- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
In a growing rift with the US, Netanyuhu is demanding all nations set a red line on Iran and attack Iran Immediately. A move that most Israelis oppose, not to mention new polls suggesting most American voters disagree too. As for the Brits, they sent a delegation to Netanyuhu that they would not support a Israeli unilateral attack on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-no-block-israel-iran-netanyahu-161058318.html
As Obama flat out refuses to meet with Netanyuhu even though Hillary as Sec of State has already told Netanyuhu no.
So the question is, will Netanyuhu attack Iran unilaterly anyway?
And if so what should the US stance be? And what will be the most pragmatic stance of Iran be? An Iran who would have the legitimare right to counter attack Israel with a barrage of very accurate missiles a second after the first Israeli bomb falls, but if Iran then attacks other than Israeli interests would the USA be forced to support Israel?
In terms of the last question, if Iran takes the former stance, its likely to be the end of Israel because of over reaching, in the latter case its likely to become a mid-east bloodbath no one can win.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-no-block-israel-iran-netanyahu-161058318.html
As Obama flat out refuses to meet with Netanyuhu even though Hillary as Sec of State has already told Netanyuhu no.
So the question is, will Netanyuhu attack Iran unilaterly anyway?
And if so what should the US stance be? And what will be the most pragmatic stance of Iran be? An Iran who would have the legitimare right to counter attack Israel with a barrage of very accurate missiles a second after the first Israeli bomb falls, but if Iran then attacks other than Israeli interests would the USA be forced to support Israel?
In terms of the last question, if Iran takes the former stance, its likely to be the end of Israel because of over reaching, in the latter case its likely to become a mid-east bloodbath no one can win.
Last edited: