Biden: US opposes Israel hitting Iran nuclear sites, response should be proportional

[PufPuf23]

Source: The Times of Israel

US President Joe Biden says he does not support a retaliatory strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear program.

“The answer is no,” Biden responds when asked whether he backs such a prospect.

“We’ll be discussing with the Israelis what they’re going to do, but all seven of us (G7 nations) agree that they have a right to respond but they should respond proportionally,” Biden tells reporters before boarding Air Force One.

Biden tells reporters that there would be more sanctions imposed on Iran and said he would speak soon with Netanyahu.

Read more: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/biden-us-opposes-israel-hitting-iran-nuclear-sites-response-should-be-proportional/

---

Biden also said, "“Obviously, Iran is way off course”.

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said yesterday that the Iran will face “severe consequences” and that the US will work with Israel to ensure as much, without elaborating.

Read the many comments, where there is distain for Biden as well as Harris, HRC and even Kerry to be found.

[drray23]

1. That should guarantee netanyahu will.

Since he is hell bend on ignoring president Biden

[JoseBalow]

2. As if

[iemanja]

3. If I said that on DU

They'd jump all over me.

BTW, I agree with our President.

[sarisataka]

4. Proportional...

I wonder what the reaction would be if Israel lobbed 200 missiles at Iran, as a "token" reply

[cloudbase]

26. There's the question.

Proportional in magnitude, or proportional in effect?

[AloeVera]

34. Proportional as in fairly equal damage and casualties.

I imagine 200 missiles would have a quite worse impact on Iran than one dead (Palestinian!) man.

Netanyahu and his zealot masters in cabinet have proven in Gaza they disdain proportionality.

[sarisataka]

39. Is there some rule that one side must be equally incompetent as their enemy?

If Israel kills two Iranians is that a war crime?

If we want to insist on made up fairness rules how about this- Israel can launch 168 weapons targeting only the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and three airfields.
{Why 168? Reports are Iran fired 180 missiles and the US navy took down a dozen. We can deduct them from the Israeli response since likely none of Iran's allies will lift a finger to help.}

It is up to Iran to defend itself, as Israel did, to limit damage and casualties.

[AloeVera]

40. Iran's military budget is less a third of Israel's.

It doesn't have an Iron Dome, David's Sling or Arrow aerial defence systems, nor the backing of aerial interception by the most advanced military in the world.

Very incompetent of them not to arrange and fund of all that in advance.

It's always an unequal fight with Israel. There is no nation more safeguarded and protected by the West.

So when Israel retaliates, whether with 168 missiles or 20 times as many, it will be disproportionate either way.

Here's an idea, assuming you don't want all-out war, which I hope is not presumptious of me.

How about Israel steps back from the brink and if it must respond, does so in a considered, sane, tactical way designed to avoid the massive retaliation Iran has threatened?

Of course for that to work, Israel has to give up its aims for territorial expansion, not just in the OPT, but beyond. Greater Israel is the ultimate prize. The cost of that would be astronomical.

[sarisataka]

41. How are any of the Iranian shortcomings Israel's problem?

There is always a risk when picking a fight with a stronger foe- See Japan, WW2. Despite Iranian claims, Israel did not attack Iran; Iran chose to attack Israel on behalf of Hezbollah.

I still stand by my initial response after the Iranian attack- Israel's best reply would be to simply wave it off as beneath their notice. Twice now Iran has demonstrated their own inability to cause significant damage to Israel, let that be the message.

[AloeVera]

42. I did not say it was Israel's problem.

My point is Israel should be careful to observe proportionality as much as possible, which means giving consideration to the military especially aerial defence imbalance.

I also said IF it MUST respond.

A non-response would be even better of course. I did not know that was your position.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. A sane response is second-best. Have my doubts about that too, would love to be wrong.

[Beastly Boy]

44. You just described how you think this is Israel's problem. Literally, you said it was Israel's problem

immediately following the statement denying you said it was Israel's problem.

In fact, you are saying it is a problem that is up to Israel alone to address. Not only do you propose a weird idea of proportionality in which military imbalance plays a decisive, if not the only role, you are suggesting that the best action to be taken by Israel in response to 180 ballistic missiles should be at the extreme end of disproportionality: it may not need to respond at all. In what twisted world would this be proportional? It is a remote possibility, but proportional? Not even remotely credible, by any standard.

You keep saying this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Lancero]

47. If some people had their way, Israel wouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with anything more advanced...

Than ye old trebuchet.

And even still, they would complain because Israel has the audacity to load them with boulders rather than pebbles.

[EX500rider]

46. Or maybe respond the way the US would if another country fired 180 ballistic missiles at us

Which would be to hit them so hard they never do it again.

Proportional is nonsense in warfare imo, the object isn't to hit them exactly as hard as they hit you but to hit them so hard they never want to hit you again.

[Beastly Boy]

43. I know no established rule or principle of proportionality that describes what you describe.

Is this something that you think proportionality ought to be, or is it something that has any relation to international humanitarian law?

If the latter, surely you can cite your sources, can't you?

I have my own ideas about proportionality that I can freely adjust as they suit me at the moment, and so does everybody else. These are neither rules nor principles. Just ideas that have no reference in rules and principles outlined in international law.

[mymomwasright]

5. Proportional is a "fair fight concept"

Israel will want Iran to feel their response.

[maxsolomon]

6. Who's asking that question? Jesus H. Christ.

Responding with nothing but disdain is the best option.

[PufPuf23]

7. The headline is proportional. Biden referred specifically to nuclear sites

Biden has been attempting to stop the escalation of the Middle East war.

If one has been reading comments under articles from English language Israel media, the comments regarding the USA are now on the order of 90% anti-Biden and USA under Democratic Party leadership and there has been increasing criticism of the Democratic Party over the months. This is just today.

[maxsolomon]

8. Trolls are in every comment section.

Biden hasn't done a single thing to hobble Israel.

[PufPuf23]

9. Agree with this, "Biden hasn't done a single thing to hobble Israel."

Personally support what POTUS Biden has done and has attempted to do for Israel including the Palestinians excluding Hamas.

[canuckledragger]

32. Oh? is that what you're calling now those that don't care to support Bibi's genocide against the Palestinians?

[maxsolomon]

48. No, that's what I call the Russians that flood

comment sections of every paper on the planet to sow chaos.

[Richard D]

10. Good thing . . .

. . . Israel will do what is right.

If anyone thinks Iran with nukes is a good idea . . . IDKWTS.

[iemanja]

11. That's why the US negotiated a treaty with Iran

That was the solution. Not bombing nuclear facilities, something Israel has wanted to do long before Iran sent missiles. If you'll recall, Israel strongly opposed the treaty with Iran. They instead wanted the US to join them in waging war on Iran, something they've been advocating for years. Now all of Netanyahu's dreams have come true. One Palestinian killed, someone he doesn't even consider human, and he gets to bomb Iran back to the stone age. But that's what's "right." Netanyahu doesn't give a shit about that life lost. He's never cared about Palestinians. But this is an opportunity--a pretext--not a just response. They could do all kinds of things to respond in a similar way to Iran's attack but their blowing up reactors and the nuclear fallout that will cause--likely not just to Iran-- is something than sane people should want to avoid.

And if Iran retaliates with a nuclear strike? Will it all have been worth it? How many more Israelis must die for Netanyahu to satisfy his bloodlust.

[Richard D]

12. Iran does not have nukes yet . . .

. . . they are very close though. Our "treaty" has not stopped them from going full steam ahead. If they succeed, Islamic fundamentalism there and in many other parts of the Middle East will be unstoppable. I pity the real Iranians who are living lives in hell because of fundamentalism. Israel hitting their factories and facilities might be the only hope of a real peace in the region and even the rest of the world.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Trump tore the agreement up at Netanyahu's urging

It had halted their nuclear progress.

[former9thward]

19. Iran refused the required inspections.

They continued the program.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. After Trump pulled out

However, in May 2018, then-US President Donald Trump abandoned the JCPOA, calling it "defective at its core". He reinstated all US sanctions on Iran that November as part of a "maximum pressure" campaign to compel the country to negotiate a replacement that would also curb its ballistic missile programme and its involvement in regional conflicts.

But Iran refused and saw its economy plunge into recession and the value of its currency fall to record lows, which in turn caused inflation to soar to the highest level in decades.

When the sanctions were tightened in 2019, Iran began breaching the deal's restrictions, arguing that the JCPOA allowed one party to "cease performing its commitments... in whole or in part" in the event of "significant non-performance" by others.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33521655

Kerry slams ‘chaos agent’ Trump on anniversary of Iran deal withdrawal

Former Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday ripped former President Trump over his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal six years ago, saying the move made Americans “less safe.”

“When Donald Trump refused the appeals of our closest allies and pulled the United States out of the JCPOA, it created a more dangerous region, empowered Iran, and isolated the United States instead of isolating Tehran,” Kerry said in a statement obtained exclusively by The Hill, referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

“Even Republicans who opposed the original agreement had appealed to the Trump White House to remain in the agreement to maintain leverage over Iran, but instead Trump chose chaos,” Kerry added. “It made the world more dangerous and Americans less safe.”

Kerry, who oversaw the completion of the Iran agreement in 2015 while serving as secretary of State, argued in Wednesday’s statement that the deal was working and that Trump’s decision to withdraw caused Iran to become more aggressive.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4652078-kerry-slams-chaos-agent-trump-on-anniversary-of-iran-deal-withdrawal/

[iemanja]

14. You pity them?

But want Israel to bomb them to oblivion? Who gives a shit what you think about their religion. It's completely irrelevant. UNLESS you are suggesting the bombing is justified because they are fundamentalists. Are you? That someone practices a different religion from you is not a reason to bomb them. It's not okay for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Iran to bomb Israel because they hate Jews (or more accurately hate Israelis for settling on Arab land), and it's not an okay justification for you. So much for the threat to Israel. Now we see this is about opposition to Islam.

The treaty "failed" because Trump--Netanyahu's candidate--pulled out of it, something Netanyahu doubtless cheered.

And you don't really know how close Iran is to having a nuke. We've been told they are months away for years. They could well have some by now.

[Richard D]

15. Are you...

... At all aware of what is going on in Iran? Do you understand how awful the islamists are for the people of Iran, especially the women? I'm so sorry, but you are utterly ignorant of what I believe. Yeesh.

[iemanja]

16. Certainly, I follow the news

but I don't take that as a justification to kill them all. You think those women would be better off dead? You cited fundamentalism as a REASON for bombing Iran.

[Richard D]

17. Big assumptions are being made..

Did I say or imply that I want all Iranians killed? The enemy of decency there is the Islamic Republic, not the people. The very concept of the Islamic Republic having nukes should shake us all to the core. I assume you understood the difference between Islam and Islamists?

[iemanja]

18. I do

Your response to my point about the dangers of a nuclear strike and the ensuing fallout was to talk about fundamentalism. That was you. I couldn't even have dreamed up such a point.

You know who else shouldn't have nukes: Israel.

[Richard D]

20. Thank God that they do.

[iemanja]

22. How has it helped them

How has it kept them safe? They're getting bombed all the time.

[Richard D]

23. How bad might it be . . .

. . . if they didn't? Speculation of course, but they are still here.

[iemanja]

25. Israel's enemies have very limited military capacity

(with the possible, or future possibility, exception of Iran). Iron Dome seems to do a great deal for them.

[Richard D]

27. What few realize about the iron dome . . .

. . . and the bombs in general is the environmental cost in CO2 emissions and other toxic byproducts of rocket fuel and explosives. Not to mention, contaminated shrapnel peppering the whole country is a problem. And the cost is very high. Each rocket from Gaza or Hezbollah costs around $300, while one Iron Dome missile is around $50,000. The Iron Dome is only used to protect populated areas. Many rockets have landed in forests and caused devastating fires.

Hezbollah started attacking Israel on October 8. They were already ready. I think I saw that since then, they have shot at least 8000 rockets into Israel. They really need to be destroyed completely so that the Lebanese people can have their country back.

[iemanja]

28. "They really need to be destroyed completely so that the Lebanese people can have their country back"

Israel's government has declared there is no difference between Hezbollah and Lebanon. They have already sworn to "annihilate" the entire country. You defend them, and then pretend you care about the Lebanese. That doesn't hold water.

[Martin68]

30. I think Israel has every right to take out Iran's nuclear sites for their own survival. One nuke in Tel Air would

destroy Israel forever. I think that is far more justified than bombing residential areas of Gaza.

[PufPuf23]

31. Post was to report what POTUS Biden said and secondarily what commenters

to English language commentors say about Biden and the Democratic Party in general.

One poster in this thread said the commenters were trolls. If trolls most commenters in Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post and other written Israel publications are trolls. Have read daily for most of last year, and, if USA mentioned, commenters are negative on Democratic Party.

USA and Democratic Party are against Iran having nuclear weapons (should not need to mention so am I) but Trump fouled with our policy.

[canuckledragger]

33. There's quite a few that do their best to dissmiss, deflect and try to minimie any kind of critism

... against Bibi's genocide attempts against the Palestinian civilians.

Calling them 'trolls' is one such method.

[AloeVera]

35. True. But you haven't lived until you've been called an anti-semite and Jew-hater.

There's also Hamas lover, Hamas agent, terrorist supporter, Islamist.

Let's not forget useful idiot and unwitting tool of Putin.

Or the memorable occasion when one wished I move to Gaza. In a truly despicable context I won't divulge except to say I am female.

But nothing takes the cake like the charge of anti-semitism and Jew-hate. It's when you know your opponent has run out of defenses. But I can't say it didn't hurt at first. Not anymore, though.

[canuckledragger]

36. Oh I haven't been called an anti-semite yet persoanlly.

But there's been a couple of posts that call those of us speaking out against Bibi's genocide that very thing, regardless of how specific the post is as to the reasons WHY Bibi is called out for his actions.

It's funny how those posts stand even though they directly break the 'No Divisive Group Attacks' rule.

[Aussie105]

38. Best to stay out of it.

DU is governed by the peer review process on any alerted post.

If you detect a certain bias one way or the other, it is just a reflection on the current common consensus.

Currently the news is being heavily massaged to reflect a certain viewpoint.

History books might tell the story differently.

[AloeVera]

45. Very well-put.

And insightful.

[Aussie105]

37. Bibi looks up the word 'proportional' in a dictionary

Last edited Thu Oct 3, 2024, 03:06 AM - Edit history (1)

and smiles.

'Why start now?' he mutters quietly to himself.