Dire warning from Bolton: Israel must strike Iran now

Tehran will have nukes before U.N., Obama do anything, says diplomat

The only action that can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is an Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities, argued John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the Bush administration.

Speaking in a radio interview with WND senior reporter Aaron Klein, who hosts an investigative program on New York's WABC 770 AM, Bolton warned time is running out for an Israeli attack.

"Right now we know about the facilities. ... We know where they are," he said. "We know exactly what their dimensions are, and I think they are susceptible to an Israeli attack."

Bolton said an Israeli military option "isn't there forever. ... If Israel is going to use military force, it needs to use it sooner rather than later."

www.wnd.com...

First of all, this is BS. See these:

IAEA: No Evidence That Iran Has Ever Had A Nuclear Weapons Program

The Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program

Second, what is Israel going to do when forces from Lebanon come screaming across the border, incited by the attack?

Third, Iran has threatened to mine the Straits of Hormuz if attacked, effectively shutting down a huge amount of oil deliveries, and potentially causing oil to skyrocket in price. Like we really need that right about now?

Fourth, an attack against Iran's facilities will inevitably draw the US into another war we cannot afford, either monetarily or in lives. But oh, I forgot, lives don't exactly matter to you Screwhead Bolton, now do they.

This is more warmongering and agenda BS from an insensitive politician of former stature, which only serves to give Israel more ammunition in a false case against Iran. GOD this pisses me off.

[edit on Mon Mar 8th 2010 by TrueAmerican]

There is another thread stating how a top advisor / commander is Aggressively warning Israel to do nothing, and warning that if Israel "mousetraps" the US into a war with Iran that the consequences are unpredictable and dire, and it will only serve as a temporary fix?

Any thoughts?

I honestly don't think it matters one way or another. A showdown is inevitable, the Nuclear technology is becoming mainstream, the US and UN will not be able to control the world for much longer, and anything we do for or against this epic religious battle is only prolonging the inevitable.

What do "we" do? We meaning the US, the International Community, the People of these affected countries, the Christians and Jews and Muslims and Enlightened Folks that want to live in harmony? What do "we" do?

reply to post by getreadyalready

What do "we" do?

Ask some aliens nicely to relocate each clan to separate planets.

No, seriously, that's probably the only way of solving this mess.

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

What do "we" do?

Ask some aliens nicely to relocate each clan to separate planets.

No, seriously, that's probably the only way of solving this mess.

LOL! That is probably what happened the first time around! Seems like a pretty good fix for a millenia or two, but then we have to do it again!

I totally dislike this neo-con....
I bet he jerks-off to Iranian rhetoric.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
There is another thread stating how a top advisor / commander is Aggressively warning Israel to do nothing, and warning that if Israel "mousetraps" the US into a war with Iran that the consequences are unpredictable and dire, and it will only serve as a temporary fix?

hehe ya.. that was my thread i made this morning =)

[edit on 8-3-2010 by CanadianDream420]

reply to post by john124
reply to post by getreadyalready

What do "we" do?

Ask some aliens nicely to relocate each clan to separate planets.

No, seriously, that's probably the only way of solving this mess.

That's funny, and probably true. Reminds me of a Simpsons show where Grandpa Simpson says something like " One day every group will have their own planet and everybody will be happy" or something like that.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What we can do is nothing. Nothing but wait and speculate. I have relatives there and this kind of news is nothing new to them. They live life normally as they should. I hope nothing happens but it seems as though the inevitable will come to pass.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

hehe ya.. that was my thread i made this morning =)

Yeah, and it's a good one, too. Thanks for that. Maybe there IS someone sane in the Joint Chiefs, after all?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regardless of how I feel about this I do feel they will end up butting heads.. but I think it'll start somewhere small and escalate rather than a direct attack on the Iranian facilities.

There are to many itchy trigger fingers in the region right now for something not to happen.

*shakes head*

Here is the audio from his interview:

There's something seriously "off" with this Bolton dude. Just look at his eyes. It's as if he's crazed or demented or maybe even gleeful at the thought...and for this reason...because this all shows, he's been relegated to the role of a minor player in the game. This is not only irresponsible...it's insane.

Yep more fear scaremongering to try and whip the public up into accepting the Attacking of Iran. The guys never quit till they get what they want. So if it doesn't happen soon it will eventually... Sigh!

www.globalsecurity.org...

Renewed Production of Chemcial Warfare Agents Nov. 1, 2002
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
"We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.

Enough already with this guy, what is he still doing talking? Anyone else would have lost their job and have become no longer creditable. It just shows there is an interest in perpetuating war.

If I am allowed one of the oldest cliches in journalism, Israel attacking Iran is a perfect example of international roulette.

The best case scenario that I see would be where in Israel's attack all of Iran's nuclear activity is completely destroyed in one trim, straightforward and short air campaign. This in turn would embolden those in Iran opposed to the current leadership and a revolution occurs at the end of which a moderate, forward-looking government takes over with the minimum of bloodshed. This sets off a wave of moderation across the middle east and eventually the seed of liberty grows throughout the region.

That is, of course the single most rosy-colored view I can see anyone having and while possible, it is unlikely.

The worst case scenario would be one where Israel fails to destroy Iran's nuclear activity and the Israeli Air Force takes casualties from functioning Iranian F-14 Tomcats. In response Lebanon and Palestine begin a full fledged war against Israel and Iran floods massive numbers of ground troops into Iraq, completely routing the American forces their through sheer numbers. and cracks down brutally against the opposition in Iran proper. At this point the United States is faced with either abandoning Iraq or entering into a war with Iran, and Israel has to fight its way out of a very wide-ranging Jihad.

This scenario is probably just as unlikely as the first, and what would happen is somewhere in between but it is still an amazing risk. Instead I would suggest a wide-scale shadow war against the Iranian system. Mossad and the world's other intelligence agencies should start seriously backing the opposition in Iran and aid them in a revolution or reformation of the Iranian government. This combined with over-the-table diplomatic actions such as sanctions and trade embargoes should be the path.

I agree that we've reached a point of no return on Iran, something must be done to remedy the situation within the next two years at the absolute longest. We can no longer treat Iran as a trustworthy or peaceful nation and the people of the world should put pressure on their governments to take action.

I do not believe outright war is the best solution, or needed yet, let the spies do their work and give it a shot. We here in the United Kingdom spend tons of money on MI6, the United States spends even more on the CIA and NSA, and at the top of them all is Mossad. It's high time we got our money's worth out of these organizations and they actually fixed a crisis.

It's just a shame that MCI had to go out of business and destroyed the market for Josh Bolton songs along the way!



Clearly this Josh Bolton is singing a very strained song out of key!

Iran is no where near being a nuclear weapons nation, unlike Israel, which does have them and does not take part in IAEA Inspections and refuses to sign the treaties.

Even if Iran was developing them its doubtful Israel could stop them with air raids and bombing strikes.

It's doubtful Iran would ever use nuclear weapons even if they did have them.

We should just bomb Diamona and remind the pesky little whiners people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


You support the international assassination and infiltration of other government? You probably cheered on the assassination of the man in Dubai. Sickening.

Originally posted by TSawyer
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

You support the international assassination and infiltration of other government? You probably cheered on the assassination of the man in Dubai. Sickening.

I said nothing at all about assassination. Ideally the intelligence agencies can offer support and guidance to the opposition groups in Iran. This is nothing new at all, many nations have supported revolutions in other nations throughout history. The United States was aided by France in their revolution. Regardless of weather any nation does help the opposition, if there is a revolution in Iran, those ousted from power will publicly blame the CIA and Mossad for it anyways.

On the topic of assassination however, if killing one person, or a very select targeted few, stops a war from happening, I am for it. I say make it the final step before war, the second-to-last option then, but yes I do believe there is a place for assassination in the world. It is highly regrettable and tragic, but for me it is a straight-up matter of utilitarianism. I hate the idea of having to kill anyone, ever, I'd much rather imprison someone first, but sadly it is a better option than war. It is never something to be cheered though.

Regarding the assassination in Dubai, no I do not think that was justified at all, there were many other options that could have been tried first.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

On the topic of assassination however, if killing one person, or a very select targeted few, stops a war from happening, I am for it. I say make it the final step before war, the second-to-last option then, but yes I do believe there is a place for assassination in the world. It is highly regrettable and tragic, but for me it is a straight-up matter of utilitarianism. I hate the idea of having to kill anyone, ever, I'd much rather imprison someone first, but sadly it is a better option than war. It is never something to be cheered though. Regarding the assassination in Dubai, no I do not think that was justified at all, there were many other options that could have been tried first.

Well we all wish you could be in charge of these things then because it seems as though you have it all figured out. You didn't like the assassination in Dubai? Maybe they could've run that one by you first but I thought the whole thing was hurried along myself.

I mean they should've realized that their disguises were far too mundane. Had they come out of the bathrooms dressed as mimes, well now we're talking. Then they could've got into the get away car that would have been in actuality an over sized wind up toy. That's my take on how that should have gone down.

Bolton is a war monger. The guy looks like he just rolled out of bed after a long bender every time I see him and he always says the same thing. I don't trust anything that guy has to say on the issue, just as your ideas of assassinations being a noble endeavor as the last resort are insane.

reply to post by jackflap


What is with people in this thread putting words in my mouth? I never said that assassinations are noble, nor did I advocate using them in Iran, not at all. I used words like highly regrettable and tragic to describe my views upon it. I don't pretend to know everything, I am only stating my opinion and what I think should be done. My ideas come from having talked to various representatives from all parties involved over time, and such comes with a job in journalism covering international events. I've personally met John Bolton back when he was President Bush's UN Ambassador, and I can't stand the man myself.

I agree that Bolton is insane and needs to shut up, especially now that he is out of the actual diplomatic game, but I also do believe that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a failing state, within a generation there will most likely be a revolution or even a civil war. The country is a state-sponsor of terrorism and has a history of hostility toward her surrounding countries.

I am an interventionalist, and I do not feel ashamed to say that. As such I believe that it is the duty of the world's nations to police each other, and in this case I think we need a calculated, measured and clandestine response to the issue.