Petraeus: Israel Might Attack Iran

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus, warned today that Israel might attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, Bloomberg reports.

Army General David Petraeus told Congress that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."

While Iran insists its nuclear program is intended for peaceful power generation, Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, said "Iranian officials have consistently failed to provide the assurances and transparency necessary for international acceptance and verification."

Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, and won't give international inspectors full access to its nuclear facilities.

Petraeus' warning comes a day after Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened to force Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program if the United States did not do so first.

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons--and quickly--or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities itself.

Read more about Netanyahu's interview with the Atlantic here.

Comments

[research]

06:46 PM on 04/12/2009

Nuclear power is a good idea?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[ex caliber]

05:01 AM on 04/07/2009

Iran did some strategic planning, they have already send 3 sleeper cells to enemy territory, each with a nuclear device, one of them is a big one. The plan is to destroy the enemy before there planes can get back to there own territory. Destruction caused by the devices will cause huge collateral damge to the surrounding muslim areas as well, but under the circumstances it will be necessary. If you destroy there nuclear infrastructure, they would build it again in about 10 years . is that a feasible idea ?
What if the attack on the Iranian facility failed to wipe out the infrastructure.......well, surely Iranians will counter attack and will surely use the N weapon. In this case the world, specially the Islamic world will not blame Iran.
They would still be left with a massive amount of conventional weapons at there disposal. They could and will make enoughf trouble to send the price of oil go through the ceiling ( lets not discuss how, we all know how). World will surely plunge into darkness.
Americans will get pulled into the whole affair very quickly and then the whole world opinion will be against the Americans and it's allies.
So no matter which way you cut it, the onus will be on the US, eventually.
It is not a good idea to attack Iran.....not by a long shot....they are furious fighters, they will fight to the last man and will pull us all down with them.

[654321]

05:50 PM on 04/03/2009

Free Palestine!

Peacefully isolate and dismantle apartheid Israel.

The political movement Zionism created Israel. Zionism was founded by Theodore Herzl, who foolishly responded to real discrimination with reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination is never the answer to discrimination.

No one would tolerate an inherently discriminatory, mono-ethnic "Female State" in which females achieve the majority of the population by ridding the place of males by locking them into a place called Gaza..

No one would tolerate an inherently discriminatory, mono-ethnic "Gay State" in which gays achieve the majority by removing and separating straights from the population.

No one would tolerate an inherently discriminatory, mono-ethnic "White State" in which whites achieve majority status by the apartheid of blacks.

Well, Zionism achieved its goal of an inherently, discriminatory "Jewish State" by removing the Palestinians from theirs because they are not Jewish.

Israel is not a democracy. A democracy is not built on the inherently discriminatory premise that a mono-ethnic state is a desirable goal. A democracy is built on the premise of equality for all. Equality for all was not Theodore Herzl's goal.

No one would tolerate a "Gay State" in which gays achieve the majority

[AtheistUS]

08:51 PM on 04/03/2009

1. I thought most reasonable people suggest two state solution, rather than "isolate and dismantle".

2. Democracy is not a discrete binary variable. Most countries have some democratic features.

3. Too much "No one would tolerate..." Nothing to say about Palestinians and neighbor Arab states? Is the whole very long conflict is completely and only Israel's fault?

[chaos4700]

01:43 AM on 04/04/2009

Gee, from what I recall before 1948 there were no major issues with Jews, Muslims and Christians all having access to their holy sites, or with villages being purged of particular religious or ethnic groups, or with a constant state of warfare in that part of the world. What happened in 1948 again that started this whole mess?

[Justtellthetruth]

11:26 PM on 04/02/2009

Well, the KKK has final taken over in Israel, and they have the full support of Petraeus and just about every member of congress, even as they conspire to needlessly drag us into a war that might well cause the TRUE economic devastation of the US.

[Fein]

12:55 PM on 04/02/2009

So far as the ultimate outcome, as predicted by every strategic 'think tank' in the world - Israel's enemies should hope Israel does try to bomb Iran.

It would make Olmert's follies seem intelligent by comparison ;

1: It would fail to seriously impede Iran's nuclear development.
2: It would unite Iran, and deter it's moderate factions who are against nuclear weaponization.
3: It would derail all U.S./UN sanctions against Iran and garner them worldwide support.
4: It would unite the Sunni/Shia.

And there'd be a few PR problems for the Jewish state. Ardent supporters of Israel might loose a bit of their enthusiasm when they suddenly, couldn't afford gas for their SUVs. World Economies (and their populations) currently on the brink of collapse, would find ways to express their lack of appreciation when Israel's actions sent them over the deep end.

Unlike Gaza, where Israel is in 100% control of the media, the carnage from the attack would be a media circus.

Go for it, Bibi!

[skialethia]

12:54 PM on 04/02/2009

Netanyahu is supposed to visit in May. Demonstrations need to be organized so Israel gets the message loud and clear that Americans are not going to fund their wars or their settlement expansion.

[Goefel]

04:58 PM on 04/02/2009

YES!

[AtheistUS]

07:34 PM on 04/02/2009

Yes, we must press them to move to two state solution. I think Israel can continue to have close relations with US and be a good ally, but it must get moving to compromise with Palestinians and to two states.

[goldcoastsailor]

12:50 PM on 04/02/2009

Why does Israel get to interfere in our elections, isn't this against the law?

[sposton]

03:03 PM on 04/02/2009

It is not Israel but American pro-Israeli right wing organizations that "interfere" in our elections. That makes them no different than all other influence buying organizations. These organizations are so powerful that this power is reflected in public statements by Israeli leaders. Remember the previous Israeli PM who boasted about interrupting Bush's speech to tell him what to do? All inordinate power breeds arrogance and the Israel's power to influence our government is no different.

I think Israel and their American allies are making a big mistake because sooner of later there will be a backlash that cannot be explained by mere Antisemitism. I am personally offended by many of these excesses and so are many other Americans. Most are reluctant to say anything because nobody wants to be accused for being "antisemitic", the tool used by Israel lobby very successfully. Remember what happened to Jimmy Carter?

[Goefel]

05:01 PM on 04/02/2009

Once people realize what is happening, things will never be the same.

[AtheistUS]

07:31 PM on 04/02/2009

It does not. But our right wing organizations do. As ethnicity, American Jews vote more for democrats than for republicans, and most lean to left. But, as in many other cases, right wingers may be more powerful (or used to be). There is nothing special about that, we have many ethnicity or religious groups here, and each has its own voting pattern, and each lobbies for something.

[gbrooks]

08:28 AM on 04/12/2009

Actually, Israel does interfere with our governmental operations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/olmert-bush-humiliated-ri_n_157201.html

Olmert bragged that he forced Rice to change her vote on her own resolution in regards to Gaza.

[Michael Pugliese]

12:30 PM on 04/02/2009

'Israel unlikely to attack Iran this year'
By Shahar Ilan, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075915.html
Lefties predicted eleven of the last Israeli or US battle carrier attacks on the Natanz nuke facility in Iran during Dubya.

[goldcoastsailor]

12:30 PM on 04/02/2009

Obama is now getting orders from Netanyahu? Screw Israel and their stranglehold on our congress.

[sposton]

12:22 PM on 04/02/2009

And how is Israel going to do that? They must fly through Iraq airspace and who controls that? Any Israeli attack will be treated as Israeli - US attack.

[Macready]

11:52 AM on 04/02/2009

zionist israel will stop at nothing . . . it is time to pull the plug on israel big time . .in the US, in the UK, in the EU and in the UN sanctions and boycotts . . . I would ask AH back if I could to stop them

[JacksonJones]

12:29 PM on 04/02/2009

If by "stop at nothing" you mean "stop at nothing not to get nuked", then why is that even controversial? If it is not what you mean, then what do you mean?

[chaos4700]

01:48 AM on 04/04/2009

Remind me again, which if Israel's neighbors actually has nuclear weapons? And while you're at it, please tell us which Muslim-majority country would be willing to drop a nuke on the site of the third holiest place in Islam?

[Freenation]

11:50 AM on 04/02/2009

Just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7979666.stm

"Israel's new Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has been questioned by police for at least seven hours over corruption allegations..."

Seems like some people never change...Israeli authorities should be commended for rounding up thugs irrespective of their political status...

Hope this ex-bouncer resigns and we get some reasonable person....

[joeinvt]

02:19 PM on 04/02/2009

Thank God this is a country of laws.

[lovbug]

11:43 AM on 04/02/2009

that's why Patreaus has to go. He is a warmonger for the Bush policies. what is Obama waiting on? didn't he vote for change? He needs new military leaders with a fresh view and ideas in his Administration. He will have a hard time, in the next election, explaining why he kept all these Republicans in his military cabinet and not appoint Democrats.

[gifu]

11:39 AM on 04/02/2009

So what else is new?

[JacksonJones]

12:30 PM on 04/02/2009

What's new? There are a few Arab parties discussing making peace with Israel rather than destroying it. That's something new, and a very hopeful sign.

[chaos4700]

01:47 AM on 04/04/2009

Now if we can get Israel to stop tearing pieces out of the Arab states and go back to its internationally recognized borders, then we can actually achieve peace.

[Goefel]

11:38 AM on 04/02/2009

Barack Obama is going to need the support of US citizens to fight this thing.
The congress (house of Rep. shown below) is clearly in the pocket of AIPAC.
Senate did not vote, since it was going to be unanimous...

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=10&chamber=H&congress=1111