Lieberman: Israel will not attack Iran - even if sanctions fail

[oberliner]

Israel will not attack Iran even if the international sanctions against Tehran fail to convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give up his country's nuclear program, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Austrian daily Kleine Zeitung.In an interview published this weekend, Lieberman was asked whether Israel planned to strike Iran as a last resort.

"We are not talking about a military attack. Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world's problem. I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question," Lieberman told the paper.

"The best way to stop Iran's nuclear program is through severe sanctions, very severe sanctions," he said. "The resolutions of the UN Security Council are insufficient. Iran must be presented with harsher and more effective sanctions. It worked against Libya. We must isolate Iran; only this way will results be possible."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081170.html

[newfie11]

1. WTF???

"I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question"

Why is it always the US problem to solve?

[icnorth]

2. Dick Cheney told him to say that. n/t

[oberliner]

3. With great power comes great responsibility

Every superhero from FDR to Spiderman knows that!

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Seeing things that way is what brought the USA

to the current state of affairs.
Staying that course will not improve matters.

Empires always claim responsibilities far away from the metropolis
in order to justify and legitimize their ambitions, their actions and their very
existence.

Problem with empires is that their life expectancy is becomming
smaller and smaller...

[Capt_Nemo]

4. Of course Israel won't attack Iran

As I always said, Israel currently (and in the near future) lacks
the military capability to succesfully strike Iran.

All this talk of attacking Iran assumed that either:

a) The US would do it. The bushies wanted to but the US military leadership
resisted their pressure. Now with Obama the chances of that happening are
close to zero.

b) Israel would strike, with the US forces filling the gaps in Israel's military
capability, namely stealth bombers (Israel has none), fighter escort - including SEAD -
(self defense weapons carried by Israeli fighters would be minimal for obvious reasons),
electronic warfare planes (Israel has very few), tankers (Israel has very few)
and cruise missiles (Israel can only get to Iran those that can be loaded
in their submarines - 3, supposing every one would be operational -
and sent to the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, which would be under 20
for each sub and the numbers would be even less if you consider that
they still would need torpedoes for self-defense).
The bushies considered this way of going about this business but the US military leadership
resisted their pressure. Now with Obama there is no way in hell that such thing will happen.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

5. Iranian nukes are the world's problem, not just Israel

The Arab world is terrified of Iran with nukes. So is Europe.

[Capt_Nemo]

7. Funny, I'm an european and I couldn't care less about Iran's nukes

And those that I know don't give a damn as well.
And that is because everybody knows - and Iranians also know -
that should they try such stunt, they would turn into glass.
(France has 4 SLBM, 2 of them should be ready at anytime
to respond to that kind of eventuality. UK has another 4)

As for arabs I don't know, but if they are worried about nukes,
I guess they are as worried about Israeli nukes as they are about
Iranian ones...

[shira]

8. Iranian nukes will have the capacity to hit European cities

All it would take is a threat by a top honcho in charge and European nations may feel forced to comply with Iranian demands. Same goes for Arab nations. We're talking about Iranian leadership that wants the Israeli cancer erased from the map. Such words will have resonance among non-Jews if/when the Iranian dictator chooses to focus his energies elsewhere other than Israel.

And you can't be serious that Arabs are as worried about Israeli nukes as they are Iranian ones. You lose all credibility there, friend.

[Capt_Nemo]

9. You're not understanding:

should iranians try such stunt, they would turn into glass.
(France has 4 SLBM, 2 of them should be ready at anytime
to respond to that kind of eventuality. UK has another 4).

And no, we here do not succumb to your brand of fear mongering.

Stop living in fear, my friend

[shira]

10. no, you're not

all Iran has to do is "threaten" to use its nukes publicly. That's all. They don't even have to use them.

We're talking about religious fundamentalist whackjob looneytune leadership with the bomb, not sane, rational players.

[Capt_Nemo]

11. Believe what you want

Deterrence works and fundamentalist leaders are not irrational,
they don't believe the shit they spew, only their followers.
The leaders use fundamentalism to control them.
Be sure that deterrence works with them, alright.

We survived a religious fundamentalist whackjob looneytune leadership with the
biggest nuke arsenal at their disposal. Things will not get worse than that
unless Sarah Pallin is one day elected US president

[bemildred]

12. Well said, Captain.

The fundies are tools, the leaders always look out for number one.

[Capt_Nemo]

14. For all her stupidity, like all these supposed "nutjobs"

Sarah Pallin is in it strictly for the power and money
will pay lipservice to her constituents ("believers")
but would not do anything crazy, because the ones
that bought and payed for her wouldn't let her.

Ahmedinejad is just the same

[Ghost Dog]

15. That would be a more accurate description of Israel at the moment,

and of the US at least until very recently.

Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is no evidence it plans to develop any.

[oberliner]

16. No it wouldn't

Netanyahu and Lieberman may be nutjobs but they are not religious fundamentalists by any stretch of the imagination. Netanyahu is no more religious than Obama, and while there are some religious fundamentalists in the Israeli Knesset there are a good many in the US Congress as well.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, is run by the Supreme Leader who is, in fact, an ayatolla and certainly a religious fundamentalist as is the President and legislature of the country.

[Ghost Dog]

17. Oh, I'm not going to argue the toss on 'ancient religious doctrine' grounds,

especially as relating to individual persons. In the 'domestic' political sense (and it's true I should have said "Israeli and US Administrations" in the above) an Islamic Iran or a single Jewish State in Palestine may be described as just as fundamentalist (I repeat, in the political sense) as each other - although I think if you look into it you may find that some extremist Sunni policies, such as those of the Taliban, are normally viewed as more fundamentalist than those of the Government of Iran.

But the main thrust of my comment was intended to point out that both the US under Bush (not only) and Israel under most of its Governments have shown themselves willing to pursue wars of aggression for political (and economic) ends, whereas Iran has shown itself willing only to defend itself through force of arms. And above all, something which this thread has so far appeared to wilfully ignore, Iran has no nuclear weapons, nor is there any evidence it is seeking to develop such weapons, nor has it stated any desire to do so - rather, it has said it is forbidden on fundamental religious grounds; both the US and Israel, on the other hand, do.

This last ought to be quite clear, in spite of the Neocon propaganda which has insisted and still insists otherwise.

[oberliner]

20. I would respectfully disagree

In Iran Islamic law is the law of the land, whereas in Israel, Jewish law is not.

I also dispute your other point. Iran has been more than willing to insert itself into other conflicts that have nothing to do with defending itself - in Lebanon, for instance.

There is no denying that the US and Israel do possess nuclear weapons, though I would argue that Iran does have a desire to acquire the same, their statements to the contrary notwithstanding. Concrete steps could be taken that would help end the sanctions against it if they wanted to demonstrate their lack of interest in such a weapon.

[leveymg]

13. Lieberman (and Lieberman) want to provoke Iran into striking first.

That's what's behind this obsession with "severe sanctions, very severe sanctions". That's precisely why the UN has avoided this course, and will continue to.

Unfortunately, there are many in Congress who don't seem to understand the implications, or worse, would welcome such a war.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Good; not that surprised though

(1) There are in a very broad sense two types of foreign-policy-RW-er: the neocon-imperialist and the xenophobic-isolationist. Both are nasty, but not in exactly the same ways. Lieberman strikes me as mainly the latter. More interested in bullying and kicking out Israeli Arabs than in bombing other countries.

(2) Israel is overextended and doesn't really have the resources for an attack on Iran.

(3) America ditto.

(4) I have no doubt that Israel and America might each quite like it if the OTHER ONE bombed Iran. ("You go first!" "No, you go first!") But, due to (2) and (3), neither is likely to bomb Iran, unless something very unlikely happens. Which is just as well.