Israel Was Pushing US to Bomb Iran Before Nuclear Deal – John Kerry

Donate

Israel Was Pushing US to Bomb Iran Before Nuclear Deal - John Kerry

Illustrative image

According to former US Secretary of State John Kerry Israel and Egypt were pushing the US to “bomb Iran” before the nuclear deal was struck in 2015. He added that a number of kings and presidents told the US that a military action was the only language Iran would understand.

Kerry emphasized the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that was “genuinely agitating toward action.”

Kerry made the statement during a forum in Washington. He defended the deal and said that the military action suggestions were a “trap”. According to the former US secretary of state, te same countries would have publicly criticized the U.S. if it did carry out a bombing of Iran as they were secretly supporting.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear deal made during the Obama presidency. Trump vowed to reconsider the terms and conditions of the deal and to put an additional pressure on Iran. These statements faced a very cold response from Tehran, which is against any deals that would limit his sovereignty.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • alejoeisabel

    Excellent report as usual. Indeed, Hezbollah will be ready to combat Israel on a equal footing. Maybe even taking back the Syrian Golan Heights from Israel.

    • Barba_Papa

      You’re deluded, Hezbollah might be able to defend itself against an Israeli attack, although past experiences (2006) are no guarantee for future performances. To go on the offensive and actually take on the IDF, one of the strongest militaries in the world, and take back the Golan, that’s wishful thinking of the highest degree.

      We should not let the performance of the IDF and Hezbollah in 2006 cloud our thinking. We have to assume that, unlike Israeli politicians, the IDF actually learned some lessons from that war and will not make the same mistakes again. They always do this. Just look at how the IDF reinvented itself after the disastrous Yom Kippur war. And we also have to take into account that Hezbollah, having declared itself the winner in that conflict, has been a little more complacent. It’s what winners do. Not to mention that its years of service in Syria have cost it a lot of good leaders and men. And its not like Hezbollah units in Syria smashed their opponents Blitzkrieg style. Battles with Jihadists, nowhere near as well armed and trained as the IDF were long, hard and often bloody. I wish that the IDF would lose again in another war with Hezbollah, but we cannot assume this will happen. Wars are unpredictable and can go either way.

      Personally I suspect the IDF thinks it can now inflict serious damage on Hezbollah, not destroy it, but set its development back a decade or so. The only thing that stops this from happening is that the IDF knows, even with the Iron Dome system, it cannot stop every rocket from the hail storm that Hezbollah will release on Israel.

      Deterrence can be a bitch!

      • Turbofan

        “We have to assume that, unlike Israeli politicians, the IDF actually learned some lessons from that war and will not make the same mistakes again.”

        What mistakes did it make?…Killing thousands of civilians?

        Other than air power Israel has no advantage over Hezbollah.As a matter of fact Jihadist are more difficult to fight.They are willing to die..unlike Israeli soldiers…

        • Barba_Papa

          The mistakes it made was in first underestimating Hezbollah, then underestimating Hezbollah’s resilience in surviving IDF attacks, both in its troops and command and control structure, and in finally not knowing where to hit, so in their panic they started hitting everything. Those are pretty big mistakes. I don’t think the IDF will make the mistake of underestimating Hezbollah again. Quite the contrary in fact.

          And the IDF has a massive advantage over Hezbollah units in that its equipment is top notch and it has LOTS of it (both courtesy of the US tax payer). And air power does factor in massively. Just look at Syria, where Russian air power proved decisive where Hezbollah and Iranian boots on the ground couldn’t.

          • Joe

            Basically your post has lots of merits especially that Israel may have learnt their lesson and not to under estimate Hez.

            The advantage Hez has besides the lots of missiles is largely their expertise in urban war fare.
            Israel still has to depend on office workers or professors to go to battle and past experience indicated they were not even able to take on HAMAs.

            The big question actually is will Assad and Iran join in to actually do battle if Israel attacks Hez or wait at the sidelines like cowards. This is the big question.

            If they join in , then Israel will be at big trouble as the next war , Hez will be an offensive force and aim to fight in Israeli townships. As to the air power, it can help Israel to an extent how big we do not know as Sam will be available for Hez too.

            Just as Israel has learnt their lessons does not mean Hez and allies have not

            Only a real battle we shall know what’s new

            .

          • Barba_Papa

            From the analyses I read here on SF it would appear that the IDF does not want to get suckered into a ground war with Hezbollah. So it would appear it would again revolve around bombing Lebanon back into the stone age. Collective punishment. Which seems to be all the rage in the Occupied Palestinian territories as far as Israel is concerned.

            As for how Assad and Iran will react, there is not a whole lot both can do. Syria is a war torn country, a shell of its former self, with large swaths still under Jihadist control. The SAA can barely be called an army. It’s a collection of semi independent warlords with Assad in Damascus as some sort of feudal king nominally in charge. And Iran is just too far away to come to Hezbollah’s aid in any meaningful way in the short term. I’m afraid Hezbollah would be on its own. But then again I think that Hezbollah knows this and has planned accordingly. After all the situation was not that much different in 2006 either.

          • Pave Way IV

            Agree, Barba_Papa. But Israel never really had any intentions of fighting a ground war with Hezbollah – they get someone else to do that for them. That’s what al Qaeda and ISIS were for, and that’s what they hope they can trick either the Saudi Wahhabi Caliphate or the US to do now. At best, Israel will contribute a few hit-and-run airstrikes.

          • Jens Holm

            realisme again.

          • Joe

            The question whether Assad and Iran will join in if an attack by Israel/Saudi remains uncertain.

            Are they cowards or comrades in arms. Right now they are fighting side by side and if the attack occurs , will Hez just tell their allies, hey I have to leave Syria bye bye and the other two wave bye bye? It sounds stupid really.

            Note that there is already a land corridor from Iran and Syria still have a good fighting force . It may not be able to field large numbers, but will surely provide very active logistics as well as enabling attacks thru the Golsn heights.

            Just cannot imagine Hez will fight alone as the world will view Iranand Syria as cowards and not worth supporting and dying for.

            So I do differ from your opinion on this.

            The situation is different now. There are all currently fighting together and Iran sure would love to have a direct try on Israel.

            So knowing this, I really doubt Israel will attack anytime soon.

          • Barba_Papa

            It’s not a question of cowardice, it’s a question of realism. Maybe Saudi Arabia can jump into a dozen conflicts at the same time (it can’t), but Assad can ill afford another war, not while his country and army are in ruins, and there are still a shitload of Jihadis to be dealt with. Not to mention the Kurds and their American patrons in Northeast Syria.

            As for Iran, it simply has not an army capable for expeditionary warfare that far from home. They lack the modern equipment for that. The Iranian Air Force still operates mostly American aircraft from the days of the Shah. Not even their most modern aircraft, the SU-24, was deployed to Syria. Not even when the Russians sent theirs and the Iranians could have benefited from a joint deployment with similar aircraft for easier maintenance. Note that the Artesh, the official army, has not seen any action in Syria, and that the IRGC has only deployed a relatively small force. Which suffered quite high in casualties. Overall Iran seems to prefer to deploy militias from Afghani, Iraqi and local Syrian origin. And Hezbollah of course. But these militias don’t stand any chance whatsoever against an IDF armored division then some American militia nutters would if the US government were to sent in the Feds against them.

            Not even Hezbollah actually thinks it can take the offensive against the IDF and win. Defend and hold, hopefully, attack, no. That’s why they have invested so much into their rocket capability. It’s good to have a means of deterrence, and if you can’t have nukes then Macross style missile spam of death is probably the next best thing.

          • Joe

            Okay fair enough both Syria and Iran can be handicapped at the moment to mobilise the need full support that Hez may need in the event of Israeli attack on Hez IN LEBANON.

            It is also true that even Hez is tired and exhausted and a figth with Israel is the last thing in their mind.

            The point is Israel chooses to strike and the fight will happen.

            To what extent would Iran and Syria help in the battle against Israel and will hez open a second front in Golan heights with rockets etc?

            Very tough question actually as standing by to see their allies plummeted will render both Syria and Iran “cowards” and ungrateful like the last war in 2006 .Fortunate Hez won and held.

            My opinion is both will join to a certain extent …

          • Barba_Papa

            My instincts is that both countries would help Hezbollah with harsh words in the UN, which nobody will listen too anyway, for reasons I will explain later, and logistics. Which is probably the most important way they can help Lebanon. For if Hezbollah can be resupplied indefinitely and rain down rockets on Israel indefinitely then Israel can’t keep up a war indefinitely. In 2006 resupply was a lot harder as it had to go by sea, and was therefore susceptible to interdiction by Israeli and Western navies. That’s why the land bridge is so important. As for opening a 2nd front on the Golan heights, not in a million years. It would drag Syria into a war it cannot afford and most importantly, Hezbollah has no infrastructure there. In Lebanon it has been digging underground bases and facilities for decades. That’s why the IDF couldn’t hit them in 2006, they didn’t know where to hit. This infrastructure does not exist in Syria.

            As for why nobody pays attention to whatever Iran and Syria would say in the UN, or in general, just look at the way this public relations battle is being waged. Whenever shits hits the fan in this region we see two things on the news: From the Arab/Iranian side we see angry mobs shouting death to Israel and America, and angry speeches by scary looking mullahs. That’s a sure way to NOT endear yourself to a Western audience. In contrast the Israelis send a whole coterie of reasonable looking politicians and spokesmen that we have come to know over the years, and they speak reasonably and calmly. And that is how you win a public relations battle in the West. The other way works well in the Arab world, but the Arab streets have little influence with their Western paid and bought for leaders. Iran would do well to develop a similar strategy and cultivate a crop of good English speaking diplomats and mullahs who can go on Western TV without losing their temper and who sound reasonable. Iran needs more men like former president Khatami, who had that kind of image, and under no circumstances another Ahmadinejat, who was a godsend to Iran’s enemies as far as Iran’s image abroad was concerned.

          • RedBaron9495

            you forget Hezbollah reportedly has between 100k to 120k of missiles & rockets, which substantially a lot more than in 2006…..hidden away in South Lebanon and Bekaa Valley. In that stock they have several missiles with guidance systems.
            Lebanon might suffer a lot from bombings……but Israel will suffer a lot of damage too. It will cripple both economies.

          • Barba_Papa

            I don’t think I forgot that at all in my posts. Even under the best circumstances I don’t think the IDF thinks they can stop all Hezbollah rockets with their Iron Dome systems, and assuming attrition and law of Murphy the number of Hezbollah rockets that will get through will go even up. So Israel will suffer in a war, and I doubt that Israeli generals and even its politicians are willing to suffer damage and casualties for Saudi Arabia.

            Maybe that’s why the focus seems to be so much on bombing Hezbollah targets in Syria. Interdict the supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon and above all try and stop the landbridge from Iran to Lebanon. And since attacking in Syria does not trigger Hezbollah’s hailstorm of 100K+ rockets that seems like a far more attractive option to Israel.

          • Jens Holm

            You have no chance making damages like that. US and even others will never allow that.

          • Turbofan

            Looks like you have drunk most of the MSM propaganda going around

          • Jens Holm

            No,thats realism. They know how hard it was last time, and I am sure they have improved since then.

            I do not know how, but Barba_Papa is right. Sometimes Israeliens make invensions themselves and have some surprices. After all they learn to invent things.

        • Jens Holm

          The mistake by Israel was, they thought they could destroy the many very deep tunnelsystems of Hesbollah. They could not.

          A dirty version could be they borroved sarin-and mustard gas from Assads. Another could be Israel in stead bombarded Damaskus until SAA removed Hesbollah from lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

    • You can call me Al

      https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/xdd15-1.jpg.pagespeed.ic.nAPGnQSh49.jpg

      (the Pink bit at the bottom is Jordon (not to be trusted)

      But give it time, it certainly cannot happen at the moment.

    • Rodger

      Political pressure and not fighting to regain the Golan is what Israel fears more. They came close to having to return it to Syria just before the Syrian ‘civil war’ ‘broke out’. Sooner or later there will be an US president again that backs such a move if Israel’s immediate security isn’t at stake. That’s why they are daring Iran and Syria to put troops close to the borders, so they can say ‘see our security is threatened’. So far Syria and Iran aren’t taking the bait.

      • Pave Way IV

        The US will always back Israel’s Golan land-theft because US officials are easily fooled by exaggerated 3-D cartoons of the Golan ‘threat’. This is how they think the geography looks:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/156b159da7e78df4e1bfd8e1b987d441696b473632cc2e3246ec4feaaff72f9e.png

        Then, of course, there’s reality:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d31a5a9587a8ee4506515faa4b00e2814534967cb087360b09e5d9444b871f0.png

        The Golan ‘heights’ do not tower over all of Israel and pose no special strategic threat to it.

        • Rodger

          Not so:
          “The onset of the rebellion against Bashar Assad in January 2011 interrupted intense negotiations between the Syrian president and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during which the latter agreed to a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace agreement, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

          In the spring of 2010, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak launched secret indirect negotiations with Assad through American mediator Frederick Hoff, a former commander in the Marines and an expert on border demarcation in disputed areas.”
          https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4291337,00.html
          But good thing for Israel the Syrian ‘civil war’ happened just in time.

          • Pave Way IV

            We’ll just have to disagree on that one, Rodger. This was yet another hair-brained scheme proposed by the US and never really seriously considered by either Israel or Syria. Not sure where you’re getting the ‘intense negotiations’ from, but it most certainly wouldn’t have been over this particular proposal.

            If I recall, the US was using the return of the Golan as a carrot to convince Syria to break off all ties with Iran. That was rumored to be accompanied by a secret US threat to further sanction Syria, overthrow Assad and destroy Syria if it didn’t accept the ‘deal’. Syria didn’t think it should have to bow to Israeli or US pressure to have its stolen land returned, and damn sure had no intention of breaking off ties with Iran at the behest of Israel and the US.

            For Israel’s part, they ‘agreed’ to this: “If Syria breaks off ties with Iran, then we’ll have to wait a few years to be sure. And when we do withdraw, it might take another few years. But, uh, we’ll eventually withdraw for sure. We promise.” It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Israel would simply invent another excuse after the fact to remain there. Nettanyahu is a paranoid psychopath – he will never voluntarily return the Golan to Syria.

            And you certainly can’t be blind to the true intent of this US-concocted ‘deal’ in retrospect: to isolate Syria from Iran while the US was scheming with Israel and Saudi Arabia for overthrowing the Syrian government and partitioning Syria. Remember how the US was also offering various ‘deals’ to Ghadaffi around this time while simultaneously demonizing him?

          • Rodger

            Water under the bridge now anyway.

          • Jens Holm

            Trades are like like that. And in that You of course get USA and others a little more motivated to remove or reduce Assads.

          • Jens Holm

            Yes it was. But You still have to add, what kind of peace or not war it would accomplish.

        • Jens Holm

          I think USA see, what 155 mm artillery can get from Golan in a range of 20-30 km.
          Most normal militaries also see the socalled West Bank as a good defensive bufferzone.

          Very maipulative writing like this. It also has to be added, what arabs there propose should happen with the jews there.

      • Jens Holm

        I dont see that at all. Are You blind. That part of Golan will never come back to Syria. Just forget it. No realisme.

        • Rodger

          I know Israel can never agree to it. It would make Israel very very vulnerable. That doesn’t mean it can’t be used as a stick against Israel.

    • Jens Holm

      Its old stuff to me.

  • John Whitehot

    of course israel.

    but egypt?

    • Tommy Jensen

      “You too Brute”.

    • You can call me Al

      I must admit, I as intrigued at that one as well. But if you remembered Egypt sided with the Saudis and the UAE against Qatar allegedly over it’s links with Iran, maybe it is correct.

      • Rodger

        Nothing to gain for Egypt by siding with Qatar.

        • RedBaron9495

          Egypt opposes Muslim Brotherhood, which is where it first originated from, hence General Sisi jailed ex-PM Morsi and most of the MB leaders.
          Qatar on the other hand is a big sponsor of Muslim Brotherhood.

    • Joe

      Eygpt is friendly to Assad

    • Rodger

      Probably during the short time the Muslim Brotherhood ruled the country. He’s also leaving Saudi Arabia out of his comments. Just the usual swamp talk of lying with half truths and omissions.
      Egypt has everything to gain in the Arab world if saudi Arabia suicides on Iran. So I doubt the current regime would like to see Iran ‘taken out’ by the US.

  • Tommy Jensen

    We are about to be where predicted. Obama is now “the good old days” where it was possible to make peace deals………….LOL.
    Lets hope Iran gets a few hypersonic nukes so they can defend themselves against these idiots.

  • chris chuba

    In further news, it’s Wed.

    We are told that the nuclear deal is useless because Iran has secret locations that inspectors can’t get to, so what would bombing actually accomplish since by definition, we would only bomb the known locations?

  • gustavo

    Israel is continuosly pushing its vasals USA to destroy Iran.

    • Jens Holm

      ??

      USA has its own agenda. The coalition supporting USA especiallyin iraq has its own agenda as well.

      • Marc Fischer

        Israel IS always pushing its vassals (USA) to attack Iran. Any attack on Iran that would only expend Goy lives, is far preferable to Israel, as opposed to expending its own sons and having to deal with angry Israeli mothers who would give the government HELL . .

  • Solomon Krupacek

    it was no secet

  • Joe

    There you have it. For Iran Israel needs uncle SAM to do it. They can only attack Hezbollah or maybe Syria

  • Rob

    I guess hell just froze over for me, I actually agree with what Kerry did.

  • Jens Holm

    Nothing new in that. Its very difficult for Israel to hit Iran. I am sure Israels try to make pressure for bombarding and boycutting iran all they can and today, tomorrow and yesterday.