Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

258 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

It will be interesting to see what Israel does, or doesn't, do by the end of the week.

If the US pulled out of the middle east I think you'd see Iran's neighbors less complacent then they are now and I think Israel would think twice about any aggresive behaviour without big brother to back them up.

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

It's hard to believe that Israel would attack the Bushehr reactor, when the Russian-supplied fuel is under IAEA supervision. Once the fuel rods are loaded into the reactor under IAEA supervision, there's no way they can be diverted for enrichment into weapons-grade uranium.

It doesn't surprise me that John Bolton would raise such an extreme, far-fetched possibility. He's a lawyer, not a nuclear engineer, and certainly no statesman. 

Even Israel understands that blowing up a civilian power reactor that's under international supervision would paint Israel as the aggressor. The Arab League has proposed that Israel's Dimona nuclear plant be subjected to IAEA inspection also. An Israeli attack on Bushehr would only increase this pressure. 

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Even Israel understands that blowing up a civilian power reactor that's under international supervision would paint Israel as the aggressor.

I dunno. They did it in 1981 to the same reactor. You never know.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Johnny Oxygen wrote:

Even Israel understands that blowing up a civilian power reactor that's under international supervision would paint Israel as the aggressor.

I dunno. They did it in 1981 to the same reactor. You never know.

The same reactor?  I thought they blew up an Iraqi reactor in 1981.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Oops

My bad. The Osirak reactor in Baghdad.

Ok...so I rewrote history

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

I think the odds are better than 50/50.

But the reason has nothing t do with nukes, any more than WMD or terrorism had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq. I kow I have posted this about a half dozen times on this site but here it  is again. 

Iran became one of the members of the " Axis of Evil" for one reason and one reason only. They were making noises about taking Euros for oil. It is the same reason we went into Iraq. The world oil market is controlled by the NYMEX  and ICE. These are the bourses which handle virtually all the oil traded globally. They are owned by private shareholders such as BP, JP MORGAN etc. These are not lightweights and they are not about to let their monopoly get taken away by some upstart ragheads (as opposed to Machineheads). If you are into seances all you have to do is ask Saddam Hussein.

Iran will take just about anything in exchange for its oil. They are heavy into Euros. Not only would the bourse be a blow for the oil brokers but it would also accelerate the demise of the dollar as the reserve currency.

V

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1373
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

When you control the media in all western countries, you don't need a reason to kill people.  It's that simple.  I really can't go into much info as I've been told to not talk, but from what I'm gathering, an attack is better than 50/50 before November.  That's all I can say...sorry.  Probably went too far with that even....ugh.  

I need a drink.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

For Logan

investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Looks like things are heating up!

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Former CIA Analyst David MacMichael : 8 Days to Armageddon?

Alex Jones talks with David MacMichael, a former CIA analyst who also served as an analyst for the National Intelligence Council from 1981-1983. MacMichael resigned from the CIA in July 1983 because he felt the Agency was misrepresenting intelligence for political reasons. He is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, founding member of Association of National Security Alumni and the Association for Responsible Dissent, and an outspoken critic of the Iraq War. Mr. MacMichael talks with Alex about the impending attack on Iran.

submit to reddit TwitThis

Buzz up!

Bookmark and Share

Share on FriendFeed

What have you to say?

Who has talked about this post?

Labels:gerald celente trends research journal David MacMichael

Israel attack against Iran imminent - World War 3

Russia will send NUKE FUEL to Iran within 6 days

Former US envoy to the United Nations says Israel has until August 21st to attack Iran's nuclear sites. This is before Russia finalizes its shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran. So is an Israeli attack forthcoming? Wayne Madsen says that if there is an attack, multiple nations would join and there could be a major war ahead.As Iran continues to power up its nuclear capabilities, are Iranians fearing that an imminent war is coming with the US and Israel? Alon Ben-Meir says that what must be held in mind is that the United States and Israel are determined to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He adds that the sanctions have been working because Iran has decided to come back to the negotiating table.

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Over 1 million innocent Iraqis were killed because of fraudulent claims that they had WMDs and the carnage continues.  The curse of Fallujah: Women warned not to have babies because of rise in birth defects since U.S. assault..."A high number of children are being born with birth defects in an Iraqi city where U.S. forces may have used chemical weapons during a fierce battle in 2004.  Children in Fallujah are being born with limb, head, heart and nervous system defects."  Another view suggests "Birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah have soared in recent years, with doctors saying advanced US weaponry such as white phosphorous and depleted uranium shells may have caused a "massive, unprecedented number" of congenital health problems."

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, it is estimated that over 500,000 people died from the sanctions.

We never apologized or demanded a full investigation to see who was responsible and evidently, we have not learned anything from our crimes against humanity.

You may remember in September 2000, the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) wrote the infamous policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences." 

PNAC members included mostly dual Israeli and American citizens:

Paul Wolfowitz. In 2003 Wolfowitz admitted why WMDs were used as an excuse to attack Iraq "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."  He later became the President of the World Bank but was forced to resign in a scandal. Quick background video

In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis Libby and Richard Perle helped prepare a document called "The Defense Planning Guidance." 

The plan called for massive increases in defense spending, the assertion of lone superpower status, the prevention of the emergence of any regional competitors, the use of preventive—or preemptive—force, and the idea of forsaking multilateralism if it did not suit U.S. interests. It called for intervening in disputes throughout the globe, even when the disputes were not directly related to U.S. interests...endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power...to discourage them [advanced industrial nations] from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.  Although rejected by the White House, the draft document had its supporters, Cheney was impressed.

Ricahrd Perle (nicknamed "The Prince of Darkness) is a dual Israeli / American citizen. In 1970 Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office after the National Security Agency caught him spying - passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy.

Others dual citizens include: Douglas Jay Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser, William Kristol, Donald Kagan, Donald Kagan, Mark Lagon, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (convicted for lying about outing of Valerie Plame), Phil Meilinger, Mackubin Owens, Steve Rosen, Gary Schmitt, Abram Shulsky, Michael Vickers, Barry Watts, Dov Zakheim (Pentagon comptroller when trillion dollars reported missing on 9-10-01), Robert Killebrew, Alvin Bernstein, Elliot Abrams (pleaded guilty in 1991 to lying to Congress about Iran-Contra affair), John Bolton, Robert Zoellick (president of IMF).  Many ended up with senior positions in the Bush administration.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses" - highlights:

  • America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.
  • Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars
  • Perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions
  • While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has.
  • Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor

While you may remember "The Defense Planning Guidance" and PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" you are probably not aware of another document crafted by some of the people above.  In 1996, a policy document was prepared by a group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister of Israel) - "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."  Most of the group were future PNAC members - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser. 

Efforts to salvage Israel's socialist institutions which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty...The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel's efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital...

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan's actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right

It seems extraordinary for former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisers to a foreign government.  And, they were recommending  taking out Saddam Hussein and aggression against Syria. 

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1373
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

You shouldn't have!  But I'll take it!  Thanks!

Johnny Oxygen wrote:

For Logan

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Throw this in the mix  it may have some impact.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3938192,00.html       

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Full Moon wrote:

Throw this in the mix  it may have some impact.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3938192,00.html       

No map is provided to show where the alleged 1.5 billion barrel oil reservoir may extend. But since the nearby Israeli town of Rosh Ha'Ayin is close to the border of the West Bank, possibly some or all of the reservoir may be under Palestinian territory. Then what? 

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

then what ?     the Red Horseman perhaps ? ?      Only  _ _ _ knows .     The times are getting  interesting  in any case .

britinbe's picture
britinbe
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 381
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

machinehead wrote:

Full Moon wrote:

Throw this in the mix  it may have some impact.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3938192,00.html       

No map is provided to show where the alleged 1.5 billion barrel oil reservoir may extend. But since the nearby Israeli town of Rosh Ha'Ayin is close to the border of the West Bank, possibly some or all of the reservoir may be under Palestinian territory. Then what? 

Its not a huge amount, I would suggest that this find would be used as some counter arguement that any attack on Iran is related to oil and further underlines the concerns over their nuclear ambitions and the threat to Isreal.  Of course 1.5bn barrels seems a huge amount to the average person etc etc

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

I think this and and other hidden treasures will be found in Israel and they will rise in wealth  and power .

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

Anybody here know anything about this? One of my customers said I should read it, I had never heard of it before so I gave it a quick skim reading, will still have to do some research but it is interesting.

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

20. But if we give the nations of the world a breathing space the moment we long for is hardly likely ever to arrive.

WE ARE WOLVES

   4. The GOYIM are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? ....

   5. There is another reason also why they will close their eyes: for we shall keep promising them to give back all the liberties we have taken away as soon as we have quelled the enemies of peace and tamed all parties ....

   6. It is not worth to say anything about how long a time they will be kept waiting for this return of their liberties ....

   7. For what purpose then have we invented this whole policy and insinuated it into the minds of the GOY without giving them any chance to examine its underlying meaning? For what, indeed, if not in order to obtain in a roundabout way what is for our scattered tribe unattainable by the direct road? It is this which has served as the basis for our organization of SECRET MASONRY WHICH IS NOT KNOWN TO, AND AIMS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN SO MUCH AS SUSPECTED BY, THESE "GOY" CATTLE, ATTRACTED BY US INTO THE "SHOW" ARMY OF MASONIC LODGES IN ORDER TO THROW DUST IN THE EYES OF THEIR FELLOWS.

   8. God has granted to us, His Chosen People, the gift of the dispersion, and in this which appears in all eyes to be our weakness, has come forth all our strength, which has now brought us to the threshold of sovereignty over all the world.

   9. There now remains not much more for us to build up upon the foundation we have laid.

WE CONTROL THE PRESS

   4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

   5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....

ONLY LIES PRINTED

   15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquilize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

http://www.aztlan.net/protocols.htm

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1373
Re: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

Greg,

This article could throw this whole thread into the basement.  Please take it down if possible and bring it up downstairs.  

gregroberts wrote:

Anybody here know anything about this? One of my customers said I should read it, I had never heard of it before so I gave it a quick skim reading, will still have to do some research but it is interesting.

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION

20. But if we give the nations of the world a breathing space the moment we long for is hardly likely ever to arrive.

WE ARE WOLVES

   4. The GOYIM are a flock of sheep, and we are their wolves. And you know what happens when the wolves get hold of the flock? ....

   5. There is another reason also why they will close their eyes: for we shall keep promising them to give back all the liberties we have taken away as soon as we have quelled the enemies of peace and tamed all parties ....

   6. It is not worth to say anything about how long a time they will be kept waiting for this return of their liberties ....

   7. For what purpose then have we invented this whole policy and insinuated it into the minds of the GOY without giving them any chance to examine its underlying meaning? For what, indeed, if not in order to obtain in a roundabout way what is for our scattered tribe unattainable by the direct road? It is this which has served as the basis for our organization of SECRET MASONRY WHICH IS NOT KNOWN TO, AND AIMS WHICH ARE NOT EVEN SO MUCH AS SUSPECTED BY, THESE "GOY" CATTLE, ATTRACTED BY US INTO THE "SHOW" ARMY OF MASONIC LODGES IN ORDER TO THROW DUST IN THE EYES OF THEIR FELLOWS.

   8. God has granted to us, His Chosen People, the gift of the dispersion, and in this which appears in all eyes to be our weakness, has come forth all our strength, which has now brought us to the threshold of sovereignty over all the world.

   9. There now remains not much more for us to build up upon the foundation we have laid.

WE CONTROL THE PRESS

   4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

   5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....

ONLY LIES PRINTED

   15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquilize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

http://www.aztlan.net/protocols.htm

Romans12.2's picture
Romans12.2
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 14 2009
Posts: 227
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

GR-

What a pile of....

Anti-Semitism

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

LR- Too late to remove it, the moderator can if he wants. I will move it to the basement.  Sorry if the article offended anyone, it was not my intention.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2120
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Wow -- people are *really* still batting around the Protocols?  Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 832
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Romans12.2 wrote:

GR-

What a pile of....

Anti-Semitism

FM, good call. Anti-Semitic fecal matter. Consider the source: La Voz de Aztlan is a rabidly racist group whose primary focus is to reclaim for Mexico the southwestern portion of the US (Aztlan, in their eyes) that was ceded in theTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1441
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Al Qaeda Plans for Israel War

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-18/al-qaeda-plans-for-war-with-israel/

The terror group's arm in Yemen is ordering jihadists across the region to ready themselves for a war "by the Jews against Iran" that will then spread across the globe, according to an audio message from a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay. Bruce Riedel on the assassinations al Qaeda is plotting to exploit the conflict.

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

If they had a garden they would  be pulling weeds and not have time for war.      Lets send them some BS and seeds .

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Full Moon wrote:

If they had a garden they would  be pulling weeds and not have time for war.      Lets send them some BS and seeds .

Which "THEY " are you talking about?

V

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Why not to bomb Iran by Robert Write, NY Times Op Ed

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/why-not-to-bomb-iran/?hp

--------------------------------

Has the Atlantic magazine become a propaganda tool — “a de facto party to the neoconservative and Israeli campaign to initiate a global war with Iran”? That question was being discussed last week on The Atlantic’s own Web site, among other places, after the magazine unveiled a cover story saying that Israel is likely to bomb Iran within a year.

The article wasn’t an argument for bombing, just a report on Israel’s state of mind. So why all the outrage — why, for example, did Glenn Greenwald of Salon title his slashing assessment of the Atlantic article “How Propaganda Works: Exhibit A”?

In part because the author of the article is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has previously been accused of pushing a pro-war agenda via ostensibly reportorial journalism. His 2002 New Yorker piece claiming to have found evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda is remembered on the left as a monument to consequential wrongness. And suspicions of Goldberg’s motivations only grow when he writes about Israel. He served in the Israeli army, and he has more than once been accused of channeling Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

There is certainly a bit of channeling in Goldberg’s Atlantic piece. For example: “Netanyahu’s belief is that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.” Still, the piece is no simple propaganda exercise. Indeed, what’s striking is that, for all the space given to the views of hawkish Israeli officials, they don’t wind up looking very good, and neither does their case for bombing Iran. The overall impression is that, as Paul Pillar, a former C.I.A. official, put it after reading Goldberg’s piece, Israel’s inclination to attack Iran is “more a matter of the amygdala and emotion than of the cortex and thought.”

For starters, Netanyahu comes off in Goldberg’s article as so psychologically enslaved by his uberhawk father as to be incapable of making autonomous policy decisions. (One Israeli politician told Goldberg that there can be no two-state solution until the 100-year-old father dies.) So the elder Netanyahu’s manifest enthusiasm for military action against Iran may be one of the most powerful forces behind it. This shouldn’t inspire American confidence in such a policy — and one thing the Atlantic article drives home is that Israel very much wants America to support air strikes or, better yet, actually conduct them.

The debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed.

When the subject turns from Netanyahu’s psychology to Israel’s psychology, the inclination to bomb Iran still looks none too cerebral. One of the prime movers behind it is that Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly has “near-sanctity, in the public’s mind” because it has “allowed the Jewish state to recover from the wounds of the Holocaust.” This is an understandable reaction to the trauma of the Shoah, and it helps explain the political pressure to bomb Iran, but it’s not a sound strategic reason to do so.

Memory of the Holocaust also, of course, informs Israel’s Iran policy in another way. “The Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us,” an anonymous Israeli official tells Goldberg. “Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.”

Actually, my own sources tell me that, though many Israelis take seriously this prospect of Iran trying to annihilate them, Israel’s policy elites by and large don’t. They realize that Iranian leaders aren’t suicidal and so wouldn’t launch a nuclear strike against a country with at least 100 nukes. On close reading, as others have noted, the Atlantic piece suggests that this sober view indeed prevails in Israel’s higher echelons. Though Netanyahu warns us about a “messianic apocalyptic cult” possessing nuclear weapons, he doesn’t seem to be seriously imagining the “cult” launching a first strike. Goldberg writes: “The challenges posed by a nuclear Iran are more subtle than a direct attack, Netanyahu told me.”

So what are those challenges? For one thing, “Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella.” Whether heading off this prospect would justify bombing Iran is an interesting question, but we don’t need to ask it, because the prospect isn’t real. There’s no way Iran’s having a nuclear weapon would keep Israel from taking out Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon as missiles from them rained down on Tel Aviv. If the Holocaust has left Israelis with an exaggerated fear of Iran’s intentions, it has also left them with an absolute refusal to be cowed.

One “existential” threat that Israel’s policy elites do seem to take seriously is that a nuclear Iran might render Israel such a scary place to live as to induce a brain drain. “The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality,” defense minister Ehud Barak tells Goldberg. Here again, I think the threat is overstated. After a year or two, Iran’s possession of nukes would become background noise for the average Israeli, less salient than periodic flurries of missiles from Lebanon or Gaza — flurries that so far have failed to noticeably drain Israel of intellectual capital.

The “brain drain” issue illustrates what weak “propaganda” much of Goldberg’s piece is: America is supposed to support — or even conduct — a military attack designed to keep talented people from immigrating to America? If I were Israel, I’d hire a new propagandist.

So, if this piece, read closely, makes for such an ineffectual pro-bombing pamphlet, why is Goldberg being pilloried as a propagandist?

For starters, there’s the claim that, though he spends a fair number of bullet points on the blowback from an attack on Iran, he still understates it. No mention, for example, of how an American-backed attack (and America would surely stand by Israel in the end) would feed the war-on-Islam narrative that is already starting to fuel home-grown terrorism in America.

But the main charges against Goldberg aren’t about loading the cost-benefit analysis. They’re about framing the future debate. His piece leaves you thinking that Israel will attack Iran very soon unless America does the honors. So the debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed.

And this is the way Israel’s hawks want the debate framed. That way either they get their wish and America does the bombing, or, worst case, they inure Americans to the prospect of a bombing and thus mute the outrage that might otherwise ensue after a surprise Israeli attack draws America into war. No wonder dozens of Israeli officials were willing to share their assessments with Goldberg, and no wonder “a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.”

Yossi Alpher, an Israeli peace activist and a 12-year veteran of the Mossad, has opined that Goldberg was “naïve” in not realizing that these officials were using him as part of a public relations campaign. As accusations against Goldberg go, “naïve” is pretty flattering, and I do think it may be more apt than “cynical.” I’ve long felt that most ulterior motives are subconscious, and Goldberg seems to be a case in point. Back in 2002, when he was vociferously arguing for an invasion of Iraq, he just wanted to believe that his Kurdish sources were giving him solid evidence of Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that they, as fellow invasion advocates, had an interest in fabricating evidence. Now Goldberg again seems eager to accept the testimony of people whose testimony is obviously suspect.

In any event, his article shouldn’t distract Americans from the real question: Given that the United States would almost certainly be drawn into war with Iran in the wake of an Israeli strike, and given that America would be blamed for the strike whether or not it had green-lighted it, and given the many ways this would be bad for national security, how can American leaders keep it from happening?

Here, at least, Goldberg has performed a service. His article, read closely, suggests that even from Israel’s point of view, there’s no sound rationale for bombing Iran, especially when you consider the long-term downside: an attack would radically dim what prospects there are for lasting peace in the Middle East; Israel’s downward spiral — in which regional hostility toward it leads to conflicts that only deepen the hostility — would be sustained big time. If appealing to America’s interests isn’t enough to keep Israel from attacking Iran, maybe appealing to Israel’s interests will help.

Postscript: If you want to read a more ringing defense of Goldberg’s journalistic integrity than I am able to mount, here is The Atlantic’s James Fallows on the subject, and here is Time’s Joe Klein

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1373
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

This is a very interesting article that states that the US couldn't win a war with Iran without Nuke's.  I strongly agree with this assertion, and personally think that Nukes are on the table for the US and Israel when it comes to attacking Iran.  Fairly basic read, but interesting none the less.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/08/19/no-way-can-us-win-a-non-nuclear-war-with-iran/

Southerner's picture
Southerner
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2009
Posts: 36
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

LR,

having trouble with the link, thanks for posting all that you do!

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 733
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

I listened to Jerome Corsi on Coast to Coast a few nights ago. It was fascinating bit of propaganda.  First Corsi describes Iran as a defacto nuclear power on the road to developing nuclear armaments. He bundled that information with the sentiment that war should be avoided. The collective sub-consciousness of the listening population doesn't give a rat's a** what his personal feelings about going to war with Iran are. That's the warm fuzzy bromide that is vaporized by the hot certainty that they are nearing nuclear arms capability and have insane leadership. That's what people remember, the hot stuff.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't going to nuke anybody. It would be a suicidal, stupid move.  He could however, continue rocking our world, by refusing to cave in to the venal war profiteers and paranoid fundamentalists that seem hell bent on destroying the whole planet beginning with weak countries and slowly working up to tougher ones. If the U.S. involves itself in this conflict, the country will very quickly plummet into a nightmare of retribution and fresh Hells of every imaginable kind.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1373
Re: Odds of US attacking Iran within the next 24 months?

Don't know why it's not working.  Here's the article in print:

When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC’s Meet The Press whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do.”

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, for example, the United States maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada—and the Canadian military made plans to preempt the invasion. But what the planning process will have revealed, in this case, is that there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.

The U.S. could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (i.e. cities) and killing five to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.

In the early 1990s, Clarke revealed in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton administration had seriously considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the United States,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can’t make it come out as a U.S. victory.

It’s not the fear of Iranian nuclear weapons that makes the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff so reluctant to get involved in a war with Iran. Those weapons don’t exist, and the whole justification for the war would be to make sure that they never do.

The problem is that there’s nothing the U.S. can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would really force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy. It can bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and military installations to its heart’s content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years. And there is no way that the United States could actually invade Iran.

There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don’t like the present regime they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion. Iran is a mountainous country, and very big: four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the U.S. Army—but unlike the U.S. Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs—but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the United States.

Just stopping Iran’s own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around seven percent of internationally traded oil. But it could also block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-shipmissiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200-km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea’s surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely.

Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut down the U.S. military effort there. (It was the arrival of U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran’s Hezbollahallies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States, and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every wargame the Pentagon played, and Mike Mullen knows it. So there is a plan for an attack on Iran, but he would probably rather resign than put it into action. It is all bluff. It always was.

Try it again:  http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/08/19/no-way-can-us-win-a-non-nuclear-war-with-iran/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments