Did he say there would be a military option if ISRAEL "continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program?"

Where is double-standard?

Well, last I recall, ISRAEL wasn't saying they were going to nuke the US.

Personally, I fully support Israel having a nuclear weapons program. Last I checked they are not sending their citizens, women and children, out to suicide bomb other people's or nation's citizens.

Neither are they strapping bombs on youth that is unwilling to have bombs strapped to them as we saw last year with the 16 (was it 16?) year old boy.

Why is there a double standard? Because there is a standard for nations that are for terrorism and a standard for nations that are friendly.

Jeff said,

Because there is a standard for nations that are for terrorism and a standard for nations that are friendly.

I'm curious how you think this "standard" applies to a nation like Pakistan which in additional to being a nuclear power and regional antagonist: has a terrible human rights record, a long history of supporting terrorism, and a leader who just recently reneged on his promise to step down as military chief and turned a blind-eye when the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear program was selling technology to Libya, Iran, North Korea, and (possibly) terrorist organizations?

Now, suddenly, we are to believe they are a great ally in the "WoT"?

As the saying goes: "With friends like these…"

ok, ep

Israel isn't threatening to nuke the US, they are not using suicide bombers to make a point, AND the fact that most (if not all) of Israels nukes were provided by the US. So the fact is, we know how many nukes they have, where they are and how they will launch them..if ever. The only double standard I can see is if you have them and threaten to use them on the US, then you are damned. But if you have them and don't threaten to use them on the US, then that is okay.

EP2K,

Yeah... well Russia was our ally in WWII, and they probably "purged" far more people than the Nazis.

My point being, I'm not denying the fact that the regimes of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia are riddled with corruption, that Musharraf is nothing more than another Putin, or that we are allied with these nations (at least temporarily) in the GWOT.

I feel the line of reasoning being used on Pakistan (i.e., we'll let you keep your beloved A.Q. Kahn, aka father of the Islamic Bomb, if you rat out everyone he's ever even blinked at) is far more constructive than trying to use the much maligned CIA to infiltrate Madrassas and terrorists cells in Karachi.

Like the Communist Scourge, the Paks and the Saudi Royalty are allies of opportunity. And like WWII, we can't win the war without the help of some seedy characters.

Well... there is no double standard, offensive nuclear development is not permitted.

BH57,
To give credit where it's due, the French had a much larger role in making Israel a nuclear capable nation.

France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply.

I refer you to this document: linkage

Jackh,
Good point about the soviets, but let us remember also these current terrorists were also our allies against the soviet union! Let's hope these "seedy characters" do not become our next enemies as seems to be the case with allies of necessity.

As for Iran, and any threat it might pose when (not if!) it becomes a nuclear power, Juan Cole offered this analyzing Rice's confirmation statements:

…Rice responded concerning Iran that it was hard to have an engagement with a country that wanted to see Israel destroyed. It is such a simple-minded thing to say. Uh, let me see. In the 1980s wasn't it the Khomeini regime that sold Israel petroleum in exchange for spare parts for its American weaponry? Wasn't it the Israelis who put Reagan up to the Iran-Contra scandal by suggesting that the US ship TOWs to Iran in return for an end to the Lebanese hostage crisis? Even when it was more radical, and despite all the rhetoric, Iran was willing to deal with Israel in ways that helped the latter enormously.

It is true that some Iranian leaders, like Rafsanjani, say frightening things about Israel. But Rafsanjani has no executive power, and when he was president he didn't actually act on such sentiments. The point of engaging the Iranian regime would be to gradually ween it away from such extremism. Iran hasn't launched any aggressive wars in the region, or threatened to use weapons of mass destruction, unlke some other countries (the US had full diplomatic relations with Iraq in the 1980s at a
time when it had done both of these things.) I am very uncomfortable in having US national security policy and diplomacy dictated by how politicians in a country talk about our non-Nato allies (with whom, by the way, we do not even have a mutual defense pact). And I am very suspicious that now that Iraq is a basket case, all of a sudden Ariel Sharon is calling on the US to attack Iran.

ok, ep

"Well, last I recall, ISRAEL wasn't saying they were going to nuke the US."
- Neither was Iran or Syria.

"I fully support Israel having a nuclear weapons program. Last I checked they are not sending their citizens, women and children, out to suicide bomb other people's or nation's citizens."
- When have you heard the government of Syria announcing to the public to strap the belts?

"Israel isn't threatening to nuke the US"
True. But neither is Syria or Iran. Actually even Iraq never threatened.

"the French had a much larger role in making Israel a nuclear capable nation"
HMMM...where do they get all the aid from? Paris??

augurwell you have some strong points.

Check out this link for some of Bush's inspiration. It comes as no surprise:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4195303.stm

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: