US, World Ignoring Israel on Iran Issues.

[Confused 2 94]

You mean "certain people" like the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, or the Israeli Army's Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ?

I'm sure they would be "all ears" to hear your debriefing about what you know and they don't.

ETA: Never mind. I'm pretty sure you will ignore all the references posted in this thread (avoid them like the plague, that is) and continue to focus on trying to smear me.

I do not smear you. I don't care about you enough to do that. Its the ideology that scares me just like it scares 50% of the world's population like me who DO want peaceful co-existance.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I do not smear you. I don't care about you enough to do that. Its the ideology that scares me just like it scares 50% of the world's population like me who DO want peaceful co-existance.

May I ask what ideology you talking about ?

[Confused 2 94]

May I ask what ideology you talking about ?

Unfortunately VJ is not the place to do it. TOS violations happen at the drop of a hat. There are no honest and open discussions here.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Unfortunately VJ is not the place to do it. TOS violations happen at the drop of a hat. There are no honest and open discussions here.

Then why insert it into the thread if you don't want to discuss it or if it's against TOS ?

And still no comment on the statements by Dempsey or Gantz ?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I believe the quotes from Dempsey and Ganz may be disinformation, of course they may also be sincere statements of their mutual perspectives.

Still you began in this thread stating Iran had no nuclear weapons program, nor did it ever have one. The latter clear assertion on your part Wife is clearly wrong, even by the posts you added subsequently, and the former if true for now is highly unlikely to remain so forever.

Regardless we both can agree attacking Irans nuclear plants is a sucky idea. At least with limited air strikes. A full-fledged attack might work too but obviously sucks in its own right. So we are left with sanctions.

Edited May 18, 2012 by ready4ONE

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I believe the quotes from Dempsey and Ganz may be disinformation, of course they may also be sincere statements of their mutual perspectives.

I guess it didn't occur to you that Netanyahu may be the one spreading disinfo.

Again, if you want to put your trust into the leader of a foreign country rather than U.S. military and intelligence experts, that's your choice - but it speaks volumes about you.

Still you began in this thread stating Iran had no nuclear weapons program, nor did it ever have one. The latter clear assertion on your part Wife is clearly wrong, even by the posts you added subsequently, and the former if true for now is highly unlikely to remain so forever.

Quote me where I said "nor did it ever have one."

In fact, I began in this thread quoting a New York Times article, which went through the history of Israel's hysterical claims about Iran.

The entire article is fascinating - here is another snippet:

This “messianic apocalyptic cult” in Tehran is, of course, the very same one with which Israel did business during the 1980’s, when its interest was in weakening Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That business — including sales of weapons and technology — was an extension of Israeli policy toward Iran under the shah.

It’s also the same “messianic apocalyptic cult” that has survived 30 years, ushered the country from the penury of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, shrewdly extended its power and influence, cooperated with America on Afghanistan before being consigned to “the axis of evil,” and kept its country at peace in the 21st century while bloody mayhem engulfed neighbors to east and west and Israel fought two wars.

I don’t buy the view that, as Netanyahu told Goldberg, Iran is “a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest.” Every scrap of evidence suggests that, on the contrary, self-interest and survival drive the mullahs.

Yet Netanyahu insists (too much) that Iran is “a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” Huh?

On that ocular theme again, Netanyahu says Iran’s “composite leadership” has “elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist in any other would-be nuclear power in the world.” No, they exist in an actual nuclear power, Pakistan.

Israel’s nuclear warheads, whose function is presumably deterrence of precisely powers like Iran, go unmentioned, of course.

Netanyahu also makes the grotesque claim that the terrible loss of life in the Iran-Iraq war (started by Iraq) “didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness.” It did just that, which is why Iran’s younger generation seeks reform but not upheaval; and why the country as a whole prizes stability over military adventure.

Arab states, Netanyahu suggests, “fervently hope” that America will, if necessary, use “military power” to stop Iran going nuclear. My recent conversations, including with senior Saudi officials, suggest that’s wrong and the longstanding Israeli attempt to convince Arab states that Iran, not Israel, is their true enemy will fail again.

What’s going on here? Israel, as it has for nearly two decades, is trying to lock in American support and avoid any disadvantageous change in the Middle Eastern balance of power, now overwhelmingly tilted in Jerusalem’s favor, by portraying Iran as a monstrous pariah state bent on imminent nuclear war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html?_r=2

Then I posted a number of links to statements made by top U.S. as well as Israeli military brass which also advised against a military strike on Iran.

And then I posted the RAND report.

So it's not just my assertion, but it's the assertion of U.S. officials and advisers who's job it is to be right about this.

Regardless we both can agree attacking Irans nuclear plants is a sucky idea. At least with limited air strikes. A full-fledged attack might work too but obviously sucks in its own right. So we are left with sanctions.

International diplomacy - including the use of carrot-and-stick tactics even such as sanctions - are far more effective and far less expensive choices (in terms of both money and lives lost) than trying to brute-force the world into falling in step with unilateral demands.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Actually, what the world KNOWS is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program or intentions of starting one.

Your second post. 'Nuff said?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Actually, what the world KNOWS is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program or intentions of starting one.

Your second post. 'Nuff said?

That is the assessment of the U.S. military and U.S. intelligence:

Bob Schieffer/CBS: "Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon ?"

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: "No."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57354647/face-the-nation-transcript-january-8-2012/

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that U.S. intelligence shows Iran is enriching uranium in a disputed nuclear program but that Tehran has not made a decision on whether to proceed with development of an atomic bomb.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/02/ap-iran-leon-panetta-says-no-decision-on-nukes-021612/

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

J Street Blog, just hours ago:

Congressional Debate on Iran Shifts with Defense Authorization Passage

May 18th, 2012

Amendment makes clear: no authorization for ‘the use of force’

WASHINGTON — Today the House of Representatives declared unequivocally that nothing in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes the use of force against Iran. This declaration is the result of a bipartisan amendment lead by Congressmen John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ron Paul (R-TX). The amendment was included in a package of amendments agreed to by voice vote.

“This declaration slams the brakes on those in Congress who would drive the United States toward a third war in the Middle East,” said Dylan Williams, J Street’s Director of Government Affairs. “It brings Congressional policy into line with the mounting consensus of American and Israeli security experts who believe that a combination of tough, targeted sanctions and diplomacy is the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

J Street lobbied in support of the amendment, generating more than 600 telephone calls to Congressional offices in less than 24 hours.

This latest Congressional statement regarding the use of force in Iran comes the day after the House of Representatives finally voted on a resolution (H.Res.568) following a clarification by the resolution’s co-lead that it did not constitute an authorization for the use of force against Iran.

Scores of Members of Congress also expressed their belief in diplomacy as the best means of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by supporting an amendment to the NDAA offered by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Conyers, which would authorize the appointment of a high-level representative for diplomacy with Iran, and eliminate the US Government’s “no contact” policy with Iranian officials. J Street also lobbied in support of the Lee-Conyers amendment, which garnered 77 votes in favor during floor consideration of Friday morning.

“We are seeing a real shift in the debate on Capitol Hill,” said Williams. “The drumbeat to war has slowed and Members are supporting the President’s approach of allowing sanctions and diplomacy to work. They are realizing that the voices of those calling for war, though loud, are not representative of the Israeli or American security establishment, nor of the American Jewish community.”

http://jstreet.org/blog/post/congressional-debate-on-iran-shifts-with-defense-authorization-passage_1

[Dan and Judy 614]

There's only one country in the Middle East that has nukes. And it refuses to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.)

Guess who it is ?

Kurdistan ?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

LOL

Israel inches closer to compromise on Iran uranium enrichment, officials say

Ehud Barak issued statement that Israel would consent to Iran's continuing enrichment of uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent.

With the second round of nuclear talks between Iran and the six major powers due to begin in Tehran on Wednesday, senior Israeli sources say Jerusalem may be more flexible about Iranian low-level uranium enrichment than it is currently willing to let on.

Though Israel has been expressing zero flexibility regarding a possible deal with Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak a few weeks ago issued a written statement that Israel would consent to Iran's continuing enrichment of uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, as well as to allowing a few hundred kilograms of 3.5-percent enriched uranium to remain in that country.

"Enrichment percentage" refers to the degree to which natural uranium has been enriched with the U-235 isotope - an isotope which can sustain a chain reaction of nuclear fission. Reactor-grade uranium is enriched to about 3 to 4 percent, while weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched. However, crude nuclear weapons can be built with uranium enriched to as low as 20 percent.

A senior Israeli source said that Barak's remarks, which were shared in private conversations with U.S. officials, contradict the tough line being presented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has demanded that Iran stop all uranium enrichment and give up any enriched uranium it has in its possession.

More recently, Barak has publicly toed Netanyahu's line, but the assessment is that the things the defense minister said in his statement represent the limited concession Israel is willing to make to enable the P5 +1 powers - the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - to continue discussions with Iran.

It seems now that those countries and Iran are seeking an interim agreement, under which Iran would stop enriching uranium to a level of 20 percent. This would mean that the enrichment process at the reinforced underground facility in Fordo, near Qom, would essentially stop. It would also mean Iran would have to give up some 100 kilograms of 20-percent enriched uranium it already has.

In return, the six powers would cease efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran: While the European Union's oil embargo will go into effect on July 1 as scheduled, as will American sanctions against Iran's central bank - no additional limitations will be imposed. In addition, Iran would be sent a shipment of nuclear fuel rods for its research reactor.

A senior Israeli official said yesterday that publicly, Israel will continue to talk tough on Iran to make sure the six powers don't rush into an agreement with Tehran.

"We're the indicator on the right," the official said. "We are aware that the powers want to come to an agreement with Iran, which is why we are warning against euphoria. A good atmosphere during the negotiations with Iran is liable to be addictive."

Sources note that it is clear that as long as negotiations between Iran and the six powers are continuing, the Israeli option of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities remains in abeyance. In such a situation, Israel can do little except warn the P5 +1 against falling into an Iranian honey trap.

At a press conference yesterday with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Israel still doesn't see any willingness on Iran's part to give up its nuclear ambitions.

"From Iran's perspective the talks are a deception and an effort to buy time," Lieberman said. "I don't think the international community has any illusions about Iranian plans or Iran's readiness to abandon its nuclear military plans."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-inches-closer-to-compromise-on-iran-uranium-enrichment-officials-say-1.431579