Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
President George W Bush Backs Israeli Plan for Strike on Iran
As Tehran Tests New Missiles, America Believes Only a Show of Force Can Deter President Ahmadinejad
WASHINGTON - President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
"Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.
Nor is it certain that Bush's amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran's test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.
"It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."
The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.
There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. "The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan," the source said.
Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.
Senator Barack Obama's previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November's US presidential election. "If I were an Israeli I wouldn't wait," the Pentagon official added.
The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.
Iran's state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that "our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch".
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one", although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.
The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.
Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers' consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an "unlimited" rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production - or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz - could not be replaced. Iran is Opec's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.
Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military "surge" of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.
Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing - mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.
Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. "I don't subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone," said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.
"The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily," he said. "Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a 'beware of the dog' sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten."
A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad's confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran's religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting "clobbered" because of global economic strains. "His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he's a liability," he said.
In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that "in three months' time it will be a different Middle East".
Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.
"No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme," said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.
Even that may be beyond Israel's competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran's Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.
"Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off," Katzman added. "And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran's nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now."
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
97 Comments so far
Show AllCondoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one, like that WMD scam we fabricated as an excuse to illegally invade and occupy Iraq."
______________________________________
I presume that's what she MEANT to say.
If we needed any more proof that Bush and Cheney should be locked in a padded room for the rest of their lives, this has got to be it.
And if we needed any more proof that the Israelis are in charge of Washington politicians and American foreign policy, and that they don't give a flying goddam about what happens to the United States, this is it.
"President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may..."
Pelosi and Bush deal in probabilities...
Katzman eh?
Swell, WWW
But maybe we don't need the non-impeachment Dems...
"Sudan head accused of war crimes
Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court accuse Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir of committing war crimes in Darfur."
Shouldn't Isreal be asking the UN, not the US?
Dumb and dumberer.
The usa went to war with Iraq for its oil, to prevent them getting a nuke (which they didn't have realistic plans for attaining) and to combat 'terrorism'. On each count they failed to get what they wanted by resorting to force. The oil in Iraq is going to stay in the ground, a benni for the profits of the oil companies perhaps...
Their desire to use war to prevent the proliferation of nukes is, and must, backfire. Other countries will start to build them as the usa has abandoned the principles of the non proliferation agreement; they are not seeking to disarm the nuke forces of the usa therefore why on earth should anyone abide by the other terms of that treaty?
Using war to combat terrorism has also had the opposite effect. The grievances that led to the use of terrorism by al-Q have only been escalated by the use of force against Iraq. Those who would use terror to resist the militarism of the usa feel totally justified by killing civvies in response to the killing of civvies by the forces of the usa.
The elites of the usa and other countries may believe that using force against Iran is a good idea, they are horribly wrong. Another war will pooch the economy, the states can't afford another war when they've not payed for the last one. Should Isreal launch a war that results in 24$ a gallon gas, then they will really see the sort of anti-semitism that has killed millions in the past.
The only ones who'd benifit from another war in the mideast are the fundamentalists and the coffin builders.
At last, an article on CD that makes clear where the real power in Iran lays.
Pity the rest of the media hasn't cottoned on yet.
A few comments, if I may:
First of all, lets put:
-But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."
Together with:
-"The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily," he said. "Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable.
So, it seems that the American argument for bombing Iran is that they are "preoccupied" with the "nuclear" threat, and yet at the same time they downplay the warnings of retaliation because the Iranians have always "underperformed" and their equipment is "inaccurate" etc.
-"No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme," said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.
This anonymous "Pentagon source" is talking nonsense. How can an attack "set back a nuclear programme that, the US government itself says, ceased in 2003?
-"Even that may be beyond Israel's competence if it has to act alone."
It might be useful to point out, to the geographically challenged, that Israel cannot "act alone". The area between Israel and Iran is occupied by the US. In any case, it is US tax payers footing the bill for the Israeli bombs.
-The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.
Maybe, that is the whole point. I don't envisage the oil tycoons loosing their shirt over this and as far as the "progress" in Iraq, progress towards where? McCain's one hundred years of occupation or Obama's occupation without "combat" troops? (Presumably the US will feel free to redefine "combat" the way they did with "torture" i.e. it leaves behind thousands of soldiers, bomber pilots and mercenaries.)
"But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support". This, indeed, is a good comeback. Perhaps the US can convince Israel to sign on with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, like Iran. US public pressure against an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran is large and includes many American Jews. This is serious stuff and should be covered extensively by the MSM, whatever they are.
The US has a history of attacking and oppressing any people that oppose its imperialistic plans that serve to support the corporate elite.
This is not a shift in US history. Iraq, Iran, Panama, Philippines, South America, etc.
Vote Third Party, don't support the corporate elite or their puppets.
Mad Nookellar King George IV?
Worth reading from a trustworthy source:
Will Israel or the U.S. attack Iran?
by Uri Avnery
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/
For how many years did we have missles trained on Russia, and Russia have missles trained on the U.S. Many. And yes, it was a scary time, and one we prepared for as we wondered when, or if, the bombs might start to fall - for citizens in the U.S. and in Russia. Both countries have since counted themselves lucky that cool heads prevaled throughout the cold war.
Looks to me like Iran is simply doing what anyone does when faced by a bully, a bear, or any threat - make big noise, wave fists, throw sticks, whatever might scare them away.
Wow, interesting how the US says to Israel "we very likely might authorize you to pull the trigger, but if you get in trouble, we are in no way connected to you." Is this a roundabout tacit admission of guilt by the US on its illegal invasion of Iraq? Seems like the US is going to extraordinary lengths to ensure its fingerprints are not on the smoking gun when Israel attacks Iran. What will happen if Israel somehow is placed on the hot seat and has to start naming names?
I have to agree with Wilmor. Israel and Iran can shake their fists at each other all they want and Bush/Cheney et al can pretend to support Israel to save diplomatic face. But the realities of what such a strike would mean are such that Bush would not get away with allowing Israel to attack Iran. For those who would point to Iraq as a precedent for how dumb GWB can be - and I know he is! - I would simply point out that bombing Iran is a very different story than invading Iraq and we are living in very different political times than we were five years ago.
For starters, bush is no longer a even slightly popular president and Congress and the rest of the world knows this. Americans, seen years removed from 9/11 aren't in the same mood to let a president so oft proved wrong lead them into another war solely on the basis of fear.
more importantly, however, the USis in a recession and we are in a full-blown gas crisis. Do you really think even the most die-hard Republican wants to see gas prices go to $8 a gallon while jobs and entire industries are wiped out. The simple answer is no.
So let Israel and Iran do their macho chest-thumping for the summer and, as long as the cooler heads of the US military (who knew I'd ever get to say that with a straight face??) prevails, this situation will cool off.
He's just drooling to try those bunker buster nukes...
"But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces..."
-Yeah, right.
"This administration will not attack Iran."
Maybe not, but we will come running to the rescue of our jewish friends in israel. This was the plan all along. I'm starting to get a little antsy about what might happen between now and January 20.
BreeMass says: "For starters, bush is no longer a even slightly popular president and Congress and the rest of the world knows this. Americans, seen years removed from 9/11 aren't in the same mood to let a president so oft proved wrong lead them into another war solely on the basis of fear."
Really? I think the current administration has been so effective in fear-mongering and propoganda that people are more likely to just IGNORE what is happening until it is too late.
For example:
1. Progressives have been writing to their congress people to oppose HR 362 and SR 580 for weeks now, but we have seen no MSM coverage or changes in congressional voting stats.
2. The FISA amendment was approved.
3. New military funding has been passed.
The majority of people in this country are too de-sensitized to care about what the government is doing on our behalf. If we were all so jaded, wouldn't changes have been made by now? Wouldn't Iraq be empty of U.S. military? Wouldn't there have been riots and revolution???
I think Bush Co. knows that they have beaten us into subservience, and anything they do from here on out will be met with little tangible outrage.
POSTDEMENTIA writes: "Worth reading from a trustworthy source: Will Israel or the U.S. attack Iran? by Uri Avnery: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/
Good article, postdementia. :)
I couldn't find an "About" page for that site. Is it an Israeli Web site? Voices of peace from Israel - not something we get to hear often!
As I said in a previous post, CommonDreams should look further afield for some good news instead of deluging us with negative news all the time.
"......AMERICA BELIEVES.........."
See..now THIS is a problem...I mean..uhhh..since when does a guy named 'UZI' fer fucks sake...claim to know WHAT "..America Believes.."?
Hey! UZI! just what DOES "America believe"? Cause last time I looked..America don' necessarily 'BELIEVE' ANYTHING Der Junior SAY'S...period!..
Are we to assume..and admittedly ASSUMPTION is the MOTHER of all fuck-ups...but..are we to ASSUME that this is what ISRAEL believes? Do the Jews really BELIEVE that "we" support this particular form of WWIII?
That IS conveniant..wow!
This is so......SORDID!...it is SURREAL...WAAAAAAAY down the ol RABBIT HOLE!...will we ever..EVER see daylight again?
I suppose it would be futile to remind USans about presidential promises to keep them out of global conflicts in the past. So I won't bother.
"the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times."
I can picture the rabid israelis frothing at the mouth like pit-bulls waiting to pounce on their prey. Unfortunately for these zionist pricks they will get their faces bashed in, like Hezbollah did to them earlier. Israel will be fully responsible for any repercussions the Iranians have in store for them.
Send the Boy Scouts to the Whitehouse and have tnem wrap all those damn fools up in wet sheets.
Enough!
Who has Iran invaded in the last 150 years? The threat to Israel from Iran is perceived by the corrupt gov'ts of Israel and the US. Iran's neighbors do not see Iran's behavior as provocative.....just defensive.
What is so bad about waiting for a new US president who will want to talk first instead of attack first? What do the Israelis and the Bushites have to fear from real diplomacy and non threatening negotiations? Peace?
I believe that jcrumb (2:40 p.m.) has a fair though crudely phrased point.
See http://www.yourish.com/2008/07/13/5090#comment-32643
Sometimes CD posts articles that are not representative of the careful journalism that we've come to expect on this site; this might well be one of them.
"As Tehran Tests New Missiles, America Believes Only a Show of Force Can Deter President Ahmadinejad" - from self defense?
All this talk of attacking Iran (whether it happens or not) is making oil speculators rich and distracting from our other wars.
^^^ True. But if this one does happen, it's quite likely to be the "final straw" in a chain of events leading to global conflict. And that could easily turn into a full-scale nuclear war.
On the other hand, the way things have been shaping up, the enfeebled "anti-war" movement will likely consider it a great victory if the number of simultaneous "pre-emptive" wars can be limited to only two.
"It's all in Israel's hands." "If I were the Israelis I wouldn't wait." Psychopaths never "wait." And if all this is in a psychopathic elite's hands, which it is (and they're not in Iran), we can probably expect the worst sooner than later...
It won't happen. Not even Bush and Co would survive the fallout from the destruction of the western world's economic base - the oil outlet at Hormuz. This is notwithstanding the hypocracy and criminal wickedness of such intemperate action.
Aaaaaaand the countdown to a wider war in the Middle East begins...10...9...8...7...
(does anybody know the status of the 'Doomsday Clock'? You know, the one that was at 23:58 aka two minutes to Midnight for the longest time?)
the worlds nastiest psychopaths get the go ahead from the evil empire. And still the UN is not issuing sanctions against these two evil regimes. And where is the media? They howl over Zimbabwe, and are pussy quiet over Israel/US.
What an extraordinarily stupid man.
I would first like to state that I think many other CD readers would enjoy, as I would, if JCrumb would take his filthy mouth and crawl back into whatever hole he came out of and I doubt if the rabbits would have him.
That aside, this is all double=talk. As someone said up above, while we say we will not attack Iran, we're doing our best to goad Israel into doing so and then we can ride to the rescue like the cavalry in the old western movies.
Dubya: You ain't John Wayne. You ain't Randolph Scott. You're not even Gabby Hayes
So nobody cares about your amber lights.
While everybody's talking tough, remember the cautionary words of our own Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the possible closing of the Strait of Hormuz if Iran is attacked.
If the mass population of the U. S. are unhappy with current prices at the pump, think what cutting off the flow of 40% of the world's supply will do to crude oil prices.
That's the real problem; nobody wants to take the time to think. Just jump blindly into whatever it is (like Iraq 5 years ago) and worry about the consequences later.
Yes, yes, all the "experts" are worried about what a strike on Iran will do to "our"
oil supplies, but what about the human factor? What about the lives lost? What about those who are left, many embittered enough to turn to extremist terrorist organizations? No, human life doesn't matter, does it? Didn't matter before, doesn't matter now. Only oil. Only these people who don't care about life of any kind will find they are caught up in the universal Law of Return. It can't come soon enough. May I be able to look upon those who will be punished with some compassion instead of revulsion.
So now we're having Israel do our dirty work ... real classy, George.
I heard they found new oil deposits in Iran so it's time to take their resourses also . More invasions and occupations please .
We must attack Iran: they got Photoshop--and probably a bootleg copy...
I can hear it now: more hype to save Israel so that our war hawks won't have themselves to blame for the war to end all wars. I can't imagine the Bush team will be willing to go out quietly and the destruction of Iran is their wish, regardless of how many of our soldiers die, or how many innocent civilians perish.
Well shucks golly gee, too bad we can't come up with a fool-proof plan to kill the people we're afraid of. Kill, kill, kill, would be such a solution, except for the fact that we would be inconvenienced by retaliation. War solves so many problems.
Christian nation, my ass... Where is the uprising?
This is the one issue you lefties are 100% right about. I'm getting terrified. If israel attacks iran, israel might very well cease to exist. There's NO way they can win. The best they could do would be to limit the number of their civilians that die. They are very good at this but what if iran uses chemical weapons?
Read the article by Scott Ritter. He's pretty much right on the money with his military analysis every time, and he paints a grim picture of this potential conflict.
I just can't imagine israel would be so stupid. Bush I don't know about, but clearly top american commanders do not support an attack on iran.
We & Israel play war games just off Iranian land so they can see some of our strength and Iran plays wars games so we can see some of their strength......this has been going on for years. A "mine is bigger than yours" kinda thing. I am not saying something can't or won't happen from some where towards someone at sometime, but JEESH! It is a lose-lose situation if such a thing should happen. Is there a real threat from us (toward Iran)? From Israel(toward Iran)? From Iran (toward Israel)? Or.....is it posturing from each country for PR reasons? Well....there is some fear mongering going on from each country....and each country has it's drama queens playing up the fear mongering. I think if there is a real danger of someone in power taking the first strike against another, it'll be the fanatic in power, not the leader of wisdom and sanity. Wait a moment....."fanatic?" That discription fits Israel, Iran .....AND the USA........
Another light program. Does the Israel amber light mean the terrorism light is amber too? What if a child was missing and we had an amber alert for that and the traffic light was amber would that add up to a green light for the military industrial complex and Blackwater and a red light for liberty in America?
If all of this and the car in front of you activates their red brake light will you drop your cell phone and notice your way of life seems dangerous. Will you react to the worst administration in your life?
Americas' actions post Israel attack depends on whether the Pentagons man in charge is a Curtis LeMay or an Admiral Fallon.
What exactly would an Israeli strike on Iran do before the elections.
1. It would guarantee Obama's victory this fall.
2. It would give Obama an excuse to keep troops in Iraq due to the changing circumstances.
3. It would cause oil to go up to 300 dollars a barrel AND cause oil shortages and bring back gas lines - 10 dollars a gallon or higher).
4. It would force poorer nations to seek more credit from the IMF to be able to purchase oil.
5. It would probably plunge the US into a depression and create conditions for a World Currency to replace the dollar, which would probably collapse in the wake of massive bank failures.
6. It would certainly make America more unpopular than it already is (a plus in the argument for One World Government to replace Americas hegemony).
7. It might give Israel an excuse to take on Hezbollah again in Southern Lebanon, perhaps even Syria, by claiming they were attacked by Iranian sponsored terrorists. Further destabilizing the Middle East.
These are all good reasons to the global elites.
The repeated public announcements of Israel of their intentions is curious. Generally, one does not give advance notice of your intentions of executing a surprise attack. So it could be all a bluff serving to keep oil prices high, and influence the election. This still works well for Obama.
Bush just takes his orders, he knows the decision has been made for Obama to be President, so he plays along (look at all the republicans leaving Congress - 29, an all time record). It's the Dems turn to serve the elite. Got to have change every 8 years to keep the illusion of a 2 party system and give people on the other side hope (besides, even the right is slowly waking up to the last 7 1/2 years, got to give them an enemy they can latch onto when things get worse to forget the previous 8 years, otherwise they might turn on Republicans)
As for the idea Israel would not survive due to Irans missiles. That is so ludicrous. Yes, they may suffer some casualties, but no country has ever been destroyed by conventional bombs and missiles, even chemical, and Israel's government has little regard for life, even their own citizens. You have to use nukes, or be able to boot boots on the ground and invade, to destroy a country. That is beyond Iran's capability. Iran is a paper tiger, they are no threat, even if they had nukes, since they would know the US would wipe Iran out if they ever attacked Israel with nukes.
For the love of all that's holy, would someone please IMPEACH these SOBs before they get us all KILLED??!?
As if any further proof was needed of this world-destabilizing US-Israeli Co-dependence Axis! For chrissakes, it's old hat by now.
Latest Version: The US signals its puppet Israel to prepare an attack on Iran (a green light soon to follow -guaranteed) to proxy protect US oil interests in the region.
In exchange for military proxy services rendered against Iran by Israel, the US will continue to wink at Israel's illegal settlement policies (some settlements withdrawn in one area but new settlements extended in another, endlessly); its inhumane building of physical border walls which fragment indigenous human communities; and worst of all, US winking at Israel's massive build up of illegal nuclear weapons.
All other considerations of world peace, regional justice, and who rightly owns what lands and which resources, for the monment, as usual, will be dammned.
The Axis Will Have Its Way.
But what Israelies apparently fail to consider, to the extent their basic survival cause is justified, is the ruthlessness of their corporate controlled American defenders.
As the common people of America internally force their corporate-owned government into creating energy independence realities (which is coming, despite corporate America's momentary resistance), America's interest in [even the legitimate dimensions of] Israel's survival, will be cut loose -- just as soon as you can say Half Way There.
The current, fragile, bogus US/Israeli co-security sphere is now no longer sustainable, even in the short term, for a host of reasons - and it will begin to fall of its own unnatural weight -- sooner than most of us anticipate.
This advent won't save the US or the world from deeper follies, but it will allow other, better policy potentials to emerge - across the board.
And, the latest tactical accelerations: Do all this
There needs to be a nationwide "Amber Alert" put out for little boy George. I think the Devil has kidnapped him.
Maybe BB BALLS CONYERS will save us. I'm still not aware of ANY evidence that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. Accusations are not evidence.
See, Jesus is W's favorite philosopher. And, see, Jesus would definitely give Israel the amber light.