Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran
U.S. officials are considering plans to launch a massive military strike in Iran, a strategy that threatens to undermine U.S. national security interests around the world while actually speeding up Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
From the Heritage Foundation to the Council on Foreign Relations, from Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to former top Bush State Department official Richard Haass, analysts and experts agree — there are no good military options in Iran.
ThinkProgress has created a graphic database featuring quotes from prominent analysts and experts all stating that there are no good military options in Iran. The document will be updated as more experts and officials weigh in — if we’re missing someone, let us know HERE or in the comments section.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
any miliatray attack on iran will be
A NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER
in fact,
if i was a democratic politician or political advisor,
i would be fast out the gate with this soundbite:
ANOTHER BUSH-LED NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:24 pmA war with Iran is what the Rapture Right wants, not what makes sense.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pmBeamis lives in the path of the Bush administration’s upcoming march on Iran - the Nevada Test Site, home to the bomb test scheduled for June 2. He has some insights and concerns more immediate than those of us who live… outside the area of the dustup. Read his take here.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#2 - Exactly.
Great list, TP! I can always find the exact information I need — and more — when trying to make a point.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:29 pm#2
sometimes I do wonder, if this whole thing is connected to Bush trying to bring on the rapture. Nothing else really makes that much sense.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pmJane’s Intelligence Weekly has a piece on how Iran might react to an attack:
http://www.janes.com/ security/ international_security/ news/ jir/ jir060320_1_n.shtml
April 10th, 2006 at 4:34 pm20 March 2006
Deterrence by punishment could offer last resort options for Iran
Hey I got an idea , let’s bomb Iran so the iranians can dig in like they know how , barely slow down their nuclear development and they can stop 25 % to 40% of all the worlds petroleum and then see what the price of gas is , what a great idea . Wow I’m a bushie now .
April 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pmMy only comment to this:
Since when has the Bush Administration cared what strategists and tacticians thought?
He didn’t care about them with Iraq and he doesn’t care about them with Iran.
MAY GOD HELP US ALL.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:37 pmAll we need to do is park some aircraft carrier in the Pacific an hour out from San Diego, put up a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” and have the Chimp in Chief come swooping down in a jet trainer for a photo op.
There ya go, instant “victory”. It worked before, didn’t it?
April 10th, 2006 at 4:38 pmIsn’t Think Progress being a little hypocritical? We, being the United States, needs to be diplomatic about Iran, but we can’t rule anything out. You claim that the Bush administration is intent on going to war, and that may very well be the case. But Think Progress is intent on not using a military option, if need be.
This is the time of politics where both sides need quit taking extremes and truly analyze the situation. Iran with nuclear weapons is a very serious threat so we need to put all of our partisan differences aside and look at the situation without having any preconceived notions of going to war or not going to war.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pmKinda hard to do when the Bush administration refuses to even talk to the Iranians.
They ARE NOT trying to work out a diplomatic solution. War is the only thing the Bush cabal wants.
The people here do not want to fight World War III. Bush does.
Go join up and fight for Bush.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#2, #4, #5, this is what I was saying on the Bill Kristal thread. Every move this administration makes makes it obvious that they have no concern for the future of this country or the world. I really think that they’re willing to start WWIII to bring on Armageddon–they think it’s good vs. evil, and they believe that they’re the ‘good.’
MrBlueSky is right: May god help us all!
April 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#10 If we are smart, yes, we will rule out this option. Because, as we see, it really isn’t a viable option. Just because we CAN doesn’t mean we should. I mean, I wouldn’t trust this administration at all. They are hapless and impotent. They do not know what they are doing and that is very dangerous.
His religion makes his decisions and that is scary. Especially when so many Americans don’t share his particular brand and version of ‘faith.’
April 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pmRegn — we are not intent on not using a military option.
Our position is that the potential national security costs of a military strike on Iran are severe. Thus, the Bush administration should not be relying on it as a fallback policy, let alone promoting it as the best option. It should be, as always, a last resort.
The consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran is about a decade away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, meaning that the situation today is “not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis.” The Bush administration’s Iran strategy should reflect this reality. I.e., we should focus now on using our extensive diplomatic powers to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran is not Iraq — they do not want to sink further into international isolation, and they can be persuaded of the many benefits of changing their current course. But rattling our sabers is not the way to convince them. More here.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pmApparently, cutting and running is an exit strategy option for Bush.
“What is your strategy for getting out of Iraq, Mr. Preznit?”
“Iran.”
April 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pmBush put his right hand on the Bible and swore to protect the Constitution. He did not place his hand on the Constitution and swear to protect the Bible.
FYI:
Armmageddon is a place not an event. Armmageddon is where a giant battle will take place after the rapture.
That is where the Bushies have it wrong. They think that if they start World War III, they can bring about the rapture. Wrong, that would be backwards.
The rapture will happen, then the battle of Armmageddon.
Bush is just starting World War III. No rapture will come of it, just a lot of death and destruction for nothing.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:07 pmu.s. has nukes and don’t think they are only for energy. so just in case, we spread them up and down the rockies. lol, please. at a stroke of a finger our missiles can be launched and are pointed in the direction of those we want to do away with. white phospherous we used on the iraqis. anthrax used on those in the u.s who differ, to shut them up. so……..what is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? not at all am i saying it’s right and i understand. but if the u.s. can have nukes why can’t everyone else? i get the fear. and everyone better start fearing the u.s. government. but do you get the hypocrisy. the u.s. has bigger and badder plans that none of us yet know about. and not for one second do i believe in our government or think they are out for goodness and peace. and to do so is stupid. folks this is has been in works for decades. this is NOT a new problem but a planned one. and for those who know nothing about the history of the rothchilds, duponts, remingtons, bushies, rockefellers than you have NO clue to what is about to happen and what is happening right now. they are pnac, nwo, nazi/zionists. i believe this is an israeli war. we never did have a real problem with the arabs but the israelis did. and as long as we side with the zionist and their selfish what’s in it for us, our interests and our fked up policies when dealing with the muslim nations there will always be problems. their attitude is to hell with arabs cuz the only thing their worth is oil. we are so far up israelsis ass the only time we see daylight is when sharon yawns. the papers are being pulled back rapidly and rothchilds are now seeing they and the followeres are being exposed. if we, the u.s. is so concerned with peace and democracy why, why do we let africa burn itself up……….just like bushyboy said there is nothing in it for us. now that is fkd up. WAKE UP!
April 10th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThanks for the correction, SpudgeBoy. I’m just a lapsed Catholic, I don’t know Armageddon from shinola!
April 10th, 2006 at 5:18 pmThe diplomatic solution would make a lot more sense if the US were to arrange for,or at least attempt to,get the three countries in the region who are our allies to join the NNPT. So long as the nuclear issue can be cast in the light of US-Israeli politics,Iran has an ability to argue that the US is the hypocritical ones. GWB visits India to encourage expansion of a nuclear program with a country which has the bomb but is not an NNPT signee. He then goes to Pakistan to chide them for not doing more to control their nuclear program in which they have a bomb but are not signed on to the NNPT.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:18 pmAnd then there is the focus of Iranian rhetoric,Israel, which has not signed the NNPT,has weapons,is a staunch ally of the US and has launched pre-emptive strikes.
Iran,a signatory to the NNPT,is saying they are staying within the provisions and seek only a nuclear energy program. What are the chances that they seek to enrich uranium in sufficient quantities to have a “bomb”. There are so many other steps they would have to take to deliver it to a target.
I’ll believe that the US is serious about keeping Iran fromn having a bomb when we start pressuring Israel,India and Pakistan to sign on to the provisions of the NNPT.
i also know about the history of bombings on americans and american soil by the arabs but who do we run with, side with, and eat with? the zionists…..israel. we don’t base any policies on the muslim nation without israels two lousy cents. i could be wrong with the assertion of fighting israelis war but i’m not going to abandon the theory. and then we wonder why.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:21 pmTHE ONLY OPTION IS BUNKER BUSTING NUKES.
WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE CRAZY LEADER OF IRAN THREATENING TO NUKE NYC ? DO YOU WANT TO SEE A MUSHROOM CLOUD OVER CENTRAL PARK NEXT SUMMER….? OF COURSE NOT.
I PRAY AND GIVE THANKS TO OUR SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, THAT G.W. BUSH HAS THE COURAGE TO MAKE THIS WORLD SAFER AND LESS DEADLY. WE CANNOT LOSE IF GOD IS ON OUR SIDE, AND HE MOST CERTAINLY IS.
WE NEED TO CONTROL THE IRAN PROBLEM SOONER THAN LATER, AND I THINK OCTOBER IS THE BEST TIME TO LAUNCH THE STRIKE. IT DOESNT BOTHER ME IF THE WORLD HAS A FEW LESS EVIL MUSLIMS, IF THAT WILL SAVE THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF DEVOUT PEACE LOVING CHRISTIANS.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pmOh and by the way,John Murtha voted forthe AUMF in October 2002. He would also be more believable on Iraq if he admitted that he made so serious a mistake in judgment by voting for the Iraq war that he had to resign. Talk is cheap.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pmMy own view is that anyone who voted for the war resolution in October 2002 should be turned out of office this November (all of the House,1/3rd of the Senate).There were only 133 brave souls in the House and 23 in the Senate with the courage to vote against that authorization.
My Rep. voted against it,so I’ll cross party lines to support him but for this as well as other issues,I’ll work and contribute to the defeat of our Senator who is running for re-election.
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists” J. Edgar Hoover
ich
The Shock and Awe in the invasion of Iraq also Shocked and awe we Americans into Silence or else we would’ve taken to the streets and forced an impeachment from the Day bush invaded a country on lies.
Now bush has already invaded Iran and still not a whisper . We will see innocent lives once again be given to satisfy the the most murderous mass killer in the world.
bush and co must be stopped at all cost ,won’t anyone step up to the plate for the America’s Consitution and the Iranian people.
bush will continue to kill in the name of “demoracy” for Oil/gas through out the world its his game he is playing and he will win unless we as Americans follow Mexicans and the French into our streets demanding bush to be removed from office.
The maddness of this adminstration has only begun..
April 10th, 2006 at 5:37 pmThe maddness of this adminstration has only begun..
Comment by thot’s — April 10, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
SOME CALL IT MADNESS.
I CALL IT THE WILL OF GOD.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#21
this is just insanity that i have to laugh.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#24
can we say W–H–A–C–K–O!
April 10th, 2006 at 5:44 pmLast time I checked Osama Bin Laden said that god was on his side. During WWI I think it was the Germans used to enscribe god is with us on their helmets. I wonder how peace loving someone can be when the use a pre-emptive military strike?
Any thoughts?
April 10th, 2006 at 5:44 pmseei see alot of you americans saying that iran is a dengerous regeme well fine lets say it is but the question you all miss is why do sooo many countries hate on the usa can they all be crazy or is it the USA who created such a situation??? please answer that then post and for your imfo iam going to write a lil story
in shahs time in iran (which was a puppet by america) : most iranians like animals exept dogs we dont hate them but in islam they dont hold a high place there was a young iranian boy no older then 7 he just kinda slapped an american generals dog how hard could he have done it the american general asked the young boy to show him his hand and guess what he did he SHOT A KIDS HAND FOR SLAPPING HIS DOG and later on that year they passed a law that is an irarian does anything to an american or they property they will have to be sent to u.s to be triled but if an american was in the same situation they can be triled in the states. that is one of the manyyyyyyy things that your people have done to mine. so next time before you open your mouth and talk S**t go do some reaserch not on your bought out media but other sources and see what is being done by america to the world.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:46 pmWhat Hubris to claim to know the will of god.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI sure as hell hope # 21 was sarcasm. Otherwise I’d tell ya to go & do anotomically impossible things.
#10 - ThinkProgress is not a diplomatic attache. it is a blog where people discuss political and moral dilemma’s we face. As such telling us that we shouldn’t withdraw the “nuclear” option in our diplomatic efforts to persuade the Iranians not to seek nuclear weapons is OK. It’s the same thing as anti-abortion people asking other’s not to have an abortion as their birth control method. To us, it is morally wrong to even consider the use of nuclear weapons.
Not that that will appease them, but I thought I’d try.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:46 pm19 - Agreed. The sabre-rattling that this administration engages in only strengthens the hard-line government in Iran. I think that in many ways the situation in that country is fairly similar to that here in the US - the majority of the people are fed up with the current administration, but they keep managing to scare just enough people to support their unholy enterprise. An attack on Iran would be to them what 9/11 was to us - the perfect thing to rally a divided public around.
The real solution to this problem is to live by the principles that this country was founded on and not support dictators like the Shah that cause suffering and resentment. Only then will we not have to reap the bitter harvest that we have previously sown (pardon the platitudonous nature of that last bit there).
April 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pmIf I remember correctly, wasn’t the US and Iran doing pretty well diplomatically before GWB? I thought I saw stories in the papers about US-Iranian ties thawing.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:51 pmIranian - I didn’t see your comment before I posted. I agree - most Americans are completely ignorant of the suffering that their country has provoked. Ignorance in general is one of the largest problems facing the US today, one that threatens our very survival. The proper functioning of a democracy requires an active and educated citizenry, and I’m afraid that most of America lies in an apathetic stupor.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:53 pmAs long as we are more interested in American Idol then world events, the US public will be pretty apathetic.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pmThere was no good military option in Iraq, either, but that didn’t stop the bastards.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pmThe will of god , whose god are u talking about ? jerry falwell , pat robertson , ralph reed ? and u are an ivyleager to spout such stupidities , they do let anybody in at Yale and etc… besides g.w , money must and influence must have got u in.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:18 pmKrazny,,
Out of the interest of discussion. What options do you propose if Iran says they have no interest in discussing this further and will continue to build facilities?
April 10th, 2006 at 6:19 pmiranian,
see america is selfish, arrogant, and “do as i say not as i do” kind of country. and sadly to say alot of americans have become to think that because they are “american” they are of the elite. alot of them think it’s our way or the highway and give no respect to others. but this is what we demand. our country is not free from speech, religious rights, personal actions as we portray. it is ruled by zionist/nazi ideology and there are alot of those that follow in their footsteps. that is the very reason we have a fascist nation ruled by a dictator. and i believe to rely(side with) on israel as a source for diplomatic solutions or relations in working with the muslim nation is a disaster. and the resident of the white house (bushyboy) cuz that is exactly what he is a resident, an occupier, knows absolutely nothing about foreign relations or sqwat about the muslim nations or culture. so please forgive those who voted for this prick because i and the majority of us voted different. but this is what you get when the rothchilds and his tentacles are on a misson to rule the world and call themselves christians.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:22 pmWe need to find a way to snap America awake from this impending nuclear nightmare immediatly. To show them just what will happen should Bush’s Dr. Evil-esque plan go through..To show them what truly is at risk from his cabal of morally bankrupt pond scum.
*sigh*
Times like this I wish we had our own ‘V’
April 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pmCredible Dems need to be appearing on cable news and making a very real point regarding bombing Iran — the people who will pay the price if Bush does this, are our military sitting in Iraq. If we bomb Iran, they wouldn’t be able to hit us here, but they certainly can hit U.S. bases in Iraq and cause massive U.S. casualities.
Has Bush given this scenario even a moment of thought? Does he even care that our heroes would pay the price for his continued arrogant warmongering?
April 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pmWHY DO THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND JOHN MURTHA AND FORMER TOP STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL RICHARD HASS AND ANALYSTS AND EXPERTS ALL HATE AMERICA?!
April 10th, 2006 at 6:56 pmI am not 100% sure Tundra,
I do think we need to question, how close Iran is to actually making a bomb, How much of a threat Iran possessing nuclear weapon poses, and how much world support we can get in getting Iran to drop their bomb making program. I don’t believe that military options should be discarded. We should proceed carfully with any sort of direct strike. Air alone strikes cannot guarantee complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear hopes. Not even a nuclear one. It would require troops and inspectors who know what to look for to guarantee that Iran is not making a bomb, or disarmed. Our troops are overextended as is, with the ground battles in Afganistan, and Iraq, plus other commitments around the world. Also world opinion of the US is at an all time low. We cried wolf on Iraq and found nothing.
We also don’t have an option of using a friendly middle eastern military or coalition military to take care of the situation. Frankly we don’t trust even the Saudi’s or the Pakistani’s that much.
An international effort that included the Russians, and the EU starting with diplomatic pressure, including, trade embargoes, sanctions etc may work, but only if everyone is onboard.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:01 pmIVYCON can’t be a real person. The comments are too stupid.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#10,
The problem is trust, if TP and myself trusted the decisions Bush makes, then going to war would be an option. But we don’t trust the President, so any decision about going to war would be perceived as a decision which is not in the public’s best interest. Even if it is. Because Bush has lied and proven to be incompetent, we would rather he not start anymore wars.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:17 pm#21,
saddle-up, put yer boots on, git ‘er done!
April 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pmKrazny,
I do think we need to question, how close Iran is to actually making a bomb, How much of a threat Iran possessing nuclear weapon poses
Sadly our intelligence agencies have been lacking credibility as of late (makes me wonder what they actually know).
how much world support we can get in getting Iran to drop their bomb making program.
I have been increasing in my “Let someone else deal with this one” thought process. I know it sounds like passing the buck. I am pretty sure we would know about a missile with the ability to hit us long before it could happen (Test flights etc). If the rest of the world doesn’t feel like there is enough reason to commit forces/munitions, why should we.
Maybe sending our Ambassador in and having him yawn at the hearings and say yeah, whatever you guys want. Maybe be listening to a ipod and eating chips with his feet up. Perhaps someone else will decide to take it seriously.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:25 pmThere is an excellent article on disarmement who I’ve read in the spanish edition of this month (this is, the February Edition in the USA) of the Scientific American magazine. I recommend it wholeheartedly, because explains many things about nuclear disarmement, and not all very favorable to Bush. I’ll post the link, but without a subscription, you can’t read the more interesting part:
Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism
Demonstrates that with a cheap program (compared to others programs budgets), the risk of nuclear terrorism would be greatly reduced, without attacking anyone. Is simply securing the enriched uranium (weapon grade) in the world, by upgrading the nuclear generators who use enriched uranium to use less active (empoverished) uranium. The enriched uranium can be “diluted” in poorer uranium, to have the uranium needed to fuel the updated generators, who work with empoverished uranium, thus making the enriched uranium far less common and prone to be stealed. And the empoverished uranium is very difficult to revert to enriched uranium again, because it’s needed an advanced technology and a long time.
The article also stats that the program has been stalled by the Bush administration. What a surprise. I guess they want as many enriched uranium as possible, to shift its use to the military one.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:26 pmAmerica will not wake up to anything until a large fan is spraying poop all over them, even then, its a temporary awakening, like 9-11, I was hoping the population would wake up and pull their heads out, which happened for a month or so. Yes we are arrogant, selfish, and ignorant as a country, and we have elected a representive to that. (I didn’t vote for him).
April 10th, 2006 at 7:34 pmI have been increasing in my “Let someone else deal with this one†thought process.
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Since I know you’re dying to know what I think ;), it’s jwhat you just said. Let someone else, in a new ‘coalition of the willing’ stand up to Iran if (when) military force becomes necessary.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:41 pmI think that’s the first thing ThinkProgress has ever posted that I instantly agreed with. Iran is a true problem and every solution has serious risks.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:42 pmAnother thought… instead of taking out a country, why don’t we just get the head hut job? I’m from a military family. I know we are capable of extracting a handful of crazies from millions of innocents under their rule. So why think large scale destruction, when really, its the tip of the iceberg that is the concern.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:44 pmMaybe sending our Ambassador in and having him yawn at the hearings and say yeah, whatever you guys want. Maybe be listening to a ipod and eating chips with his feet up. Perhaps someone else will decide to take it seriously.
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
Oh, forgot to say… that mental image is hysterical! LOL
April 10th, 2006 at 7:47 pmSince I know you’re dying to know what I think ;), it’s jwhat you just said. Let someone else, in a new ‘coalition of the willing’ stand up to Iran if (when) military force becomes necessary.
Oh no we agree on something. Pretty soon, I’ll grow my hair to my butt and start singing folk tunes :)
Another thought… instead of taking out a country, why don’t we just get the head hut job?
April 10th, 2006 at 7:56 pmHe’d just get replaced by some other wacko. At least this one admits he hates us.
Oh no we agree on something. Pretty soon, I’ll grow my hair to my butt and start singing folk tunes :)
You agree with me all the time. Even when you won’t admit it out loud :)
And don’t firget eating alfalfa sprouts and throwing away your soap…
He’d just get replaced by some other wacko. At least this one admits he hates us.
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
Seriously, that’s your excuse? Just better to blow up a whole bunch of innocent people each time? Just take out the next nut job who replaces him. After a while, they’ll get the hint…
April 10th, 2006 at 8:01 pmSeriously, that’s your excuse?
April 10th, 2006 at 8:03 pmYuppers
Just better to blow up a whole bunch of innocent people each time?
I didn’t say that, I said listen to an IPOD and eat chips, let someone else blow up a bunch of innocent people.
I didn’t say that, I said listen to an IPOD and eat chips, let someone else blow up a bunch of innocent people.
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
You are former military, right? :)
April 10th, 2006 at 8:08 pm“I didn’t say that, I said listen to an IPOD and eat chips, let someone else blow up a bunch of innocent people. Comment by Tundra ”
That’s perverted. Sorry, but anyone that doesn’t show compassion and concern for the innocent and the victims is psychotic. You’ve shamed yourself - if you have a decent amount of humanity in you. I’m ashamed of you, whatever the case.
“He’d just get replaced by some other wacko. At least this one admits he hates us.
Comment by Tundra ”
Funny, but I bet Osama and the rest of the modern world use this same excuse to hate us.
You sound just like a terrorist today. No humanity, no compassion, and no recognition that others are the SAME as yourself. You sound foolish, I’m ashamed you’re a fellow american.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:12 pmOk Ryan,
That’s perverted. Sorry, but anyone that doesn’t show compassion and concern for the innocent and the victims is psychotic.
Concerned enough to send American soldiers in, nope.
You’ve shamed yourself
Your the one who says pull our soldiers out of Iraq immediately. All I hear on here is how bad the lives of Iraqi’s is since we have shown up. If us not going in isn’t compassion I don’t know what is.
I’m open to your suggestions by following the thread and taking the no good military option. I’m not sure if you are upset that I don’t want to send in American Soldiers/drop Nukes if they don’t want to talk about it anymore. Either we consider a military option and get wrapped into another Iraq (As stated here often) or we remove it from the table (As suggested here often). Whatever the end result turns out to be if we say we aren’t going in then well, we have pretty much given them free reign. If it would make you feel better, I’ll lose sleep, but how I feel about it isn’t going to change how it plays out.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pmYou are former military, right? :)
Roger, Roger. Just relaxing now on home soil. Ahhhhhhhh
April 10th, 2006 at 8:30 pmYou know, there used to be a strong democratic movement in Iran (pre-Bush, of course) which could have been fostered by our government. Instead Bush humilates, threatens and cajoles the country. I see nothing of this democratic spirit anymore. It seems to have been replaced by anger at the US and nationalism. Bush has strengthened the theocratic government and crushed a budding progressive movement.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:40 pmGee, let’s go piss off the entire Muslim world at us. Sounds like a great idea! Anyone else notice it seems to be because Israel is trigger happy and afraid of Iran? This is not a threat to the United States, it’s a threat to israel!
April 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pm54
Just take out the next nut job who replaces him.
Wow assassination talk from you, I’m impressed!!
After a while, they’ll get the hint
April 10th, 2006 at 9:09 pmAre you suggesting we remove the current government and put in a government we approve of there?
61 and Ryan,
This is not a threat to the United States
My point too, Why should we do anything?
April 10th, 2006 at 9:10 pmNot only is Iran further speeding up their nuclear program because of Bush’s threats, but they probably sped it up originally when Bush called them part of the “Axis of Evil”. And of course they know what happened to Iraq which was also included in the “Axis of Evil”. Likewise North Korea sped up their nuclear program because of being placed in the “Axis of Evil”. Gee, don’t we have a wonderful chimp in chief. By his war mongering and saber rattling he’s pushed both Iran and North Korea into the position where they feel they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the madman in the White House.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:17 pmBush and Cheney want to attack Iran for the same reasons they invaded Iraq > to control their Oil deposits and to appease Israel! Iran is NO threat to anyone in the Gulf except maybe to tiny Kuwait or Oman! Even if Iran had a nuke or two it would be for defense like all the rest of the nations that have nukes! Mutual assured destruction is why nukes have not been used since President Truman nuked Japan at the end of WWII!
Hersh has spilled the beans on the secret plan of the Bush Regime to attack Iran just like the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, so this is a sinister irony! Attacking another nation to control its Oil reserves is plain sick! Hopefully since the vile plan has been exposed, it has been terminated or at least delayed?
If Hersh had NOT revealed this vile deed, then Bush probably would have done it just after Easter and before the Congress returned on the 24th of April! After early June the Gulf Region gets over 100+ degrees so not possible for war again till October! If Bush attacks then it will prove he wants the November elections aborted?!
April 10th, 2006 at 9:36 pmJay -
April 11th, 2006 at 1:20 amMaybe we will get some elbow room from the summer heat - all the CO2 created by W’s abuse of the atmosphere will convert itself to dry ice and create a second winter.
Roger, Roger. Just relaxing now on home soil. Ahhhhhhhh
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Where were you?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:25 amWow assassination talk from you, I’m impressed!!
Watch it… ;)
Are you suggesting we remove the current government and put in a government we approve of there?
Comment by Tundra — April 10, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
I might be a hopeless optimist sometimes, but I’m also a realist. If there’s someone who is a threat to the world or is seriously abusing his own country (like Hitler, Pol Pot, and that really nasty sort), I think the world (not just the U.S.) has an obligation to defend itself and help people in need by removing the problem. I do think WWII was honorable. However, I don’t think we have the right to impose a replacement government that we approve of. There is a difference between doing the right thing for the greater good of humanity and playing control freak world police like Bush is currently doing. Don’t you think?
April 11th, 2006 at 7:33 amTP decries ANY sabre rattling with regards to Iran??? (I seem to recall multiple Iraqi violations of UN resolutions…) Diplomacy regarding Iranian nukes should be attempted; to really scare the $h*t out of them, KEEP TALKING….
What are the odds that a mullah driven, oil-rich Middle Eastern country NEEDS nuclear power as an energy source? How amenable to discussion and diplomatic resolution could a certain Middle Eastern country be after waving the verbal scabbard of Israeli annihilation? I’m certain (tongue in cheek for sack-cloth SERIOUS progs) that the text of the Iranian “preznit”s proclamation was simply a grievous misunderstanding…..who knew???
April 11th, 2006 at 10:30 am67
http://www.mfo.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1
I was stationed in Sinai Egypt for a tour.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:37 am“From the Heritage Foundation to the Council on Foreign Relations, from Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to former top Bush State Department official Richard Haass, analysts and experts agree — there are no good military options in Iran. ”
Fine, we’ll just follow the Donk stratijery and wait to get nuked. Unfortunately for all your expert losers Israel will not wait. They will go in and kick some Iranian ass then bomb the crap out of Hamas just for good measure. What do your “experts” have to say about that little option?
April 11th, 2006 at 10:37 amIf Hersh had NOT revealed this vile deed, then Bush probably would have done it just after Easter and before the Congress returned on the 24th of April! After early June the Gulf Region gets over 100+ degrees so not possible for war again till October! If Bush attacks then it will prove he wants the November elections aborted?!
Comment by Jay Randal
Fruitcake
April 11th, 2006 at 10:42 amI-R-I unless you intend to personally go lead the attack on Iran, and sacrifice yourself for that cause, then otherwise you are a sick perverted creepo?! Go post your filth on far-right wing Nazi blogs, if they can even stomach your weirdness > lol.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:51 amhttp://www.mfo.org/Default.asp?bhcp=1
I was stationed in Sinai Egypt for a tour.
Comment by Tundra — April 11, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Cool website. What was it like? (I’m more interested in the human interest aspect of things… you know - you’re experiences. Have any you’re willing to share?)
April 11th, 2006 at 11:06 amAfter reading respected analysts describe the certain folly of launching any sort of military action against Iran, I am fully convinced that this is exactly what G.W. Bush will do, and the impotent fools in congress that our electorate has sentenced us with will fully oblige.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:20 amI-R-I unless you intend to personally go lead the attack on Iran, and sacrifice yourself for that cause, then otherwise you are a sick perverted creepo?! Go post your filth on far-right wing Nazi blogs, if they can even stomach your weirdness > lol.
Comment by Jay Randal —
Jay, you’re a fruitcake. There’s nothing left to say.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:46 amLOL I-R-I > you are total right wing filth and there is nothing more to say about you!
April 11th, 2006 at 11:53 amThis is not a good thing: The lack of any “good” option means the Bushies can say that there were no better military options when they choose the worst one: A Nuke for A Nuke.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pmOh and I-R-I: So let Israel do it. No reason we have to race to be stupid. And in any case, Israel will do it with out nukes!
April 11th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI really think that they’re willing to start WWIII to bring on Armageddon–they think it’s good vs. evil, and they believe that they’re the ‘good.’
Comment by Jane E. Schneider #12
Jane,
Don’t believe the hype…
…that “good vs evil” sh*t is the TREASONOUS Bushite junta’s way of “scaring” us all into believing they’d take the plunge into nuclear oblivion…
…when all they’re doing is “distracting” us…
…the criminal Bushites and their corporate cronies are too flush with cash they just stole from the hard working poor/middle working class masses…
…they just need to distract us for a little while longer ’til they can silently steal away out of town (Washington)…
…taking their ill-gotten gains with them…
…We the people won’t be thinking about how much they’ve stolen because we’ll be too busy thinking about the messes these al Cracker TRAITORS have made…
…we MUST NOT allow Bushiva, L’il Dick and the TREASONOUS scumbags in the corporate controlled Senate and House to get away with this enormous transfer of wealth…
…leaving us REGULAR folks (and our future progeny) with this back breaking debt!
…Don’t fall for this al Cracker bullsh*t…
…keep on your Congressional and Senate representation to push forward with investigations into this TREASONOUS criminal Bushite junta…
…and for God’s sake vote these snakes out of office…
…once we take their power, THEN WE TAKE BACK OUR MONEY (from them personally!!!!
April 11th, 2006 at 12:41 pmLet’s Not Nuke Iran-Yet…
While nuking Iran sounds like a great idea, I don’t think we should rush into things before we take care of some unfinished business.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:07 pm…
“What are the odds that a mullah driven, oil-rich Middle Eastern country NEEDS nuclear power as an energy source? Mighty Moron”
Ah, I can see you’re up to your typical Pro-Israel NeoCon Zionist propaganda. You know, I ask myself this same question - and then again I’m reminded of the answer by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who sold Iran it’s first PLUTONIUM reactor under Gerald Ford over the objections of the Democrats.
You know, you Reichwingers always have such SHORT MEMORIES for the screw ups you make. But we don’t. You’re welcome by the way. I’m quite happy correcting each and every MISTAKE and LIE you post daily. I consider it a public service to stand between your PSYCHOSIS and public to protect them from your Nazi lies.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:59 pmThe range of political ideology represented among the experts is almost as stellar as their unanimity.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:14 pmHEY RYAN remember ths shah was on our side. Carter let the islamic radicals take over iran. carter understood foreign relation just like you enjoy. cowtow and appease. it took 4 days to kick the crap out of iraq in 91. it took 2 weeks in 03. iran supports the insurgency to stop the US from kicking there asses in a few days. iran and iraq fought for 10 years without a winner so they know we could take in no time. islamic radicals only understand strength. no more apeasement of radicals. iran says they can enrich uranium on their own. i say just like saddam their full of crap. wastem before they get a chance to attack our allies. for example ISREAL
April 11th, 2006 at 6:16 pmYeah, the shah was on “our side,” and that’s what started this whole mess in the first place. Anger over the American government’s support of that brutal despot, and CIA meddling with the coup of 1953 still contribute in a big way to the fervent anti-Americanism in Iran.
How about having a foreign policy that doesn’t lead to the creation of radicals and resentment, and is in congruence with the principles this country was founded upon?
And besides, if you don’t believe that the Iranians can even enrich uranium, then why do you wish to invade them? Do you really think that an invasion and occupation will succeed in Iran considering the strains currently being placed upon our military? A invasion of a country with a population of 68 million people, and significant geographic challenges would need a massive deployment of forces to be successful.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:43 pmYeah, the shah was on “our side,†and that’s what started this whole mess in the first place.
Comment by Liberal and Loving It
Wrong. It started when Jimmah “Peanut” Carter allowed the Islamists to oust the Shah and then allowed Khomeini (sp?) to make Carter his bitch. It started when Zignoo Bredghzevskicoff told Carter that fundamental extremists Islamists were the fringe loons of the area and all we had to do was be nice to them and they would be nice to us. Now we are faced with cleaning up Jimmy “Who never met a totalitarian mass murdering dictator he didn’t like” Carter’s mess.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:04 pmA invasion of a country with a population of 68 million people, and significant geographic challenges would need a massive deployment of forces to be successful.
Comment by Liberal and Loving It
Or we could do it my way with one or two well placed nukes. The fact is the majority of Iranians would like to have good relations with the West and the USA in particular. Here’s what I think could happen; a strategic strike on the underground nuclear facilities coupled with surgical strikes to take out the national leadership. After that the country would be ruled by the military and we’d make it very clear that if those new leaders want to stay in power and build a better country and work toward peaceful relations with the USA and their neighbors then, we will allow them to live. If not we bomb the crap out them until they agree.
Civilian casualties are kept at a minimum and that particular rat hole of Islamofascists becomes a non-player in mid east affairs for a long time to come. It’s what we should have done in Iraq…but noooooo. We had to be compassionate and spend too much blood and treasure making sure the world doesn’t think we’re just there for the oil instead of bombing them back to the stone age. As your new President I will not make that mistake. Vote I-RIGHT-I!!! USA! USA! USA!
April 12th, 2006 at 2:21 pmWe could learn a thing or 2 from iraq. more air strikes, & cruise missles no ground troops
April 16th, 2006 at 3:03 pmIt might not be until Hillary is in office before we start the bombs.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:11 pmAs we all know, the GW Bush ship of state that was so
hermetically sealed through 2001-2002,has come to
suffer so many leaks that it is sinking and the rats
are deserting it, as the saying goes. I try to keep
what comes my way to myself until at least one open
source intimates the same thing. With NSA trying to
make-up for the security specifics which it is not
competent to do with the broad sweeps it need not do,
it is only Las Vegas odds that my “lakes” will
otherwise be caught. Besides, context to give meanings
to scoops will have to come from far more “in” people
than me.
With that disclaimer, let me put before Prof. Kia and
colleagues what keeps coming at me, regularly, hitting
me in both the front and back of my head: Mr. Bush was
never in FULL control of his government. All through
his years of formation, his caring father sought to
keep his son confident by literally hiring others to
do his worrying for him. Thus, as a young man with a
scandalous record and no other accomplishments to
compensate for it, Mr. Bush turned himself over to
some others, leaving it to them to worry about his
political career. As for his existing/missing past,
Mr. Bush totally obliterated it with the blinding
glare of his Christian Salvation. It’s not that he
chose this task for himself but rather that his
professional “worriers” did. What this has produced is
a most amiable and unassuming mediocrity who is not in
the slightest ashamed, worried or in need to
compensate for who and what he is. I cannot tell you
how much thousands of influential Republicans were
totally charmed by that in him. It was his “I am what
I am and I’m not worried about it” type of even keel
“compassionate conservative” image that is so
unassuming that made so many of us see him as the
President who will end stress in America.
A group of foreign policy experts calling themselves
the “Vulcans” gathered around him and found him so
soothing that they often had to remember that they
were dealing with the future President of the United
States. Because of the relationship with his dad, he
chose to go with some of the people among the
Republican luminaries who least got along with his
father. To that end Cheney was key and Scowcroft
something of an anti-Christ. As Cheney and Rumsfeld
filled their offices with neocons, they liberated Mr.
Bush more and more from worries. Karl Rove took care
of politics and by the end of 2002 had achieved great
electoral successes.
At that time, the Vulcans pushed two issues: (1)
leapfrog West Europe and build a new NATO around East
Europe; then, tie the old Europe to this vital new
Europe NATO. (2) Encircle China so as to force it to
behave properly in trade. The neocons wanted a Mideast
focus, as did their representatives in power, the
worriers, Cheney and Rumsfeld but the Vulcans ruled
then and this was not to be. 9/11 ended the Vulcans’
agenda. The rest is history. But since that date, so
exclusively theirs did Rumsfeld, Cheney and the
neocons consider the Bush presidency– that Bush ended
still ended up with this “What me worry?” way about
him that it made you think that no matter what you did
he would never take it as stepping on his toes; one
never felt ill-at-ease bulldozing policies (unless, as
in the case of Sec. Treasury O’Neill, Cheney deemed
you un-kindred-spirit). As the US stumbled into a
seeming success in Afghanistan, the neocons never
could accept Bush’s reluctance to go to war in Iraq as
an obstacle. The Pentagon proceeded to present the
President with a fait accompli and he just went with
it, following his worriers instead of worrying that
they were taking over his foreign policy. From this
bunch for example, I kept hearing that Powell was
there to make a couple of speeches as Sec. of State
and then it is good-by. In fact, when in his last
meeting with Mr. Bush Powell warned him to worry about
a Cheney-Rumsfeld takeover of his foreign policy,
Powell failed to appreciate how NOT worrying was the
important operative term for the President.
Bush wanted to take over the White House in his second
term but was faced with: “O.K., we’ll leave and take
the Christian Right with us, then you can worry about
what to do next.” And so, to avoid worry, Bush
continued as prisoner of his first term. I am reminded
of Brezhnev asking his Pravda editors-speech writers:
what is this “Brezhnev Doctrine”? They urged him not
worry about it and just deliver the speech. He did.
And so, the next time the Presidium met it had to make
policies in accord with the Brezhnev policy he himself
has enunciated. That’s how you get policy by
speechwriters. Ditto Bush!
But now worry has infected Bush, what with the polls,
the Plame case, Iraq, Katrina, oil prices etc, etc.
And so, Bush can no longer escape worrying. His only
option for avoiding worry is to return to the able men
of his dad. Swallowing pride is easier than worrying
for him because Bush is not conceited.
I tell all this because, if I am right, and I wouldn’t
type all this if I were not confident, Bush will
decrease the Iraq conflict and will not attack Iran
because that’s the only way he can avoid worrying.
Israel has read him very well and realizes that it
better work out something with HAMAS and the other
Arabs if it doesn’t want to be a source of worry to
him. Sometimes big decisions are made for very small
reasons, that’s what makes history so much more
exciting than science or study of the cosmos.
Daniel E. Teodoru
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:08 pmI think that all this experts opiniion which are for mistaking people. The war will begin because George W Bush and naptha company as Standard OIL and military industry wants it. Unfortunately members of goverment in USA thinks that they live in time cold war. Unfortunatelly for my country members of polish goverments are lackeys of USA so it is sure that when USA begin war they will join. In Poland we have more important matters than next war for petrol companies bu unfortunatelly we have people in goverment who sell themselves to USA
May 14th, 2006 at 3:22 pmHopefully, George W. will listen to the correct advisors and work to complete a diplomatic solution with Iran. If he only listens to hawkish advisors like Cheney and other members of the Military-Industrial Establishment, I am afraid he will be opening the door to an insurmountable slippery slope leading to WW III.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pmThe US has no military solution to Iran. Oh really, Have you seen our military? The US military has the firepower and capability, if properly used, to completely obliterate the Iranian regime in a matter of hours. The ability to totally remove this piss-ant nation from the face of this planet in days. I’m tired of hearing what Iran’s Howdy-Doody looking president would do if the US launched airstrikes on Iran. If those air strikes were done the right way, he wouldn’t do anything, , ever. Just because these jerks have some oil, everybody thinks there’s nothing we can do, the Russians or Chinese might not like it. I say who gives a damn what they think, The Russians don’t like us anyway, never have, never will, so piss on them, the Chinese, well all those greedy little buggers care about is getting thier oil, and selling thier tacky clothes and cheap furniture to Americans, So here’s an Idea, first we tell the UN to kiss our ass, then we roll up on Iran with everything but the kitchen sink, I’m talking the full force of the American military, not just a few strikes on “military targets”. If it’s Iranian, it’s a target. Nothing should be held back, all weapons at our disposal should be used aggressivly and with extreme malice. I’m talking carpet bombing, napalm, nerve gas, the whole bag of tricks. Let the tomahawk missiles and bombs fall like rain on Tehran and every other city and village in that whole little stinkhole, and keep the bombs coming hard and fast until there’s nothing more than a few weeds left standing, then burn those muthas to the ground too. Then, after we have stomped through it like Sherman went through Atlanta, leaving every single square inch of it burning in ruin, we’ll just give the whole damn country and it’s oil to China as a sort of “were sorry” gift. Then maybe the Chinese would be flooding the american markets with cheap gas, instead of cheap CD players.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:57 pmSupport the troops.
We hear the phrase every day.
But we don’t hear it as a request. It has become, thanks to the ranting of the conservative media divas, an insult to those who want the troops to come home. It’s a cheerleading rally cry of the right. It has little to do with the actual troops in how it’s used today.
Support the troops. A great term, but highly abused. The disgusting conservative use of this phrase, is loud and clear. If you question the Bush plan, or anything to do with Iraq, terrorists or the military…you don’t support the troops. Only conservatives are ‘qualified’ to support the troops. After all, the conservatives planned and designed the war, so they get to take credit for supporting the troops. Liberals have never supported war….well, maybe just this one in Iraq. Conservatives love war, it’s profitable and thats were their support stops. Just like a four year old tank that can no longer be repaired.
No, liberals don’t like war. In fact, only the fanatical far right likes war. If you’d ask Americans if they would prefer a war over peace talks, the talking part would win hands down. Americans know wars cost lives. Americans have enough experience with wars to know that supporting the troops is doing everything possible to avoid sending them into a war….any war.
If you don’t support the troops….you hate America, you are a Bush hater.
If that isn’t the most idiotic phrase, I don’t know what is.
Supporting the troops means avoiding putting them in danger, at all costs. It means assuring they have, not adequate, but exceptional health care and family support before, during and after conflict. It means providing them with safe protective equipment. It means supporting the actual troops, and not using the troops; to promote a political agenda or discredit opposition to war.
July 15th, 2006 at 7:58 amIt means making some effort, any effort, to guarantee that when a tour is done. the soldier comes home. He or she has done their part. It doesn’t mean sending the soldier back into harm’s way, rotation after rotation after rotation.
Supporting the troops means planning and executing a strategy that provides for the shortest tour of duty in combat.
Supporting the troops, as the pro-Bush phrase, by the insulting right wing are an affront to what all Americans know . Especially the troops themselves.
That the best war is the one avoided. Ask a vet about it.
The most noble causes for war are not based on the most questionable of evidences. Genocide, like that in WWII Europe are a noble cause for war. Attacks on our soil, like Pearl Harbor and 911 were noble causes for war.
Sending troops country hopping, willy-nilly, on ill-perceived threats is not a noble cause. Drawn out wars deplete troop efficiency and equipment, something the enemy watches very carefully. We certainly did that with Japan and Germany in WWII. When the enemy sees a force become weaker from depletion, this often results in further conflicts.
This week proved that point.
Iran, North Korea and most other perceived and known enemies of the US, are saber rattling for their own perceived ‘noble’ causes. They know the US cannot mount other offenses, it has it’s hands full on two major fronts.
Fight the war on terror! Who is terror? Terror is a tactic, not an entity. Anything and everything can be terrifying at some point. Defining the enemy is a key in fighting any war. We fight the war on terror but really can’t find the enemy.
We are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting an ideology with an army.
Ideological conflict is something no amount of bullets and bombs will change. Only dialogue, compromise and a certain level of respect for different ideologies can protect the world from ideological terrorism. It’s not an all or nothing scenario, as the far right claims it to be. We haven’t waged war with the Buddhists? or with the entirety of Islam itself. We are dealing with a very small, but dangerously, loud faction of a fringe religious philosophy. By at least making an attempt to understand why this faction; fractured from the main Islamic belief, and trying to see that point of view can we begin to provide a place for both ideologies to exist.
What is most dangerous is refusing to begin that understanding.
But they cut off heads!!! They don’t wear uniforms!!! They torture!!!
Good grief! Humans have done that since the beginning of war and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. There is a fine line in arguing that vaporizing someone is far more humane that lopping off their head. Both people die. Both are killed in a horrific manner and someone is going to miss them after they are gone. That is why war is hell.
But to simply discount the enemy as barbaric, or somehow not capable of rational debate in coming to a peaceful conclusion to a conflict is not the sign of competent leadership, nor is it a very human mindset.
It does work well for the conservatives who somehow have come to the conclusion that it is a 100% all or nothing, right or wrong process.
And that is usually as far as they get in the debate. Once their mind is made up thats it. Any and all questions to the contrary are taken as supporting the enemy. It’s called attacking the messenger. And that really supports the troops.
It doesn’t make the HumVee stronger, it doesn’t make the flak vest more bulletproof, it doesn’t send the IED or mortar off target thats shot from an enemy bunker.
It just sounds really good.
Pro war cheerleading does not increase the performance of the American military. Troops are not ‘inspired’ by the likes of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, but rather, knowing that their families have enough food and their rent is paid while they serve. Lots of people, especially liberals, work in the social services and support agencies that the troops and their families rely on before, during and after conflict. Conservatives send money to their favorite PAC to make sure the ‘agenda’ stays the course.
The next time you hear some war-happy right winger make the accusation that someone doesn’t ’support the troops’; ask them for money so you can send it to Fort Bragg for the kids of a infantry troop who is on their third tour of duty.
Question: What if the US President initiates/responds/defends or assists a democratic state in the region there seems to be principal question that needs to be asked?
What would “We The People” do? Bitch, protest, demonstrate, vote one way or the other in November, Blog, witch hunt, finger point, complain about the press..?
July 16th, 2006 at 11:23 pmIf the recent actions of Iran leads anyone to believe that Iran cn or must be dealt with
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:04 pmby taking the military options off the table, they are living in a dream world. The idea that
attacking would drive the population to strongly support the leaders is not supported by the logic of the leaders lack of public support amongst the younger generation now. The people who dispise the current religious dictatorship are hardly going to line up behind it in support. That’s totally nonsensical. All of these “experts” don’t seem to grasp how futile any non-military apprach to deal with this regime will be. You can easily blockade Iran and cut off its lifeblood - oil money and food. The citizens eventually will turn against any leaders who cannot provide their people with the means for living. Those who claim they’ll rally round the flag simply don’t understand human nature. This time I notice that the Democrats are criticizing Bush for not being aggressive enough!!! Democrats: knee jerk liberals, with the emphasis on jerk. If Bush is for it, they aren’t, and vice versa. What transparent fools.
IS THE U.S. BEING LED INTO A MIDDLE EAST TRAP?
A number of investigative journalists have reported that the U.S. has been planning to attack Iran before we invaded Iraq. Most notably, Seymore Hersh wrote of such plans and most recently James Bamford in the August ‘06 issue of Rolling Stone magazine went into more detail even naming those involved.
According to Mr. Bamford, as we planned to attack Iran in 2002 in all likelihood Ahmed Chalabi and/or others told the Iranians of those battle plans. If that is true, Iran would have had four years to strategize on what to do about an inevitable attack. The question then becomes, how would Iran react knowing that a superpower had every intention to attack them? Do they have political or economic leverage with the U.S. to deter an attack? No. Do they have the military might to deter the U.S.? Absolutely not. However, if they developed an atomic bomb, would that deter the U.S? History has shown that the U.S. has never attacked a country with a nuclear bomb. Even North Korea said to be one of the countries in the “axis of evil,†they have the bomb and the U.S. has never even considered attacking them. From the Iranians point of view then, it would make sense to build a nuclear bomb. But what if the U.S. wouldn’t allow them to develop such capability? What could they do? If they can’t stop the U.S. from attacking, their only option would be to devise some kind of counterattack. And if they were to counterattack, how could they realistically deliver a powerful enough response to rid themselves of any future U.S. threat? For Iran to successfully launch a counterattack against a superpower like the U.S. there is only one way they could be successful. They would have to rally the support of the rest of the Muslim world to their cause and then turn that anger against the U.S. at its most vulnerable spot and weakest moment.
As the events unfold in the Middle East, there’s a sickening feeling that there is a method to all this madness. The timing for Hezbollah kidnapping the two Israeli soldiers was too perfect. Many have already commented on the timing. They have said that it was to distract the G-8 Summit and send a message to the world. Maybe it was. It surely was successful. However, what if it was not only a distraction but something much more? Something like a move on a chessboard. A strategic move that was not an end in and of itself, but the start of many strategic moves that sets a trap that will eventually lead to the defeat of an adversary–a trap leading to the defeat of the U.S. in the Middle East. We should not discount this possibility.
Every person living on this planet with any grasp of reality knows the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a disaster. For three plus years, the situation in Iraq has worsened by the day. Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed greatly for this misadventure. The fiasco Iraq has turned into is not the fault of any soldier. They’ve fought and served bravely as they were ordered to. But now they find themselves in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war. A situation they should never have found themselves in and on a mission they were never trained to do. They’re tired and want to come home and who can blame them. Their mission should be over, but it’s not. And here in America, we’re all sick of this war. Every poll shows that. Our soldiers are starting to feel demoralized and they’re losing support at home. If there was ever a perfect time to counterattack our troops, now is that time.
The government we have placed in power in Iraq is Shiite. Many of its leaders have close ties and sympathy for Iran and Hezbollah. The Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, lived in Iran during the later years of Saadam Hussein and recently refused to condemn Hezbollah for its provocative kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers. There are many reports of other high-ranking Iraqi officials who feel the same way. They didn’t need to have any advance knowledge of the Hezbollah provocation, their sympathies are aligned more closely to Tehran than Washington’s and it’s an absolute certainty that Iran knows this.
As for Hezbollah’s part, they may not have expected Israel to react in an all-out war fashion but they most assuredly knew by taking the two soldiers it was going to provoke a major response. Two weeks earlier Hamas kidnapped one Israeli soldier and Israel invaded Gaza. Whether Hezbollah anticipated the exact level of Israeli response is unimportant. It could be that what is important is that the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers was the start of a series of provocations leading to an ever-escalating fight that eventually leads either Israel or the U.S. into bombing Iran thereby directly linking Iran to the Israel-Palestinian issue and enraging the rest of the Muslim world. On one side you would have Israel and the United States and on the other side Hezbollah, Iran and the entire Muslim world. With the strong Israeli response to the kidnapping and the staunch U.S. support, that could be playing directly into the hands of Iran by compressing the timeline and galvanizing support from the rest of the Muslim world. It certainly seems to be working out that way.
Now there is kind of a ceasefire. But there will be no real ceasefire. Israel can not stop until Hezbollah is disarmed and Hezbollah will never voluntarily disarm. What would be their incentive? Just the fact they’re fighting Israel makes them heroes throughout the Muslim world. They’re winning now and they know it. It could be there will never be a ceasefire because there never was a plan for one. Hezbollah and Iran could have planned for an ever-escalating battle and we and the Israelis are only too willing to oblige. The U.S. has been pushing the U.N. toward some action to stop Iran from developing their nuclear program. At every step of the way, Iran has thumbed its nose at the international community and has done and said everything it could to invite an attack by the U.S. They almost seem to be daring the U.S. The U.S. is increasing the rhetoric against Iran and it could be that George W. Bush is leading our country and troops right into a trap if we bomb them.
George W. Bush thinks the U.S. will hurt and punish Iran by bombing them. But it could be that Iran has already factored-in the short-term losses of a bombing with their long-term goal of defeating us in the Middle East. If they felt the U.S. was determined to bomb them four years ago and felt they couldn’t stop us, they’ve certainly had plenty of time to prepare for the attack and to put a counterattack plan in place. They could be willing to absorb our best punch from the air and comeback with their best counterpunch on the ground by using Muslim resentment of such a bombing attack along with their agents and influence in Iraq to turn the Shiites against us. It might be low-tech, but it certainly would be effective and devastating.
We’ve been fighting a Sunni insurgency since we invaded Iraq and the Shiites have been on our side. Although much of the bloodshed recently has turned into a sectarian conflict, all it would take would be for the Shiites to hold up their hands and say to the Sunni, “Brother, why are we fighting each other when we both agree on one thing. We both now want the United States out of our country.†If that were to happen and the entire country were to rise up against us, we wouldn’t stand a chance. It would be Vietnam all over again with soldiers hanging on to helicopter skids as they flew out of the Green Zone to waiting aircraft carriers off the coast. If we had that kind of loss, we would leave the Middle East for good. And that is exactly what the Iranians want; the Middle East becomes radicalized and Israel is left alone and weakened. Our failed war in Iraq then becomes a Sunni-Shiite alliance template for the entire Muslim Middle East to rid themselves of all infidels except one—the State of Israel. And then there will be only one last move to make before checkmate.
August 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pmBachmann on Iran…
Michele Bachmann’s comments on Iran, quoted below, are part of Eric Black’s recent piece on his “Big Question” blog. The question was: “If diplomacy should fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program, what should we do?†Bachmann: “I think that at….
August 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmMy, my, all these very reasoned, very rationale arguments about why the military option will not work against Iran.
Y ‘all are kids whistling past the graveyard. Our national leadership is composed mostly of zealots convinced of their own rightness. Y’all act like they’re reasonable, reasoning people.
Learn, people, learn! President Bush means what he says. He and his will not be dissuaded by facts and truths, they are consumed by a glorious vision and will not be put off by “negative thoughts”.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pmJust because this intelligent and politically diverse group unanimously believes it would be a disaster to go to war with Iran does not mean the crazed Bush won’t do it. There were just as many who believed going to war with Iraq was an equally bad idea . . . enough said.
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:40 am(11-13) 10:08 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) –
President Bush, responding to concerns Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert brought to the White House, called on Monday for worldwide isolation of Iran until it “gives up its nuclear ambitions.”
The risk to the world extends beyond Israel and the Middle East, Bush said in Oval Office remarks to reporters after meeting with Olmert for an hour. The United States and Israel say they believe Iran is working on nuclear weapons, although Tehran says its work on the technology is aimed only at producing energy.
“Iran’s nuclear ambitions are not in the world’s interest,” Bush said. “If Iran had nuclear weapons it would be terribly destabilizing.”
Get Your Emergency Supplies now. Those Fascists are going ahead with WWIII. As far as I know we survived the last 60 years because of a balance in the US/Russian nuclear arsenal. And now Dumbo tells us that Iran stepping up to Israel will be ‘destabilizing’? Given the fact what the US did to Iran in the Iraq-Iran war (remember Dumbsfeld in Baghdad?) and under the Fascist Shah-rule, it seems unbelievable that the Iranian’s don’t have some Nukes already. There are tons of nuclear warheads unaccounted for.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:41 pmIran is a Islamic Republic. Palestinians are not only Arabic but Muslims too. Palestinians get fu***d by Israel on a daily basis since 1948. Their desperate self defense is called terrorism. Seems only Iran will go for a confrontation with Israel. But the Pakistanis have Nukes too. And they are Muslims as well. What are they going to do with their Muslim neighbor being attacked? There are many posts here but I do agree with the opinion that the problem is not Iran. The problem Is JerUSAlem.
How are we to develop a plan to withdraw with victory when nobody has yet defined what “victory” is?
November 19th, 2006 at 9:07 pmIf even these republican stooges think there’s no way, bush may still try it. Since when did he ever listen to anyone with a brain?
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:23 pmAn attack against Iran would be insane. Its glad to see some of these top advisors are aware of this. Don’t let the neocons or the Zionist government of Israel talk the uS into this madness. It clearly would affect prices of evrything through increased fuel costs and would start WWIII with China, Russia and most of the rest of the world allied against the US. Israel and Great Britain……utter insanity.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 amWhy it’s a great idea to not bomb Iran lets try sanctions this way the Iranians have plenty of time to finish building their Nukes. They can then really be a formidable destabilizing factor in the middle east.
Help sponsor the terrorist and who knows they might even Nuke Israel start Armageddon
Great idea………
February 14th, 2007 at 9:58 amYou guys have any more great ideas
discount office furniture
Sounds like an idea of the month!
March 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pmCheap Flights First Class Alien Flight Cheap Air Flights Airport Code
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 amRalph
Good up the good work.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pmCheap Flights From Las Vegas To San Diego
Every failure is a step to success. ~ William Whewell
April 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am