web analytics
September 1, 2014 / 6 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
Blogs
Sponsored Post
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (L) visits the JewishPress.com booth at The Event. And the Winners of the JewishPress.com Raffle Are…

Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event



Home » Blogs

What ‘War’ with Iran is Biden Talking About?

Ryan should have answered Raddatz's "what's worse" question like so: "You know what's worse, a nuclear Iran that starts a war, because that's the future we're looking at under Obama's leadership."

F100311GY05

Photo Credit: Gili Yaari / Flash 90

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently warned that, “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” During Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate the statement was read to Vice President Joe Biden and Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan  at the start of segment on Iran.

What exactly Gates meant by “catastrophic” I’m not sure (Muslim/Middle East resentment towards the U.S.? Lack of access to oil? Increase in global terrorism?), but during the debate, both Biden and debate moderator Martha Raddatz seemed to argue that it meant going to war with Iran.

Here’s Raddatz:

RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you what’s worse, war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?

RYAN: I’ll tell you what’s worse. I’ll tell you what’s worse.

RADDATZ: Quickly.

RYAN: A nuclear-armed Iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world’s largest sponsor of — of terrorism. They’ve dedicated themselves…

And here’s Biden:

BIDEN: When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, “We gotta keep these sanctions.” When he said, “Well, you’re talking about doing more,” what are you -you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?

But who said anything about “going to war” – a term that implies landing U.S. troops in Iran? What everyone – Netanyahu, Mitt Romney, and even the Obama administration – is talking about is a military strike, and making it clear to the Iranians that the U.S. is prepared to conduct such a strike.

Biden himself said during the debate “we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians.” By “dealing a serious blow” in the singular, Biden surely means some kind of air strike, not putting boots on the ground for continuous warfare.

The question is how seriously do the Iranians take that possibility. Romney and Ryan are arguing that the Iranians don’t take it seriously at all because so many voices from the administration are playing down the need for an attack, while playing up the negative possible consequences of an attack (e.g., saying it would be “catastrophic,” eschewing talk of “war”)  and pressuring Israel not to attack.  The evidence, which Ryan pointed to during the debate, is the fact that Iranians have, for the past four years, continued and even sped up their nuclear program.

But Biden isn’t actually talking about Iran. With the talk “war,” Biden is implying that Republicans – as evidenced the wars initiated by President George W. Bush – are generally war mongers and only Democrats can be trusted with office of the “commander in chief.”

But “Bush’s Wars” were not solely Bush’s or the Republican Party’s. Democrats, including Biden (despite his insinuation otherwise), voted overwhelmingly in favor of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were wars made necessary by the failure of the U.S. to pay attention to threats abroad and nip them in the bud, just as Obama is failing to do with Iran.

And, if it is true that attacking Iran will definitely trigger a counter attack which will require a greater U.S. response, then that would indicate the irrationality of the Iranians: that as their economy crumbles they would be willing to engage the most powerful military known to history. If they would act so brazenly without nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons capability, imagine how much more likely war would be if they already had a weapon/capability.

Ryan should have answered Raddatz’s “what’s worse” question like so: “You know what’s worse, a nuclear Iran that starts a war, because that’s the future we’re looking at under Obama’s leadership.”

About the Author: Daniel Tauber is a frequent contributor to various prominent publications, including the Jewish Press, Arutz Sheva, Americanthinker.com, the Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz. Daniel is also an attorney admitted to practice law in Israel and New York and received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law. You can follow him on facebook and twitter.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

8 Responses to “What ‘War’ with Iran is Biden Talking About?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    There is zero evidence that Iran seeks nuclear weapons.

  2. Quint Gaber says:

    Mr. Tauber is unbelievably simple-minded. So, he thinks that Israel or the US will make a "surgical" strike on Iran and no war will result. Well, he has a surprise waiting for him.

    ALL Us bases and Navy ships in the Persian Gulf are sitting ducks to Iranian cruse missiles, submarines and hundreds of speed boats. Israel is not going to escape either. Demona will be hit first and Tel Aviv will be next. An Iranian official predicated that at least 10,000 Israelis will die at the start. Besides, is Israel ready for 60,000 Hezbollah rockets?

    All this stupid talk about attacking Iran is pure garbage. There is no justification for it. It is against the UN Charter and it is simply stupid. But, apparently, Israel cannot live without war. I have never heard of such a belligerent country in history.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Daniel Tauber writes:And, if it is true that attacking Iran will definitely trigger a counter attack which will require a greater U.S. response, then that would indicate the irrationality of the Iranians:
    So if Iran is attacked and responds, that would indicate they are irrational.
    Do you get paid to write this stuff? it must be a nice living.
    This article is a repeat of all the nonsense we heard in the build up to the Iraq War.

  4. Quint Gaber says:

    The comment management on this page is ridiculous. So, if they don't like your comment, they don't delete it. They just make it invisible to everyone else.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Israel Shield Logo
Current Top Story
IDF map of terrorist tunnels that were found near Israeli communities near the Gaza border, identified and mapped. July 27, 2014. These were destroyed by the IDF. Residents fear there are more that have yet to be uncovered.
Gaza Belt Communities Fear Lack of Security, IDF Pullout
Latest Blogs Stories
paramedikit-3

“I knew that being there would allow me to protect other soldiers.”

Kerry Repeats

JoeSettler asks what could still possibly be on the negotiating table with the PA after a summer like we just had…

Kurdistan Crisis

You did not want to listen because you could not blame my Israel.

iphone

Now everyone has easy access to the culture and all of its vices, both social and intellectual.

Connect the dots, please: All of these Muslim Arab terror organizations are connected.

“…while Hamas has been weakened it has not been destroyed…”

Jewish donors bought and donated the greenhouses to the Palestinians.

This week’s podcast discusses the need for transparency in international business dealings.

The new “Begin Plan” is an impending nightmare, it rewards the Bedouins for brazen land-grabbing.

There is absolutely nothing for Israel’s security in this American document.

Is it because of corrupt values and lack of meeting opportunities that we have a shidduch crisis?

Israel is fighting the war that none of the Western world has the ability or courage to fight.

Finish the job! Sayyem et a missima!סיים את המסימה!

Life after 50? You better believe it! Tips on how to prepare and enjoy life after retirement.

While I am no fan of the two-state solution, I think I have a solution for the Gaza strip. Let me make it perfectly clear that in no way do I believe a Palestinian people, nation or Arab State ever existed in the history of the world and certainly was not occupied by Israel. If […]

Hamas targeted the Erez Crossing when it knew that Gazans and Israeli Arabs would be there, out in the open…

More Articles from Daniel Tauber
JStreet crowd

Congratulations, JStreet, you won before you even started! Perhaps you can save your breath, energy and George Soros’ and god knows who else’s money and go home.

drunk UN

A US diplomat proposed that UN negotiating rooms be ‘inebriation-free zones.’

In the version of events provided by Argo, it wasn’t radical Islamists who stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, but the Iranian people as a whole.

Not exactly what Jewish Home voters thought they would get on election day.

The institution of party primaries in Israel needs to be expanded not shrunk, so that the government will be under the supervision of the people from which it derives power and the moral authority to govern.

Ayalon’s new position on the Palestinian statehood doesn’t quite match his prior criticism of the Palestinian’s bid for statehood at the UN.

East Jerusalem has become code for: where Jews shouldn’t be.

Israeli willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands may be the only thing preventing civil wars or heated rhetoric from becoming mass atrocities.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/what-war-with-iran-is-biden-talking-about/2012/10/14/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: