24 June, 2008

Bolton: Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected

Posted by VNNB in Announce, VNNB at 7:26 am | Permanent Link

“I am the walrus, coo, coo cachoo”

WASHINGTON – Former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said on Tuesday that he believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran’s nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential elections.

Bolton said the IAF would likely strike in the interim term between election day (November 4th) and the inauguration (January 20th 2009) – while George W. Bush is still in office.

“I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President,” Bolton said in an interview with FOX News.

“I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it. And they’d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.”

“I don’t think they will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it. And they’d have to make a judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor.”

In a related interview with the British ‘Daily Telegraph,’ Bolton said he believed the Arab world would be “pleased” by an Israeli strike.

Their reaction, he told the paper “will be positive privately. I think there’ll be public denunciations but no action.”

Bolton believes that Israel may consider postponing the attack if Senator John McCain emerges as the victor in the race, and said apprehension of Obama’s foreign policy in Jerusalem would likely be the motivating factor behind an early strike.

The former ambassador, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, said he found McCain’s stance on Iran far more realistic than that of the Bush administration.

Bolton said he doubted Iran would respond immediately with a counterstrike of its own, partially because Tehran would fear an American reprisal

  • 12 Responses to “Bolton: Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected”

    1. NSN Says:

      So now the Jews through this useful idiot of theirs is trying to blackmail America.

      Of course it’s all bullshit. If the Jews were seriously intending to take out Iran, they wouldn’t be saber rattling; rather they would make that they’re bending over backwards to make peace with Iran.

    2. seejay Says:

      PLEASE ATTACK IRAN! Enough of all the sh#t-talking! Do it! Now!
      On your own, without our help or money.
      Fat chance of that!
      Iran would drive you right into the Med!

    3. Brigantes Says:

      If they attack Iran then it is goodbye Israel. The sad point is that most of the Jews are in America so it wont alter world affairs as much as hoped.

    4. saltriver Says:

      IMO, this POS needs to get a better wig maker. As NSN states, this asshole is nothing but a useful idiot. A jew is easy to see through.

    5. 2050 Says:

      Brigantes said that “If they attack Iran then it is goodbye Israel.”

      How’s that. I mean I wish, but I think it will be more like when Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear power plant at Tuwaitha.
      Iran will lose lots. israel will lose nothing.
      Most Amerikwans will rejoice.
      NO ONE will do anything in defence of Iran.
      NO ONE will do anything against israel.
      Too bad.

    6. Stronza Says:


      Big blockade may happen. Is this the beginning of the end?

    7. blightblingywingydoodah Says:

      Bolton’s message is designed to reinforce Obama’s “muslim” image (the little “m” means, not a real Muslim). Nevertheless, an attack on Iran by the U.S. or Israel is going to happen. For jewry and the Republicans timing is important. The civil legitimacy of our rulers and the continuation of the democratic illusion are important, constraining factors. If Iran is attacked before the election McCain is sunk. If McCain wins, the U.S. will attack Iran at his pleasure. If Obama wins, Israel will attack Iran and Republicans will benefit from “plausible deniability.” Should Israel attack Iran the U.S. will be standing by with club in hand. The Iranian response will determine U.S. response. The Iranian infrastructure will be destroyed and its population decimated. The most Iran can do is sink a carrier/battleship or flood Iraq and kill thousands of American servicemen. The U.S. anticipates this, of course. A low-profile or secret buildup of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf will precede any attack upon Iran by either Israel or the U.S.

    8. Tom Says:

      I wouldn’t rule out an Israeli strike on Iran, personally, even if it would be a mistake. Nobody’s perfect, and if the Zionists here and over there are overconfident, they may overplay their hand.

      Its happened before; just look at Iraq today.

    9. Celtic Warrior Says:

      ZOG will try to make out that Iran attacked first while negotiations were proceeding, as in the Pearl Harbour routine.

      The world at large won’t fall for this threadbear confidence trick.

      Whatever happens we must plan ahead and use events to our advantage.

    10. jim donaldson Says:

      I think we should attack Iran–just as soon as we find the Iraqi WMD we went to war to destroy.

    11. John Says:

      The WMD are in I$rael which needs to be bombed. I would love it if my tax money went to weapons which would be used to carpet bomb the criminal zionist entity.


      A MAD Foreign Policy

      “My number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.”

      –Former House Speaker Richard Armey

      Rocky was a boyhood friend. He was as big and as strong as his name. In his wild days, Rocky hung out with a runt whose obnoxious mouth regularly got my friend into serious bar fights. One night Rocky was beaten senseless when he stepped between the runt and someone with dangerous friends. I never understood his irrational defense of a guy with obvious “needs.”

      But then—K Street realpolitik notwithstanding—I have difficulty understanding America’s irrational defense of Israel, a country whose “needs” are as much at odds with the security of my country as were the runt’s “needs” at odds with the health of my friend.

      Earlier this month 7,000 activists and politicians attended the America Israel Public Forum Committee’s 2008 Policy Conference in Washington D.C. This was AIPAC’s premier pro-Israel event, which attracted a bipartisan who’s who of Congressional sycophants. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s keynote address drew nearly half the members of Congress.

      Along with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, both presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential candidates bent a knee and lowered their head in supplication, pledging an unwavering fealty along with an additional 30 billion taxpayer dollars in military aid to Israel.

      John McCain told attendees, “The threats to Israel’s security are large and growing and America’s commitment must grow as well. I strongly support the increase in military aidto Israel . . . our shared interests and values are too great for us to follow any other policy.”
      Barak Obama dittoed, “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable . . . Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us . . . as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.”

      As an American citizen, I’d like to think the number one “non-negotiable” of anyone who would be president is the security and the interests of the American people. Instead of reading from the same AIPAC-vetted script, McCain and Obama would better serve their country by reading from the same Constitution—the version enshrined in Washington D.C. not in Jerusalem.

      AIPAC is the most powerful of the dozen or so major organizations and think-tanks that comprise the “Israel lobby” in the United States. This influential lobby dictates U.S. Middle East foreign policy: “You can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here,” admitted Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) upon leaving office in 2004.

      Recently, former President Jimmy Carter pointed out that the Israel lobby makes or breaks American politicians depending on their willingness to promote Israel’s “security” as their number one foreign policy priority: “It’s almost political suicide . . . for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government.”

      Predictably, politicians wanting to keep their government and K Street paychecks merrily dance the mizinka, the Jewish traditional marriage (of convenience) polka.

      Most detrimental to the democratic process, however, is the way the lobby manages the political and social discourse by tarring critics of Israel’s policies and actions regarding the Palestinians, Gaza and the West Bank with the brush of anti-Semitism, a black epithet that once applied is difficult, if not impossible, to scrub off.

      But does our “non-negotiable” support for Israel make us more secure, or is it a MAD policy akin to the insane Cold War strategy of “mutual assured destruction?” Such a strategy may, in the war on terror between “radical Islam” and “freedom-loving democracies,” result in the mutual assured destruction of both the United States and Israel.

      A Pentagon Defense Science Board report published in 2004 concluded, “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies.” And the policy that motivates their young men to bring the Middle East conflict to America by crashing passenger planes into the most prominent symbols of our affluence and military might is our “non-negotiable,” irrational support for the policies of Israel’s right-wing government.

      In 2003 it was in Israel’s national security interest to see Saddam Hussein and his perceived regional threat disappear, and to let the American military do the killing and the dying to ensure that it vanished. It was never about American security. Period!

      While Israel and their American lobby are not exclusively responsible for the Iraq War, it was their cooked intelligence reports and political clout that both stiffened the spine of the neocon administration bent on war and weaken the knees of American politicians who would be voting for the war…