Profile
Photos
Comments
needs to export oil, 2) it would worry about "an even greater response"
from Israel, 3) and it would worry about the U.S.'s response" then
how likely is it that Iran would ever initiate the conflict in the
first place?! Bolton just explained why a pre-emptive attack upon
Iran is totally unnecessary and that fear of Iranian aggression is
baseless." Quote by Forum_for_Disclosures associate, Kathy Leonard-Bushman
Bolton: Israel Will Attack Iran After U.S. Election But Before Inauguration, Arab States Will Be 'Delighted'
This morning on Fox News, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton continued his drumbeat for war against Iran. Adopting Bill Kristol's argument, Bolton suggested that an attack on Iran depends on who Americans elect as the next President:
I think if they [Israel] are to do anything, the most likely period
is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next
President. I don't think they will do anything before our election
because they don't want to affect it. And they'd have to make a
judgment whether to go during the remainder of President Bush's term in
office or wait for his successor.
Bolton gamed out the fallout from an attack on Iran. He claimed that
Iran's options to retaliate after being attacked are actually "less
broad than people think." He suggested that Iran would not want to
escalate a conflict because 1) it still needs to export oil, 2) it
would worry about "an even greater response" from Israel, 3) and it
would worry about the U.S.'s response.
Bolton then concluded that Arab states would be excited if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran:
I don't think you'd hear the Arab states say this publicly, but
they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the
Iranian nuclear weapons capability.
Bolton has said he is backing John McCain because he would handle the Iranian nuclear program in a "stronger" way than the Bush administration.
