Things are heating up ... something big coming ...
IRAN-Deja vu all over again?
What a load of Rubenstein.
I listened to Rubenstien a few mins ago and thought, boy, what a crackpot but decided not to say anything because I wasn't sure how important and influential he and his thinking is in the US.
Just how relevant are the opinions and conjecture of a 90 year old fan of Sun Myung Moon???
as relevant as Fred and Ted I guess
ARABS FAVOR WAR WITH IRAN?
"First was the rumor that KSA have secretly agreed to let a corridor for Israel/USA’s bombers through its airspace and then this...
The unspeakable truth that hangs in every Muslim’s lip that they dare not talk about is the Sunni-Shia thousand years of endless wars. The last major war (not to mention Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan) between the Muslim divide that saw the death of a million Muslims was the Iran-Iraq war. If the devil western-warmongers continue to fuel these wars for their own selfish ends; the Middle East could be in flame that will fulfill End Time Prophecies that we are all so familiar with."
U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes
By Eli Lake
ASPEN, Colo. | The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose. In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons. "I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what." "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E. Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The remarks surprised many in the audience........"
REST OF ARTICLE HERE:
Ex-CIA Chief: Strike on Iran Seems More Likely Now
A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.
Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."
He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.
U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.
Iran says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as power generation.
. . .
Ahmadinejad Says Expects U.S. to Attack MidEast Soon
Iran expects the United States to launch a military strike on "at least two countries" in the Middle East in the next three months, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state-run Press TV.
In an interview recorded on Monday, Ahmadinejad did not specify whether he thought Iran itself would be attacked nor did he say what intelligence led him to expect such a move.
The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear program which they fear could lead to it making a bomb, something Iran denies.
"They have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months," Ahmadinejad said in excerpts broadcast on the rolling news channel on Tuesday.
Israel, which refuses to confirm or deny the existence of its own nuclear arsenal, has a history of pre-emptive strikes against suspected nuclear targets. In 1981 it destroyed Iraq's only nuclear reactor and in 2007 bombed a suspect site in Syria.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran "the ultimate terrorist threat." His deputy, Moshe Yaalon, has said Israel had improved military capability which could be used against foes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or Iran.
Ahmadinejad said Iran had "very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they to wage a psychological war against Iran."
He also criticized the U.S.-led drive for international sanctions to pressure Tehran over the nuclear issue.
. . .
With Iran's nuclear timeline so fluid, it's crucial not to react in a panicked way based on a false sense of urgency. A military response in particular could have grave consequences, while doing nothing to provide a long-term solution to the problem. "[T]here is no military option that does anything more than buy time," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates in September 2009. "The estimates are [that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities delay it] one to three years or so."
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, also warned on June 28 that a military strike on Iran would be "incredibly destabilizing" to the region. It would likely increase support for the Iranian regime, Mullen noted earlier, even among Iran's Green Movement.
So the next time you hear a pundit claiming that Iran is on the verge of attaining nuclear weapons, don't panic. Like the boy who cried wolf, those pundits might eventually be right. For now, however, Iran has a ways to go -- and keeping that in mind is the best way to develop a measured response to the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions.
Hillary Clinton, 2008:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed Monday that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, Clinton, D-N.Y., said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.
In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”
She said U.S. allies in the Middle East were being “intimidated and bullied into submission by Iran,” raising the prospect of an “incredibly destabilizing” arms race in the region.
“I can imagine that they would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves” if Iran were to develop a nuclear arsenal, she said.
Clinton said it was vital that the United States create a new “security umbrella” to reassure Israel and its other allies in the region that they would not be threatened by Iran. She said she would tell them that “if you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States, and hopefully our NATO allies, would respond to that.”
. . .