"Listening to many politicians and pundits in the US and Israel, you may be led to believe that there is a consensus around the ideas that Iran is irrational, that it poses an existential threat to Israel, that it's currently trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that a military strike can help buy time to prevent such an outcome. But what many former and current top Israeli and other Western security officials are saying is precisely the opposite. We've collected some quotes to show you what these officials really think.
1. Iran's leadership is rational.
2. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.
3. Iran has not made the decision to acquire a nuclear weapon.
4. Attacking Iran would make Iran more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon, not less so.
5. Attacking Iran would ignite a regional conflict.
6. Attacking Iran would not be in US or Israeli national interests.
7. There is time to pursue non-military options.
8. The West needs to talk to Iran.
---------------------
See the rest at link below/
Col Lang
Do you believe as I do that the "Persian Campaign " is a dead letter as long as BHO wins relection ?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 05 May 2012 at 07:24 PM
Notwithstanding all the rational comments by knowledgeable public figures, I am guessing Bibi is considering:
1. Would a strike on Iran force Obama to aid Israel because of US election politics?
2. Would a strike help his old Wall Street buddy Romney to win?
3. Considering 1 & 2, if I choose the set a snap election for this September, would a strike after the Israeli election favorably effect the US elections for my agenda?
Posted by: E L | 05 May 2012 at 07:45 PM
AE
If BHO wins re-election, the whole foreign ppolicy game is different. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 May 2012 at 07:49 PM
The type of questons that you pose points to a fundamental - and perhap irrversible - degeneration of rational discourse in the United States.
These types of questions as well as the journalistic war games and threats against Iran - a historic state is akin to listening to the conversations of mad men; full of cunning but devoid of Reason.
Truly deploarable.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 05 May 2012 at 09:09 PM
I am stunned that Avi Lieberman actually said that. Something about a broken clock comes to mind
Posted by: Neil Richardson | 05 May 2012 at 09:19 PM
“History is the autobiography of a madman.” —Alexander Herzen.
Posted by: E L | 05 May 2012 at 11:22 PM
What NO DARIUS or XERXES on the horizon? And here I thought the Israelis believed they were the 300 Spartans led by Leonidas!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 06 May 2012 at 08:21 AM
I have heard that Harry S. Trumn was reported to have said "I am Cyrus (the Great) now" after the creation of the State of Israel.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 06 May 2012 at 09:37 AM
PL, yes, it will be very different, and the implications will be different, as well. I'm sure that we can imagine what Israel's Plan A, B, C, D, E, etc., etc... looks like, considering. If BHO gets reelected, I say expect a false flag. If multiple Israeli Plans are spoiled, expect an attempt at the last resort. It begins with "a". If that unfolds, what would the implications be? That would make for some interesting conjecture.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 06 May 2012 at 10:48 AM
Commentary by Uri Uvnery:
http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2012/05/04/a-putsch-against-war/
Posted by: LJ | 06 May 2012 at 11:04 AM
We had less degenerate discourse a hundred years ago but 1914 --and all that followed --still happened.
I credit crooked timber.
Posted by: rjj | 06 May 2012 at 02:45 PM
Col Lang
Different how please?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 06 May 2012 at 06:01 PM
Alba Elie
No idea what you are talking about. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 06 May 2012 at 06:38 PM
You got that one right.
Obama told Medvedev (when he thought the mikes were off) just how different..
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 06 May 2012 at 09:51 PM
Col Lang
One difference in foreign policy ( under a second term for BHO) I was wondering about is who decides which entity is lobbying for which country and therefore must be registered as such - specifically AIPAC . I thought that was an executive branch decision .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 07 May 2012 at 06:24 AM
Depending on who or whom you think are running foreign policy now either Obama or Romney will be largely reactive not opportunists in any way shape or form. Neither have the foreign policy expertise or want those around them that would have their own agendas or effectively initiate on behalf of the USA.
Almost 50% of foreign policy experts alive in the USA dream on about the eternal verities of the cold war. Are Eastern Europe specialists and have no clue about South or East Asia or MENA. Academics have a tough time switching from those subjects that gave them tenure. All IMO of course.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 07 May 2012 at 04:04 PM
What in particular do you have in mind?
Posted by: confusedponderer | 08 May 2012 at 04:54 AM
This must be an interesting interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9719381.stm
I will try to get the complete video once it has been broadcasted
Posted by: The beaver | 08 May 2012 at 09:10 AM
Obama's promise to be "more flexible" in his "last" (as he put it) term.
They were meeting in S. Korea.
Didn't you see the TV clip?
Posted by: Tim Vincent | 08 May 2012 at 01:07 PM
TV
He didn't say for whom. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 08 May 2012 at 01:16 PM