Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditYou've got to worry when bipartisan hawks flock together. And you've got to worry even more when those hawks are targeting Iran, and writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal with titles like: "Everyone Needs To Worry About Iran." And when they form organizations with names like: "United Against Nuclear Iran." Yes, it has its own website.
The names of the hawks are familiar to us all. Some of them work for or advise John McCain, some of them do the same for Barack Obama. Some of them are outright neocons, and some of them are liberal interventionists. One of them is Karen Hughes, the former flack for President Bush, whose knowledge of Iran is close to zero. The rest include: Fouad Ajami, Richard Holbrooke, Leslie Gelb, Jim Woolsey, Henry Sokolski, and Dennis Ross. Its president is Mark Wallace, the deputy campaign chairman for Bush-Cheney '04.
The group says that it doesn't advocate war against Iran. But its entire purpose is to rally Americans against Iran, calling it a "danger to world peace." It says that it intends to "inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad." If that isn't war propaganda, I don't know what it is.
Meanwhile, both the Times and the Post carry editorials today on Iran. The Post calls its editorial "Iran Slips Away." It worries that the sense of crisis about Iran is ebbing, and it tries desperately to rev it back up, suggesting aggressive, even war-like measures that the United States might try to ram through an unwilling UN Security Council:
The two most important would be an arms embargo -- which would prevent Russia from supplying Iran with the advanced air defense systems it has reportedly promised -- and a ban on the export to Iran of gasoline and other refined products, which could cripple Iranian transport.
The Times, for its part, carries an editorial called "Remember Iran?" Far more sensibly than the hawkish Post, they say clearly that there "are no good military options," and instead call for Condi Rice to go to Tehran with a grand bargain in her pocket:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had hoped to salvage at least part of President Bush's legacy, and her own, by brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before Mr. Bush leaves office. That's looking ever less likely. Ms. Rice could still make history if she got on a plane to Tehran to deliver an offer of a grand bargain.She could prove that she was serious by proposing to immediately open an American interests section in Tehran -- an idea her aides floated a few months ago that seems to have disappeared.
We don't know if any mix of sanctions and rewards can persuade Iran's leaders to abandon their nuclear program. But without such an effort, we are certain that Tehran will keep pressing ahead, while the voices in the United States and Israel arguing for military action will only get louder.
There's little or no likelihood of military action against Iran now, or in the near future, either by the United States or by Israel. But sky-is-falling rhetoric about Iran isn't useful, and it certainly creates the groundwork for future military action. President McCain and his unblinking Vice President Palin wouldn't hesitate to use force sometime next year, and Prime Minisiter Bibi Netanyahu (were he to win elections in Israel early next year, which could happen) might do the same.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Bomb, bomb .. bomb-bomb Iran.
And send em a few crates of cigs afterwards .. just to make sure
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2008 @ 09:43am
Reads like a who's who of AIPAC assets, many of the same traitors who pushed US into Iraq.
Posted by sloper at 09/23/2008 @ 10:26am
georgia? nato?
just wait till iran - SCO..........
THE SUN. IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:34am
When I was in Iran during the last couple of years the Shah was in power I was impressed by the friendliness and openness of the people. I was used to indentifying myself as English or Australian or South African in many other countries to avoid problems. But in Iran that was not necessary at the time. I could be an American and it was O.K. In fact being American would often elicit many questions and an intense curiosity about the U.S. These people were pro-american for the most part. Where have we squandered that good will? And Why?
The people of Iran our not our "enemy". And to make them so would be a mistake. The "enemy" is intolerance, propaganda, and Neo-Con expansionist principles.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 11:37am
Excellent article, but don't be so quick to sound the 'all clear.' Consider the fact that Bush Admin. contractors went to all that time and effort to shift terrorist incidents formerly credited to Libya to Iran/HizbAllah. Shades of the Niger document. Some of those individuals (along with elements contracted to generate said corrupt data) you've mentioned are also members of a group called the Committee On the Present Danger. (They have a Website.) Iran is their current target of interest and we underestimate these 'Armageddon for fun and profit' types at our considerable peril. After all, with the Cold War over, what other way do they have to make a living?
Posted by Infokronea at 09/23/2008 @ 11:51am
After all, with the Cold War over, what other way do they have to make a living?
Posted by Infokronea at 09/23/2008 @ 11:51am |
The same people you are talking about are trying to breath new life into the Cold War aswell. Where "Armageddon for fun and Profit" takes on a whole new meaning.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 11:59am
The people of Iran our not our "enemy". And to make them so would be a mistake. The "enemy" is intolerance, propaganda, and Neo-Con expansionist principles.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 11:37am
You'll find that the ordinary working people in any country are not our enemy. It's those who wield the national interests of above them who not only their enemies, but ours as well. The same may be said of our nation. Is the welfare of the people of the United States it's first and foremost obligation, or is it beholden to foreign investors, international corporations and the global economy. From what we've seen over the last coupel of weeks, the latter appears to be the case folks.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:25pm
who not only "are" their enemies
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:26pm
What did McCain say about Iran the other night on 60 minutes....something to the effect that if they get the bomb, they get bombed.....Is this rhetoric? I am not so sure.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 12:27pm
if they get the bomb, they get bombed.....Is this rhetoric? I am not so sure.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 12:27pm
The question is this, why the hell can't they have the bomb? What the hell are they going to do with it once they get it? Use it on Israel only to have Israel promptly deliver one or more back?
The Iranians want the bomb for leverage. It appears that most of the leverage they are seeking is for self defense. Between the U.S. and Israel threatening them every day with attacks, no wonder they want to speed up the process to where they have "the bomb".
Remmeber, they are sitting on a lot of OIL and the greedy bastards behind the Iraq invasion are now licking their chops at Iran's oil. When in the hell are the neocons posting here going to pull their heads out of their asses. Starting wars all over the world so that the people owning Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater and reconstruction companies can profit off these little wars is bankrupting our nation.
These businesses are making money hand over fist. You don't see them comlaining about the economy, but rather they keep that old war drumbeat going non stop. Pull your heads out. We as a nation are going bankrupt while international corporations are laughing all of the way to their banks (UBS) at our expense.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:50pm
It doesn't stop!
You libs promote your pacifism in one place, when those myths get debunked, you pop up in another.
I am now copying my own posts from this website just this morning on another thread. About 2 articles:
===================
Sep 18, 2008 22:55 | Updated Sep 22, 2008 15:07 Column One: It is time to act By CAROLINE GLICK Jerusalem Post website
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/ Satellite?cid=1221745565484&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
==================
Latest news from Iran (about an Iranian Military Parade):
http://www.kansascity.com/ 451/story/806820.html Also taking part in the parade was a military truck carrying a huge banner saying "Israel should be eliminated from the universe" in both English and Farsi.
====================
But I guess this stuff doesn't matter. Articles such as that from Mr. Dreyfuss and then the associated blog postings from libs "educate" us that Iran is no threat and we are not supposed to do anything about it.
What is the purpose of this education? Why are we supposed to sit around and allow ourselves to be killed?
It keeps coming and coming, you libs promoting your agenda. You will not give up, promoting pacifism and capitualtion.
You are dedicated to your cause. If you achieve your victory, and we die, what then?
Frosty Zoom will be posting in soon. To spare you the trouble, I will post in your remark for you, Frosty.
===============
bonk!
To be Posted by frosty zoom
==============
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No rational person could argue that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons isn't justified. Our foreign policy guarantees it.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 1:15pm
Chicago Tribune 24 September, 2004 -- David Mendell, Tribune staff reporter
'U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.
Obama, a Democratic state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood, made the remarks during a meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board. ...
Iran announced on Tuesday that it has begun converting tons of uranium into gas, a crucial step in making fuel for a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency has called for Iran to suspend all such activities. ...
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/23/2008 @ 1:39pm
wolfgang, not only have israel and the usa been threatening iran, but the usa also invaded a huge neighboring country.
it's as if iran had invaded canada, and had presumed (erroneously) that the usa would never stockpile weapons in self-defense.
Posted by darladoon at 09/23/2008 @ 1:43pm
Sorry, hawks...
the $700 Billion we were going to use to attack Iran and then try to hold out in Iraq for ten more years as a result of the attack...
just got spent.
Your credit is no good anymore.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 1:44pm
Plus add in all of the other completely wrong posts by the left here (and yes in this case I also include you IM).
We have more troops now in Afghanistan than we did when we invaded.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/22/2008 @ 4:06pm
BTW, LL, we DON'T have enough troops in Afghanistan....the "commanders on the ground" have said that, and the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE says he doesn't have enough troops to give them.
But of course, what do THOSE guys know? Not as much as a former double-nought-Rambo spy for the Navy, huh?
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 1:55pm
No rational person could argue that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons isn't justified. Our foreign policy guarantees it.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 1:15pm
You summed it up quite well, sjchermak is irrational.
I believe I'd rather be referred to as a liberal pacifist versus a conservative fear driven, war monger who is afraid of his own shadow. Boo!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 2:06pm
>>>The group says that it doesn't advocate war against Iran. But its entire purpose is to rally Americans against Iran, calling it a "danger to world peace." It says that it intends to "inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad.">>>
Have these guys ALREADY forgotten the 2008 NATIONAL INTELLEGENCE ESTIMATE, which is an assessment from 16 different intelligence agencies that indicated that IRAN HAD ABANDONED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN 2003 - 5 YEARS AGO?
Short memories lead to BAD PUBLIC POLICY!
Posted by Metteyya at 09/23/2008 @ 2:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/23/2008 @ 2:07pm
LL, WHY do we not have the troops to send to Afghanistan, as SecDef Gates admitted?
Could it be the troops we need for there are...oh.....somewhere else???
(BTW, aren't you and PONTI glad to find a thread where you do not have to defend that $700B Bush bail-out?)
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 2:16pm
You would think these people would have enough Neoconservative "Think Tanks" to represent their point of view, but I do not see them quite as often since Iraq went sour.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/23/2008 @ 2:24pm
Defending against the US aggressor is the ONLY reason Iran and any other country wants the bomb...once idiot in charge made his self-declared 'axis of evil" as opposed to mccain bush rove axis of idiocy, it is definitely NOT a veiled threat, along with mcbush making jokes, etc....but not really joking, that his first priority will be to destroy iran if elected....with our "ally" pakistan now shooting at our troops invading their country without permission and who already HAS nukes, what is the point of now further pissing off even more countries with our arrogance?? haven't we learned anything yet??? about how it all comes back on us???? bush's legacy of incompetence, arrogance, greed, and ignorance is already engraved....the books are already written......his complete and utter disregard for americans can only be usurped by his protege mcbush....and that will be the next chapter....in idiocy of americans in the waning era of empire-building....similar to rome, and yet we were never really as advanced as rome....compared to almost the rest of the world....we only spend 3/4 of our budget on defense and cannot even defeat some militia in iraq...VERY similar to british here 200 yrs ago....except the situation is reversed....WE are the aggressor....
China yesterday came out with statement saying the new world order DOES NOT include america at the center...and sovereign wealth funds around the world are now diversifying out of dollar...THE ONLY THING propping us up...
Posted by jrs112 at 09/23/2008 @ 2:35pm
the twelve million iraqi refugees bush created are not our enemies either...but we did not offer any refuge from the destruction we sought...and bush lied about it earlier (surprise!)....we will probably just find a way to deport the few thousand who made it here anyway...
I am sure glad hispanics don't take offense at rampant GOP racism...since they are now rebuilding texas, a bastion of intolerance under bush....if people are pro life, does that only refer to fetus...and not to hundreds bush execut as governor each year in texas, more than china....
how about the fact you are basically robbing people's future when you incarcerate them without any proof...in this country, we have a higher per capita incarceration rate than ANY country, highest in absolute numbers, as well as relative percent of population, INCLUDING China...and they are communist...yet WE treat our own citizens WORSE THAN CHINA....it is hard to see the light through the prism of conservative owned and influenced MSM.... what a crazy world!!!!!
Posted by jrs112 at 09/23/2008 @ 2:40pm
Wolfgang1,
I know we are just supposed to ignore this:
=================
Latest news from Iran (about an Iranian Military Parade):
http://www.kansascity.com/ 451/story/806820.html Also taking part in the parade was a military truck carrying a huge banner saying "Israel should be eliminated from the universe" in both English and Farsi.
================
I know, it either doesn't mean anything or Iran/Iranians are justified in feeling that way. I guess it depends which lib you talk to as to which version it is.
And Metteyya, you point out the NIE, saying Iran is not developing a bomb. You libs have also taught us this, or if they are developing a bomb it is justified for them to do so.
But why do articles like this pop up?
===================
Sep 18, 2008 22:55 | Updated Sep 22, 2008 15:07 Column One: It is time to act By CAROLINE GLICK Jerusalem Post website
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/ Satellite?cid=1221745565484&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
==================
I know, I know. They pop up because of people engaging in fearful warmongering and imperialism, the cast of characters such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, the rest of the Chickenhawk Neocons, Rush Limbaugh pumping all dittoheads' heads with Conservative propaganda, Sarah Palin etc. etc. etc.
But you libs know better, know Iran means no harm but has the right to defend itself against American and Israeli imperialism and agression.
Raise taxes on the wealthy who pay no tax now, dispand the American and Israeli military, vote for Obama, if Obama loses declare him President anyway, establish government run Socialism here at home and send Jimmy Carter to apologize for US crimes, and everything will be wonderful. The "people" will have peace!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 3:02pm
The scary thing is, there will be libs who will read the last part of my post above and nod their heads in total agreement, not realizing it is sarcasm!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 3:04pm
"It keeps coming and coming, you libs promoting your agenda. You will not give up, promoting pacifism and capitualtion."
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 1:07pm
How about a different angle?
If Benjamin Netanyahu becomes P.M. of Israel, and it is highly probable he will, there will be no possibility of Palestinian statehood.
Iran will not look favorably upon this developement, Netanyahu won't care because he hates their guts, and vice versa, and tensions between them will escalate.
However, Israel is hamstrung by airspace restrictions, and cannot engage Iran in a manner necessary to win in a conventional war. Iran knows this, and will likely intensify their centrifuge refinement in order to at least get any amount of weapons grade fissile material as a deterrent to Israel's most likely strike capability.
Both presidential nominees have said this is unacceptable, and will result in "consequences".
Since we, the U.S, cannot halt said refinement by airstrikes alone, that leaves boots on the ground, their ground, to halt further misbehavior.
While we would win the battle, our KIA and wounded would be quite high, Russia would likely play an indirect part in our little forray, and our treasury would sound of crickets.
Would it not be prudent to exhaust all possible options, including kissing their ass if need be, to prevent this possible scenario, if the outcome remains the same?
And yes, I know this is an insignificant blog, and very intelligent people with access to real intel will make these decisions.
I'm just curious as to your opinion on the matter, relative to the above rambling scenario.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/23/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 3:04pm
The INTERESTING thing about that post above this is....neither SJ, nor McCain, nor Lieberman, nor Rush...
will come straight out and tell us what they are planning on DOING about Iran?
Oh...they HINT...but for some reason, they won't exactly SAY.
Why? Simple..."Bomb them" means opening a wider war in a time when the public by 70%+ doesn't support the one in Iraq and the Pentagon has said quite clearly they know it'd be a disaster.
"Let Israel bomb them" means WE won't be doing crap, except nodding...but that doesn't sound TOUGH enough....plus, again, the Pentagon knows it's a bad idea.
So...all the "tough on Iran" clan have is TALK and pretty vague talk. Because to NOT talk makes them sound "weak as the liberals on Iran"...but to talk SPECIFICALLY, makes them sound like bloodthirsty and idiotic.
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 3:39pm
People need to stop worrying about Iran getting THE bomb. First of all, if they get anywhere close to getting a functional nuclear weapon, Israel will be all over them.
Secondly, why don't we worry about the hostile countries that already have nuclear weapons? You know like Pakistan, North Korea, Russia (who by the way, have something like twice the number of nuclear weapons compared to the US).
Thirdly, why are we even discussing getting involved with another war when we are currently so tied up in Afganistan and Iraq we don't really have an army left to fight with?
Fourthly, in the long-term, wouldn't it be better to spend our money on alternative energy so we don't have to keep giving these oil tzars money?
Fifthly, wars are expensive and we are trillions of dollars in the hole. We really need to do something about that instead of looking for more ways to throw our money away.
Posted by metinker at 09/23/2008 @ 3:39pm
The scary thing is, there will be libs who will read the last part of my post above and nod their heads in total agreement, not realizing it is sarcasm!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/23/2008 @ 3:04pm
SJ, I highly recommend you watch the movie "Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden?" The black and white world you see things in isn't quite the same as what you will see when you watch this movie. This guy goes and talks to your average people in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq etc. The point is that the people in the Iran do not have horns sprouting out of their heads as you seem to believe. Saudi Arabia is by far a greater threat to the United States than Iran is even now.
Israel runs it's mouth in the ME with the understanding that the U.S. will back them with weapons, money and military support. We don't owe Israel anything, and to blindly go to war for them is complete stupidity. Now, if Iran were to attack Israel, that would be a different story, but a preemptive strike on Iran is complete bullshit. You'd think this Iraq ordeal would have sunk into your head, but no, rah rah team. We want a win, go team. Unfortunately, this game we are playing is war and people die, get maimed and nobody really wins anything with the exception of the war machine contractors and the people who aquire the properties of the dead.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 4:03pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 4:03pm
Actually, WOLF (and mentioned this before)...
I'd love to see SJCHER watch an episode of "The Colbert Report"....and see if he gets the joke!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 4:36pm
This might be a good start for him...
http://www.colbertnation.com/ the-colbert-report-videos/167374/ april-29-2008/tip-wag---barbie
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 4:40pm
"I addressed the lie that we diverted troop strength from Afghanistan to go into Iraq."
It wasn't a lie. We shifted the 5th Special Forces group from Afghanistan to Iraq. Since the Special Forces were a keystone of our effort in Afghanistan (coordinating air support with the tribes and hunting down al-Qaida partisans), that seems a rather significant diversion. Especially when you factor in the intelligence assets that had also been moved.
Likewise, the ground troops that had been sent to Iraq would have been useful in securing the areas in the east and south of Afghanistan where the Taliban have since made their comeback.
Posted by brunowe at 09/23/2008 @ 4:49pm
>>>And Metteyya, you point out the NIE, saying Iran is not developing a bomb. You libs have also taught us this, or if they are developing a bomb it is justified for them to do so. <<<
You are correct!
The existence of Israeli nukes has completely destabilized the Middle East region, providing motivation for Syria, Iran and others to develop their own nukes to deter Israeli aggression.
It is unfortunate that the mainstream press is unable to focus on the SOURCE of what motivates countries in the Middle East to develop nuclear weapons, and this is just another indication that our press in this country is not as "free" as we would like to think.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/23/2008 @ 4:50pm
and see if he gets the joke!
Posted by Maskdelta at 09/23/2008 @ 4:36pm
Good question Mask. The Colbert Report rocks.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 5:04pm
It is unfortunate that the mainstream press is unable to focus on the SOURCE of what motivates countries in the Middle East to develop nuclear weapons, and this is just another indication that our press in this country is not as "free" as we would like to think.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/23/2008 @ 4:50pm
You, you antisemitic, Israel hater. Israel has to be able to threaten everyone around them, because, well, well, God told them to do it. LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/23/2008 @ 5:06pm
Middle Eastern and Persian countries have as much right to pursue nuclear energy and nuclear weapons as much as we do. However misguided this may be.
Unless the United States and the countries Russia, India, Pakistan, France, England, China, Israel and North Korea agree to disarm their Nuclear Aresenals and abandon Nuclear Power as a form of energy. We will have to deal with other countries who will attempt to join the totally insane nuclear community. Nuclear power is unacceptable as a form of energy. We all know that Nuclear waste cannot be stored safely. It is also not a renewable resource. Uranium is a much more finite resource than oil. And require huge environmental hits to mine and dispose of.
The United States needs to take the high ground on disarmament and also on a moratorium on nuclear power plants. We need to dismantle all nuclear power plants. If we want to act as world leaders, let us lead by example instead of flexing our military might at every opportunity.
None of this will ever happen of course. Because a child never realizes the power of a firecracker ubtil it blows up in his hand. And we are like children with a firecracker.
Posted by chaoszen at 09/23/2008 @ 6:40pm
Ahmahdinejad said it best today before the United Nations - all nations need to disarm from nukes. Sounds like he would give up the struggle for a nuke if US and Israel would give up their nuclear arsenals. Okay....lets take the first step......and maybe we are going to have cancel that nuke contract with the Saudi's to make him happy, but hey, no worries.....I am sure the Saudi's will be happy as will Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 09/23/2008 @ 7:02pm
man,
this is all just bluster.
makes oil people on both sides a WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:04pm
bonk!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/23/2008 @ 10:05pm