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.