interesting assessment ray, it scares the shit outta me, because it implies the path is well planned, all that remains is "sufficient" justification. an isreali first-strike would set the dominoes falling nicely. although the rationale isnt all isreal, its also all the "other" reasons we saw in iraq. the long-term neocon concept here is that iran falls like iraq and both stabilize. of course its not that simple, is it? hey...can we rewind to 8 years ago and start this shit over before this madness goes any further?

Ostrogoth - "If you really care about your relatives tell them to stop the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank."

My relatives lives in Haifa (A city with a mixed Jewish and Arab population who coexist in peace). Non of them is / was involved in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank or elsewhere.

I fail to see how your devise has any relevancy to their safety, or to my caring for their safety.

Ostrogoth - "Zionists are racist militarists hellbent on stealing their neighbors' land and resources."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zionism
Zionism = A worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel.

I'm Jewish, I think Israel should exists, which makes me a Zionist.
I think all humans are equal and should have equal rights anywhere, and that every ethnic group should be judged under the same criteria. I'm not in the military. I do not belong to any militaristic organization, nor do I own or carry a gun or even a license to carry gun (unlike 90% of the Americans who does) I never stole land or resource from anyone. How exactly does it makes me a "racist militarists hellbent on stealing my neighbors' land and resources"???

I hope you are open minded enough to learn and expend your knowledge. I hope you will agree with me that within any large ethnic group, even Israelis, not everyone are Evil.

"The last time US intervened in Iran was in 1953 when the CIA covert coup overthrew the first democratically elected government in the ME..."

If only!
I am convinced that by the late-70's 'realists' in the US were both growing tired of the growing-reticence of the Shaw to exhibit-faithfully the traits so expensively urged upon-him (not his patriotism or humanitarian-inspired reticence, but his recognition of his own self-Interest). By the time of your Revolution, many in positions of Power/strategy in the US were well-aware of the under-current and popularity for 'reform' in Iran, and well-versed in the 'usefulness' of Islamic-regimes (as-opposed modern-'democracies') in the ME -- even in 1953, Islamist-leaders were used as 'fall-guys' for the CIA-backed regime-change, then. The very-last thing wanted by the US was either 'puppets cutting strings', or organized/secular democracies acting-responsibly towards their citizens -- a red-herring 'threat' to Israel/Western-'values'/Interests was much-preferred.
From on-set, the new Republic was secretly-urged to continue hostage-holding (which was initially a 'self-defense' against included CIA/other Operatives in the Embassy, which students feared would be counter-Revolutionary) into and past the election-cycle in the US. This was 'arranged' by Interests seeking a Reagan-administration (including an ex-CIA director as VP), and initiated a covert-communication/cooperation between ostensibly 'hostile' regimes which served each-others 'Interests'. Iran was sorely-used during that conflict you fell-prey to (as you are well-aware), then accepted the Al-Shaat as 'payola' at its surcease. Later, Iran was 'pressed' for contributions and Intel/cooperations regards the formation/support, and the later criminal-use in Serbia (through the ISA, thus 'laundering' US-funding, as-well) of the Islamic-'resistance' in Afghanistan. This laid the groundwork for future Al Qaeda 'usefulness', and increased the perceptions in the Western-world for the adoption (post-ColdWar) for a "Clash of Civilizations" as a replacement 'enemy'/Cause for Justifying all planned and continued Western military-interventions for actual-Interests.
It pays-well to be either America's 'best-friend' or 'worst-enemy', and Iranians came to know this when dealing, during Iran-Contra, with Israel-cum-Argentina-cum-US, and when trading Intel with the Mossad regards 'terrorists' and undermining Kurdish-interests -- as example. Iranian and American 'hands have washed each other' for some-time, now. And yes, the nuclear-nonsense is held only for bargaining (which can be dangerous with the US -- as discovered by the Taliban when they attempted to negotiate-Reparations regards their troublesome-Saud). Nuclear-fission is a hoax, regards 'energy or environment' -- and Iranian investment into it was a mere "prideful-act", that they'd happily sacrifice for the 'right-price', true enough. But their mistaken-notion in this-regard may be the true-Interest of the US, post-9/11, in the pretense of 'hostile regimes seeking weaponization' -- I think the US would instead-prefer to pay Iran (albeit 'under-table') to continue with it's nuclear White-Elephant, rather than to scrap-it -- if they are not already doing-so.
I could go-on regards US [or Halliburton] interventions in Iran, post-1953...but admittedly, they are complex, often at cross-purposes, and difficult to draw extended-conclusions from...

Anyway, I am very-interested in your continuing participation and insight here...and 'long' being the preferred-mode! Your perspective is simply not to be found in CD-articles or elsewhere in the West/MSM.
And I do share with you, sincerely, the hope that the culture/peoples of Iran continue to succeed in walking this 'knife-edge' of geo-political and competitive-Interests. A US/Iran 'war' is in no one's long-term Interests...

I am an Iranian-American who is very very concerned about the saber rattling of the criminal neo-cons for starting yet another disastrous war in the ME, this time against Iran, my country of birth where my family and old friends live under the fundamentalist and repressive regime. I also served in the Iranians army during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's when I was a teenager and fought with Saddam's invading forces. It's really ironic that at that time, Saddam was heavily supported by the west and specially by the US. Everyone knows it was Mr. Rusmsfeld who introduced chemical weapons to Saddam and trained his forces who later used them on Iranian soldiers as well as civilians in both Iran and Iraq. Incidentally, a lot of those chemical warfare victims are still suffering a gradual and painful death. Despite losing lots of friends and comrades in the war in the hands of Iraqi forces, I resented George Bush's attack on Iraq in 2003, because I was certain it was done for the wrong reasons and not to bring justice for Saddam's crimes. It was done, as everyone on this forum knows, for oil and power and establishing permanent bases in the ME as the Saudi's had been forced by their angry public to ask Americans to leave! Also, I knew well that after Iraq it was Iran's turn!
Anyways, sadly there are few misinformed Iranians who favor American military intervention and attack on Iran, hoping that would cause a regime change and restore democracy! What a wishful thinking! One must be blind not to see the result and consequences of George Bush's style of bringing 'democracy' to Iraq! A near total destruction of the infrastructures of a functioning sovereign country with hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead, maimed and millions of refugees.
The last time US intervened in Iran was in 1953 when the CIA covert coup overthrew the first democratically elected government in the ME (of Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddegh) and restored the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who another commenter correctly described as one of the most repressive regimes in Iran's modern history who was basically a puppet of the US government, just like Mubarak, Musharaf or King Abdullah and advanced the US interests in the region as opposed to Iranian nation's. So, those of us who have read the recent history, adamantly oppose any invasion or military intervention in Iran by any foreign power and strongly believe that the first victim of such attack would be the great people of Iran and their democratic movement as it will almost certainly be violently crushed by the government under the pretext that the country is under attack by foreign invaders, while strengthening the power of the ruling mullahs. This is one thing that all 'decent and independent' democracy advocates and dissidents inside and outside Iran agree on, including the high-profile dissidents Akbar Gangi (who served many years in IRI prisons and almost died of hunger strike at some point) and Shirin Ebadi, the lawyer activist and the first Iranian Muslim woman who won Nobel Peace Prize.
Believe me when I say this as I have lived under the Islamic regime for many years before moving to the US, the regime loves and welcomes such crises with the US and others as it can consolidate its power and suppress the opposition mush easier under such circumstances.
IMHO, the best way for the US to deal with Iranian regime, is to immediately open unconditional dialogs with them leading to partial and eventually full diplomatic relations and re-opening its embassy. I am not naive and know that this would never happen under Bush's watch, but the next Democratic president should do this (hopefully!). The Uranium enrichment (although their full legal right under the NNPT) issue for Iran is just a bargaining chip and they will give it up at the right price: permanent security guarantee by the US, lifting all the economic sanctions and removing Iran from the list of the terrorist-sponsor nations. The problem is the idiotic condition set by Bush administration: give up your right before we negotiate!! If they give up their only or most important bargaining chip, then what is there to negotiate, you f... idiots! Obviously Bush-Cheney duo is setting IRI for failure by making an impossible condition before even the negotiations begin! Obama (even though he has repeated the Bush allegations against Iranian weapons in Iraq and so on just to please AIPAC so he can stay in the race), said something in this regard which I liked. He said (paraphrase): Bush claims diplomacy has failed with Iran, but he hasn't even begun direct diplomacy with them!
Anyway, I have a lot more to say, but it's getting too long! Thanks for reading my comments. I would also like to commend everyone on this forum for being so well-informed on the issues, unlike the vast majority of the American people, specially those idiots who voted for Bush, TWICE!

I am an Iranian-American who is very very concerned about the saber rattling of the criminal neo-cons for starting yet another disastrous war in the ME, this time against Iran, my country of birth where my family and old friends live under the fundamentalist and repressive regime. I also served in the Iranians army during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's when I was a teenager and fought with Saddam's invading forces. It's really ironic that at that time, Saddam was heavily supported by the west and specially by the US. Everyone knows it was Mr. Rusmsfeld who introduced chemical weapons to Saddam and trained his forces who later used them on Iranian soldiers as well as civilians in both Iran and Iraq. Incidentally, a lot of those chemical warfare victims are still suffering a gradual and painful death. Despite losing lots of friends and comrades in the war in the hands of Iraqi forces, I resented George Bush's attack on Iraq in 2003, because I was certain it was done for the wrong reasons and not to bring justice for his crimes. It was done, as everyone on this forum knows, for oil and power and establishing permanent bases in the ME as the Saudi's had been forced to excuse Americans from staying in their land any longer!
Anyways, sadly there are few misinformed Iranians who favor American military intervention and attack on Iran, hoping that would cause a regime change. What a wishful thinking! One must be blind not to see the result and consequences of a George Bush's style of bringing 'democracy' to Iraq! A near total destruction of the infrastructures of a functioning sovereign country with hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead, maimed and millions of refugees.
The last time US intervened in Iran was in 1953 when the CIA covert coup overthrew the first democratically elected government (of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh)in the ME and restored the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who another commenter correctly described as one the most repressive regimes in history who was basically a puppet of the US government, just like Mubarak, Musharaf or King Abdullah and advanced the US interests in the region as opposed to Iranian nation's. So, those of us who have read the recent history, adamantly oppose any invasion or military intervention in Iran by any foreign power and strongly believe that the first victim of such attack would be the great people of Iran and their democratic movement as it will almost certainly be violently crushed by the government under the pretext that the country is under attack.
Believer when I say this as I have lived under the Islamic regime for many years before moving to the US, the regime loves and welcomes such crises with the US and others as it can consolidate its power and suppress the opposition mush easier under such circumstances.
IMHO, the best way for the US to deal with Iranian regime, is to immediately open unconditional dialogs with them leading to partial diplomatic relations and re-opening its embassy. I am not naive and know that this would never happen under Bush's watch, but the next Democratic president should do this. The Uranium enrichment (although their full legal right under the NNPT) issue for Iran is just a bargaining chip and they will give it up at the right price: permanent security guarantee, lifting all the economic sanctions and removing Iran from the list of the terrorist-sponsor nations. The problem is the idiotic condition set by Bush administration: give up your right before we negotiate!! If they give up their only or most important bargaining chip, then what is there to negotiate, you f... idiots! Obviously Bush-Cheney duo is setting IRI for failure by making an impossible condition before even the negotiations begin! Obama (even though he has repeated the Bush allegations against Iran just to please AIPAC so he can stay in the race), said something in this regard which I liked. He said, Bush claims diplomacy has failed with Iran, but he hasn't even begun direct diplomacy with them!
Anyway, I have a lot more to say, but it's getting too long! Thanks for reading my comments. I would also like to commend everyone on this forum for being so well-informed on the issues, unlike the vast majority of the American people, specially those idiots who voted for Bush, TWICE!

in the end it is the American people who will be held accountable for the invasion and looting of the ME: we elect the perpetrators, we allow them to stay in office.

What do you expect when U.S. Christian tour groups as well as Jewish groups are led by conservative Jewish guides?

Muslim tour groups have Muslim guides.

All these groups stay in the same tourist hotels.

Why no Christian guides?

Why don't we stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,
AND
take the nuclear weapons away from the Israelis. It clearly is an unequal situation as long as Tel Aviv has the capability to bomb Iran, and in the interests of peace, this should be prevented.

No 'regime' in-place, in DC/Tel Aviv/Tehran, is "crazy".
As per-usual, all are acting in their perceived self-Interests, as modified by evolving Realities. While its very-appropriate to be worried about how an accidental/rapidly-escalating event or happenstance might easily snowball out-of-control, all will likely continue to act in their self-Interests.
If those are not _your_ Interests, then 'yes'...worry!

It isn't Iran I am worried about. It is the crazy regime in Washington that worries me. The people in the 'Out' House should take the time and talk to WWII veterans and get a realistic idea what a war is all about. Two world wars, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon....not enough? All that money spent on death when it should be spent on life.

"I still believe Iran is being set-up as a 'red-herring' and no actual US/Israel 'attack' is imminent. [To think otherwise is the same as assuming that 'those in-charge' during the ColdWar would really want to attack/defeat the USSR — in-fact, their saddest-day was when the USSR 'quit playing ball'].
Those who have drank-too-deeply of the neo-Con kool-aid would, of course, love to see such an attack — but it would NOT serve the actual 'Interests' at-play here…not Israeli, not the US, not Russia's/China's, not the multi-nationals — no one's.
After the ColdWar, these Interests had the remarkably-difficult challenge of continuing their ideological/militaristic/Geo-political/Globalist-pursuits of-and-for Control&Wealth — without any credible 'enemy' to justify the excesses/'sacrifices'/acquiescence of their 'host-citizens' (who enable/pay for it all). Zionism offered the 'excuse' as well as the supposed 'Enemy', as planned-for — as far back as the late 19th-century. Short of a False-Flag 'attack from Aliens', the so-called Global War on Terror was an ideal 'Casus Belli' and Rationale for these varied 'Interests'. Some entity (other than a tall nutcase living in an unknown-cave while strapped to a dialysis-machine) is going to be a requirement for continuing on this expensive-Path. Iran is best-positioned to serve that continuing-Role."

Iranians, obviously, invented "Persian-Politics" -- they know full-well there will be no substantial-'attack' (more than can be said for their Caspian-neighbors, or allies in Syria/Lebanon, btw).
They learned all they needed to 'know' about US or Zionist-Interests in 1953, by watching events in Iraq afterwards (with the support-for and uses-of Baathists/Saddam), the 'allowance' of their-own Revolution (and the US/Zionist 'uses' of that and them, prior-and-subsequent), the staged/profitable Iran/Iraq-conflict (and its Al-Shaat 'settlement', leading to aborted US/Kurd-support) and the arranged Kuwait/Iraq-conflict and subsequent 'Gulf War'. And, certainly it took no political-genius to trace and ascertain 'Quo-Bono' after 9-11 and the following US/Israeli/GWoT-machinations, events, and policies -- and Iran has positioned itself to thus-benefit, overall.
The 'Risks' inherent to doing-so, naturally, are substantial (for all-Sides, within/without the ME), but the Rewards and 'inertia' to-date make any reversal unlikely, at this-point and from all-perspecives. I assume internal-pressures decided Iran on not-following the much safer 'leads' of the USSR and (more recently) Libya/N.Korea/Pakistan. Iran has stepped-up-to-plate [much as I detest sports-analogies, I've used two?] as 'Western Enemy #1' -- perhaps after the same StateDept/CIA covert-assurances Khomeini received during Reagan's October-Surprise re: hostage-holding (and from the Knesset/Mossad during the Iran-Contra debacle).
So, Iranian 'fears' of attack are as contrived and self-serving as the 'drum-beats' in the US/Israel for military-strikes [or, so they (and I) Hope, anyway...].

The crude anti-semitism of "Twistoflex" suggests he is either an ignorant racist or (more likely) an agent working to undermine serious criticism of Israeli and US aggression.

Others have pointed out that the NPT specifically grants the RIGHT to nuclear power. The US and Europe are violating the terms of the NPT agreement by trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear POWER.

That does not mean it is OK for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But the current danger to the world is not that ... it is the likelihood of Israel or the US attacking Iran and initiating a conflict which may lead to nuclear bombing and WWIII as GW has recently spoken of.

This is what you get when you elect a radically-zealous demagogue. Manichean leaders have no legitimate place in a post-enlightenment world. Then again, do we really live in a world that is enlightened? Did we really elect this moron?

Templer said "I have relatives in Israel. I don't want to see them incinerated in a Nuclear holocaust."

If you really care about your relatives tell them to stop the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Personally, I'm much less afraid of a nuclear Iran than a nuclear Israel. The Mullahs are misogynists, but the Zionists are racist militarists hellbent on stealing their neighbors' land and resources. So who's more dangerous to the rest of us?

Trash talk about WW3 is what the NYTimes called the Bush administration.

the price of oil goes up while they trash talk- maybe that is why they are doing it?

Doesn't eveybody know that Pakistan which already has the bomb is much more likely to give it into the hands of Osama Bin Laden who lives there than that Amadinijad gets hold of a bomb in the far future several years from now?

Yes we know but we want that trash talk to get the oil price up for the big companies. Meanwhile Russia is flexing muscles because they are the real benefactors of that oil price hike.

Countries are just pawns in the global corporate sweepstakes. Remember in the 80's when corporate raiders used to find under valued companies, leverage a buyout, and then cannibalize the carcass for profit. Well this is what's happening to whole countries now with the U. S. being one of the best examples.

We had this great middle class with average people buying Waterford crystal at Costco. Well this was just to much for the real power brokers. The pie was being shared to equitably. What the hell was the since of being rich if a Ford factory worker could drive a Mercedes. There had to be a shift and it would be quick. Government and it's regulations had to be humiliated and attacked. People had to be dumbed down through failed education; made unhealthy through trash food and needless and even harmful medications; and throughly opiated with mindless amusements.

The worst of the southern mentality has been exported from coast to coast, from borer to border. The narrow mindedness, the bigotry, the racism, the demagoguery of the religious fundamentalist and politician, the anti-intellectualism, the zenophobia, the boorish common manners, the silly sentimental country music and lastly that insidious bastard stepchild of Exxon.... NASCAR.

After this carnage is it any wonder the country could elect Alfred E Newman as it's president... twice?

This trend will continue as each new country gets a foothold on middleclassness, the rug will be pulled out from under them, the corporate labor barge towed to a new poorer and more desperate port, until near the end there will be one final hand (probably televised) of the five richest oligarchs in the world sitting on top of all the scum, pollution and depravity one can imagine. The winner will be hailed as the new sun king, a deified being who is all talent, smarts, strength, holiness, charisma and gravitas .... and we will all wait humbly in line to shine his shoes.

Ahmadinejad is currently the focus of western media demonisation. He was elected two years ago. Prior to that, the person he replaced was the subject of western media demonisation. Whoever Iranians elect will be demonised until such time as they do the bidding of the US, i.e. Allow US corporations free reign across the country, ownership of their media, corporate rights on their oil, and US military bases wherever the US wishes.

I remember the line from the old 'Bloom County' cartoon strip in which Opus the penguin is confronted by a cockroach. The cockroach says 'I hear you are all worried about nuclear war. We cockroaches are 637 times more resistant to extremes of heat, cold and radiation. SO GO AHEAD YOU SUICIDAL GOONS!! PUSH THE BUTTON!!!'

Go ahead George. Do it. The cockroaches will thank you...

twistoflex, - "Who cares if Iran has nuclear weapons or not?"
"...the people who control the Fed, whoever they are. It seems as though the Jews"
"... They (Jews) are very different from you or I."

I certainly hope I'm different than you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dSz7Gt3g7c

braithwa842 - The Jewish people had bad experience with racists dictators with genocidal aspirations. Therefore you must excuses us for being somewhat concern.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what Ahmadinejad will do once he'll have the bomb. I have relatives in Israel. I don't want to see them incinerated in a Nuclear holocaust.

I hope the Iranian people will replace him sooner rather than later.

Peace!

Who cares if Iran has nuclear weapons or not? The only people who care are the Israelies, who would be prevented from their next land grab/war. Nukes aren't of much use because you can't use them easily, without bringing on WW3. They just want to keep the muslins down and weak. That is all.

The real control is in the money, and the people who control the Fed, whoever they are. It seems as though the Jews, probably the Rothchilds, control the Fed and thru this control the US to a certain extent. Paul Branscher above is correct in that they do not have any alliegence to any one country. They are basically tribal or famillial in their alleigence. like the Sauds of Saudia Arabia. While they probably have dollars and dollar investments, they also own Euros and perhaps Yen or Yuan. They often own houses on 3 or 4 continents so they can move in case of emergency. They are very different from you or I.

Iran is entitled to nuclear power under the NNPT treaty. Construction of the nuclear power stations began, with US ENCOURAGEMENT under the Shah, despite the fact that he was the most brutal dictator ever. Why was it then, that the Shah was permitted to have nuclear power? Why was he not under the very strictest inspection regime?

Now since the revolution, whether or not you agree with their religion, and the rules that follow, Iran has not invaded any country, nor threatened to invade any country. Contrast this, if you will, with the behavior of US and Israel. The goal of these wars was never peace. Fucking for virginity makes as much sense.

Futher Iran has abided completely with the NNPT, under the strictest inspection regime ever. Contrast this again, if you will with the total disregard of the terms of the treaty by the US and Israel. Remember that they are not allowed to develop more weapons, and are required, under the treaty to eliminate what they do have. The only reason why IAEA are investigating Iran and not others is because of US might and dominance of the security council.

To pretend that this gives some justification for any aggression, let alone shock and awe is dishonest. Believe this only if you believe that we attacked Iraq because of the WMD. The WMD had nothing to do with the reasons for invasion. (See my home page). The reasons given in both cases, are a just whatever they can come up with. Sadly this works, if the public dont pay attention.

If Iran already had nukes, this entire problem would not exist, per say, and the US would leave them alone. But then we would have manufactured reasons why we have to invade Syria instead, as we will anyway when Iran looks like Iraq does. The pretext would have to be different, of course, but that is what our media are for.

If it is OK for the US and Israel to invent pretexts for permanent war, and the associated genocide that comes with it, then there is no such thing as morality and it was OK after all for Hitler to do as he did.

anney - More information on India, Pakistan and Israel, with regard to the NNPT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#India.2C_Israel_and_Pakistan

anney - I have some comments:

1. Kadima is not identical to the Likud. Politically it is a centralist party, someplace between the Likud (right) and the Labor (Central left). It was formed by centralist people who left the Likud (Such as Olmert, and Sharon) along with people from the left wing labor party such as Shimon Peres. (unlike the Likud, they support compromise with the Palestinians and the disengagement from Gaza)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadima

2. Even though I oppose Nuclear Israel, There is no "same rule" principle when comparing Israel and Iran nuklear agenda.

For once, Israel have nukes for more than 40 years. Iran is trying to develop nukes today. (Means escalation)

Another difference is the International law.
(In this case, NPT and IAEA membership rules. http://www.iaea.org/)

With respect to Nuclear weapons there are 3 legal types of countries:
- Countries that are Nuclear NPT members which includes only 5 countries: USA, UK, France, Russia, and China.

- Countries such as Israel, India, and Pakistan. Which never signed NNPT, and are not bound by NNPT rules. (Nor do they enjoy IAEA benefits)

- Countries which are non-nuclear NNPT and IAEA members, which includes 184 out of 192 UN members. All these counties, including Iran, signed an agreement which legally prevent them from acquire nuclear weaponry.

This is why IAEA are investigating Iran, and not India, Pakistan, Israel, USA, UK, France, Russia and China.

Not fair, but that is the reality.

My conclusion? Iran should not have to follow rules that others don't follow. It isn't just Israel that unlawfully developed nuclear weaponry since the NNPT went into effect. Unless everyone is subject to the same rules, they're nullified.

templer

== And what if Israel will not agree to dispose of it's nukes (Recent pools shows that most of the public will appose such a step) Will you, in such case, support an escalation in nuclear arms race in the middle east? ==

That seems like a useless thought-experiment to me. It doesn't matter whether I support it or not. Israel itself set the stage for Iran's development of nuclear power, morally and even somewhat legally "gave them permission" to develop even nuclear weapons if that's they're aiming for. That's because Israel made the NNPT null and void by its own actions.

If the world didn't raise hell about Israel's illegal acquiring and development of nuclear weapons, what's the reason for raising hell about Iran now? Israel and the US, at least, have lost all standing to object. Both violated many terms of the NNPT, which was created to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and for the Nuclear Five to get rid of all their nuclear weapons. None have done it, and all have proliferated.

The only thing that will work to preclude further nuclear weapons development is for all countries that have them to get rid of them and subject themselves to international inspections to insure that they stay gone.

anney "requiring Israel to divest itself of nuclear weaponry would certainly preclude any kind of "nuclear middle east".

-You will hear no argue from me on that. (Not because I hate Israel, but because I think being nuke free is in the best interest of the Israeli people).

Do you think such a step would convince Iran to stop developing nukes? I kind of doubt that.

And what if Israel will not agree to dispose of it's nukes (Recent pools shows that most of the public will appose such a step) Will you, in such case, support an escalation in nuclear arms race in the middle east?

* First we need to lead by example. Leading by hypocrisy is another word for tyranny.

* We make alternative/sustainable energy and conservation national priorities -- on par with the Apollo moonshot. We set a goal to become energy self-sufficient (solar, wind, geothermal and hydrogen) within a couple decades. What remaining oil we still need (plastics, etc.) we can probably obtain from domestic or synthetic sources. We share the technology so the world can get beyond fighting over oil.

* We engage the countries of the middle-east economically and culturally. Sabre-rattling cannot be sustained forever, nor will oppression, war, etc. produce any lasting result except more hatred, genuine reason/rationale to retaliate against the West.

The sociopathic neocons who fail to see this should be handed the broom and reduced to janitors before they plunge the world into another pointless war.

templer

== Assuming that most of us don't support a nuclear middle east, and that a preventive strike on Iran is not desired.

What else can be done to stop this scenario? ==

I can't resist this: requiring Israel to divest itself of nuclear weaponry would certainly preclude any kind of "nuclear middle east".

Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first.. - Dick Cheney, Jan 20 2005.

Um, Ahmadinejad made his "famous" proclamation Oct 30, 2005 that is recognized by Arab translators as being a complete mis-translation http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025. So when did the Iranian Govt make such a declaration? Can anyone help me?

templer

Likud principles underlie the governing philosophy of Israel, much as the neoconservative philosophy underlies the government of the US. Both are imperialistic and conduct illegal warfare -- while Olmert left the Likud party and joined Ariel Sharon in the Kadima party, skeptics still think Kadima carries "likudistic" ideology. It certainly appears that way -- Olmert still pleases the "conservative factions", the old-guard Likuds still in the government.

Everyone here are so busy throwing dirt at the US and the Israeli governments. That the other side of the picture is totally ignored. I'm not saying that these governments are saints. However, can I divert the subject a little?

Does anyone here support nuclear arms race in the middle east? (Which will end up with the already nuclear Israel, joined in the near future by new members such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and possibly Syria?)

Assuming that most of us don't support a nuclear middle east, and that a preventive strike on Iran is not desired.

What else can be done to stop this scenario?

I like anney's Tom Clancy-esque description of how a war in the middle east could start.

Might I suggest that there is one way the US people could prevent this from occurring. The goal is to deflect US Govt attention AWAY from the middle east. How? Three words - US civil war.

What would happen if through an act of selfless sacrifice the American peoples took to the streets and committed widespread acts of civil violence and sabotage directed against the Govt? The Govt's gaze would be redirected inwards, away from supporting Israel, leaving it to deal with Iran on it's own. It is unlikely that Israel would attack Iran without US military support or US veto power in the UN Security Council. Could US civil war prevent needless death, turning the middle east to radioactive glass and WWIII? It's one scenario, one that perhaps deserves some thought.

[quote]anney October 31st, 2007 2:42 pm — So the motives for smashing Iran are not the same for the two countries, but the alliance between the current Israeli Likud government and the Bush administration serves the purposes of each.[/quote]

Shows how little you know about the Israeli politics.
The likud are not in the Government. They are in the opposition, with only 12 sits out of 120 parliament members.
The gvernment includes the following parties: Kadima, Labour, Shas and Gil in a 67-seat coalition. In November 2006, Yisrael Beiteinu (11 seats) also joined the government.

anney,

I have not researched this topic enough to draw decent conclusions, but I have a few suggestions for general framework:

1) We must analyze the ueber-elite from an historical perspective. They (either through direct family lineage or at least through the histories of their institutions) probably typically have power precursors going back to the 18th century at least (Rothschild family being one of them). Probably all sorts of interesting characters there: pirates, slave runners, people who profited immensely from the opium wars, diamond cartels, wars upon wars, etc. Today's monkey business is a modern day extension with historical antecedents. Not just systematic antecedents, but actual personages who passed on their status/racket to their descendants...

2) Next, the ueber-elite should NOT be analyzed in national terms. They are pan-nationals, trans-nationals, non-nationals, whatever you want to call it. National borders are protected rackets, cartels or cash-cows from their perspective. If the US economy is trashed (as it was in '29) some people will lose, but they undoubtedly protect themselves against that. One of the richest men here in Minnesota, Carl Pohlad (who is getting a tax-financed stadium built) actually got his start in banking while foreclosing on farms in the Great Depression. So while a trashed economy ruins the lives of ordinary people (and a lot of wealthy people as well), there are some who can position themselves before the triggered fall, and actually make out quite nicely. The practice of "selling short" on the stock market might be another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_selling

There can be no doubt that the MSM is totally complicit with who/whatever is calling the shots (Bilderbergs/Trilaters/CFR/AIPAC/etc.) But I guess my point is that, as with the fishiness on 9/11, the media could at any point open the flood gates to real inquiry, put enough heat on crooked politicians to force them to resign, or force an investigation. It could promote Kucinich and demote Hillary, etc.

There are undoubtedly Jews in high position: bankers, financiers, US other governments, media monopolies, intelligence, cell phones (AMDOCS), etc. They're about making money and in that regard, whether one agrees with the ethics of it or not, we can call them "successful" (though typically unethical), particularly when a lot of people have to die/suffer for their greed.

But it's the selling out of politicians, who are supposed to be public guardians, stewards of national resources, writers of policies and regulations, etc. It is that selling out, corruption, etc. which is totally despicable.

It's not just Israel that's become the place to offshore intelligence contracts, regional fiddling in that part of the world, etc. There are havens of other sorts: Liberia for shipping, Switzerland and Pakistan (BCCI) for banking, the Caymans and Dubai for tax havens, etc.

If ordinary people could encorporate themselves, they should operate like the dirty guys: bank out of Switzerland, register their car to Liberia, and claim address in the Caymans.

karlof1

You make a good point. Those countries holding our treasury bills aren't likely to want to see the dollar destroyed, or they end up with nothing.

Of course, we aren't privvy to what's going on behind the scenes, but I'd think they'd be up the creek if the Bush administration attacks Iran. Yet, how much influence do they really have? Maybe the administration doesn't care if they're concerned. If the US dollar were to plummet, would the Bush administration say, "No skin off my back"?

This possible action by the Bush administration seems to be more and more insane when looked at from many angles.

So how will the USA deal with the two psychos? They along with many of their administration and some of their more vigorous cheerleaders are in fact War Criminals.

This sick bunch is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, are they going to be allowed to just carry on after the next election? I believe not.

Many of them will certainly not be allowed to travel internationally without being subject to arrest. What could they possibly be thinking?

Paul Bramscher,

While you estimate just how much sway AIPAC, PNAC, and bankers had, and continue to have, in bringing about the Iraq war and the coming Iran war, do not discount Jews such as Rupert Murdoch. His influence alone could have stopped the Iraq war, had he pushed the other way, and should he turn his compass 180 degrees there would be no Iran war. It was he that pushed GWB into the presidency, even after Al Gore won.

Although these wars would not have occurred without the existence of the oil in the middle east, they also would not have occurred without the Zionist Lobby.

Historically, the Zionist lobby in has always been strong and well organised. Although AIPAC was not officially created until 1951, Jewish influence over the US leadership goes back over 100 years. I dont think the Balfour Declaration in 1917 would have passed in Britain without the endorsement of Woodrow Wilson. In 1944, AZEC (American Zionist Emergency Counci) succeeded in getting both American parties to adopt a platform urging Britain, who occupied Palestine, to open the doors to Jewish immigration.
http://icahdusa.org/2007/170

I read through this entire thread, so I'm a bit late to the party. Just like all the discussions we have had about an attack on Iran, most of us are left with a gut feeling that: (1) An attack on Iran is inevitable (2) Isreal/Likud/Zionists are involved somehow (3)no one seems to be able to figure out what these nut cases are hoping to get out of this.

Here is my ever changing take on the situation:

(1) Since Congress really has no influence on the decisions of this maladministration, their motives, issues, conclusions, or actions are really irrelevant. And the power brokers know it. Watching Reid and (especially) Pelosi tells me that they have gotten in bed with Cheney/Bush so that they will be on the "right" side of power when the shit hits the fan. All the Bush enablers are doing is dragging their heels to slow down the whole Congress to give Bush/Cheney the time they need to set off the inevitable Armageddon that will be set off when Iran gets attacked.

(2) Bush truely is a religious madman. He wants his insane Rapture. And he is definitely taking instructions from his interpretation of what his god wants to get there. And the only way Bush can get his Rapture is by destroying all the Jews in Isreal. Sharon may have thought he was playing Bush, but he was wrong. Bush needs Isreal's cooperation in its own destruction.

(3) Cheney is the mastermind behind this whole thing. And because Bush is so "Good vs Evil", he is easily manipulated by Cheney. Cheney knows how to frame his goals to fit within Bush's paradigm. So what is Cheney after? It ain't just the money. Money is just a means - a bribe for others to join up. He's been working for over 30 years with only one goal in mind - POWER. Raw power. Cheney is the Gengus Khan of our time. And he has set his sites on America - all of it. Dictator for life. Whether he will order an attack on Iran is questionable. I think maybe he will (has) set Isreal up to do that with the understanding that the US will come to the rescue. But he will reneg. Why bother? The Middle East will be a cinder bloc without US involvement. Besides, Russia and China would have to get involved if the US did. Why open THAT can of worms? Besides, he can have Marshal Law declared just based on the blockade of the Hermuz Straights. The only thing left to do will be to "off" Schrub and ascend to the thrown.

(4) The military brass are really stuck between a rock and a hard place. But based on my interpretation of where Cheney is going, he wouldn't mind if the military wouldn't follow Bush's orders to attack Iran. Bush is just a loose cannon at this point. A fairly weird scenerio could be that Bush pushes the big red button, Fallon refuses, and Cheney comes to the recue by having Bush certified as insane.

(5) World Economy/Financial Markets: They all win when the Middle East is purged of all the Jews and little brown people. They can get the oil spigots turned back on in no time. And since my scenerio keeps Russia, China, the US, and the EU out of the action, the markets will only suffer a minor hiccup. Of course, all the regular wage slaves and commoners will be in for a world of hurt, the fat cats will just keep on rolling.

And, there you have it. The Weird World According to the Rebel Farmer!

Dmia...2:31 PM...With all due rspect, please re-read the posts to which you refer. You have misinterpreted both posts and taken them out of context.

An unappreciated dilemma is that a large amount of US debt is held by the large international finance players, so they have a stake in keeping the casino open, not being shut outside of their control. This is a point about globalization often missed--it's FINANCAL, not industrial. Most of what passes for wealth today is backed by financial thinair--paper--not concrete physical assets. The bubble is currently leaking; war bursts it immediately.

Nightwatch, karlof1...

My son just returned from a business weekend in Montreal, reporting that the good 'ol dollar brings only 95 cents Canadian. Remember when we laughed at the buck thirty or so Canadian we got for our greenbacks?

In 1998 I made my first trip to Germany, basking in the euros I bought for only 85 cents American. Today, 31 Oct 07, der Spiegel shows them costing a buck forty-four.
http://boersen.manager-magazin.de/spo_mmo/

To the victor, go the spoils.

I agree, anney, that we probably do understand the motivations of the visible players well enough.

It's just a personal inclination to try to see through some of the less visible factors. Probably not critical in dealing with the immediate risks. I think, however, that starofthesea may have a point in suggesting that the U.S. economy has become an expendable commodity so far as those at the topmost rungs of the ladder are concerned. If we knew that for sure, it might have some beneficial impact on the intermediate levels.

Arvy

Maybe we understand well enough the motivations of the visible political players, Israel, Bush, Cheney, etc.

So I'll be interested to see if Paul Bramscher has pulled together enough information to describe what's going on in the larger behind-the-scenes world of "big finance". Or maybe he can point to a good analysis.

There are all kinds of hints, but for me it's difficult to pin it down, or to lace together various hints or thread. I shy away from the wildly-speculative conclusions I reach, and too often later I find I was wrong anyway.

(We need a Bene Gesserit mentat!)

Perhaps we are still trapped in a paradigm that states this is all just too "unreasonable" since even to the moguls of Wall Street are scared of it. But what if the US economy is quite expendable, despite all the talk to the contrary. We have a gargantuum debt, China holds the note, we have a growing underclass who aren't in a very good position to comsume much.... does anyone truly believe that multi-national corporations have even one iota of allegience to the good ol US of A? I think not, folks. They may have already written us off as the soon to be equivalent of a Third World country. The big corporations and the small cadre of individuals who run them have any number of countries they can set their sites on,or retrest to. This current cabal has all but destroyed our moral standing, our ecomomy, and our functioning government. We will be sold off in a "distress sale" to the highest bidder.

@anney: I'll buy that up to a point. But I still have some deeper puzzlement about the sources of that Bush insanity and Cheney lust. Considering Nixon's fate when he outlived his usefulness, I find it hard to believe that this pair of psychos survives without some very profound supporting factors at play in the larger geopolitical context.

As karlof1 points out, it doesn't seem to make much sense in the purely financial scheme of things, at least not in its likely immediate repercussions. Perhaps the U.S. dollar's world reserve currency stands comes into the picture in some convoluted, longer range calculation. Or perhaps its resources CONTROL (not just oil per se) that they're looking at.

In either case, however, I have a gut feeling that they're just kidding themselves, even if they may be postponing the inevitable briefly. Maybe a brief respite is all they're hoping for as old men with one foot in the grave.

Paul Bramscher

== More likely, the controlling interests of the MSM, M.I.C., Big Energy, etc. have far more money at stake, switching hands, etc.... This is a global and organized effort, involving large banking interests and the MSM.

But what advantage to large banking interests or any of the other agencies you mention would the consequences be for an attack on Iran, if, in fact, wealth based on the US dollar becomes null and void or meaningless? Surely the consequences for all involved would result in less of everything, wouldn't they?

The question is-

Is Isreal a satillite of the USA,

or

is the USA a satellite of Israel?

Either way, the flags of one or the other countries need a new 5 or 6 pointed star...pronto.

Arvy

== I can't help wondering if some part of the underlying motivations is being overlooked.

With heavy pressure from the Likud government made afraid of its neighbors, particularly Iran (which it recently attacked without provocation) by its own violent actions toward them, residing in a sea of Arab hostility that could become overwhelmingly violent, and Bush's belief that he plays a messianic role vis a vis Biblical Armageddon in the midEast (don't forget that -- Bush is nuts), and Cheney's lust for neocon war, it is an evil stew of seemingly unrelated motivations all aiming for the same end.

Clearly AIPAC is powerful, but how much of the the neocon agenda can be attributed to their lobbying (versus other considerations)? Last I checked opensecrets.org for pro-Israel PAC's, the figures just didn't seem high enough to bribe/influence politicians. Unless they come fairly cheaply.

More likely, the controlling interests of the MSM, M.I.C., Big Energy, etc. have far more money at stake, switching hands, etc. For instance, someone sends a tremendous amount of money the way of the MSM if they report favorably on X, but totally ignore Y. The candidate him/herself may actually not see much of that money. Is something like this the vector of influence suggested in this article?

Certainly there must be something, also, to the Bilderbergs, Trilateral Commission, CFR, PNAC, etc. who apparently have their own agenda, with some overlap with AIPAC.

This is a global and organized effort, involving large banking interests and the MSM. It would be ludicrous to blame it all on the leadership of a country as small as Israel's. Indeed, if any sufficiently powerful power-broker was left out of the bargain, it might throw the arrangement into disarray. There's something in Iran for several interests, but ordinary Iranians and Americans will pay dearly for psychotic greed.

[quote]karlof1 October 31st, 2007 4:21 pm -- The US has itself by the balls.[/quote]

The image is quite amusing, but nonetheless accurate for that.

I'm not so sure, however, that those rational concerns will actually prevail in the circumstances. The war drums are beating so loudly (and getting louder every day) that I can't help wondering if some part of the underlying motivations is being overlooked.

The collapse of the US Dollar is already happening, just in very slow-motion at this moment. Today's fed rate cut acelerates that collapse. It is this slow motion collapse that causes Wall Street to oppose any military action against Iran, as it knows such will lead to a very rapid financial collapse that will cause losses no governmant will be able to bail it out of. It is far better to have a slow, managed collapse, one that might end in an upturn, rather than a collapse into the equivalnet of a financial black hole--the wholesale bankruptcy of Wall Street. The US has itself by the balls.

"
Treacherous Alliances" Trita Parsi.
our entire human race is being mocked by a deceptive line of thought surviving since the holocaust. Jewish citizens were savaged with the approval of their own rotschild etc pack.Greed lust and lack of morals are not characteristics of an entire culture but yes the perfect definition for warmongering clinton and her best friend: nuclear Israel

It used to be common knowledge that Israel was an American proxy-state. But I think it's the other way around.

Apparently Bush didn't learn anything from his Jesus moment. What would Jesus think of the Bush statement, – "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things."

Like how the Romans tried to settle things?

Good article Ray. Israel is also our colony, our military base in the Middle East for which we pay grandly. American jew's support and our economic aid have made us cojoined twins led by ours and their neocons. Israel can always be counted on to counter UN security council votes in favor of our "enemies" and Israel can count on us to vote against theirs in each case, defeating UN resolutions like "we" (U.S., Israel and two tiny colonies wholly dependent on Bush/Congress' aid) defeated the one on Cuba yesterday 184 to 4.

I just read "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The lobby is not the sole reason for the drumbeat for war but it seems to play a huge role.
Here's an excerpt, www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

nightwatch

I think there would be massive protests worldwide, including in the US. Is this why the Bush administration has built those 700 or so detention centers? Only recently have I come with reluctance to think they were built with criminal intent toward Americans themselves.

And yes, there have been many warnings about a blockage of the Straits of Hormuz if Iran is attacked and the ensuing collapse of first the US dollar and then many economies in a domino-effect. I can't even begin to imagine that scenario.

We don't know what's really going on with the military, though I suspect that many will just refuse if a nuclear attack on Iran by the US is ordered.

But even without the use of nuclear weapons by the US or Israel, prospects in the event of an attack on Iran look very grim.

"…his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized;"

Ariel Sharon was a fox compared to the dry-drunk Bush with a history of personal failures. Mesmerized is an understatement when we consider Sharon's statement that "Americans will do what we tell 'em to do." Wow, what an assertion from the position of power. It's possible that Sharon had actually Bush "blackmailed" because Sharon knew the real story behind the 9/11 attack.

"…so will most of our spineless lawmakers."

Spineless is the wrong description. They've sold themselves as whores to a foreign entity called AIPAC. That's what they are, whores.

Not to overlook the role this weasel continues to play--

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66392/

In addition to the possible scenarios sketched by anney above, I would say that another highly likely consequence of an attack on Iran is a complete blockage by Iran of the Straits of Hormuz, throttling all Middle Eastern oil exports. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has at least an informal mutual defence pact with Iran, may then cut off his oil exports to the US. He may also change the oil payment system from being dollar-based to euro-based; the Middle East oil states would be unable to do a thing, as a result of the Hormuz blockage. China will ditch its dollar billions as will other foreign holders of the greenback. The dollar, already in freefall, will probably collapse totally much like the Italian lira after Mussolini. The world economy would also crash. This is madness, absolute madness!

rebelnow

Excellent report!

Fools and mad dogs threaten the world today...

From the article "Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond."

From an article in counterpunch yesterday, www.counterpunch.com/rudmin10302007.html
"The USA has over 300,000 military and support personnel in the region around Iran, all of them now the target of 11,000 (Iranian) missle's on hair trigger."

I'm not sure who Rudmin is and how he knows that but assuming he is correct and, as Ray McGovern implies, Iran retaliates on US ships, troops, and bases in the region. Wouldn't that kind of response play into the hands of Cheney Cabal Inc.? justifying their initial preemptive strikes and giving them the power to mobilize an angry American population for greater conflict?

[quote]anney October 31st, 2007 2:42 pm -- So the motives for smashing Iran are not the same for the two countries, but the alliance between the current Israeli Likud government and the Bush administration serves the purposes of each.[/quote]

PRECISELY! That's what I meant (above) by coincident interests. You've got it exactly right.

THEM WOMEN OF IRAQ..DROVE CARS..EDUCATED..WORE SECULAR CLOTHING..BECAME CEO'S AND SUCH..HONORED BY THEIR MENFOLK AND FAMILIES...THEM WOMEN OF IRAQ SO PROGRESSIVE AND MODERN,SURROUNDED BY BACKWARD COUNTRIES THAT STILL STONE,CIRCUMCISE AND BELITTLE WOMEN....SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN DID NOT WANT THEIR WOMENFOLK TO GET ANY UPPITY IDEAS FROM THEM LIBERATED WOMEN OF IRAQ ! FOR ISRAEL ?NO,FOR SAUDI ARABIA AND THE RICH ARAB OIL STATES-WE KILLED THOSE UPSTART IRAQI'S....AND WE THREATEN IRAN,FOR THE MOMENT TO TAKE YOUR EYES AND ATTENTION OFF OF AFGANISTAN..WHERE THE NEXT GENOCIDE IS GOIN ON..........

It is an unholy alliance of two bully-governments, Israel's Likud and the US Bush administration. Both governments participate in genocide and use illegal violence against others to further their illegal aims. Both are violators of the NNPT -- Israel because it illegally developed nuclear weapons and the US because it illegally continued to develop them instead of getting rid of them. Once they did THAT, they had absolutely no standing to protest any other country, including Iran, that wanted to follow suit.

The US neocon mission under Bush-Cheney is to smash any sovereign country that refuses to put US interests before its own. Iran has been on the neocon "evil-axis" list for many years, the motive being US future energy needs and Iran's (and Iraq's) ownership of oil fields, which the Bush administration fully intends on confiscating, one way or another.

The Israeli Likud's motives are different. Their mission is and has been to illegally wrest land from Arabs in the region, unsatisfied with what was given to them after WW II. That displacement of the Palestinians was not happily received by them, but eventually they would have accepted it and gone on with life. But it was not to be when the fundamentalist Israeli political factions determined to take ALL of the region that they thought was "theirs", and have continued to do that. The only way to maintain their position after such violations of international law and human rights is to be the sole nuclear nation in the midEast, a threat to those who would attempt to stop them.

So the motives for smashing Iran are not the same for the two countries, but the alliance between the current Israeli Likud government and the Bush administration serves the purposes of each.

=====

But there's one BIG hitch to this picture if the US plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran. (Bush says he's gotten the go-ahead to use them, though from whom isn't clear.) The countries in the midEast are so (relatively) small, any nuclear attack on them by Israel or the US would likely kill Israelis, American forces still in Iraq, and people in all of the neighboring countries. Nuclear attacks kill millions and make wastelands of thousands of miles.

Here's one writer's "worst case" scenario for an attack on Iran written in 2003. I'm sure there are others:

What follows is the unfolding of a worst-case scenario, an imaginary yet all-too-possible depiction of how events might develop if Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Day One: Wednesday

In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of Israeli warplanes, taking off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran's main nuclear facility at Bushehr. Israel's armed forces have released no details, but it is believed the planes flew over parts of Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, refueling in mid-air before reaching their target. Military analysts speculate that the planes must have refueled somewhere over Iraq.

During the one-hour raid, Iran claims to have shot down "several" Israeli fighters. Television images show pilots being lynched by furious mobs before Iranian authorities could reach them. The after-effects of the raid shake the Arab and Islamic world. Millions take to the streets demanding immediate action against Israel.

In planning the attack, Israel weighed the threats of Arab and Muslim reaction. The only other nuclear threat, and a possible danger to Israel, is Pakistan. Israel considered striking Pakistan's nuclear sites, too, but Indian intelligence reports that Pakistan lacks long-distance delivery for its warheads. Bombay is the farthest they can reach. Additional reassurance from American intelligence convinced Israel that as long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan does not represent an imminent threat. The decision was made not to hit Pakistan.

Day Two: Thursday

Believing that Israel would never undertake such actions without U.S. approval, or at least a tacit nod from the American administration, Iran retaliates. Thousands of Revolutionary Guards are dispatched across the border into Iraq with orders to inflict as many casualties on American troops as possible. Fierce clashes erupt between coalition forces and Iranians. Within hours, more than 400 U.S. troops are killed, and many more wounded in heavy fighting. Iranian sleeper agents, who have infiltrated Iraq since the downfall of Saddam, urge Iraqi Shi'ites into action. They cut major highways and harass coalition troops, preventing reinforcements from reaching units under attack. Several helicopters are shot down.

Tehran orders the Lebanese Shi'ite movement, Hezbollah, into action against northern Israel. Hezbollah launches scores of rockets and mortars against kibbutzim, towns, and settlements. Israel retaliates. Casualties are high on both sides of the frontier. Tension in the Middle East reaches a boiling point. In Washington, the Cabinet convenes in an emergency session.

Massive demonstrations erupt all over the Arab and Islamic world. Crowds of gigantic proportions take to the streets, ransacking Israeli embassies in Cairo, Amman, and Ankara. American embassies in a number of other cities are burned. With police overwhelmed, the military is called in. Armies open fire, killing hundreds, adding to the outrage.

Day Three: Friday

Following Friday prayers across the Islamic world, crowds incited by fiery sermons in mosques from Casablanca to Karachi take to the streets in the worst protests yet. Government buildings are ransacked, and clashes with security forces result in greater casualties. Martial law is declared, and curfew imposed, but this fails to prevent further mayhem and rioting. Islamist groups call for the overthrow of governments and for immediate military action against Israel.

In Saudi Arabia, Islamist militants engage in open gun battles with security forces in several cities. The whereabouts of the Saudi royal family are unknown. In Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, and a dozen other countries, crowds continue to run amok, demanding war on Israel.

Day Four: Saturday

A longstanding plan to overthrow Musharraf is carried out by senior Pakistani army officers loyal to the Islamic fundamentalists and with close ties to bin Laden. The coup is carried out in utmost secrecy.

Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI—a long-time supporter of the fundamentalists—in agreement with the plotters, takes control of the country's nuclear arsenal and its codes. Within hours, and before news of the coup leaks out, Pakistan, now run by pro-bin Laden fundamentalists, loads two nuclear weapons aboard executive Lear jets that take off from a remote military airfield, headed for Tel Aviv and Ashdod. Detouring and refueling in east Africa, they approach Israel from the south. The crafts identify themselves as South African. Their tail markings match the given identification.

The two planes with their deadly cargo are flown by suicide pilots who, armed with false flight plans and posing as business executives, follow the flight path given to them by Israeli air traffic control. At the last moment, however, the planes veer away from the airfield, soar into the sky and dive into the outskirts of the two cities, detonating their nuclear devices in the process.

The rest of this scenario can unfold in a number of ways. Take your pick; none are encouraging.

Israel retaliates against Pakistan, killing millions in the process. Arab governments fall. Following days of violence, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt succumb to Islamist rebels who vow open warfare with Israel. The Middle East regresses into war, with the fighting claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. A much-weakened Israel, now struggling for its very survival, deploys more nuclear weapons, targeting multiple Arab capitals. The Middle East is in complete mayhem, as the United States desperately tries to arrange a cease-fire.

This was all a bad dream, or rather one writer's dark vision of what might happen if the current situation is allowed to continue unchecked. What precisely are the chances of any of this coming to pass? The probability of Israel striking Iran is very real. That could happen at any moment. As for the rest, there is really no way to know what will ensue once the demons are unleashed. Events could unfold as described above, or they could develop a bit differently, give or take a nuke or two. Whatever the outcome, it will not be good.

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/article.html

America is surely blessed with nitwits.
Must we suffer the slings and arroz of outrageous misfortune as well?

Once again, all of the problems of the middle east - and America as well - are blamed on the Jews. And so it has been throughout the centuries. A reasonable person would think we would have learned something.

And I resent the following comments posted above:

1) "Nothing showed more plainly the ignorance of the American people then in the recent Republican debate...."

I'm an American and I do not support any Republicans. The author is sadly mistaken. If you believe that all Americans back the Republican agenda, then you obviously don't live in America, and so your opinion really cannot be considered viable. You must get it out of your mind that all Americans support Bush and the Republicans.

2) "They are as nutty as the Christian Zionists who back Bush and Cheney and must be stopped."

Is this to imply that all Christians back Bush and Cheney? If so, again, the author is sadly mistaken. What experience with Christians in the US does this author have to make such a claim?

Folks, if you don't know what you're talking about, please don't post. It doesn't help.

A few comments above Vern suggests that "Well, apparently AIPAC and every other Jewish-American lobbying group seems to think so."

Fortunately this is not true of every group. For example Jewish Voice for Peace seems to be rapidly gaining strength and effectiveness. Witness their recent successful campaign to restore the speaking invitation to Desmond Tutu. Witness their offices opening around the country, work with Sabeel, hugely successful Spring conference, etc..

Seems to me vital to expose the falsehood of the argument (promoted by AIPAC and the like) that perpetual war and occupation is in the interests of Israelis or Jews anywhere. Exposing the lies of AIPAC and their unholy alliance with warmongers of all persuasions is a good thing to do. McGovern's article provides good supporting information.

Seems like the "Israeli paranoia" will be the excuse for us to go after Iran's oil. Whatever happened to, "Thou shalt not COVET thy neighbor's property?".... So much for "Judeo-Christian Values."

The Israeli security minister made a personal trip to the CoBC studios to be interviewed on the fine public radio show 'As It Happens'

He reiterated all the the remoarks noted above about Iran and how Israel was in danger. He seemed to denigrate the interviewer when she brought up the fact that Israel has Nukes and Iran doesn't..... and so on.

What complete and utter arrogance and , may I say, 'Chutzpah'!!!!!!

Daniel David
Yes, I forgot about that.
Biden did make some excellent points about the wider repercussions.

I think it was Joe Biden in a Democratic presidential debate last evening who pointed out that destabilizing Pakistan with an attack on Iran is a pretty dangerous thing to do, since Pakistan already has the deliverable nukes we are fretting that Iran "might" someday develop. The USA "doing things for Israel" doesn't play well in Muslim countries that have modestly pro-western governments only hanging tenuously onto power.

Hillary Clinton should respond a simple question:
are you representing the interests of the american people or the interest of the warmonger fraction of Israel?
That arrogant confidence as if deja commander in chief, comes from the support of most lethal backers: the military industry.
Not a hero, not a warrior and hopefully NOT the next president of the US.

The German people did the most horrible things in the 1940's, but are doing well now. The US has promoted a cold war that served only the interests of the special groups that lived off it in the US and the Soviet Union at the expense of the people, but Russia, the US and the European Union will all do well after those ruinous policies run their course. Israel, and its people who have been encouraged by the US to give up all chances for a stable peace with their neighbors, may not survive their indulgence in messianic fantansies as partners of the all powerful US. I remember arrogant Israeli generals claiming that if they were running the Vietnam war it would have been easily won. Israel may pay the price for its reliance on American imperialism, and may not survive the reaction to its collapse. Being pro Israel in American politics, is being like an adult who supplies an obese kid with all the sweets and fast food he wants to indulge in --- the pro Israel politicians are the worst enemies of the people of Israel.

[quote]Vern October 31st, 2007 1:37 pm -- Well, apparently AIPAC and every other Jewish-American lobbying group seems to think so.[/quote]

Coincident interests take on many forms and variants over time. In that context, AIPAC certainly performs its assigned task very well. But I doubt that they're so naive as to attribute their successes to any kind of altruism on the part of those who pull the strings. If they do, they may be in for a very rude awakening some day.

"Does anyone truly believe that, unlike every other instance of U.S. 'manifest destiny' and geopolitical gamesmanship, this one involves some altruistic concern about the wellbeing of Israelis?"

Well, apparently AIPAC and every other Jewish-American lobbying group seems to think so.

Some of this 'everything for Israel' stuff gets rather tiresome. That is not to say that it doesn't contain an element of truth. But the important question is WHY Israel matters so much to the U.S. ruling class and its sponsorship of representatives in government.

Does anyone truly believe that, unlike every other instance of U.S. 'manifest destiny' and geopolitical gamesmanship, this one involves some altruistic concern about the wellbeing of Israelis? If you do, you probably also believe that the U.S. entered WWII in order to rescue Britain and Europe from the Nazis.

Countess-- the real danger is that the fundamentalist nuts backing Bushco and the Zionists backing Guiliani and Hillary have the same objective. The return of the Biblical boundaries to Israel. It is for different reasons. but it is their collusion that they have been able to wield such power over our media and foreign policy. Throw in a little corporate greed and you have the disastrous situation we have now.

I often wonder if many other Americans feel as I do. It's as if we are standing at the waters edge during a hurricane. BushCo is the wind and driving rain. No matter what we do to shield ourselves from it,it keeps blowing our umbrellas away and saturating us with the filth that is his tempest.

This is very much becoming Cold War 2 for the USA and may go further with this bunch of psychopathic lunatics in power. Remember the myth of the Red October?

A new super nuclear missile submarine that ran completely silent with a new drive system and a sound baffling absorbing hull.

(ie: We have no means of detecting it, but we're sure it's out there, and we know it's still out there because we haven't found it yet!)

They call THIS 'Intelligence Work'? Don't make me laugh.

Nothing showed more plainly the ignorance of the American people then in the recent Republican debate, when Ron Paul spoke the truth that they are over here because we are over there, and Rudy Giuliani said "he had never heard that one before", and people gave him around of applause.
That shows the arrogance and ignorance of not only our politicians but also of the people that vote for them. Rudy Giuliani is of course also a liar ! He of course as heard that one before, but it is not a popular sell with the flag wavers over at FOX!

The Irgunist occupiers' manipulation of fundamentalists, whose text is to the American Nationalist Version of the Old Testament (the Beatitudes are wholly without meaning to Bush), by through their subsidized agents in the US, is as unapologetic & shameless as their shooting of children.

The tears of a Bush, papa or baby Bush, are omens of destruction for everyone else.

I am sure Iran wants to be turned into a cinder. If they did have nuclear weapons, the leader there does not strike me as a total madman. If he used them he must realize his country would be a cinder within hours, if not minutes. The same for North Korea, or anyone else for that matter, no one wins, no one walks away the victor, it is all insanity.

"...I'll tell you what I think the real threat is-it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name…the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

It is not a popular sell, huh? As we are instructed that Clinton is it, we are led to believe, due to war-mongering nationalism, ignorance or indoctrinated guilt over the Holocaust, that the US rallies to Israel.

It is not a popular sell, so they bury it. Beware the word getting out.

I pledge allegiance to the star spangled butcher's apron of the United States of Atrocities, and to the theocracy for which it stands, one homeland under surveillance, with oppression and injustice for all.

This is why people like Mrs. Clinton, Giuliani and McCain are so dangerous because they are puppets of Israel ready to sacrifice their own country's true national security interests. They are as nutty as the Christian Zionists who back Bush and Cheney and must be stopped.