Tehran, Iran, like the US and any other country threatened by attack, is only ensuring the protection of its country by testing weapons that will disable and limit hostile action towards its government and citizens. I'd do the same damned thing if a neighbor persistently, incessantly charged me with false accusations, instigated my family and other neighbors to turn against me, and prepared to harm me in any way, that would affect my life and freedom of choice.

From the onset, the Bush administration has doggedly bullied Iran, and masterminded a plan to force Iran to arms, leaving that country no choice but to prepare for a military action against them. The Bush administration has a history of constructing bogus reasons for war efforts and has repeatedly lied to the American public and the media to meet an end it finds advantageous and ripe in contributions to its agenda.

Any charge against Iran, at this point, falls flat without overall support from those with opposing viewpoints. I neither trust our government to tell the truth, anymore, nor support its war efforts, nor its push for so-called national suecurity efforts (as those efforts have often diminished or eliminated our citizens' rights and freedoms).

I can't believe you ass holes are worked up into such a lather over a non event. Israel will drop nukes on Iran only AFTER Iran tosses a nuke at them. It is NO WHWRE NEAR Israelis interest to bomb Iran first, they are willing to bet that Iran's missiles are so inaccurate that they will either solve the Israelis Palestinian problem by vaporizing most of the west bank or it will totally over shoot Israel and land in the sea. Then that will give them the UN green light to retaliate, after all Iran just tried to drop an A-bomb on them and the UN could not just expect Israel to say "that was not nice of Iran", except Israel will not toss 1 at Iran they will send 200 of their 300 nukes and vaporize most of Iran and totally scare the living shit out of the arab street so that the moslems will forget about trying to wipe Israel off the map ever again.
A really nasty way to get lasting peace in the ME.

There is little doubt in my mind that the threat of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, by either the U.S. or our surrogate Israel, before the term of this administration is up is a very real one. The demonizing of Ahmedinejad is much like that done to Hussein prior to our attack of Iraq, the sacking of Adm. Fallon who publicly opposed such an attack on Iran, and the large-scale physical movement of our naval forces into this area all presage such an action on our part.

Furthermore, the administration continues to assert that the Iranian Quds Force is arming anti-American groups in Iraq and providing them with high-tech roadside bombs and sophisticated rockets. It dismisses the 12/07 National Intelligence Estimate conclusion that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, the White House has not provided evidence to back up its claims. The languaging of the bellicose statements of administration leaders like Bush, Cheney, and Rice all lend support to such a pre-emptive strike on the part of the U.S. or Israel.

Now, the ultimate sanction of a severe blockade of persons and resources entering or exiting Iran, a serious act of war, is being proposed. This is what H.R. Con. Rea. 362 is all about. It appears to be designed to provoke some retaliatory act on Iran's part which would be the pretext for war that we are looking for.

Those who are in favor of a much more measured diplomatic way of dealing with Iran should be marshalling all of the forces that we can, lobbying, street protests, spokespersons speaking out publicly, arm twisting in the Congress and in the military leadership, up to, and including taking concrete steps toward impeaching the President. In this way we can make sure that House Con Res. 362 does not pass and that it is clear that we are madder than hell and won't take what this administration is dishing out anymore.

I strongly believe, however, that, only if all of the forces who oppose the warlike direction of this administration come together in a dramatic way, definitely work in concert with each other, and raise the consciousness of the public on this matter, will we be able to prevent an actual war with Iran.

Argus, Iran leadership is not as deterable as the USSR.

MAD may not work with someone who believe that if he dies in a holy war he'll go to heaven, and that his death may hasted the arrival of the 12th imam.

truthaddict "Iran has not attacked anyone in more than a century."

Iran (Revolutionary guard missile units stationed in Lebanon) attacked Israel in 2006.

argus,

what letto is trying to do is demonize Iran in order to justify having our boots on their necks. its odd how he talks about religions fundies with access to nukes yet he says nothing about Israel. Zionism is a racist, fundamental branch of Judaism. It dominates the Israeli government and they have access to nukes. Our government in the US is saturated with xian fundies and we propose using nukes to halt nuclear proliferation.

Iran has not attacked anyone in more than a century.

This standoff with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear programs.

Iran supports FISSBAN. And besides when Iran was our ally and its economy was open to privatization we had no problem with their nuclear program. Israel has nukes. We have nukes.

Nuclear proliferation is not the problem. If it was then we would accept FISSBAN and say "case closed."

Look at the region. who are the "enemies"? iran and syria.

what sets them apart from the others? their economies are closed to private multinationals, especially the US. Iraq was closed off and after the war of lies Bremer issued edicts that had nothing to do with WMD or al Qaeda and everything to do with opening the country with privatization.

I suspect the nuclear program is a ruse to put more stringent sanctions on Iran and possibly a bombing campaign. If they can be crippled enough they will beg for aid and it will only come with strings attached: privatize the economy.

Pathetic apologists for ISraeli and US aggression, like letto, are just playing parrot.

Letto, you make it seem so simple. Ask any general who has actually participated in a war. Things NEVER go as planned (Germany attacks Russia, Japan attacks Pearl Harbour, America attacks Iraq). War is ugly and devastating (BTW where do you get the figure of a few hundred casualties. The last war involving Iran resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians?)
As for the decision to be made. What makes you think that the only possibilities are war on Iraq or tens of million in the future? Don't you remember MAD (Mutually assured destruction) which kept the USSR and USA from destroying each other in the past. Israel has far more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq could have for decades and would be just as fanatical about ensuring revenge for an attack on their land which they consider as God given to them. No Ayatollah would be so stupid as to risk the destruction of his own country with a nuclear attack on Israel.

Letto- As many keep pointing out 'Jewish' is a RELIGION, Iranian is a NATIONALITY. One *can* be both you know.

Just as it is possible to be an idiot and an American at the same time (Bush, Cheney, and Limbaugh to name a few...)

There is always money for war - peace just has to wait. Peachy! Then fuel prices will really rise. We might as well park our cars in the garage and throw the keys away. Are these people NUTS???

argus, in your analysis, have you taken into account what might happen if nothing will be done, and the Ayatollahs will gain access to nukes?

Wouldn't nukes in the hands of religious fanatics who constantly say one of their neighbors should die, and who don't mind dying themselves in a holy war, might actually increase the risks of a nuclear exchange?
If war is unavoidable (Hypothetically - I'm not saying that it is) wouldn't it be better to fight a conventional war in order to prevent a potential nuclear holocaust?

If you were the decision maker, and you options would be - an ugly war with a few hundred casualties now - or tens of millions in the future - which one is the lesser evil?

lillulu - Are you implying that Iranian Jews who had been living in Iran for 2500 years, are not true Iranians but some sort of... something else??

Nevertheless, even if we assume that Jews are some sort of sub humans who shouldn't be accounted for, there are also non Jewish Iranian living in Israel. For example, Iranians of the Bahai faith (who are being persecuted in Iran)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_Faith

baruch July 14th, 2008 2:05 pm

"He's just drooling to try those bunker buster nukes…"

Yeah, President oil-man would also like to see oil climb to $300+ per barrel.

To fully understand the implications of an Israeli strike on Iran one must look at a map.
To reach Iran the IDAF fighter bomber aircraft would either need to fly directly over Syria or Jordan then over U.S. occupied Iraq or if their range and air-to-air refueling resources were sufficient via the more indirect northern route over Turkey or southern over Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian, Jordanian or Turkish defenses would provide some problems but probably could be managed using American sourced F-15 fighters. Saudi Arabia would be more problematic as they have also been armed to the teeth by the U.S. government with state of the art military hardware. The issue here would be the quality of the pilots. My guess is that the Israelis would acquit themselves reasonably well but still sustain some losses.
Overflying Iraq would be only feasible with U.S. acquiescence. The Iraqis have no Air Force to speak off and even if they did it would be quickly suppressed by the Israelis. On the other hand The United States has massive airpower resources available within Iraq and Turkey and on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

Even if the Israelis have the capacity to avoid Iraqi airspace USAF AWACS airborne
radar picket aircraft would know exactly what was happening.

This leaves the Israelis with a quandary. Do they hold back in fear of U.S. defense of their Turkish, Saudi or Iraqi allies following a military incursion in their sovereign airspace (unlikely)? Do they seek permission, risking refusal (possible)? Do they just go ahead and rely on the American support that has always been provided (probable)?

The U.S. government will also be in their own quandary. If they are advised of the intended military operation (act of war). Do they give permission, turn a blind eye or say no? If they say no and the Israelis go ahead anyhow, what do they do? It would be inconceivable to have American pilots engage in air-to-air combat with Israeli pilots to the benefit of the Iranians.

But anything short of a unequivocal American resistance to an Israeli strike on Iran will be seen by the entire Muslim world as American Christians aiding Israeli Jews to commit an act of war on Iranian Muslims. Even an attempt to pretend to maintain a neutral position will be dismissed with derision and hatred. The Israelis may not be accompanied by American bomber aircraft, they may not fly over American occupied territory, but they will not have been stopped. Even if they do not use American refelling aircraft on the trip back (a distinct possibility of the U.S. wants to help them use a route which would avoid Iraq) there will be allegations which will be believed however many denials are made.

Results would be predictable. Iranian missile strikes may reach Israel. They do have some sophisticated military aircraft which could be used to attack U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf and unlike the Iraqis, they would have the religious obsession and guts to carry out attacks which would be probably suicidal but potentially devastating. One only has to remember the success of the Japanese kamikazes in WW2.

Not only would Iranian oil become unavailable to the West but strikes on tankers in the Gulf would cause such a shortage that it would produce a global recession which would make the present one look like a minor prelude.

Israeli and U.S. retaliation would be unavoidable. Iran has a huge army poised on the eastern Iraqi border. Israel would get nervous. They have scores of nuclear weapons (against Iran's nil).

The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is for the United States President to forcefully tell the Israelis that such an attack will not be tolerated.

What chance with Bush?

He wants to go down in history as a great President. At this time his chances are zero, indeed he will be remembered as a complete failure. Perhaps he sees this last roll of the dice as his chance to be immortalised as a great leader who, in the dying days of his Presidency, helped save the Middle East and suppress one of the members of his "Axis-of-evil".

Perhaps it is just brinkmanship.
Perhaps the Israelis are not so arrogant as to think that they could get away with an another act of war on a Muslim country without consequences.
Perhaps George Bush is a superb strategic tactician who will save the world.
or:
Perhaps it is time for intelligent Israelis and Americans to tell their leaders that this is not the time for military adventures.

Letto (post 3:53pm), Moshe Katsav and Shaul Mofaz are Jews that were born in Iran and moved to Israel when they were children. They are not true Persians/Iranians.

Thanks for the information.

Rumor has it that in Cheney's bunker there is man-size safe.
That's where he keeps the spare man-sized dummies: he needs to get out another one - this one is badly broken and should be recycled.

Truthaddict, the reason Arafat walked from the Camp David peace agreement, and from the Taba proposal the following year (Which was even better in Palestinian view) was not because of dispute over borders. The official reason was the right of return. However, in my opinion the true reason was that he didn't want to end the conflict.

You are correct that I was ignoring the context of why Iran "chose" not to be friends with Israel anymore.
I will ignore it no more. The Fendementalist regime in Iran chose to be an enemy of Israel because Israel is the only non-Muslim country in the Middle East.

Truthaddict, I'm not being paid to post here. I'm doing it just for fun.

Letto ,

arafat didnt reject camp david.

robert malley, US envoy to the talks, noted:

"The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. Nor were the proposals detailed. If written down, the American ideas at Camp David would have covered no more than a few pages. Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general "bases for negotiations" before launching into more rigorous negotiations."

and ron pundak, an Israeli involved in the talks noted:

"The Israeli offer at Camp David was based on a map, which included an annexation of approximately 12% without territorial compensation. Towards the end of the talks, the Americans made clear to the Palestinians that the maximal Israeli offer included an annexation of 9% and a compensation of 1%. In Camp David, Barak didn't take the necessary step to reach the desired endpoint, and the version presented in retrospect by Israeli spokespersons, claiming that Barak at Camp David offered 95% and an additional 5% in compensation, or alternatively 97% and another 3% compensation, is a form of rewriting history."

______

and youre ignoring the context of why Iran "chose" not to be friends with Israel anymore and their 2003 peace offer and their support for the Arab Peace Initative.

________

I hope youre not being paid to be an apologist for Israel and the US. Your arguments suck.

lillulu "Would Israelis allow Iranians to live peacefully in Israel? I think not."

The former Israeli president of Israel (Moshe Katzav) and the former Israeli defense minister (Shaul Mofaz) are Iranians.

Iran and Israel were good friends until the Islamic revolution of 1979.
It was Iran was chose to make Israel an enemy.

staying_sane_in_an_insane_world "Israel has said Palestine has no right to exist;"

The current Israel PM (Ehud Olmert) and one before him (Ariel Sharon) and the one before him (Ehud Barak) all said they support a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
The last one on the list was even trying to make it happened in Camp David, but it was rejected by Arafat.

MiMiCcS "He also was misquoted, his comments were about the "government" of Israel, not it's people."
"Man, before you start supporting wars, in the age of the internet, can't you do a little research."

---
I did my research. Did you?
He publicly incited the crowd with a very clear voice "Death to Israel" (And not Death to the Israeli Government)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
He suggest to relocate the people of Israel (Not just the Government) to Germany and Austria, and on other occasion to Alaska and Canada.
He said the Holocaust (One of the most documented genocide in history) is a myth.

Surely this talk of attacking Iran is no surprise. America, once the home of the brave and the free, is now ruled by Ashkenazi Khazars. Israel has sucked the life and blood out of America. I wonder who will be Israel's next victim. Maybe Olmert, or Feith, or Perle, or Wolfowitz, or Paulson, or Bernanke, or Bolton, or Addington could answer that question.

the bush admin is NOTHING without the treat of war,the rumor of war,they can't govern any other way....when was the last time bush held a press conference that did not include the threat of our national security or it's vital to our national security interests....without a MAIN ENEMY the bush admin does not know how to govern.....he is afraid of PEACE....mccain does not want stability in the middle east either,if that happened the US VOTERS would be free to vote for somebody else.......

The economy is gonna be the big One!
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BIGGESTSCAMINHISTORY.HTML

Someone here wrote that Bush cannot wait to use the "nuclear" bunker buster bombs. That may be true, lots more fun and self satisfaction for the nutcase than blowing up frogs with firecrackers.

Those bunker buster jobs are not the same as a nuclear explosion. The "nuclear" bombs named "BIG BLUE", are actually "DU" bombs with over two tons of DU as the primary explosive. In the long run, they are far more dangerous for life and Earth's enviroment than an atomic bomb blast would be and neither are good.

There are five BILLION deadly, microscopic specks of DU in a single cupfull of exploded DU and there are a lot of cupfulls in two tons. Once exploded, the deadly poison will traverse the globe, blown by the wind.

http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm

lillu, are you kidding me? Israel is home to thousands of bahai that are persecuted in iran. Israel does not ban iranians from coming to israel, Iran bans israelis. Israel also has thousands of muslim citizens, which are more analgous to jews in iran.

MiMiCcS, Iran is no paper tiger. They would whoop our ASS in iraq if they wanted to, raise the price of oil to 300$ a barrel, and rain down cluster bombs on israel with their missles. Believe me, I'm not saying this to argue with you, but in a sense to agree, we CANNOT attack iran and CANNOT allow israel to do so.

Any opinions of what the reactions of Russia and China may be if Iran is attacked by either the U.S. or Isreal ?

If any are concerned about the current price of fuel desired or actually needed to operate our vehicles, delivery trucks, aircraft, heat homes, etc, just imagine the price of a barrel of crude oil if Iran is attacked and another unwarranted, sensless war breaks out in the Mid-East region.

This is insanity, the latest NIE report states Iran has no nuclear weapons program. I personally cannot believe "we the people" are allowing this to continue. Yet even the two front runners for the next presidency support this madness. So "we the people" are allowing it, we elect the crazy bastards. _____ Well, sometimes our astute Supreme Court elects them.

Israelis are Jews and have a reputation for studying a lot; they're not stupid people. Paranoid and schizophrenic maybe, but not stupid. The Iranians aren't stupid people either. The Iranians allow thousands of Jews to live peacefully in Iran. Would Israelis allow Iranians to live peacefully in Israel? I think not. In the first place, they wouldn't even allow them to live there.

The Israelis KNOW that Ahmadinejad is not the true leader of Iran and don't need to continue lying about the interpretation --
actually the MISinterpretation of his statement about Israel and how "dangerous" he is. Actually, I think he should have just kept his mouth shut about Israel as they're going to latch onto anything he says and exaggerate what he said. Israel has powerful weapons, an air force, etc. and would love to bomb Iran.

Joe Lieberman is having multiple orgasms just thinking about Iran, all its valuable resources, and it being bombed by Israel.

I am 60 years old. I am a Viet Nam War Vet. I have been observing my Government for most of that time. I have NEVER seen or heard anything so patently absurd, lunatic, and totally insane as this. We have truly lost it. US Imperialism doesn't even begin to cover this disasterous development. This is bold-faced Corporate Facism. Apocolypse Redux !

Bush is finished!

Time to look to the future.

Bush just wants to find a safe place to live now.

All this spooky war talk is the only thing he has to show his chicken Hawk friends that he still has got his Skull and Bones hidden in that secret spot nobody can see.

I agree that all this talk of war with Iran is just that.....TALK. However, we also know that our present government has it's own fanatics and drama queeens who have used religion & fear & lies to garner support to invade Iraq. Saddam was a boisterous baboon with a very weak military, yet those in charge of invading Iraq very quickly lost their advantage of "shock & awe", leading us into a possible never ending military occupation. I don't think the intelligent people in Israel or the USA and for that matter Iran, will start a war. In saying this, I also have to point out there is an incredible lack of intelligent and wise people in position of making decisions in all three countries. GW has done more to discredit Christianity than any one person in the world, just as the fanatic of Islam has discredited their religion. Beware if GW decides to go to some school to read to children.........something catastrophic is gonna happen .....with permission from this administration.

The US and Israel do not want their hegemony challenged in the region and are prepared to go to war to prevent Iran from acquiring the WMD they consider only they should possess.

"... if negotiations with Tehran break down..."
-if they refuse to capitulate to our demands

"...irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility..."
-you mean like the irrefutable evidence shown to the rubber-stamping UN by Colin Powell?

"...they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,"
-Cheny: So?

"...could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead..."
-Israel: Oh shit! They could do to us what we want to do to them!

"... Iranian stunt .."
-theirs is a stunt, US and Israeli war games are for real

The US and Israel should get rid of their own WMD then worry about everybody else.

My reliable sources tell me THIS IS WHaT THE WAR MACHINE IS ABOUT...Getting you all up in arms so you can't think straight.... this article is a paper tiger and exhibite A of how the Racket of War pays for itself by putting all spooky thoughts on or under or nearby the table....

We complain about propaganda but the worst most effective kind we eat up like it was our last meal....

Amber is Curvball"s madam.

Crumb, your on their trail now. Don't let um distract You.

Letto writes: "Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic with the mentality of a suicide bomber. He said on many occasions that Israel has no right to exist."

Israel has said Palestine has no right to exist; and, unlike Iran, has actually acted to bring this about.

And what is the mentality of a suicide bomber?

Are you quoting from academic research into suicide bombers, or just playing politics? I'd stake my life on it being the latter.

More people die each year from suicide than in all the wars being waged around the world - over one million!

Tens of millions attempt to kill themselves each year, and fail.

Now, is it beyond reason that many in the Middle East are profoundly depressed, and when other countries (Israel and the U.S. are two examples) decide to spit in their faces, some decide to go out with a bang?

Without referring to credible research into suicide bombers, you have no right to talk about the "mentality" of those that blow themselves up.

Let's be clear: I am NOT advocating the use of nuclear weapons. I got in BIG trouble a few days ago for a poorly constructed post, so let's get that out of the way. OK!

An attack by Israel on Iranian territory and the subsequent retaliation by Iran on Israel and the United States' "interests" in various places would justify (in the NeoCon mind) the use of our nuclear arsenal on selected targets in Iran, thereby once and for all "pacifying" Iran and "calming" the Middle East.

Sometimes I think these guys are actually calculating a justification for the use of the nuclear arsenal. It's been over half a century since the "crazy westerners" nuked anyone and since our conventional forces have proven relatively ineffective in modern warfare and are currently stretched to an obvious breaking point, our nuclear capability is the last big stick we have left.

It ain't a deterrant if they don't believe you'll use it.

What a syphilitic brain won't come up with! I still say, short of our Congress approving any action by Israel in advance, they should be left hanging if they attack Iran. What a time to live in - we are all led by fools!

I'm referencing my comment from the Scott Ritter here:

I'm thinking of the lyrics to the old Kingston Trio song circa 1963 (don't know the title): "Their rioting in South Africa, there's strife in Iran, what nature doesn't do to you …… will be done by your fellow man."

God it's really had to believe it's gotten down to this… that we have to cross our fingers that there will be a military coup to save life as we know from these irrational monster bullies.

If the strike happens I think things will quickly get out of hand with catastrophic results and near world conflagration. Historians, if there are any left, will trace the spark back not to the attack on Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, but to 9/11 itself. Naturally a honest historian would keep on digging and go way back to the 50's when the CIA over thru the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mosadeck (sp?).

Notice Ritter doesn't even mention Russia and China (and to some extent India who has natural gas pipeline contract with Iran). Are they going to sit quietly and watch the US try and make a clean run of the table of mideast oil from the Caspian (Afghanistan) down through Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (who will be protecting them from the dominant U.S. hegemonic military power) to Israel on the eastern Mediterranean sea
.
Once started, one slip, one false or misinterpreted bit of information could set the first "real kill" nuclear attack off in 63 years and then all bets would be off for any salvation. Of the nuclear powers, in this case India, China, Russia, Israel and the U.S. it would probably the one with the biggest chip on it's shoulder: Israel that would draw first. In such a scenario you better reference that obscure survivalist web site, get your supplies and start digging because a "hard rains go' fall."

Letto-"Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic with the mentality of a suicide bomber. He said on many occasions that Israel has no right to exist."

He is the President. In Iran, the President is not the commander in chief and has no direct authority over the military. The Supreme leader is the Commander in Chief.

He also was misquoted, his comments were about the "government" of Israel, not it's people. Also, he is up for re-election next year and Iran does not even have an active nuclear weapon program.

Man, before you start supporting wars, in the age of the internet, can't you do a little research.

I believe a group of people from various asylums are taking out a class action against those who call Bush and Cheney 'insane'.

"We may be crazy," they claim, "but we're certainly not in their league! They're giving insanity a bad name."

www.dangerouscreation.com

skippyagogo41, I hope you're right.

Aug 15th - 31 days - the countdown begins

.
IMPEACH both Bush and Cheney ........ IMMEDIATELY

Both Bush and Cheney are INSANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Letto;
While it may be possible for a person to commit a suicide in Islam - not really justified in the Quran, but hey... - the suicide of an entire nation is not.

Ahman doesn't have the authority to launch anything at Isreal, other than hot air. He's a figurehead, Iran has a ceremonial president. The real power in Iran is the Mullahs, and they don't want their entire flock to be incinerated any more than your Rabbi does.

It's illegal under international law to threaten to attack another country, and it's even worse when it's done nondefensively. Carrying out a "preventive war" is the supreme war crime, according to the Nuremberg Court.

I think I've heard that Israel is the fourth largest military power in the world, if I recall correctly, and Israel has about 200 or so nuclear bombs.

There's a nuclear power in the Middle East that needs to be deterred, but it's not Iran!

I'm tired of all this bullshit warmongering. Let's lay seige on Washington, D.C. when it happens. Shut the thing down.

His Royal HighnASS King George had his buddys tell him, the religeous right wing war mongering lunitc fringe, that GOD said it was ok to give the Amber light to Israel.

I say we let King George ride one of those misslies right into the first strike.

You know Jesus gave Israel the green light to attack.

And our Allien Fathers that inseminated apes with thier sperm 2 million years ago are sitting in thier space ships wondering where they went wrong.

BornFreeMen

MiMiCcS " Iran is a paper tiger, they are no threat, even if they had nukes, since they would know the US would wipe Iran out if they ever attacked Israel with nukes."

---
Ahmadinejad is a religious fanatic with the mentality of a suicide bomber. He said on many occasions that Israel has no right to exist. (It is clear that he wants to see Israel dead) He believes that the 12th Iman's (The Muslim version of messiah) will return to earth after the creation of great chaos. He also believes he'll go to heaven if he dies in a holy war.

There is a real danger that once Iran will have nukes - He will press the red button. He won't be deter by US / Israeli Nukes the same way the Soviet Union did, which can kill nothing but his corporal body.

I don't know if a war is unavoidable or not, if it is, it will be better for everyone (including the Iranian people) to have the war before Ahmadinejad gains access to nukes.

MiMiCcS: "Iran is a paper tiger, they are no threat, even if they had nukes"

Yes but please keep that under your hat cuz we need excuses to accelerate DEFENZ spending. God Bless the United States of America!

Had Iran invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada, who do you think the U.S. would consider the aggressor? The U.S. has essentially created an Iranian sandwich by invading and occupying Afghanistan to its east and Iraq to its west. And for the past two years, Iran has been subjected to a steady flow of propaganda emanating from the CHENEY/bush administration and Israel, to the effect that either or both countries may invade Iran. Given such circumstances, would not Iran, if any country were ever justified, be justified in taking preemptive defensive action? Just wondering. And isn't it only slightly ironic that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that as such has the right to pursue a domestic nuclear energy program under article IV, is more in line with the law than Israel, that in fact, does possess nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the NPT? But, oh, that's right, CHENEY/bush foreign policy can not be universalized. Just one massive piece of contradictory, hypocritical, criminal shit.

See, Jesus is W's favorite philosopher. And, see, Jesus would definitely give Israel the amber light.

Maybe BB BALLS CONYERS will save us. I'm still not aware of ANY evidence that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. Accusations are not evidence.

There needs to be a nationwide "Amber Alert" put out for little boy George. I think the Devil has kidnapped him.

As if any further proof was needed of this world-destabilizing US-Israeli Co-dependence Axis! For chrissakes, it's old hat by now.

Latest Version: The US signals its puppet Israel to prepare an attack on Iran (a green light soon to follow -guaranteed) to proxy protect US oil interests in the region.

In exchange for military proxy services rendered against Iran by Israel, the US will continue to wink at Israel's illegal settlement policies (some settlements withdrawn in one area but new settlements extended in another, endlessly); its inhumane building of physical border walls which fragment indigenous human communities; and worst of all, US winking at Israel's massive build up of illegal nuclear weapons.

All other considerations of world peace, regional justice, and who rightly owns what lands and which resources, for the monment, as usual, will be dammned.

The Axis Will Have Its Way.

But what Israelies apparently fail to consider, to the extent their basic survival cause is justified, is the ruthlessness of their corporate controlled American defenders.

As the common people of America internally force their corporate-owned government into creating energy independence realities (which is coming, despite corporate America's momentary resistance), America's interest in [even the legitimate dimensions of] Israel's survival, will be cut loose -- just as soon as you can say Half Way There.

The current, fragile, bogus US/Israeli co-security sphere is now no longer sustainable, even in the short term, for a host of reasons - and it will begin to fall of its own unnatural weight -- sooner than most of us anticipate.

This advent won't save the US or the world from deeper follies, but it will allow other, better policy potentials to emerge - across the board.

And, the latest tactical accelerations: Do all this

For the love of all that's holy, would someone please IMPEACH these SOBs before they get us all KILLED??!?

What exactly would an Israeli strike on Iran do before the elections.

1. It would guarantee Obama's victory this fall.

2. It would give Obama an excuse to keep troops in Iraq due to the changing circumstances.

3. It would cause oil to go up to 300 dollars a barrel AND cause oil shortages and bring back gas lines - 10 dollars a gallon or higher).

4. It would force poorer nations to seek more credit from the IMF to be able to purchase oil.

5. It would probably plunge the US into a depression and create conditions for a World Currency to replace the dollar, which would probably collapse in the wake of massive bank failures.

6. It would certainly make America more unpopular than it already is (a plus in the argument for One World Government to replace Americas hegemony).

7. It might give Israel an excuse to take on Hezbollah again in Southern Lebanon, perhaps even Syria, by claiming they were attacked by Iranian sponsored terrorists. Further destabilizing the Middle East.

These are all good reasons to the global elites.

The repeated public announcements of Israel of their intentions is curious. Generally, one does not give advance notice of your intentions of executing a surprise attack. So it could be all a bluff serving to keep oil prices high, and influence the election. This still works well for Obama.

Bush just takes his orders, he knows the decision has been made for Obama to be President, so he plays along (look at all the republicans leaving Congress - 29, an all time record). It's the Dems turn to serve the elite. Got to have change every 8 years to keep the illusion of a 2 party system and give people on the other side hope (besides, even the right is slowly waking up to the last 7 1/2 years, got to give them an enemy they can latch onto when things get worse to forget the previous 8 years, otherwise they might turn on Republicans)

As for the idea Israel would not survive due to Irans missiles. That is so ludicrous. Yes, they may suffer some casualties, but no country has ever been destroyed by conventional bombs and missiles, even chemical, and Israel's government has little regard for life, even their own citizens. You have to use nukes, or be able to boot boots on the ground and invade, to destroy a country. That is beyond Iran's capability. Iran is a paper tiger, they are no threat, even if they had nukes, since they would know the US would wipe Iran out if they ever attacked Israel with nukes.

Americas' actions post Israel attack depends on whether the Pentagons man in charge is a Curtis LeMay or an Admiral Fallon.

Another light program. Does the Israel amber light mean the terrorism light is amber too? What if a child was missing and we had an amber alert for that and the traffic light was amber would that add up to a green light for the military industrial complex and Blackwater and a red light for liberty in America?

If all of this and the car in front of you activates their red brake light will you drop your cell phone and notice your way of life seems dangerous. Will you react to the worst administration in your life?

We & Israel play war games just off Iranian land so they can see some of our strength and Iran plays wars games so we can see some of their strength......this has been going on for years. A "mine is bigger than yours" kinda thing. I am not saying something can't or won't happen from some where towards someone at sometime, but JEESH! It is a lose-lose situation if such a thing should happen. Is there a real threat from us (toward Iran)? From Israel(toward Iran)? From Iran (toward Israel)? Or.....is it posturing from each country for PR reasons? Well....there is some fear mongering going on from each country....and each country has it's drama queens playing up the fear mongering. I think if there is a real danger of someone in power taking the first strike against another, it'll be the fanatic in power, not the leader of wisdom and sanity. Wait a moment....."fanatic?" That discription fits Israel, Iran .....AND the USA........

This is the one issue you lefties are 100% right about. I'm getting terrified. If israel attacks iran, israel might very well cease to exist. There's NO way they can win. The best they could do would be to limit the number of their civilians that die. They are very good at this but what if iran uses chemical weapons?

Read the article by Scott Ritter. He's pretty much right on the money with his military analysis every time, and he paints a grim picture of this potential conflict.

I just can't imagine israel would be so stupid. Bush I don't know about, but clearly top american commanders do not support an attack on iran.

Well shucks golly gee, too bad we can't come up with a fool-proof plan to kill the people we're afraid of. Kill, kill, kill, would be such a solution, except for the fact that we would be inconvenienced by retaliation. War solves so many problems.

Christian nation, my ass... Where is the uprising?

I can hear it now: more hype to save Israel so that our war hawks won't have themselves to blame for the war to end all wars. I can't imagine the Bush team will be willing to go out quietly and the destruction of Iran is their wish, regardless of how many of our soldiers die, or how many innocent civilians perish.

We must attack Iran: they got Photoshop--and probably a bootleg copy...

I heard they found new oil deposits in Iran so it's time to take their resourses also . More invasions and occupations please .

So now we're having Israel do our dirty work ... real classy, George.

Yes, yes, all the "experts" are worried about what a strike on Iran will do to "our"
oil supplies, but what about the human factor? What about the lives lost? What about those who are left, many embittered enough to turn to extremist terrorist organizations? No, human life doesn't matter, does it? Didn't matter before, doesn't matter now. Only oil. Only these people who don't care about life of any kind will find they are caught up in the universal Law of Return. It can't come soon enough. May I be able to look upon those who will be punished with some compassion instead of revulsion.

I would first like to state that I think many other CD readers would enjoy, as I would, if JCrumb would take his filthy mouth and crawl back into whatever hole he came out of and I doubt if the rabbits would have him.

That aside, this is all double=talk. As someone said up above, while we say we will not attack Iran, we're doing our best to goad Israel into doing so and then we can ride to the rescue like the cavalry in the old western movies.

Dubya: You ain't John Wayne. You ain't Randolph Scott. You're not even Gabby Hayes
So nobody cares about your amber lights.

While everybody's talking tough, remember the cautionary words of our own Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the possible closing of the Strait of Hormuz if Iran is attacked.
If the mass population of the U. S. are unhappy with current prices at the pump, think what cutting off the flow of 40% of the world's supply will do to crude oil prices.

That's the real problem; nobody wants to take the time to think. Just jump blindly into whatever it is (like Iraq 5 years ago) and worry about the consequences later.

What an extraordinarily stupid man.

the worlds nastiest psychopaths get the go ahead from the evil empire. And still the UN is not issuing sanctions against these two evil regimes. And where is the media? They howl over Zimbabwe, and are pussy quiet over Israel/US.

Aaaaaaand the countdown to a wider war in the Middle East begins...10...9...8...7...

(does anybody know the status of the 'Doomsday Clock'? You know, the one that was at 23:58 aka two minutes to Midnight for the longest time?)

It won't happen. Not even Bush and Co would survive the fallout from the destruction of the western world's economic base - the oil outlet at Hormuz. This is notwithstanding the hypocracy and criminal wickedness of such intemperate action.

"It's all in Israel's hands." "If I were the Israelis I wouldn't wait." Psychopaths never "wait." And if all this is in a psychopathic elite's hands, which it is (and they're not in Iran), we can probably expect the worst sooner than later...

^^^ True. But if this one does happen, it's quite likely to be the "final straw" in a chain of events leading to global conflict. And that could easily turn into a full-scale nuclear war.

On the other hand, the way things have been shaping up, the enfeebled "anti-war" movement will likely consider it a great victory if the number of simultaneous "pre-emptive" wars can be limited to only two.

"As Tehran Tests New Missiles, America Believes Only a Show of Force Can Deter President Ahmadinejad" - from self defense?

All this talk of attacking Iran (whether it happens or not) is making oil speculators rich and distracting from our other wars.

I believe that jcrumb (2:40 p.m.) has a fair though crudely phrased point.

See http://www.yourish.com/2008/07/13/5090#comment-32643

Sometimes CD posts articles that are not representative of the careful journalism that we've come to expect on this site; this might well be one of them.

Who has Iran invaded in the last 150 years? The threat to Israel from Iran is perceived by the corrupt gov'ts of Israel and the US. Iran's neighbors do not see Iran's behavior as provocative.....just defensive.
What is so bad about waiting for a new US president who will want to talk first instead of attack first? What do the Israelis and the Bushites have to fear from real diplomacy and non threatening negotiations? Peace?

Send the Boy Scouts to the Whitehouse and have tnem wrap all those damn fools up in wet sheets.

Enough!

"the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times."

I can picture the rabid israelis frothing at the mouth like pit-bulls waiting to pounce on their prey. Unfortunately for these zionist pricks they will get their faces bashed in, like Hezbollah did to them earlier. Israel will be fully responsible for any repercussions the Iranians have in store for them.

I suppose it would be futile to remind USans about presidential promises to keep them out of global conflicts in the past. So I won't bother.

"......AMERICA BELIEVES.........."

See..now THIS is a problem...I mean..uhhh..since when does a guy named 'UZI' fer fucks sake...claim to know WHAT "..America Believes.."?

Hey! UZI! just what DOES "America believe"? Cause last time I looked..America don' necessarily 'BELIEVE' ANYTHING Der Junior SAY'S...period!..

Are we to assume..and admittedly ASSUMPTION is the MOTHER of all fuck-ups...but..are we to ASSUME that this is what ISRAEL believes? Do the Jews really BELIEVE that "we" support this particular form of WWIII?

That IS conveniant..wow!

This is so......SORDID!...it is SURREAL...WAAAAAAAY down the ol RABBIT HOLE!...will we ever..EVER see daylight again?

POSTDEMENTIA writes: "Worth reading from a trustworthy source: Will Israel or the U.S. attack Iran? by Uri Avnery: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/

Good article, postdementia. :)

I couldn't find an "About" page for that site. Is it an Israeli Web site? Voices of peace from Israel - not something we get to hear often!

As I said in a previous post, CommonDreams should look further afield for some good news instead of deluging us with negative news all the time.

BreeMass says: "For starters, bush is no longer a even slightly popular president and Congress and the rest of the world knows this. Americans, seen years removed from 9/11 aren't in the same mood to let a president so oft proved wrong lead them into another war solely on the basis of fear."

Really? I think the current administration has been so effective in fear-mongering and propoganda that people are more likely to just IGNORE what is happening until it is too late.

For example:
1. Progressives have been writing to their congress people to oppose HR 362 and SR 580 for weeks now, but we have seen no MSM coverage or changes in congressional voting stats.
2. The FISA amendment was approved.
3. New military funding has been passed.

The majority of people in this country are too de-sensitized to care about what the government is doing on our behalf. If we were all so jaded, wouldn't changes have been made by now? Wouldn't Iraq be empty of U.S. military? Wouldn't there have been riots and revolution???

I think Bush Co. knows that they have beaten us into subservience, and anything they do from here on out will be met with little tangible outrage.

"But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces..."

-Yeah, right.

"This administration will not attack Iran."

Maybe not, but we will come running to the rescue of our jewish friends in israel. This was the plan all along. I'm starting to get a little antsy about what might happen between now and January 20.

He's just drooling to try those bunker buster nukes...

I have to agree with Wilmor. Israel and Iran can shake their fists at each other all they want and Bush/Cheney et al can pretend to support Israel to save diplomatic face. But the realities of what such a strike would mean are such that Bush would not get away with allowing Israel to attack Iran. For those who would point to Iraq as a precedent for how dumb GWB can be - and I know he is! - I would simply point out that bombing Iran is a very different story than invading Iraq and we are living in very different political times than we were five years ago.

For starters, bush is no longer a even slightly popular president and Congress and the rest of the world knows this. Americans, seen years removed from 9/11 aren't in the same mood to let a president so oft proved wrong lead them into another war solely on the basis of fear.

more importantly, however, the USis in a recession and we are in a full-blown gas crisis. Do you really think even the most die-hard Republican wants to see gas prices go to $8 a gallon while jobs and entire industries are wiped out. The simple answer is no.

So let Israel and Iran do their macho chest-thumping for the summer and, as long as the cooler heads of the US military (who knew I'd ever get to say that with a straight face??) prevails, this situation will cool off.

Wow, interesting how the US says to Israel "we very likely might authorize you to pull the trigger, but if you get in trouble, we are in no way connected to you." Is this a roundabout tacit admission of guilt by the US on its illegal invasion of Iraq? Seems like the US is going to extraordinary lengths to ensure its fingerprints are not on the smoking gun when Israel attacks Iran. What will happen if Israel somehow is placed on the hot seat and has to start naming names?

For how many years did we have missles trained on Russia, and Russia have missles trained on the U.S. Many. And yes, it was a scary time, and one we prepared for as we wondered when, or if, the bombs might start to fall - for citizens in the U.S. and in Russia. Both countries have since counted themselves lucky that cool heads prevaled throughout the cold war.

Looks to me like Iran is simply doing what anyone does when faced by a bully, a bear, or any threat - make big noise, wave fists, throw sticks, whatever might scare them away.

Worth reading from a trustworthy source:
Will Israel or the U.S. attack Iran?
by Uri Avnery
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/

Mad Nookellar King George IV?

The US has a history of attacking and oppressing any people that oppose its imperialistic plans that serve to support the corporate elite.

This is not a shift in US history. Iraq, Iran, Panama, Philippines, South America, etc.

Vote Third Party, don't support the corporate elite or their puppets.

"But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support". This, indeed, is a good comeback. Perhaps the US can convince Israel to sign on with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, like Iran. US public pressure against an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran is large and includes many American Jews. This is serious stuff and should be covered extensively by the MSM, whatever they are.

A few comments, if I may:

First of all, lets put:

-But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."

Together with:

-"The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily," he said. "Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable.

So, it seems that the American argument for bombing Iran is that they are "preoccupied" with the "nuclear" threat, and yet at the same time they downplay the warnings of retaliation because the Iranians have always "underperformed" and their equipment is "inaccurate" etc.

-"No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme," said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

This anonymous "Pentagon source" is talking nonsense. How can an attack "set back a nuclear programme that, the US government itself says, ceased in 2003?

-"Even that may be beyond Israel's competence if it has to act alone."

It might be useful to point out, to the geographically challenged, that Israel cannot "act alone". The area between Israel and Iran is occupied by the US. In any case, it is US tax payers footing the bill for the Israeli bombs.

-The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

Maybe, that is the whole point. I don't envisage the oil tycoons loosing their shirt over this and as far as the "progress" in Iraq, progress towards where? McCain's one hundred years of occupation or Obama's occupation without "combat" troops? (Presumably the US will feel free to redefine "combat" the way they did with "torture" i.e. it leaves behind thousands of soldiers, bomber pilots and mercenaries.)

At last, an article on CD that makes clear where the real power in Iran lays.

Pity the rest of the media hasn't cottoned on yet.