by John Byrne
President Bush’s former United Nations ambassador John Bolton said the United States would stand behind a pre-emptive strike by Israel against countries developing “WMD facilities.”
In his remark, printed in Tuesday’s edition of the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, Bolton directly referenced Iran.
“The greatest concern is to prevent Iran and other countries in the region from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Bolton said, according to JTA.org, a Jewish news service. “We’re talking about a clear message to Iran — Israel has the right to self-defense –and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”
Bolton’s remarks follow an Israeli airstrike on Syria Sept. 6 against what US officials described as an effort to attack nuclear material the country had received from North Korea.
“Nobody thinks the use of force is an attractive option,” Bolton continued, according to a second report. “But let’s come down to the real question: is the use of force as an alternative preferable to Iran having nuclear weapons? No question about it, in my view.”
Bolton added that any Iranian strike would involve a “limited” airstrike on uranium enrichment targets rather than an invasion like Iraq. He disagreed with retired Gen. John Abizaid who said today, ““I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear.”
Bolton demurred.
“The notion that living under the threat of a possible use of Iranian nuclear weapons … may appeal to some people but it’s not the kind of life I want to live and I don’t think it’s the kind of life that people in Israel, for example, or other American friends and allies in the region are happy to live with,” he said.
Asked whether Israel has the capability to strike Iran, he added, “In fact it’s so clear that on the MIT website there’s a paper by two individuals that detail from open sources just exactly how the Israelis could do it.”
The following video is from Australian Broadcasting’s Lateline, broadcast on September 18.
(Note: I cannot decide whether John Bolton is simply a raving lunatic, or whether he just feeds the Neocon Party’s propaganda line to a public assumed to be both stupid and ignorant. The fact that he could compare the (UN condemned and illegal) Israeli airstrike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Tammuz (Osirak) in 1981 to what an attack on Iran’s civilian nuclear program in 2007 would entail certainly shows that he has no understanding whatsoever of military issues. Judging by his comment about Australia “following” New Zealand shows that he is not much of a diplomat either – VS)
By any chance, do you happen to have another link to the MIT paper? The one embedded in the post doesn’t appear to be working.
I fixed the link (sorry about that) please try the link again
Thanks for the new link. I realize that paper came from MIT, and is not from the Pentagon. But it looks as if the US is openly advising Israel on how to pull off such a strike, albeit without formal collaboration.
On a side note, Bolton is a no talent a$$clown. [Sorry for the implied profanity VS]
Let me tell you this: if the Israelis would want to get that kind of “advice” they would be in deep trouble. LOL! No, seriously, the Israelis will never listen to that kind of nonsense, nor would they need any help form anyone to organize a strike on Iran. All the would need is the quiet support of the USA (which they will get) and the backing of the US at the UN (which they will also get).
The so-called “analysis” on the MIT website is laughable and frankly useless to any mission planner. That’s the kind of stuff political science geeks like to write, but not something which has any relevance to the real world.
As for Bolton, he deserves a lot more profanities than implied ones :-)
And, just for the record, I have nothing against profanities. Its lies and stupidity I truly hate!
Cheers!
Shows your very limited understanding of both Israeli air power as well as your extremely limited comprehension of both the politics and the culture of the Middle East, most particularly, Islamic extremism, not only their significantly large following, but also their even larger group of sympathizers, let alone their dehumanizing agenda.
Dear Kenn Shaw, esq,
Thank you for setting me straight. Your insightful arguments and your hard hitting but unassailable logic has truly opened my eyes. Now I finally get it:
Israel – GOOD!
Muslim – BAD!
Israel – GOOD!
Muslim – BAD!
Israel – GOOD!
Muslim – BAD!
(etc. etc. etc.)
Thank you, O modern Cicero!
We’re back to Steve Clemons who reported last May that Cheney was toying with the idea of an Israeli attack as a way to let things get rolling.
@John – yes, indeed. The advantage of having the Israelis fire the first shot is that it allow the USA to fire all subsequent shots under the hyper-pious excuse of “coming to the rescue of the only democracy in the Middle-East and prevent another Holocaust” and the rest of the Neocon propaganda line.
Militarily speaking, an attack by the USA directly would make much more sense (the Israeli Air Force can’t deliver even a small fraction of what the USA could drop on Iran in the first 6 hours of the operation), but politically such an option has huge advantages.
As for the Israeli government, Olmert has nothing to loose and can probably really everybody around the flag, except for the *real* peace movement (like Gush Shalom).