the imminent closure of the operational window of opportunity.

The fog must not be allowed to close in. Precisely because I have written about the conceptual necessity of carefully evaluating the effectiveness of activism in stopping a messianic bomb, it's clear to me that building Western, and especially American, support is a fundamental condition for even considering any implementation of an action.

This must be said, and clearly: No leader has either the moral authority or the strategic possibility of endangering tens of thousands of citizens before doing everything possible to make Israel beloved of the West. That is how Yitzhak Rabin made strategic decisions, while Barak at least talked about turning over every stone. And what exactly does Netanyahu intend to say to the thousands of bereaved families whose sons are not named Jonathan anymore?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-must-be-stopped-from-attacking-iran-1.385693

[teddy51]

1. I seriously think that, that would be the stupidest thing that Netanyahu

could do right now. Given the atmosphere of the Middle East, it would be WW111 at this time. First of all, I doubt if anyone is certain at this time that Iran does not have nukes and secondly I don't think that Russia is going to sit idly by if Iran is attacked.

[bemildred]

2. I find it far-fetched, but an interesting argument based on interesting "facts".

And I'm "reality based", so I am often wrong about what people will do. It's taught me humility about what can and cannot happen.

[Mosby]

4. well based on wikileaks

We know where sa,uae,kuwait et al stand on this issue. They are pretty freaked out right now.

The shia revival + nukes are scaring the shit out of them.

[bemildred]

6. Do you really think we should go to war because Saudi Arabia wants us to? nt

[Mosby]

7. dropping some bombs isn't war

And the entire planet depends on stable oil prices, including russia and china.

As to your question, I would say that the US has a responsibility to ensure that their is stability in the oil market, this helps us and china and russia.

[Owlet]

9. Wow!

"I would say that the US has a responsibility to ensure that their is stability in the oil market, this helps us and china and russia"

That is a truly amazing statement!

[Mosby]

10. I don't really understand your reply - what I said is not exactly news

The reason we support despotic regimes in the gulf is because we are a MAJOR oil consumer and our economy is dependent on relatively cheap oil prices. Iran's attempts to obtain nukes is a major destabilizing factor in the ME and could lead to massive increases in oil prices which would paralyze our rather fragile economy.

[Mosby]

3. bullshit

The last fucking thing the ME needs is the iranian ayatollas getting nukes.

Have you not been following the wikileaks on this subject? Our oil masters in the gulf have for years been begging the US to bomb iran.

The gulf states are uniform in their opinion that iran represents a major risk for stability in the region.

[teddy51]

5. Who's to say they don't already have them? And to add, do you seriously

think that Iran would not respond to such an attack?

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. What iran represents is a major risk for their oil profits.

Iran has not fought a war of aggression since the 1700s. It would gain them nothing to attack any of their neighbors, as they don't have the resources to occupy and control nations that are historically, ethnically and religiously different than themselves.

'Stability' in the gulf states means the continuing rule of medieval despots. The greatest risk to that, is the people they keep subjugated, their own populations.

[hack89]

11. Every six months for years we have been warned about the imminent attack on Iran

one of those endearing features of DU.