oD forums to restructure and move
Please read and comment on this thread if you want to influence the future of the forums
 IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTEmail & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi Our Authors around the Web
|
 |
Obama's "Iran First" Policy for the Palestinian People
 "...and propaganda has
"...and propaganda has convinced the American public to support the war." Ironically, it will be the propaganda coming from Tehran, not Washington that convinces the American people to support action against Iran. 
Obama's "Iran First" Policy
Iron Mike, You apparently aren't familiar with the US media. It is rather one sided and seems to support war with Iran. Today 53% of Americans want war with Iran. Where did they get the information to form this opinion? Search for "the lie of the century." It is told in the US every day.
I think you are wrong in
I think you are wrong in your assessment of American's desire for war with Iran. I'd like to see a source for your statistics. Frankly, $10 per gallon gas will look pretty good after Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz. The only thing worse than the US going to war with Iran is Iran going to nuclear war with Israel and US. The all bets are off and the American people are going to demand obliteration of Iran. According to Washington Post: As negotiators from the United States, France and Russia meet with Iran starting today in Vienna, public opinion in the U.S. is decidedly behind one possible outcome should the talks fail: 78 percent in the new poll support international economic sanctions against Iran to try to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. There's less, though still sizable backing for military engagement, with 42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces (54 and 62 percent, respectively, oppose these actions). http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/10/post-abc_poll_few_partisan_fis.html?hpid=news-col-blog
"...This news is followed by
"...This news is followed by joint military operations between Israel and the United States on October 19, 2009." Sorry, but that's just not factually correct. Israel and the US conducted a biennial joint military exercises, not joint operations. There is a huge difference; it's not semantics. Conducting a joint exercise ensures interoperability of equipment and doctrine. Exercise Juniper Cobra is conducted every two years so is nothing new. It does send a message to Tehran about the capabilities they could potentially face in a conflict and create a level of uncertainty that might actually deter war. Search for "Juniper Cobra" and back away from the panic button.
"...This news is followed by
Israel needs to back off the panic button. Iran is not the one that needs deterence. It is Israel who needs deterence, but, they are encouraged by people swallowing the lies and hyperbole.
"...This news is followed by
Mike, Here is the description. I think you are playing semanticc Juniper Cobra :: The October Military Exercise
Why exactly am i playing
Why exactly am i playing semantics? Some key words here from your posting... "Exercise" as in training. "testing all components" as in ensuring functionality and interoperability between bilateral military forces. "3rd biennial" as in this is a regularly scheduled training event that previously carried out in 2005 and 2007. No different than what we do with all our allies, including NATO and NORAD. Words have meaning. These words in particular have a specific meaning that prove this is not a joint operation, but a demonstration of a capability to execute one. That is a huge difference and not semantics.
Obama's "Iran First" Policy
Mike, Your whole "obliterate" Iran first advocacy is based on a false premise: that Iran is working like a little beavor just to get a nuclear weapon so it can drop it on Israel. There is nothing but proganda to support that premise. You are saying they are suicidal. Yes they will defend themselves when attacked. You didn't research "the lie of the century." The 53% was a poll out yesterday. It was reported on cable news here in the US.
Obama's "Iran First" Policy
If you think my advocacy is "obliterate Iran first" then you are reading me as incorrectly as the polls for which you have yet to provide a source. My advocacy is for "obliterate Iran LAST" policy. And please, if you have some special insight that provides proof that Iran is NOT working to achieve a nuclear weapons capability, I'd love to see it. I wish it were true. But who am I going to believe...you and Iran or my lying eyes? Yes, I believe the senior leadership believes in an apocalyptic ideology and their role in making it come true. Of course, I only base that on what's coming out of the mouths of their leadership.
I to believe that Iran is
I to believe that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon. They would have to be idiots not to. They were named in the "axis of evil" and the US and Israel have target them for years as a threat to civilization. You show me the proof that Iran is going to hit Israel with a nuclear weapon as soon as they get it. Sheer warmongering. All there is is lies and exageration about what Iran has said. Yes, they have said they will defend themselves if attacked. Shame on them. There are 50 countries with weapons grade uranium. Any could provide material to terrorist or hit Israel or the US. Iran is targeted because they are a weak country with huge oil resources and support the rights of the Palestinian people. They are no real threat to Israel or the US. They are just easy pickings. The end times scenario is a Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief. Why focus only on Iran’s 12th imam and the well he will return from?
"The end times scenario is a
"The end times scenario is a Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief. Why focus only on Iran’s 12th imam and the well he will return from?" Because unlike Christian and Jewish end times scenarios, the Iranian interpretation of the return of 12th Imam includes acceptance of their role to help bring it about. Unlike most of the 50 other countries you note who have the capability to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists, Iran is the country with the fanatical motivation to do so. Will the 12th Imam cause war with Iran? But instead of seeking to reassure delegates that Iran's nuclear intentions were purely benign, Mr Ahmadinejad took advantage of his official visit to a country deemed – in the lexicon of the Iranian Revolution – "the Great Satan" to embark on a discourse about the wonders of the 12th Imam. For those unacquainted with the more obscure tenets of Islamic theology, the 12th Imam is held by devout Shi'ite Muslims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who went into "occlusion" in the ninth century at the age of five and hasn't been seen since. The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace. Rumours abound of Mr Ahmadinejad's devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a "contract" pledging themselves to work for his return. Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow." For many of the hundreds of delegates who attended Mr Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN this week, his discourse on the merits of the 12th Imam finally brought home the reality of the danger his regime poses to world peace. Rather than allaying concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke at length about how a Muslim saviour would relieve the world's suffering. The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a "bright future" ushered in by the 12th Imam's return. "Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world." The really alarming aspect is that – if the world's leading intelligence agencies are to be believed – he is seriously attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal.
Mike,
"Because unlike
Mike, Apparently you are not familiar with the Armageddonites in the US (John Hagee for example). They want to go straight at Iran now so that Christ can return. They talk of walking with him soon. There are substantial contributions to people in Israel who plan to build a thrown for Christ to sit on. Nor are you familiar with the four and five star generals in the Pentagon crusading for God. They all concern me. But, you, apparently chose only to acknowledge one, Ahmadinejad, and tab him as a crazed aggressor who just can't wait to drop a nuclear bomb on Israel. However, your quotes do not support your conclusions and/or are secondary sources that are inaccurate. You appear to be a war monger who only sees a path to war justified by any lie you can find. I do not have time to go through each. Please try to cite relevant matter in the future. Thank you. P.S. Here is your poll. I heard it on CNN. CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. Adults nationwide in America "Would you favor or oppose U.S. military action against Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" .
The only thing more
The only thing more important than "relevance" is "academic integrity." Perhaps the reason you did not provide a link to the study and only cited the source of the poll after repeated requests is that you only desired to present the data out of context to suit your agenda. I’ve seen better work from high school kids. Most Americans think Iran wants nuclear weapons, poll says WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly nine in 10 Americans say they think Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, according to a new national poll. The survey indicates there's little consensus on the best approach to addressing the situation -- though the poll does suggest a military response is not as popular as nonmilitary options. The poll suggests that 78 percent of Americans favor direct negotiations between the United States and Iran in an attempt to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. But a roughly equal number -- 77 percent -- say they favor imposing economic sanctions on Tehran to deter Iran from developing nuclear arms. Frankly if the American people believe that Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat, it is the rhetoric that came from Tehran, not Washington that convinced them. The responsibility for changing that perception also belongs to Tehran. Nevertheless, overwhelmingly the American people favor negotiations and sanctions over military action. Those war mongers!
You say:
"The era of Western
You say: "The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a "bright future" ushered in by the 12th Imam's return. "Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world." Now explain how that proves that Iran is going to hit Isreal with a nuclear bomb. Your proof is extremely thin Mike. In fact, it isn't proof. Come up with some meat.
You cannot discern the
You cannot discern the difference between a crazy pastor with no military capability and Ahmadinejad? Are you kidding me? Crazies without weapons do not concern me. Crazies with weapons should concern everyone. Ahmadinejad himself establishes himself as both a believer in the return of the 12th Imam AND sees his role to facilitate it. As long as he is a crazy without nuclear weapons, who cares? But soon that will not be the case. "You appear to be a war monger who only sees a path to war justified by any lie you can find." Since I have been arguing that war with Iran is a last resort, not a first one, it hardly makes me a war monger. (This criticism from someone who does not know the difference between a military operation and a military exercise?) Perhaps the biggest difference between you and me is the fact that I represent the people who have fought wars in the past. War is the last thing I want because I know the cost first hand. So before I advocate war, there needs to be a damned good reason for me to support the sacrifice of blood and treasure. Stopping a nuclear war is high on that list.
Mike,
I enjoy your joisting,
Mike, I enjoy your joisting, but, failing to provde the link had nothing to do with distorting it. I gave the exact question and the answers. Anyway, your point is well taken about crazies with weapons. No Hagee doesn't have them but the generals in the Pentagaon come a little closer. That issue started with your contention that A... was the only one who "wanted" to do something to cause the big A.... I just gave some example of other who would like to and are trying in their way. I tired. I will get back to you tomorrow. Have a great evening while I hide in the corner sucking my thub in fear of the nuclear attack. PS. Calling you a war monger was over the top. Sorry.
"...failing to provde the
"...failing to provde the link had nothing to do with distorting it. I gave the exact question and the answers." C'mon, be honest. You cherry-picked one question and based a conclusion upon it, when the overwhelming response in favor of responses other than war with Iran in the same survey were ignored. That was taking your "evidence" out of context and a foul. "No Hagee doesn't have them but the generals in the Pentagaon come a little closer." True, they have the "capability" but are missing the other component of "ideology" and therefore have no motive. They are constrained by pesky things like constitutional authorities. It seems you are still missing the point that any first year cop on the beat knows, that all crimes require both "motive and means." You say: "AND sees his role to facilitate it." Support that statement. It's not just me saying it. Perhaps you wish to argue the point with a Yale expert in the field? Which brings me back to the Iranian President. He claims a “private personal channel” to the hidden imam. If that’s true, he’s earned it. When Ahmadinejad was Mayor of Tehran, he purportedly had a thoroughfare re-paved so that the Mahdi wouldn’t experience such a bumpy road back. Later, as President, he asked Cabinet members to sign an oath of allegiance to the messiah. In a speech to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad called for the Mahdi’s re-emergence. Upon delivering the call, he drew strength from two things: a feeling of being showered in divine light and the fact that not a single UN diplomat noticeably raised an eyebrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad is reactivating his country’s nuclear enrichment program precisely to incite resistance, and thereby hasten the kingdom of the messiah. “We must prepare ourselves to rule the world,” he mused recently, “and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return.” Allah’s final ambassador can’t be too far away now. Scary? Yes. Pathologically sick? Depends. To that fringe of true believers, doomsday politics makes complete sense. The weapons of mass destruction have been found. They’re people with unshakeable faith in the coming showdown between good and evil. Left in their hands, the world is heading for a clash of Armageddons. Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-Up Call for Reform in Her Faith
Perhaps you will find this
Perhaps you will find this research useful as well, partiularly the sections on Iranian regional hegemony and Amadinajad's commitment to Armageddon. His commitment to “Mahdiism” is arguably one of Ahmadinejad’s most threatening personality traits. Ahmadinejad is a member of a semi-secret religious group called the “Hojathia” headed by the radical cleric Ayatollah Mesbach Yazdi, Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor. Yazdi and his faithful Hojathia followers believe it is a duty tocreate the conditions for the Mahdi’s return, including the occurrence of global disasters that trigger “grief and sorrow”, a phenomenon similar to the biblical concept of “Gog and Magog.”79 According to this messianic belief, the hidden imam will reemerge to save the Muslims during their obligatory and final confrontation with the stronger power, the “Great Satan” – the United States. Khomeini had prohibited Mahdi groups, but Ahmadinejad is committed to their apocalyptic dedication to forcing a clash with the West. Ahmadinejad’s messianic world view is transparent. He told a packed UN General Assembly on September 19, 2006, “I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for...the perfect righteous human being and real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. Almighty God...make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.”80 When he addressed the United Nations in September 2005, Ahmadinejad first dumb founded the General Assembly and other world leaders by concluding his remarks with a special prayer for the Mahdi’s reappearance.81 When he returned to Tehran, he reportedly reportedly told friends that he knew there was a halo around his head as he spoke at the UN, and that he knew what to say because the disappeared imam whispered in his ear.82 Shiite messianism fundamentally shapes Ahmadinejad’s political thinking. If he believes the Mahdi is destined to reappear shortly, there is nothing to be gained by his compromising with the infidel forces of the West. From Iran’s point of view, it is fruitless for international leaders to avoid confrontation with Tehran; rather, it is the role of the Mahdi to usher in a “utopian” age. Obama's "Iran First" Policy
You are going into repetitions, Mike. You have been telling us of this theory for weeks and all the time I have been wondering why your story sounded vaguely familiar. Somebody believing rhetoric that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Now I remember: Andropov used to believe Reagan’s words, even though it sounds incredible, but he had never in his life been to the west. Andropov thought Reagan had his finger already on the button, and the thought that R. was only talking to his misguided electorate never entered his head. Very scary, it was sheer luck that we survived that misunderstanding. Comrade Mike, Iran, even the Iranian government, is not the same as Ahmadinejad’s speeches.
Obama's "Iran First" Policy
Of course I was answering D. Young's request for sources and I provided them. Your conclusion is what? Amadinajad is simply engaging in rhetoric. It's a far from official policy. Nothing to see here, just move a long. Pay no attention to secret nuclear facilities hidden in mountains. Ignore the centrifuges. Dismiss the rantings of a loser fanatic. You must be blissful there in Momoland...right up the point when Armageddon disturbs your reverie. I hope you're right and I hope I never have to sadly post, "I told you so." Obama's "Iran First" Policy
You concluded almost correctly, congrats. By comparing Ahmadinejad and Reagan I didn’t say that Ahmadinejad is harmless, though. Reagan wasn’t either, remember? I’m saying that the rants of the apocalypse needn’t be taken seriously. What’s left to worry then? Iran has a nuclear programme that is certainly not restricted to civilian purposes. It’s perfectly unclear if they want to build nuclear warheads (which would be extremely expensive), or if they want to stop at the point where it’s clear that they easily could make usable weapons. That would be a deterrent too, but a much cheaper one. Even if they go on, they will not be the only rogue state that has got them, remember? I don't like that at all, but you are exaggerating the danger extremely. I’ve indeed been blissful these last 20 years—do you know how close we have been to nuclear war before that for a few hundred times? Any doubts which country would have been hit first? If you want to scare me, you must try a bit harder. Quoting Ahmadinejad isn’t enough.
I’m saying that the rants
I’m saying that the rants of the apocalypse needn’t be taken seriously. I agree...right up to the point where he has the capacity to act upon those rants. Then your "bliss" is over and the nightmare begins. I’ve indeed been blissful these last 20 years—do you know how close we have been to nuclear war before that for a few hundred times? I know the American taxpayers bought and paid for your 20 years of bliss as well as the reunification of your country after the German war of aggression and decades of soviet oppression. You can send your thank you note to the Ronald Reagan Library. Feel free to include a donation. Obama's "Iran First" Policy
“I know the American taxpayers bought and paid for your 20 years of bliss as well as the reunification of your country after the German war of aggression and decades of soviet oppression.” Interesting. Then you would know more than I, and that’s extremely unlikely :-). I suggest you look up which taxpayer paid. I’m not overly concerned about the money though (although there are other countries which would have had more right to it after Germany’s war of aggression, because they suffered far more from it than yours). No, it’s something else that sucks. If the Cold war had turned hot, I would have been dead within minutes, because my country would have been destroyed in any case. You can’t seriously expect I would have cared if it had been by a Soviet or a US nuke, can you? The nuclear mines under our roads were US American, mind. It became worse with the Pershings, and it’s about time you took the rest of them away, by the way. Oddly enough I felt relieved in Nicaragua. The threat of the Contras was hard to live with, but there was no threat of nuclear war on the American continent! I believe the only time I felt real peace in the 80’s was when I was in Solentiname (where the contras couldn’t go). That thank note to the Ronald Reagan Library … stuff it. No, Mike, I know what a nuclear threat is. And what’s more, I know it was the US that caused most of the provocations. Look up Operation Ryan or Able Archer 83. Same as today.
You would still be living in
You would still be living in a divided Germany without Ronald Reagan and the American taxpayer. But its not surprising that you overlook that fact in your years of blissful ignorance in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. Thankfully, the cold war never turned hot. Of course, the reason it did not do so was because American nuclear capability provided credibility to western deterrance that the hollow European forces did not. No one likes the strategy of mutual assured destruction. But there is no doubt that it maintained the peace (even if under duress) during a dangerous period of human history. Too bad that only works on people more interested in living than dying. No chance it will work on the ranting lunatics in Iran who revel in a martyr's death in hastening the return of the 12th Imam. Oh...sorry, I sure don't want to disturb your blissful ignorance. Obama's "Iran First" Policy
You are overrating the American taxpayer badly. Small wonder, after all you have made abundantly clear that you don’t understand economics. You are underrating the contributions of the European consumers and taxpayers. Ronald Reagan supported Helmut Kohl’s plans for the least democratic option, I know. There were two other options which I would have preferred. Why do you expect I should be grateful for that “support”? You forget the Stalin Note. There wouldn’t have been the Berlin Wall, if there hadn’t been the west-integration. The West wanted it, Adenauer wanted it, the majority of the West German population did not. We could have lived peacefully in a neutral country. More reason for ungratefulness. I suspect you didn’t look up Operation Ryan and Able Archer 83. You can repeat as often as you like that Iranians don’t value their own lives, you just don’t gain credibility this way. They just want to be left alone, and if there wasn't the pressure from the outside, they would probably even get rid of their awful government quite easily.
They just want to be left
They just want to be left alone..." Oh yes...the poor pitiful Iranians. Everyone's picking in them just because they fund terrorism throughout the region and merely seek peaceful nuclear bombs to rid the world of Zionism. Without the US taxpayer footing the bill for US forces in Germany, you would have grown up speaking Russian. Your own government acknowledges the debt that you personally deny. Talk about a lack of credibility. The first step to getting out of that hole is to stop digging. Obama's "Iran First" Policy
Very touching gratefulness on our foreign minister’s site, yes. I can understand that you like it. I happen to disagree with our foreign minister (both the current and the next one) occasionally, you must have noticed that. Although there is one thing where I agree with him (the next one): we must be rid of these damned nukes. It’s in the coalition contract: almost 200 pages, one sentence I agree with. Now let’s see if Alan is right, who said they would be withdrawn if our elected representatives wanted it. I wonder. “Without the US taxpayer footing the bill for US forces in Germany, you would have grown up speaking Russian. Your own government acknowledges the debt that you personally deny.” I don’t share your horror of foreign languages, what’s wrong with learning Russian? As it is I have grown up in the west, that’s why I have learned to speak English. I know, Mike, you always say I haven’t. I have. The US taxpayer again. I am noticing that the anti-democratic southern elitists on this site (thanks, Candace) don’t stop insisting where money is concerned. So much for the US taxpayer. This brought more money to the US. “Oh yes...the poor pitiful Iranians. Everyone's picking in them just because they fund terrorism throughout the region and merely seek peaceful nuclear bombs to rid the world of Zionism.” Israel has a tiny problem in dumping its nukes on Iran (although they have already got them, unlike Iran): the distance between Israel and Iran. Believe me: the distance between Iran and Israel isn’t shorter. What’s more important: why should they rid the world of Zionism? Oh yes, the mahdi. Sorry, I’m always a sceptic of conspiracy theories and the like. |
|
openUSA Latest |
In the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama sold peace in one hand and war in the other. It has now become clear that Obama held out the peace for all to see in the light of day while he prepared for wars in what some would call the shadows. The Obama kabuki dance is heading towards an historic finish – war with Iran sometime next summer.
Obama has had his eye on Iran for years.
Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, while running for the Senate, “[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?”
Obama added, “[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.”
In other words, as it now appears, if Iran is “resistant” to pressures to stop its purported nuclear weapons program, we going to take military action.
Yet, during the 2008 campaign, the dance. Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for voting for a resolution calling the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Obama was not present for this vote, yet calls it a crucial vote that shows Hillary has not "learned" from her Iraq vote.
Yet, Obama moves towards war. In August 2009 Obama approved the acceleration of production of MOP, the Mother of all Penetrators – a 30,000 pound bunker buster with a 5,300 pound warhead , so that it will be ready to mount on US B-2 bombers by July 2010.
This news is followed by joint military operations between Israel and the United States on October 19, 2009. The plans are in place. Israel has already conducted 750 mile flight refueling drills – the distance from Israel to Iran.
Despite his position of the Israeli settlements Obama has pursued an aggressive program of outreach to the Jewish community on his record of support for Israel, which he claims is unwavering. Obama fully endorsed Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of May 2007.
Obama has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program and that he will do “everything in his power to stop Iran.” He has said that "Iran is the line in the sand" and that he will “confront” Iran militarily if necessary. Obama set a December deadline for Iran to, so to speak, come clean. But, we know from past experience with Iraq that there is no coming clean, no matter what. Then the claims that Iran is choosing war and isolating itself from the war. Straight out of the Bush play book.
The May meeting between Obama and Netanyahu appears to have produced results. Reportedly, Obama agreed to quash talk of inspecting Israel’s nuclear weapons while they go after Iran’s.
Now, after Netanyahu took Obama to the woodshed when Obama told Netanyahu to stop building settlements, Obama retreated to an “Iran first” policy for solving the Israel Palestinian conflict arguably to eliminate the greatest support for the Palestinian people: Iran.
It looks like it is all coming together for Netanyahu’s plan to save the world from Iran.
Expect an attack on Iran by the US and Israel sometime next summer once MOP can be load on a B-2 and propaganda has convinced the American public to support the war.
As noted in OpenDemocracy's article by Mariano Aguirre, Barack Obama, Iran, and the nuclear danger:
"The key issue here is the threat of an Israeli pre-emptive strike. When he addressed the United Nations general assembly on 24 September 2009, Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu fuelled Iran's perception that it needed to arm itself as soon as possible. The Israel leader compared Iran to Nazism, criticised the UN and its strongest members for their passivity in the face of the Iranian president's anti-Israeli rhetoric, and reopened the possibility that Israel could launch an attack against Iranian installations if the Security Council did not move to curtail Tehran's ambitions (see Paul Rogers, "Iran, America, Israel: the nuclear gamble", 2 October 2009).
D. Lindley Young