SHARON'S LAST INTERVIEW: Iran can be dealt with through sanctions

[yurbud]

It seems to be very bad for the health of Israeli leaders to resolve problems through peaceful means.

I wonder if Pat Robertson wasn't signaling the Bush position on Sharon, just as he did with his comments about assassinating Hugo Chavez.

'Iran Could be Stopped with Sanctions'

By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Jerusalem
Published: Saturday, January 07, 2006
zaman.com

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in his last interview before becoming ill that if the international suppression over Iran continues Tehran's nuclear studies may be prevented.

Sharon giving an exclusive interview to Japanese newspaper, Nikkei Shimbun, recalled Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin ordered to attack Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. To a question about a possible Israeli offensive against Iran, Sharon responded, the conditions are different now.

"I was in the cabinet in 1981 and played an important role in the operation decision . The conditions were different then. I believe that we are still in the negotiations period and we can stop Iran with sanctions."

Sharon reportedly informed he was feeling well during the 75 minute Nikkei Shimbun interview.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060107&hn=28378

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yurbud]

4. New Yorker ran a piece on settlers arguing Palestinians are people

God told them to commit genocide on in the Bible.

They make ours look like a vegetarian quilting bee.

[Colorado Blue]

6. Oh PUHLEEZE. How many people have been assassinated

throughout the Middle East? In America?

What a biased comment.

And if you're looking for moderate victims, look no further than Anwar Sadat, who paid for peace with his life.

[yurbud]

14. I didn't even mention fundamentalist Muslim nuts, but does that give

Israel the right to kill Palestinians and take their land?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Meanwhile, Nazi dominatrix Condi Rice is threatening war

against Iran, which could be why we are pulling some troops out of Iraq. The neocons expect the Iranians to welcome US troops with singing and dancing in the streets.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yurbud]

5. you would think our capos would learn to follow orders...

Noriega, Saddam, as soon as they turn on their Bush masters, they have a really bad day.

Same for Sharon.

His Gaza deal caused a major headache for Bush with Fundies. He had a White House meeting so his foreign policy team could explain to Fundies how giving up Gaza wouldn't delay the second coming of Christ.

[Colorado Blue]

7. The topic of the thread is a moderate approach to Iran.

I believe we should focus on this instead of allowing it to be hijacked by certain posters whose comments are more than distasteful.

[SOS]

8. It's clear that Sharon

will not be the PM in 2006.
It's now up to the Israeli electorate.
Netanyahu says he will attack Iran if elected:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10326094/from/RSS/

[IndianaGreen]

12. The more reason why Sharon's policies will be followed by Kadima

Most of the leaders of Kadima are themselves former Likudniks who preferred to follow Sharon than to surrender to the most extreme elements in Likud that now back Bibi.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. But will Kadima survive without Sharon?

I don't follow Israeli parties that closely, but Sharon basically WAS the party until now, right? Can they regroup around another candidate in time to keep the advantage over Likud that they had with Sharon in front?

The US parallel that comes to mind is 1968. After RFK was assassinated, the Democrats didn't have time to put another progressive candidate forward, and Humphrey wasn't nearly enough to impress the electorate, resulting in the return of a gang of criminals to the White House. Not that LBJ was any saint, mind you. Nor, obviously was Sharon. But compared to NuttyYayhoo...... :scared:

[IndianaGreen]

19. Kadima has centrist and leftist support, and Peres is staying with Kadima

The creation of Kadima has sparked a new interest and a revitalization of politics in our country. Many leading figures, academics, artists, industry leaders, have decided to join politics over the past few weeks, encouraged by our move to put the country’s future over narrow personal or party interests.

This immense wave of support has only reaffirmed for us that Israel wants to move forward towards a new reality. The new party will add stability to Israel’s political system and provide an exciting and viable option for those who believe in our vision of a better future for our children and grandchildren.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ehud-olmert/moving-israel-forward-wit_b_12486.html

Sources close to Olmert say Peres to stay in Kadima

By Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondent

MK Shimon Peres will stay in Kadima, according to sources close to acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and will be given one of the first five places on Kadima's Knesset list. Peres will also be appointed to a ministerial post, according to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan.

Olmert is to meet with Peres again over the next few days, and an open channel of communication is being maintained with Peres' allies, MKs Haim Ramon and Dalia Itzik. Minister Tzachi Hanegbi, meanwhile, is said to have assured Olmert he intends to remain in Kadima, and Olmert appointed Hanegbi in his stead as chairman of the Kadima election campaign.

Olmert, who is said to have the backing of all senior Kadima members as Sharon's replacement, has been advised to make sure Peres stays with Kadima so as to avoid an atmosphere of erosion of the party in a post-Sharon era.

<snip>

Sources in Labor remarked that this was the state of affairs that Peres likes best. "He is being courted, the polls are in his favor, and the sky's the limit. But it doesn't look like Peres wants to come back to Labor."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/667313.html

[oblivious]

9. Try as I might, I can't see how sanctions will work.

How likely is it China, Japan, India, Pakistan and the EU are going to stop buying Iranian gas and oil.

How likely is it Russia is going to stop building nuclear reactors and selling missiles to Iran, not to mention losing the chance to build the many pipelines in the works.

How willing is Germany going to be to lose its fastest growing market for manufactured goods. Germany is the no. 1 source of Iranian imports.

How willing will the non-oil producing countries be to accept much higher oil and gas prices.

I just can't see it. It assumes power and influence that the US just does not have any more.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. War Is Not Healthy for Children, Other Living Things,

Natonal Economies, and the World Economy.

Reference: International Economics: Theory and Policy by (my hero) Paul R. Krugman, Maurice Obstfeld

[oblivious]

16. War is not a sane option.

As a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to conduct research and use nuclear technology for electricity generation and other peaceful purposes. It has allowed the IAEA to conduct inspections to confirm the peaceful nature of the nuclear program. It suspended research for over two years as a gesture of good faith, but got nothing except the promise to lift the embargo on airplane parts or something if it allowed the enrichment of only low-grade fuel in Russia.

I think we need to face the fact that Iran is going to be self-sufficient in nuclear technology. There's no way around it. Iran is being provided with no serious reason not to be self-sufficient.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Another thing we have to realize

the serious engineers in the oil producing lands realize that petroleum in the ground is a "wasting resource" - and we/they are running out of it. It's called "Peak Oil." And we/they had best adjust our/their economies accordingly. And lots of foklks think nuclear power is the way to go (The Sago Mine was just 90+ miles from where I grew up -- my class mates were a load of "Homer Hickams" from the coal patch)

[barb162]

20. Krugman is my economics hero

he tells it like it is

[yurbud]

15. sanctions would only have one purpose anyway: to get them to obey

our oil companies orders.

All this BS about nukes is just window dressing.

[Wordie]

18. Israeli Defense Forces Chief says there is no immediate threat...

Some of this may be the result of Netanyahu's saber-rattling as an Israeli election gambit.

The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear bomb which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.

Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party officialsaccused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social issues".

In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to AIPAC and the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense minister to stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, December 14, 2005).

Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely un-productive".

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005).

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=500595 (article originally published in Counterpunch)

The article goes on to say that in a move to clarify it's intent, Iran offered to allow the US to help in building a nuclear power plant.