“Israel should prepare ‘military option’ on Iran”
Assuming arguendo that Israel is not already prepared to strike Iran, Israel's just cranking up the hyperbolic drama to get the US to do its dirty work.
They have nothing on Iran. Iran hasn't attacked a country since the Iraq/Iran war and even that was instigated by the US.
Meanwhile, Israel has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate that it's ready to bomb a nation back to the stone ages at the drop of a hat. Israel is a loose canon, above the law and beyond all reason.
Israelis cannot be trusted. But, that doesn't stop them from yammering away.
Israel should consider a military option to prevent archfoe Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the former head of the Mossad intelligence service said, AFP reported.Let's see how this statement squares up with reality . . .
"Israel should prepare itself for the worst of possibilities, even for a military option," Shavtain Shavit told public television, pointing out that efforts by world powers to get Iran to stop enriching uranium have not succeeded.
He said Iran has a "regime of fanatics who see it as their duty to exterminate infidels and make the world a Muslim world. The day that they have an atomic weapon and their finger on the trigger, the world will be completely different."
Israel is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons, although it has never confirmed or denied it holds such an arsenal.It doesn't. The truth is that Israel has a stock pile of WMDs and is a threat to world peace. Iran does not and is not.
Iran insists it is exercising a right to develop civilian atomic energy, and has refused to comply with a UN Security Council resolution that gave it an August 31 deadline to halt enrichment of uranium.
This is just another pack of lies by Israel to get the world - specifically US - to do its demonic work for it.
“I don’t think an Israeli strike is likely at all,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, proliferation analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think-tank. “Israel could not do it as well as the US could do it.” An Israeli attack would reap all the disadvantages of a US attack in terms of reprisals, more so if it provoked direct retaliation. But it would secure fewer benefits in that Israel would not be able to knock out any sites.I'll leave it to you to guess who he's afraid would suffer 'direct retaliation' and who would derive 'fewer benefits' if Israel - not the US - were to attack Iran. Then you can decide whose interests are being served if the US exercises a 'military option' against Iran.