You are hereCFR to Bush: Stop Israeli strike on Iran's nuke sites
CFR to Bush: Stop Israeli strike on Iran's nuke sites
A report by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations urged the Bush administration to stop any Israeli attempt to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The council warned that such an Israeli attack would be blamed on the United States and hurt its interests in the region."Since Washington would be blamed for any unilateral Israeli military strike, the United States should, in any case, make it quite clear to Israel that U.S. interests would be adversely affected by such a move," the report, entitled "Iran: Time for a New Approach," said.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the United States supports Israel's right to what he termed weapons of deterrence, regarded as a reference to nuclear weapons, Middle East Newsline reported. He said the United States was also pressing Iran to halt its nuclear weapons program.
Health Insurance for the Self-Employed — Special Offer
"Israel faces an existential threat, and it must be able to defend itself by itself by preserving its deterrent capability," Sharon said. "We have received here a clear American position that says in other words that Israel must not be touched when it comes to its deterrent capability."
An air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would incur civilian casualties, the report said. It pointed out that many of Iran's nuclear facilities have been located in or near urban centers.
Israel has never directly threatened Iran's nuclear facilities. But the Sharon government has warned that it would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal.
The U.S. report, drafted by an independent task force sponsored by the council, said Washington should resolve concerns over Iran's nuclear weapons program by coordinating with the European Union. But the council ruled out any military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"In addition, any military effort to eliminate Iranian weapons capabilities runs the significant risk of reinforcing Teheran's desire to acquire a nuclear deterrent and of provoking nationalist passions in defense of that very course," the task force said. "It would most likely generate also hostile Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The report also said direct U.S. efforts to overthrow the Iranian clerical regime would not succeed. The council said the regime could eventually provide greater liberties to its people.
"Despite considerable political flux and popular dissatisfaction, Iran is not on the verge of another revolution," the report, entitled ". The current Iranian government appears to be durable and likely to persist in power for the short- and even medium-term. However, Iran's generational shift and prevailing popular frustration with the government portend the eventual transformation to a more democratic political order in the long term. That process is too deeply entrenched in Iran’s political history and social structure to be derailed or even long delayed."




Actually I think it's about time Israel takes some responsibility in the region - enough Americans have died to keep them safe...it's time they step up to the plate and handle these problems on their own.
I faced my "Elders" in the Baptist Church that me and my family go to. One of the Elders of the Church just happens to be my Father-in-law. This is a somewhat a Pre-mil church(most there don't even know what they are or care)and I have always been an A-mil. When I shifted to a more full-Preterist position and started talking to "everyone" about "my" new view point, it made more people wonder why I was drifting in that direction. I received a letter from the 'popes' of the church, saying that "this Church follows the teaching of the Southern Babtist Convention and to stop preaching other doctrine. We sat down and talked and I hit them with scripture after scripture and said Jesus said this and this and if these things are not true, back then. then Jesus is a liar and the Bible is Not inspired and we are all worshipping in vane. You could hear a pin drop. we agreed that I would tone down my loud "preaching" and they would look into it further. I am still there, with family, love my father-in-law and exstended family. Change is slow, but it is coming. Virgil, you had said to me to get out of the Democratic Party. As a Blue Dog Democrat I know that change is slow, butI am in it for the long haul and not to destroy the "house" when it only needs some major remodeling. In Christs Love Leslie
Brother Les
Leslie:
Thanks very much for sharing your experience. Once it was clear that I was at odds with my congregation's prevalent teaching on eschatology, I turned off my involvment and started attending an "Israel-aware" church that was preterist in its interpretation - knowing that I should initiate change through the established leadership rather than stirring things up. It's hard to clam up with Pre-Mils saying whacky things and elders running around with "My God is a Jewish Carpenter" bumper sticker. After 8 months, the leadership got the hint and is giving me an audience.
\
Interesing stories, both of you. Thanks for sharing. Brad, if you go to a different church, how do the elders of your old church even know about your views? Do you write letters back and forth? Just curious. Both approaches are interesting and I wonder what the best way (if there even is a best way) to go about talking about Preterism.
Steve
Hi Steve:
I wrote a letter to the Elders proposing a Sunday School class to study these things. Several months later, a I received a short rejection letter. I then sent another letter, challenging them, with much more detail. Months later, I got a call from the head Elder, telling me I had an audience at the next Elder's meeting. Curiously, nobody ever contacted me outside of this context. In the letters, I made it clear why I wasn't around and active, etc.
I'm really convinced that we're all afraid of change most of all. We're afraid of being exposed as wrong - especially with ideas we've held for years. This is why I'm thankful for talented Christian leaders who have the ability to gently, persistently teach - something I'm not equipped to do well.
-Brad
\
That's a very interesting way to do it. I think it's probably pretty hard to change once you've done something for so long.
Personally, I was always aware of Futurism at the churches I attended, but didn't study enough of it to get attached. As soon as I saw Preterism I latched on.
Take care,
Steve
Yeah,
This is probably all double-speak.
The CFR would love to see chaos in Tehran, but they may think this is a bad time.
Wash DC neocons are right now trying to make a Tehran-al Qaeda connection as a justification for attacking Iran, even though Tehran hates al Qaeda much the same a Saadam Hussein did.
So, the sabre rattling has begun. In a year or two, some pilots sent by Tel Aviv or Wash DC may soar safely to 30,000 feet, fly over Iran, and begin dropping their deadly payloads. And they might even feel good about their role in a "War on Terror".
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone
Iran hates Al-Qaeda? Where are you getting this stuff? Do you have any evidence to show for this, or are you just making stuff up?
Sure, Virgil,
A recent article in the Toroto Sun by Eric Margolis may help you understand this "stuff".
I'll include an excerpt from the article and the site URL below.
Peace to you all,
Christian
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/07/2...
"But far more important are two key facts that most media and the government aren't telling you.
"First, Iran and al-Qaida were bitter enemies.
"In Afghanistan, al-Qaida ardently backed the Pushtun-dominated, Sunni Taliban movement, which hated Shia as heretics and killed large numbers of them. Shia Iran (and Russia) armed and supported the Taliban's greatest foe, Ahmad Shah Massoud and his Northern Alliance, composed of Dari (a Persian dialect)-speaking Tajiks, Afghan communists, and Shia. Massoud was a long-time collaborator with Soviet/Russian intelligence.
"After the Taliban killed a group of Iranian intelligence agents, Iran almost invaded Afghanistan to overthrow them.
"Just before 9/11, al-Qaida assassinated Massoud.
"Iran quietly aided the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that overthrew the Taliban, and jailed scores of al-Qaida members, including one of bin Laden's sons.
"Active Iranian co-operation with al-Qaida seems illogical. Of course my enemy's enemy is my friend, and collaboration was theoretically possible, but Iran derived no benefit whatever from the 9/11 attacks -- quite the contrary."
"A recent article in the Toronto Sun by Eric Margolis may help you understand this 'stuff'." Thanks for posting that sentence, as it helps give me a better undertanding of where you are coming from. Your source of "truth," Mr. Margolis, has a well-deserved reputation for getting the facts wrong, and he is decidedly biased in favor of the practitioners of militant Islam and against the government of the United States. I suggest that anyone with an interest in the matter might consult amazon.com for reviews of his books. That is only one of numerous places where it can be demonstrasted that Margolis is factually challenged.
Well, Islamaphobe,
That particular article was in answer to a question of Virgil's, relative to the topic. Interestingly, you claim that the author is "factually challenged", but you refute nothing in the particular article.
I look forward to a future post of yours that is relevant and meaningful.
Peace to you all,
Christian
I do want to add that over 30 members of my direct family goes to this church. We are not all of one mind about the "end times", and do not bring it up to much at family gatherings. But we are a very close family in and out of church, so I had very little worry of being "outed" of the church. My goal is long term. As it is said "he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune". With such a large family block that usually votes and fellowships together I have little fear of being asked to leave, unless I REALLY deny my Lord and that will never happen. In Christs Love Leslie
Brother Les