'Strike on Iran means end of Obama, 20-year war'
A report in Asharq Al-Awsat quotes a 'senior US source' as saying that a strike on Iran means the end of President Obama's presidency and a 20-year war on Islam. “An American war on Iran would mean entering a twenty-year battle with the Islamic world starting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran,” according to the major pan-Arabic newspaper’s reporter Huda Al Husseini.There's only one thing that's worse than an 'unstable' regime with nuclear weapons, and that's a stable one that is determined to pursue nuclear weapons and use them against its neighbors. A 20-year long war is a horrible prospect. A nuclear Iran is a worse one.
“I understood from my source that Obama cannot launch a war against Iran until conditions stabilize,” Husseini wrote. “He cannot embark on a war without negotiating the issue.” Such a war would be “difficult and costly,” she noted, claiming that senior officers in the U.S. army oppose it, asking – “how can we not live with a nuclear Iran if we can live with a nuclear Pakistan, which is less stable than Iran?”
CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel two weeks ago and asked to see documents in Israel’s possession that confirm that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon, according to the report. Panetta requested that the Israelis “do not rush into anything.” This was reportedly followed by a similar request from Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:32 PM
3 Comments:
Bull. No one in the Islamic world with the exception of Hizbullah and Hamas will shed a tear -- never mind blood -- if Israel takes out the Iranian nuclear program.
The only questions to be answered are:
1) Is the Arrow up to the task of defending Israeli cities from counterattack?
2) Will Israel use an electromagnetic pulse wave against Iran making the answer to number 1 moot?
Finance, the em pulse wave. Hmmm. First time I've read about this on any blog. I've thought the same thought. Indeed. There are new options, in my STRONG humble opinion, that have opened up to the Israelis in the aftermath of the elections. There are numerous stealth attacks that can take down their efforts(both before, during, and after Israel hits Natanz. Second, the regime in Iran itself is split. There is a faction that wants to obviously press forward, developing the "gadget" but the election aftermath also creates unique chances for innovative destruction from within Iran. True Iranian patriots would like nothing more than to see the regime's nuclear effort fail. 2 answers the question-the arrow could indeed be moot. Weird, I thought the same thing yesterday about the arrow and how critical it may 'not' be here. I'm sure Israel is working through all these possibilities and the 'home grown' option within Iran as well. Power struggles such as the one occurring behind the scenes in Qom lead to unique opportunities, chances, coupled with 'new friends.' Paradoxically, the danger to Israel also increases since the regime itself now wants some victory now more than ever, to deflect the disgust of the population. What better way for this deflection to announce an atom bomb test under the sands of Iran. Israel, of course, knows this too.
FinanceDoc. the answer to both questions you raised have to be in the affirmative. Otherwise, the Jewish State is just living on borrowed time.
What could go wrong indeed
Post a Comment
<< Home