Shokdee Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 On 7 January 2007 the TimesOnline ran a story "Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran" "ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources." On September 23, 2007 the TimesOnline reported "Secret US air force team to perfect plan for Iran strike" THE United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran. Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June. Fast forward to 2008 and earlier this month Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, said that he would prefer Iran's nuclear ambitions to be halted through diplomacy, but he did not rule out military action. "Iran must be stopped by all possible means," he told an American pro-Israel lobbying group. After meeting Mr Bush in May, the Israeli Prime Minister said: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America's resoluteness to deal with the problem." The Independent, Tuesday, 17 June 2008, reports that "George Bush has warned Iran that military action is still "on the table" if it fails to respond to tightening diplomatic pressure to abandon its nuclear weapons programme." June 20, 2008 New York Times reports: "U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran" WASHINGTON — Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program. The story was picked up by all the major networks. This morning on Fox news former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said: "I think if [israel] are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President". He concluded that Arab states would be "delighted" if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran. Bolton has said he is backing John McCain because he would handle the Iranian nuclear program in a "stronger" way than the Bush administration. His words echo those of Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol who said on Fox News Sunday morning that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Barack Obama is going to be elected. The claim that Obama's potential election could force Bush's hand also isn't new. Earlier this month Daniel Pipes told National Review Online, that "should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something." "Should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he'll punt," said Pipes. Both Kristol and Pipes apparently agree with President Bush's claim in March that McCain's "not going to change" his foreign policy. BUSH: "And the good news about our candidate there will be a new president, a man of character and courage, but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy. He understands this is a dangerous world". And McCain's policy? Some of you might have seen the video clip from April last year of him singing "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb. Bomb-Bomb-Iran" to the tune of the well know Beach Boys song Barbara Anne. They need not worry that Obama is soft on Iran or hard on (nuclear armed) Israel. Recently John Pilger wrote an article titled "In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk" explaining that Obama has now made it clear he'll honour "the tradition of war-making and expansionism". Obama's speech to AIPAC soon after securing the Democratic nomination "shocked Arabs" but received numerous standing ovations from the attendant crowd. OBAMA: "And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran. ... The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. .. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons." Bush. McCain, or Obama - Whichever way you look at it war with Iran seems inevitable.
mrtoad Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) Bush. McCain, or Obama - Whichever way you look at it war with Iran seems inevitable. What is inevitable, is that this topic is going to be closed very quickly. Edited June 23, 2008 by mrtoad
Dustoff Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 What is inevitable, is that this topic is going to be closed very quickly. NOW would be nice...
Crushdepth Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Bush. McCain, or Obama - Whichever way you look at it war with Iran seems inevitable. So? This is is a Thailand.
Recommended Posts