Israel Needs to Accept a Nuclear Iran (1 Viewer)

[jaybebo]

Ha’aretz reports that Joe Biden told Israeli leaders that they would have to accept a nuclear Iran if Barack Obama wins the Presidency. Israelis expressed “amazement” at Biden’s attitude:

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed “opening a additional military and diplomatic front.”

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama’s running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats’ strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

For those unfamiliar with Ha’aretz, it doesn’t exactly have a knee-jerk conservative spin. In fact, it’s at best a center-left editorial board. They’re not terribly sympathetic to the Bush administration or most of its policies. They wouldn’t have much reason to simply make this up.If anyone doubted that an Obama presidency would surrender to radicalism and hostile forces abroad, this should clinch it. Biden has pretty much told the Israelis that they’re on their own, and America won’t bother to support them against the nutcases in the region. If Obama and Biden don’t have the courage to face Iran’s nuclear ambitions, then exactly when will they defend American interests?

And what of our Western allies? Europe wants Iranian nukes stopped just as much as we do, especially since they’re more directly threatened by them. Obama and Biden talk about bolstering our alliances, but it looks like they’re more interested in leaving them holding the bag.

Hugh Hewitt sees this as further evidence that Obama is nothing more than the second coming of Jimmy Carter:

American supporters of Israel have to understand that Obama-Biden is a disaster for Israel’s security. It would be Carter II, but without the keen insight that Carter brought to Iran policy.

It’s worse than that. Carter at least had a deranged notion of justice as a foundation; this just looks like cowardice.Update: The Jerusalem Post says this conversation took place three years ago:

Army Radio reported that the Delaware senator was heard saying in closed conversations with Jerusalem officials three years ago that he was firmly opposed to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly claimed that Israel would likely have to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. He reportedly expressed doubt over the effectiveness of economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic and said he was against the opening of an additional military and diplomatic front, saying that the US had more pressing problems, such as North Korea and Iraq.

The Ha’aretz report didn’t mention a time frame. Still, either way, the message is the same: Biden won’t stand up to Iran, and since Barack Obama chose him for his foreign-policy chops, one has to figure that Obama agrees. After all, Biden is the man who once proposed sending $200 million to Tehran to pacify the mullahs.

 

[Moe Green]

Good luck with that.

 

[Offa]

Sorry, but no-one can stop Iran from getting the bomb now. This is merely pragmatism.

At any rate, I can't see how a nuclear Iran is that much bigger a threat than usual for Israel.

 

[Please See Mine]

 

[Chadstroma]

I am in awe. I would expect something like this from Obama but not Biden.

Where do you start with how many things are wrong with this? I am honestly having issues coming to terms that this is true. Surely there is a mistake or the report is slanted.

 

[jonessed]

Thankfully, Biden nor Obama would be able to stop Israel from destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities if they felt threated.

 

[Fennis]

The article was a denial that Biden stated that. Biden is very pro-Israel. From the article:

Last year, in a widely quoted interview with year the Jewish American Shalom TV, Biden said, "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist," adding that "Israel is the single greatest strength that America has in the Middle East," and that its presence as a strategic ally meant that America need station far fewer troops and warships in the region.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So he allegedly said this three years ago and is vehemently denying he said it?

Also why would he leave European countries "holding the bag?" Can you unpack that? You do understand Israel will do what they want regardless of what anyone thinks for their own survival right? Do you really think the President of the United States can tell Israel they can't bomb Iran if Israel feels Iran may just try to wipe them off the map?

No, that's not how it works.

 

[Osaurus]

Start hiding enriched uranium

 

[Mr. Chumley]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

Why? Do we control the Israeli military now?

 

[GreedoShotFirst]

I work in Washington for a Jewish organization (not AIPAC). I have known Joe Biden for about 10 years. This is bull$4it. Joe Biden is as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, in the US Senate or elsewhere. His nomination has been greeted with great acclaim in the Jewish community, particularly among those who were (misguidedly) nervous about Obama in foreign policy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I work in Washington for a Jewish organization (not AIPAC). I have known Joe Biden for about 10 years. This is bull$4it. Joe Biden is as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, in the US Senate or elsewhere. Hie nomination has been greeted with great acclaim in the Jewish community, particularly among those who were (misguidedly) nervous about Obama in foreign policy.

Works for me.

 

[B-Deep]

it is an unverified rumor from 3 years ago that he denies

till someone claims to have been there and heard it, no reason not to believe him

complete non story

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

 

[Chadstroma]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

Why? Do we control the Israeli military now?

Obviously not and I am not sure I agree with Mr. Chumley... well, that is unless the Israeli's are worried about an Obama adminstration taking action to words to smack their hand for attacking.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

This is a quality post from start to finish and has a little bit of everything for everyone. Well done, sir.

 

[Fennis]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

 

[quickhands]

Sorry, but no-one can stop Iran from getting the bomb now. This is merely pragmatism. At any rate, I can't see how a nuclear Iran is that much bigger a threat than usual for Israel.

ummm....what?if you can't see that you aren't looking very hard.

 

[quickhands]

it is an unverified rumor from 3 years ago that he deniestill someone claims to have been there and heard it, no reason not to believe himcomplete non story

I understand Hamm is looking into it...

 

[beer 30]

Start hiding enriched uranium

There was a guy named Saddam that tried this, look what it got him

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

This is a quality post from start to finish and has a little bit of everything for everyone. Well done, sir.

DD is pretty much one of the smartest mofo's on the board when it comes to this stuff, more people would do well to listen to him.

 

[Brutis]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

Why? Do we control the Israeli military now?

Exactly!! Israel can do what they damn well please. If our govt doesnt like it. TOUGH

 

[rodg12]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

To echo previous FBGs in this thread...

 

[Chadstroma]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

Very solid post, as is the norm with DD, with the exception of calling Pakistan an 'Arab' power in the region. (Shame on your DD! I am sure it was just a slip though).

 

[cstu]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

Why? Do we control the Israeli military now?

Exactly!! Israel can do what they damn well please. If our govt doesnt like it. TOUGH

Yes, they can do what they want, but don't get me involved in WWIII.

 

[TLEF316]

Israel is gonna do what Israel needs to do to survive. It that means wiping the Iranians off the face of the earth to protect themselves, so be it. If it really comes down to a doomsday type scenario between them and Iran, the powers that be in Israel will push the button without so much as an email to anyone in America.

Diplomacy and other peoples feelings pretty much go out the window when your neighbor has the desire to exterminate you and the means to do so.

 

[Brutis]

If true, that virtually guarantees a strike on Iran by Israel before January if Obama wins.

Why? Do we control the Israeli military now?

Exactly!! Israel can do what they damn well please. If our govt doesnt like it. TOUGH

Yes, they can do what they want, but don't get me involved in WWIII.

If thats a scenario you dont want to be a part of I suggest you write the Iranian president. Its on their head.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Very solid post, as is the norm with DD, with the exception of calling Pakistan an 'Arab' power in the region. (Shame on your DD! I am sure it was just a slip though).

Muslim, not Arab as I was just motoring on there trying to tie all those countries together. There are 175 million of them and a ton of ethnic groups and they are definitely sub continent Asians. Although religiously they lean to the Arab world, culturally they are more Asian IMO and socially they are much more open and sincere which I have not found in Arabs for the most part. I can't remember too many Pakistanis that I didn't really care for and I was treated well when I visited no matter if it was Karachi or in the hills. Peshawar would probably be one of the five cities I'd most like to live in for an extended period of time in the 2nd and 3rd world if I were asked to pick.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

This was (at least partially) discussed in a Foreign Affairs article this month. The full article on Iraq stabilization is too long to post, but here is the relevant section on Iran.

The United States must also contend with Iran's role. The war in Iraq is ultimately about Iraq and the Iraqis, but Iranian money, weapons, and training for Iraqi militias and guerrillas are clearly exacerbating Iraq's internal problems. How committed Iran is to this policy of malign interference, however, is unclear. The Iranian leadership is not entirely of one mind regarding its goals or strategies in Iraq, and the events of the past year and a half (particularly the weakening of the Shiite militias) appear to have shattered whatever consensus it once had. Iran has also done some things that could be beneficial -- such as trying to prevent fighting among the Shiite militias -- and the fact that it has done them to serve its own interests should not blind the United States to Iran's potential to be helpful in some regards.

Handling Iran will require a joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to engage Iran in a dialogue, in the hope of making Tehran more of a partner in the reconstruction effort. The Iranians need to be encouraged to do more of what is helpful and less of what is unhelpful, and the best route to that is to stop trying to exclude them from the process altogether. For instance, the U.S. and Iraqi governments should offer the Iranians a permanent liaison presence in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, allowing them to be briefed and to offer advice on developments relevant to their interests. Better still would be to act where possible in ways that take Iran's advice into account to reassure Tehran that it can secure its most basic interests without having to fight for them. Even a failed attempt at dialogue would underscore to the Iraqis that Iran is acting nefariously in their country -- making the Iraqis more tolerant of decisive government action against Iranian-sponsored militias and encouraging Iraqi, rather than U.S., action against Iranian arms smuggling and other types of interference.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

This was (at least partially) discussed in a Foreign Affairs article this month. The full article on Iraq stabilization is too long to post, but here is the relevant section on Iran.

The United States must also contend with Iran's role. The war in Iraq is ultimately about Iraq and the Iraqis, but Iranian money, weapons, and training for Iraqi militias and guerrillas are clearly exacerbating Iraq's internal problems. How committed Iran is to this policy of malign interference, however, is unclear. The Iranian leadership is not entirely of one mind regarding its goals or strategies in Iraq, and the events of the past year and a half (particularly the weakening of the Shiite militias) appear to have shattered whatever consensus it once had. Iran has also done some things that could be beneficial -- such as trying to prevent fighting among the Shiite militias -- and the fact that it has done them to serve its own interests should not blind the United States to Iran's potential to be helpful in some regards.

Handling Iran will require a joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to engage Iran in a dialogue, in the hope of making Tehran more of a partner in the reconstruction effort. The Iranians need to be encouraged to do more of what is helpful and less of what is unhelpful, and the best route to that is to stop trying to exclude them from the process altogether. For instance, the U.S. and Iraqi governments should offer the Iranians a permanent liaison presence in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, allowing them to be briefed and to offer advice on developments relevant to their interests. Better still would be to act where possible in ways that take Iran's advice into account to reassure Tehran that it can secure its most basic interests without having to fight for them. Even a failed attempt at dialogue would underscore to the Iraqis that Iran is acting nefariously in their country -- making the Iraqis more tolerant of decisive government action against Iranian-sponsored militias and encouraging Iraqi, rather than U.S., action against Iranian arms smuggling and other types of interference.

Is that Foreign Affairs Magazine or from a foreign affairs magazine of some kind? I'd like to take a look at the whole thing. TIA.

 

[Joe_Mama]

As the original poster failed to share, the article he cited is not reporting that Biden told Israelis this, but that it's been spread that he did and his office vehemently denies such a thing. There's a big difference there.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here is what will happen if Iran becomes close to, or actually nuclear capable:

Israel will make a unilateral decision based on their own security and Iran's capability.
They will give their input to the west
They will solicit response and plan of action
If they don't agree, and feel a nuclear capable Iran threatens their existence now or in the near future they will tell the west they plan to take out Iran's ability to launch an attack on the Jewish homeland
They wait for response from the west and weigh consequences if Iran responds
Unless the West responds with "we can't help you when Iran responds to your attack," they bomb the #### out of Iran or at least leave that option completely open from the point they make the decision on.The United States and the western European nations will do everything they can to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable but I think they will stop well short of telling Israel they can't do something to protect their homeland if in fact those nations believe that Iran will ultimately turn their nukes on Israel. At this point Iran is going to be nuclear capable and Israel is going to have to live with Iran having nukes, or do something about it. The allies of Israel understand that they will not be directly effected by a nuclear capable Iran like Israel would be and to that end, would likely have to let things play out regionally. The problem of course is a more widespread conflict but we are talking Iran here a long-time rival of Saudi Arabia and not on the most friendly terms with Egypt or Pakistan the two other Arab powers in the region. As Iraq begins to gain influence in the region they will play a key roll in mending fences between Iran and Saudi Arabia although I'm not all that sure that is completely possible.

This is an important discussion, something that should be discussed outside of U.S. domestic political discussions and certainly away from stories of this kind. But alas no one is ever interested unless Sarah Palin had relations with a Jewish foreign exchange student in 1987 who now is a 2 star general in the Israeli Air Force who told her in 1988 that he would someday destroy Iran with "fire and brimstone" and he would do it because he hates homus.

This was (at least partially) discussed in a Foreign Affairs article this month. The full article on Iraq stabilization is too long to post, but here is the relevant section on Iran.

The United States must also contend with Iran's role. The war in Iraq is ultimately about Iraq and the Iraqis, but Iranian money, weapons, and training for Iraqi militias and guerrillas are clearly exacerbating Iraq's internal problems. How committed Iran is to this policy of malign interference, however, is unclear. The Iranian leadership is not entirely of one mind regarding its goals or strategies in Iraq, and the events of the past year and a half (particularly the weakening of the Shiite militias) appear to have shattered whatever consensus it once had. Iran has also done some things that could be beneficial -- such as trying to prevent fighting among the Shiite militias -- and the fact that it has done them to serve its own interests should not blind the United States to Iran's potential to be helpful in some regards.

Handling Iran will require a joint U.S.-Iraqi effort to engage Iran in a dialogue, in the hope of making Tehran more of a partner in the reconstruction effort. The Iranians need to be encouraged to do more of what is helpful and less of what is unhelpful, and the best route to that is to stop trying to exclude them from the process altogether. For instance, the U.S. and Iraqi governments should offer the Iranians a permanent liaison presence in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, allowing them to be briefed and to offer advice on developments relevant to their interests. Better still would be to act where possible in ways that take Iran's advice into account to reassure Tehran that it can secure its most basic interests without having to fight for them. Even a failed attempt at dialogue would underscore to the Iraqis that Iran is acting nefariously in their country -- making the Iraqis more tolerant of decisive government action against Iranian-sponsored militias and encouraging Iraqi, rather than U.S., action against Iranian arms smuggling and other types of interference.

Is that Foreign Affairs Magazine or from a foreign affairs magazine of some kind? I'd like to take a look at the whole thing. TIA.

Here is the link to the full online article. It's CFR's Foreign Affairs Magazine. Link

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here is the link to the full online article. It's CFR's Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Link

Thanks.

 

[Running with scissors]

So jaybebo was just fear mongering without any facts?

 

[Chadstroma]

Very solid post, as is the norm with DD, with the exception of calling Pakistan an 'Arab' power in the region. (Shame on your DD! I am sure it was just a slip though).

Muslim, not Arab as I was just motoring on there trying to tie all those countries together. There are 175 million of them and a ton of ethnic groups and they are definitely sub continent Asians. Although religiously they lean to the Arab world, culturally they are more Asian IMO and socially they are much more open and sincere which I have not found in Arabs for the most part. I can't remember too many Pakistanis that I didn't really care for and I was treated well when I visited no matter if it was Karachi or in the hills. Peshawar would probably be one of the five cities I'd most like to live in for an extended period of time in the 2nd and 3rd world if I were asked to pick.

I was pretty sure that was the direction you were going. It should also be noted that Pakistan is largely Sunni Muslim and hence more 'naturally' inclined to line up with the Arab nations of Egypt and the Kingdom of Saud against Iran which is Shia. Much of what has happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion was because of the fear of first the Soviet Union and then as a second goal to check any Iranian influence in Afghanistan on the part of Pakistan. I can not see Saudi Arabia ever not being fearful of Iran since the one thing that keeps all of the senior Princes of Arabia up at night is the threat to their kingdom of an Iranian like revolution in their own land. Add on top of that the Sunni vs Shia and then on top of that the Persian vs Arab dynamic and I just do not see it happening.

 

[ren hoek]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

 

[Chadstroma]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

Israel's military is top notch but they are also a small nation. It only would take a couple of nukes to 'wipe Israel off the map' as the current nutjob leader of Iran has stated it is their desire to do. Iran is also interested in being a threat to Europe to be able to throw it's weight around. Iran is not interested in peace. It is almost as if you seem to want to believe that everyone in the world is so eager for peace if the evil American war mongers would just leave them alone. That is not the reality. Iran wants to be the regional power in the Middle East. Your characterization of Israel while at the same time useing very neutral language about Iran shows a bias that you have, for one reason or another.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

 

[SofaKings]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

That's his standard line. Remember when he had the quote from the President of Iran in his sig? He's toned it down but still the same pro-islamic/palestinian zealot he's always been.

 

[ren hoek]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

Israel's military is top notch but they are also a small nation. It only would take a couple of nukes to 'wipe Israel off the map' as the current nutjob leader of Iran has stated it is their desire to do. Iran is also interested in being a threat to Europe to be able to throw it's weight around. Iran is not interested in peace. It is almost as if you seem to want to believe that everyone in the world is so eager for peace if the evil American war mongers would just leave them alone. That is not the reality. Iran wants to be the regional power in the Middle East. Your characterization of Israel while at the same time useing very neutral language about Iran shows a bias that you have, for one reason or another.

He's never stated that it is his desire to wipe Israel off the map. The actual quote was something like "this regime occupying Israel must vanish from the page of time." Not that that couldn't be interpreted to mean many different things regarding the state of Israel, but he's never outright said that he wants to destroy Israel. Either way, it is a soundbyte that was taken completely out of context from what he actually said. If you're interested in hearing the context from which it was taken, you can watch it here:
(this is the only video I could find of it, so it'll have to do)

And if you really want to humor me, you can check out Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, also available on youtube, if you want to take a look at a Palestinian perspective. See if it doesn't change your outlook a little bit when you see Palestinian body parts strewn across the street. I think it's hard to find an unbiased take on the whole issue honestly, but I know you'll never hear of the abominable violation of the Palestinians' human rights in the echo chamber of mainstream media.

 

[ren hoek]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

That's his standard line. Remember when he had the quote from the President of Iran in his sig? He's toned it down but still the same pro-islamic/palestinian zealot he's always been.

I try to stay as pro-terrorist as possible.

 

[snitwitch]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

That's his standard line. Remember when he had the quote from the President of Iran in his sig? He's toned it down but still the same pro-islamic/palestinian zealot he's always been.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the above as it relates to the advancement of US interests, but there are some good points raised.Why should only certain countries be able to harness the laws of nature to create nuclear weapons and/or energy? We don't "own" the fact that humans can create fissile material from enriched uranium et al. It's an immutable law of nature. Admittance to the nuclear club is a huge status symbol -- if we go too far in denying the positive benefits of nuclear technology to countries, we risk future AQ Khans or worse.Hell, the makers of the original bomb recognized all of the above. And has Israel ever publicly admitted that they have nuclear capabilities?

 

[Offa]

Sorry, but no-one can stop Iran from getting the bomb now. This is merely pragmatism. At any rate, I can't see how a nuclear Iran is that much bigger a threat than usual for Israel.

ummm....what?if you can't see that you aren't looking very hard.

Iran may be Islamic, but it's not insane. If there is ANY nuclear device detonated in Israel, Iran will be turned into a nuclear wasteland within 10 minutes, along with most of the rest of the middle east.

 

[tommyboy]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

Iran as it currently exists, is not a serious nation. and I think the world has the right to be worried when fundamentalist Islamic theocracies obtain nuclear weapons...It certainly was a concern many years ago when Pakistan got in the club, and still is.frankly, any country obtaining nuclear weapons is cause for concern.

 

[tommyboy]

He's never stated that it is his desire to wipe Israel off the map. The actual quote was something like "this regime occupying Israel must vanish from the page of time." Not that that couldn't be interpreted to mean many different things regarding the state of Israel, but he's never outright said that he wants to destroy Israel. Either way, it is a soundbyte that was taken completely out of context from what he actually said. If you're interested in hearing the context from which it was taken, you can watch it here:

he stated it more than once actually. And so have many in his country as well, going back to the first Ayatollah.this is a really bad argument for your side to make.

 

[SofaKings]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

That's his standard line. Remember when he had the quote from the President of Iran in his sig? He's toned it down but still the same pro-islamic/palestinian zealot he's always been.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the above as it relates to the advancement of US interests, but there are some good points raised.Why should only certain countries be able to harness the laws of nature to create nuclear weapons and/or energy? We don't "own" the fact that humans can create fissile material from enriched uranium et al. It's an immutable law of nature. Admittance to the nuclear club is a huge status symbol -- if we go too far in denying the positive benefits of nuclear technology to countries, we risk future AQ Khans or worse.Hell, the makers of the original bomb recognized all of the above. And has Israel ever publicly admitted that they have nuclear capabilities?

Well 189 countryies have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran signed it as well. I understand the argument that "only certain countries can have the djinni" but on the face of it one would think that nuclear non-proliferation as to weaponry should be an easy decision?

 

[beer 30]

Iran may be Islamic, but it's not insane. If there is ANY nuclear device detonated in Israel, Iran will be turned into a nuclear wasteland within 10 minutes, along with most of the rest of the middle east.

Not trying to hijack just curious. . .who is going to nuke Iran? If the answer is Israel then how does this lead to nuking the rest of the Middle East? And when you say most, like who? Iraq (probably not)? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Syria? Egypt?Not trying to be a ##### just asking for your thoughts.

 

[beer 30]

Here is the link to the full online article. It's CFR's Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Link

Thanks.

I got about halfway thru this at lunch, great article I wish everyone on these boards would read.

 

[Native]

Please change the title of this thread as it is absolutely misleading. Here is Biden's last quote on the record on this subject - from a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on July 9 2008:

"Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening."

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=68204...ionid=351020104

 

[Chadstroma]

Israel, like the rest of the world, really should just accept a nuclear Iran. There's no good reason that Iran shouldn't have the right to develop them like any other country. If anyone should be on the defensive, it's probably Iran. All the aggression and sabre-rattling on the part of Israel is just a means to keep Iran from developing nukes and having to be acknowledged as a serious nation. If Israel suspected Iran was going to attack them they'd have been nuked a long time ago. Frankly it's amazing that people refuse to see Israel for the strong military state that it really is. They're also the most hawkish nation in the middle east. They can defend themselves.

Israel's military is top notch but they are also a small nation. It only would take a couple of nukes to 'wipe Israel off the map' as the current nutjob leader of Iran has stated it is their desire to do. Iran is also interested in being a threat to Europe to be able to throw it's weight around. Iran is not interested in peace. It is almost as if you seem to want to believe that everyone in the world is so eager for peace if the evil American war mongers would just leave them alone. That is not the reality. Iran wants to be the regional power in the Middle East. Your characterization of Israel while at the same time useing very neutral language about Iran shows a bias that you have, for one reason or another.

He's never stated that it is his desire to wipe Israel off the map. The actual quote was something like "this regime occupying Israel must vanish from the page of time." Not that that couldn't be interpreted to mean many different things regarding the state of Israel, but he's never outright said that he wants to destroy Israel. Either way, it is a soundbyte that was taken completely out of context from what he actually said. If you're interested in hearing the context from which it was taken, you can watch it here:

It is a matter of interpretation from what I understand. I do not speak Pharsi. Perhaps you do? If so, then I will concede 'wipe off the map' to ' page of time' which does not seem to be very benign to me. I am fully aware of the Palestinian perspective. I have never tried to argue that Israel is a nation of saints but it is also as evident that nor they are devils.

I have to wonder if things would be different if the Muslim nations surronding Israel have not tried to 'wipe Israel off the map' by war after war. A nation under seige and consistently on the brink of destruction as Israel has been since it was reborn is going to be on a war footing. Nations, regardless of culture, government, and religion, do horrible things while at war. This includes the United States of America and every other nation in the history of mankind.

As long as Palestinians harbor and encourage terrorism, how can you expect Israel to not react in force? How can you expect Israel to give sovereign control and not move in the territory by military means when there are suicide bombers in it's buses and rockets flying over their heads?

Regardless of all of this and the tough questions they raise it does not mean that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

The nation of Israel is an ally and a democracy. The nation of Iran is a fundamentalist Muslim Republic that has long hated America and supported terrorism to act against us and our allies.

Of which do you support again?