JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Now, more talk of an Israeli strike on Iran to stop or slow down that country's nuclear program, and questions about a U.S. response to any Israeli military action.
Ray Suarez has the story.
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): With war talk rising, the supreme leader of Iran rallied his public today in Friday prayer broadcast on state television.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned against any military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, supreme leader of Iran (through translator): The U.S. military threats again us are to their detriment, and a real war will harm them 10 times more.
The more they threaten us, the more harmful it will be for them. They should know and, of course, they know, that, in return for such war threats and oil embargo threats, we have our own threats to make in proper time, if deemed necessary.
RAY SUAREZ: Khamenei also took on Israel again, calling it a cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.
AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI (through translator): We will continue to support every nation, every group that is confronting and fighting the Zionist regime. We will support and help them.
RAY SUAREZ: The rhetoric took on new import after months of growing tensions over Tehran's nuclear program.
The Islamic republic has repeatedly denied its goal is to build nuclear weapons, as Israel and the U.S. claim. Yesterday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued his strongest warning yet that time is running out.
At a security conference in Israel, he said, "Dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more complicated, more dangerous, and more costly in lives and money than stopping it. And whoever says later may find that later is too late."
And Israel's vice premier, Moshe Ya'alon, underscored his government's view that even Iran's underground nuclear sites are vulnerable.
MOSHE YA'ALON, Israeli vice prime minister (through translator): There was a debate in the United States about whether bombs can or cannot penetrate an Iranian underground installation. From my own military experience, any facility that is guarded by a human being can be targeted.
RAY SUAREZ: At almost the same time, a Washington Post column by David Ignatius raised eyebrows. Ignatius wrote that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta -- quote -- "believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June, before Iran enters what Israelis described as a zone of immunity to commence building a nuclear bomb."
In Brussels yesterday, at a NATO meeting, Panetta declined to dispute the report. Instead, he said, "No, I'm just not commenting."
Today, in Germany, Panetta said the key is to maintain tough economic sanctions on Iran. But he said all options are on the table, and the U.S. is "prepared to respond if we have to."
Either way, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, insisted Iran remains defiant. As if to underscore that point, Iran took a new step in its space program with the launch of a new satellite this morning. That same missile technology can be used to fire warheads.
PBS Newshour 2/3/2012
Excerpt
DAVID MAKOVSKY, Washington Institute For Near East Policy: I think that there's two people kind of leading the effort. It's Defense Minister Ehud Barak. I would say a quarter-step behind him is the prime minister, Netanyahu. And these are two people who would prefer a -- their first preference, sanctions work, this issue is solved peacefully, everyone's happiest.
Their second preference, I think, would be that Israel could back off and that the United States that has greater capability and a longer timeline could deal with it. But because they're not sure of what the U.S. would do if sanctions don't prove to be decisive, they're left with their third choice, which is that they might have to strike earlier because of their closing window.
But, you know, what I've learned, if you look at the history, where there's two other incidents where Israel has hit -- have hit nuclear sites, one of Iraq, one of Syria, in each case, there were divisions. And at the time when Israel hit the Osirak reactor of Saddam Hussein, the head of the Mossad was against, the head of military intelligence was against it.
But a determined prime minister brought his cabinet around, even though it took a little longer, frankly, until they made a decision. David Ignatius got it exactly right. They haven't made a decision yet.
But I think that Barak and Netanyahu would prefer that somehow this is somehow is taken care of otherwise. But they are fearful is they are going to be left holding the bag, because, unless they have greater understandings with the United States -- when Leon Panetta says this is a red line for America if Iran does such and such on their nuclear program, I think if there is a greater understanding of what that red line was and what the consequences of an American response would be, I think the United States could reshape that debate in Israel, even though it's at a late phase, and the Israelis would back off.
So I don't think we should speak about it as an inevitability. I think it's just, rather, a strong possibility.
This is NOT good, not good at all.
Can you imagine what the Arab-world reaction would be toward the U.S. (and of course Israel) IF Iran is bombed? Even if the U.S. is NOT directly involved.
The Islamic Extremists (like those in Iran and the Taliban) would gain a very big win for their view that the U.S. is anti-Muslim, even when that is NOT the case. In the extremest view an attack on ANY Islamic state is an attack on the Islamic religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment