I didn't infer the same conclusion that George Stephanopoulos did with Hillary Clinton's interview:Iranian Attack on Israel is Attack on U.S. Hillary said that if Iran nuked Israel, that "there would be retaliation". George tried to nail this jello-ish statement to the wall by prompting, "by the United States," to which Hillary would not explicitly concur. Hence, I inferred that the Obama administration was neither committing to a US conventional, let alone nuclear, response to Iran in such a scenario. I inferred that, at most, Obama might send a strongly worded memo to the UN to tut-tut such an occurrence & then probably write another speech equating the historic suffering of the Jews to the displacement of the Palestinians.
All of the commenters on ABC's board seemed solely concerned about a potential Israeli attack on Iran versus vice versa. From Jeff Olsen:
so we can also say an attack on Iran by Israel is an attack of US on Iran!?
Goerge kept asking if Iran attacks Israel then what, but is seem no one is allowed to ask if Israel attacks Iran then what.
George, for tha last so many years that you remember when did Iran attack any neigboring country?
please be fair.
Golly, Jeff, if you completely ignore all the "freedom fighter" or "manmade disasters" deployed in proxy wars trained & funded by Iran, then I guess you are technically correct, but that seems rather disingenuous. The US is attacked for having the CIA cooperate with Britain's MI6's 1953 overthrow of Iran's Soviet backed government. If the US is held accountable for the CIA's doings, I don't see why Iran should receive a pass for the nefarious goings on of their Persian analog.
NRO's take on Obama's Cairo speech:
President Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds[...]