Arab World Would Be "Pleased" If Israel Attacked Iran: John Bolton

In an incredible [not] interview with the UK's Daily Telegraph, John Bolton, former US ambassador [sic] to the UN, said the Arab world would be pleased by an Israeli attack against Iran, which could happen soon.

According to Bolton the "optimal window" would be between November 4, 2008, the date of the next US presidential election [sic] and January 20, 2009, when the new [sic] president is expected to be inaugurated [provided the current one decides to leave].

Toby Harnden: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.

The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

"It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

It's an interesting point of view; the Arab world according to a neocon chickenhawk.

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

"It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

But what's not a real possibility is the notion that Iran could develop nuclear weapons anytime soon; they can't even do nuclear power.

Of course this is what the Americans and the Israelis are trying to prevent; but as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the Iranians are entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful domestic purposes.

And the Iranians say they don't even want to develop nuclear weapons, but the Israelis say, "Don't believe their lies; believe our lies!" Which we do.

The ironic, bizarre, or typical thing about all this is that Israel has at least 150 nuclear weapons, whereas Iran has none, and even if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapons capability, they would still be staring down the barrels of all those guns.

But the narrative that floats has Iran the danger, and Israel the threatened.

Israel is still determined to prevent Iran from developing any nuclear capability, according to Bolton, who says:

The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations.

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

I need not point out that this is a very bizarre assertion.

"An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

This is bizarre as well, since it comes after Obama's statement that he would do "anything, and I mean anything" to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Hmmm. Could John Bolton be selling something here? In other words, is he doing an ad for John McCain?

Maybe not. McCain is too much of a dove for Bolton.

"With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

There's more [of course] and it's really twisted [of course]:

On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

"That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

Talk about scaremongering!!

The US has no problem giving enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia -- and you won't find a more primitive and radical Islamic state anywhere.

But we're prepared to nuke Iran to prevent them from enriching uranium!

As usual, it's one lie after another, with an occasional truth thrown in.

No wonder the Angry Arab is so angry.

And that's the news.