Posted by Matt Hawes on 12/11/08 12:05 PM   [Newer: "Ron Paul: Bailouts Will 'Destroy the Dollar'"] [Older: "Bankruptcy Doesn't Equal Death"]

A piece out today is reporting that Obama will offer Israel a guarantee that an Iranian nuclear attack on them would result in a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran.

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic....

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.

Read the rest here.  Isn't change wonderful?

Posted 12/11/08 12:24 PM Justin DeWind Grand Rapids, MI

I like how governments are willing to treat people as pieces on a chess board. The U.S. government would be willing to put its own people at risk to destroy another group of INNOCENT people, because that country destroyed another group of INNOCENT people. I like to think I am not collateral and nor are any other citizens of different countries.

Posted 12/11/08 12:26 PM Felegund Jonesville, KY

Well, whatever Washington thinks, we aren't collateral. I just hope that Obama has sense enough to realize this, and will trust Israel to take care of itself. THey have their own nukes, don't they?

Posted 12/11/08 12:31 PM fadestyle Walnut Bottom, PA

how ya like your change now? im with clyde on that statement. Americans will not back this attack up. we dont want nuclear war or any war for that matter.

Posted 12/11/08 12:38 PM smashysmashy dover, NH

I hope all of the morons who had Obama signs and stickers with the O turned into a peace sign are happy with themselves. Another 4 years of gold old world policin' and war mongerin'. Who the f*ck are we to say whether Iran can have nuclear technology or not. How is O not Bush II? You think because you are going to sit down and have a cup of tea with your enemies and still make these threats that it is going to make a world of difference? I warned all of the O-tards; the blood is on their hands when the first nuke goes off.

Posted 12/11/08 12:39 PM Starclopsofish Texarkana, TX

And the blind faith of the Obamaphiles is tested for the first time, as Obama's true colors are shown for the first time. Really, the way I look at it, this is promising news. I thought it would take him a while to show his gross incompetency.

Posted 12/11/08 12:42 PM sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

Oh my gosh. This is very disturbing news. Americans do not want a nuclear war, with Iran or with anyone. This is wrong, outright wrong. I hope that nameless source was just talkin' smack, and this truly never comes to be.

Posted 12/11/08 12:49 PM StatusQuoJoe Phoenix, AZ

It sounds like a safe statement since I seriously doubt Iran could develop a feasible weapon that could strike Israel within Obama's term.

Posted 12/11/08 12:59 PM sweetliberty San Rafael, CA

Depends on your definition of safe. :|

Posted 12/11/08 1:03 PM DA521 Fair Lawn, NJ

Obama is an idiot and this is all nonesense! Israel already has retaliation capability from submarines so it already has its own umberalla.

Posted 12/11/08 1:07 PM Thought Barrage Austin, TX

I really don't understand why Washington, et al. continue to make threats toward Iran. "If you do this, we'll do this and that" - it doesn't mean a thing. I've discussed the Iran issues at length with my many (not sure how this happened - demographic?) Iranian friends and the bottom line seems to be that Iran does not care. The WEST (read imperialist government) interprets their not cowering to our threats as a sign of instability - like a crazy man waving a loaded pistol around. Iran doesn't care in the sense that they are determined to solve their own problems and aren't going to marginalize their sovereignty in order to please other nations. They are a proud people, as is made obvious by Ahmadinejad’s diction on many occasions. Two good friends recently returned after living with family in Tehran and Esfahan for 3 months. I inquired as to the state of things and they said their best analogy was to equate it to post WWII US - consumer stores opening (specialty shops, like ski/snow shops), roads being improved and many factories springing up. As to whether people were concerned with the US, Israel and others, they said most people didn’t seem to care as they had more pressing issues – like the fact most water pipes in homes and apartment building are made of PVC instead of copper (as copper is rare) and dealing with the freezing temperatures and loss of water as PVC is an inadequate insulator (apparently hundreds die every winter because of this). Oh, and if you want to be the “bee’s knees” in Iran, pick up a Toyota Camry which is of higher status than BMW or Mercedes Benz.

Posted 12/11/08 1:19 PM fadestyle Walnut Bottom, PA

WHO DOES THIS "BAROKE OBLAME' A" THINK HE IS DOING? he is bankrupting America and he may send more solders to die in what war?

Posted 12/11/08 1:23 PM ifc69 Midland, MI

I thought John McCain was supposed to be the one with the itchy trigger finger.

Posted 12/11/08 1:24 PM fadestyle Walnut Bottom, PA

www.obamacrimes.com was either forced down or hacked. the website could have also been hijacked to another owner.

Posted 12/11/08 1:30 PM Michael Salvi Elkins Park, PA

ok enough of this @#$% already! sorry if this comment seems inappropriate, but how dare obama stand up for israel at the expense of our national security? i'm not saying anything against israel, but they can take care of themselves, and if they can't, then they don't deserve to be a nation. end of story. i'll echo clyde, "Let it be known, right now, that I do not support threatening or attacking Iran unless they attack the USA, PERIOD! And that goes for any other country." what kind of negotiation is, "dismantle your nuclear program or face tougher economic sanctions?" i just got off the phone with webster himself, and he said that's not what he wrote for the definition of "negotiation," he told me to see "threat," or "iron-fist" this is some flat out bullsh*t...sorry, but i think the topic of this article is 10 trillion times more offensive then a few censored cuss words. you all know i don't ever write like this, but i'm @!#%'ing disgusted right now. p.s. don't forget the Philly PL meeting on 12/29/08 ;) click my name for details.

Posted 12/11/08 1:31 PM Knighted Hudson, NH

This is because Obama is just a puppet for the Zionist shadow government. Obama has already declared that he will ensure the alliance between our nations lasts FOREVER, and yes he said forever, he also said that America will do anything in it's power to protect Israel. You combine that with the Bush Doctrine and you have a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran being justified by them.

Posted 12/11/08 1:32 PM WareVrijheid Dordrecht, Netherlands

In early 2007 an award-winning documentary was aired on Dutch television called 'Tegenlicht' or 'Backlight'. During six, 50 minute installments it zoomed in on various issues currently playing in the Middle East. Now I'm unsure what the policy of this forum is on the posting of links, but let me take a gander. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98 This particular episode deals with the Israel Lobby. Please bear in mind it is in Dutch, though English subtitles are provided. It is just funny to see in how much of the footage of AIPAC meetings you can see Barack Obama.

Posted 12/11/08 1:36 PM Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

I feel safer already! Sigh...The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted 12/11/08 1:40 PM Two-if-by-Sea Wakefield, MA

end of cowboy diplomacy, eh?

Posted 12/11/08 1:46 PM Knighted Hudson, NH

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran. O.K just to clarify, this wording implies PREEMPTIVE. Umbrella means to protect against, retaliation is not protection! This combined with Israel announcing days ago that the plans are already in place for a preemptive strike, and that they are putting the finishing touches on it, I wouldn't be suprised to see an attack in late Dec. - Early January. This article was poorly titled, everything that the future and current administration have said points to preemptive strike plans. I don't think the Zionists are going to wait and see what Iran will do with nuclear technology, I fully believe they will force our government to attack. Former officials have estimated that ~80% of our federal government is controlled by zionists. "DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL. WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA, AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT." -Ariel Sharon

Posted 12/11/08 2:31 PM doctor jones New York, NY

I'm all for non-intervention but we can't allow countries (ourselves included) to make a first strike with nuclear weapons. Nukes are not good for our world.

Posted 12/11/08 2:34 PM doctor jones New York, NY

That is, we don't act preemptive but if a nation were to rage nuclear war, even against non-allies, the rest of the world should try to stop it.

Posted 12/11/08 4:51 PM ChaseRehn Pocatello, ID

This is bad! No most news about are government is bad. This is ... horrific. I was told Obama would "Change" things. Ha!!! Not even in office yet and he is already threatening Iran. Why is it no one sees this. I’m I the only one that can see the goblin on the wing? Have I lost my mind or is every one blind? THIS SUCKS! I’m telling you all now that I will not go to war if they draft me. In my opinion that’s what’s coming down the pie hole.

Posted 12/11/08 5:37 PM Major C Sharp garden grove, CA

I highly doubt even Obama would nuke Iran if they nuked Israel. Perhaps a military invasion would be far more likely and even Bush, in all of his incompetence, did not nuke Iraq, did he? I can pretty tell this is a bluff. As much as I am annoyed that America is being too supportive of Israel, to the point where Israel should just become a U.S. state or something like that, we are still allied countries that support each other. You attack my friend and I'll defend him. Knighted, what makes you think that Obama will follow the Bush doctrine anyways?

Posted 12/11/08 5:38 PM mothybalz0169 Grovetown, GA

You shouldn't have to worry about a draft. They'll pull all of us (like myself) that have done our time back in. That alone would probably double our military strength.

Posted 12/11/08 5:57 PM AuthenticAuthor Canutillo, TX

Doctor Jones: I'm unclear on your position in this issue; you say that we shouldn't be preemptive yet we shouldn't allow a nuclear first-strike between countries? I take it you just don't want a preemptive act of military nature to be involved, correct? I that case I concur. I think the only rational preemptive measure in this issue is to just bribe nations into not developing nukes, not threatening them, but I think this would eventually fail anyway considering that WMDs give developing countries so much more leverage than would otherwise be the case. As terrible as nukes are in their potential to annihilate, their widespread availability is ironically the best thing preventing them from being used. Mutually-Assured-Destruction is our foe and our friend. Here's hoping a the big red button is never pushed. If Obama thinks he could offer a bribe and a threat AT THE SAME TIME, he's crazy! The more we threaten, the more they want to build a nuke so that our tune can change.

Posted 12/11/08 6:45 PM Knighted Hudson, NH

The bush doctrine is more than George Bush, besides Obama is just a continuation of the Bush administration. Bush didn't make his own decisions, and neither does Obama. With Obama's undying support and protection of Israel, I have no doubt Obama is all for the Bush Doctrines.

Posted 12/11/08 7:18 PM ifc69 Midland, MI

Didn't Obama say he would just go right into Pakistan if our forces were fighting Al Qaeda? Personally I'd still consider that a pre-emptive strike if we just went in without asking.

Posted 12/12/08 01:44 AM Adam de Angeli Ann Arbor, MI

...so all Israel has to do is set off a a "mini-nuke" (possibly "micro-nuke") in disputed territory, and say Iran did it, for Obama to launch a nuclear attack on Iran.

Posted 12/12/08 10:57 AM mirand sharma Celebration, FL

Putting it simply, this is insane!