Prof. Shai Feldman speaks to the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
Posted on 05/16/2007 8:43:26 AM PDT by bedolido
While arguing that economic sanctions against Teheran still have a chance of bearing fruit, a top strategic expert predicted on Tuesday that the Bush administration could conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities toward the end of its term in office.
"I, for one, don't exclude the possibility that the US will act," Shai Feldman, currently director of the Crown Center for Middle East studies at Brandeis University, told an editorial meeting of The Jerusalem Post. "My feeling, though, is that if it will act, it will act in the last months of the administration, mostly because I think that they are inclined to try to give the other options the fullest possible chance."
Prof. Shai Feldman speaks to the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
“Iran is sending people into Iraq that are openly attacking U.S. forces right now.”
And we aren’t doing a G-damn thing about it.
That is similar to a scenario that I’ve pulled right out of the air. The Bush administration concentrates on the surge strategy in Iraq and merely keeps the pressure on Iran through November 2008, forgoing action against Iran in order not to harm Republican prospects with a war-weary electorate. In November the election brings what it brings and then Team Bush has ten weeks free and clear to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is plenty of time and with a Pres. Fred Thompson waiting in the wings could be done with complete coordination with the incoming administration. If there’s a ‘Rat President-elect, well what’s so bad about forcing them to face reality right out of the gate?
I learned this from the weather man:
"If you keep rain in the forecast your bound to be right sooner or later."
Regards,
GtG
Bush may strike Iran near end of term.... or he won’t. It’s definitely going to be one of those.
Classic non-story.
Every illegal alien in this country should be given a 3 year term in the Middle east cleaning out the terrorists and converting them to Christianity. Then citizenship.
Yes, and, “You don’t need a weather man to see which way the wind blows.”
If so, I will support him. But unfortunately, this Prez cannot see why illegal immigration is wrong, is willing to allow more, not less Middle Eastern immigrants in including Muslims from Palestine, including Hamas rejects!. This Prez cannot apparently see that his policies have led to Pub defeat after defeat. So, if he finally decides to strike, it will at least bring back some lost respect by many in the BASE, including myself.
Well, let's see. Since Team Bush so magnificently prepared for the aftermath of removing Saddam from power, I suppose it makes sense to assume that dismantling Iran will be just as successful.
Where Democrats really come from.. :)
The idea the "Bush may attack Iran" kind of jumps right over the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war. We should never let congress delegate this responsibility to the executive branch EVER AGAIN, which is exactly what a vote to "authorize the use of force is", a delegation of constitutional authority. It's unconstitutional first and foremost, and, it fosters an environment where cowards can make political gain.
How so?
I am unimpressed by those who blankly state that the difficulties we face in Iraq are the fault of poor planning by the Bush Administration. Couple that with a snide, condescending tone and what I hear is leftist Kool-Aid talking.
New meaning to “cut and run”?
Yes, the president does not seem to see what his policies and wild entitlement spending mean. To say nothing of how this White House has sat back and allowed its critics to attack it savagely without fighting back. This is especially true of the war in Iraq. He allows his policies to get shredded by the Democrats, and seldom fights back.
Hit Iran before he leaves office? Fine with me. This whole deal with the mullahs and their lust for a nuclear weapon reminds me of the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, and how it could have been stopped - by the French.
Well, hell, we ain’t the French, by the grace of God.
Bush has said he will not allow Iranian nukes, time will tell. I wonder what Israel is planning.
I agree it’s the Congress who has that power. One thing I’ve wondered- what if nukes are airborne and about to hit us. Should we gather Congress together to declare war? I think it might be a bit difficult, unless Congress has prepared for such possiblities in advance.
The 'Rats are trying to lose the war and drag America down and they have the media on their side. Many Republican officeholders have lost their nerve and are looking out for themselves. Many voters are cowed and discouraged by the anti-American propaganda everywhere. The 'Rats showed in November 2006 that they know how to win elections. I think it a reasonable possibility that the President and his advisors might decide that a strike on Iran now would result in a 'Rat President-elect and increased 'Rat majorities in Congress after November 2008. It is the President's sworn duty to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Political reality and the long-term security of the Republic must be taken into account. Doing the "right thing" and letting the chips fall where they may is not the moral or honorable course if it results in forseeable harm to our country. The 'Rats are going to do stupid things regardless. If a 'Rat is elected President in '08, the choice will be 'Rat stupidity and Iranian nuke capabilities intact versus 'Rat stupidity and a weakened Iran. I prefer the latter.
Will it?
"We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea." - President Bush, May 2003 Link
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.