"... this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.
Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them. this is not how one should be treating an ally, even if this is a relationship between a superpower and a satellite state. The targeted assassination campaign currently undertaken by the US government also sharply contradicts President Obama’s declaration at the AIPAC Conference, whereby he and the US recognize Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself by itself. One cannot utter these words and a moment later exposes Israel’s vulnerabilities and possible strike routes to its enemies.
Indeed, there is a difference between legitimate persuasion efforts and practical steps to thwart Israeli plans and eliminate them. " ynetnews
---------------------------------
"Betraying an ally?" What ally? What has Israel EVER done for the US? Come on, tell me! Israel is a country that continuously seeks to illegally manipulate or political processes and media. Does an ally do that?
Evidently the US is, with some skill, seeking to block an uncoordinated Israeli attack on Iran. Good. If we decide that Iran is weaponizing nuclear weapons, we will deal with them. If the Israelis are silly enough to want to do this without our agreement. tant pis pour eux. pl
Col: Why are they silly?
They are relying on the fact that the USG will step in on their side once they attack. You know, their security is "sacrosanct." (Yuk.)
Posted by: Matthew | 30 March 2012 at 10:53 AM
It seems the reporter feels the true danger to Isreal is an informed public in the US and Britain. Some 'ally'.
Posted by: Fred | 30 March 2012 at 11:07 AM
The dog has announced that, after all, it may not be happy to be wagged by the tail -- or perhaps one might better say, have the tail bang its head against the floor.
Predictably, the tail is complaining, vociferously -- explaining that this really it not fair.
This is some of the best news we have had in years.
Congratulations to General Dempsey -- and also the President.
Posted by: David Habakkuk | 30 March 2012 at 02:13 PM
This appears more like a propaganda ploy to stir up the American public. If so, they may discover that the American public is not as favorable toward being used as they thought.
Posted by: SEH | 30 March 2012 at 02:16 PM
So the Russians aren't aware of Israeli ties with Azerbaizan?
Fred is right. It's the public that has to be duped.
Posted by: greg0 | 30 March 2012 at 02:19 PM
I note that Israel has cancelled Passover leave for the IDF. This might be consistent with a plan to attack Iran while Sarkozy, an Israel supporter, is still in power in France. French elections will be held 22 Apr and it's likely that the not-so-friendly Hollande will win absent a cataclysm.
Then there is the question of Iranian talks opening around 13 April. I don't think Israel would like the possibility that Iran proffers an acceptable grand bargain, as has been suggested because I don't think America and France can be relied on to sabotage such a proposal.
My untutored opinion is that Bibi has to go now, before his options are progressively eliminated.
As for Azerbiajan, what are they smoking? You want your country occupied by the Russians within a week?
Posted by: Walrus | 30 March 2012 at 04:52 PM
coutesy of the miami herald:
http://www.lobelog.com/jim-morins-bomb-iran-cartoon-is-simple-perfection/
Posted by: N M salamon | 30 March 2012 at 04:55 PM
It's not just Sarkozy. The environment for an attack on Iran right now is as good as it's ever going to be.
1- A strike must obviously occur before the US election, because Obama's hands will be tied. As an added benefit it will probably damage his reelection chances (Actually that might be one reason to hold on it for as long as possible, for maximum effect).
2- The Syrian regime is also tied up by the rebellion. This is a huge advantage, because Iran can't invade Israel, but a joint Iran-Syrian attack could be dangerous, especially if other Arab countries smell blood, decide to hold their Sunnier-than-thou noses and join in. How long will it take for Bashar to crush the rebels?
3- Right now the Egyptian leadership is trying to gain some goodwill from the West. How long is that going to last? What will they be like a year from now?
Any way you look at it, if Netanyahu has decided to strike, he'll probably want to do it Real Soon Now. "Not days, but not years either", indeed.
Posted by: toto | 30 March 2012 at 06:51 PM
But before I make up my mind, I need to know what the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rep. Paul Ryan, has to say on the subject. [Sign on neighbors fence: "BEWARE OF DOG. He is sarcastic."]
Posted by: E L | 30 March 2012 at 07:08 PM
So, all you people here rooting for the Israelis to NOT do damage to the Iranian nuclear program, you would all prefer Iran to have the potential to drop nuclear bombs on western Europe?
Just wanted to make sure I understood that.
Your emotional, visceral dislike of Israel overrides ALL other considerations - including a nuclear-armed Iran?
US national security be damned, as long as the Israelis are put in their place.
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 30 March 2012 at 09:39 PM
Seriously, is there any kind of a senate ratified, signed, sealed treaty between the US and Israel?
Or is it all a matter of repeating "ally" over and over until people believe it? What's that technique called again? Oh, yeah, the "Big Lie."
Posted by: Mike Martin, Yorktown, VA | 30 March 2012 at 10:12 PM
Tim Vincent
In my case you have it backward. If this were a matter to be ruled by emotion I definitely would back the Israelis, but it is not. It is a case in which a small country seeks to dominate and "direct" a much larger one to the disadvantage of the larger protector. The Iranians do not have nuclear weapons. the idea that they are close to having nuclear weapons is a product of Israeli fear and fantasy and a desire to remain the hegemon of the ME. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 30 March 2012 at 10:52 PM
This is a good response IF you are SURE that the Iranians nuclear program is peaceful.
Peaceful counties don't bury their "non-weapons" deep in mountain sides.
As for Israel, don't let dislike get in the way of facts.
Iran just MIGHT be the threat the Israelis say they are.
If they are, then what?
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 30 March 2012 at 10:58 PM
Just a trip down memory lane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60:
Posted by: E L | 30 March 2012 at 11:31 PM
If I were you, I ould urge the Israelis to not attack Iran and bring on themselves the millenial hatred of Shia Muslims.
Shaul Mofaz, an Iranin, understands that very well.
He had been warned when Defense Minister of Israel and since he had lived in Iran, grasped it.
You have no knowledge of what is at stake here.
I suggest you stick to issues closer to your home about which you might actually posess a modest understanding.
Example: the 50 million people on food stamps.
Do not worry about Europeans, they are big boys and can take care of themselves.
[I doubt Sarkozy goes to bed with a limp penis for Carla because Iranians might drop a nuclear bomb on St. Tropez.]
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 30 March 2012 at 11:59 PM
well if I was an American and my supposed ally lectured me in that petulant Ynet way for being a blabbermouth with reading comprehension problems, I would be stirred up. It should be mandatory reading for your Congress so they can see themselves as the complete schmucks that that writer sees them as.
Posted by: Charles I | 31 March 2012 at 12:48 AM
TV I am as sure as Clapper is sure. If Iran proves to be such a big threat then the US destroys their nuclear program. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 March 2012 at 08:36 AM
You're basically putting all your chips on the USIC?
Given your background, that makes sense.
I'm just a simple citizen (looking at the Adirondacks right now) with little or no belief in ANYTHING coming from inside the beltway.
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 31 March 2012 at 09:37 AM
Don't see the logic of thinking an Israeli attack on Iran would be bad for Obama's reelection chances: "As an added benefit it will probably damage his reelection chances "
Don't American's tend to rally around their leader in a crisis? And the chances of a crises (regional war, high gas prices and maybe shortages) are high.
Israeli's should thank Obama for saving them from their own rash leader. The illegitimate blame, by the majority of Americans, for high gas prices might shift from Obama to Israel's action. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of that ire.
I don't see as realistic the thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions without at the same time starting an active campaign to disarm the region. Iran is being punished for playing by the rules and Israel and Pakistan are given a pass for their violations developing nuclear weapons.
Iran ratified the NPT during the illegitimate rule of the Shah, after of the American and British staged overthrow of the elected government. Shouldn't Iran be given a pass for the NPT as "fruit of the poisonous tree?"
Posted by: Marcus | 31 March 2012 at 11:44 AM
Andrew Bacevich's views on many topics that SST correspondents have been discussing recently.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/andrew-bacevich-on-changing-our-military-mindset/
Posted by: zanzibar | 31 March 2012 at 12:16 PM
If the post-war period is any indication, then nuclear weapons have brought more stability not less. The fact that lesser powers with nuclear weapons could be completely destroyed if they use them has added caution. Pakistan and India would have fought bloody wars if not for the nuclear weapon threat. It has prevented them from crossing the rubicon many times in the recent past.
It's quite conceivable that Iran with nuclear weapons to counter Israel's could be a stabilizer in the ME. Of course the Saudi's will want the Sunni bomb but maybe they can make a deal with the Pakistani's. MAD worked.
Posted by: zanzibar | 31 March 2012 at 12:28 PM
Tim Vincent
What else is there to "go with?" Bibi's paranoia? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 31 March 2012 at 01:01 PM
Being paranoid makes sense when you have enemies.
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 31 March 2012 at 01:11 PM
What makes you think that it is visceral dislike of Israel that causes our opinion? Rather, we are truer friends to Israel than those who keeping egging it on a path of self-destruction.
Posted by: Byron Raum | 31 March 2012 at 01:17 PM
All the things that worked for America in the 20th Century: Containment, MAD, Union Wages, and Financial Regulation (the Rule of Law) were thrown into the trash can by America’s Elite. The consequences are playing out right now this Spring in front of our eyes.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 31 March 2012 at 01:57 PM