Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran

  1. #1

    Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran

    [QUOTE]Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran

    FOXNews.com

    President-elect Barack Obama will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.

    Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

    [B][U]Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee would essentially suggest the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, the paper reported.[/U][/B]

    According to the paper's source, Obama's nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system, which enhances the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

    No immediate comment from Israeli officials or the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv was offered.

    Iran denies its nuclear program has military designs. But tough anti-Israel rhetoric from Tehran has spread fears that the Israelis, who are believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, could attack their arch-foe pre-emptively.

    The source, according to Haaretz, noted that the discussion of the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

    A senior Bush administration source reportedly said the nuclear umbrella was ridiculous and lacked credibility.

    "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?," he said.[/QUOTE]

    So, is a Nuclear-Weapons posessing Iran acceptable? Is it avoidable? Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2905277]So, is a Nuclear-Weapons posessing Iran acceptable? Is it avoidable? Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

    I think it's unavoidable at this point as a) our military is spread too thin and b) we have lost all good will in the international community to help

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn Heights
    Posts
    2,462
    I'm not sure I understand, does this mean we would be directly assisting Israel with a response in the event of Iranian strike?

    I believe Israel currently possesses nuclear weapons, and is the only country in the region that has them.

  4. #4
    Hell, maybe we should just give every country on Earth nukes?

    Clearly, attempting to limit who has then is yet another American Windmill Jousting Fools Errand. So why bother?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Vilma;2905296]I'm not sure I understand, does this mean we would be directly assisting Israel with a response in the event of Iranian strike? [/QUOTE]
    Yes, but it's very likely that such a response would have happened under the Bush administration as well.
    [QUOTE]
    I believe Israel currently possesses nuclear weapons, and is the only country in the region that has them.[/QUOTE]
    Correct, though it's officially unconfirmed, and probably not for long considering recent events in Iran and Syria.

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn Heights
    Posts
    2,462
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2905315]Yes, but it's very likely that such a response would have happened under the Bush administration as well.
    [/QUOTE]

    You think? I'm not so sure. American troops and/or weapons is a serious move on a political level that could have huge impacts on the entire Mideast. If Obama is indeed saying this, ballsy move diplomatically dontchya think? :D

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,106
    My guess is the only way america fires a nuclear missile is if one is fired on US land.That's it. Although if anyone would have fired one for Israel it may have been Bush, but I doubt it.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Vilma;2905322]You think? I'm not so sure. American troops and/or weapons is a serious move on a political level that could have huge impacts on the entire Mideast. If Obama is indeed saying this, ballsy move diplomatically dontchya think? :D[/QUOTE]

    It's not that ballsy to tell you the truth. It's just an extension of a stance that the current administration has had due to recent events concerning Iran's desire to gain nuclear capability. Considering Bush's strong pro-Israel stance (maybe the strongest of any President in history), as well his widely noted stance on Iranian policy, there's really no reason to think he wouldn't have adopted a very similar policy here. Further, the US providing Israel with advanced anti-balllistics was inevitable considering the circumstances of both Iran and Syria.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2905277]So, is a Nuclear-Weapons posessing Iran acceptable? Is it avoidable? Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

    No more acceptable than a Nuclear-Weapons possessing Israel.

    Its sad to see Obama bowing to the pressure of radical groups like AIPAC, American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute etc etc.. these groups have way too much influence on our foreign policy. I dont agree with this pact at all. Why should Israel be offered this pact and not any other neigboring nation?? A nuclear Iran (whether that is going to happen or not) is as much a threat to Israel as it is to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries. Of course only Israel has the benefit of having its own nuclear arsenal as a means of deterrence. So we protect them and not Saudi Arabia or kuwait or any other Arab nation that fears a nuclear Iran:rolleyes:

  10. #10
    Israel will never let Iran go nuclear so this is meaningless.

  11. #11
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,491
    If true this is an interesting development, correct me if I am wrong but Obama has not appeared overly pro Israel to this point. Honestly I'm not sure how you can say this, what of our other nation "friends" how can we not do the same for them under similar circumstances if we pledge this?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Timmy-y-y-y;2905332]My guess is [B]the only way america fires a nuclear missile is if one is fired on US land[/B].That's it. Although if anyone would have fired one for Israel it may have been Bush, but I doubt it.[/QUOTE]

    And thats the way it should be.
    Israel is more than capable of defending itself against all of its neigbors combined.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=jetswin;2905365]If true this is an interesting development, correct me if I am wrong but Obama has not appeared overly pro Israel to this point. Honestly I'm not sure how you can say this, what of our other nation "friends" how can we not do the same for them under similar circumstances if we pledge this?[/QUOTE]

    Because none of our other allies are facing similar circumstances as Israel is with Iran.

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,491
    [quote=RutgersJetFan;2905378]Because none of our other allies are facing similar circumstances as Israel is with Iran.[/quote]
    On that I agree, but this does seem to paint the US into a corner for future decision making.

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn Heights
    Posts
    2,462
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2905333]It's not that ballsy to tell you the truth. It's just an extension of a stance that the current administration has had due to recent events concerning Iran's desire to gain nuclear capability. Considering Bush's strong pro-Israel stance (maybe the strongest of any President in history), as well his widely noted stance on Iranian policy, there's really no reason to think he wouldn't have adopted a very similar policy here. Further, the US providing Israel with advanced anti-balllistics was inevitable considering the circumstances of both Iran and Syria.[/QUOTE]

    Didn't we recently provide Israel with some sort of new radar system, but the Israeli's are not allowed to operate it, only US troops?

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2905354][B][U]No more acceptable than a Nuclear-Weapons possessing Israel. [/U][/B]

    Its sad to see Obama bowing to the pressure of radical groups like AIPAC, American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute etc etc.. these groups have way too much influence on our foreign policy. I[B][U] dont agree with this pact at all. Why should Israel be offered this pact and not any other neigboring nation??[/U][/B] A nuclear Iran (whether that is going to happen or not) is as much a threat to Israel as it is to Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries. Of course only Israel has the benefit of having its own nuclear arsenal as a means of deterrence. So we protect them and not Saudi Arabia or kuwait or any other Arab nation that fears a nuclear Iran:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    So you view the two Nations as equal then? Politically and morally, in your view? Do you feel the chance of them being used offensively is equal, or is one nation more likely in your view (and which is more likely in such a case)? Should the U.S sign an agreement to protect Iran from nuclear attacks as well then?

    Or put more directly, I should ask.....do you think Israel AND Iran should be permitted by the U.S. to have nukes, i.e. should the U.S remain out of that process in your view?

    Just looking to understand you Ken, since we seem to think very differently.

  17. #17
    Israel probably has enough nukes to oblierate most of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2905411]So you view the two Nations as equal then? Politically and morally, in your view? Do you feel the chance of them being used offensively is equal, or is one nation more likely in your view (and which is more likely in such a case)? Should the U.S sign an agreement to protect Iran from nuclear attacks as well then?

    Or put more directly, I should ask.....do you think Israel AND Iran should be permitted by the U.S. to have nukes, i.e. should the U.S remain out of that process in your view?

    Just looking to understand you Ken, since we seem to think very differently.[/QUOTE]

    Yes i view them both as equal in terms of who would use them offensively (both nations very unlikely to use them offensively, as the ramifications would be greatly detrimental to both). I dont trust the Israeli government anymore than i trust the Iranian.

    The USA should not be agreeing to any pact to protect any nation against a nuclear attack.

    I also dont think the USA has any right to prevent any nation from gaining nuclear weapons, especially since we have them. We could discourage them, we could provide incentives for them not to build them, if they build them we should encourage them to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which Israel refuses to do), but in the end we cant block squat

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2905421]Israel probably has enough nukes to oblierate most of Iran, Iraq and Syria.[/QUOTE]

    No doubt about that.

  20. #20
    Warfish, let me ask you this.
    If Israel was to use its nuclear arsenal in a pre-emptive strike against Iran based on Israeli Intelligence that Iran was to strike firsty, then we find out the intelligence was wrong (as we did with Iraq), what would be the appropriate response by the USA and world community towards Israel??

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us