Posted on 12/12/2011 10:10:37 PM PST by Mariner
A senior Israeli cabinet minister on Monday said Iran must be forced to face an existential question over its nuclear drive: choose between getting an atomic bomb, or survival.
"We believe that in order to stop the Iranian military nuclear project, the regime in Tehran should face a dilemma -- whether to have a bomb or to survive," Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon told reporters in Jerusalem.
Yaalon said however it was for the international community, rather than Israel, to apply what he called an "achievable" policy.
"We prefer that the international community led by the United States will bring about this dilemma in order to convince the regime to give up its military nuclear programme," he said, stressing the need for political isolation and economic sanctions aimed at the banking and oil sectors.
Israel and much of the international community fear that Iran's nuclear programme masks a drive for a weapons capability.
Tehran denies any such ambition and says the programme is for peaceful civilian energy and medical purposes only.
"Our policy is very clear -- by one way or another, the military nuclear project in Iran should be stopped," Yaalon said, indicating it "might be 12 months, might be 24 months" until Iran was able to reach a military nuclear capability.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Both sides talking about whether the other should be allowed to exist.
Yep, that has the potential for total war.
Thoughts?
We’re headed into the Perfect Storm.
yitbos
“Existential War rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.”
A false symmetry. Ahmedinejab, and many Muslim leaders in the region, have been threatening (for a long, long time) the existence of Israel as a nation and Jews as a people.
Yaalon is asking the “International Community” . . . (pause for laughter) . . . to threaten the current Iranian regime.
Not that there isn’t potential for total war here, but to suggest that there’s equally inflammatory rhetoric on each side just isn’t true.
There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Obama or the “international community” are going to force that choice on Iran. It’s all up to Israel to determine its own best course for security, because counting on the current US admin. or the mythical “international community” is a fool’s game.
I agree.
Last resort... mmmkay. I suppose that is a polite and diplomatic way to reinforce the following;
"We believe that in order to stop the Iranian military nuclear project, the regime in Tehran should face a dilemma -- whether to have a bomb or to survive,"
"Have a bomb."
"Or survive."
Mr. Mahmoud just might want to listen up. Israel has a history of a long fuse attached to a VERY nasty and effective response.
Part of that response has traditionally taken a "personal" direction.
VERY personal.
Mahmoud HAS to know that little bammy will do nothing. The little chicken$&it is actually asking Iran to pretty please give us our spy drone back? Limp wrists poofter Nancy boy, that one is.
And without the u.S. the "European Union" will do nothing.
And if nothing is done?
Well now, that leaves just Israel...
.
It won’t be anybody but Israel.
Yaalon, if you read him carefully, was talking about the survival of the Iranian regime, not nation. It’s an idiotic fantasy to believe that sanctions alone can achieve regime change, however.
2 minutes 16 seconds!
Same conclusion.
.
Sure, the USA has tons of money lying around and we never pull our weight in international affairs anyhow.
Israel has one thing going for it as far as timing - all of the other Muslim countries are either tied up in mini-civil wars or worried about mini-civil wars. That’s not even getting into the shiite vs sunni crap. Plenty of Muslim countries would be happy to see Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, with Saudi Arabia at the top of the list.
Ya, look no further than the coalition list which went into Iraq, who were actually fighting along side U.S. troops.
Other than occasional acts of sabotage, how exactly are we supposed to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. We’d have to fly multiple sorties, and also stage a ground invasion. We do have some nuclear subs, but not so much as the capability to make aircraft carriers, let alone navy flyboys capable of landing on one. Without the help of either the United States or the UK, who do have carriers and naval aviators, it is not even a possibility.
I’d say somebody has already been working on it, judging by all of the accidents...
Heh, heh, heh, heh....
The accidents can only slow them down, though.
I think Obama wants a war....and soon. He’s been egging them on for months now. ..and he’ll use Syria to start it.
And that's prophetic no matter what one might believe...she will be standing alone...unwalled cities and the like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.