You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran scoffs at US nuke umbrella for Israel
2008-12-15
"Nuclear umbrella? We scoff! Haw haw!"
Tehran says its uranium enrichment has no military purposes as Washington vows to equip Israel with a 'nuclear umbrella' against Iran. "In the modern-day world, nuclear program is no longer a defensive measure aimed at protecting the national security of different countries," said the Head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi on Sunday.

According to officials speaking on condition of anonymity, the US President-elect Barack Obama has reportedly offered Israel a nuclear deterrent apparatus to protect it against what the sources claimed to be 'an Iranian attack'.

The proposed 'nuclear umbrella for Israel' has raised speculation that Obama may have forgotten the promises he made during his campaign and decided to focus more on how to fulfill an "unshakable commitment to Tel Aviv".

"Obama, who promised change, must realize that the US cannot continue with its old policies in the Middle East," Al Qadwa told Gulf News. "[Obama] should at this stage think about how to rescue millions of people in Gaza from the inhumane Israeli siege," he added.

Boroujerdi criticized Obama for backtracking on promises of 'change' and following the Bush administration's example in the Middle East. "From the very beginning, we knew that Obama would fail to live up to his promises of changing Washington's policy for the better," said the Iranian parliamentarian. "There is little hope - if none at all - that Obama would be capable of forcing a substantial policy change in Washington," he added.
Posted by:Fred

#11  2008-2012/2016 POST DUBYA PERIOD > "IRAN VERSUS ISRAEL" is now mostly a SIDESHOW/FRONT for Radical Islam. FOCII > Iran's utility is to keep the US = US-ALLIES contained for time being WHILE IRAN PCORRECTLY BUT STEADILY NUCLEARIZES, ETC + WHILE ISLAMIST MILITANTS RAMPAGE THROUGHOUT ASIA AND AFRICA, ETC. ESPEC AS PER THE DESTABILIZATION AND BREAK UP AMAP ASAP ALAP OF THE COLD WAR NUCLEAR STATES OF ASIA [Russ, China, India]. Even iff Iran is de facto invaded and militarily occupied as per Saddamist Iraq in 2003, including POST-INVAS ANTI-US INSURGENCY, the Militants will still have potent opportunity and access to [anti-US/Imperialist/
OWG-NWO]NUKE-WMD TECHS, NEW MANPOWER, $$$ SOURCES, etc.

Radical Islam must gener ensure that IRAN CONTINUES ITS NUCLEARIZATION VENTURES IN PARALLEL WID ISLAMIST-LED DESTABILZ = "JIHAD" AGZ LARGE AREAS/REGIONS OF ASIA AND AFRICA, NO MATTER THE POLICIES PER SE 2008-12/2016 OF THE USA [includ Allies + UNO-UNSC].

The Militants don't have to care about DETROIT'S PROBS = US FINANCIAL CRISIS/US-GLOBAL RECESSION BECUZ THEY DON'T HAVE MANY VEHICLES ANYWAY, + DON'T DEPEND ON SAME TO FIGHT ANYWAY.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-12-15 19:07  

#10  

Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-12-15 15:57  

#9  Were Israel under the American nuclear umbrella, would President-elect Obama expect Israel to give up her own nuclear weapons? That would indeed be a game changer.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-12-15 15:30  

#8  "In the modern-day world..."

And you know all about the modern world, how?
Posted by: Craith de Medici6890   2008-12-15 12:35  

#7  ...the US President-elect Barack Obama has reportedly offered Israel a nuclear deterrent apparatus to protect it against what the sources claimed to be 'an Iranian attack'.

I thought Barry said it didn't work? Changed his mind maybe?
Posted by: tu3031   2008-12-15 11:41  

#6  The Iranian Mullah's (not necessarily the Iranian _people_) would welcome a nuclear retaliation - it'll bring the 12th Iman out of his hidey-hole. Haven't they stated that they wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map' time and time again?

But somehow I doubt that Obama would follow up on his commitment - he would rather bown down to the 'United Nations' to resolve the 'misunderstanding'. After all its 'above his pay grade'....

Something Japan should very well consider itself.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-12-15 11:27  

#5  A 'nuclear umbrella' huhÂ…hmmm. So when Obama said “A nuclear armed Iran would be a game changer.” It wasnÂ’t just an empty platitude after all. What he really meant was a ‘Containment PolicyÂ’. With Biden advising him on all things foreign IÂ’m shocked I tells yaÂ…shocked!
Posted by: DepotGuy   2008-12-15 10:39  

#4  A nuclear retaliation policy has to be straightforward, and in this case, in two parts.

Part one is that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, that the entire nation will be "sterilized" with neutron weapons.

Part two, just as important, is that if this happens, Iran will become the new Jewish nation, being given as reparations to Jews, to do with as they see fit. All mosques and other traces of Islam will be razed.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-12-15 08:02  

#3  Obama's 'follow-up?' Same as Clinton's 'follow-up.'
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-12-15 07:55  

#2  If I was running Iran, I would scoff at Obama too. I wouldn't think he would have the balls to follow up on that promise.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-12-15 07:53  

#1  Iran's ruling clerics might see it as their "religious duty" to nuke Israel once they have the capability. Any retaliation would be part of what they might consider a national "martyrdom operation".

Threats of massive retaliation might not mean much to them.
Posted by: crosspatch   2008-12-15 00:59  

00:00