but they were not interested in it as we now know from hindsight
In hindsight, which wasn't know in the moment, nor an unreasonable belief give past actions of Saddam.
You want there to be an order from Ariel Sharon to Bush saying "don't invade Iraq" when the Israeli position with the US was precarious due to happenings in the West Bank. This is diplomacy 101, speak gently and in soft suggestions
No, please stop ascribing to me positions I don't hold. Everything you've said up to this point has been "Israel didn't think Iraq was a problem, Israel was concerned about spill over, Israel wanted America to go after Iran," but everything you've provided says otherwise. Again, you have no proof anyone in the Israel government sought to convince Bush not to depose Saddam. Which is exactly what my actual position is:
Anyone who says Israel didn't want Saddam removed from power is an idiot. Iraq was the nuclear bomb-program having enemy of Israel before Iran. One of the most daring missions of the Israel force, and early demonstration of the F-16 jet in real world conditions was carried out against Saddam's Iraq. Iraq was (as far as I know) the first country to fire ballistic missiles at Israeli cities during the Gulf war. Even going from a strictly Iran focused perspective, Israel would have been a strong advocate for the replacement of the Baathist regime with a more pro-western, pro-Israel one to deny a direct land route for Iranians to their proxies in Syria, and Lebanon. People need to stop acting like the Iraq war didn't benefit Israel. People need to stop acting like America wasn't nudged in that direction by Israel.
Edit: fixed a couple small mistakes.
the second statement came minutes after the first, there was literally no time for fallout. people like you focused on statement one and ignored statement two which is why he repeated statement two the next day
Apparently there was because he felt the need to "correct" his words. You can see the looks on people's faces when you say something. Marco having an "oh shit" moment and trying to correct it doesn't change what was said.
very simplistic thinking since iraq balanced out Iran, removing one enemy for another enemy to become more powerful is a problem, especially if the enemy that wins out was the one who was initially stronger
As has been proven Iraq wasn't balancing out anything. Iran was smuggling arms through Iraq. Iran had been winning in the closing stages of the Iran-Iraq war. In all likelihood, Saddam would have been deposed by Iranian back forces at some point in the 2000s, as is reasonable given the rapid cultivation of insurgent groups in the post-invasion years. And taking this a step further if Ariel was concerned about spill over, about Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran, he would have not advised for Bush to forgo an occupation. He would have insisted on it.
"Diplomacy" Oh you are so clearly full of shit its impressive. Nothing, I mean nothing could have been a better diplomatic coup than getting whatever Israel wanted by providing clear evidence that Saddam had no WMDs and curveball was full of shit.
other than what US officials said, what israeli officials said, and what he said to Nadav Eyal
Show it then, because what you have shown says otherwise. "I think Iran is a bigger threat, but if you do invade, depose Saddam, and leave; don't occupy the country" isn't the grand "don't invade" trump card you make it out to be.
Again you have nothing.
