See:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obama-to-house.html

Snippets:

Obama told the caucus, according to an attendee, "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don’t work Israel is going to strike Iran." Others in the room recall this as well.

Snip

Another attendee at the meeting of House Democrats recalls Obama saying that the good news is that Obama got the sense that the Arab states understand just how destabilizing a nuclear Iran would be -- a "game changer," Obama said -- because they know Israel would probably strike and that would be bad for everyone.

Snip

A senior adviser to Obama told ABC News that Obama was heartened to hear Jordan's King Abdullah share that view with him in their private meeting.

Snip

"Senator Obama has always said that Iran must end its illicit nuclear program. He has advocated tough, direct engagement, backed by stronger sanctions to pressure Iran. AND, HE HAS MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT TEHRAN SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATION TO REACH AGREEMENT TO END ITS PROGRAM.” (Emphasis added)

End snippets

QUESTION:

Is this for real or are the Israelis trying to spook Obama into condoning a US attack on Iran after the November elections?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Either way, buy a bicycle.

Dear Steven,

I don't believe Iran is going to use
nuclear weapons against Israel.
But who knows?

And I don't believe that Senator Barack
Obama is into the type of "sabre-rattling"
politics of George Bush.
But again, he's a politician...

According to the CNN Politics.com site,
Sunday, May 4 2008,
"Senator Barack Obama on Sunday accused
Senator Hilary Clinton of echoing the
"bluster" of President Bush when she
said the US would be able to "obliterate"
Iran if it used nuclear weapons against
Israel."

Senator Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press,"
"It's not the language we need right now, and
I think its language reflective of George
Bush..."

The Senator later emphasized that,
"It is important that we use language that sends
a signal to the world community that we're
shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or
lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George
Bush... and this kind of language is not helpful."

Is Israel upping the stakes?
I believe they could be. But what choice do they
really have?
Iran's President has described the Holocaust
a myth used to justify the creation of Israel,
and has called for the Jewish state to be
"wiped off the map."

We can only hope that sanity will prevail.

I do not think Israel is at risk of cause Iran's weapons (nuclear or not.
Iran is dangerous for Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, etc not for Israel.
It will be a big mistake if Israel attacks Iran because it will increase Iran's popularity in the Arab world and its ability to use them against Israel and of cause it will create huge problems to Arab regimes.
Israel's main goal must be the European Union.
The region needs stability, peace and prosperity.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

A nuclear Iran would be very dangerous....

not because they would 'use' those weapons...

but because they 'have' them.

It's the ultimate 'bone' and when the
aboriginals point a 'bone' at people
they can die simply because they believe
the bone has power to kill them.

If you hold the bone... and others 'know'
you can use it to kill them... it stands to
reason that if you asked them to do a simple
thing like....
-'tweak' their education curriculum..
or
-Support your agenda in the UN
or
-Make things easier for your foreign policy
objectives in various other ways...

Then..the bone does not even have to leave the
witchdoctors swag for it to have full effect.

I think Israel is upping the stakes as a tactic (see Olmert’s comments re the issue of Jerusalem. He knows this will stall the Palestinians) in order
- To gain more from negotiations.
- Simply to stall negotiations to then say WE wanted to negotiate but it was the Palestinians that sank it. Because they fear internal politics if they are forced to give up occupied ground (settlements and compromise on the extremist/orthodox Jewish claims of sovereignty over greater Israel).
- It is possibly a stalling tactic to give them time to get the US more involved on their side. A reaction to Obama who wants to talk with all parties.

I also believe that if Iran has the bomb the technology will be passed to other Shia countries. In which case Israel no longer has the edge as before.

THEIR lobby machine is running full tilt in the states pressuring strong Jewish States like New York and those dominated by the religious right to push for the US to give Israel the upper hand again. (We and the USA can obliterate anyone.)
I wonder if now IS the time to stand watchfully back and FORCE both sides to negotiate PROPERLY as equal parties as opposed to having a fall back on the US.

Dear Polycarp,

Nuclear weapons are dangerous
no matter who has them.

The exact nature of Iran's nuclear
arsenal remains unclear.

As Antony Loewenstein in his book,
"My Israel Question," points out,
"These doomsday predictions are eerily
reminiscent of similar pronouncements
before the 2003 Iraq war. Larry Derfner,
senior journalist and columnist at the
"Jerusalem Press," argues that Iran is
going to get nuclear weapons but Israel
has the answer, 'more and better nuclear
weapons of its own.'"

As Steven points out in his opening post,
A nuclear-free Middle East is surely the
only way forward. Because if we do have a
nuclear war - there won't be a bike left
standing.

Foxy,

Here are the facts:

--Iran now has the capability to enrich uranium

--Iran claims it wants this capability for a civilian nuclear program and that it has no interest in producing nuclear weaponry

--Iranian protestations notwithstanding, the equipment Iran has installed does have the capability to enrich uranium up to weapons grade

--Weapons grade fissile material is the chief obstacle to acquiring nuclear weapons. Given an adequate supply of suitably enriched fissile material, building a nuclear weapon is a routine engineering problem for a competent engineer.

--In other words, Iran has now acquired the capability of developing and deploying nuclear weapons in fairly short order. Maybe in a couple of years. We have only their word for it that they do not intend to do this.

None these facts are in dispute except among people who practise "see no evil" when it comes to Israel's foes.

Will the Iranians actually develop nukes?

My guess is yes. The massive resources devoted to the program make it unlikely that this is purely for civilian power generation. It's too expensive for that.

Will the Iranians use nukes against Israel?

That is the $64 billion question.

I doubt it. The corrupt and cowardly mullahs are willing to send gullible young men to their deaths but PROBABLY will not want to be vaporised themselves.

But can we count on the death cult that rules Iran to remain rational?

I don’t know.

Neither do you.

Neither does Anthony Lowenstein.

Nobody knows.

And therein lies the problem.

Where nukes are involved there is no margin for error.

If the finger on the button is Ahmadinejad's there is reason wonder whether he will remain rational.

If the PM of Israel is told there are incoming missiles from Iran he has FIVE MINUTES to decide whether to respond with a nuclear salvo.

If the PM of Israel receives credible intelligence that Iran MAY be preparing a strike he has no choice but to strike first in the hope of averting the blow.

He can debate morality later.

Dear Steven,

I hear what you're saying but
what Antony Loewenstein says
also makes sense to me.

"A threatening and militarily aggressive
Israel ignores the geographic and political
realities of the Middle East.
Any kind of strike against Iran would unleash
unfathomable consequences..."

and

"...the International Atomic Energy Agency
has yet to produce evidence of a covert
nuclear program in Iran..."

We'll have to agree to disagree on this
one Steven.

I feel that a nuclear-free
Middle East is the only way forward.

Foxy,

I am not talking about a covert nuclear program in Iran.

Iran's OVERT program shows that they are acquiring the capability to make weapons-grade fissile material.

This from the BBC:

"The [Security] Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to a much higher level to produce a nuclear explosion.

"Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years,…."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/3

As these and other reports demonstrate, the FACT that Iran now possesses the capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade is BEYOND DISPUTE. There is no room for disagreement on this.

If Lowenstein says something else he is either mistaken, or wilfully blind or deceitful.

Once the capability exists there may be no way of telling whether it is being used to build nukes until Iran has assembled a sizeable arsenal.

Does it matter if Iran acquires a nuclear arsenal?

That depends.

--Are the mullahs crazy like Hitler who, in the end, put exterminating Jews ahead of winning the war?

--Or are they just plain crazy but sane enough to be deterred?

My guess is the latter but there is no way of telling. Anyone who says he knows the answer is either self-delusional or lying. That includes Lowenstein.

Facts are facts Foxy. A feel good book by Lowenstein doesn't change them.

Whether an Israeli attack on Iran is the best option for Israel I don't know. I doubt that Israel on its own has the capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

So what could Israel do?

Probably all it can do is warn the Iranians that incoming missiles will be regarded as nuclear and will trigger a nuclear response. And then hope that the Iranian theocracy is sane enough to be deterred.

A nuclear free Middle-East is, I am afraid, a pipe dream. A nation surrounded by genocidal neighbours will not surrender its ultimate deterrent.

Dear Steven,

Now I'm really confused...

I thought that Loewenstein was an expert
on the Middle East - being a board member
of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle
Eastern Studies.

His book, "My Israel Question," is required
reading for VCE students, so it is more than
just a "feel-good" kind of text.

I've always found you to be a very
reasonable and logical poster. With a good
head on his shoulders.

I, on the other hand am no expert on the MIddle
East - I only go by what I read - and admittedly -
on this topic it's been mainly Loewenstein.

I support the state of Israel and firmly believe
in its existence. But I also feel that there must
be a way for Israel to exist securely without having
to use nuclear weapons. That's why
Loewenstein appeals to me.

Perhaps it is only a pipe dream as you say. Peace in
the Middle East. But if Israel could really force the
Iranians towards a radical rethinking of any future
conflict - then perhaps a sustainable future for everyone
in the Middle East would be more than just a pipe dream.

Enough said however, I think I'll just go quietly,
and sit in a corner for a while...

What missiles?

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will not use missiles.

Missiles take 5 minutes to reach their target; they can be intercepted; are limited in range; and it is easy to tell where they come from.

No - the nukes will arrive in ordinary containers, as cargo, to various sea-ports around the globe. They will explode instantly when the container is opened and/or by remote-control.

Iran is not even likely to do it directly - it will simply gift some nukes to terrorist organizations. When the attack starts, it will not be from Iran, it will probably be from ships scatterred in all oceans, so destroying Iran will make no difference.

Israel may be the first target, but in no way the last. Australian cities are likely to be among the targets as well. By the time Iran has the bombs, NOTHING will stop them from erasing this civilization.

Dear Yuyutsu,

And how did you come to this
theoretical conclusion?

Do you have any evidence for this?

If terrorists wanted to achieve these goals,
they could have obtained the resources
from within the former Soviet Union,
why wait for Iran, when the Russian mafia
are selling anything and everything -
providing the price is right.

Don't you go to the movies or watch television? :)

I just love the loony-left. Their inconsistencies are astounding.

There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is fuelling climate change, yet these people will have us bankrupt ourselves to be on the safe side.

But when it comes to Iran, who have made direct threats against Israel, who deny that the holocaust took place, who have a leader who communes with a 1000 year old man hiding down a well, and who are chasing nuclear weapons to further their ambitions in the region, the loony lefters still continue to deny that Iran poses a real danger to its neighbours and the global community as a whole.

Examinator,

Please tell me exactly how Israel’s problems with Iran are going to affect the Palestinians and the ceasefire?

Tell me how you can justify Hamas STILL rocketing Israel during the ceasefire

Tell me how Israel’s nukes give it the edge, since it has never threatened anyone with them?

Show me an instance where Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons helped positively influence the outcome of a confrontation or policy of its neighbours. Ie something in Israel’s benefit.

Israel defeated the combined Arab armies three times over 30 years without resort to nukes. Israel’s nukes are only useful as a deterrent and prevent its neighbours from WMD type attacks on Israel.

You just need to listen to the words of Hamas themselves, yet you keep making excuses for them, pretending they don’t really mean what they say. Or do you just not care that they want to ethnically cleanse the region?

"We don't recognize Israel's right to exist. We will never allow Jews to remain in our lands. Today's attack was only a sample of what we can do. We have thousands of rockets ready to be shot.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55362

OK, enough already with the noise

Yes, it is common knowledge that Iran is building Nukes (sh!t, even the UN knows that).

Yes, it is certain that they have threatened to use them on Israel.

Yes it is known that the Saudi's, Egyptians, Pakistani's etc. are VERY concerned (perhaps even more so than the Israeli's at what could happen).

Yes, it is known that the US cannot afford for Israel to start it.

Yes, the USA has been known to bow to pressure from it's buddies in the Persian Gulf (first Gulf war is a prime example)

Yes, Israel has openly stated that it will attack Iran if it believes Iran has nukes.

Thus it is fairly certain that pretty much everybody in the Iranian Air Defence Network is looking at Israel as the most likely actor.

So, who do you think will pull the trigger, knowing that America is being pressured by it's oil producing friends, knowing America cannot afford for Israel to start it, knowing that America has the airpower, the weapons and the ability to do the job itself and knowing that the current Presidential term is about to expire on a two-term President? Especially this one, who seems to have no difficulty in starting wars in the Middle East?

Hmmm, which way will they come from? Indian Ocean, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, ...?

There was once a time when I 'gambled'.. playing poker .. for the massive sums of err.. 10c, maybe in a moment of madness.. a DOLLAR...
I still remember the feeling of being dealt 3 of a kind at the first dealing.. then the eager anticipation of the next 2 cards! would trhey include a forth.. 4 of a kind? ohhhh the sweating moment..and then.. when it came.. the deep deeeep satisfaction that I was now unbeatable.. but until you get that forth card.. you dare not show your 'colors'.. your desire to 'destroy' the enemy and take the pot.....no...

You hang back.. wait.. and see.. when you have that 4th, THEN.. you put ALL your funds into the pot.... and go for broke.

Iran? reminds me a bit of that feeling.

Something tells me that we are within a very short
distance from unmeasurable world destruction, and strange
as it might seem.. I'd say this with or without any Bible verse
to support it. One need not mention Armageddon.. one just
needs to mention 'history'.....

One doesn't need to refer to the Quran... again.. just history.

It must be an incredibly scary time for those at the top
of the pile.... in every Nation.. except those who are
insane enough to think they are doing Allah's will in
preparing for Nuclear power... they ? hmm they will
just be waiting for that 4th card.... then....

Remind me to invite you to a poker game sometime, Boaz.

>>until you get that forth card.. you dare not show your 'colors'.. your desire to 'destroy' the enemy and take the pot.....no... You hang back.. wait.. and see.. when you have that 4th, THEN.. you put ALL your funds into the pot.... and go for broke.<<

I'd want to be playing for more than a dollar, though.

Seriously though, if you believe that a gambler feels it necessary actually to see that fourth card - or Iran needs to see its equivalent in miltary or political terms before taking action, you are in some danger of misreading the situation.

Incidentally, it may be worth noting that four of a kind is not invincible.

>>4 of a kind? ohhhh the sweating moment..and then.. when it came.. the deep deeeep satisfaction that I was now unbeatable...<<

Four queens beats four eights, for example.

And a straight flush beats both.