Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran--the bluff that never stops giving?
The Huffington Post / Trita Parsi
07-Apr-2009 (9 comments)

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits. Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed - it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

Ali Lakani

Bibi's monkey wrench

by Ali Lakani on

Nobody in the Middle East region is happy about the prospects of Iran-US talks and improved diplomatic relations between the two countries.  Israel is the least happy, it seems, and that's why the "attack on Iran" rhetoric is now coming out of Tel Aviv only, casting a dark (er) cloud over any friendly overtures, and creating tension in the weak peaceful signals which are being exchanged between Iran and US.   



change has come

by IRANdokht on


US Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday the new Israeli government of
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be "ill-advised" to attack
Iran, but stressed that it was unlikely to do so.

The bluffing has become evident to all.


Mehdi Mazloom


by Mehdi Mazloom on

Sorry, can't help it. the Akhmag in Tehran, no only he looks funny, and acts ridiculous. Even his name lend itself so nicely with ridicule.



Great article by Trita Parsi

by AmirPasha (not verified) on

Of course there is no way that US would forget about the Jewish state, and as Mr. Parsi has said in his book, the historical alliance between Iran and Israel has been a deep-rooted and practical one.

I think it's only the extremist politics of Netanyahu which thinks peace between Iran and US will cause a loss for Israel.

anonymous fish

what you have between

by anonymous fish on

mehdi and fred's analysis of this article is the virtual truth.  i think it was extremely well said.  well, less the "great satan" comment which is non-productive and antagonistic.  i do think israel's view is self-coached in overprotective rhetoric.  i hope she maintains a little self-control in both her actions and verbage.  it serves no purpose whatsoever.

ali... very well said.  thank  you.



by IRANdokht on

If for nothing else, reading your comments are always good for a chuckle or two.

akhmag chichi?

Thanks! :o)


Mehdi Mazloom

Some of you seem to miss the point

by Mehdi Mazloom on

Please, let me clarify few things.

1. It is not Iran, the country which the international community objects to the nuclear program. It is the prospect of fundamentalist regime to have its finger on the nuclear trigger. Regardless of their belohood election, majless and "election", All decisions arer made by ONE 70 year old man, who believe in some messianic gabligub baba.

No way on earth leaders of the western countries will accept such ominous possibilities - certainly;y not Obama. So all those talks of approachable with the Mullahs are misleading at best.

2. Im am sure many of you Iranian-American (or Europeans) are well versed with the differences in mind set and cultural between the Mullahs and the western ones. 

The Mullahs ego, and their demand for "eh-te-ram" is so large, that even, if at any time, Obama does approach the Akhoonda with hand shake, these backward Mullah will interpret it as "divine victory" over the satan.You can bet your boots that the akh-mag-e-nejad will criss cross Iran and boast to the Iranians (mostly the less educated),how this regime had brought US to its knees. Another victory of THEIR brand of Islam over the "infidels".

3. If I were you, I would not underestimate the fire power which Israel posses.You have no clue what this little country is acpable  of, when it faces ominous threat to its existence. they don't, and won't mess around. They will act no matter what.

4. There is another important elements many of you pundits seem to miss. In my view, the warfare against the regime had already begun.

While Netanyahu is playing the mean and thte bad guy against the  Mullahs, Obama plays the good guy. The objective is clear, on one side force the akhoodah to watch their rear end, For that, push  them to spend more and more of Iran's dwindling dollars of defense, until the  economy collapses there. At rhe same time, Obama provides them false sense of security, and moreover, their pipe dream of victory.

These Idiots THINK they are smart, their problem is, they are  facing lot smarter people - particularly when the other side faces ominous prospect of annihilation.


The yarns they weave

by Fred on

The head of NIAC lobby says: “Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.”

He also opions:  “In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.”

1-Is the head of NIAC lobby inferring there is an active weponized Islamist nuke program?

2- How does the head of NIAC lobby come to know about the hidden  views of others when all their published views are to the contarary.

3-Aside their mass murder of Iranians, knowing that there are at least three known Islamists in the leadership of the Islamist republic who have had their own children executed, that is their own flesh and blood—and Rafsanjani’s infamouse public boast about the favorable loss/benefit analysis of a nuclear exchange,  how does the NIAC lobbyist come up with the “rational, calculating and risk averse” hypothesis?

4- when  you have a regime that for thirty years openly says and by funding and arming terrorist proxies acts on its wish to destroy a member state of the UN and even writes that wish in bold letters on its ICBMs, is it a stretch to think that they might mean it?

5-This wish of some to come up with a nuke packing Islamist republic as a sledgehammer to actuate their desires is as transparent as all the strategic yarns they weave.


great analysis

by IRANdokht on

Dr Parsi just makes perfect sense. 

...the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.

thanks for posting the article.