Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bolton: We Must Attack Iran Before it Gets the Bomb
WASHINGTON - Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons, America's former ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday.
John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed. Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.
Mr Bolton's stark warning appeared to be borne out yesterday by leaks about an inspection by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of Iran's main nuclear installation at Natanz on Sunday.
The experts found that Iran's scientists were operating 1,312 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium. If Iran can install 3,000, it will need about one year to produce enough weapons grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. advertisement
Experts had judged that Iran would need perhaps two years to master the technical feat of enriching uranium using centrifuges - and then another two years to produce enough material to build a weapon.
But the IAEA found that Iran has already managed to enrich uranium to the four per cent purity needed for power stations. Weapons-grade uranium must reach a threshold of 84 per cent purity.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said the West's goal of halting the enrichment programme had been "overtaken by events". Iran had probably mastered this process and "the focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production".
Mr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.
"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
President George W Bush privately refers to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map", as a 21st Century Adolf Hitler and Mr Bolton, who remains a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iranian leader presented a similar threat.
"If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you're at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don't stop it then, the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."
But Mr Bolton conceded that military action had many disadvantages and might not succeed. "It's very risky for the price of oil, risky because you could, let's say, take out their enrichment capabilities at Natanz, and they may have enrichment capabilities elsewhere you don't know about."
Such a strike would only be a "last option" after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed but the risks of using military force, he indicated, would be less than those of tolerating a nuclear Iran. "Imagine what it would be like with a nuclear Iran. Imagine the influence Iran could have over the entire region. It's already pushing its influence in Iraq through the financing of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah."
Although he praised Tony Blair for his support of America over the Iraq war, he criticised the Prime Minister, who is due to visit Washington today to bid farewell to Mr Bush, for persisting with supporting EU attempts to negotiate with Iran that were "doomed to fail".
"Blair just didn't focus on it as much as [Jack] Straw [former Foreign Secretary] did, and it was very much a Foreign Office thing because they wanted to show their European credentials, wanted to work with the Germans and the French to show 'we'll solve Iran in a way differently than those cowboy Americans solved Iraq'."
Mr Bolton, a leading advocate of the Iraq war, insisted that it had been right to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that the later failures did not mean that military action against rogue states should not be contemplated again.
"The regime itself was the threat and we dealt with the threat. Now, what we did after that didn't work out so well. That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic.
"It says, in the case of Iraq, and a lot of this I have to say we've learned through the benefit of hindsight, was that we should've given responsibility back to Iraqis more quickly."
The Bush administration has moved some distance away from the hawkish views of Mr Bolton and Mr Cheney, which were dominant in the president's first term, towards the more traditional diplomatic approach favoured by the State Department.
But his is still a highly influential voice and Mr Bush remains adamant that he will not allow Iran to become armed with nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon has drawn up contingency plans for military action and some senior White House officials share Mr Bolton's thinking.
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007.

52 Comments so far
Show AllDon't kid yourselves, we have plenty of troops and mercenaries to attack Iran.
Bolton got in the media and will be supported by other neocons. Reporters will take fake stories and intelligence leaks and run with them. Neocons who created the leaks will cite the media as support for their positions.
Patiently the neocons will wait for circumstances like an international incident - real or faked. Additional media hype and here we go again.
If saner heads prevail (like ending Vietnam war), the repeated manta will be that we would have won just like WW2 in Iraq, Iran etc. if not for anti- American, communist, socialist, etc. had not capitulated.
...Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel "off the map"...
Ahmadinejad NEVER said that! Why does the sycophantic corporate media keep repeating this lie!
Anyone that would listen to Bolton would have to be nuts . He has told every lie possible leading up to and after the war began.Can you beleave after everything he said about the UN that he represented the United states there?He should be put on trial for all his lies.Lets give Bush and all his cronies rifles pisspoor body armor unarmored hummers and let them attack Iran, wouldn't that be the best thing ever to watch?
If I remember my map correctly, Iran is almost next door to Russia (with its oil, that Putin won't sign over to US oil interests). The odds against an eventual invasion of Russia by the US seem to be getting shorter by the day...
The Telegraph is a right-wing windbag of a rag that shouldn't be taken seriously. Anyone who headlines a speech by Bolton is desperately trying to make news.
"the future is in his hands, not in your hands, just as the future decisions on their nuclear programme would be in Iran's hands, not ours."
Bolton is correct. How can we possibly allow Iran or any country for that matter make decisions on their own. When it comes to self governance, nuclear technology and economic interests the USA should decide what is best for everyone in the world.
You tell them Mr. Walrus!
And, if you think Bolton is looney, go the Telegraph (the blue link at the top) and see the comments left there by the articles' USAn readers...
The American Neo-Fascist right wing government is the real threat to stability and peace in the world....
CAPTAIN KANGAROO: WE MUST ATTACK CANADA BEFORE IT GETS THE PHASER CANNON
The other side of this issue is glaringly MIA--Isreal's nukes.
In a recent discussion with Seymour Hershey Scott Ritter said that if we attack Iran "choose your (US) city..." to say goodbye to, and he named off a short list of our largest cities. The "attack Iran" notion is indeed idiocy coming from one of the neo-idiots. Those are the people among us who only have "beliefs" and no thoughts.
Mr. Bolton's comment: "attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime"... WHAT? may I ask are we currently sliding towards in the U.S.? When all branches of government are staffed, not by qualifications, but by how "Christian" you are or how much you donated to the Republican party.
So this was our nation's top diplomat.
I will dispute him here:
1. There is no evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon.
2. If they were, bombing them is not going to change that at all, we lack the capacity to get at these facilities and permanently destroy them.
3. Bombing Iran when it has not carried out any acts of aggression is illegal and is a WAR CRIME.
4. Bombing Iran will undermine all pro "western" factions in that society and strengthen all xenophobic factions very effectively. Iranians will rally to their leaders as Americans rallied to their's after 9-11.
5. Bombing Iran would unleash anger and attacks on Americans including our troops and make the situation in Iraq even more unmanageable (if that is possible).
All these points need to be repeated over and over again to counter propaganda that misleads about what is actually possible or desirable or justified.
I would wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iran, but only under one condition -- that the invasion force consist entirely of Bolton, Cheney, and the cabal of neocons, currently or recently, in the administration. Heck, I would volunteer to contribute money so they could bring some Saturday night specials to the invasion, and Cheney could bring his shotgun. However, I think body armor, Humvees, tanks, air cover, and any other heavy weaponry would be a bit on the extravagant side. These are Nietzschean supermen after all, right?
nigelUK:
Close but no cigar. The US wouldn't invade Russia, but they hope like crazy that by disrupting oil supplies to Russia that Russia will retaliate. The goal for the neo cons all along is not to control the oil, per se, but to try and fulfil every prohecy possible in Revelations. They really seek to force the return of Christ.
Of course, Christ isn't coming back.
I think we need to be asking why it is that the Telegraph is publishing anything from Bolton's mouth and also why it is that Bolton is even getting a platform to speak from.
Who gives a rats ass what this discredited oaf thinks?
one problem with Mr. Moustache-Fascist Bolton
Under International Law, Iran is perfectly within their rights to enrich uranium for their domestic nuclear power program under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
and also under International Law, the USA is in grave violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
Mr. Bolton stated yesterday that World Bank officials that think they can't be led by Paul Wolfowitz should resign. What can you say about this group of Bushies--they have absolutely no sense of shame, they would sooner lie than tell the truth, and they have no respect for others, those either in or out of the USA. They are not what we would call normal human beings.
jon
Connecting the dots: from human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Of course the core idiocy of the neocon thought process is that they believe it to be possible to permanently keep nukes out of the hands of others -- and that the US even has a moral leg to stand on anyway (largest nuclear stockpile, huge military budget, and is the only country to have ever used atomic weapons in war).
If Bolton wants the US to lead, all neocons and the the crypto-neocons in the Democratic Party (e.g. Liebermann) should step down now. We must lead by example, not by perpetual application of force.
Are these guys not thinking very far ahead? Empire may have been fine & dandy in a preliterate world without much in the way of communications, a far smaller and more supersititious populace, etc. All modern attempts at reviving Empire in the last century eventually collapsed. It's just that simple.
Is this warhawk "Gepetto" look-alike and his ilk believable anymore? I wonder how vested monetarily these warmongers are in the military industrial complex?
Wow, I hit the link. No wonder everyone hates us. Every crazy MFkr in the US is on that thing. They make us all sound crazy.
I think we need to just have two Countries. Remember the Ol North and South? It could work. The Country is divided 50-50 anyways, why not have 2?
I agree with neoconned and canuckchuck on this one--why is what Bolton says being given any credence at all--it's not even worthy of being published in supermarket tabloids.
Would somebody please stuff something in that man's mouth -- fast!
Maybe I missed the joke train on this one, but I haven't been hearing enough about Bolton taking everyone for a mustache ride! Or the UN, or foreign policy, whoever and whatever wants to take on that crusty catepillar.
I can picture Bolton now, just like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, taking the nuke to the rodeo. Yee-haw!
PJD, I checked that link. Scary! And they seem sincere!
Thadstone, up here north of the 49th, we were TRYING to keep the phaser cannon a secret! Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag!
"That doesn't say to me, therefore you don't take out regimes that are problematic."
By his own words, he has committed treason. Hang him high. The very regime that he was part of is known throughout the world as the most "problematic" administration going, and the gravest threat to world peace. For Bolton to advocate the violent overthrow of the Bush administration is treason, nothing less.
And while we are on the topic of nuclear proliferation, I haven't seen enough reference to the fact that a fanatically religious bunch of nuts have between 200 - 300 nuclear warheads at their disposal in the Middle East. When is this threat to world peace going to be shut down.
Iran must get nuclear weapons. Its the only way they can prevent us from wiping them off the map like we did to Iraq.
As others have stated, Iran's president never said that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map." That is just another neocon lie being published in the Tory Telegraph.
Iran's president actually explained that Israel would collapse (like the South African racist apartheid regime did), because it was founded on an unjust basis.
Paul Bramscher May 16th, 2007 3:46 pm
"All modern attempts at reviving Empire in the last century eventually collapsed. It's just that simple."
As Frederick Douglas warned: "power concedes nothing without a demand....it never did and never will."
The collapse is closer than most think, especially if we attack Iran. That will be the end. China and Russia, among others, have befriended Iran and are tired of supporting the stupidity of U.S. Supremacy in a globalized world. Cooperation is the key to ending the cycle of war.
The United States needs a "Peace Czar"...not a "War Czar"!
Gail:
Maybe I'm a little shameless, but your wish is answered, kind of:
http://www.bleedingheartsclub.com/index_files/peaceczar.htm
PS - I sent one to Kucinich, the true Peace Czar.
i think what we're witnessing is the slow-mo implosion of America, because of our leaders and our vicious, venal, self-interested direction for the last six (or maybe sixty) years
i hate to say it, but the sooner we fail, perhaps the safer the world will be -- although cornered rats will usually become more vicious, not less, and the rats we currently have in power won't give up without bringing everyone else down
What do you know? More MALICE IN BLUNDERLAND !
This is what diplomacy looks like from behind the Bushes. Is it irony or what that a 'diplomat' who could only get appointed during a Congressional recess; who was never confirmed so had to leave his 'appointment' to the UN; is still attempting to represent a nation with more nuclear power than any other [and petitioning Congress to build more] by calling the kettle [Iran] black [a threat] while we sit illegally occupying, killing civilians, operating illegal prisons and causing a civil war in a nation we supplied with weapons of mass destruction [Saddam] to be used against Iran?
Watch for our 'ignorance' of a catastrophe [as in 9/11] when Israel bombs Iran and we just simply have to stand by our ally.
The only reason this two-bit sucker is ever listened to is because he has the audacity to say clearly what the neo-creeps privately think. You can bet he's running up a trial balloon for the rodent in the White House.
"Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step,"
Oh yeah, like that would work even if all the rest was true.
PJD,
I had no idea that you know Ahmadinejad personally. Your sure he never said that? This is the same guy who alleges that the Holocaust never happened and you don't think that he would wipe Isreal off the map if given the chance?
I am a peace advocate and a buddhist, and I also believe that war and violence solves nothing, but we must understand what these people in positions of power are capable of, and Ahmadinejad is no better than Bush. They are equally a threat to peace and justice.
Everyone is fiddling while the planet burns. Wars solve nothing. They just create more unrest and dispossessed, homeless humans with nothing to lose who have a grudge and join the 'terrorist groups'. The war we have to win is climate change.
If our planet fails we are all going to suffer. The more wars that are started, the more dispossessed and homeless there will be and the more recruits there will be for the 'terrorist groups'. Humans were born with brains....when will they use them. We are all human beings.
Who cares what an individual believes. Too many believe in a deity that they have no proof exists. This planet exists...it is our common support system. Stop destroying the planet and let us all work towards making our only habitable planet a real garden of Eden.
Two plus two equals five.
Where I grew up in LA whenever someone began a sentence with "WE" the comeback was "whose we kimo sabe".
A man who feels that dedicated should be encouraged if not forced to do what he proposes that "WE" must do. In that respect there is a distinguished list of individuals that aught to become part of Bolton's "WE". A partial listing would have to include the Mssrs. Perles, Feiths, Wolfowitzs, Krauthammers, Safires, Ledeens, Wurmsers, Abrams, Kristols, Friedmans, Millers, DeLay, Osborns etc,. etc,.
There are several million "WE'S" that would be more than happy to wave those "good" folks off to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any place where they can feel fullfilled by killing others.
Luke 6-27
If Bolton wants to invade Iran, let him and pals such as "dick" cheney lead it off. They could take bush with them for logistics.
Isn't this quasi-Fascist the new foreign policy adviser to Rudy or is it to Romney? Just think of what this means for the future if the plutocrats and right-wing evangelists succeed in getting elected as president either Rudy or one of the other candidates now engaged in a frenzied effort to become the next Stooge in the White House.
Just imagine if the misguided Bush administration came to their senses and put the $1-trillion they've spent over the past four years into the creation of machines that don't use oil.
Here's what we'd have:
(1) A clean environment
(2) Terrorist factions all over the world with no way to fund their insanity
(3) No reason to go to war in the Middle East
(4) An example for other countries to follow the US lead
... and a million other positive outcomes for everyone around the world.
Instead, Jesus-loving, coke-head, alcoholic, born-again Bush wants to attack yet another country based on the threat of nuclear weapons. Bolton is now playing the role of the liar Colin Powell when Iraq had WMDs.
Why are the American people so complacent? The entire country should be taking to the streets in protest. The American people ARE the government.
What an idiot this Bolton guy is. He's a neocon and a paid lackey for Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC. He is so much off his rockers that one gets the impression that he's either stoned or in hallucination. I really feel sorry for the decent, honest, and peace-loving Americans when I see someone like him actually represented them in the UN.
Based on records, if any regime needs to be changed, it's the one in D.C., and you, the people, have to do it.
I think Common Dreams would do well not to reprint materials from cheap newspapers like The Telegraph.
There is another way of looking at this Iran issue. People are justifiably concerned about Iran producing nuclear weapons. We should all be concerned about that. But lets take a look as to WHY they want such weapons. Do a google search for US military bases, starting with the Air Force. We have air bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Three of these countries share a common border with Iran. We have troops in Iraq and Afhganistan. There is the US 5th Fleet, which patrols near the Iranian coast. We are also fairly close allies with Pakistan, who also borders Iran.
If I were an Iranian citizen, I would have the Iranian goverment officials and mullahs by their collective "cojones" demanding to know when such weapons WILL be developed and deployed.
I think we can reasonably agree that the US has the right to defend itself, which we have, even against perceived threats. All one has to do is to look at our involvement both south of our border and in the Caribbean (Cuba). If we have such rights, surely Iran has the same right to defend itself against the very obvious threat it now faces along its entire border.
It's true what they say, Americans have no sense of irony: what makes Bolton's accurately reported comments better than Ahmadinejad's misquoted comments? Is it any wonder Iran (probably) wants nukes?
Defending yourself is one thing, but the US seems incapable of dealing rationally with Iran (or anything), and we all pay the price.
The 'threat' Iraq posed was that the US might have to pay a fair price for its oil for a change. This is more of the same.
It is so obvious that it is insane to call for another "war" when the USA doesn't have enough troops to sustain the war it already is barely dealing with in Iraq. Boulton does not represent America, he only represents those so aptly noted above by Saila, Janus55, jblackman, yKnot, et al. This Congress, this Democratic Congress, would not even consider it. It takes money to wage a war, and unless Congress wants to go further into financial debt with China, then it is money we just don't have, let alone "justify" attacking a sovereign nation. The only option is to "negotiate" with Iran. Americans just have to keep their thinking cool and clear to be able to see through the muck.
George bush is a demon from hell, and all his subleutenants are lined up behind him, and paying hommage to him, and damn the rest of the world. It isn't God who is talking in his ear.
sugarcoatedsour said:
"I had no idea that you know Ahmadinejad personally"
Apart from my dislike of this type of impossible to answer question; I am also pretty convinced of PJD's frequent veracity here.
Convinced enough to look it up.
It appears he was mistranslated by the New York Times and of course the MSM has never bothered to look for retractions or corrections as the phrase as it stands serves their purposes better.
Though difficult to translate anything perfectly; it seems pretty clear that the following two translations are closer to his intent.
"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
"The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[9]"
"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[10]"
** Note please also that all translations including the NYT do not say "wipe Israel" but rather " THE REGIME" **
I think this is quite a clear distinction.
PJD ? Right Again !
And a very pertinent comment indeed on a board where the machinations of our media deserve scrutiny.
sugarcoatedsour said;
"PJD,
I had no idea that you know Ahmadinejad personally. Your sure he never said that?"
I have not often seen PJD to be wrong here sour.
So I decided to look it up.
I used Google. It's an internet search engine.
As much as I dislike questions like sour's; as they are pretty much impossible to answer with a yes or a no, not to mention their taunting tone; I think that in this case there is an answer.
The phrase attributed to Ahmadinejad about "wiping Isreal off the map" was originally reported in a speech to a world Zionism conference by a reporter for the New York Times. It has since become apparent that it was a mistranslation as the two references below show.
"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian"
The Middle East Media Research Institute translates the phrase similarly:
This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."
* note also that it was not 'ISRAEL' he was referring to but 'THIS REGIME' *
That puts a whole different slant on it now doesn't it ?.... One that I am sure we can all appreciate when we look at another regime I don't need to mention.
One of the primary focuses on this board is holding the media's feet to the fire when they lie or "prevaricate" or otherwise hide the truth from us. In that context PJD's comment was of great value.
Thanks again PJD.