News  Mideast News
NYT: Israeli attack on Iran would aggravate situation
Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 04.02.12, 20:29
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
61 Talkbacks for this article
1. Well, somebody has to save civilization
Sarah B ,   U.S.A. / Israel   (02.04.12)
Predictably enough, it falls to Israel. One certainly cannot depend on the inept American administration, and we all know about the Europeans. Don't worry, folks. Israel will save your collective asses, and -- in so doing -- fix your desperate economies. And then .... we will own you. Get used to the idea. We really are getting rather tired of fixing your messes.
2. Taking a bath.....
Gideon Reader   (02.04.12)
...in the very faint glow of it's own shallow intellectual product, the soon to be defunct, once upon a time, alleged newspaper of record the new York Times, has decided what is best for Israel and the rest of the world viv va vis iran and it's nuke program. The NYT asserts that militarily quashing the ability of Iran to produce a working weaponized radiological device would "aggrevate the situation". So please are those losers of $49 million of the stockho;der's cash, they are re-instituting the Walter Duranty Award for Political Accumen and Faithfulness to Truth.
3. we also hoped..... once!
Yael Schlichting ,   Raubling - Germany   (02.04.12)
For quite a while we hoped, that the Obama administration would learn, that it cannot appease Muslims. Obama is still trying, but should Israel risk its very existence for the sake of Obama's ideological experiments? We all know about NYTs tendency. So why worrying about an op-ed in this newspaper?
4. Iran nuke program
Tom Reis ,   Ames, Iowa   (02.04.12)
Iran has continually shown a lack of honesty and respect for following U.N. Resolutions and directives. They chose their own destiny....OR maybe we should continually hope they eventually comply and then be totally surprised when they nuke Israel or the USA...get your head on straight and wake up to reality.
5. Nonsense of War
Ali ,   Washington, DC   (02.04.12)
Attacking Israel would be suicide for Iran because Israel already has nukes and everyone knows it. Launching a strike against Iran would start an unnecessary traditional war that would bring death and destruction to god knows how many innocent civilians across the middle east.
6. Not Again
erebus ,   usa   (02.04.12)
The United States was pushed into attacking Iraq by the very people that now want Iran bombed. If the zionist want to expand their war for land let them do it by themselves and the chips will fall where they may. Time for America to tell the Likuds, the AIPACS and the Adelsons enough is enough. Time for the American voters to demand thier politicians put America first and not some little pissant of a sand dune. Those people are not worth it.
7. well, israel - if the nyt is against it ...
dan kaplan ,   usa   (02.04.12)
'nuff said.
8. Nuuu, shoyn, if N.Y.T. says so, then we must do the opposite
tom ,   tel aviv   (02.04.12)
9. Sofa socialists
zivron   (02.04.12)
The new york times people are real sofa socialists they espouse social justice and live on largesse.The Bolshevics hate a nd one communist Nikolai Bukharin was executed as a secret agent of the international borgoise by stalin in 1936 Bukharin was against mass starvation of the peasants .I dont know the history of the new york times editorials on this trial but they sure covered up the mass famine in russia particularly ukraine.
10. The N.Y.TIMES
J.K. ,   Brooklyn USA   (02.04.12)
It's the same Times that admired Lenin's communism,found the extermination of European Jews by Germany,unfit to print,believed that Fidel Castro,is the Cuban Messiah,the times was wrong in the past,and is wrong now.
11. Attack
Osiris ,   Tel Aviv, Israel   (02.04.12)
Israel is treading on thin ice. Should they strike the Earth to show their might? We all have actions to be responsible for.
12. NEWSPEAK
Popsiq ,   Sofia Boolgarische   (02.04.12)
So?
13. Israeli attack on Iran
Harold ,   USA   (02.04.12)
Let Israel attack and see whatl happens next. The United States must not interfere at all. It is Israel's homework and let them do it alone.
14. NYT opts for the Chamberlain solution
Johnny ,   Stockholm Sweden   (02.04.12)
15. the US will do the job after the election
zionist forever   (02.04.12)
Give Obama till December to get the election out the way and then the US will do it because Israel can't do it. Iran's nuclear sites are underground & spread around the country and they have good air defenses. The Jericho missile is certainly an option ( the only option because of Israel's limited capabilities ) but Israel only has a limited number of them and the most important thing as far as Israel is concerned it getting the green light from the US which Obama won't give in an election year. As the US will get dragged into any attack by Israel anyway then I imagine Obama would prefer it if the US did the job after the election. The US has hundreds of fighter jets in the Gullf, stealth jets, heavy bombers, Tomahawk missiles. An American strike means they can not only destroy the entire Iranian nuclear program but also attack their missile sites, sink their ships and destroy their air forces to limit Iran's capability to retaliate. A nuclear Iran is about much more than Israel, it will drive up oil prices, Saudi Arabia will buy nukes from Pakistan and Turkey may develop their own nuclear weapons program. Nobody wants an unstable Middle East becoming the most concentrated nuclear zone in the world so the US has to do this because its something that needs to be done and it needs to be done properly. So I have a feeling that an attack on Iran will be a christmas present to the world present from Obama Claus.
16. 1967 Redux
Noodles ,   Coney Island   (02.04.12)
And look how good that turned out.
17. These highly intellectual columnists still haven't
(02.04.12)
learned a damn thing from 9/11. Israelis can't afford to take such chances with their existence, but over the past few decades, their assessment and their actions are far more realistic than NYT editorials.
18. #15. Come again! Obama will act AFTER he wins the elections?
Harry Wright ,   UK   (02.04.12)
Are you serious? All he will be interested in will be enjoying his perks and living the good life until the end of his term. In case you don't know, he is worse than Carter. He will simply try to look busy doing nothing. His foreign policy is zero and the only thing he excels in is throttling Israel. To get any action out of him, he has to be dragged screaming and kicking.
19. #15. You make horrid assumption Obama will be reelected.
Chaim ,   Israel   (02.04.12)
#15. Why do you make the horrid assumption Obama will be reelected? There is even more reason for Obama to be landslided in the presidential election later this year than there was in the midterms. Moreover, Israel is more than capable of destroying Iran's nukes. Also, it would be lunatic to rely on Obama to do so, as he is not so secretly on Iran's side.
20. last one with any creditability is nyt!
ralph   (02.04.12)
21. The NYT is IRRELEVANT !
Chris Rettenmoser ,   Bayerisch Gmain Germ   (02.04.12)
These MORONS will for ever support the enemies of Israel...!
22. "Wild Card" or "Loose Cannon"?
Arik Silverman ,   Chicago USA   (02.04.12)
A wild card is something you hold and control in your hand and play to improve your chances of winning. A loose cannon is one that rolls around the deck out of control and unpredictably and endangers the ship. Which metaphor fits best?
23. Atomic Weapons
Arik Silverman ,   Chicago USA   (02.04.12)
If Israel is genuinely so concerned, forget about "Bunker Buster" bombs that won't even reach the deepest installations. It will use atomic weapons. Just remember that Henry Kissinger was ready to use atomic bombs in 1973 and had the planes already flying in the air with them until the Soviet Union dropped its plan to send troops to Egypt.
24. Thanks
James Idlib ,   Cinicinnati, OH   (02.04.12)
No problem....don't ask the US to cover your behind once you're attacked. Don't lobby for our Veto when you need it as usual, and more importantly, and since you think our economy is messed, don't take the billions of our tax money. Let's see then what would happen to you. Good luck Israel!!
25. Analysis difference: US did not know of Syria
Anne ,   US   (02.04.12)
nuke plant despite Israeli proof. As for united diplomacy, did NYT notice the UNSC inaction today regarding Syria. Obama does not take action in fear of the election and will only talk against and demand more against Israel after election if he wins.
26. I THINK OBAMA WILL STOP ISRAELI ATTACK
Zimbi ,   NJUSA   (02.04.12)
27. # 15
Birdi ,   Israel   (02.04.12)
Obama wont be in power at Christmas time.
28. the issue
alexi   (02.05.12)
do you strike iran now or deal with iran after it has nukes as it continues its terror proxy operations via hamas, hezbollah, syria and its revolutionary guard even handing off nuclear suitcase to nasrollah. Washington was the author of the bs report saying iran had stopped, remember that deliberatley false report. the new york times, who are they-friedman who has welcomed the arab spring and generalizes from having coffee in Beirut with nonsense proposals to israel who have no partner in abbas-zero, nothing. keller who has turned the ny times into a 3rd rate meretz paper sounding like livni and olmert and you know where these dumbbells led israel. Israel will consider what it has to do. iran threatned to wipe israel off the map, even before ahmadinejad;even rafsanjani said they only need to hit israel withone nuke. The whole rotten ayatollahs in large part is the US fault of jimmy carter, the raging pacifist who screwed up the rescue operation and paid ransom money to iran. The shah like mubarak was a saint to the new more vioolent erdogans coming to powere.
29. a preemptive political strike
(02.05.12)
once again the new york times goes to bat to do the dirtywork of the obama administration. any flare-up in the middle east, and an israeli airstrike on iran would rate as a major flare-up, would highlight obama's failed policies of "engagement", and hurt his re-election campaign. but rather than deal fairly with israel's security concerns and live up to innumerable guarantees that america has made to israel, or at the very least, just get out of israel's way. this editorial may as well have been written by an obama campaign staffer.
30. The NY Times is an anti-Semitic rag!
Reuven   (02.05.12)
Next talkbacks
Back to article