Skip to comments.'Strike on Iran would not help Israel'
Posted on 02/04/2010 10:14:42 PM PST by myknowledge
An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program will neither completely stop Teheran’s nuclear march, nor bring down the ayatollahs’ regime, according to former Swiss ambassador to Iran Tim Guldimann.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on the sidelines of this week’s Herzliya Conference, Guldimann, who knows the Iranian way of thinking well, expressed – as a personal opinion – his deep concern about the military option against Iran.
Guldimann was Swiss ambassador to Iran and Afghanistan from 1999 to 2004. As ambassador to Teheran, Guldimann – now senior adviser and head of the Middle East Project at the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva – represented US interests in Iran, acting as a go-between. He gained notoriety for a memorandum he transmitted to the US in 2003, which posited an alleged Iranian proposal for a broad dialogue with the US, with everything on the table – including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian armed groups. The proposal was rejected by the Bush administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
The Israeli military brass and especially Uncle Bibi would find Tim Guldimann's advice a bit disconcerting.
They would have to tread ground very carefully if they wanna pull off a strike on Iran.
now senior adviser and head of the Middle East Project at the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva
I didn’t need to ready any further.
If Iran was removed from the map, it would help the entire world.
Depends on the size of the strike. Sadly, it also depends on the US position, currently led by BHO.
Yep. What you said.
Ditto here...except I did...and he’s also a member of the Socialist Party of Switzerland.
Or a globalist elite front - the name says it all.
Yeah...well a strike AGAINST IRAN, wouldn’t hurt either!
He wants to use all uncertainties as reasons for Israel not acting -— but of course as a Euro-socialist he really isn’t interested in Israel’s best interests and long-term security. For him (in his view) he risks absolutely nothing with a nuclear-capable Iran. He states that Iran might stop short of actual nuclear weapons creation, which sounds like an absurd liberal fantasy to people with a grounding in reality.
One thing I do agree with is that any Israeli strikes have to be successful enough to really set back the Iranian nuclear program a very long time — it really doesn’t help matters to introduce only a delay of a year or two. There is the prospect of motivating the Iranian regime pour even more resources into a renewed nuclear program with more remote and deep buried facilities, I would guess. Can they really be stopped in the longer run of more than a few years? The USA could do it but hard to imagine anything happening under Obambi....
I simply don’t know what the prospects are for airstrikes that could really disable this program for quite a few years. But if Israeli officials have enough grounds to believe that’s a likely outcome, and given that nothing else is going to stop the Mullahs from acquiring nukes, then Israel will need to go for it.
>>>Guldimann was Swiss ambassador to Iran and Afghanistan from 1999 to 2004.
>>>He gained notoriety for a memorandum he transmitted to the US in 2003, which posited an alleged Iranian proposal for a broad dialogue with the US, with everything on the table
Note the years 1999 to 2004. Those were the yrs when mullah Mohammad Khatami was the Islamic reformist President of Iran.
Mullah Mohammad Khatami, being an integral part of IRIs reformist faction (a.k.a propaganda *moderate* wing) advocated Dialogue amongst Civilizations. He is also known as a sound orator & An effective Islamic Republic (IR) propagandist. Khatami was welcomed & accepted by quite a few key European governments, as well as by a few in the Bush Administration.
Also, in 2003, many in the IR clearly feared the U.S. and a possible attack on Iran because of Axis of Evil speech by G.W. Bush and of course the action on Iraq they feared Iran would be the next in line, so they went into crisis management mode namely advocating broad *dialogue*.
Noteworthy is that during Khatamis presidency in 1999, the first major Student revolt in Iran took place. Khatami took little to no action, and many Iranians students were arrested, tortured, imprisoned, and a few were killed.
Ahmadinejad became president of Iran in 2005.
Some background info on Student Uprising of 1999 in Iran:
Some background info on IR *reformist* ex-president Mohammad Khatami:
>>>”One thing I do agree with is that any Israeli strikes have to be successful enough to really set back the Iranian nuclear program a very long time it really doesnt help matters to introduce only a delay of a year or two.”
Agreed. But, not just the “nuclear program”. I guess there would have to be other KEY targets as well.
Guldimann’s “proposal” from Iran was a two-bit scap of paper whose only value has been to advance anti-Americanism, anti-Bush propaganda and anti-Israeli sentiment within progressive circles.
American Thinker blows the lid off of Guldimann.
Food for serious thought:
I think it’s time we started holding Nations accountable as Nations. If a thug takes over a Nation, whose responsibility is it to remove him ? ?????????? ??????
Just what is anyone else supposed to do ?
And when the thug leader attacks another country, after None of his subjects successfully removed them, what is the country that got attacked to do ?
I propose the country that got attacked wreaks havoc on that thug-ruled nation as quickly and efficiently as possible, giving only warning for citizens to flee to the hills. And then, come home as soon as it is finished, and then the thug-ruled country can build a new country. And maybe then they’ll get rid of the thug.
The United States of America started by revolting against their overlord.
More serious food for thought:
Do you know who & where George III was during American Revolution?
Iranian thugs and power centre with ALL their military & thuggish capability are sitting in Iran. Iranian people have been revolting too against their own ruling thugs.
Do you know who provided essential help to those rebels in America, which helped them succeed, without ordering them to “flee to the hills” ?
Where was George - he was far away, but his soldiers were here with bells on; we fought and died, a LOT of U.S. pow’s died in British captivity.
Iranian people revolting - great, keep goin’ folks ! It’s not easy, it never is. The Germans had a dickens of time in failed attempts to kill Hitler, it is not easy. But responsibility can only logically _start_ at home. It’s tough for the U.S. to help in these situations, it depends on which way political winds are blowing. Great U.S. Presidents have always tried to help the cause of freedom, but the lefty media here hammers them for it. But we can’t say Britain, France, Japan, the U.S., any other country is more responsible to oust a dictator in another country than it’s own citizens are; just my opinion, but I don’t see any other way.
Help for American Revolution - of course, we were not in Britain and we were not attacking, say France, who helped us; in essence, it would make no sense for a third-part country to come over and bomb us at the time of the American Revolution. In Iran’s case, the leadership is saber-rattling with nukes and sending operatives out all over, so they are heading towards a situation where Iran - as a nation - is an aggressor and will force some other nation to strike it out of fear of imminent threat.
I happened to catch Tony Blair being raked over the coals for getting Britain into the Iraq war, and he point blank told the dufusi (?) questioning him that as the guy responsible for the security of Britain he was not prepared to take the risks the intelligence presented, i.e., it’s easy to “armchair” quarterback but much more difficult to make military action decisions when one is in the “driver’s seat”. Lunatic dictators seem to always be either at war or sound like they’re about to be. Trouble is with the dinner jacket guy and the North Korean guy, though they obviously do not have the resources themselves for any lengthy conventional war, they have those serious single-shot weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands, right ? So other nations are forced to be very pragmatic with the thug-ruled nation. Once crackpots take over, there is no easy way out, it is going to be ugly, and undoubtedly the best thought is like taking off a band-aid, just rip it off and get the pain over with.
Whether it works or not I’d still love to see Israel kick hell out of Iran.
Your points are well taken.
You compared to American revolution in previous post ergo my reply in same context. What I agree with is that Iranian people need to take *ownership* of bringing about their Change, just as American revolutionaries did. Iranian people are trying to do that & I think they fully recognize that responsibility begins at home. Thats why I dont think they should flee to the hills and let others do the job for them.
To expand, France helped America in very specific ways, providing ammunition, weapons & supplies to rebels later actually fought the British in a Naval battle (Chesapeake Bay). Spain and Dutch republic (French allies) also considerably helped in fighting the British, if Im not mistaken. W/out help from France, surely revolutionaries in America would not have succeeded. Anyhow, that was back in the 18th century.
What I disagree with is you saying: Iran as a nation is a threat. Iran as a nation is not. Irans leadership is - both to other countries as well as the Iranian Nation. Iranian people recognize the difference. But, a few others may not or do not.
Of course countries need to do what they determine to be in their best interest based on their own judgment, saber-rattling or not.
But, my educated guess about Irans current regime is that if we, in the West, are waiting for them to use nukes on Israel or the U.S. or some Arab country in the mid-east region, well be waiting longer than some expect. Iranian regime may be insane, but they are also selfish, though not stupid. And, youre right, they wont be able to fight a conventional war for long. So, we need to think outside of the box to see how they will fight a war, which can carry on for years. And, incidentally, it may neither be instigated by nor be limited to Iranians as a nationality. It may well be a transnational war based on ideologies, using different methods of warfare.
Long story short, a *pragmatic* option (as you say), in my view, is to provide support, I alluded to in post #13, to the Iranian people in order to get rid of the present Iranian regime, not to be replaced by another Islamic or semi-Islamic regime such as the case is in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Ditto! The sooner the better,
Ok, we’re getting closer in agreement... how about these ideas...
Politics today does not allow for very much American support of revolutions in other countries. We have a long list of those who complain about us in that regard: our own left wing, western europe, russia, china, south america, the U.N., middle-eastern countries... wait, the whole world pretty much.
How many times have we supported revolutions in the past, how many times has it worked to produce a country that liked us for very long.
we have sent hundreds of billions of dollars overseas in all sorts of aid packages.
almost every other country, save a few loyal allies, says we are the bad guy, constantly.
it looks like our federal government and many state governments are going to be bankrupt - we are broke.
As far as citizens vs. leadership:
unfortunately, the leadership of a nation is the only legal matter that counts as far as threats go, since they legally represent the nation, and they give the marching orders to their military. unfortunately, “the people” go along for the ride. like here in the u.s., when obobo issues a moronic executive order, it’s America the nation that is acting, because the order will be carried out and it will legally be an action of the U.S. federal government.
The onus is on us citizens to get him replaced as soon as possible, but, since we elected him (or didn’t mobilize enough voters to not elect him), every citizen of this country is going to reap whatever comes their way as a result of his election. The individual citizen - like me - I don’t enjoy taking the blame, but it’s 1/300 millionth mine regardless - is stuck. I certainly can’t blame someone in France or Iran.
You’re right. We live in interesting times.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Putting off Iranian nuclearization a few years would not help Israel? Not at all?
It might not help, but it sure would feel good.