I guess YES (in the eyes of West & our Lunatic Left)...

6 million Jews? Maybe and yes. Strike will be great for world economies as they step up transition into renewable energy and away from dependance on oil. Strike will be essential for six million jews to obviate a second holocaust. It we give creed to never again, we will have to do it for ourselves and not rely on a world who could have nipped the last holocaust in its infancy but did not. The world looked with macabre interest as we were being wiped out, and did not give survivors much of a chance either. The world learned nothing , Ruamda, Darfur, Tamils, and plenty of other mini hoilocausts since. Strike, and wipe out the enemies of Israel, and the G-r of Israel will be with us.

haha, world economy. I know that Iran's economy not going to be hurting that's for sure since western country aint got the ballz to sanction Iran.

Your next step should be to severely ratchet up the sanctions, if you want to try and avoid certain scenarios.

Ehud Barak is a US Administration stooge, with a brown nose, selling us down the river...

Strike Iran now !

I think we should move Leon Panetta's family and grandchildren to Tel Aviv for the duration of his tenure as secretary of defense. The unintended consequences of having tel aviv vaporized are what, Leon?

Yes! Yes!!! That's it!!! Sanctions!!! Russian and China will not allow it, and Iran says the so called sanctions will NOT stop them in their nuclear ambitions (and the bomb) so yes, that's it!!! If this doesn't show us how asleep the world is, nothing else will. And asleep it will stay and Israel unfortunately is going to sleep with it by doing a lot of talking and no action. In other words, Russia's former presidents words were and are true spoken a couple years back - "Israel is the present power in the middle east - at least for now!!!" Remember?

The problem is, that almost no government tells it's real agenda openly. Maybe Bhutan does. And the others? All we have learned in the past two and a half years is, that we cannot trust Obama. The U.S. is more and more becoming independent from Arab Oil, at first. Second, it's not true, that a strike would hold up Iran for only two years. It depends, how massive you strike and how carefully you destroy it's nuclear facilities. Third, if you not only black out it's infrastructure but really cause substantial structural damage to it. Third, the U.S. administration seems to forget to weighting the values. What is more preferable? A damage to the economy or an Iran with nuclear weapons, which is continuing its way to become a hegemonic power in the gulf and the middle east? At the end, there is a forth aspect the U.S. administration knows only too good: If it keeps restraint from striking, it may force Israel to do the dirty job. This will improve the U.S.' standing in the Middle East and leave Israel as the scapegoat. It would further pave the way for Obama's possible agenda to drop Israel for the sake of better ties to the rest of the ME. And there are probably plenty more!

Namely, that a strike on Iran's nukes and the removal or reduction of its nuclear threat will contribute to an improved economy. No amount of doomsday scenarios will deter Israel from defending itself against a declaration of war and annihilation by Iran.

the EU is bankrupt, the Euro will go, US will be in trouble as a result so things could hardly be worse. Strike Iran and make it good

Panetta's words reek of the fact that Obama has turned his back on Israel. This is absurd, since Israel is the only US ally in the Middle East that is stable. I can only imagine what goes now on in Netanyahu's head: the US signals to Israel that Israel has to turn over and play dead, until Iran decides to nuke Israel. Obama has to go. He is the direct cause of the fact the peace process in the MIddle East is dead.

*********DESTROY******** the world economy...Mr. "expert" of empty words !!!!!!! GOT IT ??????????????????????

because the world will no longer be able to deal covertly with Iran. The cry-baby is telling the truth. But Israel must strike hard and decisively fast. Countdown to T minus zero. T stands for Teheran...not Chai!

Which is longer, the half life of Uranium-235 or the duration of a plateau in the business cycle?

to the Russians and Chinese. Once you have obtained a concrete public commitment to sanctions which can make the Iranian economy disfunctional within the space of a few months and see proof of them working, then tell Barak and the Israelis. Until then, you have no credibility.

... Here's a news flash: Israel's existential interests outweigh the state of the world economy -- for which crisis Israel is not responsible to begin with. You might want to start looking at the institutional investors and banks which caused the credit crisis to begin with. Leave Israel out of it. We're just trying to survive. We had nothing to do with the robber barons on Wall Street who trashed the universal economy for the sake of personal gain.

Always knew you were smart!

Oh, the American people have cottoned on to Obama's private agenda. It didn't take long. For nearly 200 years, the very first meeting that a new American president has with a foreign head of state has been with the prime minister of Canada. (Friendly neighbor to the north, and all.) Following which, the new president has always met with the heads of state of the U.K., France, Germany and -- yes -- Israel, the United States' only dependable ally in the Middle East. Obama's first meeting with a foreign head of state was with Mubarak (whom he subsequently threw under a bus). The second meeting was with the king of Saudi Arabia, where he knelt and kissed his ring. Obama's first foreign policy speech was a "reach out and touch" enormous embarrassment directed to Iran. Yes. Obama has to go. The American people know this.

and what about the safety of israel? let alone the whole middle east if the have nuclear

and then spending it like drunken sailors is FANTASTIC for the economy.

But can anyone please make sense of Russian and Chinese vacillating and dithering over Iran? Is it simple old fashioned grandstanding or simply that they just dont see further than the end of their noses - or both? Iranian actions even NOW have destabilised the whole of the Middle East. And what would happen when Monkey Boy Ahmadinejad got his hands on nuclear weapons what would happen to their economies then? And have they factored in the dangers of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists in their midst? Do the two 'goody goody twoshoes' honestly believe that this is the Wests problem and not a global one? Both the Russian and Chinese business communities see the dangers of a velvet glove approach now with Ahmadinejad...so why on earth doesnt the leadership? And the REAL irony? In the event of war in the region analysts show it will be the export led economies of Russia and China who will have the most to lose economically and socially And if that were to come about the leadership would have much answering to do to their publics and only have themselves to blame. And perhaps rue that IF ONLY they adopted a firm approach and global leadership with Iran in time on this issue they could gained immense respect and credibility by helping the world stabilise the region and avoid a catastrophic war

it is clear for me, that he will probably not be casted, for the sequel "Rambo" 39...LOLLL

That the statement made by the Defence official of USA means that they all of a sudden found out the unpredicted loss that the world would have to bear by making any adventurous moves against Iran???? Whom are we trying to fool? Yes, it is going to be unknown consequence for the entire region.It is only in the talk-back coloumn that few manage to make it look otherwise.

Why would it be worth destroying the world's economy for the sake of one of the most unpopular countries in the world?

This has been brewing for over two years and Obama has yet to organize anything more than symbolic diplomatic sanctions. Time is running out and every day the UN Sec Council fails to decide on effective sanctions brings the likelihood of a military strike closer. Yes it will be bad for the world economy, but a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel will bring about much much worse consequences. And not just for Israel.

Regardless of Iran.

The world doesn't like the idea of a nuclear Iran but if it comes to a military operation and Iran getting nukes then they would rather Iran got nukes. Its an understandable attitude but one day it will come back to haunt them. Iran already has missiles that can hit large parts of Europe but give them another 2-3 years and their missiles will not only be able to hit every inch of Europe but mainland America as well. So they got the delivery system and they will have the weapons by then for sure so the US and European powers will find they now have Iranian nukes pointed in their direction. In the Middle East Saudi Arabia will buy a load of nukes from Pakistan, Egypt possibly and Turkey probably will all develop their own nuclear programs and so the Middle East will become the region with the largest concentration of nuclear weapons in the world and some Islamic radical is one day going to press that red button. Before WW2 Churchill tries to warn Parliament over and over Germany was illegally building up its armed forces and England should do the same but because nobody wanted to spend more on the military or another war after WW1 they tried to dismiss him as a mad scare mongerer. Today the world is trying to dismiss Israel as the one who is scare mongering because they don't want a war but one day they will sit up and say to themselves how could we let this happen?