US 'offered Israel new arms to delay Iran attack'

JERUSALEM — The United States offered Israel advanced weaponry in return for it committing not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities this year, Israeli daily Maariv reported on Thursday.

Citing unnamed Western diplomats and intelligence sources, the report said that during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week, the US administration offered to supply Israel with advanced bunker-busting bombs and long-range refuelling planes.

In return, Israel would agree to put off a possible attack on Iran till 2013, after the US elections in November.

Well, at least no one will get killed for the time being. Shameful, though, that the motivation is not peace or justice, but election season.


The Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, have already used this tense situation for political gain. With this new development, it might soon be argued that Obama puts re-election as a higher priority than peace in the Middle East, as if such a claim would not itself be a political ploy, adding fuel to the fire. There seems to be some disagreement regarding whether Obama actually initiated the arms offer in his recent meeting with Netanyahu or whether the latter requested such weapons and Obama complied based on the condition that Israel not attack Iran until 2013. Regardless, 58% of the Israeli people polled are opposed to an immediate attack on Iran, and it seems so is Shimon Peres. However, it is Netanyahu who is calling the shots, and he seems to be more in sync with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich that waiting too long is not in Israel’s best interest, or that of the US. Is there no way we can at least be more certain Iran is actually on the path toward developing nuclear weapons before the US engages in yet another war? I’ve stated on another thread that I staunchly support Israel and recognize the threat posed by Iran with respect to Israel’s survival and the security risks wielded by Hamas and Hezbollah. That threat extends to the US as well, even if not immanently. However, as Obama addressed in his news conference, we must also not rush into a war which may not be in our best national interest. We must understand what our mission is and how we can accomplish it. Even though Israel is our ally, Obama’s most pressing job is to ensure the safety of the US.

Ok. So what is your answer?

Why would there have to be a war to stop Iranian nuclear development?

Enrichment requires hypersensitive centerfuges which take a lot of power and take a lot of time to start or stop. If power is lost while they are running, they self destruct!

Can we really not identify the power sources, destroy them AND destroy the air intakes or exhausts for the auxilliary power plant? This would not need to escalate to troops on the ground, would it? It’s not like there haven’t been prior events of blowing up Iranian facilities and then leaving and declaring victory…

I’m not saying its a great idea, but is it so crazy?

The problem is that physically attacking the centrifuges or the power grid would in itself be an act of war.

No, it would not be an invasion. Israel lacks the physical
means to invade Iran and the USA cannot afford to do so. But it would still mushroom into the next Mideastern war.


So what about Iran?

What are we giving those yahoos to not attack Israel? And if we are, does anyone actually believe it means a thing?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit