Israel expected to bomb Iran, French foreign minister says

[shira]

Israel expected to bomb Iran, French foreign minister says

The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has said Israel is expected to launch a military strike on Iran before it acquires a nuclear bomb, and urged the Jewish state to hold back in favour of sanctions.

By Carolynne Wheeler in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 2:18PM BST 05 Oct 2008

"I know that some people in Israel and in the army are preparing a military solution or not a solution but a military attack. I don’t know. This is not according to my opinion the solution,” Mr Kouchner told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz in an interview published Sunday, adding that he did not believe Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would give it any “immunity” from attack.

<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/3139652/Israel-expected-to-bomb-Iran-French-foreign-minister-says.html

[shira]

1. Translation

Translation:

"Yes, let Israel do the dirty work - fight/die for the west. They're invested and determined, so why should we (the west) risk anything? Then, we can condemn them afterwards for doing our dirty work."

Quite the inversion of reality for those who believe Israel has the west fighting and dying in wars Israel determines for their own good (ex: Iraq). So who really is wagging the dog?

[still_one]

3. it is not in Israels or Irans interest to start something. Too many uncertainties

[azurnoir]

8. If Israel is going to start a war of aggresion

against Iran then they have 99 days to do it and be assured of drawing in American support, after that when we have a new President and we already know who that will most likely be then things are not so sure, especially when diplomacy has not been exhausted as of yet, if Israel does this without support they will suffer very heavy losses themselves, in recent years Israel has preferred softer targets such as Gaza or Lebanon, those that do not have the means to strike back with anything near equal force, which is why I believe it is BS at least for now.

[still_one]

2. saber rattling bullshit. neithher Israel or Irran are going to start anything, at least

until after the election

[LeftishBrit]

4. I think they won't.

Lots of saber-rattling on both sides, and it *could* result in disaster. However, both sides would suffer badly from a war, and probably don't want one.

I doubt that Kouchner has access to Israeli state secrets, so is probably going just by some of the more bellicose statements of some individuals.

I am reminded of the Cold War. The Americans and Russians were constantly threatening each other that 'my bombs can lick your bombs', but both sides realized that war would destroy both sides and it didn't happen. (Of course some of the problems in the world right now are linked to American and Russia arming their permanent or temporary allies; but it's still not the same as blowing up the entire world with nukes!) Similar situations have arisen with many conflicts between other, smaller countries.

I am a bit more worried that, while everyone's attention is focussed on Israel and Iran, some major crisis will blow up elsewhere, and the world will be caught napping.

[Vegasaurus]

6. In a Cold War situation, both sides recognize the danger of mutual annihilation

and looked to preserve their societies.

We have already seen how suicide bombers and their backers do not value human life, either theirs or others.

The Iranians would be apt to sacrifice a lot of lives if the goal was getting rid of Jews and Israel.

They have stated their goal, and we should believe them at their words.

[azurnoir]

7. LOL the "suicidal mooslims" meme

and from the source one would expect and I suppose those those "terror supporting" organizations like Code Pink, if I remember your claim, will be backing those terrorist mooslims.

On your code pink claim you do realize that 99% of DUer's support them does that make us terror supporters too, this is the only forum on DU you could have made that statement on without getting 4th degree burns

[shira]

9. suicidal muslim leaders

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

[azurnoir]

11. also from your article

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

the article has a date but no year, your link has 2001 in it but it had to have been at prior to 2005, so Israel can attack Iran because of what a former president said years ago?

Considering that McCain said bomb, bomb , bomb Iran do they have the right to attack the US?

[shira]

12. Israel attack Iran b/c of what a former president said years ago?

Ahmadinejad and Khameini say the same things now as Rafsanjani said then. What part of cancerous tumor made up of a small cadre of zionists trying to rule the world and needing to be wiped off the map don't you understand? I think it's more likely they give Hezbollah a bomb and they use it instead.

Remember this golden oldie from Nasrallah:

"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

Of course, wiping Israel off the map would probably do the same to Palestinians they pretend to care so much about......maybe you should be in favor of Israel defending against Iran on the grounds of protecting Palestinians from Iran's nukes?

[azurnoir]

13. Ahmadinejad has threatened to nuke Israel?

that is news, link please and not one to MEMRI's opver wrought translation about wiping off the face of map or what ever but one where he threatens nukes

BTW this my last reply, as your increasingly spun answers are really nothing more than a way of keeping your own thread at the top of the page.

[shira]

14. let's see where we agree....

Nasrallah's quote....all jews gathered in Israel to make their job easier...what else can that imply other than a devastating attack (like a nuke) on Israel that takes out as many jews as possible?

And do you seriously think Ahmadinejad and Khameini mean something entirely different than Rafsanjani? They won't admit now that they are making nukes for the purpose of destroying Israel because they want you and me to believe their intentions are only "peaceful". How else will Iran wipe Israel off the map, btw?

[LeftishBrit]

10. I think the Iranian leaders do want to preserve their own societies - or at least

their own skin.

That does not mean that it's a good idea for extreme religious-righties like the Iranian leaders to have nukes (in fact it's not a very good idea to have nukes in the world at all, but that's another matter). And of course, given the instability of the region, there would be the real danger of truly fanatical terrorist groups one day getting hold of nukes (this is to some extent already a worry with regard to Pakistan).

But I don't think there is an imminent likelihood of either side starting a war in the near future.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. The list includes the Dutch, the Russians, and now the French...

...am I leaving anyone out? Poland? ;)