at AIPAC conference

[Developereo]

When Netanyahu decides that the US is not complying with his demands, he will force the issue.

Come on, people, please leave the conspiracy theories aside.

The link I posted has an interview with a former White House counter-terrorism official and his analysis of how any Israeli attack would have consequences for the US. His analysis is reasonable and seems plausible.

Basically,
1- Israel attacks Iran
2- Iran retaliates onto Israel (directly or through proxies)
3- As Israeli casualties mount, Netanyahu makes a public plea to the US President
4- America cannot possibly refuse, and is drawn into the conflict

The point is that Israel knows it cannot achieve its goals by itself but the attack itself will inevitably draw the US into the conflict and achieve Israel's goals.

 

[rubyjackass]

The phrase repeatedly used was by senators, congressmen, and the president was that "all options are on the table" - a phrase commonly taken to mean that necessary diplomatic or military means will be employed to achieve the desired objective. And the president clearly stated that the objective was that Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons at all.

Yes, I have been hearing this boring phrase for sometime. But how far are they willing to go to stop it? It is understandable that Obama does not want to give his limits out as Iranian leaders will escalate the situation to that point. But did you get any sense of it from talking to people? I mean surely there has to be a limit or at least a plan B if Iran acquired nukes.

 

[Solomon2]

Yes, I have been hearing this boring phrase for sometime. But how far are they willing to go to stop it?

Telling everybody precise details would be counter-productive, I think. But Mikulski also told us, "You are going to be proud!" I'm no big fan of "pride" but to me the implication was that either the mullahs would capitulate or be defeated.

 

[fallstuff]