In response to a flurry of protests and civilian statements opposing an Israeli war on Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck back, dismissing the protests as irrelevant and declaring it the government’s business alone.
Apparently trying to showcase his appreciation for democracy, Barak said “The prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister have the authority…and the decision will be made as necessary by the government of Israel. That’s how it is and how it needs to be — not a group of civilians or even newspaper editorials.”
Barak then conceded that a unilateral military attack on Iran has its dangers and complications. But, he warned, war with a nuclear-armed Iran would be “incomparably” more dangerous than a preemptive campaign now.
This is of course a false choice which presumes the two major lies about Iran. First, that it is developing nuclear weapons, which it isn’t. And second, that some future nuclear-armed Iran would go to war with Israel, which almost certainly wouldn’t happen since countries get nuclear weapons to deter wars, not to fight them – especially not with other nuclear-armed countries like Israel.
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey this week said that Israel doesn’t have the capability to completely destroy Iran nuclear program, only to set it back a few years. Apparently in response to this, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said going it alone was still worth it, even if it only set the program back slightly.
The reason for this, Netanyahu said, is that even such a limited strike could hasten regime change. This estimate is not just wrong, it’s indicative of some seriously ludicrous thinking.
Far more likely, a strike on Iran for a nuclear weapons program it doesn’t have would make clear to the Iranian leadership that it must have nuclear weapons in order to deter future attacks and attempts at regime change.
As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar wrote in the March issue of Washington Monthly, overly optimistic war proponents think “the same regime that cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon because it is recklessly aggressive and prone to cause regional havoc would suddenly become, once attacked, a model of calm and caution, easily deterred by the threat of further attacks.”
And as New York Times reporter David Sanger has reported, officials in the Obama administration feel the same. “We wanted to make it abundantly clear that an attack would just drive the program more underground,” one official told Sanger. “The inspectors would be thrown out. The Iranians would rebuild, more determined than ever. And eventually, they would achieve their objective.”
Attacking Iran would not just be counterproductive in this sense, it would also be illegal. Since Iran has no nuclear weapons program, there is no conceivable imminent threat to the US or Israel and thus no attack is justified. Indeed, a preventive attack would constitute a war crime, as George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has said.
As Aaron David Miller, scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in May, given the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, “a unilateral attack [on Iran] would be totally discretionary. It would be a war of choice,” not of necessity. That is, illegal.
18 thoughts on “Israeli DM Declares Public Opposition to War on Iran Doesn’t Matter”
"… dismissing the protests as irrelevant and declaring it the government’s business alone…" But, of course, these government officials will not be the ones fighting this war, not the ones left out in the streets to watch the missiles rain down on them, and surely not the ones dying because they'll be safely ensconced in their luxuriously well-stocked bomb shelters far fro the shrapnel and carnage…but it's their business alone…
How much more proof do the citizens of Israel need before they remove this disease.
Actually Hitler was saying the same thing, is a government business not the people, or for that matter people no matter because is government is deciding for the people, now if the government wants to go to war they only use people for what government wants to use people for.
I think they should, government that is, to start going to war with anyone they want, the senators, the ministers and their family members, the MP of all kind, those whom are working for government and are for wars and etc. after all is the government hand in hand with Wall Street wars and people are no good for governments wars, nor they are getting paid by the WS, therefore people should be irrelevant and beside all that they (people) are messy rejecting the government demands.
I think you'll find it was Hermann Goering who said "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." but old Adolf would have probably agreed. (is it bad to compare a nazi leader with eddie barack?)
The fake democrats will kill you many times before they kill you for real.., the fascist or Hitlerism will kill you for real once. Thats what is different between Nazi leader and eddi barack, or for that matter falsified democracy in the West, you should know that Israel without the West is not going to be what it is in a matter of year, they know it so is western civilization, as is called.
At the same I agree with you when you say: "IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship”. So the matter of wars is the matter of the leaders and people should reject it, then the matter is the matter of the leaders to go to war by themselves and their family, friends and everyone they know who wants fight their fight.
Bush said the same thing just before he invaded Iraq. So much for democracy. Now we know.
Yep. Democracy is a false fig leaf used to cover all manner of sins.
Unfortunately, there is no one to prosecute war crimes. The US and UK are more guilty, courtesy of 911, which as Bibi has said was good for Israel. Law and order (in the sense of applicability to all, even in principle) has been killed, there is now just power. Any claim to 'Democracy' in a country whose leaders say the public are irrelevant is just a hollow sham.
And that's what claims to be the ONLY DEMOCRACY in that area?
who put these clowns in office??????????
So much for the “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle east line”. Because in a ‘democracy’, public opinion most decidedly does matter, power resides with the people, and the government would never ignore public opinion as public opinion is effectively the government.
Israel wants to "make history" no matter what the human cost may be. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will give the Zionist entity a beat down that has been a long time coming. If there is one country that needs to be taught a lesson it is Israel period.
AMEN to that, David; you hit the nail directly on the head. ISRAHELL is the rogue power in the ME region, not Iran. It's the Zionist entity who's been threatening to attack Iran, not vice versa. As you said, David; if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will give the Zionist entity a beat-down that's been a long time coming. You're right on target with this post. Thanks.
I wonder if an illegal attack on Iran does happen if the real evil countrys Israel America and other would plant nukes so they can fool the public.Just a thought,but very likely.
It is a good bet that if Israel were stupid enough to attack Iran, some nuclear nation would be willing to sell Iran a device for $1 just to equalize the playing field
I believe the reason why Israel wants to attack Iran is not because it fears a nuclear Iran, what Israel fears most is that once Iran goes nuclear, then the other Arab states will have no choice but to counter that by going the nuclear path also, especially Saudi Arabia, once this happens, Israel can never feel secure and can no longer act and behave the way it does in the Middle East.
Before Pakistan went nuclear, it was invaded four times by India, after it went nuclear, Pakistan policy was that it would use nuclear weapons in the event that the army cannot halt an invasion, this has had the desired effect of deterring India from invading.
One scenario is that once Iran is bullied enough to give up its nuclear ambitions or is severely attacked which is a more likely scenario, then this would set a precedent that any State thinking of going nuclear would not be tolerated, especially the Arab states.
Pakistan is a sunni country like the Arab states and is seen as posing no threat or danger to Israel or the Arab states.
Iran is a Shi'ite country regarded by Sunni muslims as an arch enemy. I believe a nuclear Iran poses little threat to Israel, but a great threat to nearby Sunni Arab states especially Saudi Arabia, so a nuclear Iran would would force the Arab states to go nuclear to counterbalance the Iranian threat and this is were lies the greatest danger to Israel and the dreams of the the supporters of Israel especially the Evangelicals in America.
Barak the jolly fat elf berift of any morality happily gives his opinion of the rest of his society, how nice
So, having a memory and all, I have to ask: Did he teach Cheney/Bush that trick, or did he pick it up from them?
Comments are closed.