After Iran inspections are scrapped,Israel urges West to keep up pressure

[Herschel]

When Iran declared late last year that it was suspending development of programs that could produce nuclear weapons, skeptical Israeli officials eyed the move suspiciously.
Now, they say, Teheran’s mid-March postponement of international inspection of its nuclear plants confirms the suspicions that the Iranians simply are playing for time.

For Israel, the Iranian enigma is not academic: Israel’s cities are within range of Iran’s Shihab 3 missile, which is believed to be capable of delivering a nuclear payload.

The latest Iranian move, therefore, poses key questions for the Jewish state: What does Israel do if Iran continues developing nuclear weapons under a stop-start facade of cooperation with the international community? How does it go about independently verifying Iranian programs? How does it keep up international pressure on Iran without seeming to be pushing toward confrontation?

Some of those calls will be made by the Mossad intelligence agency, which has made coverage of Iran a top priority.

cut

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Israel%3A+Keep+up+pressure+on+Iran&intcategoryid=1

America is quite fortunate to have Israel overseeing the region. Iran's threat to her and America bears watching.

[NashVegas]

1. I Guess It's A Good Thing Iran Is Changing It's Mind

from the BBC:

Iran 'readmits nuclear watchdog'

The head of the United Nations' nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, says Iran has agreed to let UN inspectors back into the country later this month.

Iran banned IAEA inspectors after the agency issued a resolution accusing Tehran of secret nuclear activities.

But IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Tehran had told him the "new date for inspectors arriving March 27."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3511900.stm

[comradebillyboy]

2. iran and israel can employ the doctrine of

mutually assured destruction with one another. unless shrub invades iran, they will be a nuclear power quite soon. dont think shrub needs another war before the election.

[Cheswick2.0]

3. Doesn't Israel have Nuclear weapons?

Maybe Iran doesn't think that's so academic either?

[_Jumper_]

11. Yes it does

That is what is driving the scramble for WMD in the Middle East. We could stop that by making the Middle East WMD-free while ensuring Israel's survival via military aid. If Israel did not have WMD, giving it large amounts of military aid would be justified for the USA, in my view.

[Evil_Dewers]

4. Why doesn't Israel launch a "pre-emptive" strike against Iran?

I'm sick of the US invading ME countries for Israel.

[Herschel]

5. A valid suggestion

that may be considered. Do you support this?

[Evil_Dewers]

6. No. I am not a war mongering prick.

[Herschel]

7. As your fellow progressive

I am gratified to hear you are not a war monger.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Herschel]

9. Indeed

My views on the Palestinian problem are pragmatic as opposed to extreme leftist.

[Evil_Dewers]

10. I tend to view it as an Israeli/Palestinian problem.

You view it as a "Palestinian" problem only.

[Herschel]

12. It is the Palestinians

that find themselves in an unstable situation. They lack a responsible government and much of their population lives in poverty and supports terror. Israel is a democracy with a good standard of living. The Palestinian situation is the problem.

[Evil_Dewers]

13. Israel gets billions from the US annually.

Billions the US has to borrow to give to Israel.

They are not self-sufficient.

They aren't even a true democracy. Neither is the US.

[Evil_Dewers]

14. Who received a greater percentage of the vote in a "democratic"

election?

Sharon or Arafat?

The answer is Arafat.

[Herschel]

15. Quite sad

if a man refusing to fight terror wins broad support. Oh, my.

[Evil_Dewers]

16. How does one fight terror by using his military to terrorize civilians?

[_Jumper_]

19. Or when a terrorist gets elected period

It isn't like Israel has ever done that. :eyes:

[Evil_Dewers]

23. The list of Israeli PMs who were terrorists

is much, much longer than the list who weren't terrorists.

[_Jumper_]

28. Which ones were terrorists?

I know that Shamir and Begin were and that Sharon is a mass murderer.

[Aidoneus]

30. going by the common definition,

(the term is one that I do not use or accept, but that's neither here nor there)
every one of them except Golda was qualified as a "terrorist" before taking office, Golda earned that mantle only after taking office by shooting down a Libyan civilian airplane over occupied-Sinai.

[_Jumper_]

33. Even Peres????

Wow. I didn't know about what Meir did. What was the worldwide reaction to it? Did the US do ANYTHING to penalize it for that?

[Aidoneus]

34. Well..

As PM, he presided over the massacre at Qana in the middle of Israel's 2nd major 1990s aggression in Lebanon, following PM Rabin's blitz earlier in the decade which was led by General Barak. Defining "major aggression" is an exercise in semantics, as a constant state of war existed due to their occupation of 10% of the country. Not sure what notable things in a similar vein he did before then. Served in a variety of ministerial posts under various criminals and rogues, at the least.

The reaction to shooting down the plane was, of course, negative. Nothing happened because of it--nothing ever happens.. It would perhaps be of interest to contrast the event with Lockerbie.

If your next question is about Rabin, might want to look up the phrase "Force might beatings".

Oh and about that thing I said I'd write up for you, sorry about the delay--I haven't forgotten, just got a little sidetracked.. soon.

[_Jumper_]

35. What role did he play in it?

I always thought that he was one of the good guys.

Thanks for the Rabin phrase. I just googled it and am shocked before even clicking on any site.

It is shocking how violent they both are, yet in the US one side is painted as violent while the other is painted as Quakers.

Do the write up whenever you have time.

[Gimel]

17. Primarily

because most of it's "allies" would then dump on Israel.

Israel would have fought Saddam it been attacked. Israel would have fought Saddam WHEN attacked in '91. It was the US pressure that prevented Israel from bombing Saddam. If Israel had been allowed at that time to return fire, you wouldn't even have needed and Iraq war now.

[Evil_Dewers]

18. If Israel had been allowed at that time to return fire

You mean "if Israel was allowed to nuke Iraq," you wouldn't even have needed and Iraq war now.

How did the US apply pressure to Israel? Did Geroge Herbert Hoover Bush threaten to withhold the multi-billion dollar stipend Israel picks from our pockets each year?

[_Jumper_]

21. "US apply pressure to Israel"

In 1991 Bush Sr. threatened to withold a multibillion dollar loan to Israel if it didn't stop building illegal settlements, which is a major embarassment for the US, and didn't attend Bush's peace conference. "Little Israel" was the one that applied pressure on Bush--who was a president with an approval rating of 70% at the time--and brought the "leader of the free world" to his knees. That incident alone says it all about American policy regarding the Israel.

[Gimel]

24. Israel's famous nukes

Israel does have a problem with a delivery system however. So even if nuclear attack was desired (which it was not) there would have been a difficulty there. There are conventional weapons that can be delivered from an F16 fighter plane.

[_Jumper_]

20. Interesting

Would you say that Israel is useless in protecting Middle East oil fields for the US?

[Evil_Dewers]

22. Hell yes they are worthless.

Israel wasn't allowed into the coalition to turn back Saddam in Kuwait in 1991 (which ain't a democracy and wasn't worth saving anyway) because Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, etc... would have had a shit fit if Israel, along with the Americans, were killing Iraqi Muslims.

The US should disavow Israel and pick up a dozen allies in the Middle East. BTW, I'm being a practical pragmatist progressive here, though I shouldn't have to explain myself.

George H. W. Bush put US troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991 to protect US oil interests. This incensed Osama bin Laden. As a bonus, Osama got hundreds of millions from Saudi Arabians to fund his terror network as long as bin Laden used his rhetorical hatred of Israel to drum up new recruits to hate and attack the United States.

If the US cuts off Israel, the US wouldn't need tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East.

Friendly relations with Israel have turned the US into a pariah. The US is the sole Israeli ally in the UN. The US relationship with Israel has detrimentally affect US foreign policy in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

[_Jumper_]

29. response

I believe that we should be even-handed in the Middle East. We should cut off all military aid to Israel because it does not need it anymore. It can easily defeat Palestinians with rocks and AK-47s with jets and tanks and its nuclear weapons protect it from Arab states. Some economic assistance while the peace process is underway is legitimate because of the damage caused to its economy by terrorism. Economic aid would also give the US more leverage with Israel.

That said, you are correct about the fact that Israel causes grave problems for the US. This talk about Muslims hating America because the US supports dictatorships is a red herring. Of course that doesn't help but the real reason is US support for Israel against Arabs. 99% of my family is Muslim (I am agnostic) and most of them are immigrants. I have known many Muslims because I was forced to attend the mosque. I have NEVER--NEVER--heard any of them complain about US support for dictatorships. Randomly find 10 Muslim immigrants and I guarantee everyone here that at least 8 of them will tell you that US support for Israel is why America is hated by Muslims, it is very likely that all 10 will say that. This is well-known but is swept under the rug for the same reasons we have a pro-Israel media and policy. A poll conducted two years ago found that favorable opinions of the United States would rise dramatically--to around 70%--if the US created a Palestinian state. 70% is higher than the rating the US gets from most European nations. The vast majority of the terrorism against the US problem could be eliminated by being even-handed in the ME. Bin Laden is not fighting due to the I/P conflict but you can bet that most of his cannon fodder are because of hatred they acquired as a result of seeing America's hardcore pro-Israel policy.

Sadly, we will never have a real debate about the US's I/P policy and hence the terrorism problem will not be solved.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

31. interesting...

"NEVER--NEVER--heard any of them complain about US support for dictatorships"...

a friend of mine needs to read this...

[_Jumper_]

32. Go to your local mosque

Ask the immigrant ones yourself. This isn't a secret outside the US. Even Tony Blair let the cat out the bag.

[Gimel]

25. Israel's interests

are not in protecting US oil fields.

[xchrom]

26. no, it's in refusing

to take responsibility for it's own actions and the results they cause. now that's pragmatic.

[_Jumper_]

27. Then what is the strategic US interest in protecting it?

The reason cited is protection of the oil fields. It is obvious Israel is useless in doing that. What benefit does the US get from Israel? What is the net result of the US's close ties to Israel? Is it positive or negative?