Israel's PM: Iran's nuclear plans threaten "all of Western civilization"

Israel: Iran Nukes Threaten Western Civilization
Sunday, April 23, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192742,00.html

JERUSALEM — Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday urged the international community to work against the Iranian nuclear program, saying Tehran's ambitions threaten not only Israel but all of Western civilization.

Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest threat, and these concerns have grown amid repeated calls by Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel's destruction.

"From the point of view of seriousness this tops the state of Israel's list, it is potentially an existential threat," a government statement quoted Olmert telling the weekly Cabinet meeting.

"The Iranian nuclear program should concern many countries, especially those with global responsibility," Olmert said, adding that the international front against Iran should include the United States, Europe and other Western countries.

and maybe the Iranian whacko won't feel the need to have them as a deterrent from you.

.
.
.

Can't say the same about the USA tho . .

The USA has effectively occupied most of the World

And has it's military on Iran's East(Iraq), it's West(Afghanistan), and it's South (destroyers and subs in the Gulf)

USA has THOUSANDS of nukes, and itching to use them

Iran, even if it DID manage to make a nuke or two, or even 100

is of no threat to North America -

Iran doesn't have the means to DELIVER them

However,

Russia and China do

And if an attack by the USA on Iran sends nuclear waste across Russia and China

The "Cold War" will be a fond memory

because the PNACers will have made one heck of a "hot" war

But I fear is that what them insane PNACers want . .

(sigh)

as does the nukes of the USA -- especially with a religious mad man with his finger on the trigger.

I don't trust Israel NOT to ever use their nuke toys -- just like "cowboy" bushie wants to keep all his toys on the table.

Yes, I agree, I don't trust Israel or America with nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean that I trust Iran with them, though.

Israel specifically refuses to either confirm or deny that it has or is building nukes, and has always done so.

Iran is at the top of his list of must-haves. Ahmadinejad is obviously off his meds, but he doesn't have as much power as is being attributed to him. Personally, I think it's damn presumptive of Israel to attempt to dictate the foreign policy of other nations. It doesn't really serve anyone. He should be busy with Israel's foreign policy instead.

Israel is the tail that wags the dog...the US?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Trying to dictate the foreign policy of other nations is what diplomacy *is*, isn't it?

Given that the foreign policy in question is "call for the annihilation of Israel", I don't think it's unreasonable for the Prime Minister of Israel to be unhappy about it.

I still have faith in you, man, but I'm not going to let you get away with lying. I thought Clinton was great but when he fucked up I called him on it, too. Ehud, you're the most important PM that Israel has ever had, don't give into the bullshit.

PB

the guy lives in Israel and believes in Israel. To have the Iranian leader constantly saying that his country and homeland will be annilihated and wiped off the face of the map ought to, and does, give him pause.

The fact that people here accuse Israel of being completely and utterly responsible for all the ills seen in this situation, and seem to suggest that they'd be perfectly comfortable with Iran with nuclear weapons headed by Ahmadinejad (who never would've been elected ANYWAY if the US hadn't gone into Iraq) is quite frightening to me.

Are you trying to dehumanize me with slurs (ex:I don't believe in Israel, I accuse Israel of being utterly responsible for all the ills seen in this situation, I'd be comfortable with Iranian nuclear weapons headed by Ahmadinejad), indirectly? Those points have nothing to do with the article or my commentary on Ehud's statement and further, are groundless accusations, if so.

If you weren't accusing me of those things, try addressing the people who you do accuse of those things- don't state it in a reply to me. Otherwise it is something of a non-sequitur, isn't it?

Beyond those possible accusations I am unable to find anything in your message which actually addresses the issue from the posted article. Chiefly, this premise which Ehud puts forth: That "Tehran's ambitions threaten not only Israel but all of Western civilization." Which is still, at least, factually unsound. That seems like a nice way of putting it. A more blunt way of putting it, especially because Iran is now on Israel's-own "Axis of Evil" list, is that it sounds like the same sort of rhetoric that Ahmadinejad, himself, and Kim Jong-Il tend to use. From what I have heard of Mr. Olmert this type of behavior is intellectually and politically beneath him.

If you'd like to address the premise of Ehud's statement, I'd be happy to respond. After that introduction to your style of discourse don't expect it to be a timely one, however.

PB

I think if you read the tone of my article you'll find I'm making a general point; I think you'd have to reach pretty far to find an accusation levelled directly at you.

As for the article itself, consider these things:

a) the source - Fox News (although I do note that it appears to be a reprinted Associated Press article, however my eyebrow was already raised.)

b) there's not a single identifying quote in the article that actually says what the title of the article purports. You can't find anywhere in the article where Olmert says "Iran nukes threaten western civilisations." The comments in the article seem to suggest he said this but there is not a direct quote with which I can form an opinion one way or another.

c) What he IS quoted as saying is this: "From the point of view of seriousness this tops the state of Israel's list, it is potentially an existential threat."

I think I agree with that, and you might, too. Certainly an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a serious concern to Israel. On an objective level, a country you hate that hates you but doesn't have nuclear weapons will always be preferable to a country you hate that hates you and *does* have nuclear weapons.

He mentions Western countries in this quote: "The Iranian nuclear program should concern many countries, especially those with global responsibility."

I also agree with that. I think nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Ahmadinejad is a grave concern, given some of the things he has said. I feel concerned also when I hear Bush refuse to dismiss the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, also. Not the same concern, but a concern nonetheless. Also I think Olmert's reference to the word "potential" is worth noting.

I hope you'll see that I wasn't trying to antagonise you or accuse you of anything. I do feel genuinely confused and concerned by some people at DU who seem to see things in such stark black-and-white terms when it comes to Israel, the US, and Iran, but I certainly never meant to imply that you fit this mould. Your original post would certainly make it hard for me to perceive this in you, as you wrote that you call it as you see it and will take any leader to task when you feel they are lying.

Regards,
Josh

I think his claim is possibly slightly misleading, but basically accurate.

I don't think that Iran having nuclear weapons could possibly lead to the destruction of all of Western civilisation, but I don't think that there's any single part of Western civilisation that wouldn't be at risk of them e.g. supplying a nuclear weapon to independent agents so that they would then have plausible deniability when it went of in London or Rome or where have you, so in that sense "all of Western civilisation is at risk" is accurate.

The risk to e.g. Aberdeen, Wellington or Alaska is probably fairly slim, though...

On the other hand "there are places where they would be very unlikely to let it off" is not, I think sufficient justification for not worrying about Iran aquiring nuclear weapons. I'm not convinced it justifies military action - I think the cure would be even worse than the malady - but I think pretty much anything short of that - sabotage, economic or diplomatic sanctions, etc - would be justified.

didn't want to work with the moderate government that was in place when he took office. Instead BushCo has done everything they can to radicalize the Iranians.

threatens western civilization. Bad for Israel. Bad for everybody else.

The benefits of western civilization should obvious--and not have to be enforced by nuclear weapons, or any kind of violence. Why aren't they?

Look to the war profiteers, global corporate predators, greed goons, capitalist parasites, fascist torturers, slaughterers of tens of thousands of innocent people, and rightwing religionists for the answer. Western civilization has a distinct stench these days, emanating from the collusion of the rightwing factions of these two pariah countries: the U.S. and Israel. Israel would do well to rid itself of this stench--it would be a lot safer if it did. And we must do the same here. If we don't, "western civilization"--in so far as we represent it--will be dead. Democracy cannot survive in a medieval fortress, armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction.

But these are no-brainer insights. Anybody in their right mind knows this. What we are being subjected to here is a propaganda campaign to create a plausible narrative that seems to justify the next step in the "Project for a New American Century": getting Iran's oil. Iraq was just a stepping stone to this. "Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest threat." Odd, how Israel's rightwing campaigned relentlessly for a Bush junta invasion of Iraq instead. Odd, too, how the U.S. and Israel colluded back in 1953 to destroy Iranian democracy and inflict the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and terror under the horrible Shah of Iran.

This whole thing is so hypocritical it is beyond belief. Olmert is just serving the newsbite strategy of "building momentum" for PNAC, Part 2. It's transparent. And it is lethal to "western civilization."

everytime someone mentions Iran and Nukes in the same sentence oil goes up another buck a barrel.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Chief of State and Supreme religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamanei who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity. In fact the IAEA could find no evidence that the Iranians are even working on it.

_____________________________

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state. (Note: Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites. Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html
This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran – link:
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm )


snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."
snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms."
_____________________

Former Sen. Sam Nunn suspects that the Bush Administration's real goal is regime change.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/18/ywt.01.html

snip : "NUNN: But the administration is torn between conversation about regime change in Iran and diplomacy. And that means that the allies and the people you need to help you don't get a clear message about where we are on Iran. If we're really for regime change and if that's being actively pursued, then it's very hard to sit down with someone and talk with them if you're actually trying to kick them out of office."

Scott Ritter goes a bit farther:

Scott Ritter's interview at at San Diego CityBeat:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281

snip:"The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change."
____________________________

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad and Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.
He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.



http://www.dontattackiran.org