US Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat

[cory777]

Source: IPS

Friday 23 April 2010

by: Gareth Porter | Inter Press Service

Washington - The Barack Obama administration's declaration in its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran represents a new element in a strategy of persuading Tehran that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites is a serious possibility if Iran does not bow to the demand that it cease uranium enrichment.

Although administration officials have carefully refrained from drawing any direct connection between the new nuclear option and the Israeli threat, the NPR broadens the range of contingencies in which nuclear weapons might play a role so as to include an Iranian military response to an Israeli attack.

A war involving Iran that begins with an Israeli attack is the only plausible scenario that would fit the category of contingencies in the document.

Read more: http://www.truthout.org/us-nuclear-option-iran-linked-israeli-attack-threat58840

[Socal31]

1. Anyone who does not believe that Israel is going to strike Iran

is a poor student of history.

[Wizard777]

2. If anyone attacks Iran. It should be us and not Israel. We should do our own dirty work on this.

Because basically what we are doing is making Israel the Sovereign of the entire Middle East. All the other countries over there have to clear everything with Israel first. Because Israel can't be made uncomfortable in the least. I would have less problems with Israel being used as a guard dog if they were an obedient guard dog. But they are not. The only reason Israel wants to attack Iran is because that's how far Israel wants to expand.

[Prometheus Bound]

3. The US talks so casually about possibly nuking a non-nuclear state suc h as Iran

The updated Negative Security Assurance does not alter our current policy on the use of nuclear weapons toward nuclear armed states or non-nuclear weapon states not in compliance with the NPT and their nuclear nonproliferation obligations, such as North Korea and Iran. In other words, for this group of states, we have retained calculated ambiguity.

But I want to stress that the NPR states the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.
http://www.state.gov/t/us/140678.htm

How horrid for the world to have such an irresponsible bully with nuclear weapons.

[ixion]

4. We have no "right" to use nuclear weapons

period.

That doesn't mean we won't use them, it just means that there is no "right," moral, political, humane, or otherwise.