Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditWriting in the Washington Post, Yossi Melman, a military expert and commentator for the Israeli daily Haaretz, says that Israel won't attack Iran unless it has explicit American backing:
"If the U.S. doesn't approve an Israeli military operation, Israel will not attack Iran. Full stop."
He also says (and it makes sense to me) that Israel isn't planning an attack anytime soon:
"The recent leaks to the U.S. news media (New York Times and ABC News) have created a wrong impression and sent a false message that an Israeli attack on Iran is imminent. Far from the truth. No decision to attack Iran has been made in Israel. Certainly no date has been fixed. Israel will decide, if at all, to disrupt Iran's nuclear program only as a last resort after international diplomacy fails. More importantly, such a decision will be taken only after serious consultation with the American administration."
There's a lot of alarmism about the United States, Israel and Iran floating around. I think it's time to calm down about this. Pay attention, people: barring some unforeseen, and highly unlikely, provocation by Iran, there isn't going to be any war with Iran. Listen to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he was asked yesterday about attacking Iran. Bogged down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan, the military doesn't want another war. Said Mullen:
"Opening up a third front would be extremely stressful on us ... This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable."
libzr-I'm not at all surprised that you were scared of saddam.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 11:40am
it seems mr. melman is tired of paying such high prices for gasoline, too.
i wonder what the price of gas in tel aviv is.
hmmmm.
<i>Gasoline prices in July will increase by an average of 4% at midnight on Monday. Self-service 95 octane gasoline will cost NIS 7 per liter, up from NIS 6.58, and 96 octane gasoline will cost NIS 7.01 per liter, from NIS 6.60. The service fee for full service remains unchanged at NIS 0.12 per liter.
The cost of public transportation is also set to increase by about 2.5% on Tuesday due to the rise in the CPI index over recent months. Back in January, bus and train ticket prices were raised by 1.7% after a long period of stable prices.
On June 10, regular taxi fares increased by 7.28%, sherut (minibus taxi) fares, both local and intercity, went up by 13%. Just over a week ago a convoy of hundreds of slow-moving trucks and cabs brought traffic on the Ayalon freeway in Tel Aviv to a halt as drivers protested the rising cost of fuel.</i>
hmmmmm.
$8.10/gallon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:42am
<i>OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted that the PRICE OF OIL WILL CLIMB TO $170 A BARREL BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, CITING THE DOLLAR'S DECLINE AND POLITICAL CONFLICTS.
"Oil prices are expected to reach $170 as demand for fuel is growing in the US during the summer period and the dollar continues to weaken against the euro," Khelil said in a telephone interview over the weekend. The leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries also serves as Algeria's oil minister.
POLITICAL PRESSURE ON IRAN AND THE DEPRECIATION OF THE US CURRENCY HAVE CAUSED A SURGE IN OIL PRICES, KHELIL SAID. New York-traded crude has more than doubled in a year and touched a record $142.99 at the end of last week on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
OPEC OIL MINISTERS GENERALLY SAY THAT OIL OUTPUT IS SUFFICIENT, EVEN AS SAUDI ARABIA, THE BIGGEST PRODUCER, PLEDGED TO PUMP AN EXTRA 200,000 BARRELS A DAY NEXT MONTH TO CALM THE MARKET.
THE RISING COST OF CRUDE IS NOT LINKED TO SUPPLY, KHELIL SAID.
"There is more than enough oil in the market to meet the international demand," added the OPEC president, who will take part in an international energy forum in Madrid on Monday.
Prices, which are up 38% this quarter, are heading for the biggest quarterly gain since the first three months of 1999, when oil traded at between $11 and $17.</i>
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:45am
$8.10 a gallon!!!
Clearly, AIPAC is not serving its Owners well. Time to demand an increase in US aid to Israel to bring those gas prices down.
US taxpayers won't mind, not as long as we're only paying under $5 a gallon.
Posted by sloper at 07/03/2008 @ 11:48am
DREYFUSS: "There's a lot of alarmism about the United States, Israel and Iran floating around. I think it's time to calm down about this. "
Thanks for the first big laugh today! It's ONLY the Left that's fearmongering itself....and of course, Mr. Dreyfuss is Head Mongerer.......$300 Oil anyone?
Of course Israel will wait until it believes it can NO longer wait....based on its own intel assessment of Iran's weapons program....at that point in time, US "blessing" be damned.
Put yourself in Israel's very small shoes and imagine a couple of nukes, compliment of Iran, smuggled into key cities like Tel Aviv in a few short years??
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 11:50am
Happy-Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a growing AQ presence.Do you think that you good people could start to support your country and be concerned about our safety rather than just worry about Israel?Iran isn't going to nuke Israel.They have too many Muslim holy sites there and the fallout would affect Mecca..Israel can take care of itself.The people who attacked us are in Pakistan.Let's focus on them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Nobody,
I don't worry about Israel.....the buck ultimately stops with itself. Whether we help them out, to extinction or fight on, the buck stops w/our foreign policy driven by the President.
We are fighting AQ, not a direct ally w/Iran.......it's why I've said, just last night, I don't want US to war against Iran....but I support our Iraq effort....if AQ lose in Iraq, and it looks increasingly certain, Pakistan's AQ will feel the pain!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 12:03pm
Happy-AQ in Pakistan will feel no pain by anything that happens in Iraq.In fact,quite the opposite.Iraq is going to live under Islamic law just as AQ wants so they can't lose in Iraq.Iraq is a win/win for AQ.It is because we are in Iraq that they are able to try to take over Pakistan and get themselves those nukes.AQ loves us being bogged down in Iraq because that has allowed them to regroup,retrain,and make new plans.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 12:10pm
<<Clearly, AIPAC is not serving its Owners well. Time to demand an increase in US aid to Israel to bring those gas prices down.
US taxpayers won't mind, not as long as we're only paying under $5 a gallon.
Posted by sloper at 07/03/2008 @ 11:48am>>>
Wait, what is this you say? AIPAC isn't the omnnipotent force driving US policy???? Well I never...
If there wasn't already overwhelming enough evidence to ditch this conspiracy theory, there certainly should be now.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/03/2008 @ 12:11pm
For my part, I can only wonder if there are any grownups in charge in the US, Israel, or Iran. Sadly, I suspect that if there are, they are only to be found in Iran.
The US needs to put Israel on a leash, and start forcing that little regime to radically change course in its relationships with the Muslim world. The US must force Israel to move back to the 1967 borders and to redress the plight of the Palestinian people, whose land was taken out from underneath them by force, and who have lived in a brutal occupation for 40 years, with reparations.
With respect to Iran, the US needs to make it clear to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that the US intends to start down the path of improved relations with Iran. That latter country is now a rising power, unchangeably, in the region, and it is not remotely in the US interest to treat Iran as an enemy. This approach to Iran is not just common sense, it is the practical consequences of repeatedly losing to Iran in the bloody gamesmanship that the US has engaged in. Shah Reza Pahlavi, the US-backed despot, was overturned by a native revolution. The US shunned Iran for decades and then invaded Iraq, stupidly, taking away the last bulkwark to an ascendant Iranian power. At this point, the US must accept losses accrued and beg Iran for help in stabilizing Iraq.
In time, an Iran with civilian and military nuclear capabilities could even be a contributor to order and stability in the region.
By remaining tethered to the idiot regime in Tel Aviv, and the domestic alphabet soup Israel Lobby, the US guarantees no progress and more likely setbacks for itself.
Posted by Zero at 07/03/2008 @ 12:16pm
if AQ lose in Iraq, and it looks increasingly certain, Pakistan's AQ will feel the pain!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 12:03pm |
AQ?!?!?!?!?
man, you are brainwashed!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 12:20pm
Iraq is going to live under Islamic law just as AQ wants
Posted by i'm nobody
well, not exactly.
AQ considers the shiite leadership in baghdad to be apostates.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 12:22pm
<i>Posted by Zero at 07/03/2008 @ 12:16pm </i>
Did you read anything that article said? It said specifically that Israel ISN'T attacking Iran without explicit US support.
I also loved the "it seems the only grownups here are to be found in Iran." Huh? How do you plot that?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
what do YOU guys know that Admiral Mullen doesn't???
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/03/2008 @ 12:37pm
Nothing, we all got the same memo....it's Israel's game........but, be nice to the fearmongers!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 12:47pm
Happy-AQ in Pakistan will feel no pain by anything that happens in Iraq......
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 12:10pm
My second Big Laugh today....okie dokey....if you say so!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/03/2008 @ 12:11pm
Not so fast, THRAWN!
Even though higher oil prices benefit Arabs in the "short-run", in the long-run it causes technology to be developed that makes the US and the world independent from oil altogether.
Israeli backed companies, for example, are aggressively developing technology to make electric cars ubiquitous.
I wonder why?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
Happy-I noticed that you did not address my reasons for why AQ will feel no pain by us being in Iraq and responded with something quite silly rather than post reasons for your view, as I did.Iraq will be an Islamic state and the vast majority of AQ come from Islamic states.That's a fact.Do you have any?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 1:11pm
....Iraq will be an Islamic state.....That's a fact....
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 1:11pm
Assuming your `fact' is a non-secular, Iran-like, state the West dislikes.......where is your fact, that is, beyond your stating so?
You have far too many `facts' and I don't want to play this game.....but as a trial, just prove your fact that "Iraq will be an Islamic state" and reconcile why the key word "will" just cast some doubts in me?
Gotta run......pizza time!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 1:19pm
Happy-Read the Iraqi constitution.You are a few years behind in your knowledge of events in Iraq.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 1:30pm
I'm waiting for LVL to come on an say that Israel is being dumb and needs to nuke Iran to oblivion....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:50pm
Happy-Read the Iraqi constitution.....
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 1:30pm
You've gotta be kidding......because a piece of paper declares an intent, assuming your read is correct, makes the future, a "fact".
My financial goal, when I left the corporate world (FT basis), set down on paper, hasn't turned into a "fact" that matches it.....I've exceeded it.
When the UAW and GN signed a series of contracts over decades, how much has turned into "facts" as the contracts laid out?
How long did it take "All men are created equal" to become "fact", if you even agree it's a fact today?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/03/2008 @ 3:19pm
Happy-Really poor argument on your part and you still haven't addressed any of my other points.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 3:30pm
By remaining tethered to the idiot regime in Tel Aviv, and the domestic alphabet soup Israel Lobby, the US guarantees no progress and more likely setbacks for itself.
Posted by Zero at 07/03/2008 @ 12:16pm
Zero. appropriate name for your knowledge of the ME.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:20pm
Israel can't attack without U.S. approval for the strike. Israel cannot sustain an effective bombing campaign without refueling in the air over American occupied Iraqi. Even if Israel attacked Iran without Washington's public acknowledgment, the U.S. would thus seem complicit and clandestine for enabling Israel's offensive.
Posted by ChristopherFeld at 07/03/2008 @ 4:25pm
I'm waiting for LVL to come on an say that Israel is being dumb and needs to nuke Iran to oblivion....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 1:50pm
Israel is doing what it needs to do along with the US. If it comes to it, Israel will not hesitate to remove a threat. But it is not likely if it does come to that until after Olmert is removed this fall and Israel has a new Prime Minister.
Even Obama has said that the threat of force cannot be taken off the table as an option for the next president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:26pm
An Israeli Attack on Iran Benefits the Islamic Republic. As Israel contemplates militarily striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel empowers the resolve of the Islamic Republic of Iran's hardliners to achieve greater security while harming United States strategic interests, Israeli security interests, Iranian dissident interests, and world economic interests.
Yet even if Iran's nuclear sites were bombed, virtually nothing could prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear sites. Bombing Iran would only further exacerbate and reinforce the belligerence of the fundamentalist regime, alienate pro-America Iranians, radicalize moderate support behind the unpopular regime, provide a pretext for the regime to crack down on human rights, and undermine the democratic movement in Iran.
A state of mutually assured destruction is more than likely to develop between Israel and Iran due to the spread of technology. Consequently, Israel must reassess its long term security strategy with Iran and view the nature of Iran's regime as its primary existential threat. Otherwise, only the Islamic republic stands to win.
For more information, visit http://usiranalliance.org
Posted by ChristopherFeld at 07/03/2008 @ 4:28pm
I have been worried that the U S would use Israel to do its dirty work for it and I am glad to hear that someone thinks that won't happen. Bush is capable of anything, as we have learned, including using the Constitution in the executive john, so this is not a trivial anxiety-provoker.
Posted by midnight04 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:00pm
Even Obama has said that the threat of force cannot be taken off the table as an option for the next president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:26pm
I have never advocated taking the threat of force off the table. I advocate resorting to democracy before violence. If Iran poses an actual tangible and immediate threat then we need to stop them from hurting people. But attacking them before they have actually posed a direct threat is ridiculous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:34pm
But attacking them before they have actually posed a direct threat is ridiculous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:34pm
They have not only posed a threat but have been a serious threat to stability not only regionally but throughout the world for 29 years.
They are the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world with the financial support of Hezbollah.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 6:18pm
They have not only posed a threat but have been a serious threat to stability not only regionally but throughout the world for 29 years.
They are the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world with the financial support of Hezbollah.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 6:18pm
Should we bomb Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 6:54pm
Should we bomb Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 6:54pm
Those aren't govt sponsored. That is a significant difference.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 7:32pm
Those aren't govt sponsored. That is a significant difference.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 7:32pm
They allow them into the country and allow them to hide there. I wonder where Osama is hiding?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/03/2008 @ 8:15pm
They are the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world with the financial support of Hezbollah.
Posted by lvliberty1
prove it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 10:48pm
Prove financial support of Hezbollah? I'm pretty sure that's been settled...
Posted by Thrawn at 07/03/2008 @ 11:17pm
but is hezbollah the biggest terrorist group in the world?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 12:44am
" Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have accused Hezbollah of committing war crimes against Israeli civilians,[185] in which in the same article, they also accused Israel of war crimes but against Lebanese civilians."
ta da!
birds of a (vile) feather.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 12:55am
Where is Osama hiding?
In a grave.
Before she died, in a TV interview with David Frost, Benazir Bhutto even announced the name of his killer, Sheik Omar.
In letting the cat out of the bag, Bhutto signed her own death warrant.
Some years ago, W said publicly that he no longer had any interest in Osama.
And with good reason, as he knew Osama was dead.
But the myth of Osama is far too precious to several sides to allow it to die.
Posted by sloper at 07/04/2008 @ 02:23am
<i>Posted by frosty zoom at 07/04/2008 @ 12:44am </i>
Fair; I wasn't sure which part of the claim you were calling on him to prove.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2008 @ 01:04am