Bush’s challenge: Balancing Israel vs. Iran on nukes

[Herschel]

What satisfies Bush may not meet Sharon’s standard

With a deadline for Iran to open up its nuclear facilities looming Friday, the Bush administration faces a daunting challenge: ensuring that it does not sign on to any deal on Iran’s weapons that leaves Israel feeling it must act unilaterally to secure itself.

cut

For years now, Israeli diplomats in Washington and its officials during frequent U.S-Israeli parleys have warned the United States that the Jewish state would not stand by idle while Iran goes nuclear. Since the second term of Bill Clinton’s presidency, at least, Washington has assured Israel that it would never come to this.
The assurances Washington has offered in recent years appear to be less certain, however. Israeli officials speak with frustration that the U.S. may be willing to accept a deal currently being offered by Iran to the IAEA — the deal brokered by the EU — which Israel and some American experts regard as insufficient to ensure Iran remains a non-nuclear power.
“I think there is an element inside the Israeli government that thinks the U.S. will accept what’s going on in Iran right now because U.S. power is overstretched with Iran, Afghanistan and whatever might happen in North Korea,” says a senior U.S. military official. “I don’t think we would gloss over, but that may not be the Israeli perspective.”

Answering a question on the topic on Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Iranians “need to follow through on what they’ve committed to do.”
Whether that will be enough for Israel is far from certain.

http://msnbc.com/news/986987.asp?0sl=-12

===========================

America must coordinate with her ally in the region for a successful policy.

[Darranar]

1. Why?

Why should the US be forced to co-ordinate with a right-wing government?

[Herschel]

2. If Israel is not secure

she may be forced to act herself.

[Darranar]

3. "Forced"?

LOL.

[Herschel]

4. If still threatened

what choice would she have?

[bahrbearian]

5. Isreal's the only Roadblock to Peace

unless you count the BFEE as does Sharon...

[Herschel]

6. I would suggest

the murder of Israeli citizens is a roadblock.

[Darranar]

7. The choice...

of peacefully containing Iran. It worked with the Soviet Union and its working with China, and Iran is far less powerful then either one of those nations.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

9. However,

neither of those 2 countries were led by Fundamentalist Islamists.

They will see their 444 days of holding hostages and raise you one nuclear explosion - want to place your bets?

[Darranar]

11. Ideology is hardly their driving motivation...

as in most governments, the ideology that once drove it has long since been burned away by pragmatism.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

8. Or the reverse:

Why should Israel be forced to co-ordinate with a right-wing government?

Sorry, D, but you left yourself wide open with that one!

[Darranar]

10. With Bush?

They shouldn't. they shouldn't be right-wing, though.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

12. Agreed.

However, surely as a Jew, Darranar, you can understand that when a people, in this case Israelis, feel under direct attack by the immediate world and violent attack by their 'neighbors', the natural tendency is to turn right out of fear.

[Darranar]

13. Agreed, and that is the heart of the problem...

The atrocities committed by both sides are a reaction to the situation, which is fostered by those atrocities and the atrocities of the other side.

Both are excused in the minds of the supporters by the other side's atrocities.

[SOS]

14. America

does not need to coordinate anything. Bush has changed tack on Iran. He is going with the IAEA inspection arrangement.
Hopefully Sharon has given up his fantasy about the US "taking Tehran the day after Baghdad falls". It's not gonna happen.
If Sharon attacks Iran, it will be alone.

BTW - when did nations become women? Ships are feminine, nations are neutral, english-wise.