Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Israel Has Right to Hit Iran: Biden
Israeli officials have welcomed comments by US Vice-President Joe Biden that America would not stand in the way of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear plants.
File photo shows X-band radars (L) installed by the United States at a military facility in Israel's Negev desert. In 2008, the US agreed to install a radar system in Israel to counter a perceived missile threat from Iran. US Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview broadcast that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran's nuclear ambitions. (AFP/File/David Buimovitch) Mr
Biden contradicted his country's most senior military commander,
Admiral Mike Mullen, when he responded, three times, to questions on
the American ABC's This Week program that Israel was free to do what it needed to do.
"If the Netanyahu Government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," Mr Biden said.
Israeli officials have read the comments as a sign the US is preparing a "plan B" in the event that its proposed dialogue with Iran fails to rein in Tehran's uranium enrichment program.
Speaking in Tokyo, Alaeddin Broujerdi, the head of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, said Iran was ready to take decisive action if Israel attacked its nuclear operations.
"Both the US and Israel are aware of the consequence of an erroneous decision," Mr Broujerdi said. "I believe our response will be real and decisive."
President Barack Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in May that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making "a good-faith effort to resolve differences" in ending its nuclear program, signalling that his willingness to engage in diplomacy over the issue had limits.
Israel reportedly gave serious thought to a pre-emptive strike against Iran's Natanz nuclear complex last year but was told by then US president George Bush that the US would not support such a move.
Officials in Jerusalem were not surprised by Mr Biden's comments, saying that while the Obama Administration might not have given the green light to an Israeli attack against Iran, it was not withholding approval.
"There are secret understandings between Israel and the Obama Administration as to the options that Israel has regarding Iran," said one political source quoted by the newspaper Israel Today.
The newspaper quoted sources in Mr Netanyahu's office as saying that "the fact that Biden is talking about Israel's right to attack Iran, and at the same time fewer statements are being made on settlements, shows that Mr Netanyahu is succeeding, slowly and determinedly, in persuading the Americans of the justice of his Government's policy".
The liberal Israeli daily Haaretz said Israel now believed the US was considering more punitive action against Iran, such as tighter sanctions, but still wanted to give dialogue a chance of succeeding.
Mr Biden's comments appeared at odds with those of Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mullen, who seemed to warn against an Israeli strike on Iran in appearances on CBS' Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday. "I worry about it being very destabilising, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that," Admiral Mullen told CBS.
- Posted in
101 Comments so far
Show AllJoe Biden is outdoing himself again! It's that old urge for surge, I suppose. We got three wars going, why not a fourth?
Biden is a wannabe zionist. Wasn't it his comment that said" If i were a jew, i would be a zionist"?
These people is high offices in the US are all serving a foreign nation.
No. He said "You do not have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. I AM a Zionist."
Thanks. That is more accurate.
indeed, and Biden aint the only non-Jewish hardcore Zionist, that's for sure
I am reminded of the statement of Ehud Barak - which we should all bear in mind: "If I were a Palestinian of the right age, I would join, at some point, one of the terrorist groups."
'Terrorist' is in the mind of the beholder. I don't consider any of those resistance groups in Palestine terorists. The biggest terrorist state of all is without a doubt the United States, and the biggest terrorist entity is the CIA. CASE CLOSED.
No surprise here.
The naked eye has never been able to detect where Biden's lips end and Israel's fundamental orifice begins.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Thanks for the smile. Much needed.
Yes, Thanks Obi-Serve,
I needed that. (the naked eye....!) :-D
Now I don't have to take any pain killer tonight.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
ergo, iran has the right to attack israel, pakistan, india, north korea, south korea ad nauseum, ad infinitum........
Bring America Back !!!!...............! Good ol' Joe does it again...so much for Barak's diplomatic talk.
**Biden never raised a whimper of protest against Israel's recent Genocide in Gaza--300-400 dead innocent kids included, so we sure as hell are not surprised at his inviting the Zions to do it to Iran.
**Biden is not very original on it, since John Neocon McCain
rewrote the song====Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran !!! And Hillary elbows stated on Iran: "We will just obliterate them".
**What the hell goes on ??? VP Cheney gives them the 'right' to waterboard detainees, now VP Biden gives the Zionists the 'right' to bomb Iran !! LET us please exercise our "Rights" to tell Biden and Cheney where to go !
KIng George the Bush' third term is well in progress.
WAKE UP AMERICA ! Do not let Biden get away with this unconscionable remark, and his very loose tongue ! Did AIPAC just make another campaign $$$$, or what ?
There no inherent RIGHT to preemptively launch a Military attack against another nation.
It a violation of International laws and the UN Charter.
Only criminal nations believe they can act outside the law.
It cannot be stated more succinctly than you did. Biden in essence reverts to the Hitlerism of the 1930's when even his future opponents (France and England)agreed that Germany had the "right" to annex Sudentenland.
Does anybody have the odds on WW3;some body out there is betting on how this adminisration is crazier than the last one.Tony
"...was told by then US president George Bush that the US would not support such a move."
-that the Democrats have become even more hawkish than Bush comes as no surprise to me.
Biden is a classic establishment dirtbag and a close ally of Obama. He was an avid supporter of US intervention in the former Yugoslavia and along with his buddy sponsored the McCain-Biden Kosovo Resolution, authorizing Clinton to use “all necessary force” against Serbia.
Immediately after Powell made his false presentation before the UN Security Council that included fabricated claims of mobile chemical labs, Biden appeared with him and said, “I am proud to be associated with you. I think you did better than anyone could have because of your standing, your reputation and your integrity ...”
As the illegal war in Iraq lost support because no WMD was found Biden said of Bush: “I want to see the president of the United States succeed in Iraq...His success is America’s success, and his failure is America’s failure.”
In 2005 the Post reported: Barack Obama—described Biden as “an early and consistent supporter of the US intervention against Saddam Hussein.”
The fact Obama chose chicken hawk Biden as his vice president speaks volumes about chicken hawk Obama and should have been a red flag for those liberals that voted for him. Neither of these pretenders ever wore a military uniform let alone knows anything about the horrors of war yet still they are more than eager to send your son, mine and anyone else’s to fight and die for Big Oil & War Profits Inc.
"Neither of these pretenders ever wore a military uniform let alone knows anything about the horrors of war yet still they are more than eager to send your son, mine and anyone else’s to fight and die for Big Oil & War Profits Inc."
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. If he wants to go to war, more power to him, as long as he and his family lead the infantry into battle. If the congress wants to pass unconstitutional "Authorization(s) to Use Military Force" in lieu of an actual declaration of war, members and their families should follow the Commander into battle.
"Officials in Jerusalem were not surprised by Mr Biden's comments,"
Nor am I, what with Joe Biden being a self-declared Zionist.
And, Mike Mullen is NOT the nation's most senior military commander (other than in the sense that he may be the OLDEST, I don't know if that's true). That job belongs to the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military, Barack Obama. Presumably the position taken by Biden is in accord with the decision made by the actual most senior military commander. Bush said to Israel, "Don't do it." Obama has said, presumably, based on Biden's comments, "Go ahead." I'm no Bush fan but who's the bigger warmonger, Bush or Obama?
"the fact that Biden is talking about Israel's right to attack Iran,"
Would this not qualify as "aggressive war" under U.N. regulations? Does every country have a "sovereign right" to attack any other country, or is that a privilege granted only to the United States and Israel?
"The liberal Israeli daily Haaretz said Israel now believed the US was considering more punitive action against Iran, such as tighter sanctions, but still wanted to give dialogue a chance of succeeding."
This would be the Israel which has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is said to have around 200 or more nuclear bombs in storage, and the Iran which has signed the treaty and is said by the IAEA to show no evidence of developing a nuclear weapons program.*
"I worry about it being very destabilising, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that," Admiral Mullen told CBS.
Can we absolutely and totally discount any possibility that Iran may have already acquired nuclear arms from a third party? Politicians live in and revel in lies and half-truths. *It may be true that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons development program, but never mentioned or suggested is the possibility of a third-party source. Iran seems pretty confident in its ability to respond with overwhelming force should they be attacked by Israel. A nuke over the billion dollar U.S. "embassy" (fort) in Iraq would certainly qualify as an unintended consequence, as would a nuke over Tel Aviv.
Go ahead. Start World War III you bastards.
I just hope I get to see the flash.
The survivors will indeed envy the dead.
He sure is one sick piece of shit. There really is cause for concern, if there is any truth to the stories of Iranian possession of nukes it would certainly explain the bold statements and nose tweaking by Amadinejad over the past few years.
So why would the plutocracy wish to see a nuclear exchange?
Iran gets nukes from Australian
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25597778-5006016,00.html
US experts 98% certain Iran got nuclear bombs - in 1992
http://dontbombiran.info/?p=309
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
In order to have functioning nuclear bombs, a nation needs to conduct nuclear tests: this is a sine qua non condition for any nation's having such weapons. Where are the tests conducted by Iran, and when exactly were they carried out? What is the evidence that such tests were perfomed?
It is totally gratuitous to assert that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons unless the person(s) making the claim can produce evidence that tests were conducted.
That said, Biden is, of course, an unspeakable dirtbag for having made that statement. For, although Iran does not have nuclear weapons, a war with Iran would be something that the world would come to regret deeply. If the holy economy is in shambles now, wait till you see what state it is in after a war with Iran. We'll all be paying dearly if such an event comes to pass. And with that, I haven't even touched on the legal and moral aspects of such an action.
"That said, Biden is, of course, an unspeakable dirtbag for having made that statement."
_________________________________________
Sorry, Abendland, I'm afraid I completely disagree.
Biden was an unspeakable dirtbag WAY before he made that statement.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I have no dispute with you on that addition to my post.
I consider it an addition, not a corrective, for I did not say 'from now on'.
They would,of course "test fire" on Irael.Tony
"It is totally gratuitous to assert that Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons unless the person(s) making the claim can produce evidence that tests were conducted."
I'm not sure if you might be referring to my post. If so, I did not assert anything; I asked a simple, though admittedly wild assed speculative, question.
Again, somewhat revised, "Can we be certain that Iran has not acquired nuclear weapons from an (unspecified) third party?
I believe it would be wise to consider that question prior to an attack upon Iran by any aggressor.
"In order to have functioning nuclear bombs, a nation needs to conduct nuclear tests"
Not if proven weapons were acquired from a third party who would already have completed the tests, and would have been manufacturing weapons based upon designs already tested.
It is all speculative on my part. It was a response to the idea of unintended consequences. One does not bring a knife to a gunfight. It is best to first determine whether or not your opponent has a gun. One need not build and test his own gun. One can purchase guns on the black market.
Did you read the articles suggested by White Rose, above?
Here are the links, again.
Iran gets nukes from Australian
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25597778-5006016,00.html
US experts 98% certain Iran got nuclear bombs - in 1992
http://dontbombiran.info/?p=309
My best, wildest speculation yet, NOT supported by the above articles or any other sources but my addled brain:
Perhaps the CIA has supplied nuclear weapons to Iran. Perhaps they might want to find out if a limited nuclear war could actually be fought.
Once the first nuke detonates, all bets are off all over the world.
Iran might have nuclear weapons. Or not.
HOWEVER, Khamenei has stated that:
"For many years, our nation and its officials have repeatedly said that we do not want nuclear weapons, it is haram (forbidden) in Islam. Even if they pay us to have it, we do not want it"
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/
full-coverage/5629196/
hated-mideast-irans-khamenei/
"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons"
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/
iran/nuke/mehr080905.html
How many very high ranking Jewish religious leaders have stated that the stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden?
By stating that nuclear weapons themselves are haram, not just the use of nuclear weapons, Khamenei isn't giving himself, and Iran, ANY wiggle room, to use nuclear weapons.
People conveniently want to ignore that Iran's highest leader has stated that nuclear weapons are haram under Islam.
You are right that I did leave out the logical possibility (in the formal sense of 'logical', not the vague sense of ordinary speech) that Iran may have obtained nuclear weapons from a third party.
However, a logical possibility is one thing, what is possible in the actual world, the world as we know it, is another thing altogether.
As such, I grant you that the proposition that Iran obtained nuclear weapons from a third party (be it the CIA) is indeed "wild assed," but, unlike you, I believe that such speculations are not worth entertaining.
EKATON: Would this not qualify as "aggressive war" under U.N. regulations? Does every country have a "sovereign right" to attack any other country, or is that a privilege granted only to the United States and Israel?
-to ask the question is to answer it.
The hypocrisy of the US knows no bounds. The US, the only nation to have used nuclear bombs against another nation, has appointed itself lord and overseer of WMD and the sole arbiter of who may and may not possess them. The MSM parrots this notion as gospel, and the sheeple swallow it hook-line-&-sinker.
Has there been any,ANY rebuttal to this shit from anybody in DC?Tony
Incredible-- the military head of the joint chiefs of staff being more cautious and sensible than the civilian President and vice president of the U.S.
Well, yes, the military is less ideological and more realistic on the prospects of such a conflict and the devastating consequences it would have on practically the whole world. Biden demonstrated his utter irrationality and total divorce from reality when he spoke as he did. Frightening that we have an autistic sociopath as vice-president.
Well folks, do you remember the words of Saint Ronald the Reagan about "Mutual Assured Destruction"? Well before we mutually destruct, we should try to vote these scum-bags out and vote people with an IQ of above tilt in. Our children's children will thank us.
Let's see.
You are a supplier of widgets.
One of your customers who buys your widgets wants to use them up.
You make more money the more widgets that are used.
You want to sell more widgets so why would you stop any customer from using them?
The more your widgets are used to the more money you make.
The more your widgets are used to the more money you make.
The more your widgets are used to the more money you make.
The more your widgets are used to the more money you make.
You have no soul.
You care only about making money.
You are the U.S, Government.
The widgets you sell is weapons of mass destruction.
You have no soul.
You care only about making money.
As in so many areas, Obama is trying to stake out a middle ground on Israel, Palestine and Iran. Its an almost impossible task, and Biden shooting off his mouth doesn't help a bit. 30 plus years experience, but its the first year repeated over and over!
Coco is right. By Biden's logic, Iran could conclude it must take out Israeli airfields and planes in preemption to an airstrike.
BTW: Israel won't have even a chance to pull off an airstrike against Iran unless the US gives it a red carpet to fly across Iraq. The large number of jets carrying large bombs will be reported on takeoff by Iranian spies. The planes will have to refuel and will be on radar for hours, and well trained Iranians will be waiting for them with every plane and SAM they have available (some state of the art Russian hardware). Iran isn't defenseless as Iraq and Syria were.
We can only hope.
I doubt they would fly over Iraq. Look for departure from somewhere like Georgia. Does that give any sense as to why Israel was so involved in the ill-advised attack on S.Ossetia with military advisors, those 8 UAV's etc.? They want the base for operations against Iran.
It is amazing to me that such a small country as Israel can effectively control the foreign policy of so many Western countries.
"It is amazing to me that such a small country as Israel can effectively control the foreign policy of so many Western countries."
It's called blackmail by Mossad and AIPAC.
How many politicians have skeletons they would rather not have revealed residing in their closets?
Chris Floyd has a good discussion of this over at
http://www.chris-floyd.com/
the article details the current(and familar) preparations to attack iran. much the same as the way they spun the iraq attack:
*Obama has given "to the end of the year" for diplomacy to work re irans nuclear program.
*UN IAEA chair El Baradi is being replaced by a hard-liner
*Biden has given a pale green light.
They just have to get some good "intel" sorted out...
Irans only hope is to make sure that everyone knows how bad it will hurt to attack them, which of course will be spun as them being a rouge state whose time has come.
Israel's attack in Iran seems to be firmly in progress. Different sources in Google News report that Israel has Egyptian authorization to send its submarines armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles through the Suez Canal (and in fact has now done so), and Saudi Arabian permission for its war planes to overfly that country for the attack. Iran's retaliation will obviously be to destroy the huge Saudi oilfields in the north as well as the Suez Canal. They would also close off the Hormuz Straights.
With this the oil prices will go to $150-200 or more and the total collapse of what remains of the neoliberal economic order.
"and Saudi Arabian permission for its war planes to overfly that country"
Thus eliminating the need to obtain U.S. permission to overfly Iraq. The Saudis are NOT friendly with Iran.
Obama stood by and did nothing to intervene in the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and he bears responsibility for his support of Israeli war crimes. Obama has repeatedly defended Israel's "right to self-defense." He has likewise promised to maintain the US pledge of $30 billion in arms aid to Israel over the next decade.
bbr-001's claim that: "Obama is trying to stake out a middle ground on Israel, Palestine and Iran," is an attempt at sanitizing a pus-oozing policy of supporting Israel's murderous and inhuman treatment Palestinians and an attempt to portray Obama as taking a reasonable approach.
Obama's lack of concern for Palestinians when Israel declared "all-out war" against a largely defenseless and half-starved population of 1.5 million people imprisoned in a blockaded small strip of land is anything but reasonable. It's criminal.
Portraying Obama as seeking a middle ground, and hence as reasonable, wreaks of lip sticked pigs and stinks to high heaven.
"Obama stood by and did nothing to intervene in the Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and he bears responsibility for his support of Israeli war crimes."
Did you make this up, or do you have some supporting evidence for this claim?
Sy Hersh wrote in The New Yorker that Obama worked behind the scenes to stop the Gaza incursion while he was President-elect, waiting for Bush to vacate the presidency. The Israelis pulled out before Obama entered the White House---lending support to Hersh's claim.
He did nothing publicly. That doesn't mean he did nothing.
Really? fat lot of good that did. Supporting evidence? The silence was support enough. What evidence do you have that Obama worked behind the scenes? What a crock! Did you see the link to Obama's AIPAC speech I posted above? Are you in some sort of denial? Please, you are either naive or intentionally trying to lay a smoke screen.
The Israelis pulled out because that was part of the pre-approved plan, they had it planned months in advance. The Israelis continue their illegal blockade and siege of Gaza - the world's largest concentration camp. Has Obama done anything? Have sanctions been threatened from the UNSC on the request of the US? Spare us the BS, most here have been paying a lot more attention and know more about this than you do, so you better come up with some more sophisticated propaganda.
Has Obama done anything? He called for an end to settlements in the west bank---in direct opposition to the Israeli government. A big step in the right direction. A start toward a more balanced position, and perhaps a peace treaty.
You people crack me up.
Cracking you up isn't called for. You were cracked up the moment you embraced FUBAR Zionist logic. How's that go again? The only good arab is a dead one, right? You Zionists need a nice thousand square miles or so in Australia to cool your heels and stop your bullshit. You can play "crocodile dundee" and make the desert bloom in Australia! You've pushed everyone and everything into this ridiculous kill a hundred for everyone of us thing. Damned, you guys sound like the Nazis when they shot ten villagers for every German soldier killed. You just don't get it. But you will when your money runs out.
BARACK OBAMA: The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama in Cairo in his heralded address to the Muslim world. John Pilger, he says the continued expansion of settlements has to stop, your response? And an overall to his entire address?
JOHN PILGER: He says the continuing response, but what about all the settlements, the so-called settlements, colonies, that have so honeycombed the Occupied Territories over almost two decades? I thought the most significant aspect of that statement was he referred to the continuing settlements, leave the ones that have already been built. Let’s stop building them now. Of course, the Israelis, ever resourceful in this area, got around this very quickly. by issuing building licenses to those settlements that were about to be built and hadn’t been built as if they had been built so they would not fall into President Obama’s category.
Notice fallen world, Obama said continued expansion of settlements. Where is the condemnation for all the ones already built?
ANSWER: There isn't one!
Notice fallen world, Obama doesn't threaten ANY CONSEQUENCES, he just says the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. What happens when the Israelis continue issuing building permits?
ANSWER: Nothing!
Thanks, fallen world, for making my point- again. Good job.
talk about entertaining; you sound so confident, yet your comments are incredibly naive and uninformed. Where is the hard evidence? Talk is cheap, and we have been hearing the same BS for decades. Show me don't tell me, cause I've heard it all before
Dear fallen world: Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas. Not to mention firing on Red Cross buildings, attacking ambulences and allowing injured Palestinians to bleed to death on the streets by firing upon anyone who tried to help them. Keep in mind these are only a tiny fraction of the atrocities committed by Israelis.
Israel's repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. (March 25, 2009)
fallen world: "He did nothing publicly. That doesn't mean he did nothing."
-Oh gee, fallen world, perhaps Obama should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for saying nothing publicly. Obama, the coward, not willing to take any heat from AIPAC, or right wingers, said nothing publicly. Thanks for making my point.
You seem to equate the war crimes of Israel with Obama---for some reason. He wasn't even in office when they were committing the crimes which you so nicely lay out.
Thanks fallen world. If you can accept that Israel committed war crimes then you must be able to understand that war crimes are a serious violation and merit much more of a response than saying nothing. Wouldn't you agree?
If Israel attacks Iran, the most they could hope for is to slow the nuclear program. The consequence of an attack though is that Iran would rally as one around the need to attain Nuclear Weapons. It would become a national mania, a drive, a goal that would be fulfilled within 36 months of an attack.
And in the meantime Iraq, which Iran has helped keep calm, would erupt. Lebanon & Syria will be pulled in. The Straits of Hormuz would be closed/blocked, maybe by a sunken American Carrier. Iranian SS-N-22's overlook that strait.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will play out mightily if this Charley Foxtrot is undertaken.
Israel is an insane rogue dog that intimidates and scares all it sees.
It will be shot down in the street, like all rabid dogs must be. Sad, because it would be so welcome TO JOIN THE PACK GODAMMIT.
To Kill A Mockingbird