All the pesky troubles facing politicians today will fade into irrelevancy if Israel (read Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu) decides to attack Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities.
At the moment, Canada frets about robo-phone calls during last year's election; Americans are embroiled in their GOP primaries; Europe worries about the fate of its currency; Russians protest Vladimir Putin's re-ascendency to the presidency.
And so on.
All these issues will be sidelined if Israel attacks Iran.
And that possibility has shifted from "possibility" to "probability," judging from Netanyahu's recent meetings with both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama.
There is virtually no disagreement among nuclear "experts" that Iran is on the threshold (at least) of developing nuclear weapons.
It's the most critical issue of our time -- making the troubles in Syria seem a blip.
Netanyahu's visit to North America had the feel of quietly letting Israel's allies know what is going to happen, without actually spelling it out, or giving ultimatums.
Despite his words, Obama is not seen as friendly to Israel. He stresses sanctions against Iran, but the situation has progressed beyond that.
Obama's Number One priority is not Israel, but to be re-elected president in November. Understandable, but it also encourages Iran to ignore pleas for restraint. Obama has made it clear he will not risk his future by pledging the U.S. military to bring Iran to heel.
Any air strike will have to be an Israeli one -- incurring the wrath of critics. Netanyahu knows this, and his visit seems to confirm that Israel is ready to act, unless there is a dramatic change of direction by Iran.
Some say if Israel has a small nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't Iran have one?
The trouble is, the Iranian leadership is not Pakistani, nor Indian, nor like any other nuclear regime. If Iran has nuclear weapons, one can be assured that some terrorist organization will also get access to them. What if Hamas had an Iranian-made nuclear device?
None of Iran's neighbours want it to have nuclear capabilities. None like Israel, but also none fear Israel is likely to start a nuclear war -- though it would retaliate if attacked.
Apparently, aerial photos show a massive clean-up of a remote area in Iran where there has been nuclear testing. And testing has reached a point where it may soon be too late to do anything about it -- hence Netanyahu's warning that time is running out.
Again, according to most reliable sources, the reality of Iranian nuclear weapons is not a myth like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
The Iranian leadership is pledged to Israel's destruction, and developing nuclear weapons makes this goal more than mere rhetoric. Mutual assured destruction isn't a deterrence in this case.
A nuclear attack on Israel would be fatal for Israel, while Israeli nuclear retaliation on Iran would be absorbed by that large country. The deterrence factor is lessened.
Maybe the point of no return has not yet been reached. But it is close. And to ignore Benjamin Netanyahu's concerns and warnings is a form of willful deafness that has led to past wars.
Whatever happens in the Middle East, the outside world must bear responsibility because it did too little for too long, and convinced itself that evil would not prevail.
Reza Pahlavi: Holding Iran's Supreme Leader Accountable
In event of an Iran-Israel showdown, what would US military do ...
Iran, Israel and the United States - NYTimes.com
'Dr. Doom' Sees Iran-Israel Clash, Says Buy Precious Metals ...
At AIPAC, Republicans lash Obama on Iran, Israel - Emily Schultheis ...
BBC News - Israel warns time short to stop Iranian nuclear plans
Saudi Arabia is also under threat and hat is the reason they will let Israel's jets to pass in their air space.
Iran has been violating IAEA regulation and must be stop !
check it out here: http://iranandiaea.wordpress.com/
Nice strawman.
Some say Israel should be disarmed and forced to adhere to international law through the imposition of sanctions and the reversing of the substantial amount of aid it receives from the west.
He has been marching in the wrong direction ever since.
>>>Some say if Israel has a small nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't Iran have one?
Nice strawman.
Some say Israel should be disarmed and forced to adhere to international law through the imposition of sanctions and the reversing of the substantial amount of aid it receives from the west.
Nice try.
More war!!!!!
What if Iran already has a few nukes?
Cuba did.
Only we and a few others are allowed to have nukes.
No countries we don't like are allowed to, because then we couldn't invade them for oil and profit.
If Iran were so intent upon aquiring nuclear weapons, the could quite likely get them handily from the other members of the "Axis of Evil" like North Korea or even Pakistan. This is no thing to take lightly. Obama is correct in pressing diplomacy and most Americans and Canadians applaud him for that. Of course they probably don't read or fall for the neo-con agenda so often seen in the Sun.
Israel invaded lebanon 6 years ago.
Scaremongering with creatively-translated quotes from Ahmedinejad twists the facts on the ground; Ahmedinejad has about as much power as Canada's governor-general, and the real power is with the Supreme Leader Khameini, who has zero interest in endangering his position by attacking anyone.
It is insane to suggest that Iran would hand nukes over to Hezbollah. That's like expecting the US to start handing nukes over to the Mujhadeen back in the 80s, to fight the soviets. No country would ever give up its strategic assets like that, for any reason.
Even the IAEA report that you claim says "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" doesn't say that. It says they might have some capabilities to do so eventually, though nothing has yet been confirmed. Meanwhile, the west is breaking the NPT by failing to allow development of peaceful nuclear power. Oh yeah, and Canada just signed on to help the UAE develop its nuclear programme.
The facts are that Iran has no nuclear weapons right now. The U.S. has over 8,0000. Israel has over 200 secret nuclear weapons. The U.S. has invaded 16 countries since 1980. Iran has not invaded any! Who exactly is a threat to world peace?!?!?!? Israel commits atrocious human rights violations everyday and would love to take attention away from that.
I'm not supporting the government of Iran, but the people. We travel to Iran often and my husband (who is American) is amazed at the difference between actual life in Iran and the images that are fed to us by the media. We have NEVER met anyone in our travels who has been rude, violent, or angry towards us. EVERYONE we have met has been curious, kind, and happy to talk to us. Iran is the country my American husband feels safest being in!
Before you condemn an entire country (and the entire world) to death and devastation, please go and visit that place and talk to the people.
The problems of the world will NEVER be solved through violence.
But I would say that the last world leader who believed in pre-emptive strikes was George W Bush. (or Dick Cheney if you want to be exact). One of Peter's hero's I'm sure.
Israel, however, possesses 200-300 nuclear warheads with missiles capable of delivering them throughout the region and far beyond. Furthermore, it will not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran has agreed with Saudi Arabia and declared the entire ME should be nuclear weapons free. This is in accordance with the Pentagon which has declared that the best way to deal with the issue is for Israel to abandon nuclear weapons. Israel refuses to cooperate because it wants to remain the invincible bully of the ME and hence, able to maintain its belligerent, illegal and brutal occupations of Palestinian and other Arab lands and continue stealing their water resources while building illegal Jewish settlement/colonies.
Nuking Israel would
1) Show Islam's superiority over Judaism. As PW notes, Israel's retaliation would be absorbed by Iran and but Iran as a country would continue to exist the day after. Israel would not. Iran has 75 million people. Israel 7 million.
2) Elevate the status of Iran not only in the Muslim world but also in the Arab world (yes, even if Iran is not an Arab country). They would would have accomplished something that that Arab and Muslim world have been able to accomplish for 64 years.
3) Show the Western world and Saudi Arabia that it means business. It would have eliminated the US's strongest ally and send a direct message to Saudi Arabia on other US allies that you could be next. The question is how many billions of dollars would be donated by the West or Saudi Arabia to rebuild their country?
Is the scenario probable? Maybe. Maybe not. Posible? Definitely.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/08-4
Why Israel wants to attack Iran - by Gwynne Dyer
EXCERPT:
"If Prime Minister Netanyahu and his fellow hawks truly believed that Iranian nuclear weapons would mean the extinction of the Jewish state, then their wish to attack Iran would be defensible, but they don’t. That’s just for public consumption. What’s actually at stake here is not the survival of Israel, just the preservation of the huge strategic advantage Israel enjoys as the sole nuclear weapons state in the Middle East."
What exactly is the strategic advantage that Israel has by having nuclear weapons?
1)Clearly, it has not stopped its enemies from launching convential wars against it.
2)Therefore the strategic advantage would be to prevent its enemies from launching non-convential wars.
3) But if there is no likelyhood of its enemies doing so even after they have such weapons, then there again is no strategic advantage, unless
3) If Israel did not have nuclear weapons, its enemies would launch such an attack.