Do you think Minister Ben-Eliezer's public threats to destroy Iran were necessary?

hot potato 224 (photo credit: )
hot potato 224
(photo credit: )
This is your chance to voice your opinion. We've chosen a controversial / interesting entry that appeared on our site (talkback, blog, etc...) and we want to know what you have to say about it. TODAY'S HOT POTATO: Taken from article: Ben-Eliezer: 'We'll destroy the Iranians if they attack us' Talkback #: 66 + 106 Talkbacker: Robert Nickisson - Australia, Sebastian Gomez - Spain Text: Robert: As an ex-career IDF officer he should have learned the old saying he who laughs last laughs best. Or that actions speak louder than words. This type of mouthing off helps no-one Israel least of all. I don't wish to speculate on what would happen if a war broke out, but I fail to see how it could be to Israel's advantage at all if only conventional weapons were used. I feel it would be that serious and the possibility deserves more that stupid unhelpful political remarks... Sebastian: The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction worked during 40 years to stop a Soviet attack against the West. It worked because the Soviet knew any attack would lead to a severe American retaliation. In this case is the same, if Israel wants to stop any Iranian error of calculation, it is necessary to let them know that the retaliation would be devastating. The damage needs to be so unbearable that it is not worthwhile to launch a first strike. Unfortunately the rules of the game are like this. What do you think? The ball is in your court now. Click here to respond