U.S. Tells Iran: We Won't Join Israeli Attack

Arutz Sheva ^ | 3/9/12 | Gil Ronen

[Eleutheria5]

Senior officials in the Obama Administration sent a message to Tehran in the past few days, according to which the U.S. does not intend to join Israel's side if it decides to attack the Iranian nuclear installations on its own, reports Israel's second-largest paper, Yediot Aharonot.

According to the report, the U.S. sent the message to Iran in order to avoid an Iranian response military response that would target U.S. installations in the Gulf region.

The message was reportedly conveyed to Iran through two European countries that serve as a conduit of communication between Iran and the U.S. in times of crisis.

Nationalist newspaper Makor Rishon has accused Yediot Aharonot of working with the Obama Administration against the Netanyahu government's planned strike on Iran.

.....

[maxwellsmart_agent]

This is this clown’s mode of operation. He has, once again, turned on an ally and divorced himself from defending them during adversity. If he is re-elected, our allies will, one by one, divorce themselves of us.
You cannot repeatedly turn your back on people who depend on you for support before they catch on.

I cannot believe the White House has said just the other day that they are as tight with Israel as ever. What a bunch of crawling cowards!

[sauropod]

Pres. Obama is not just “leading from the rear” he is cowering in the corner and ignoring reality. "

Correct.

[trebb]

In this election year, Zer0 has chosen not to wag the dog. That is the best decision he has made. It has insured an angry electorate who will elect Romney in a landslide.

There's still time for him to commit treachery. I can almost picture him trying to slap Israel down if they do go after Iran's nuke sites...

[MestaMachine]

If Netanyahu ‘disappears’ and can’r be found for a day or so, then ‘reappears’ as if he had never been gone, start the countdown. What Israel does then will surprise the world.

[Alberta's Child]

I think there is a very simple explanation for this, and it goes way back before Barack Obama was even known on the political scene in this country.

The U.S. has had enormous trade deficits with a lot of countries in the Middle East, including some with radical Islamic governments. These countries send many of their dollars back to the U.S. in the form of political lobbying, support of non-profit groups, etc.

Seems like they're starting to see a return on their investment, no?

[arthurus]

If we do deny aid in the attack and resupply we may well be ensuring hat the attack will be nuclear. Israel is not going to launch a failure and a half assed success in this case is a failure. That will break the taboo on use.

[arthurus]

Israel would seem to be relying on an effectively Moslem nation to defend it against its Moslem neighbors.

[odds]

Very interesting!
Didn’t realise or think of that..

[odds]

I mean regarding trade deficit.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“Two or three other countries come to mind.”

Any countries other than the US or Israel; are incapable of even fixing a toilet.

[arthurus]

in order to avoid a military response that would target U.S. installations in the Gulf region

I don't thing that is avoidable in any event.If push comes to proverbial shove the Iranians are gonna go for broke.

[arthurus]

The world right ow looks very like it did when Reagan took office. There was a coward in the White House and the Russian/Communist Empire was the ascending vigorously everywhere. Now it is the Mohammedans whom we have enriched and the Moslem would-be empire that is in the ascendant with a president in Washington whose cowardice may not be his most dangerous characteristic. It is as if Carter had been a covert and committed Communist.

[no-to-illegals]

I can think of more than two or three countries which can fix a toilet. LOL

[arthurus]

There was a point when suggestions were made by unofficial people but people with attachment to the rulers that the US might have to invade and occupy Israel to ensure fairness in the region. I. for one, assumed these were serious suggestions, feelers as it ere, from the party in power.

[Alberta's Child]

That statement is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Going back to period after 1912 (when the last two states in the continental U.S. joined the Union), and certainly after Hawaii was added in 1950, there’s a legitimate question to be asked about why the U.S. has engaged in nearly constant military campaigns in far-flung corners of the globe without ever adding a 51st state to the Union. Not that Israel could ever function as a U.S. state in any practical sense, but what exactly does the U.S. get in return for these massive expenditures in places that have little or no value in terms of resources, strategic military value, etc.?

[HereInTheHeartland]

Not in the Middle East!

[odds]

lol@no-to-illegals

Possible solution: Have service level agreement, get them to fix two or more toilets, and ask for invoice. If quality suffers, dispute invoice & don’t pay.

[SunkenCiv]

• Obama: "I want to make sure we end before the call to prayer"
• Iran Deploys Troops, Ballistic Missiles To Eritrea [2008]

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Eleutheria5.

[Netz]

The world is MUCH WORSE than it was in 1980. Yes, the Soviets were the main problem then BUT they had some limited forms of REASON floating around in their little Red heads. The Muslims have NO RESTRAINT and are racing to world domination. Iran gets the bomb, Israel and the rest of the world then becomes hostages circa US Embassy 1979 only MUCH WORSE. The Obama administration is distancing itself from out weary ally, Israel pleading for the Iranians not to attack our targets. This is unbelievable and irresponsible BUT appropriate for a US leader with Islamic ties. The world needs a Reagan right now or at least a watered down version of him - Romney. Americans are not looking at Iran or the enormous threat they pose, Americans are looking at the economy and that's about it. Good luck Israel, you are alone...again!