Biden: Israel was free to do what it needed to do with Iran

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jul 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/07/biden-no-more-concessions-on-iran-.html

    Does it mean tht Washington indeed gives a green light to future strike against Iran? I'm not sure.
     

  2. Just being honest. If a Sovereign States decides to take action, what right does any other Country have to actually stop that action being carried out.
     
  3. Trans-sane

    Trans-sane LE Book Reviewer

    What right? In all honesty the only "right" that matters is being able to say "I've got a bigger stick than you and so you WON'T be getting ambitious will you"
     
  4. It's just the Red Sea Pedestrians puffing themselves up again…

    Getting seriously pissed off with their obssessive perma-whine that the world is out to get them and they have the right to keep attacking everyone in the area.
     
  5. If the action could harm interest of another state and this state is powerfull enough to allow or not this or that action then a permission is needed to a dependent state.

    We live in the interdependent World. Israel heavily depends on the USA and the American leadership is influenced by the pro-Israel lobby and by Israel to be honest.

    I would like to attract your attention to another aspect of this story. Was mr.Biden sincere? Unlikely. First of all politicians rarely tell the truth but in this case I suppose the statements in the interview were indented as a pressure to Iran. It is something like: if not we but our lap dog would bite you. Meanwhile the lap dog is on the short Lead.
     
  6. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    It is well known that when the U.S. is ready for Israel to be let off the leash and sort out its inconvenient Iranian Nuclear question, they will happily level Isfahan. It's not a question of if, but when.

    What is the point of this thread, another U.S.A. hating - fest? You can't be Slagging of Isreal Sergei, what with so many Russians' close ties to the 'spiritual homeland' surely?
     
  7. Here's what they might end up attacking:

    Iran clerics declare election invalid and condemn crackdown

    Iran’s biggest group of clerics has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election to be illegitimate and condemned the subsequent crackdown.

    The statement by the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom is an act of defiance against the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has made clear he will tolerate no further challenges to Mr Ahmadinejad’s “victory” over Mir Hossein Mousavi.

    “It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6644817.ece
     
  8. The title of the article

    But there are only allegations and rumours. It's informational value is about zero.
     
  9. This seems to be a step in the right direction I believe, not the US giving the green light to Israel. Biden simply seems to be saying that the US won't support or hinder Israel in its future military options, and that Israel is free to do what it likes. This is a substantial change from the Bush era when Bush would have likely provided much support for an Israeli operation against Iran. Indeed, Biden would not have publicly supported an attack by Israel on Iran as

    a) Obama is still trying to return to normal relations with Iran, and if the US suddenly supported an attack against Iran it would only garner support for Ahmadinejad, rather than gain support for a democratically elected government. At the current time, such a statement would do vast damage to the campaigns of both Khomeni and Mousavi.

    b) No matter how many differences they have with Shia Iran, the Sunni states of the middle east still regard it as a preferable neighbour to America; in the same way that Europe might have detested Franco in Spain but preferred it to the Soviet Union (bad example but hopefully you'll get the idea). With Obama's recent drive to repair relations with the Arab world, following on from his speech in Cairo, now would not be a good time to attack a nation with a similar culture. Added to the fact that the western-backed party in Lebanon only narrowly won the recent election, Hezbollah would receive a massive jump in support which would most likely see them win the next election, causing Israel to get uppity about it and the US having to support Israel due to the pro-Israel lobbies in the US.


    For these reasons it seems unlikely that Biden would advocate and publicly announce US support for an attack on Iran...
     
  10. Col Lang What's with Biden?
    Biden does have a history of dumb gaffs as such he's the perfect vehicle for sending a message that later can be ascribed to an old fools big mouth getting ahead of his brain. On the other hand he could just be being a knob as usual.

    With the chaps we've got clinging tenaciously to power in Iran just now and the IAF's limited conventional capacity to harm them the IRGC command will be slapping each other on the back and begging Allah to get Bibi to bring it on. It's just what they need to end their current domestic difficulties.

    If Bibi hasn't got the USAF in tow it will be a meaningless gesture and you can read Biden's words equally as a declaration that's off the table.

    Truth is Bibi wants the US to do the job for him as the only sure way is flattening Iran's entire industrial infrastructure and strangling the country with sanctions.

    The Pentagon does not like the odds as there is fair chance of the end game being disaster in Iraq, more trouble in the Pashtun war plus being dragged into a ground war in Iran. DC will only risk that when its affairs in the region are in a viable state to survive the collateral damage. That's an option Barry may have available at the end of his second term; that's if he is really lucky and not up to his big flappy ears in Pakistan.
     
  11. Very much a generalisation, clearly you have no idea of the issues here other then what you receive from news agencies like the BBC with as much insight as 'The Sun'. I dont know many 'puffed up' people nor those who wish to attack 'everyone in the area'. Who said that the world is 'out to get them'?
     
  12. Biden is a total buffoon. Even on a good day, he reminds me of my senile uncle who could not find he way out of a telephone box. God help the USA.
     

  13. How did southern Lebanon play out for you lot in 2006 when once again you went off and started playing Billy Bad Arse?

    Got your arses kicked… didn't you!

    The BIGGEST problem with peace in the Middle East is that Israel does not want peace… far from it. The areas No 1 terrorist state thrives on and needs an external threat to deflect world opinion from it's odious and openly racist policies.

    If peace broke out two things would happen:

    All that US Aid money would dry up…

    The world would notice the fact you treat the Palestinians worse than shit in what is effectively the world biggest concentration camp. The way the IDF acted in Gaza recently was no better than the Nazis behaved in Warsaw in 1944.


    Israel: Created by terrorists, run by Terrorists and still acting like the No 1 regional Terrorist.
     
  14. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    I've said this before, but why not say it again. I'll bet that the facilities that can be seen by an eye in the sky are doing exactly what it says on the Iranian tin. With overwhelming technological surveillance where would you put a weapons development project? Sure as shit not where you can see it, or...I'd venture...where you can drop bombs on it...