Benjamin Netanyahu seeks cabinet support for Israeli strike on Iran

[Clarke]

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is seeking cabinet support for a military strike on Iran, Haaretz newspaper has reported after days of speculation on plans for such an attack. The report, citing a senior Israeli official, said Mr Netanyahu was working with Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to win support from sceptical members of the cabinet who oppose attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel test-fired a ballistic missile from a military base in central Israel on Wednesday, Israel Radio said. The report said the launch was carried out from the Palmachim facility. It quoted a Defence Ministry statement as saying the launch was aimed at testing the missile's propulsion system. Israel has Jericho missiles widely believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The reports of Mr Netanyahu pushing for a military strike on Iran came after days of renewed public discussion among Israeli commentators about the possibility that the Jewish state would take unilateral military action against Iran. Haaretz said that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak had already scored a significant win by convincing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to throw his support behind a strike. But the newspaper cited the senior Israeli official as saying there was still "a small advantage" in the cabinet for those opposed to an attack. Among those still opposed, Haaretz said, are interior minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, intelligence minister Dan Meridor, strategic affairs minister and Netanyahu confidant Moshe Yaalon, and finance minister Yuval Steinitz. Media reports say any strike is also opposed by army chief Benny Gantz, the head of Israel's intelligence agency Tamir Pardo, the chief of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi and the head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency Yoram Cohen. Iran is on alert and will "punish" any Israeli strike against it, its armed forces chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi, warned later on Wednesday. "We consider any threat - even those with low probability and distant - as a definite threat. We are on full alert," he said, quoted by Fars news agency. "With the right equipment, we are ready to punish them and make them regret (committing) any mistake," he said. On Monday, Mr Barak was forced to deny media reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to launch an attack against Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs. "It doesn't take a great genius to understand that in 2011 in Israel, two people cannot decide to act by themselves," he said. "There are at the ministry of defence and the prime minister's office thousands of pages of minutes of the discussions that have been had in the presence of dozens of officials and ministers," he added. On Tuesday, Mr Barak appeared to suggest in remarks to parliament that Israel could be forced to act alone against Iran. "A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise," he said. Haaretz said no decision had yet been taken on any military strike, and that a November 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear watchdog would have a "decisive effect" on the decision-making process. The newspaper also cited Western experts as saying any attack on Iran during the winter would be almost impossible because of thick cloud cover, raising questions about when any military action might be launched. Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and much of the international community believe masks a drive for nuclear weapons. Iran denies those charges and says its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only. The renewed speculation about a potential attack on Iran, including public debate about the wisdom of any strike, was strongly criticised by several Israeli ministers, who called the discussion irresponsible. Justice minister Dan Meridor, speaking to Israeli daily Maariv, called the public debate "nothing less than a scandal." "Not every issue is a matter for public debate," he warned. "The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public's right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8864696/Benjamin-Netanyahu-seeks-cabinet-support-for-Israeli-strike-on-Iran.html :antijinx:

[punjabi_khota]

[Clarke]

Obama Ready to Strike to Stop Nuclear Iran, Ex-Adviser Says No one should doubt that President Barack Obama is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the president's former special assistant on Iran said. Obama has "made it very clear" that he regards a nuclear- armed Iran as so great a threat to international security that "the Iranians should never think that there's a reluctance to use the force" to stop them, Dennis Ross, who served two years on Obama's National Security Council and a year as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's special adviser on Iran, said in an interview yesterday. "There are consequences if you act militarily, and there's big consequences if you don't act," said Ross, who in a two- hour interview at the Bloomberg Washington office laid out a detailed argument against those who say Obama would sooner "contain" a nuclear-armed Iran than strike militarily. The administration considers the risks of permitting a nuclear-armed Iran to be greater than the risks of military action, said Ross, who last month rejoined the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research group. His comments came after Obama's top civilian and uniformed defense officials warned that Iran developing a weapon would precipitate a U.S. strike. 'Red Line' "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in an interview broadcast Jan. 8 on CBS News' "Face the Nation" program. "But we know they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon." On the same program, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has been responsible for planning and positioning assets to be ready if ordered to take military action. Clinton today condemned Iran's move to begin enriching uranium to almost 20 percent U-235 at the underground Fordo underground site near the holy city of Qom, calling the step "contrary to its obligations" under United Nations Security Council resolutions. She rejected Iran's assertion that it needs the uranium for its research reactor, and urged Iran to return to nuclear negotiations with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the U.S., France, Britain, China, Russia -- and Germany. Peaceful Nuclear Energy The U.S. "goal remains a comprehensive, negotiated solution that restores confidence in exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy," Clinton said. Iran, the world's third largest oil exporter, says its nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy and medical research. The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report Nov. 8 citing what the UN watchdogs called evidence of nuclear activities without a non-military purpose. The U.S. has said the IAEA report bolsters the case that Iran is seeking the capability to produce nuclear weapons even if it hasn't yet made a decision to go forward with a bomb. Ross said his conclusion from the IAEA report is that Iran has been careful "to not necessarily cross certain thresholds that they think could provoke responses, but I don't think there's a whole lot of doubt that they are embarked on a program that can produce at a certain point weapons." Containment Won't Work While some Iran analysts have suggested an alternative to military strikes would be to "contain" a nuclear Iran, much as the U.S. managed to live with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, Ross said the analogy doesn't translate to the situation in the Mideast. Nations in the region, he said, lack equivalent Cold War-era "ground-rules," lines of communication and a protected second-strike nuclear capability, which deterred a surprise attack during U.S.-Soviet tensions. A nuclear-armed Iran would set off an atomic arms race among neighbors, pose a risk of proliferation to other states or terrorist groups, and increase the chances of a nuclear strike resulting from miscalculation, he said. "You don't have any communication between the Israelis and the Iranians. You have all sorts of local triggers for conflict. Having countries act on a hair trigger -- where they can't afford to be second to strike -- the potential for a miscalculation or a nuclear war through inadvertence is simply too high," he said. Serious Consequences Ross acknowledged that a military strike would have serious consequences as well, including Iranian retaliation, either directly or through terrorist proxies around the world, a possible effort to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and a spike in oil prices. Understanding those risks, "nobody uses military force lightly," he said, and "nobody commits to using military force one minute before they have to." Crude for February delivery climbed 0.9 percent, to settle at $102.24 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange amid growing concern the dispute between Iran and western governments may lead to a disruption in Middle East crude exports. Ross underscored that U.S. willingness to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons affects decision-making in other countries that fear Iran, including Israel and Gulf states. If the White House abandoned a pledge to stop Iran made by Obama and President George W. Bush before him, the U.S. would lose all credibility, he said. Israeli Action "I wouldn't discount the possibility that the Israelis would act if they came to the conclusion that basically the world was prepared to live with Iran with nuclear weapons," he said. "They certainly have the capability by themselves to set back the Iranian nuclear program." Ross said he believes there is still time for diplomacy to work, as the financial pain of sanctions may yet persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program. "Force is not inevitable," he said. "Diplomacy is still the desired means. Pressure is an element of the means." Coordinated efforts to tighten penalties, including the European Union's preliminary agreement on an oil embargo, new U.S. sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, and pressure on Japan and South Korea to reduce their imports of Iranian oil, may finally persuade Iran's leaders to give up the program rather than suffer a shutdown of their economy, Ross said. Hitting Oil Revenue The latest measures are the first "really affecting the core of their revenue, which is their sale of oil," Ross said. Historically, "when they're really pressured, they look for ways out." The leaders of Islamic Republic of Iran only accepted a cease-fire with Iraq, halted the assassination of Iranian dissidents in Europe, and abandoned the enrichment of uranium in 2003 when "it wasn't worth the cost" anymore, Ross noted. The latest round of punishing sanctions target oil sales, which fund a majority of Iran's government revenues, according to the International Monetary Fund. Iran is "feeling pain in a much more dramatic way" than ever, Ross said. He dismissed threats by certain Iranian officials to retaliate against oil sanctions by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil transits, as "bluster" aimed to send a message at home and abroad, as Iranian leaders vie for power in a struggle that Ross said is as intense as any since the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution. The IAEA yesterday confirmed that Iran has begun enriching uranium to as much as 20 percent U-235 at the underground Fordo underground site near the holy city of Qom, as Iranian leaders had pledged to do last year. The site is monitored by IAEA inspectors to detect any attempt to enrich uranium to the 90 percent level necessary for a nuclear bomb. "There really is no justification for it," Ross said of the latest enrichment activities. "I don't think there's a whole lot of doubt that they are embarked on a program that can produce, at a certain point, weapons." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/10/bloomberg_articlesLXLVAY6K50XS.DTL War's coming :antijinx:

[Clarke]

Netanyahu: Without ultimatum, U.S. has no ÃÃŽoral right to stop Israel from attacking Iran

JERUSALEM Signaling a deepening dispute with Washington over issuing ultimatums for IranÃÔ nuclear program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that those who wonÃÕ make such demands on Tehran Ã…Ã…onÃÕ have a moral right to place a red light before Israel. In a blistering response to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham ClintonÃÔ statement that the United States is Ã…Ãot setting deadlines for Iran and that negotiations coupled with sanctions are the best approach, Netanyahu said that if no ÅÓed line is established for Iran, it will continue pursuing an atomic bomb. ŵhe sanctions have hurt the Iranian economy, but they havenÃÕ stopped the Iranian nuclear program. ThatÃÔ a fact, Netanyahu said at a news conference with the visiting Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov. Å¢nd the fact is that every day that passes, Iran gets closer and closer to nuclear bombs, Netanyahu added. ŵhe world tells Israel: øait. ThereÃÔ still time. And I say: øait for what? Wait until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran donÃÕ have a moral right to place a red light before Israel. The Obama administration has pressed Israel to hold off threatened military action against Iran, arguing that there is still time to achieve results through diplomacy backed by tightening economic sanctions. Netanyahu told an interviewer Sunday that Israel is discussing red lines with the United States. He did not say whether those discussions include any new offers from the Obama administration, but White House press secretary Jay Carney waved off that suggestion Monday. ŵhe presidentÃÔ position, unequivocally, is that he is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, Carney said. Ÿe share that view with Israel and IsraelÃÔ leadership in a way that has been made clear again and again. The Obama administration is arguing for more time for diplomacy and sanctions. Ÿe believe that there remains time and space for that effort to bear fruit, Carney said Monday. ŸeÃ×e also made clear that the window of opportunity for reaching a solution by that means will not remain open indefinitely. Iran has denied that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence has not detected any evidence that the leadership in Tehran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, senior Obama administration officials have said. Netanyahu, who is traveling to the United States later this month, has been pressing the Obama administration to spell out the point at which IranÃÔ nuclear program could face an American military strike. Netanyahu argues that only an ultimatum to Iran has a chance of swaying Tehran and averting a military confrontation. He has not specified what that tipping point should be, but his demand reflects the sense of urgency projected by the Israeli leadership, which has called a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat to Israel. Ūf Iran knows that there is no red line, if Iran knows that thereÃÔ no deadline, what will it do? Netanyahu said Tuesday. Ŧxactly what itÃÔ doing. ItÃÔ continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability. And, from there, nuclear bombs. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has warned that time is running out as IranÃÔ nuclear facilities approach a ÅÛone of immunity, protected in underground bunkers invulnerable to Israeli attack. In an interview Sunday on Bloomberg News radio, Clinton rejected an ultimatum to the Iranians. ŸeÃÓe not setting deadlines, she said when asked whether Washington would draw ÅÓed lines for Iran or spell out the consequences of failing to reach agreement with world powers by a certain date. Interviewed Sunday on Canadian television, Netanyahu said that Israel was currently in discussions with the United States on Å clear delineation of a line which Iran cannot cross in its pursuit of the development of nuclear weapons capability. The issue sparked a heated exchange last month between Netanyahu and Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, according to Rep. Mike D. Rogers (R-Mich.), who was at the meeting and gave his account last week to a Detroit radio station. Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Netanyahu was frustrated with what he sees as a lack of U.S. resolve to draw lines for military action if necessary. Shapiro has denied the reports of a sharp exchange. Barak said after a meeting last week with Adm. James A. Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that there were Ã…Ã…ifferences between Washington and Israel and that ÅÕhe clock is ticking at a different pace for each of us. Clinton voiced a similar assessment in her interview with Bloomberg News radio. ŵheyÃÓe more anxious about a quick response because they feel that theyÃÓe right in the bullÃÔ-eye, so to speak, she said, referring to the Israelis. Å£ut weÃÓe convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation. Dore Gold, a former U.N. ambassador who has advised Netanyahu, told Israel Radio on Monday that ClintonÃÔ remarks meant that the United States faced Å serious problem in stopping Iran, because of the lack of a ÅÄoncrete threat to use force. ŵhere are differences in approach here, he said of the views in Jerusalem and Washington, ÅÂnd they are deep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/netanyahu-without-ultimatum-us-has-no-moral-right-to-stop-israel-from-attacking-iran/2012/09/11/cb56ac8a-fc12-11e1-a31e-804fccb658f9_story_1.html

[Trichromatic]

This would be biggest disaster in the world.

[maniac]

Whom are we going to support :nervous:

[punjabi_khota]

Whom are we going to support :nervous:

Like that matters to either Iran or Israel. :cantstop: Our support is like CPI(M)'s support: outside support :hysterical: Manmohan ji will murmur some words about world peace etc in UN, but I don't see anything else happening from our side. Hum to dono sides ko pyaar karna chahte hain :nice:

[Trichromatic]

Whom are we going to support :nervous:

Non-alignment.

[superstar]

This is another joker. All jokers and religious radicals must fight one on one till death on Live TV. Netanyau vs ahmaji (whatever his name is). An attack on Iran may be disastrous for India. We have 50 million Shias. THe rest of the Muslim world may not have much issues.

[Lurker]

Like that matters to either Iran or Israel. :cantstop: Our support is like CPI(M)'s support: outside support :hysterical: Manmohan ji will murmur some words about world peace etc in UN, but I don't see anything else happening from our side. Hum to dono sides ko pyaar karna chahte hain :nice:

Why is that wrong?? Israel and Iran both have their own reasons to look for Indian friendship. Why should we pick one over the other?? By the way the recent NAM aligned summit was held in Teheran, and the biggest contingent was from India soooooo :hehe: :hehe: :hehe:

[punjabi_khota]

Nothing wrong at all. Thoda internal mullah pressure padega to give statement against Israel if strike does happen, hopefully Manmohan ji will not be perturbed (lol).

[Iconoclast]

There is nothing more the mullahs in Iran would like than an attack by Israel. Guarantees another minimum 20 years in power for them. Same is true for the extremists in Israel. B->B->B->

[superstar]

Nothing wrong at all. Thoda internal mullah pressure padega to give statement against Israel if strike does happen' date=' hopefully Manmohan ji will not be perturbed (lol).[/quote'] When US attacked Iraq, we were discussing on the wording of the official condemnation. Bush made his historic "Mission Accomplished" speech before our Parliament decided on the warning. Before we issue a diplomatic statement on Iran, Israel would have finished its job :hysterical::hysterical: India needs a good relationship with both Iran and Israel

[surajmal]

India's role in this situation is that of Meira Kumar's in Lok Sabha. Baith Jaiye. Aap Sab Baith Jaiye:giggle:

[Clarke]

The world honestly doesn't need this conflict. Iran will try and retaliate following which USA will intervene with its bombing runs, assuming it already hasn't. Although i don't condone the practices but compared to warfare the viruses infecting certain computers and nuclear scientists getting shot seems far lesser of the evils. Imagine oil prices and the effect on world economy & poverty if Iran seriously lowers production Most countries will start leveraging their reserves & the Saudis will peak their production but who's gonna convince the damn speculators :mad:

[Prakat]

Israel trying to leverage us elections to twist the president's arm into giving them unconditional support. They know Obama after elections can exercise his will, which most probably will involve putting his foot down on both parties and coming down harder on the aggressor. Before polls however, Obama will have to get fully behind Israel or risk losing to Romney. The catch 22, of course is that, America tends to vote republican when in the middle of a war. This has the potential to get very ugly for the wider world.

[yoda]

Relax folks, it will be a targeted attack and Iran can't do shyte.

[superstar]

Relax folks' date=' it will be a targeted attack and Iran can't do shyte.[/quote'] Iran has missiles to reach Israel and Saudi. A war between Iran and Saudi is the last thing people want

[punjabi_khota]

Relax folks' date=' it will be a targeted attack and Iran can't do shyte.[/quote'] Well it can block the waters causing a confrontation, can't it ? Don't think they are going to take it lying down. And anything war-sounding will cause oil prices to rise anyways.

[yoda]

Iran has missiles to reach Israel and Saudi. A war between Iran and Saudi is the last thing people want

If Iran attacks Israel, they will get destroyed. Same with Saudi. I expect a few scud missiles type response from Iran in response to a targeted airstrike by Israel.