Israel pays close attention as Iran nuclear talks set to start

With crucial talks aimed at curtailing Irans nuclear program set to begin, the rhetoric is heating up.
On Thursday, the United States, along with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, will meet with Iranian officials in Switzerland hoping to convince Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions.
They may be fighting an uphill battle. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mamhoud Ahmadinejad said that its the West that needs to change its ways.
Israel will be following the progress of the negotiations closely. There has been talk that the Israelis will take military action against Iran, if the talks dont succeed.
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies joins Martin Savidge to discuss whether an Israeli air strike against Irans facilities would even be effective. Read his opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/09/30/israel-pays-close-attention-as-iran-nuc...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Anthony Cordesman
• How You See It
• Iran
• Israel
• military
• nuclear
• nuclear weapons

[TheFlex21]

RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS: israel

attacked neighbors: israel

nukes: israel

beligerant: israel

FUCK ISRAEL

[jamilehfarr]

We are sick of Isreal.

[GTCism]

We are SICK of islam and iran! May God continue to protect and bless Israel. All arab and islamic people should be dismantled and moved out of the middle east, if the world is to find any peace.

[jasonthedragon73]

2 years later..israel still talking s**t..

[virusshamimi]

israel must be dismanteld.israel will be dismanteld .stop leaking american ass.

[becokjr]

this guy is very smart.

[FromyColdeadHands]

I agree, we can send a man to the moon, yet we have holocaust deniers. A perfect example for your argument would be the nazis aka the first to send a rocket into space, but totally misguided in other way. I agree defense and retaliation are the only ways to justify war. Makes you think about the Iraq war, some people say because they broke UN protocol, but so did Israel, you know.

[PureLiberalRadio]

FromyColdeadHands -- One way I look at this is I conclude mankind is very advanced in its hard sciences, but very backward in its soft sciences (especially political science, morality, and philosophy).

The KEY to a civilized world is we are NEVER allowed to use violence against our fellow man except in defense and retaliation -- and only then against those who initiated it, and proportionately.

[FromyColdeadHands]

Man is to primitive to possess such a tool as self annihilation. I rather have full Napoleon warfare then nukes. Nukes are to destructive of a weapon to serve any legitimate reason in warfare. Detonation of one in the Middle East would be very troublesome because the radiated sand would "fallout" throughout the Middle East.

Its a crime against humanity to have such a weapon that can destroy enemies, but friends, and self. Its just fear of people who have them and the conquest to get them.

[PureLiberalRadio]

FromyColdeadHands -- I think you're right. No nukes is good nukes. NO government on earth today is trustworthy when it comes to nuclear bombs. But I WOULD trust a fully libertarian or laissez-faire capitalist one.

[FromyColdeadHands]

I agree, but I don't feel quite confrontable with nukes in our hands, Imagine if Bush was in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he would have fired away. All it takes is one error or misunderstanding, then thats the end. I totally agree from my own experience that jihadists are a determined enemy. I would rather have a world of no nukes, instead of nukes on our side.

[PureLiberalRadio]

FromyColdeadHands -- The greatest risk by far comes from nukes being in the hands of tyrants. America, Britain, and France mostly DON'T threaten the world. Russia, China, and Pakistan heavily DO. The West should do everything humanly possible to prevent these Iranian jihadi monsters and madmen from getting nuclear weapons.