'Ahmadinejad would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel' - Bible Prophecy News

Message from discussion 'Ahmadinejad would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel'
Received-SPF: pass (googlegroups.com: domain of dgrmor...@telus.net designates 204.209.205.55 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <44EEAF9E.6040401@telus.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:06:54 -0700
From: Pastor Dale Morgan <dgrmor...@telus.net>
Organization: The Good News Ministry and Missions Outreach
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bible-Prophecy-News@googlegroups.com
Subject: 'Ahmadinejad would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel'
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

*Perilous Times

'Ahmadinejad would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel'*

David Horovitz, THE JERUSALEM POST     Aug. 25, 2006

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme 
decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the 
sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national 
security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

At present, Eiland stressed, the ultimate decision maker in Iran was 
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 67, whom he said was "more 
reasonable." But, Eiland went on, "if Ahmadinejad were to succeed him - 
and he has a reasonable chance of doing so - then we'd be in a highly 
dangerous situation."

The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction 
that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, 
that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be 
removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived 
historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear 
capability, that's a real threat."

In facing up to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Eiland said the United States 
had three possible courses of action, "all of them bad," and that a 
decision could not be postponed for too long, "since delay, too, is a 
decision of sorts."

The first option was "to give up" - to accept that Iran was going 
nuclear and try to make the best of it. By "making the best of it," 
Eiland said, he meant "isolating Iran economically, politically and 
internationally in the hope that this will eventually prompt an internal 
push for regime change."

This might also give other nations the sense that the political price of 
going nuclear was too high for them to contemplate, and might thus deter 
nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria and others from 
seeking to emulate Iran and spelling the full collapse of the nuclear 
nonproliferation era.

Washington's second option was to launch a last-ditch effort at 
diplomatic action, he said. At this stage, a mixture of sanctions and 
bonuses would not be sufficient to deter Iran altogether, but it might 
seek to persuade Teheran to suspend progress for two or three years.

"In return, the US would have to open direct engagement with Teheran, 
with full recognition of the regime. This would boost the regime's 
credibility and standing at home and allow it to say it was voluntarily 
suspending the program for a while," he said.

The advantage for the Bush administration was that "Bush could then say, 
'They didn't go nuclear on my watch, and it's up to my successors to 
keep things that way.'"

The third option, said Eiland, was a military operation - born of the 
sense that the diplomatic process would not work and that there could be 
no compromise with an axis-of-evil power. However, internal political 
realities and public opinion in the US were not conducive to this, he 
said, nor was international support readily available. Furthermore, said 
Eiland, "this would be action that would have to be taken within months.

If not, and if Iran continues enrichment, it will complete the research 
and development stage and have a proven ability which it can then 
duplicate at numerous sites. And at that point it could not be stopped 
by military action. Six months or 12 months from now would be too late, 
he said.

Tellingly, Eiland noted, it seemed to him that the difficulties facing 
the administration over that third course were growing.

As the crisis with Iran deepens, meanwhile, some Israeli sources believe 
the US has acted foolishly in spurning opportunities for international 
diplomatic cooperation against Iran in recent years, and that Israel 
mistakenly encouraged this course of action.

The US might have had more success isolating Iran two years ago, when 
Bush and French President Jacques Chirac were stronger, Iran was weaker 
and the situation in Iraq looked better, said the sources.

As recently as a few months ago, on a trip to Ukraine, which is a vital 
Russian sphere of influence, US Vice President Richard Cheney criticized 
the Putin regime's record on democracy, the sources pointed out. Against 
that kind of background, the US should not be surprised now, therefore, 
to find Russia less than willing to fully cooperate on its Iran strategy.

Israel, these sources went on, realized early the danger posed by Iran's 
nuclear drive but erred in supporting the US in hanging tough rather 
than pushing it toward cooperation.

As for Israel's military options, these sources spoke of an immense 
dilemma for the government. Declining to go into detail, they noted only 
that Israel was not as potent militarily as the US and mused about what 
might happen if a military action proved unsuccessful in thwarting the 
nuclear program. Iran might then complete its nuclear drive and, 
branding Israel a preemptive aggressor, claim legitimacy for a strike of 
its own at Israel.