Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:37 AM

Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran "red line"

Source: REUTERS

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Benjamin Netanyahu's deputy for intelligence and atomic affairs on Thursday broke with the Israeli prime minister's call for Iran to be confronted with a "red line" beyond which its disputed nuclear program would face military attack.

In a broadcast interview, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor appeared to side with the United States in balking at Netanyahu's repeated demand that it set Iran an ultimatum or risk seeing Israel launch region-rattling unilateral strikes.

Meridor's remarks also underscored debate within the leader's inner circle about potentially exacerbating the rift with Washington with a war that polls show most Israelis, including several senior security figures, would oppose.

"I don't want to set red lines or deadlines for myself," Meridor, one of several Netanyahu deputies who form the core of his security cabinet, told Israel's Army Radio when asked how much time remained before force against Iran should be used.

Read more: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-deputy-disagrees-setting-iran-red-line-032843354.html

4 replies, 1243 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

4 replies	Author	Time	Post
Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran "red line" (Original post)	trailmonkee	Sep 2012	OP
Good, time for cooler and saner heads to take over.	mountain grammy	Sep 2012	#1
Dunno about WWIII.......	AverageJoe90	Sep 2012	#2
Yup, Romney's the deciding factor on this one	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#3
Well obviously the war hawks will say Iran has already crossed all "red lines."	David__77	Sep 2012	#4

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:34 AM

mountain grammy (1,590 posts)

1. Good, time for cooler and saner heads to take over.

Netanyahoo and Rmoney together will start WWIII

Reply to this post

Response to mountain grammy (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:45 AM

AverageJoe90 (5,217 posts)

2. Dunno about WWIII.......

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:47 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

But a war 10x worse than Vietnam? Probably......and losing the ground war won't be the only thing we'll have to worry about, either.(can you say "nuclear terrorism", anybody?

)

Reply to this post

Response to mountain grammy (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:49 AM

Scootaloo (5,843 posts)

3. Yup, Romney's the deciding factor on this one

I'm not sure why the Obama campaign isn't pumping that... it's cold, hard fact.

Mitt Romney will throw the United States into another land war in the middle east.

He will be doing so at the behest of a US client state, no less! Say what shit you want about George Bush, but at least that asshole had enough brains to tell Georgia to get bent when they tried to suck us into a war against Russia.

Reply to this post

Response to trailmonkee (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 03:31 AM

David__77 (14,112 posts)

4. Well obviously the war hawks will say Iran has already crossed all "red lines."

Just as they claimed with Iraq in 2003. This is a predetermined game, which is why we cannot fall into the trap.

With diplomatic engagement, including restoration of full diplomatic relations, the political pole in Iran favoring accommodation with the West will emerge much stronger. What is happening now only strengthens the hand of radicalism.

Reply to this post

Latest Breaking News (Forum)