• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

EagleAye said:
I wonder if it isn't this hesitancy that is fueling Iran's saber rattling. They maybe think they have the West on the ropes. If true, they would be making a terribly wrong assumption. Obama may be expecting diplomacy to win out (which it won't), thus giving the appearance of indecision. I don't believe he's that indecisive, just hopeful for a peaceful resolution. Iran's rope is running out and I don't think they know it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if more certainty and tougher sanctions wouldn't fuel even more saber rattling (waaah the West is out to get us, see people?) that kinda ****.
 
ecofarm said:
With Iran's leadership removed from power, I think we can sit back and let the profs/professionals take over. Anyway, they are already doing what you worry about above. You don't think Iran uses its political, economic and social means to wage war in Palestine/Israel, from Syria and in Iraq? You don't think Iran supports terrorist attacks as much as possible right now?

Really, refusing to act because we are scared of terrorism means the terrorists win... doesn't it?
Click to expand...

When was Iran's leadership removed and do you think it would be that easy? And if the raging successes of Iraq and Afghanistan are what the professionals have accomplished, then I don't have that much confidence in their abilities. Do you really believe that terrorists have done all they possibly can? Do you really think that Iran has used all it's resources yet? I don't think even the experts would agree on that.

Refusing to act? You mean if we aren't killing, bombing and maiming just like them we're scared. I personally believe in peace but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself. I'm just not quick for a fight.
 
Diplomacy and/or economic sanctions should always be the first option. With some nations it actually works and saves a lot of money and lives. Obama is still trying to squeeze every drop of possibility out of option #1. He's right to do so, even if it won't work. And in the case of Iran it won't work.

I don't think Grip is saying don't act, but he's saying be aware and ready for every possible response. In the event of a US/Israeli attack, an escalation of terrorist activity from Iran is not only a possibility, it's a certainty. Iran will cease trying to be sneaky about it, which limits the level of activity, and engage in a far larger volume of terrorist operations. So a plan has to be in place to manage that increase. Ships moving toward Gaza need to be checked more aggressively, and trucks moving into Syria need to be watched as though every one was loaded with missiles, because a lot of them will be. There's many other things that could be done too.

I would prefer that Israel be a bit player in any upcoming strikes against Iran. Israel should focus primarily on their own security because a LOT of any Iranian response will be directed at them. Another reason is Turkey. Given Turkey's recent animosity towards Israel, an Israeli-led attack might provoke a negative response from Turkey. If the US led the strikes I think Turkey would be mollified or at least subdued in its response.

Lastly, I prefer Grip's option one. Option two leaves too much chance for civilian casualties. So does option three. The best way to keep the strikes from involving other countries is if the death toll is kept very low and definitely keeps civilian casualties very low. The technicians working in the facilities are civilians to some degree but that cannot be helped and I believe other Muslim nations would accept that as necessary. Another reason to stay away from population centers is that the US may not need to attempt beheading Iran, the population itself may do the work for us. If civilians don't lose their ability to maneuver (via utilities like petrol stations and internet hubs), the civilian populace of Iran may use the US attacks as a sign to rise up (again) against their government. But if too many civilians are killed they may be too busy keeping their heads down to make a move. I think it would be smart to protect the potentiality of a civilian Iranian uprising.
 
grip said:
When was Iran's leadership removed and do you think it would be that easy?
Click to expand...

The theocratic autocracy will be removed, eventually. The only question is when. It will be easy-peasy.

And if the raging successes of Iraq and Afghanistan are what the professionals have accomplished, then I don't have that much confidence in their abilities.
Click to expand...

In Afghan, there are few professors and (international) professionals. In Iraq, there would have been; however, we waited so long that Saddam had already killed everyone with half a brain that disagreed with him. Iran still has those people. They are protesting and dying. They deserve our help.

Do you really believe that terrorists have done all they possibly can? Do you really think that Iran has used all it's resources yet?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why would you think Iran is holding back? They fund and train Hamas and Hez... they do the same in Iraq... they're probably involved with terrorism in Saudi Arabia. They are givin' it all they can.

I don't think even the experts would agree on that.
Click to expand...

You can believe that they have some huge come-from-behind counter-attack just waiting to be unleashed, but I think that's silly.

Refusing to act? You mean if we aren't killing, bombing and maiming just like them we're scared.
Click to expand...

Them being terrorists and dictators... we should be killing them. Obviously, the native population is not capable or they would. They've tried.

I personally believe in peace but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself. I'm just not quick for a fight.
Click to expand...

I'm more interested in defending Iranians.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Diplomacy and/or economic sanctions should always be the first option. With some nations it actually works and saves a lot of money and lives. Obama is still trying to squeeze every drop of possibility out of option #1. He's right to do so, even if it won't work. And in the case of Iran it won't work.

I don't think Grip is saying don't act, but he's saying be aware and ready for every possible response. In the event of a US/Israeli attack, an escalation of terrorist activity from Iran is not only a possibility, it's a certainty. Iran will cease trying to be sneaky about it, which limits the level of activity, and engage in a far larger volume of terrorist operations. So a plan has to be in place to manage that increase. Ships moving toward Gaza need to be checked more aggressively, and trucks moving into Syria need to be watched as though every one was loaded with missiles, because a lot of them will be. There's many other things that could be done too.

I would prefer that Israel be a bit player in any upcoming strikes against Iran. Israel should focus primarily on their own security because a LOT of any Iranian response will be directed at them. Another reason is Turkey. Given Turkey's recent animosity towards Israel, an Israeli-led attack might provoke a negative response from Turkey. If the US led the strikes I think Turkey would be mollified or at least subdued in its response.

Lastly, I prefer Grip's option one. Option two leaves too much chance for civilian casualties. So does option three. The best way to keep the strikes from involving other countries is if the death toll is kept very low and definitely keeps civilian casualties very low. The technicians working in the facilities are civilians to some degree but that cannot be helped and I believe other Muslim nations would accept that as necessary. Another reason to stay away from population centers is that the US may not need to attempt beheading Iran, the population itself may do the work for us. If civilians don't lose their ability to maneuver (via utilities like petrol stations and internet hubs), the civilian populace of Iran may use the US attacks as a sign to rise up (again) against their government. But if too many civilians are killed they may be too busy keeping their heads down to make a move. I think it would be smart to protect the potentiality of a civilian Iranian uprising.
Click to expand...

I agree with EagleAye on option one being preferable because of the internal political instability in Iran's leadership (clerical vs secular differences), and their waning popularity. Also the less Israel has to do with it the better. I'm sure we've assured them we will eventually act and not to inflame the ME situation. But I'm afraid toomuchtime_ has a more accurate assessment on the Military's recommendation to senior leadership of strike hard and fast scenario. It's much more of a politcal gamble and greater possibly of involving other players but more likely to lessen an Iranian response, which they're becoming more convinced will occur. So they figure why wait and react losing more assets when you can "shock & awe" with the first hit. Obama is more of an ideologist than strategist and I think he will defer to Pentagon suggestions.
 
ecofarm I disagree with you on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

I'll say this, as a rule I don't think this country or the world benefits from Wars or conflicts in general. I don't believe in excessive meddling in other countries affairs. The USA would not tolerate it being attempted on us, except letting international bankers and corporations buy our politicians. And from my personal experience the worse thing you can do is underestimate how big a "can of whoopass" somebody might open on you. Ever seen a little skunk drop a mountain lion to a whimpering, howling mass or watch a hornet chase a grown man across the yard like his tushy was on fire?
 
Cant help thinking that this zeal to defend peaceful protesters from authoritarian regimes would be better applied in getting Saudi Arabia out of Bahrain. Or is it no fun when no one gets to blow anything up?
 
grip said:
And from my personal experience the worse thing you can do is underestimate how big a "can of whoopass" somebody might open on you. Ever seen a little skunk drop a mountain lion to a whimpering, howling mass or watch a hornet chase a grown man across the yard like his tushy was on fire?
Click to expand...

I'm not scared.


Red_Dave said:
Cant help thinking that this zeal to defend peaceful protesters from authoritarian regimes would be better applied in getting Saudi Arabia out of Bahrain. Or is it no fun when no one gets to blow anything up?
Click to expand...

You think Bahrain is more significant than Iraq or Iran? Perhaps you think Saudi is more belligerent. If you don't think Bahrain is more important and Saudi is more belligerent... then why such a priority? Is Bahrain developing nukes? I hadn't heard that. Is Saudi?

I know, I know... the US should do everything at the same time, but they suck. fwiw, Saudi also has troops in other countries. Why not those too!! And Syria! And North Korea and China... let's do it all tomorrow!
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
You think Bahrain is more significant than Iraq or Iran? Perhaps you think Saudi is more belligerent. If you don't think Bahrain is more important and Saudi is more belligerent... then why such a priority? Is Bahrain developing nukes? I hadn't heard that. Is Saudi?

I know, I know... the US should do everything at the same time, but they suck. fwiw, Saudi also has troops in other countries. Why not those too!! And Syria! And North Korea and China... let's do it all tomorrow!
Click to expand...

I've asked you about the somewhat bizarre link you have made between the nuclear situation and the human rights situation in the other thread. Until you explain what exactly the link is i will treat them distinctly. Maybe you think nuclear weapons would stop an ground invasion (which isnt really on the cards anyway)

No the U.S should address the behavior of countries that are in its pocket, guarded by its troops and under its sphere of influence before preaching to others. This is as much practical issue as anything else, it would make more sense to resolve the Bahraini situation where we could get the Saudi's out of Bahrain with a click of a finger, whereas most anything we could do in Iran is hugely counterproductive. Whats more there is an issue of good faith here, when people get hysterical (as we should) about protesters being killed in Iran by a government we have nothing to do with, yet are silent about a government that is simultaneously doing the same thing with their help then one has to ask if there is an ulterior motive.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Apparently you didn't understand the article. The criticism is that Obama is hesitant about issuing strong sanctions against Iran while Sarkozy and Cameron are not.
Click to expand...
but this is not sarkozy's or cameron's ass which will be put on the line in a war between US (turkey )and iran!!!
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
but this is not sarkozy's or cameron's ass which will be put on the line in a war between US (turkey )and iran!!!
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand the article or, apparently, the situation. The issue is strong sanctions, not military action, and there is strong popular and Congressional support for strong sanctions against Iran, so there is no political risk for Obama.

If Iran should respond to sanctions with military action, the UK is already committed to fight alongside the US, so Cameron's ass would be on the line, and it is likely Sarkozy would also join in, but Turkey would not. Just as Turkey was not a reliable US ally in the war against Saddam's Iraq and just as Turkish troops have refused to fight along with other NATO countries against other Muslims in Afghanistan, serving only in support capacities, Turkey would refuse to fight alongside Western (Christian) countries against other Muslims in Iran. Turkey has no problem killing other Muslims on its own, Kurds, for example, but it will not side with Western countries against a Muslim country.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
The issue is strong sanctions, not military action, and there is strong popular and Congressional support for strong sanctions against Iran, so there is no political risk for Obama.

If Iran should respond to sanctions with military action, the UK is already committed to fight alongside the US, so Cameron's ass would be on the line, and it is likely Sarkozy would also join in, but Turkey would not.
Click to expand...

Well Russia is not going to bother with sanctions

— Russia’s Tatneft and Iran have signed a $1 billion preliminary deal to develop the Zagheh oil field, state TV reported Sunday, deepening Moscow’s business links with Iran despite U.S. calls for further sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.
Click to expand...

Iran, Russia’s Tatneft sign $1B preliminary deal to develop Zagheh oil field in southern Iran - The Washington Post
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Again, you don't understand the article or, apparently, the situation. The issue is strong sanctions, not military action, and there is strong popular and Congressional support for strong sanctions against Iran, so there is no political risk for Obama.

If Iran should respond to sanctions with military action, the UK is already committed to fight alongside the US, so Cameron's ass would be on the line, and it is likely Sarkozy would also join in, but Turkey would not. Just as Turkey was not a reliable US ally in the war against Saddam's Iraq and just as Turkish troops have refused to fight along with other NATO countries against other Muslims in Afghanistan, serving only in support capacities, Turkey would refuse to fight alongside Western (Christian) countries against other Muslims in Iran. Turkey has no problem killing other Muslims on its own, Kurds, for example, but it will not side with Western countries against a Muslim country.
Click to expand...

when did you write this story??

iran didnt threaten to hit france or Britain,but they declared they would hit Turkey.

and again you begin to smear turkey as a murderer without any reliable evidence!

finally I feel many of you want turkey to be islamist but it is imposibble,we have no problem with any jews or christian..

we are the only one secular and democratic country whose people are still muslim,please get over this fact.
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
when did you write this story??

iran didnt threaten to hit france or Britain,but they declared they would hit Turkey.

and again you begin to smear turkey as a murderer without any reliable evidence!

finally I feel many of you want turkey to be islamist but it is imposibble,we have no problem with any jews or christian..

we are the only one secular and democratic country whose people are still muslim,please get over this fact.
Click to expand...

No, Iran did not threaten to attack turkey over sanctions. Try to keep up.
 
sanctions dont interest me,did iran threaten to hit turkey? yes, ı dont need another word..
 
Medusa said:
sanctions dont interest me,did iran threaten to hit turkey? yes, ı dont need another word..
Click to expand...

Again, you seem unable to understand the article. Iran threatened to attack the missile shield radars in Turkey if Iran was attacked by the US or Israel. It never threatened to attack Turkey because of sanctions and this thread is about sanctions.
 
what will happen if iran doesnt obey the sanctions?
 
EagleAye said:
Diplomacy and/or economic sanctions should always be the first option. With some nations it actually works and saves a lot of money and lives. Obama is still trying to squeeze every drop of possibility out of option #1. He's right to do so, even if it won't work. And in the case of Iran it won't work.

I don't think Grip is saying don't act, but he's saying be aware and ready for every possible response. In the event of a US/Israeli attack, an escalation of terrorist activity from Iran is not only a possibility, it's a certainty. Iran will cease trying to be sneaky about it, which limits the level of activity, and engage in a far larger volume of terrorist operations. So a plan has to be in place to manage that increase. Ships moving toward Gaza need to be checked more aggressively, and trucks moving into Syria need to be watched as though every one was loaded with missiles, because a lot of them will be. There's many other things that could be done too.

I would prefer that Israel be a bit player in any upcoming strikes against Iran. Israel should focus primarily on their own security because a LOT of any Iranian response will be directed at them. Another reason is Turkey. Given Turkey's recent animosity towards Israel, an Israeli-led attack might provoke a negative response from Turkey. If the US led the strikes I think Turkey would be mollified or at least subdued in its response.

Lastly, I prefer Grip's option one. Option two leaves too much chance for civilian casualties. So does option three. The best way to keep the strikes from involving other countries is if the death toll is kept very low and definitely keeps civilian casualties very low. The technicians working in the facilities are civilians to some degree but that cannot be helped and I believe other Muslim nations would accept that as necessary. Another reason to stay away from population centers is that the US may not need to attempt beheading Iran, the population itself may do the work for us. If civilians don't lose their ability to maneuver (via utilities like petrol stations and internet hubs), the civilian populace of Iran may use the US attacks as a sign to rise up (again) against their government. But if too many civilians are killed they may be too busy keeping their heads down to make a move. I think it would be smart to protect the potentiality of a civilian Iranian uprising.
Click to expand...

eagleye,in fact excepting some radical groups,nobody hates israel,ı dont want you to believe in any news which you see on tv or media.sometimes politicians( liars ) play some tricks with the faith of their nation,thats all..
 
Medusa said:
what will happen if iran doesnt obey the sanctions?
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't understand what sanctions mean. The sanctions are penalties put on companies and states that do business with parts of Iran's military, oil or banking industries. If the sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear program, and I am certain they will, then there will probably be much stronger support for military action against Iran in the US, Israel and some European countries. If the attacks then take place, Iran has threatened to attack the missile shield radars that are located in Turkey and if they do, Turkey will likely feel it has to respond militarily. Since this prospect seems to frighten you so much, you should be a strong supporter of strong sanctions, even crippling sanctions, against Iran. If I were a Turk, I would be more worried about Russia's threat to target those same radars than Iran's.
 
toomuchtime_ said:
Apparently you don't understand what sanctions mean. The sanctions are penalties put on companies and states that do business with parts of Iran's military, oil or banking industries. If the sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear program, and I am certain they will, then there will probably be much stronger support for military action against Iran in the US, Israel and some European countries. If the attacks then take place, Iran has threatened to attack the missile shield radars that are located in Turkey and if they do, Turkey will likely feel it has to respond militarily. Since this prospect seems to frighten you so much, you should be a strong supporter of strong sanctions, even crippling sanctions, against Iran. If I were a Turk, I would be more worried about Russia's threat to target those same radars than Iran's.
Click to expand...

ı know what a sanction means! but you dont know if these sanctions will be able to stop a potential war or not.....in the end ,it will be turkey which is in the middle of bombs!!!!

you want those sanctions to fail.......dont rely on turkey, we dont kill muslims heheh :cool:
 
Last edited:
Medusa said:
ı know what a sanction means! but you dont know if these sanctions will be able to stop a potential war or not.....in the end ,it will be turkey which is in the middle of bombs!!!!

you want those sanctions to fail.......dont rely on turkey, we dont kill muslims heheh :cool:
Click to expand...

I'd like the sanctions to work, but I'm certain they won't. That being the case, I hope either the US or Israel takes military action to bomb out Iran's nuclear program. If Iran does retaliate, it will be primarily against Israel, US interests in the area and other US allies such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab nations. Turkey, for all the noise it makes, is not really a player in the region and will probably be nothing but an afterthought, but since Turkey has been such an unreliable ally to everyone else, why should anyone care what happens to Turkey?
 
this is just turkey which is threatened by iran!

and of course as a turkey hater,it is not your business....you protest hamas ,but you like pkk,you are so honest..
 
Medusa said:
this is just turkey which is threatened by iran!

and of course as a turkey hater,it is not your business....you protest hamas ,but you like pkk,you are so honest..
Click to expand...

I am not a Turkey hater, I am a Turkey disliker. It's not that I like PKK, it's that I dislike Turkey's lies about PKK being used as an excuse to bomb Kurdish villages in northern Iraq.
 
Medusa said:
eagleye,in fact excepting some radical groups,nobody hates israel,ı dont want you to believe in any news which you see on tv or media.sometimes politicians( liars ) play some tricks with the faith of their nation,thats all..
Click to expand...

Well, it's pretty clear to me that Iran does hate Israel, and they're quite happy supplying weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel with. That's what my concern is about. Israel is quite competent at defending itself. Unfortunately anytime Israel does so it's always considered a wanton act of violence no matter what happened to Israel beforehand. I'd like for Israel to be insulated from that as much as possible in the event that strikes on Iran are carried out.

If strikes are made on Iran, you can be certain that Iran's SSMs (Surface-to-Surface Missiles) are a primary target, because they are likely to be used for retribution strikes on US allies, including Turkey. So anything that can be used against Turkey, Israel, Germany, France, Britain will be hit hard and hit early.

I think everyone would prefer that sanctions have the desired result. But they must work soon or stronger measures must be employed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom