Nuclear Iran could provide chance for Mideast stability

From the opinion piece:

"When that moment comes, one thing will have to be made crystal clear to Tehran: If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would retaliate massively with nuclear weapons, effectively ending Iran's existence as a nation. Absent that firm guarantee, we'd put Israel into the scary situation of worrying about its second-strike capability.

And yes, America would need to make the same position clear to a nuclear-capable House of Saud."


On the basis of what treaty would the United States retaliate?

 

Anyone who can point me to the treaty that authorizes and obligates the United States to do so.

 

US-Israel treaties:

July 23, 1952 — Agreement relating to mutual defense assistance.

http://tinyurl.com/4cu79q

(Besides Genesis 12:3)

 

That has nothing to do with retaliating if Israel is attacked, LE. Here is the text:

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/5/7/00008340.pdf

 

This, of course, is wholly and completely asinine. If the US did that, they would achieve the Iranian goal of wiping Israel off the map. What would happen to all that nuclear fallout?

Anyone who really supports Israel should do everything to stop this as an option.

Regards Ken - hope all is well,
BiR

 

Okay, try this one. This is the last thing I'm looking up for you on Google:

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/isrl_moa.htm

 

"While the MoA represents a strengthening of US-Israeli defense ties, it does not bind the United States to intervene militarily if Israel comes under missile attack."

So, just as I thought, the United States government has no authority or obligation to retaliate if Israel is attacked.

By the way, was this approved by the Congress or is this like an executive order where the president can get away with just about anything without the approval of the American people?

 

Yes, and I'm sure Obama will use that little phrase to sit idly by and do nothing except talk with the Iranian nut while Israel glows. :tear:

 

Ahmadinejad had no authority to launch an attack against Israel, regardless of how much he runs his mouth. Iran does not have nuclear weapons and I don't see how they can have them during the time that Senator Obama might be president. You don't go in the basement and whip up a nuclear weapon out of a chemistry set.

 

I know, poncho; however, I thought the conservatives in this forum believed in constitutional government.

 

You must have forgotten what Cong. Henry Hyde said in response to a Congressional Declaration of War:

So that's why some of us are concerned when Obama states emphatically that he will discard whatever past Presidential Executive Orders he deems to be unconstitutional....especially considering his 20 years under the Black Liberation Theology by Jeremiah Wright and his socialist/Marxist associates and leanings.

The "what ifs" do matter, even if some on the BB don't like to think about possible consequences if Obama is elected.

 

Do you agree with Congressman Hyde, LE?

I don't.

And if you think that Senator JSM III will be any better than Senator Obama in the areas that you are evidently concerned about, well, I don't think that you should bet your house on it.

 

Good points, poncho.

Bill Clinton made that agreement with Israel (I learned something new today, thanks Ken) and most conservatives/pro-Israel people probably don't know it. BC was more of a friend to Israel than Bush ever has been.... Too bad his Lewinsky deal overshadows some of the good he did while president.

Edited to say, no I never did agree with Henry Hyde, but our Constitutional Republic is long gone and is past the point of resuscitation at this point in our history. The America I knew and loved growing up is dead, it just hasn't been buried yet. But I imagine it will be in my lifetime.

I don't plan to vote for McCain. Not unless he chooses a Huckabee or Newt or someone I like for his running mate. I don't trust McCain and will not vote for the lesser of two evils. So I may end up voting for Bob Barr. Strange, you and me, huh - polar opposites on most things but may end up voting for the same fellow.

 

So you are not opposed to executive orders and such like across the board being used to make public policy, LE? Does it simply depend for you on who is making them and whether you agree with them or not?

 

That depends.....:wavey: