Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Can We Prevent an Iran Attack?

By Peter Galbraith, The New York Review of Books and TomDispatch. Posted October 16, 2007.


Is there hope of averting another war on the Persian Gulf?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This essay appeared previously on TomDispatch; it features an introduction by editor Tom Englehardt.

Be careful what you wish for -- that might be the catch phrase for American relations with Iran since the CIA helped overthrow the elected government of that country in 1953 and installed the young Shah in power. Much of our present world -- and many of our present problems in the Middle East and Central Asia -- stem from that particular act of imperial hubris. The Shah's Iran was then regarded by successive American administrations not just as a potential regional power, but as our regional bulwark, our imperial outpost. The U.S. helped bulk up the Shah's military, as well as his fearsome secret police, and, under President Dwight Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program, actually started Iran down the nuclear road which today leaves some administration figures threatening bloody murder, even while former Centcom commander John Abizaid claims that an Iranian bomb would not be the end of the universe. ("There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran… Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with [other] nuclear powers as well.")

The White House has reportedly given secret approval for covert operations to "destabilize" Iran and, evidently, its backing to small-scale terror strikes inside that country, while Iranian influence inside Shiite Iraq remains (as it has long been) significant. Meanwhile, a war of words (and charges) only escalates. President Bush heightened the anti-Iranian rhetoric in his September 13th post-Petraeus-hearings address, while an escalating campaign of charges against the activities of Iran and its Revolutionary Guards in Iraq continues to intensify, just as reports are coming out that the Pentagon is building a new base in Iraq, right up against the Iranian border. The Iranian nuclear situation remains at a boil.

There are also regular, if shadowy, reports that Vice President Cheney's office is pushing hard for a shock-and-awe air campaign against Iran. Recently (and not for the first time), the Iranians shot back: General Mohammed Hassan Koussechi, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, threatened to respond to any American action in his country by firing off missiles with a range of at least 1,200 miles against American and Western targets across the Middle East including, presumably, the enormous military bases the Pentagon has scattered across Iraq. ("Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range.")

While U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups slip in and out of the Persian Gulf, a murky Israeli air attack on a site in the Syrian desert, combined with a bizarre and unlikely nuclear tale involving the North Koreans, has added a further touch of paranoia to the situation. (According to the Israeli paper Haaretz, ex-United Nations Ambassador John Bolton has claimed that the Israeli bombing should be taken as "a clear message to Iran…. that its continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are not going to go unanswered.")

The President has indicated, more than once, that he would not hand the Iranian nuclear situation over to his successor unresolved (unlike the war in Iraq). Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a man who knows well the dangers a U.S. attack on Iran poses, continues to claim that "all options are on the table" when it comes to the Iranians. So consider the Iranian-American relationship, splayed on the "table" of Iraq, to be the potential crucible of disaster for the planet between now and January 2009. Former ambassador Peter Galbraith, author of The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End, considers that essential relationship in the upcoming issue of the New York Review of Books in an essay that the magazine's editors have been kind enough to let Tomdispatch post. Think of it as an action-packed, information-filled, essential primer for the months to come. Tom


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

See more stories tagged with: iran, neocons, iraq, gulf war

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» ORLY? Posted by: Iconoclast421
Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush on Iran
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Oct 17, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The White House’s propaganda campaign laying the groundwork for military action against Iran dates back almost six years—to Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address in which he designated Iran as a founding member of the “axis of evil.” Since then, this drumbeat has waxed and waned as other concerns—primarily the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq—have often commanded center stage. Now, with the Bush administration approaching its final year in office, a renewed push and a shorter fuse are increasingly evident. My 3-minute video entitled “Forewarned is Forearmed: Bush on Iran” is available HERE. It offers a very brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president’s public warmongering and demonization of Iran. As has been said before, “the hour is getting late.”

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

» RE: Iran can prevent war Posted by: pammers
» RE: Iran can prevent war Posted by: leafsong1
» no he didn't Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
maybe im paranoid but.. sniff sniff.. I smell big theatre war brewing
Posted by: andy on Oct 17, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if this is what it felt like back in 1914 when rising tensions between nations turned into full blown war after one initiating event.
Russia of course has now (looking after its energy interests) backed Iran and warns US about air strikes, French warn Iran and threaten air strikes,Turkey is going into Iraq, US pisses off China by seeing the Dalai Lama, while China pisses US over unfair trade balance, while wall street takes us all to the cleaners.
I dont know i cant put my finger on it, but something feels like its building, my instincts are telling me something big will occur before bush leaves, if he leaves.

does anyone else share these thoughts or am i just a crackpot who tokes on too many crackpipes.

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

Got a pitchfork? Got a torch? Got a gun? Got a tank? Got a coil of rope?
Posted by: xbj on Oct 17, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a Christian pacifist but one of those macho types that believes you have to take matters into your own hands?

Know where the White House is?

Answer these questions and you'll have the only answer to the only way YOU can stop the nuking of Iran.

C'mon, it's the American way since 1776, isn't it?

Everything else is just computer commando masturbation.

Legal Disclaimer: The above comment is presented tongue-in-cheek, despite its most unfortunate truth.

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

» Got A Pair? Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» Enjoy hell Posted by: xbj
HILARY WILL BRING WAR
Posted by: Rshaw on Oct 17, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Hilary supports Attacking Iraq!

What this news segment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0icVblxh2dI

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

» RE: BULLSHIT Posted by: xbj
» RE: BULLSHIT--that's right Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: HILARY WILL BRING WAR Posted by: Joshua Holland
Good cop, bad cop comedy
Posted by: shangrilalad on Oct 17, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
Conservatives view the world as a boundless opportunity for domination and exploitation until the end of time, which if they get their way, will come sooner rather than later. That’s what they fervently believe, but they prefer calling it spreading democratic values, with an emphasis on capitalistic values. Two very different values systems, one advocating egalitarianism, and the other “The Virtue of Greed,” has been rolled into a giant reefer, inhaled by America and confused as one and the same.

The Devil invented The Virtue of Greed.

The good cop, bad cop comedy routine perpetually performed by congressional Democrats and Republicans is wearing thin. Not many Americans are laughing now.

.

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

Peter Galbraith- corporate, racist Democrat
Posted by: citizenjoe on Oct 17, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Galbraith is one of the important ideologues for the DLC- the conservative, corporate democrats. This article sees Iran as the principal enemy of the USA-- exactly the position of the Bush administration. Galbraith is critical of Bush because he thinks Bush is incompetent in opposing the rise of Iranian power and influence. Like the conservative Democrats (I assume Galbraith is one of them), he sees Bush as an incompetent imperialist. Galbraith wants the Dems to be competent imperialists. To this end, Galbraith opposes a war with Iran. He thinks we can make a deal with them that will stabilize Iraq and allow the USA to overcome Iran gradually. He fails utterly to see that American imperial policy is the cause of Iranian hostility and he means to maintain that policy and do a better job of it than Bush. Galbraith's position is imperialist, supremacist and racist-- at the level of fundamental assumptions he is the same as Bush. Galbraith's position implies that if we CAN NOT make a deal with Iran, then we will have to attack them to stop them from becoming a great nuclear power. He is different from Bush on tactics, not on fundamental goals. He does not oppose attacking Iran if it is in the US imperial interests.

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

» Excellent. Posted by: citizenjoe
Relax a bit
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 17, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not saying to get complacent or let your guard down, but what the elites have set up is a veritable feeding frenzy. They are sucking so much wealth from the middle class right now that it would be foolish to go to war, drive oil up to $150 a barrel, and risk a complete economic meltdown. When the Sheeple are producing this much wool, it makes no sense to shear its skin off. I'm not saying Bush is logical or anything like that... but I am saying the Iraq war was good for business. War with Iran would not be good for the military industrial complex.

So I say relax a bit. Those billions of dollars we are losing to the top 0.1% are buying us time at least! When the dollar has bottomed out and real estate has finished imploding, then maybe they'll get it on with Iran.

So are you relaxed now? Does this give you the warm and fuzzies? No? Good.

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

» RE: elax a bit Posted by: andy
stay the fuck out IRAN........... FROM rUSSIA WITH LOVE
Posted by: andy on Oct 17, 2007 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We cant but the Ruskies can!

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

» RE: GOD BLESS PUTIN Posted by: xbj
» RE: GOD BLESS PUTIN Posted by: donl51
» RE: GOD BLESS PUTIN Posted by: bsdone
Is anyone looking at the real issues
Posted by: jbello on Oct 17, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iran is militarily on the defensive, and has been all along. On pg 2, the author implies that Iran invaded Iraq in the 80s, but that is incorrect. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran first, with the blessings of the US., Most of the war was fought in Iran and near the border, and Khomeini eventually settled for a UN negotiatied resolution to save his country.
As far as the Iraqi Govt connections to Iran. is it possible that Bush and Cheney could be so stupid they don't know that? I think the real issue is still economic and political control of resources. Putin knows that and that is why he is positioning Russia to defend their neighbor Iran. That is why he is taking responsibility for the Caspian Sea negotiations and supporting Iran's ties to the SCO.
Meanwhile, Iran has been making deals all over the East and Middle East, and even with Europe to sell their gas and oil in whatever currency the recipient chooses. Iran wants to trade on the Bourse. They control a focal point of trade in the Middle East and they are specifically aligning themselves with their Eastern neighbors.
Sure, EU members are waiting for the sanctions to end so they can make their arrangements with Iran. But the issue isn't Iran's absolutely legal nuclear program, but the fact that they will trade in Euros. Eveyone is betting (maybe praying is a better term) that GW and the neocon nuts will finish their terms without destroying the emerging new world economy. Everyone is ready to move forward but the US refuses to play unless they get to call all the shots. The Bush Doctrine appears to be "If we can't control it, we destroy it". Meanwhile, they are waiting us out. We are bleeding like crazy and every new directive causes the self inflicted wound to grow larger. How long can we go on with this ridiculous battle against the whole world?
We have to look at the truth, either Bush &Co really are so stupid they don't see the real issue at all, or they are so stupid they think a)economic dominance can be maintained by military power and b) if they work it right, the american people will never know. Bu maybe they just don't care about the end result. As long as they make thier fortunes along the way through the military industrial complex, and leave themselves an out when the fog burns off, what difference does it make what happens to the american people, to the rest of the people of the world, or even to the earth itself. After all, they will be dead before global warming takes it's toll. It's time the American people rose up and took back our country from the real enemies who are currently running it.

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

NO ATTACK IS SURE THING...
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Oct 17, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bilderbergers and Heir David Rockefeller decreed that Iran be attacked in March of 2004, so it is overdue and will occur and this will lead to Armageddon as Bush desires..and change the balance of power in the world forever..


Simple as that..


It's in the Contract, Yossarian..!

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

» RE: NO ATTACK IS SURE THING... Posted by: Constitutionalist75
NO MORE AMERICAN BLOOD-MONEY-REPUTATION FOR ISRAEL
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on Oct 17, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In TARGET IRAN Scott Ritter writes: "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else." [Israel lobby pushing for war with Iran]

Rest assured (or be scared...take your pick): if Israel manages to drag America in to ANOTHER disastrous war in the Middle East THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY HERE IN AMERICA. Myself and others will do all that we can to make sure that Americans will pour in to the streets like you have never seen before. And another thing: all of the money flowing in to Hollywood and diamond merchants and credit cards and insurance ("Israeli industries") will dry up faster than you can read The Book of Jonah; you all will be "cut off" to use an oft-repeated phrase from the Hebrew Bible. The Day of Atonment indeed.

The most sickening and bizarre aspect of all of this is that it almost seems that the American Jewish/Israeli/Zionist community (both the media AND foreign policy people in DC) is TRYING to bring all of this blame and doom crashing down upon their heads. Masochistic much?

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

Give Peace a Chance!
Posted by: Tiffany Twain on Oct 17, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Historical perspective gives us a clearer idea of how we got into the tragic and dangerous mess in the Middle East. Our current Iran conundrum is certainly a legacy of the backlash against our helping to overthrow the freely-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran in 1953 in a CIA-sponsored coup d’etat (‘Operation Ajax’). Our role in installing the despotic Shah and supporting him and his harsh SAVAK secret police for over 25 years has made us hated by many people in Iran. Our subsequent harboring of the Shah after he was deposed, and our support for Saddam Hussein in his devastating, one-million-casualties war against Iran from 1980 to 1988, contribute to this anger.

I believe that widespread clearer understandings are the key to more intelligent, sensible and sane foreign policies. I encourage readers to check out "Reflections on War" on the home page of the Earth Manifesto (to be found on the website www.EarthManifesto.com.

THANKS!

Dr. Tiffany Twain

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

» RE: Give Peace a Chance! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Well.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 17, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I don't think there really is anything we can do. If Bush really wants to get this thing going... or Cheney... or someone else high enough up, they'll just launch a small strike meant to provoke a response from Iran. They won't ask anyone's permission. Then, of course, once Iran responds its not very likely that we won't just go right down the road to full-on war. Dems haven't had much interest in really standing up against Bush yet, so I don't count on that to change one bit.

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

Evangelical Bush Cases
Posted by: US Citizen on Oct 17, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worry because of the religious evangelical nut cases, both Christian and Jewish, within the Bush administration who want to bomb Iran, thereby killing thousands of people, in order to fulfill their religious prophecy and to bring us closer to their end-of-the-world Rapture. It sounds like bad science fiction, but very well could happen.

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

» RE: vangelical Bush Cases Posted by: donl51
» RE: vangelical Bush Cases Posted by: jbur816
» RE: vangelical Bush Cases Posted by: bsdone
The US isn't going to attack anyone
Posted by: Gun Bunny on Oct 17, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The noises being made by Russia and Iran make sense in context if you understand the panic mode in which the russians and iranians are operating because:

1. The syrians spent a fortune on state-of-the-art russian built anti-aircraft systems.

2. Some of the weaponry is so new that it hasn't been deployed in Russia yet.

3. The syrians didn't know they were being attacked until the bombs started falling.

4. Russia and Iran and anyother coutries that have bought russian surface-to-air weapons technology are completely and utterly defenceless, period, and they know it. Now you do too.

Here's some interesting reading.

GunBunny

Syrian Confirms Israel Destroyed Nuclear Facility
by Ezra HaLevi

A Syrian official has now admitted that the Israeli operation on September 6 destroyed a nuclear facility.

A Syrian representative said Tuesday at the United Nations that reports that the target was a nuclear device were accurate. Syrian officials, including President Bashar Assad had previously claimed that Israel attacked an abandoned army base or an agricultural facility.

During a meeting of the UN Disarmament Commission, the Syrian representative acknowledged that the target had been the nuclear facility. Israeli Foreign Ministry officials were also attending. He accused Israel of aggression for targeting the facility.

In Israel, details of the strike, beyond the fact that an operation took place on September 6 in Syria, are still under gag order. Local media continue to skirt the order by leaking information to foreign papers and then citing their reports.

Former Education Director Against Nature/History Hikes in Golan
Some analysts have said the reason for the continued silence of the Israeli government on the September 6 attack is to avoid humiliating Assad and leading to a possible military escalation.

Dr. Elon Liel, a former Director General of the Foreign Ministry, has gone one step further in his hope for a conciliatory approach to Israel’s northern neighbor, sending a letter to Education Minister Yuli Tamir asking her to prevent high school students from participating in the “In the Footsteps of the Warriors” tours in the Golan Heights. Liel said he feared the tours would strengthen the students’ connection to the Golan. He called the tours “a provocation,” saying Israel would discourage Syria from negotiating an Israeli retreat from the Golan.

Brigadier-General Avigdor Kahalani, who participated in the liberation of the Golan and the creation of the “In the Footsteps of the Warriors” tours, rejected Liel’s demand as “nothing more than a leftist initiative.” The tours are important to the students’ morale and strengthen their sense of identification with IDF soldiers who fought in previous wars, he said. “A bus full of students is not a provocation.”

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

OIL IS ALREADY OVER $80/BARREL, ATTACK IRAN PLUS $!00/BARREL
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 17, 2007 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Already, due to some issues with Turkey threatening to invade USA occupied Iraq (aka the Kurdistan area), oil has gone over $80/barrel in the Futures market and many experts are predicting over $100 is coming soon. Gas prices are only still below $3/gal because of supply/demand issues, but believe me, they are headed way up. A USA attack on Iran is going to drive oil prices crazy, perhaps up to $150 or more per barrel. The result will be a massive collapse on Wall-Street followed by hyper-inflation and a collapse of the American economy. We also have to consider that Iran could attack US forces in Iraq as retaliation to a USA attack, quickly broadening and escalating the war and the economic collapse. An attack on Iran is economic calamity for the USA, and why I believe it is not going to happen.

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

A way to prevent
Posted by: willymack on Oct 17, 2007 6:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The crazies in the bush gang from attacking Iran? Maybe, but we'll have to appeal to the MILITARY, not congress or bushco. Remember the story about the Air force refusing to transport thermonuclear weapons to the Middle East aboard B52s? If this is true, there may be some sane and MORALLY UPRIGHT people in the Armed Forces. It can't hurt to appeal to them, now, can it?

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

Hints for the office pool....
Posted by: Werlin on Oct 17, 2007 6:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The attack -- whether U.S. alone or somehow coordinated with the Israeli Defence folk -- will not occur until enough speeded-up presidential primaries have happened that Ms. Clinton can claim the Democratic nomination on the first ballot. Look for late Spring, at the latest....

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

Bush wouldn't dare attack Iran!
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Oct 17, 2007 7:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be truthful about Bush's latest fit of sabre rettling over Iran. If Bozo thinks he can bully Iran by bombing them he is obviously overlooking one glaring fact. If the US declares war on Iran they can invade Iraq and with vastly superior numbers make Iraq a killing ground for all Americans. They don't need to come here when they have hundreds of thousands of targets next door in Iraq. Hundreds of Americans dead every day, that sounds like a very good deterrent to Bush's bravado.

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

» RE: Iran would last a month Posted by: pammers
» RE: Iran would last a month Posted by: donl51
THE ONLY WAY
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 18, 2007 2:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to stop madman Bush from attacking Iran is to impeach both he and Cheney. Otherwise, get ready to kiss your life goodbye in World War Three!

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

» RE: THE ONLY WAY Posted by: bsdone
» www.votenic.com Posted by: votenic
An Inconvenient Truth
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Oct 18, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush can ratchet up all of the rhetoric he wants to about Iran's President. That he is supposed to be hell bent on attaining nuclear weapons so he can destroy Israel. He is systematically portrayed as 'The New Hitler' by the willing media. The Iranian President does indeed say many inflammatory things.

Yet, there remains one inconvenient fact: Iran's president doesn't have the power to declare war. That power lies in the hands of Iran's Supreme Leader, who nobody really talks about. So is this all just talk? Hard to say, judging the willingness of the Administration to lie for political purposes.

I would worry more about Pakistan where they actually have nukes, and there is an extremist element and potential for instability.

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

Armegedon
Posted by: vertical on Oct 18, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Start a war in the holy land, and then exculate it. Sounds like a formula for armegedon to me.

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

Must read article.
Posted by: johndoraemi on Oct 18, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eurasia Strikes Back: No War With Iran Likely

by Srdja Trifkovic

at: globalresearch.ca

Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

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

» RE: Must read article. Posted by: richholland
It will be a nuclear attack
Posted by: drblack on Oct 18, 2007 6:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American Military has been severly damaged by the Bush administration,neoCONS and those who say"support theTroops" and American doesn't even have the capability to defend itself from attack at this time.
Cheney wants to use so called Tactical nukes instead. These nukes have a 50 to 150 kiloton rating and are more devestating then the ones used on Japan in WW2.
Why dod you think 4 at least 4 of this type of nuke was sent illegally to the main staging area for military supplies going to the Middle East.
If the true and decent American service men who knew of this and raised the alarm had remained silent those 4 nukes would be positioned to nuke Iran.
The question is were there more American Nuclear weapons illegally transfered to the mid east?
get ready people...Bush and co always do what they say they are trying to stop...in this case WW3.
I thank all of those who voted for BUsh-Cheney for putting nuclear weapons into the hands of the most evil and satanic rulers the USA has ever had.

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

» RE: It will be a nuclear attack Posted by: richholland
www.votenic.com
Posted by: votenic on Oct 22, 2007 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WEEKLY POLL

http://www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tuesday Evening.
FREE, NON-BIASED

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

But Exactly How are the Iranians Really Seeing things?
Posted by: etisoppa on Oct 22, 2007 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Peter Galbraith’s analysis seems very clean, logical, and ivory-towered. His points to me are quite valid:

1. Developing nuclear weapons would provide Iran with no additional deterrent to a U.S. invasion but could invite an attack.

2. A nuclear Iran -- a designated state sponsor of terrorism -- would find itself a likely target, even though it is extremely unlikely to supply such a weapon to al-Qaeda, a Sunni fundamentalist organization.

3. An Iranian bomb, however, likely would cause Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, thus canceling Iran's considerable manpower advantage over its Gulf rival.

But are the Iranians seeing it that way? Do they understand how dangerous for human life in that region, are the present “players” in Washington and elsewhere? Do they understand that our “players/deciders” are people on the dicey–edge for others see things differently, and that they are bristling with all manner of motivations and influences?

Motivations and influences from the Armageddonists Hagees on one hand, to the “supply-us-the- Anti-Christ” on the other, to the Zionist “Temple-fulfillment” on another hand, then to the “we-are- just-looking- a-cover- for-a- power- grab-and- agenda- fulfillment” NWO-ists on another hand? Do they understand all these things including Mr. Galbraith’s points? And then on yet another hand, we have their, the Iranian’s, “let-us-precipitate-the-Hidden-Imman” possible motivations.


If the Iranians were seeing things the way Mr. (Dr.?) Galbraith I and others see it, they would just offer access that proves beyond a doubt, not even “beyond reasonable doubt” but “beyond a doubt” that they are NOT developing nuclear weapons if in fact this is the case.

And if it is in fact the case that they are developing nuclear weapons they would stop, and offer the same safeguards and access that will prove beyond a doubt that they are will no longer be developing nuclear weapons or have any further technical capability to do so.
They can simply site Mr. Galbraith’s points for doing so.

This should just nip any “let-me-strike-before-I-leave-office” rush and anticipation right in the bud. Then we can all chill to working things out in a much lower pressure environment.

But the Iranians have yet to do these things. So it seems to me Mr. Galbraith had better haul himself to Tehran and Moscow to ensure that the Iranian’s perfectly understand the situation and do as logic dictates for the sake of so many.

I am certain that the sense of honor in Islam would dictate that the Hidden Imman would only reveal himself if there has been an extremely dishonorable provocation. Like the US launching a full-scale assault after knowing beyond a doubt that no such weapons program exists or has been verifiably stopped.

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