Tweet
ISRAEL CAN ATTACK IRAN AFTER NOVEMBER PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BUT BEFORE BUSH'S SUCCESSOR IS SWORN IN?
PanARMENIAN.Net
26.06.2008 18:06 GMT+04:00
John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has
predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential
election but before George W. Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian
nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be
public denunciations but no action," he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop
Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of
will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.
"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that
possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you
had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real
possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran,
he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the
November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.
"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at
which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear
weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses
by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the
nuclear installations.
"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My
judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election
because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."
But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his
Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House
could preclude military action happening for the next four years or
at least delay it.
"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis
because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has
taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador
to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time
is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner
rather than later absent some other development."
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more
realistic than the Bush administration's stance".
Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without
preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil
than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on
Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks
against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be
the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the
next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.
Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over
the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded
was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of
"psychological warfare" that would be futile.
"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of
Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want
to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these
empty slogans."
He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to
any attack.
On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic
Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle
East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear program.
Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The
key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over
the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by
destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium
enrichment facility at Natanz.
"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more
permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard
to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."
PanARMENIAN.Net
26.06.2008 18:06 GMT+04:00
John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has
predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential
election but before George W. Bush's successor is sworn in.
The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian
nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be
public denunciations but no action," he said.
Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop
Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of
will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.
"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that
possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you
had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real
possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."
Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran,
he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the
November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.
"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at
which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear
weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses
by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the
nuclear installations.
"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My
judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election
because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."
But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his
Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House
could preclude military action happening for the next four years or
at least delay it.
"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis
because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has
taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador
to the UN from 2005 to 2006.
"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time
is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner
rather than later absent some other development."
The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more
realistic than the Bush administration's stance".
Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without
preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil
than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.
William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on
Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks
against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be
the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the
next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.
Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over
the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded
was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of
"psychological warfare" that would be futile.
"They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of
Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want
to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these
empty slogans."
He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to
any attack.
On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic
Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle
East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear program.
Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The
key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over
the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by
destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium
enrichment facility at Natanz.
"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more
permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard
to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."