Hagel: Israel Has Right To Decide On Iran Strike
Source: Jerusalem Post
Israel has the right to decide for itself whether to strike Iran, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters on his flight to Israel on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported.
"Israel is a sovereign nation and every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself and protect itself. Israel will do that. It must do that," Hagel was quoted as saying.
Hagel, who arrived in Israel on Sunday morning, vowed to provide Israel with advanced weapons that will enhance its abilities to strike at Iran.
Hagel is set to meet with Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon to discuss the finalization of an arms deal that will include the sale of V-22 Osprey aircraft, refueling tankers, advanced radars for fighter jets and anti-air defense missiles which will enable Israel to improve its long-range strike, aerial patrol and troop transport capabilities.
Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Hagel-Israel-has-right-to-decide-on-Iran-strike-310555
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)US defence secretary Chuck Hagel said on Sunday a $10bn arms deal under discussion with Washington's Arab and Israeli allies sent a "very clear signal" to Tehran the military option remains on the table over its nuclear programme.
"The bottom line is that Iran is a threat, a real threat," said Hagel, who arrived in Israel on Sunday on his first visit to Israel as defence secretary.
"The Iranians must be prevented from developing that capacity to build a nuclear weapon and deliver it," he told reporters on his plane.
The first stop on Hagel's week-long Middle East trip came two days after the Pentagon said it was finalising a weapons deal to strengthen the militaries of Israel and two of Iran's key rivals – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The deal includes the sale of KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers, anti-air defence missiles and tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey troop transport planes to Israel as well as the sale of 25 F-16 Fighting Falcon jets to the UAE.
MORE...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/21/chuck-hagel-israel-iran-arms-deal
earthside
(6,960 posts)The U.S. did this back in 2003 when Bush-Cheney ordered the unprovoked attack and invasion of Iraq.
That was a disaster.
Israel launching a preventative attack on Iran will also be a disaster. Unfortunately, the U.S. under Obama-Biden and Hagel will undoubtedly participate in such an illegal action.
So, I think Hagel is wrong; and preemptive war is only permissible legally if there is an identifiable imminent threat -- that certainly isn't the case now or in the foreseeable future.
A war with Iran will be a catastrophe. Iran is not some small country with a small population and without powerful allies. Iraq will indeed look like a "cakewalk" compared to what a full-scale war with Iran.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)It hasn't changed. The only question is Obama's red line for the US to act (is it IF Iran is able to make a weapon, or actually HAS a weapon?), and whether we will automatically join in if and when Israel decides to strike. My guess is that they want to show unity and the resolve to use force to help defend Israel in order to help deter Iran. I don't think it will work, but we'll see.
earthside
(6,960 posts)I didn't purposefully leave out Kerry ... I was just thinking about the Hagel story.
Personally, I do not have this great fear of Iran with a nuclear weapon ... if they decide to make one someday (and we really don't know if that is what they are doing now), then that will be for the same reason North Korea has nukes, for status mostly. Although I believe that North Korea's atomic bomb capability is more dangerous than Iran would be with that potential.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)where they can extort and threaten at will, and make surrounding countries want to go nuclear for defense. No coincidence that North Korea and Iran are cooperating in their nuclear programs, either. Or that both have big-name backers (Russia and China) who like to see the US have to spend time and resources on this shit. I don't have a lot of hope that we'll be able to stay out of war (or at least airstrikes) with BOTH countries. I'm uneasy about Syria too--Obama is adamant about helping the rebels, but doesn't want to empower AQ and extremists, get involved militarily, or see the region destabilized. I don't know if increasing troops to Jordan are a "just in case" thing, or staging for something else in Syria or Iran.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)He must want them to kill themselves.
Flying coffins.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)pandering in the Middle East. Israel certainly has the right as a sovereign country to do as it wishes. But without the USA standing behind them with arms folded on chest, it would be like pissing into the wind, to attack Iran. And the danger from Iran is not being stated with any clarity. One group of "experts" says they have nuclear capabilities and the other group of "experts" says they are not close to having nuclear capabilities (bomb wise). Personally I think America should be doing everything to make an ally of Iran. Be a trading partner and help them develop nuclear energy capabilities, which I think is the goal. Why would they want to waste the natural resource they have that makes them money, oil, for their own use to manufacture energy. I hope SoS Kerry is successful in his relations with Iran, and with Israel. All the saber rattling can only lead to further tensions.
bananas
(27,509 posts)"Instead of enhancing Iran's energy security, the nuclear program has diminished the country's ability to diversify and achieve real energy independence."
That's from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Federation of American Scientists.
Reuters:
Iran's nuclear program entails huge costs, few benefits: report
By Yeganeh Torbati
DUBAI | Tue Apr 2, 2013 8:11pm EDT
<snip>
The report, entitled "Iran's Nuclear Odyssey: Costs and Risks", seeks to tabulate the opportunity costs of the nuclear program, and puts these at "well over $100 billion" in terms of lost foreign investment and oil revenues.
Relatively small uranium deposits will keep Iran from being fully self-sufficient in nuclear energy, it said, while Tehran has neglected to maintain existing infrastructure and develop other resources that could better secure its energy needs.
For instance, Iran's 1,000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear reactor, which came onstream in 2011 after repeated delays, accounts for just 2 percent of its electricity production, while about 15 percent of "generated electricity is lost through old and ill-maintained transmission lines", the report said.
Iran has vast oil and gas reserves, but sanctions have forced major Western firms to abandon the petroleum sector, making crucial upkeep difficult. Iran's solar and wind energy sectors have also gone undeveloped, the report said.
<snip>
The report is at http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/04/02/iran-s-nuclear-odyssey-costs-and-risks/fvui
PDF version: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/iran_nuclear_odyssey.pdf
timdog44
(1,388 posts)It will take me a long time to investigate the studies you cite. I am very skeptical of almost all prominent sounding study organizations. Not to say they are not right. But there are so many study groups that you never know. You have to go deep into the organization and look at the people who are in the background.
I thank you for all the information and I will study them. One of statements made intimates that nuclear is not cost effective. Why is not as cost effective as any other country? Especially with the correct help of say, America? France? And how about investing in their solar and wind energy production? And who is Yeganeh Torbati?
I think a lot of people dismiss Iran because they think they are backward. I think Iran is probably a fairly advanced country.
John2
(2,730 posts)I've proposed of what is really going on with the U.S., and this involves other regions in the World also. Americans want to deny it but this theory applies just as well as any other.
Go back to World War II, before the U.S. was the foremost World Power. Israel did not exist. It exists today mainly because of U.S. backing. The underlying causes are because of the political environment in the United States and people's sympathy for the Holocaust and religious affinity to what religious groups in this country see as the Holy Land. Those are very powerful forces in this country.
The American Congress has made the interests of Israel on the same level as the protecting the United States, and some American Politicians have even went further, by placing that interest ahead of this country. Hagel had to literally go through a litmus test on Israel.
He again takes the same line, Israel has the right to attack Iran based on them gaining nuclear capacity, but Iran does not have the same right as a sovereign country. I don't see how any nation or leader of a nation would accept such terms, the U.S. proposes. While at the same time, the U.S. supplies Israel with superior weaponry. I suppose the U.S. must think people in the Arab world watching this play out are stupid. If I was an Arab, it would be an insult to my intelligence. That is why this will be a losing proposition in the end for the U.S. And the only power in the U.S. to stop this insane logic are the American people. Our Government is broken period. It is bought and payed for. They can threaten nations all they want, but they are only digging this hole deeper for the U.S. And lets be clear on this, Saudia Arabia is not a democracy. In fact, some of the extremists that hates Israel comes from Saudia Arabia. Whomever they choose as allies today, will be their enemies tomorrow. And don't think, you have settled your problem in Iraq yet. All you did was create another leak in the dam.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)in the government are more concerned about Israel's interests than America's. Not bashing Israel. Bashing people who think of a foreign entity before their own, for whatever reason. Witness Lieberman or Emanuel. Or witness the "end of times" people. If those interests fall in line with America's then fine, if not, not so fine.
Iran is sovereign country and has the same rights as all sovereign countries. Our government is bought and paid for. Correct. It is time for some sanity to fall in line. Saudi Arabian people were the people who attacked the USA and were financed by Saudis on 9/11. But who did we blame? We blamed who Israel's supporters told us to, because it fell into their political line. Iraq was a disaster and created more terrorists than we ever could have terminated. Same with Afghanistan. Who in history has ever defeated Afghanistan? No one.
I personally don't think we will ever be on the right side until we are on our side. Period.
on point
(2,506 posts)for such a strike.
Iran has the legal right, under the non proliferation treaty, to enrich Uranium. They have not broken that law, unlike Israel which has not signed the treaty but would be in violatiion of it if they had.
Despite Bush regime thinking, Pre-emptive strikes are war crimes unless approved by the UN and Israel DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ATTACK IRAN. PERIOD.
(They do have the right to respond to an attack, but no attack has happened. Of course if Israel attacked Iran first, without justification, then Iran would have the complete right to destroy Israel unconditionally....)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I.e., they're big boys, they can decide if they want to waste their money and lives in a war they won't be able to win.
My only concern is that if they do, the US sits back and lets them have at it, all on their own. I don't expect we'd ride to Iran's defense (After all, we've been trying to wipe them off the face of the earth since 1980), and I've got no problem with backing Israel up against an Iranian attack, but if Israel shoots first, fuck 'em.
on point
(2,506 posts)They cannot attack others without UN approval.....
dwilso40641
(198 posts)remember when we armed and supported another country?
Is Israel the next Iraq?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however that right does not require the US's involvement, if Israel wants to attack Iran then I guess that's their call, but as an American citizen I say it's Israel's call and Israel alone
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... attacking Iran would not be "self-defense", since Iran is not attacking them.
Attacking Iran would be... attacking Iran.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)about it, you in this case it could be WMD stands for Words of Mass Destruction or something, of course we have been hearing for years too
John2
(2,730 posts)may possess nuclear weapons and may have gotten that capacity illegally, blows a clear hole in their justification, to attack any other country. It also blows a hole in the U.S. standing because Jonathan Pollard might have helped Israel to gain such capability. And the U.S. has never called for sanctions on Israel. If they do own that capacity, they are the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. And not only that, there is evidence they shared that technology, with other countries. Apartheid South Africa being one and maybe Turkey and India, who are both Allies or have relations.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Israel's nukes aren't exactly illegal because Israel did not sign the NPT however Iran did sign the NPT which and I might be mistaken allows Iran or any other signatory to develop nuclear power for the purposes of producing electricity or other peaceful uses, just not weapons development
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I'm being 
of course. But, I can just imagine it being said already - both at my local bar and on Fox and Friends.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)He said what he was quoted as saying. How the media can equate that with "Israel has the right to decide for itself whether to strike Iran" just shows how pathetic these editors are with their agendas.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)If Israel has the right to decide whether to strike Iran or not and every nation has the right to self defense, according to Hagel, it follows as well that Iran then has the right to self defense and can respond appropriately if attacked first. In all the haste to paint Iran as being crazy and non-conformist, most hyper-ventilating critic have not shown Iran to have started a war in recent times. Yes Iran has provided support to nations and groups at odds with the west but that does not equate to starting wars which the west has done in so many places and so many times under all types of claims and guises. Iran deserves the benefit of doubt and I believe that there are other ways to hold Iran accountable for their nuclear program(s) remaining peaceful other than to start a war.
