Bring It On!

Israeli Official: “Attack On Iran Unavoidable”

June 6th, 2008 | by Ken Grandlund |

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has told Israeli newspaper reporters that sanctions against Iran were not working and that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear development sites was becoming “unavoidable.”

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

One question…does this mean that the US and the Bush Administration can stop banging their own war drums about Iran? Not likely…and here’s why.

Iran has already said that any attack on Iran will result in retaliations against Israel AND any US targets available.

Iran still claims to be developing nuclear capabilities for non-military, civilian use only. But the rhetoric from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the right of Israel to exist has only sought to increase skepticism about Iranian nuclear ambitions.

But why is this a US problem anyhow? We now have confirmation that Israel has their own ready nuclear strike force. Why can’t we let them take care of this themselves like the did with the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980’s and like the claim to have done when bombing a Syrian facility not long ago? Are Iranian nukes really a US problem- a problem that requires another costly war and further raping of the US treasury by unsavory “contractors?”

Unfortunately, US foreign policy is so entangled in the Middle East, and so heavily in favor of Israel, that any Israeli strike would likely suck US forces into the abyss, especially if it occurs while Bush is still steering the ship of state. Experts believe that Iranian nuclear facilities are more numerous and better defensible than Iraq had in the 80’s or than Syria was building. As such, unless Israel unleashed the power of her own nuclear arsenal, a protracted ground and air war could likely ensue, requiring assistance to Israel.

One has to wonder whether this entire Iranian nuclear problem is largely the making of the Bush Administration. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, Bush included Iran in his official “Axis of Evil” club, putting the Iranians on notice that they were in the sights of the warmonger in chief. Add a couple hundred thousand US troops at their doorstep in Iraq, an increasing presence in the Straight of Hormuz, and it’s no wonder that Iranian government officials would worry about their own country’s security.

Still, it’s hard to have empathy for the Iranian government. After all, they have been clear sponsors of terrorism for decades and have been a vocal foe of the US since the deposition of the CIA-installed Shah in the late 1970’s. (Actually, Iranian resentment of US interference in their government runs deep and back to the 1950’s when the CIA backed a coup to reinstall the Shah to power. His harsh rule created theenvironment for revolution that swept the Islamicists into power. And our government’s backing of the Shah turned their enmity towards the U.S.)

If Israel does attack Iranian nuclear facilities they could respond in kind. If that occurs, we’ll be pulled in. Which in turn could inflate other Arab nations to join Iran against the US and Israel. This is how regional conflicts grow and suck in other nations. This is how world wars begin.

Bush knows his stance on Iran is unpopular in the states. He doesn’t much care. Perhaps this is his way of getting to attack Iran anyhow- by getting Israel to start thingsoff. Or maybe he’s still trying to help bring on his fundamentalist base’s idea of Glory on Earth- the beginning of the end.

(cross posted on Common Sense)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 18 Responses to “Israeli Official: “Attack On Iran Unavoidable””

  2. By rube cretin on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    this is very scary shit. Russia has already told us they will not allow iran to be attacked without their becoming involved. On the home front am i the only one watching what is going on in the stock market today. Oil is now almost $139/ barrel, and dow is down 330+ points. anyone recall a mention “peak oil” over the past year. Well this is what it looks like. Life styles are about to really change, resource wars, etc. “Is it OK to panic now?”

  3. By Dusty on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Scary don’t begin to cover it..beating the wardrums..Christ almighty these idiots are getting a woody over it.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    I don’t know. I mean, where was this big world war when Israel took out Iraq’s nuclear plant way back when. Where was it when Hezbollah and Hamas kidnapped several Israeli soldiers, in response to which Israel invaded southern Lebanon? Where was this big world war when Israeli jets blew right past Syria’s Russian made early warning radar system and took out a complex in Syria, purported to be some sort of North Korean nuclear refinery plant or whatever? Surely acts of war all, which could have drawn us all into world war. So why didn’t it? I don’t know. Maybe the rest of the world knew that a nuclear plant in Saddam’s Iraq posed a danger to the world and they were relieved when Israel took it out. Ditto with Syria’s whatever it was. Maybe they realized that becoming involved in a full-scale war over Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s provocations was senseless. Maybe they think the same thing about Iran. Just because they’re not saying so doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking it and just because Russia is talking big doesn’t mean they are prepared to go all hot warry, something they haven’t done since being blown out of Afghanistan.

    Not saying it couldn’t erupt. Just saying that history provides no support to think it would and maybe panicking isn’t the most productive thing to do right now. Maybe convincing Iran that Israel is serious about it and we are serious about letting them do it is just what’s needed to deter Iran.

  5. By Dusty on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Craig, thanks to George Bush, the world is a far different place than it was then. You have to admit that, right?

    The history books were tossed in the trash by was the Constitution..but thats another story. ;)

  6. By Ken Grandlund on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Well Craig- I’m saying it WILL happen, only that the possibility is more great now than before since we have an Israeli official coming right out and saying “We will attack you” and with the rhetoric from Bush over the last year+.

    Further, no one rushed in to the Syria thing simply because Syria has little (if anything) that anyone wants or needs.

    When Israel went into Iraq, the US was more the Iraqi ally than the Russians were- remember that the US government was quite cozy with Saddam in the early 80’s. There are even some nice pictures on the web to prove that. Plus, we were helping Saddam in his war against Iran at that time, even helping him out with chemical stockpiles- but we didn’t want him to have a nuke. But our relationship with Iraq then may have helped keep the USSR out of the fray, just as we stayed out of Afghanistan (at least overtly) during their escaped there in the 80’s.

    But with Iran, there is stuff people want- the oil- and Russia and Iran have been trading partners since the Shah was driven out. So to has been China. In fact, Iran is a more strategic ally for Russia and China than Iraq could have been or than Syria ever has been.

    All I’m saying is things could get hairy over there and then, like a glass of spilt milk on a tile floor, it could spread.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    The world’s different every day! :-) But as a matter of fact, the last two of the three historical occurrences have happened since Bush changed the world. In other words, even throwing out the Iraq bombing, the other two are still valid.

  8. By Ken Grandlund on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Make that “harrier.” Things are already a disaster in that region of the world, in no small part thanks to Team Bush.

  9. By Steve O on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    I think someone needs to do a preemptive strike on Israel to stop them now. I shit you not.

    Seriously that little neo-con state is a threat to world security.

    Let them fight their own little wars of aggression. Seriously, if the bomb Iran we need to just take a step back and let their nose get bloodied.

    Oh wait, I forgot, they have nukes that we are not supposed to know about.

    We are demanding that Iran honor the non-proliferation treaty they signed yet Israel refuses to sign it at all. Really, who’s the bigger threat?

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply


    I’m saying it WILL happen, only…

    Surely that should be “I’m NOT saying it WILL happen…”, no?

    But then, I’m not saying it WON’T, either.

    Surely things could get hairy…er, hairier than it is now but then, an Israeli strike could be less likely to erupt into world war than an Iranian first strike against Israel would. Surely the US, even under an Obama presidency, could not militarily stand by for THAT. It could be not only the only viable option — as it must seem perfectly obvious to all that talks are NOT working — it could be the least disastrous option as well.

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    We are demanding that Iran honor the non-proliferation treaty they signed yet Israel refuses to sign it at all. Really, who’s the bigger threat?

    Iran. Hands down. No question about it. Israel’s just trying to survive. The nations around her are trying to eliminate her. Given a nation trying to survive and a bunch of nations trying to wipe her out, I’ll back Israel every time.

  12. By Dusty on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    But you can’t dismiss the Iraq Bombing..or any part of it. The whole middle east has been changed by BushCo..and its not better, its worse since Bush43 rode into DC.

    I don’t buy this line from you:

    an Israeli strike could be less likely to erupt into world war than an Iranian first strike against Israel would.- Russia will go apeshit Craig, as will most of the Middle East and possibly China.

  13. By Ken Grandlund on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    heh- yep, that’s what I meant….thanks for proofing my comment Craig.

    and I even incorrectly corrected “hairier.” Must be close to the end of my working day here…

    Actually, I’m not so sure that an Iranian first strike on Israel would be as inflammatory around the world (excluding the US and maybe England) since Israel hasn’t many strong allies. And frankly, even if Iran is trying to develop a nuclear defensive option, it could well be just that- defensive, just as all other nuclear nations view their stockpiles of nukes.

    Of course, I’d like to see neither strike at the other at all. What we really need are some rational leaders in both (or all) countries who understand that talking to the brink of war is never a great plan.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply


    Well, I’d be a lot easier to convince that Iran is seeking ONLY defensive weapons if their leadership weren’t so vocal about the elimination of Israel.


    I don’t buy this line from you: [emphasis added]

    That’s okay, I wasn’t really selling anyway…more like balloon floating. ;-)

  15. By Dusty on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Well Craig..that balloon didn’t make it off the tarmac dear. ;)

  16. By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply

    Eh, it was just a baloon. Easily replaced. :-D

  17. By maddhatter01 on Jun 7, 2008 | Reply

    This is just politicians playing politics and the world quaking in there aftermath. The person who made those comments: Shaul Mofaz is vying for the top spot of the right Likud party. The current PM is under constant calls for him to step down because of corruption charges, his coalition goverment shaky truce will crumble, and an election is just around the corner.

    This is all just very irresponsible saber rattling to to gain an edge in the next election… meanwhile the price of oil soars 10 dollar a barrel

  18. By rube cretin on Jun 7, 2008 | Reply

    No this is not just harmless saber rattling. The middle east and its 75 percent of all the worlds remaining oil reserves is being watched very closely by the world powers. Many believe this little incident yesterday caused the $10 increase in oil prices. While i disagree, the oil price is a fundamental supply demand problem, there is little doubt other world powers are going to stand by and allow the USA and its allies to threaten one of their allies, especially when it harbors substantial oil reserves. At this point its all about energy and everyone feels vulnerable. A recipe for some very dangerous things. We are only one large explosion from 400 dollar/barrel oil.

  19. By Jersey McJones on Jun 7, 2008 | Reply

    At some point Russia and China are going to put their feet down and declare enough is enough. The sleeping bear and dragon will eventual awake and an attack on Iran could well be the alarm that wakes them.

    It is the vaccuum in the world’s balance of power that is the cause of much of the world’s troubles today. China, Russia, and India are all on the rise and will eventually fill that vaccuum. This could be a very good thing, or it could lead to disaster. But if these powers are forced into the vaccuum, disaster is all the more likely.

    If I were Israel, I’d be careful here. As for America, we should stay out of it and advise Israel to back off. The rest of the world will only tolerate so much.


Post a Comment