Ron Paul: US would back Israeli strike on Iran

Dandelion Salad

PressTV
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:40:24

Former US presidential candidate Ron Paul says should there be an Israeli strike on Iran over its nuclear work, it would not be unilateral.

The Texas congressman told Press TV that there is no ‘such thing as independent Israel doing anything’, dismissing speculation that the world may witness unilateral Israeli bombardments of Iranian nuclear sites.

“No matter what they do, it is our money, it is our weapons, and they are not going to do it without us approving it,” said the 72-year-old Republican.

While the UN nuclear watchdog admits that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the ‘alleged studies’ of weaponization attributed to Iran, the West continues to allege that Tehran is pursuing a military nuclear program.

Under US pressure, the UN Security Council has intervened in the nuclear case and has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Iran.

Upper Israeli echelons, who seek Washington’s green light for attacking Iranian nuclear sites, have publicly threatened Tehran with the military action should the country continue uranium enrichment.

Tel Aviv, believed to possess the sole nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, reportedly staged a large-scale air maneuver in early June in preparation for a unilateral strike against Iran.

Top US officials and military commanders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have spoken against such military action.

In a recent article, Gates said ‘another war in the Middle East is the last thing’ the United States needs right now. He warned that a war with Iran would be ‘disastrous on a number of levels’.

When asked last week about the prospect of an Israeli or US attack, Admiral Mullen said that he worries about ‘the possible unintended consequences of a strike’ on Iran.

“If they (Israelis) get in trouble, we are going to bail them out,” continued congressman Paul, who is a staunch advocate of a diplomatic approach toward Iran over its nuclear program.

As the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) acknowledges the rights of all signatory states in uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, Iran has cited diplomacy as the only means acceptable in settling the dispute surrounding its nuclear program.

h/t: CLG

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Ron Paul: End of The Dollar

Ron Paul: Something Big is Happening

Ron Paul on Iran Policy (videos)

Paul-Ron-MD

7 thoughts on “Ron Paul: US would back Israeli strike on Iran

  1. Pingback: Mullen warns against USS Liberty redux « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC’s House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362 « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 07.29.08 (audio) « Dandelion Salad

  4. I think it’s been evident for a while that the plan is for Israel to go first, and for the US to pile on very quickly. I read recently that the Israeli defense minister (?) is in the US today. I think that means that things are moving at a quick step.

    I think Mullen and Gates are simply blowing smoke. I want to be encouraged by their words. But they are making the weakest possible argument against war. They don’t have to do that. The Constitution speaks of the “common defense”. People who are in the military chain of command are legally beholden to the Constitution above all. They do not have to support missions that do not relate to the common defense. In fact, they are obligated not to, I would say.

  5. Pingback: Ahmadinejad: U.S. & Iran Not That Different! « Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: Quotes on Iran by Obama, Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel « Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: The possibility of a retaliatory attack by Iran on US bases in the region « Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.