In a meeting with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ehud Olmert proposed that the U.S. blockade Iranian ports as a means of shutting down its uranium enrichment program:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed in discussions with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran as one of several ways to pressure Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program…
“The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves,” Olmert told Pelosi, adding that the international community needed to take much more drastic steps to stop Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Olmert also said there was a great deal of space between the present sanctions and military action. Aggressive action could be taken that was not violent, Olmert told Pelosi.
Olmert’s suggestions mainly involved continued efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Olmert proposed two possible courses of action: first, a naval blockade of Iran using the U.S. fleet to limit the movement in and out of Iran of its merchant ships.
The second option Olmert proposed was to place limitations on Iranian aircraft, business people and senior members of the regime at airports throughout the world. “Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime,” Olmert said.
There’s just a wee problem with his suggestion: does anyone recall Egypt shutting down the Straits of Tiran and blockading the shipping of a certain country in 1967? Remember what happened next? Yes, a full-scale war. A naval blockade is an act of war and Iran would take it as such. The idea that such a blockade would somehow be short of “violent” is foolhardy in the extreme.
I like the fact that Ehud Olmert is holding on by the skin of his teeth to his political office and career, and still manages to suggest policies that could get Israel, the U.S. and the entire Middle East into a full-scale regional war. I like politicians who think big like that. Reminds me of the wonderful Slim Pickens hanging on for dear life to that thermonuclear device dropped from the bomb-bay doors of the B-52 in the closing scene from Dr. Strangelove. Olmert figures, like Pickens, he might as well go out in a blaze of glory.
The Jerusalem Post covers an Israeli Army Radio report claiming that a senior Bush official told the Israelis that Bush is prepared for military action against Iran:
…An Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term.
…Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who visited Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.
The official reportedly went on to say that, for the time being, “the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic.
The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has established de facto control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah’s show of strength evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s growing influence. In Bush’s view, the official said, “the disease must be treated – not its symptoms.”
Bushites have flatly denied the report. But given the history of this Administration it is entirely credible that Stephen Hadley could’ve said something as hare-brained as this. It’s even possible that something like this will end up happening. That’s how flat out crazy these people can be. That being said, the Jerusalem Post isn’t exactly the most credible journalistic source and Israeli newspapers in general have a very low threshold of reliability when reporting unsourced stories. I’d say any newspaper that creates a special news category called “Iranian Threat” has a vested interest in ginning up a little anti-Iranian hysteria now and again. Laura Rozen is also skeptical.
Although the following item is not related to this thread, I though it would be of interest to you Richard….
A French court of appeals in Paris just ruled that the infamous film supposedly shot at the Netzarim Junction in the Gaza strip in October 2000 which is supposed to show the young Muhammed al-Dura being killed by Israeli army fire while cowering behind a cement block with his father was faked. A French Jew, Phillipe Karsenty, some years ago wrote an article accusing French TV journalist Charles Enderlin of using film of a staged incident to blacken Israel’s reputation. Enderlin sued Karsenty for libel and won the original trial. However, as I understand it, only an edited part of the film was presented at the trial for evidence. Karesenty appealed the verdict and the appeals court demanded that the entire, unedited film be shown. This film shows Arabs milling around the area where the “gunbattle” was supposedly taking place and it also shows Muhammed moving after he was supposedly killed.
Maybe there is a lesson to all consumers of news in this story. Apparently at least some journalists and Palestinian propagandists are willing to use fake atrocity stories in order to push their political agenda.
Don’t worry Rich in a couple of years when Iran has the bomb, and they will have it. Then they’ll cut the straits of Hormuz themselves whenever they feel like it. Then they will really have us by the balls. It won’t take a naval blockade. Or when they get it then the gulf states will feel the need for the atom bombs. Turkey, Egypt, Syria. Then the whole region, the most unstable in the world will be on a hair trigger nuclear alert. But all will be well, Obama will go over, sing kumbaya, and all will be well.
bar_kochba132: Actually, that’s not what happened. The court threw out the libel case, saying essentially that Karsenty had not been proven to have libelled Enderlin et al, but the court also said that it did not rule out that the journalists involved had acted responsibly. In other words, it was (quite properly) a pretty limited ruling on a libel case.
I note that now one of the main criticisms of the film is that Muhammad al-Durrah had the temerity to move his body after being shot… apparently that surprises some people.
@bar_kochba132:
On such a charged issue I’m entirely unwilling to believe yr interpretation of these events esp. since you haven’t provided a link to a reputable journalistic source. When you can do so then you can talk. Till then, sorry Charlie.
@Bill Pearlman:
You’re been reading too many of those apocalyptic Christian End Times novels, Bill. Why don’t you try living in the real world where most of the rest of us hang out?
new study
Just waiting for the 12th imam to appear. Look, I know Obama will lay hands and make everything better. The Iranians will melt under his charm, not go for the bomb and there will be no nuclear arms race in the middle east. Got it.
Karsenty called Enderlin liar. He sued for libel and he lost. In a French court. Which I’m willing to bet is a pretty pro-palestinian venue. Why is it so hard to believe that the Arabs shot this kid in a propaganda move. Or does that not fit into your world view.
Bill Pearlman: I’m not sure that there’s any evidence that a French court would necessarily be a ‘pro-Palestinian’ venue, any more than, say, an American court would be a ‘pro-Israeli’ one. I’d expect that a presumption of even-handedness would hold in both cases, without additional evidence. In any case, this was an appeal of a libel conviction, and the lawyers for France 2 says this decision would, in turn, be appealed. Stay tuned.
Both sides in this conflict seem to be pretty good at shooting kids, so, again, on that basis there’s no a priori reason to exclude one set of possible perpetrators or the other.
And which country’s navy would be employed in this blockade?
The tiny Israeli Navy?
Or would Israel’s dumber, bigger goy friend be employed AGAIN on behalf of Israeli interests?
@Bill Pearlman:
Because you believe it, for one. Pretty much anything you believe I know is going to be full of shit, including this. And again, yr characterization of the case & the ruling has absolutely no weight here. Once again, find a reputable journalistic source if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously. If not, you’re just full of hot air.
Mohammed Al Dura is completely off topic in this thread. Staying on topic is one of my comment rules. No further comments on this issue are welcome fr. Pearlman or Bar Kochba.
@americangoy:
Oh, of course it would be the U.S. Navy. Olmert is happy to have us do Israel’s bidding.
You’re been reading too many of those apocalyptic Christian End Times novels
Being raised in Iran’s early revolutionary years, I have vivid memories of “existential threats” against everything from the revolution to the country/people/etc. lined up by the government propaganda to justify its many insanities like continuing the war with Iraq, its tough stance against the West, the nobility of cause of “the righteous victims” against “all the evil around”, blah, blah, …
I find it quite amazing the universality of such line of apocalyptic arguments as it is simply enough to exchange a few nouns to reach from one side’s argument to the other. One can hope to change the ignorance who buys such arguments but not the ideology when it is the real cause…