Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Hot on Facebook
Guy Buys $123 Safe on eBay, Finds $26,000 Inside Seller tries to get half the cash back, fails »

Israel Should Attack Iran

By Kevin Spak,  Newser Staff

Posted Jun 11, 2009 8:20 AM CDT

(Newser) – No matter who wins tomorrow’s presidential election in Iran, the threat of its nuclear program won’t go away, and that’s why Israel should attack sooner rather than later, writes former UN ambassador John Bolton in the Wall Street Journal. Attacking Iran now won’t be safe or easy, but “all scenarios become infinitely more dangerous once Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons.”

Bolton laments the fact that Israel didn’t strike during Bush’s tenure, saying, "the missed opportunity is palpable." If attacked, Iran won’t, as some argue, close the Strait of Hormuz, because it doesn’t want a direct conflict with the US. Nor will the Iranian people rally behind the mullahs—the strike might actually turn them against the regime. And Iran’s Arab neighbors would secretly “welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem.”

An Israeli airforce F16i fighter jet is being serviced in a hangar in the Hatzerim military base in southern Israel, Monday, March 30, 2009.
An Israeli airforce F16i fighter jet is being serviced in a hangar in the Hatzerim military base in southern Israel, Monday, March 30, 2009.   (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clasps his hands during his final election campaign rally in western Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 10, 2009.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clasps his hands during his final election campaign rally in western Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 10, 2009.   (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)
An Israeli soldier sits atop a tank near the border with the Gaza Strip, Monday, Feb. 23, 2009.
An Israeli soldier sits atop a tank near the border with the Gaza Strip, Monday, Feb. 23, 2009.   (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

While Iran enjoys rhetorical conflict with the US, operationally it prefers picking on targets its own size or smaller. - John Bolton

Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the regime. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse against an oppressive regime. - John Bolton

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 11 comments
AnnieChrist
Jun 12, 2009 12:45 PM CDT
I am not advocating for Iran, however I would urge we walk a mile in their sandals for a moment. True, admenijad thinks he is the instrument of God, but so also did bush. bush named three countries as comprising the axis of evil, then proceeded to wage war and regime change on one of those countries, and had he not bogged down in Iraq, he would have pointed his guns at Iran next. According to bush, he was put into office to wage a 'crusade' on god's behalf. The word crusade carries the same conotation to a Muslim as the word 'jihad' does to a christian. Therefore I can pardon the Irani's if they are just a little bit paranoid regarding the intent of a super power with the greatest nuclear arsenal this side of a super nova. Israel has a nuclear arsenal and the capability to nuke any country in the Mideast, again a legitimate cause for concern for Iran. bush and cheney's name are brought up in this forum quite often, many times when they are not relevant to the topic at hand, however they are pertinent to this discussion, because altho I seriously doubt it will happen, we could very well have another bush presidency within our life times. If this happens, it will be the boltons and cheney's advising that president bush also. In view of all this, if I were Iranian, I would be screaming for a nuclear deterrent. It is nice to think that we will always have intelligent and responsible leaders who can be trusted with the nuclear arsenal, thereby giving us the moral right to dictate to other nations what they can and cannot have in terms of weaponry, but the rest of the world just might want to have a say in what they can and cannot do,without seeking the blessing of the US.
Robert_Dada
Jun 11, 2009 11:02 AM CDT
Rob I agree with you. Will you go over there please and die for our safety? I'll stay here and ensure your legacy is 'properly' captured.
fancygapva
Jun 11, 2009 6:24 AM CDT
John Bolton is a dangerous nut with an allegiance to Israel that has overshadowed his loyalty to the US. If Israel attacked Iran it would put the US in a terrible diplomatic position. Anyhow, if Iran can't have nukes how come Israel and its elephant in the living room nuclear bombmaking program (estimated to be 150+ nukes and missiles capable of reaching all the Middle-east) can be permitted? They haven't entered into any nuclear agreements. We are "allies" with Pakistan which obtained AND SOLD nukes and technology illegally. They aren't part of any nuclear accord and are vulnerable to coup. What about India (Paki's enemy and neighbor)? We are selling them enriched uranium and giving them technology (courtesy of the W administration). N. Korea rattles it's nukes at us about every 6 months and we humor them. They sell their technology to rogue nations and terrorists and we don't hamper them. NONE of our nuclear policy makes sense. Add in Israel's territorial ambitions toward a "Greater Judea" and its willingness to attack its neighbors at the slightest imagined provocation and we have a recipe for disaster.

More Newser Stories

Iran Not Nearly as Crazy as Neocons Claim

Bolton: Israel May Strike Iran by December

Israel, Iran Terrorists Are Killing Scientists: Officials

Bolton: Israel Has 3 Days to Attack Iran

Ahmadinejad Backs Nuke Deal—in Some Form


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne