Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Iran: The Next Quagmire

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted September 4, 2007.


With a series of airstrikes aimed at 1,200 targets, the Pentagon reportedly has plans to destroy Iran's military capability in three days. But then what?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Atheists, It's Time to Stand Up to Jesus
Russell Blackford, Udo Schuklenk

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Chris Hedges

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The most effective diplomats, like the most effective intelligence officers and foreign correspondents, possess empathy.  They have the intellectual, cultural and linguistic literacy to get inside the heads of those they must analyze or cover.  They know the vast array of historical, religious, economic and cultural antecedents that go into making up decisions and reactions.  And because of this—endowed with the ability to communicate and more able to find ways of resolving conflicts through diplomacy—they are less prone to blunders.

But we live in an age where dialogue is dismissed and empathy is suspect.  We prefer the illusion that we can dictate events through force.  It hasn’t worked well in Iraq.  It hasn’t worked well in Afghanistan.  And it won’t work in Iran.  But those who once tried to reach out and understand, who developed expertise to explain the world to us and ourselves to the world, no longer have a voice in the new imperial project.  We are instead governed and informed by moral and intellectual trolls.

To make rational decisions in international relations we must perceive how others see us.  We must grasp how they think about us and be sensitive to their fears and insecurities.  But this is becoming hard to accomplish.  Our embassies are packed with analysts whose main attribute is long service in the armed forces and who frequently report to intelligence agencies rather than the State Department.  Our area specialists in the State Department are ignored by the ideologues driving foreign policy.  Their complex view of the world is an inconvenience.  And foreign correspondents are an endangered species, along with foreign coverage.

We speak to the rest of the globe in the language of violence.  The proposed multibillion-dollar arms supply package for the Persian Gulf countries is the newest form of weapons-systems-as-message.  U.S. Undersecretary of State
R. Nicholas Burns was rather blunt about the deal.  He told the International Herald Tribune that the arms package “says to the Iranians and Syrians that the United States is the major power in the Middle East and will continue to be and is not going away.”

The arrogant call for U.S. hegemony over the rest of the globe is making enemies of a lot of people who might be predisposed to support us, even in the Middle East.  And it is terrifying those, such as the Iraqis, Iranians and Syrians, whom we have demonized.  Empathy and knowledge, the qualities that make real communication possible, have been discarded.  We use tough talk and big weapons deals to communicate.  We spread fear, distrust and violence.  And we expect missile systems to protect us.

"Imagine an Iranian government that was powerful, radical, and in possession of nuclear weapons; imagine the threat that would pose to Israel and to the American-led balance of power, which has been so important in the Middle East since the close of the Second World War,” Burns said in a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston last April 11.  “That is our first challenge.”

"Our second challenge is that Iran continues to be the central banker of Middle East terrorism,” he went on. “It is the leading funder and director of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command.  Third, Iran is in our judgment a major violator of the human rights of its own people; it denies religious, political, and press rights to the people of a very great country representing a very great civilization.  And so we see a problem that is going to be with us for a long time, and we are trying to fashion a strategy that will work for the long term.”

"Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust,” he said.  Bush warned that the United States and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late.”

These kinds of words, pouring out of the administration, send a clear message to any Iranian: You are in trouble.  Bend to our will or we destroy you.  These were the same words, with a few minor changes, that the Bush administration delivered to Saddam Hussein, who, despite numerous compromises, including letting the U.N. inspectors back into his country, was overthrown and put to death during a U.S. occupation.

And the Iranians know that without the bomb, which no intelligence agency thinks they can produce for a few years, they are now probably going to be attacked. 

The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran.  The air attacks are designed to cripple the Iranians’ military capability in three days.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with targets in Saghand and Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy-water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, and the uranium conversion facility and nuclear technology center in Isfahan, will all probably be struck by the United States and perhaps even Israeli warplanes.  The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran molybdenum, iodine and xenon radioisotope production facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, and the Kalaye Electric Co. in the Tehran suburbs will also most likely come under attack.

But then what?  We don’t have the troops to invade.  And we don’t have anyone minding the helm who knows the slightest thing about Persian culture or the Middle East.  There is no one in power in Washington with the empathy to get it.  We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation. 

It is not hard to imagine what will happen.  Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad.  Expect massive American casualties, especially in Iraq, where Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies will be able to call in precise coordinates.  The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will be shut down.  Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers.  Oil prices will skyrocket to well over $4 a gallon.  The dollar will tumble against the euro.  Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel.  Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran.  Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability.  The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals.  Pakistan could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon.  The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno. 

We have rendered the nation deaf and dumb.  We no longer have the capacity for empathy.  We prefer to amuse ourselves with trivia and gossip that pass for news rather than understand.  We are blinded by our military prowess.  We believe that huge explosions and death are an effective form of communication.  And the rest of the world is learning to speak our language.









Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iran, iraq, israel

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran. His latest book is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What are our military plans for all the other places?
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 4, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely we have military plans for Russia, China, Cuba, etc. These days, maybe even Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia? Didn't I see a piece about a U.S. military buildup in Paraguay?

Heck, history shows we even had military plans for Panama and Grenada. I hear there are military plans for riots in the city I live in and talk about concentration camps being built in some isolated locations.

I thought military plans were business as usual for a nation that spends half a $trillion annually on military preparedness. One can buy a whole lot of maps and stick pins with bread like that.

Still, Hedges can testify that we aren't listening to our foreign correspondents (like him). Maybe when they tell us that the sky is falling, we will wise up. They can use such immoderate statements as "few Democrats oppose."

Since no one has even raised the issue in Congress of military action in Iran, shouldn't we wait until that happens before reaching firm conclusions of how things stand? Or is that "being soft" on the current administration's foreign policy.

The description of Cheney's foreign policy stupidity, with which this article opens, speaks truth in large volumes. And thanks for the link to the Sy Hersh piece. But I think I'll wait a while before I spread the word about the sky falling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: president only controls the marines? Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Why sure!
Posted by: TT5 on Sep 4, 2007 2:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you just dont mind the casualties:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And... Posted by: TT5
» RE: Why sure! Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: Why sure! Posted by: scootenat65
» RE: Why sure! Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Ironic priorities
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Sep 4, 2007 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iran claims it is trying to develop nuclear power generation (as is her right under the NPT), a non-greenhouse gas emitting source of energy. We are threatening to preventively attack Iran for not relying solely upon her huge fossil fuel reserves for energy.

On the other hand, Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that ecosystem adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change.

If the rate should exceed 0.4 C/decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average temperature today is increasing by 0.2 C/decade.

This increase is caused by greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere decades ago, due to the lag time between emission and temperature rise.

We have emitted nearly double the greenhouse gas since then, and are increasing our emissions at a rate of over 3% per year.

Therefore, in the next couple of decades we are facing the quick destruction of all the world's ecosystems, which will result in abrupt climate change (I suggest reading the Pentagon's alarming report on this subject).

It is ironic that we are threatening to start another exorbitantly expensive preventive war to stop Iran from using a non-greenhouse gas emitting energy source, instead of using our resources to lower our own greenhouse gas emissions and act like the leader of the world to prevent an imminent existencial threat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How Dare You... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: How Dare You... Posted by: Salvapath
» RE: How Dare You... Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Ironic priorities Posted by: Pursha
» RE: Ironic priorities Posted by: fallawayjumper
Just a Quagmire?
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 4, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges' article title and contents does not go far enough to condemn any attack, not just one on Iran.

It may be difficult for Hedges to condemn the U.S. leadership, but it's not for me. American hegemony and imperialism must be stopped! Another pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation is a crime against humanity, and should be tried in the Hague as a war crime.

Bush, Cheney, their staff and any Congressional leader who supports the attack should be put on trial. Am I the only one who sees this as madness!? This is not the start of a "Quagmire"; this could be the beginning of the third world war, a religious war--which has far more significance in the minds of the attacked, as we will see when full-blown terrorist attacks occur regularly inside the U.S. and against its allies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: akai ringo
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: Chromedome2000
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: sea4th
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: esornew
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: Nukes for Peace
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: peacelf
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: Nukes for Peace
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Just a Quagmire? Posted by: peacelf
Sixteen months
Posted by: jefhadist on Sep 4, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there is no guarantee that a "Democratic" president won't try something disasterous in the Middle East, the chances are greatly reduced, in my opinion. We need someone who is not afraid to dialogue with our so-called "enemies," (Mandela) and who has some semblance of understanding about the myriad cultural and geopolitical issues of the region. Hedges didn't come to these conclusions in a vacuum. BushCo may act unilaterally on Iran but he'll be dooming the Repugnant-licans for the foreseeable future. There are no winners and everyone loses if Iran (or anyone) is attacked. Or do we prefer illusion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sixteen months - maybe Posted by: scootenat65
wouldnt peace come under a world government?
Posted by: andy on Sep 4, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
every one condems US hegemony, even myself!, however then i think to myself; if you all crave peace so much wouldnt it be best for the US to establish a world government.

let me explain, if a hypothetical country wants to do something good for the world, lets say harsh restrictions on huge industrial corporations that pollute the world; such a move would come at a cost to economic profits. Such a loss would mean that this hypothetic country is sacrificing its ability to secure itself militarily.

lets face it the bottom line of society is security, this is why as human beings we form together as societies. Unfortunately, another hypothetical country isnt so considerate of the environment as we are, and continues to grow at rapid pace by not engaging in environmentally friendly practices. They see us weakening due to our compromise with the environment and decide to capitalise on our weakness by attacking us.

The point im trying to make is that our inability to know what a potential enemy is thinking leads to great economic military cost.

If Democracy is as great as everyone says, and the US are the most democratic loving country (very debatable) . Would it not be in the worlds best interest to have a world government to eliminate all the uncertainty so as a species we may concern ourselves with more important issues such as space exploration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» never watched it! Posted by: andy
» Um... Posted by: Habaro
» RE: Um... and Posted by: sphoenix
» Okay so... Posted by: Habaro
We Americans live in a country that was founded and credited with VIOLENCE.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 4, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a problems such as the energy crisis and ENRON come up, what do we do to solve the problem? Whoosh, wave our Tinkerbell WAR wand and say, let's bomb X, "problem solved". Frankly though, this country has no resources whatsoever to win against Iran. In fact, we're still staggering in Iraq and Afghanistan and Al Quaida has only gotten stronger and is alive and kicking hard. It's one thing to be a sports warrior, it's another to MISuse force in all the WRONG places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yep Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
Fighting pre-emption with pre-emption
Posted by: mgloraine on Sep 4, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BushCo has expounded on the glories of pre-emptive attacks, because, after all, look how well it worked in Iraq! We successfully stopped an attack which wasn't coming and made the corporate sponsors even more obscenely wealthy than before. Surely we can do it again and again, getting richer and more powerful each time...right??
It's clear that the next invasion and war of conquest is being set up as a "pre-emption" of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. It's also likely that BushCo would like to "pre-empt" the 2008 election in order to retain the corporate stranglehold on the US Government and to prevent interference in their profiteering activities by Congress, voters, and other peasants.
The only thing likely to prevent World War III would be if Congress were to do its job and impeach Cheney and Bush (in that order), arrest Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfeld, and all the other crooks trying to make their escape, seize their financial resources, freeze the financial holdings and activities of Halliburton, Bechtel, KBR, Blackwater, the Carlyle Group, and all the other phony contractors and war profiteers, and shut those companies down. We need all of the conspirators to stand trial and the big fish to do hard jail time for their crimes against America.
Then, they need to stand trial for war crimes.
But Cheney and Bush aren't going to sit around and wait for 2008. If Congress doesn't act quickly, it will be too late. Another war might be the end for the USA, since virtually the whole world will be against us. What then? Nuke the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "ACE IN THE HOLE" mgloraine Posted by: Salvapath
TIME TO SELL US ANOTHER WAR
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 4, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the warmongers quite naturally want another war. And the so called Progressives are not objecting. More discussion, explaining, intellectualizing, philosophizing, etc. Just another way of selling the idea. "Here's the downside but there's nothing we can do about it". Words to that effect. I now have a clear understanding why we will probable attack Iran. Not the same as a reason. That's followed by, "told you so". Where are the objectors? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TIME TO SELL US ANOTHER WAR Posted by: scootenat65
RE: Brought to you by
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Sep 4, 2007 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scapegoating Israel and JEWS isn't solving any of this. Its just more demonizing. Israel has no interest in the OIL Industry does it? Look closer at who is really behind all of this. Israel is being used as a cover by these people. Sure Israel wants to survive and protect itself, thats a given. But, look closer Israel isn't grabbing anyone's oil these days but who is? Iran is next and then the gun gets pointed at Saudi A. and the Gulf Emirates. They'll be told to "privatize" ( code for hand it all over) their energy resources or else. Venezuela , Ghana, Indonesia all will eventually be dealt with. Even Russia will have to come along and join the OIL cartel plan or else. Israel isn't even part of the game here beyond being a used by all sides in this grand game of world conquest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the Oil kingdoms... Posted by: Scott
» Wow. Posted by: yellow
» RE: Brought to you by Posted by: leafsong1
RE: Yes, the same people behind 911, but Israel is just a pawn
Posted by: channing on Sep 4, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
agree with "glenk1949" that it is not "Israel" per se, but those that have been using Israel as a Base of Operations arguably since its inception... I might even go so far as to say that the Prescott Bush's and others from the collapsing Nazi regime moved some of their main ideologues there as a new front, (it's been reported that there were many elitist Jews cooperating with Hitler) only now coming to fruition under the neocon fascists in possession of our DOD.

You're right, that these are the same people behind 911 and other PNAC plans in action... they won't be able, however to get far now unless China and Russia have agreed with neocons to "honor among thieves", where they've been "cut in" on the global spoils and tyrannical rule that comes after... all indications are that Russia and China are not gonna "play" with these guys or their model of the future.

My personal estimation is that they blew their wad on Iraq and should've gotten to Syria and Iran by the second or third year BEFORE too many people around the world knew too much, and the neocons are all jumping ship. An aside to this, is that when Carlyle Group bought huge percentages of the Dunkin Donuts chain in I think '05, they were marking the end of the PNAC plan, essentially admitting failure, and spending accrued liquidity on something notably non-defense, non-oil, kinder, gentler.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Israel is just a pawn? Posted by: vomeggido
And where is your proof for this ignorant little bit of hate spewing, moron. You're the filth!!
Posted by: yellow on Sep 4, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're also pathetic!! Get a life!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» i am curious yellow Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
ENERGY
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Sep 4, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole problem boils down to who controls the energy resources and global delivery of these resources. The OIL cartels which own the US right now are old style Imperialists. Sympathy, Empathy, Dialog, all of them are a sign of weakness to these people. They mask their aggressiveness and their greed with a phony war on Terror. They have very effectively used the Terrorists to catapult their agenda on the American public. However, the rest of the world knows this. Its only the dumb downed and disenfranchised American public that doesn't. America at this moment in time is acting like a combination of Rome,The British Empire and the old Soviet Union with Napoleon and the Fascists of WW2 thrown in for flavor. The bottom line of all of these people and movements is VIOLENCE. Do what we say or we attack you. BV$H and his gang are little more then a band of thugs or pirates. Stand in their way and you get whacked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cashelboylo
Posted by: cashelboylo on Sep 4, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I Won't Be Rushed
to the tune of:-
Nobody Knows You When You're Down And Out

I won't be rushed, there's plenty of time
I'm gonna be here till two thousand an' nine
Why should I hurry? Why should I worry?
I'm War President, Deciden' th' best for the c'untry

I'm doin' God's work, spreadin' Freedom all round
A better Decider just could not be found
I unnerstan' war's tough, that's why I dodged 'Nam
An' was wounded by a dentist's drill in Alabam'

I reject all ideas that would lead to defeat
People gotta unnerstan' victory must be complete
At th' 'propriate time, I'll say where we're headed
I'll present My New Way Forward with Iraqis embedded

I'm weighin' my options for Iraq
We're goin' forward, we're not goin' back
I got a better plan, a bran' new scam
I think I just might nuke Iran

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Whole US policy is has nothing to do with Israel. PERIOD.
Posted by: yellow on Sep 4, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A recent artical by Interpress Service reporter Gareth Porter revealed in an interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Israel not only opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 but actively lobbied the US not to invade the country and detailed its reasons as to why!! Israel supported the continuation of the dual containment policy of Clinton and felt that a US invasion and occupation could only serve to inflame the region further, strengthen and embolden Iran, weaken the US position in the Middle East, and actually spread the intensity, frequency and pervasiveness of terrorism. Saddam had actually prevented Al Qaeda from ever entering Iraq which the US invasion reversed. The Israelis were proved correct. The US didn't listen because of the Bush/Cheney oil agenda which had nothing to do with Israel. Israel bashers and Jew baiters need to examine the proof for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yep, we are all bigots , Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Apartheid Israel != Jews Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: More straw-man from Yellow. Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
Former CIA analysts who say that an attack on Iran is imminent
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 4, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» and lets not forget... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
The last thing
Posted by: civilized european on Sep 4, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the world needs is Intellectually retarded theocrats with nuclear weapons....oops....well....err....y`all praise the lord now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it a given that Iran will bomb Israel?
Posted by: thistleblower on Sep 4, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would say Iran and Iraq are pretty similar in opinion about Israel. The Iraqis themselves, not the puppet government. So why didn't Sadaam, surely more of a monster than anyone in the Iranian government, open fire on Israel when we invaded?

Although I think all war is reprehensible and it's incredibly irresponsible and dangerous for governments to use war to grab resources they want, I think you are engaging in the same sort of speculative hyperbole that Bush and Cheney use when they want to justify their actions. Lay off and stick to real players and events!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help Me Understand...
Posted by: Wacre on Sep 4, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what the United States expects Iran to do? Are they susposed to let us bomb them back to the Stone Age and do nothing?

This is always what fascinates me about the latest round of American military ventures, namely they–from Iraq to quite possibly Iran–seem to work under the assumption that they either will not fight back or that they will somehow be so struck by a display of American/Israeli power (let's not pretend for a moment that Israel will not be playing such a role in any attack on Iran, if only a logistical one) that they will not even entertain a response.

After all, "Shock and Awe" worked so well in Iraq, why not share the wealth with their neighbors?

Let's see, I am not paid to analyze such things, but it seems fairly obvious that such an attack will only inflame an already volatile region.

The only motivation that I can see for an attack on Iran is if the United States really wants another 'terrorist' (a word, based upon the actions of the United States, I grow more uncomfortable using) attack on our soil, then attack Iran because you would then just about guarantee that outcome.

Which, when you think about it, is probably what the people who are planning such an attack want in their heart of hearts because it would unite the American people like little else.

It would also usher in a police-state apparatus far in excess of anything that exists now, because as bad as the situation is now with the Government spying on our phone calls and email, as well as–essentially–the suspension of habeas corpus, things can get significantly worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a police-state apparatus Posted by: vasumurti
Quagmire? How about Holocaust?
Posted by: american on Sep 4, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be just a tad more accurate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE MAGNIFICENT 32 FOOT SAND CASTLE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 4, 2007 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess by now everyone has seen pictures of it. What a masterpiece. So a little further down on the beach is a kid named George Bush. As soon as someone turns away he'll runn like hell and jump into the middle of it. Why? Because it's there and he can. He just feels lke it. And nobody does a damned thing about it. The kid who builds the sand castle ends up crying. We've all know people who are destructive by nature and thosoe who make excuses for them. Too bad. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE MAGNIFICENT 32 FOOT SAND CASTLE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 4, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess by now everyone has seen pictures of it. What a masterpiece. So a little further down on the beach is a kid named George Bush. As soon as someone turns away he'll runn like hell and jump into the middle of it. Why? Because it's there and he can. He just feels lke it. And nobody does a damned thing about it. The kid who builds the sand castle ends up crying. We've all know people who are destructive by nature and those who who make excuses for them. Too bad. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil?
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 4, 2007 5:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee. No one seems to be mentioning oil in Iran. Hmm. Could it be that is not even a factor?

http://www.counterpunch.org/bricmont09042007.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oil? Why not Posted by: scootenat65
» RE: Oil? Posted by: american
More Transparent Anti-Semitism for Joshua And Yellow!
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 4, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, just couldn't resist more anti-Semitism (using the word liberally in the slim possibility that either of you are actually Semites). Recently you questioned my position as to the rabid passion for war among Israelis, so I have provided this from Ha'aretz. For those that don't want to read it, it states that 71% of Israelis want the US to bomb Iran, if "talks" fail to end Iran's nuclear program.

Read it here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html

And as usual, the comments are enlightening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yellow just makes up "facts" Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
I think MANY Dems would oppose attacking Iran...
Posted by: Kramer on Sep 4, 2007 10:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do you mean "The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose..."?

I think the Democrats would oppose this big time but they don't seriously BELIEVE Bush will attack Iran. That's the problem, making Democrats BELIEVE Bush is ignorant enough to do such a thing as a lame duck president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bombing Iran ?
Posted by: itchyvet on Sep 5, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quiet frankly folks, gettin a bit tired and bored of the continuos threats emanating from the Whitehouse against Iran.
I call on em, to PUT UP OR SHUT UP. simple as that, if your gonna bomb the crap outa them, fine go ahead, put yer money where your mouth is.
The way I read things, the U.S. is having difficulty keeping up the ammo supply in Iraq under the present conditions, that is fighting against RESISTANCE groups which are not aligned or coordinated.
The U.S. has to purchase ammo from foriegn countries, (Israel ) to allow them to keep their murdering spree. Used more small arms ammunition in Iraq then was used throught the entire WW 2.
I'd like to know, what the plan is in this regard, after the bombing has started and more then one country begin their retaliation, moreover, what Israel will do with their ammo factories when the demand outstrips the supply ?
Guess they could always throw rocks like the Palestinians have been doing for so many years now.
Seriously folks, it's bloody hilarious when one really does some solid thinking on the issue.
I have a very strong suspicion though, your Govt better have a fool proof escape plan planned for themselves,to save themselves from the hang man.
To bomb Iran would unleash something that the World has not yet seen, even with WW 1 and WW 2, there are some that would say, IT'S TIME.
Time there was a little thinning out of the World population and in particular, the U.S. population. Make no mistake about it, the U.S. (despite it's claimed technology superiority) cannot hold a candle to people who have RIGHT behind them.
Don't ever forget, little yellow people wearing sandals made out of car tyres, beat them at their own game, simply with pure unadulterated determination.
And at the end of the day, plans such as this, make a mockery of the claim of Global Warming and the alleged claims of concern in that quarter by the U.S. Govt and it's sycophant supporters, what damage would such a plan cause to the World economicaly/financially and agriculturaly ?
ONE thing is most clear to me, any such action by the U.S. would spell the END of the U.S.A. as we know it, without a doubt.

By all means Bush, BRING IT ON !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gary Schneider
Posted by: gdsnide on Sep 5, 2007 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ok...To begin with I'm not a Military Genius or a Big Time Politician,That out of the way I will move on.First off China can wreck our economy.Also, China has Nuclear Weapons & if the US keeps trying to take over more of the Middle East I would think they would not be to pleased & this is not even including Russia,
We ( The US) are not the only one's with all this fire power & if we keep invading the MIddle East this lesson is going to be taught to us in a big boom when a few Nukes hit the US.
The US Public sees war & killing on TV & then has dinner & may discuss it & maybe not.If war does come to the US it will be a complete slaughter as the Government has worked for I don't know how many years to dis arm the Americian public.
At the present time I don't think China & Russia are in a real happy mood from the actions of the US. Also, remember they both have Nuclear Bombs & I suppose they would use them. Heck,India has a Nuke.
If we are attacked by Nuclear Bombs the Bush Government would not let the Americian People know that this might possibily happen as it may show he made a mistake.So, fallout from these bombs will kill Millions not counting what the actual blasts would do
Then the invading forces would follow up as quick as is possible after this type of bombing of which I have no idea of the time limit to send in forces but I suppose tests have been done.
Once on our soil we are going to be in very big trouble as the Chinese have enough people to send them in wave after wave & I suppose we can't defeat them all.
Also don't forget the Russians.The Americian public has been led to believe that Russia is no threat to us but I think they may be.
When the troops we send to the Middle East & the casulities are numbering in the thousands or hundreds of thousands ( & we seem to have a shortage now of troops & ammunation) what will be the reaction of the Public.Will we still come to our Computers & say what a Moron we have for a President or will some action actually be taken. But, waiting this long may be to late to stop the world from showing that America is all show & no go.
In 1975 (Yep, I'm a Viet Nam Vet) we got run out of there & I believe Viet Nam was rated as a 37th world power. ( I may be wrong)
& with all the military hardware we left over there we raised their rating in the world.
But, lets say we win. What do we win? Nuclear wasted ground & Nuclear winters & I have no idea what else.
Lke I said at the beginning "I was a low man on the pole in Viet Nam" so I may be completly wrong ( I certainly hope so) as death & dying & getting shot & planes straffing the troops is completly different then in a John Wayne Movie
But, then maybe I'm wrong & Bush is correct in his way of thinking then every thing will be Rosy for the US
Also, remember the German People were lied to all thru the Second World War.
I sincerly hope I didn't offend anyone but this is the way I see the US is headed unless there are some drastic changes made in the people we call our Leaders.
Thank U for reading this,
GARY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gary Schneider Posted by: IanA
» RE: Gary Schneider Posted by: cyrena1987
Mr. Reason
Posted by: MoonGazer on Sep 5, 2007 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We (The US) need to STOP, right now. The miltary is pissing away tens of millions of dollars PER SECOND. We print pallet-loads of cash and fly them on military jets and buy off our 'friends' in the middle of the night...all the time. And our money and blood are buying us NOTHING! Nothing but the surety of pissing off other people enough to make harm on us on our soil again.

Wake up, America, we are not, and can never be, the World Police!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Reason Posted by: DaBear
that's what worries me most
Posted by: DaBear on Sep 6, 2007 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation. It is not hard to imagine what will happen. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad.

And then my people will have their historical traumas--reconfirmed and entrenched for hundreds of more years. I'm already sick of hearing how our people don't strap bombs to our kids, and how much Iran hates Israel and every one but the fundie Xtians hate us. I'm sick to death of hearing fantasy pose as reality in the American Jewish community. It'll only get worse if the Chimperor is permitted to let loose the dogs of war and ignite WWIII. Extending beyond my own community to the greater American militaristic soldier-cult that passes for American identity today, the casualties in Baghdad will inspire a whole new generation of soldier-worshipping 'Merkaans who will surely want to use nukes to "teach the evildoers" across the planet a lesson in 'Merkaan supremacy. Dammit-all, the ruling class will be the death of us all. Time to burn some rich bastard's barn already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question for Joshua Holland
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 6, 2007 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would I be allowed on this site if I called fellow readers names? Obviously I (and others) have some strong beliefs regarding Israel/Palestine, but no matter how much I may disagree or how many people offend me, I have yet to respond with name calling. I always try to address a point, and while I may employ sarcasm, I refrain from personal attacks.

I have to wonder. If yellow were an Arab-American or a Muslim would he get away with his behavior?

I may question whether either of you are Semites (most Jews are not), but that is not the same as calling you kikes or hebes or morons. I would not do that, and would be offended on both your behalfs if someone did.

This topic, Israel, should be open for discussion, and that discussion should be civil. We should certainly be allowed to show our anger, our fear and our feelings, but it can be done without personal insults and name-calling.

And I must say that the name calling 99% of the time is from staunch defenders of Israel, not the other way around.

Tells you something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Question for Joshua Holland Posted by: Joshua Holland
And theplanned scenario says Iranians will stop hating in 2 weeks, 2months...
Posted by: etisoppa on Sep 8, 2007 9:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get paid to think about these things so I was just wondering....?

But then again for those sponsoring all this "planning and execution" this might do just fine. How many generations can we get to fit into 1,000 years.

Yes what a set-up! Since 1979 when British Petroleum, the BBC and MI5 DIRECTLY, and by the Shah , the CIA and his US backers (maybe) by default, who by selling Shah Savak and F16's, installed the Ayatollah Khomeini regime. Their NWO dominoes have fallen into place. What a calamity. And so many were not "bright" enough then to understand what was going on. And they still are not bright enough to understand even now.

Iran should just come totally clean about their nuclear program in the remaining? days? But they are apparently not bright enough to understand this... even though the "sponsors" may still do it no matter what.

The Iraqis were going to welcome the liberators and the Iranians and ? Shiites? will forget in two weeks.

But the measured long term approach does not suit the NWO sponsors. They have timetables and agendas to meet. Gold bullion all stamped into NAU coins stamped 2007. Not one ounce of gold bullion went to waste in the 9/11 building, not ounce will go to waste again. The coins have already been stamped.

Maybe studying Mexican Spanish and Mexican videos will become a new obsession for Iranians. But hey, I don't get paid to think about stuff like that. Someone else does.

And the Iranians are not bright enough to think of things like this, or of kissing the new 12 lane NAU highway. But they are bright enough to make nukes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It would be terrorism. Posted by: yellow
OK here's want I want to know
Posted by: Dboy on Sep 11, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this article, and read all the threads. Within the discussion the topic of Israel came up alot. I'd like to know: is the US controlling Israel or is the Israel controling the US? Usually with these questions, you know. It's obvious. Why isn't it obvious this time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement