Clock is ticking for Iran as Israel appears ready for strike
Haaretz / Amos Harel
12-Sep-2009 (9 comments)

In the rare moments when it's not preoccupied with the decline of U.S. President Barack Obama in the polls and with the debate over its government's proposed health-care reforms, the American press continues to deal almost obsessively with another pressing issue: the deadlock in efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program and the growing likelihood that the endgame will be an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

In the past few weeks alone, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal warned the president that the United States must put a quick halt to the Iranian nuclear program, because otherwise Israel will bomb the facilities.

"An Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face," the paper wrote.
Former vice president Dick Cheney revealed that while in office he supported an American strike against Iran, but was compelled to accept the approach of president George W. Bush, who preferred the diplomatic route.


Blackmail as usual...

by Ostaad on

"The War at Any Cost crowd is winning in Israel.
A major conflagration is seen as the best way to end talk of a deal with the Palestinians and create such a mess that Obama will have no time to gripe about the Settlement Solution for the Palestinian problem."

A response to the article in Haaretz by Mark Lincoln.



Israel is the No.1 warmonger and racist country!

by gol-dust on

May you go to hell for creating so much problem for people of the world. You wouldn't dare! We'll kick you cheap ass so hard that you would never forget!


KouroshS, you surprised me!

by kharmagas on

.... I am pleasantly surprised!

why do you side with an AH bihamechiz such as Kashani then?









by Shepesh on


Shah Ghollam

There will be no attack!

by Shah Ghollam on

It is a major undertaking by IDF to reach Iran undetected regardless of how much boasting they manage to do in the meantime. There are only two possible routes and they are from southern turkey or from North of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will definitely be a culprit and attacked by Iran, something they consider as their nightmare. I think they are patrolling that area as we speak even if they have never done that before. Turkey is also alarmed and does not want to be a culprit. Through Iraq, Israelis have to face off the US, this would immediately mean war with Iran and I don't believe Obama can handle another war on his hands. Israel, to run an effective mission will have to use something like 80 aircrafts, not a small party. In the end, the damage to Iran nuclear activities is very limited and will give every Iranian to strive for nuclear weapons then and then after. Iran's nuclear activities are now indigineous and far advanced, not at all like Iraqi case in 1980. Iran is a vast country and will much capabilities. If Iran truely decides to go nuclear, it would be very difficult to detect. This very fact is a major reason why the West is FORCED to deal with Iran in a peaceful way.

In the event there is an attack in spite all, there will be an ME war so destablizing that will have a terrifying effect on the world and further deterioration of Western financial status at the time the West can afford it the least not to mention the NATO and US poor positions in Afghanestan and Iraq.

There will be no attack on Iran!




by Ostaad on

In my humble opinion there is no such thing as "just strikes on nuclear sites", nor the so-called "surgical strikes". ANY strike against numerous Iran nuclear research and development or processing sites will lead to a major war. The term "major conflagration" was used by Mark Lincoln, a Jewish American who frequently comments on news items by Haaretz.

Please look at the following map and then tell me an Israeli attack on any or all these sites will be limited and will stay limited. I can't see how an attack on Iran's people and so many facilities will be unanswered in a harsh retaliation by Iran.


Hence the prospect of a major war, which will lead to the destabilization of the whole ME, seems to be the ONLY consequence of Israel's military attack on Iran. 





by KouroshS on

Are you Crazy or something?

You and your other Nutty-minded buddies live on making such mathematical calculations. don't you? Israel First of all, Gog mikhore to take such a position on IRI and its nuclear policies. I was a staunc supporter of IRI's halt in enrichment, but when i see the demanding tone that these MFS take toward this issue. I think to myself. F... the government of israel and whatever shit it stands on or for. F... Their principles . their belies and everything.
and You have the Gall to Justify that by saying, Oh well, Their invasion would leave less casualties than if The IRI had decided to confront its own people?

You make the statement that jackass khomeini made long time ago that israel must be drawned by all muslims of the world, a whole new credibility.



Dear Ostaad

by Shepesh on

When you say "major conflagration" do you mean a fully fledged war or just strikes on nuclear siltes? I thought that is what Israel was hinting at, not a civilian war. I am not that up on politics and was wondering if you'd be kind enough to clarify.


The regime has brought this upon itself

by mahmoudg on

This regime had plenty of time to play with all the other Nations.  But it is so bent on exporting its backard brand of Islam (if even there is such a thing, as Islam is backward in its roots), that it leaves other countries, including Israel no choice but to strike the military and nuclear assets of this regime.  If the US or Israel choose to attack, they will leave less dead behind, than if the regime decides to confront its own people.  3 million dead at tha hands of these arab Mullahs than 200 K by the foreign army.  The math is simple and the choicecs even simpler.