| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine |
| Sharon Rules Out Attacking Iran Over Nukes |
| 2005-04-14 |
| I dont believe this for one moment. Expect something to happen in the next few days Israel will not mount a unilateral attack aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capability, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday in a CNN-TV interview. Sharon said he did not see "unilateral action" as an option. He said Israel did not need to lead the way on the Iran nuclear weapons issue, calling for an international coalition to deal with it. Iran is years away from possessing a nuclear weapon, Sharon said, but warned that Iran is only months away from solving "technical problems" toward building a nuclear weapon. Sharon said, "Once they will solve it, that will be the point of no return." He did not give details about the technical issues or how he drew his conclusions. Israel has warned for years about the dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Sharon said a nuclear Iran would threaten not only Israel but also Europe and other countries. Therefore, he said, Israel did not need to tackle the matter by itself. Israeli media reported that in his meeting Tuesday with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Sharon aides presented evidence, including satellite reconnaissance, about the Iranian nuclear program, but the Americans did not see anything that would influence them to stick to diplomatic efforts to control Iran. Asked about Israel's own nuclear weapons program, Sharon repeated decades-old Israeli claims: "Israel will not be the first one to use or to possess a nuclear weapon." He said that Iran should be prevented from acquiring such arms, because "One should avoid development of nuclear weapons by irresponsible countries." During the funeral for Pope John Paul II at the Vatican on Friday, Israeli President Moshe Katsav shook hands with the presidents of Syria and Iran, but Sharon dismissed the gestures. Iran and Syria continue to be enemies of Israel, Sharon said. "If the moderates there (in Iran) speak about the elimination Israel as the Jewish nation, we don't see any changes," he said. "Syria continues to (sponsor) Hezbollah on the Lebanese border, so I don't see any change there." Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas fought a bloody war in south Lebanon until Israel's withdrawal in 2000 behind a U.N.-drawn border. However, Hezbollah charges that Israel is still holding a piece of Lebanese territory and periodically attacks Israeli forces there. Israel charges that Syria and Iran provide weapons, training and guidance for the Hezbollah forces, which control much of south Lebanon. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 as I always, say, beware when your enemy smiles and greets you. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-04-14 8:43:56 PM |
| #9 I think it was only a partial quote that should have said "Sharon Rules Out Attacking Iran Over Nukes ,Today" |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2005-04-14 6:11:19 PM |
| #8 Okay, here's another way to look at it.... missles and aircraft are easier targets than caves. If the Perisians manage to field a viable and tested weapon and maintain their aggressive PR assault on the zionist entity, it will be far easier for the IDF target wise and PR wise. /JM |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-04-14 6:02:02 PM |
| #7 AP puts words in Ariel Sharon's mouth |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2005-04-14 5:49:16 PM |
| #6 There are several places which, when read carefully, indicate the article was not written carefully - at least from a logical POV. Example: "Sharon aides presented evidence, including satellite reconnaissance, about the Iranian nuclear program, but the Americans did not see anything that would influence them to stick to diplomatic efforts to control Iran." Huh? That's a nonsense statement - and a non-trivial statement. What sort of moron would've released such hash? Pfeh. AP Morons. The thing that keeps surprising me is the timeline. In many recent statements out of the US and Israel, there is the suggestion that, unless they buy / bought one intact, the timeline for putting together a working and deliverable nuke is longer than most people think - certainly longer than I believed. Targeting precision is not much of an issue with a nuke, given Israel's size, except for premature detonation, of course - I'm pulling for on the launchpad, but that's another topic. I was looking for some sort of action against them in the 4thQ 2005 or 1stQ 2006 because I had the feeling (many sources) that the MM's would "be there" just beyond that timeframe. But so much of what I've read over the last few months, as the Iranian confrontation took on the hue of inevitability, suggests at least a year further out. This tells me that our intel from within Iran, when added to what we get from others, such as Mossad, must be much better than we are hearing from public sources - and they are still learning to read and produce from Khan's Cookbook - even when handed the used centrifuges. Of course everything we can do to slow them down, such as intercepting the hexafluoride gas they're trying to buy, etc., is all to the good. Or we could be dead wrong, and much of Israel just dead, cuz everyone's intel is shit and they're almost ready to rock and roll now. Just my (surprised) take after about 10 readings of everything that's been coming down the pike. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-04-14 3:35:50 PM |
| #5 What people publicly say is sometimes a good way of making the enemy relax and let their guard down. Also, maybe with internal pressures mounting in Iran It would actually not be necessary to attack Iran, because in two years Iran would be transformed by an internal revolution. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2005-04-14 3:34:38 PM |
| #4 "Israel will not mount a unilateral attack... ...the Americans did not see anything that would influence them to stick to diplomatic efforts" Does anything in this preclude a joint attack when the time is right? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-04-14 3:12:15 PM |
| #3 Taqiyah, anyone? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-04-14 1:38:21 PM |
| #2 I wonder if Iran already has them (or at least one) - thats a big about-face from Israel. Its seems like a frightened statement then a strong one. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-04-14 1:35:31 PM |
| #1 Sharon said a nuclear Iran would threaten not only Israel but also Europe and other countries. Therefore, he said, Israel did not need to tackle the matter by itself. Assuming that this is what Sharon actually thinks, the problem with this mindset is that Europe's approach to "tackling" such a problem would be likely be in a manner consistent with its own self-interest, independent of any other affected parties. In other words, they'd simply negotiate some sort of deal to remove themselves from the crosshairs, and anybody else is on their own. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-14 12:17:12 PM |