Opinion  Ron Ben-Yishai
The military option
Ron Ben-Yishai
Published: 28.08.09, 15:00
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
20 Talkbacks for this article
1. Oh, just hit the damn Iran finally...
Pipboy ,   USA   (08.28.09)
They nuke you back, you nuke them back (yeah, I know, you don't have 200 nukes, O.K.), then we hit them, then they hit us, then atomic cloud goes up, whole world is radioactively dead and we all play "Fallout 3". Just skip to the nuking part finally... This waiting is bitchy.
2. IRANS ANSWER ???.
Arn. ,   Sweden.   (08.28.09)
They will play falsely as long as they can, and when their cards are called for to be shown, the response will be a Syrian surprise atack on Israel. Arn.
3. military option on Iran
j mclinlay ,   Israel   (08.28.09)
If G.W Bush was still in power we would have nuked the Iranians a long time ago.As it stands at the moment you guys over the water have to put up with a left wing democrat that will probarbly not do A thing untile its to late. I for one dont want to have to pray five times a day, but it looks like we are all going to have to get used to it . Come back G.W. All is forgivin.
4. #3
Peter ,   Austria   (08.28.09)
G.W. was in power for 8 years yet he didn't use any military option against iran. Even in times where the iranians were arming and supporting iraqi insurgents he did not use any military option against iran. SNAP OUT OF IT.
5. Obama will do nothing...You are kidding yourself
Steven Wilson ,   Anchorage, Alaska   (08.28.09)
if you think he is going into a war against Iran. The entire Democratic Party bitched and moaned about the war in Iraq for six years. They will never start a war in Iran to get rid of anything. If you wanted the problem solved....your only chance was with Bush. I don't believe McCain would have done a thing either. You can keep hoping though. Obama is a pascifist.....he will do nothing. Especially if he wants to get a second term in office. The Democratic Party has systematically destroyed any chance that the military will be used in any confrontations for the next 15 years. They will be pulling the troops out of Afghanistan next.
6.  Nonsuch
Mark ,   US   (08.28.09)
This 'analysis' if correct is absurd. 1. "These sources already see today growing understanding within the Obama administration that the military option must be on the table the moment sanctions are imposed." Excuse me, there are sanctions existing for many months -even years already. 2: China buys Iran oil which it needs for its booming economy. Russia, with its weak economy, sells billions to Iran. China & Iran will not vote to increase sanctions. #:3 Please do not say US will make military option plans re Iran- US does so continuously. # 4: Why will UN IAEA suddenly report Iran seeks nukes development, it has not yet -despite evidence. #5:Syria as"1/2 channel" in this 3.5 interlocking "plan" is a LAFF. Asad just went to Iran and committed Syria more to Iran, despite US asking he not.#6: Obama's 'holistic' conception is NOT accepted by Israel- that Israel-Pa is cause of problems with Iran. Bibi & Peres publicly repudiated Obama, on that "linkage".#7: Mubarak does not agree such "linkage" either nor Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,Gulf States. #8: Yemen today fights Iran rebels - It has nothing to do with Israel and Yemen gov't told Obama that also. #9 : Mubarak, Arabia, Kuwait told Obama Iran is their #1 concern and worry- NOT israel. Is Lebanon more worried about Israel or Syria & Hezbollah control of Lebanon ?? Each channel will fail and with it Obama on is face. #10: BTW: Sec Ban of UN 'hopes' Pals unite for Israel-PA talks . if that does not happen as most probable, then what Pal can promise anything as an unity? And what would any such agreement be worth? #11:Today per BBC news pres Amadnejad of Iran demands former Iran pres Rafsnjhhi and Katami AND other top political and religious opposition leaders be arrested and tried as criminals. Obama expects to have reasonable talks with such a mad despot ?? Obama's "holistic" approach is neither whole nor sound theory or practice. It is a black hole. Obama best re-revaluate and FAST. iran taunts him, Syria continues with Iran, Egypt, S Arabia reject his peace gestures requests.For months obama screaming Israel "settlements main obstacleto peace. Yesterday his Administration publicly says freeze not so important an issue.His 'make nice' words blow up in his face. Besides he has huge domestic opposition building here due to his poor leadership -even his hi-tech base mass is opposing his health Plan "reform" as sell out to Big Pharamacy industry as Democratic leaders Dean, Pelosi, H Waxman, Ed Koch, Maxine Waters rebuke him publicly in US re his health "reform" Bibi is playing it very well and keeping his cool. He knows the PA-Hamas will shoot Obama in the foot as Obama shoots himself in his mouth
7. Obama's "options"re Iran's Nukes
RayS ,   USA   (08.28.09)
It is generally believed here in the USA that Obama will NEVER use the military option. He will NEVER use US Navy to block Iran ports in an embargo. Therefore any "negotiations" he may undertake with Iran will have ZERO credibility.
8. #1, Pipboy,
Robert Haymond ,   Ashdod, Israel   (08.28.09)
makes light of a serious problem as, it appears, to beyond his ken that some regimes cannot be dealt with other than by force, i.e., Germany under Hitler. His "made-in-political-correctness" comment is typical of the kind of hyper-liberal thinking so prevalent in the West where belief centres around two principles (at least): 1) All people essentially want the same thing in life including, but not limited to, basic living standards, safety for themselves and security for children, freedom of expression and outlets to thrive and achieve. The sticking point here is that cultures and socio-psychological arenas may be so different as to blind us (westerners) as to their real nature. A case in point is the admiration for suicide bombers so prevalent in the Arab Moslem world and the respect accorded to Shaheeds (martyrs). We recall the Japanese kaminkazee pilots and, in general, the preference of the Japanese soldiers to die rather than facing the "shame" of losing in battle. Throughout history, differences in cultures and the mentality of its people have been enormous and these varying features of human interaction and ethical principles blinds most of us, including those in the liberal minded West, to understand people who have been educated in very different climates. 2) All conflicts can be resolved through talk, communication and diplomacy. This principle, of course, is as blatantly untrue today as it was when Hitler was rampaging through eastern Europe before the outbreak of the WW II or when Stalin was demanding his cut after the war when the main powers were dividing their spheres of influence. Not all problems can be resolved non-violently. Liberal minded people, as we know it, however, cannot fathom this condition. As a result, they keep on making the same mistake. As long as liberals in the USA and in Europe continue on this road, Iran will achieve its goal of possessing nuclear weapons. Whether or not the administrators of government in the USA will realize in time that their liberal mentality puts us all at risk or not is a further question which I cannot answer. But I believe that Israel must be prepared to go it alone. Our difficulties lie in part on the fact that we are too dependent on the USA, that we seek the favourable attention of the international community, that we Jews, especially in the diaspora, often do not believe in ourselves nor in our right to govern in Eretz Yisrael and that internally we continue to follow the Zionist principle as laid down by Ben Gurion and brought to us by the Ashkenazim in terms of establishing a hyper-European democracy which does not fit the situation nor inclination of the inhabitants of the Mideast. As a result, we allow a huge number of socalled liberals to disparage our land both sapping our confidence within ourselves and sabotaging us as we battle to survive. The day must come when Israel must put this Ben Gurion principle aside.
9. Obama will do nothing.
Steven Wilson ,   Anchorage, Alaska   (08.28.09)
He is a pascifist. He won't go to war with anyone if he doesn't have too. Keep dreaming. Everyone who voted for him, voted against war. Now suddenly they are going to change their minds?
10. The mess that Bush left for Obama
Jon ,   NYC   (08.28.09)
An unnecessary war in Iraq that ties up our military, costs a trillion, with 4600 dead and thousands more wounded. For nothing. Meanwhile Iran, N. Korea worked on nuclear weapons. Those are the facts. Republicans have screwed the U.S. both in foreign policy and domestic.
11. #10 After serving 4 terms in Iraq.I can honestly say you
don't know what your ,   talking about.Army   (08.29.09)
12. Bomb iran
maximus ,   rome   (08.29.09)
Th eonly answer is to bomb the mullah's regime nuclear program down ! there are no substitute to that type of action, be it the work of the US, or the work of israel, the monkey preesident of iran and his bearde dcrooks should be told forcefully that theya re not going to dictate anything to the west period.
13. Is Israel a strategic liability rather than a strategic ...
Ron B. ,   Lod   (08.29.09)
Is Israel a strategic liability rather than a strategic asset for the US? An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear installations will prevent a regional nuclear arms race by freeing Arab states of the need to develop their own nuclear arsenals and so prove that a strong Israel enhances regional stability. Israel's willingness and capacity to effectively strike Iran's nuclear installations will be the ultimate proof that Arabists are wrong to castigate Israel as a strategic burden. As to the relations between the USA and Iran : http://xrl.us/be48qr
14. THE OUTCOME OF SEPTEMBER
MAHMOOD ,   LONDON-UK   (08.29.09)
Deliberations should not be overemphasised.Iranians are already preparing their response as well.The article makes it look as though the Americans and their allies will determine a course of action as if Iran will only remain passive and at receiving end.The reality is contrary to that.If Iran senses too much of pressure unjustifiably,their role in Iraq and Afghanistan will witness tremendous obstacles for USA.
15. Israel Should NOT Attack Iran.
Maansingh ,   The Netherlands   (08.29.09)
I think Israel should NOT attack Iran. The one who will attack first will become the big loser. Just like what happened with Hitler. He was the one who attacked Poland in 1939, other countries in the following years. And then ultimately the USA, Soviet Union, British Empire and their Allies teamed up to clip the wings of the aggressor (i.e. Hitler). CONCLUSION : The one who will attack first will ALWAYS be the loser.
16. THE EUROPEANS TOLD ISRAEL NOT TO ATTACK IN 1967
Jorge ,   Tegucigalpa   (08.30.09)
When every Arab army was poised to destroy Israel, the six day war is now part of history, Europe and the U.S. told Israel not to attack OSSIRAK atomic plant in Irak, later on they were very happy Israel did, remember Entebe, or the Syrian Nuclear reactor a year ago. What would had happened if Israel didnt do what it had to do.
17. To Jorge: Tel Aviv Will Be Toast
Dav Lev ,   Burbank. CAUSA   (08.31.09)
To Jorge: I just read The 67 War. Everything was contentious then (in Israel), but the decision was finally made to attack. Jordan's Hussein was asked NOT to enter the war, he did. The Arabs claim the US/Britain flew those planes. They also say their confusion allowed an Israeli victory. Yeah, and they also say Jesus was an Arab. The same scenario is now upon US and Israel, this time with nukes. 35m Iranians portested Ahmad..and Obama did NOTHING. He lost Iran..but in losing, Tel Aviv will be wiped "off the face of the Earth". Shihabs already are aimed at Israel. 7,000 centrifuges are spinning-up to 50,000. Syria has 1,000 Scuds..with WMD type warheads. Hez has 40,000 rockets..Hamas thousands more. It's not about if, it's about when Iran's plants will be leveled. If not, Tel Aviv will be smokin.
18. the idea that Isreal should or even could
Daran ,   UK   (08.31.09)
Act alone to destroy Iranian nuclear sites is dangerous. The effort required to mount other than symbolic strike, would mean the IAF risking tactical advantage. The entire refueling fleet and more than half of the operational strike aircraft. All this to achieve what? the reactor at busher is that a legitimate target ? I'm sure many would feel that that the propotionality of attacking a civilian reactor even in a state of war is deeply questionable. To do so in pre-emptive strike would have a disasterous effect on the standing of Israel in community of nations. Iran has a right to nuclear power under the NPT. That's a fact. Harsh sanctions which would deeply effect the regimme and populace of Iran will have much greater chance of sucess of being brought about if the Iranians reject/delay dialogue. Force is years away unless some specific danger arises in Iran then its more likely to be dealt with by US/UK tomahawks than it is by Israeli jericho's. I support Israel as a jewish state.
19. #15 Maansingh: why advise Israel ?
moshe ,   Tivon, Israel   (08.31.09)
#15 Maansingh Your "reasoning" as to who attacked first is incorrect. - Iran has already attacked via its proxy , Hizballah, in Lebanon... who fired thousands of Iranian supplied UNguided rockets at Israeli CIVILIANS. -That some of the Iran weaponry sent by sea to Gaza was intercepted destroyed before it Hamas could make use of it. IF your "CONCLUSION" is correct and IF the Iranian action listed above is also correct, then Iran who attacked first will lose ! Now, your motives are NOT clear ... It seems strange to compare Israel to Hitler and Nazi Germany...which after all , included DUTCH VOLUNTEERS to the NAZI SS troops. see: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II?p=1 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland ========================= http://www.infography.com/content/616418397341.html moshe
20. To Moshe #19. Shiite Iran vs. Sunni Saudi Arabia.
Maansingh ,   The Netherlands   (09.05.09)
You say :” then Iran who attacked first will lose !” I would like to bring to your attention that Iran is already losing on the Israel-front. There is a BIG struggle going on between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. To turn the attention (of the rest of the world) away from this struggle -- the Iranian proxies Hezbollah, Hamas et al have been asked to continue attacking Israel as many times as possible. You say :” DUTCH VOLUNTEERS to the NAZI SS troops” In 1935 8 percent of the Dutch population were NSB (i.e. Dutch Nazi party) members and sympathisers. By 1939 it dwindled down to 4 percent. The Dutch government imprisoned about 10.000 NSB (i.e. Dutch Nazis party) members by May 1940. In May 1940 Hitler’s Germany conquered the Netherlands, released the NSB members from prison, who became its rulers on behalf of Hitler. The majority of the Dutch citizens hated the NSB. As the result of anti-Jewish actions of the NSB there was a strike in 1941 throughout the Netherlands, now famous as the February Strike. In September 1940 the Dutch SS was created. From May 1943 onwards the Dutch SS became the factual rulers of the Netherlands -- they unleashed unprecedented terror against the civilians of the Netherlands. Thousands of NSB members joined the German Waffen-SS to fight at the East-Front.
Back to article