Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 09/02/2008 View Mon 09/01/2008 View Sun 08/31/2008 View Sat 08/30/2008 View Fri 08/29/2008 View Thu 08/28/2008 View Wed 08/27/2008
1
2008-09-02 Home Front: Politix
Biden to Israel: Get Used to a Nuclear-Armed Iran
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by AzCat 2008-09-02 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11132 views ]  Top

#1 TOPIX > NEW HIZBULLAH-HAMAS PACT EXTENDS ANTI-ISRAELI MISSLE RANGE [+ also TerrOps] FROM GAZA.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-09-02 00:29||   2008-09-02 00:29|| Front Page Top

#2 That should help win the Jewish vote.
Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California  2008-09-02 00:42||   2008-09-02 00:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Yeah, Joe. Stand on the sideline and make suggestions on Israel's survival. Throw Israel under the bus. No problem. How many more countries will you throw under the bus? How about your own? Would you do that too? Where do you draw the line, O fearless VP candidate?
Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-09-02 01:49||   2008-09-02 01:49|| Front Page Top

#4 Is that Joe "Chamberlain" Biden?
He needs to go to Tehran and come back waving a paper
Posted by European Conservative 2008-09-02 01:55||   2008-09-02 01:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, between Obama's kissing up to Castro and this move by Biden, I think that Florida may got Repub this year. The Cuban and Jewish communities may not be the largest populations in the state, but they tend to be the most active politically.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-09-02 02:17||   2008-09-02 02:17|| Front Page Top

#6 JERUSALEM, Sept. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden never said Israel would have to accept Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, his spokesman said Monday.

Army Radio in Israel reported Biden, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Jerusalem officials three years ago he opposed an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and Israel would likely have to come to grips with a nuclear-armed Iran, The Jerusalem Post reported.

"This is a lie peddled by partisan opponents of Senators (Barack) Obama and Biden and we will not tolerate anyone questioning Senator Biden's 35-year record of standing up for the security of Israel," Biden press secretary David Wade said in a statement. "Senator Biden has consistently stated -- publicly and privately -- that a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat to Israel and the United States and that we must prevent a nuclear Iran."

Israel's Army Radio, which provided no sources for its report and did not name the Jerusalem officials to whom Biden allegedly spoke, contended the Delaware senator had expressed doubt about the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Iran.

so now its a question of who Army Radio (which I just associate with playing lots of Beatles tunes when I was there in '81) sourced.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-09-02 10:20||   2008-09-02 10:20|| Front Page Top

#7 on the other hand this comment on TNRs site

I guess I'm in a unique position having actually heard the Army Radio (a.k.a, Galei TzaHa"L) report live, and I see the J.Post left out some critical info.

The meeting took place some years ago between some (unnamed, I think, Israeli gov't & security officials and Biden. Present at the meeting was then-Israeli ambassador to Israel Danny Ayalon (this important point was omitted by the J.Post), who was interviewed (live) as part of the Galei TzaHa"L report. Ayalon confirmed the gist of the story, that Biden told Israel to forget about a US attack on Iran and that he was doubtful that economic sanctions would work against Iran (unspecified was whether sanctions would not work in and of themselves or because the EUniks may talk a tough line but will still run to do big business with Iran as is happening now). As such, Israel will just have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

After confirming these basic points, Ayalon (ever the professional diplomat) tried to excuse Biden by saying that 3 years ago when Americans were getting blown up in Iraq at every turn, Biden couldn't see the US also taking on Iran militarily, but maybe now that Iraq is going much better, particularly after the "surge" (force works), Biden might see things a bit differently.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-09-02 11:09||   2008-09-02 11:09|| Front Page Top

#8 He's going to leave them no choice but to blow them to hell and gone. Or maybe that's how the Dems always had if figured, let Israel do the dirty deed and we'll be the good guys.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-09-02 12:25||   2008-09-02 12:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Biden has had an honesty problem for decades LH, no reason to think he's different now.
Posted by AzCat 2008-09-02 12:56||   2008-09-02 12:56|| Front Page Top

#10 What, youre suggesting he plagiarized this?

Cmon, I dont give any pol the benefit of the doubt. But Im not going to assume this is true either. I want to wait and see who in Israel confirms this (looks like Ayalon will) and what Biden says in response.

Also for the context. Biden apparently said in essence, dont count on sanctions working. Well thats something alot of RBers would agree with, I guess. And then, given that dont count on the US destroying the Iranian nuke program. Well, given that at the time the Bush Admin had over 3 years to run, thats really a statement about the Bush admin, no? And a statement thats been true so far, no? I mean I havent noticed that the Bush admin has attacked Iran.

#8 ive seen buzz that thats the Bush admin approach as well. Let teh Israelis do it. Though not just yet.

I wonder if it would be possible to have a good calm discussion of whether, strategically, it makes more sense for the Israelis to do it or the US, the main issues being the amount of blowback and how it plays out. HArd to do that with the left, where youre a warmonger for suggesting an attack may be necessary. Maybe hard to discuss with some folks here, where the idea that a clash of civs is something to be avoided, rather than accepted and embraced, is rejected.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-09-02 13:13||   2008-09-02 13:13|| Front Page Top

#11 Regarding sanctions,

While sanctions haven't forced the mullah-cleptocrasy from power, it has prevented or hindered Iran from achieving a number of goals (e.g., upgrading military equipment, increasing refining capacity, upgrading the power grid).

A bit more squeeze, a bit more failure by the mullahs and the centrifuges (which are their pride and joy) may have to be taken off line to conserve electricity.
Posted by mhw">mhw  2008-09-02 13:16|| http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]">[http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/]  2008-09-02 13:16|| Front Page Top

#12 I think VP Candidate Biden's first response, that Israel is lying, rings true to a series of responses from the head of his ticket, which then had to be walked back when the evidence showed whow was actually telling the truth. That said, the TNR commenter quote makes sense as well, given the different circumstances that held in 2005. BUT, I would disagree with the conclusion Senator Biden drew then, and that is being drawn even now, that Israel may only act as the hand at the end of the American arm.

mhw, the nuclear bomb program is the pride and joy of almost the entire Iranian nation, as far as I've been able to gather, because in one fell swoop it will make them the equal of the Big Boys, Israel, America, Russia and the EU. Remember that almost Persia's entire history they were ruled an empire as big as Rome's, and both preceded and outlasted her. They will actually sacrifice for that, where they would not sacrifice to bring back the Twelfth Imam or for President Ahmadenijad's friends' fortunes. Sanctions that actually cut into the huge trade Iran has with the EU will indeed prevent the mullahcracy from doing many things necessary to remain in power, but the Iranian nuclear program will have to be physically to stop it, as Israel did at Osirik and Syria. If the President Bush doesn't have it done in the days following the election, I think Israel will simply have to send out bombers with bunker busters. Otherwise they will end up living with a nuclear Iran... which will mean the better part of six million dead, because the mullahs have painted themselves into a places where they can do no less.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-09-02 13:43||   2008-09-02 13:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Israel is lying, rings true to a series of responses from the head of his ticket,

he didnt say "Israel is lying" he said (by implication) that Army Radio is lying (or its unnamed source is) IIUC Army Radio is independent and does not speak for the Govt of Israel.


I AM concerned with Bidens response so far. The accusation against him is that he has ruled out a military attack on Iran. His response is that he loves Israel, and that an Iranian Bomb would be a Bad Thing. He neatly dances around the question of what he would do if it became clear that economic sanctions were failing (I myself am not 100% convinced they will, but thats another debate, really) that time was almost run out and only an attack could stop Iran from possessing a bomb. Now its clear from things hes said that he thinks TALK about bombing Iran is counterproductive (again, I think arguments could be made either way on that) But when youre running to lead a country that doesnt trust you on for policy, Im not sure thats good enough. The question of what the Dems will DO if worst comes to worst and diplomacy and sanctions fail, can certainly be hammered home.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-09-02 14:10||   2008-09-02 14:10|| Front Page Top

#14 BTW, I aint a repub, but if I wuz, Id pursue the Conoco angle - an oil company, in Delaware, that has a history of opposition to sanctions on Iran (IIUC) and ties to Biden.
Posted by liberalhawk 2008-09-02 15:12||   2008-09-02 15:12|| Front Page Top

#15 What, youre suggesting he plagiarized this?

No. I'm suggesting that what Biden is alleged to have said regarding the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran is in keeping with his longstanding tradition of being on the wrong side of nearly every imaginable foreign policy issue. As such the statement is entirely believable.
I also don’t find it credible that Israeli Army Radio would be acting as a surrogate of the McCain campaign as Sen. Biden’s response implies. Biden is a longtime supporter of Israel, they wouldn’t cut him off at the knees without *VERY* good reason to do so.
Biden asks us to believe that the account is untrue based on his word but historically Biden’s word has been worth little and his judgment less.
Posted by AzCat 2008-09-02 15:38||   2008-09-02 15:38|| Front Page Top

#16 ...Biden resigned himself to the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and told the Israelis that they, too, would have to accept that outcome.

Ah, yes. I recall that Harry Reid in 2007 said "The war in Iraq is lost" too. If we followed the admonitions of these dhimwits, we end up going down the road of Chamberlain and appeasement or worse surrender.
Posted by JohnQC 2008-09-02 17:22||   2008-09-02 17:22|| Front Page Top

#17 President Bush hasn't done anything to promote regime change in Iran, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. He wants a religious based peace.
Posted by Regional Peace 2008-09-02 18:22||   2008-09-02 18:22|| Front Page Top

#18 TW is exactly right.
Posted by Jolutch Mussolini 7800 2008-09-02 18:54||   2008-09-02 18:54|| Front Page Top

#19 And this doofus is supposed to be their foreign policy expert?

Keep this one in the public eye and it may even wake up those Palm Beach Jews who are currently oblivious to the holocoaust Obama/Biden will bring if they follow this stupid policy.
Posted by OldSpook 2008-09-02 19:22||   2008-09-02 19:22|| Front Page Top

#20 IMO a "NUCLEAR ARMED IRAN" is why RUSSIA = VLADVEDEV really fought its war agz Georgia. Post-Cold War Russ is struggling to maintain Regional-Global influence and relevance agz newfound dynamic competitors. RUSSIA IS RELUC DENIABLY "ASKING" US-NATO/EU, VIA MILACTION IN GEORGIA, TO HELP CONTAIN A NUCLEAR IRAN/ISLAMISM WHICH IT HELPED EMPOWER VEE "THE GREAT GAME" OF GEOPOLITICS = SUBSTITUTION OF NATIONS AND POWER.

* KOMMERSANT > MEDVEDEV: RUSSIA WILL NOT YIELD TO A WORLD ORDER WHERE ALL IS DECIDED BY THE US; + HIS ALLIES LET HIM DOWN [SCO refuses to support Russia vv Georgian Conflict]. CHINA + SCO COVERTLY ORALLY GAVE SUPPOR TO RUSS ACTION BUT PUBLICLY/OVERTLY DISSED RUSS BY FORMALLY DECLARING THAT MIL FORCE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE WAY FOR WORLD NATIONS TO RESOLVE ANY INTERNATIONAL ISSUES. China + SCO Members feared that overtly legitimizing Russ decision to use force in Georgia and declare South Ossetia and ABkhazia as sovereign from Georgia will have MULTI-REGIONAL RIPPLE/DOMINO EFFECTS on Minority-and mostly Muslim-led sectarian strifes or insurgencies within their own countries. IOW, SCO's MUSLIM MEMBERS WILL SSSSHHHHHHH NOT HELP RUSS FIGHT THE SPREAD OF FUTURE ANTI-RUSS, PRO-NUCLEAR ISLAMISM IN CENTRAL ASIA/ASIA.

*IRNA > IRAN HAS ADOPTED AN INDEPENDENT STAND ON CAUCASUS CONFLICT.

*IRNA > INDIA's MAOISTS [Naxalites] MOVE INTO JIMMU AND KASHMIR. Maoist support of "Azadi" Separatism = People's Liberation Guerilla Army/PLGA militant campaign]; + FM MOTTAKI:US SOUGHT TO HUMILIATE RUSSIA IN CAUCASUS STANDOFF. WEST MAKING INTENSIVE BUT VAIN EFFORTS TO SAVE [Zionist] ISRAEL.

NUKE-ARMED IRAN = NUKE-ARMED ISLAMIST CENTRAL ASIA = NUKE-ARMED ASIA = NUKE-ARMED ASIA-PACIFIC, etc. ............= OWG CALIPHATE-JIHADIST STATE!

*INTERFAX > GERMANY WILL DEFEND ESTONIA FROM ARMED ATTACK
* IRNA > GERMANY SEEKS INCREASED COOPER WID UZBEKISTAN.
* TOPIX > RUSSIA: GEORGIAN WAR WILL NOT AFFECT RELATIONS WITH GERMANY, + GEORGIA DEMANDS EXPEDITED NATO MEMBERSHIP.

IRAN as SCO "Observer" only was the only one formally suppor Russ action in Georgia. YOU JUST KNOW RUSS = VLADVEDEV IS TRYING HARD NOT TO SAY TO IRAN, "THANKS, IRAN, BUT SSSSHHHHH NO THANKS -STAY AWAY, D *** YOU, OR ELSE"!

Emphasis on "OR ELSE"!
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-09-02 20:59||   2008-09-02 20:59|| Front Page Top

#21 OOOPSIES RB, my bad, that artic should be "NATO" will defend ESTONIA from attack, NOT GERMANY although Germany is part of NATO.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-09-02 21:02||   2008-09-02 21:02|| Front Page Top

23:56 Todd Palin
23:53 Todd Palin
23:45 mojo
23:36 Frank G
23:35 European Conservative
23:24 European Conservative
23:09 Barbara Skolaut
23:08 Barbara Skolaut
23:07 Frank G
23:04 Barbara Skolaut
23:02 49 Pan
22:59 Besoeker
22:43 Eric Jablow
22:36 Regional Peace
22:16 Frank G
22:13 trailing wife
22:13 Barbara Skolaut
22:11 Frank G
22:09 Frank G
22:09 Barbara Skolaut
22:07 Hank
22:06 Maggie Jomotle2926
22:00 Halliburton - Asymmetrical Reply Division
21:56 JosephMendiola
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com