The Powder Keg of Israel and Iran - Where Does the U.S. Stand?

Netanyahu: US must draw a 'red line' with Iran over nuclear weapons​

September 16, 2012
WASHINGTON – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a direct appeal to American voters on Sunday to elect a president willing to draw a "red line" with Iran, comparing Tehran's nuclear program to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and reminding Americans of the devastating repercussions of failed intelligence.

His remarks were an impassioned election-season plea from a world leader who insists he doesn't want to insert himself into U.S. politics and hasn't endorsed either candidate. But visibly frustrated by U.S. policy under President Barack Obama, the hawkish Israeli leader took advantage of the week's focus on unrest across the Muslim world and America's time-honored tradition of the Sunday television talk shows to appeal to Americans headed to the polls in less than two months.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is peaceful. Netanyahu said the U.S. would be foolish to believe that, using football metaphors and citing example of past terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to appeal to his American audience.

"It's like Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying, 'I'd like to tend my garden. I'd like to buy some fertilizer ... Come on. We know that they're working on a weapon,'" Netanyahu said. (Great analogy, Mr. Netanyahu).

The past week, Netanyahu has called on Obama and other world leaders to state clearly at what point Iran would face a military attack. But Obama and his top aides, who repeatedly say all options remain on the table, have pointed to shared U.S.-Israeli intelligence that suggests Iran hasn't decided yet whether to build a bomb despite pursing the technology and that there would be time for action beyond toughened sanctions already in place.

Netanyahu disagrees, estimating that Iran is about six months away from having most of the enriched uranium it needs and warning that letting them reach the "goal line" would have disastrous consequences.

Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has said he is willing to take a tougher stance than Obama against Iran, although his campaign has declined to provide specifics. He has also aligned himself personally with Netanyahu, casting the Israeli leader as a longtime friend.
Meanwhile, Obama is reported to have a strained relationship with Netanyahu, chastising Israel for continuing to build housing settlements in areas disputed with the Palestinians.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/16/netanyahu-iran-guided-by-leadership-fanaticism/#ixzz26hGSm4He
​

 

Regardless of where we stand on Iran, what Obama is doing or what Romney may or may not do, Israel should stay out of our foreign policy and our election process.

 

Amen! Or right on! I have no doubt that if Romney (did you ever notice his name spells R - money) gets elected we will be embroiled in yet another middle east war. What is the point of having the biggest, most expensive mililtary on the planet if we are constantly at war? Wouldn't it be more economical and safer to have half the military we currently have and half the wars we seem to always be involved with?
Pakistan has nukes and we haven't been threatened by them and we occupy a border country of theirs and we make regular incursions into their country. They have at lease as many crazies as Iran so if Iran gets a nuke or two (which by every intelligence estimate is a long way off) what are they going to do? I think Israel needs to shut up and stop helping the war profiteers of this country. They are doing fine all by themselves.

 

Where do we stand on Iran? That depends on how much wealth you have. Lots of investment opportunity in war making. Romney would start WWIII before the end of January. We know his pitch. Bush 2.0