The Biden Administration has sent a message to Israel voicing its displeasure over the recent sabotage attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site, as well as Israeli “boasting” over their being behind the attack.
The current round of Vienna talks opened concurrently with the Israeli sabotage, and the US says they are worried that Israel will derail these talks with its activities. The US seems interested in distancing itself from the incident.
It seems fair to accuse Israel of trying to sabotage the process, as they’ve been publicly unhappy about the nuclear deal from day one, and the Israeli cabinet is openly worried that the US will make a new deal with Iran.
This split between US and Israeli policies is not new. Israel has had problems with Presidents Obama and Biden in trying to handle Iran in ways other than military hostility and constant threats, and the US wants to be allowed to approach diplomatic ideas unfettered.
Historically, close US-Israel ties have meant Israel feels entitled to steer the US in various directions, by hook or by crook. These days there is a lot of fatigue, as both sides have some very different ideas, and aren’t happy to be undermined.
Dont be pathetic. You arm them to the teeth to the tune of billions of $ each year.
And the attack on Natanz was not terrorism?
No, it wasn’t “terrorism.” Not all bad deeds are “terrorism.” Words mean things.
What would an attack on a nuclear facility that could have had catastrophic results be called? If hundreds or thousands had died as a result, would it then had been terrorism? And wasn’t Israel trying to use “violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes”?
Terrorism is killing civilians in order to terrorize a civilian populace to pressure its government. I’ve not heard that anyone was killed in the sabotage of Natanz, nor does the goal seem to have been to terrorize the Iranian population.
I was going by Webster’s version.
Webster’s 1913 defines terrorism as “The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.”
WordNet’s version is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”
Whatever the Natanz attack was, it doesn’t seem to conform to either definition. It was sabotage that caused a power outage. Its goal was not to intimidate, coerce, or instill fear, or to terrorize. If it had a goal other than stalling enrichment, that goal seems to have been to enrage the Iranians into upping their enrichment game so as to make negotiations with the US even more difficult.
Since 9/11, anything any government doesn’t like gets called “terrorism,” including military attacks on military targets. It’s making the word essentially useless.
I disagree. It comes down to what one’s opinion is on Israel’s intent. But I think all acts of war are terrorism so my opinion might be skewed.
After releasing the statement, members of the Biden administration rolled on the floor with laughter.
“The Biden Administration has sent a message to Israel voicing its displeasure over the recent sabotage attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site …”
Yes, I’m sure Nuttyahoo is shaking in his shoes …
We send a lot of “messages” their way. Like promising “unwavering” and “ironclad” support. Plus we send $3.8 billion messages per year. Now if there is a UN resolution condemning Israel’s terrorism in their Natanz sabotage would we use our veto?
What better way to encourage more attacks? “Your efforts to sabotage our negotiations with Iran succeeded wonderfully. Please reconsider.”