The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is War with Iran Now Inevitable?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest, President Donald Trump may have put us on the road to war with Iran.

Indeed, it is easier to see the collisions that are coming than to see how we get off this road before the shooting starts.

After “de-certifying” the nuclear agreement, signed by all five permanent members of the Security Council, Trump gave Congress 60 days to reimpose the sanctions that it lifted when Teheran signed.

If Congress does not reimpose those sanctions and kill the deal, Trump threatens to kill it himself.

Why? Did Iran violate the terms of the agreement? Almost no one argues that — not the UN nuclear inspectors, not our NATO allies, not even Trump’s national security team.

Iran shipped all its 20 percent enriched uranium out of the country, shut down most of its centrifuges, and allowed intrusive inspections of all nuclear facilities. Even before the deal, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies said they could find no evidence of an Iranian nuclear bomb program.

Indeed, if Iran wanted a bomb, Iran would have had a bomb.

She remains a non-nuclear-weapons state for a simple reason: Iran’s vital national interests dictate that she remain so.

As the largest Shiite nation with 80 million people, among the most advanced in the Mideast, Iran is predestined to become the preeminent power in the Persian Gulf. But on one condition: She avoid the great war with the United States that Saddam Hussein failed to avoid.

Iran shut down any bomb program it had because it does not want to share Iraq’s fate of being smashed and broken apart into Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Kurds and Baluch, as Iraq was broken apart by the Americans into Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, Yazidis and Kurds.

Tehran does not want war with us. It is the War Party in Washington and its Middle East allies — Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudi royals — who hunger to have the United States come over and smash Iran.

Thus, the Congressional battle to kill, or not to kill, the Iran nuclear deal shapes up as decisive in the Trump presidency.

Yet, even earlier collisions with Iran may be at hand.

In Syria’s east, U.S.-backed and Kurd-led Syrian Democratic Forces are about to take Raqqa. But as we are annihilating ISIS in its capital, the Syrian army is driving to capture Deir Ezzor, capital of the province that sits astride the road from Baghdad to Damascus.

Its capture by Bashar Assad’s army would ensure that the road from Baghdad to Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon remains open.

If the U.S. intends to use the SDF to seize the border area, we could find ourselves in a battle with the Syrian army, Shiite militia, the Iranians, and perhaps even the Russians.
Are we up for that?

In Iraq, the national army is moving on oil-rich Kirkuk province and its capital city. The Kurds captured Kirkuk after the Iraqi army fled from the ISIS invasion. Why is a U.S.-trained Iraqi army moving against a U.S.-trained Kurdish army?

The Kurdistan Regional Government voted last month to secede. This raised alarms in Turkey and Iran, as well as Baghdad. An independent Kurdistan could serve as a magnet to Kurds in both those countries.

Baghdad’s army is moving on Kirkuk to prevent its amputation from Iraq in any civil war of secession by the Kurds.

Where does Iran stand in all of this?

ORDER IT NOW

In the war against ISIS, they were de facto allies. For ISIS, like al-Qaida, is Sunni and hates Shiites as much as it hates Christians. But if the U.S. intends to use the SDF to capture the Iraqi-Syrian border, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia could all be aligned against us.

Are we ready for such a clash?

We Americans are coming face to face with some new realities.

The people who are going to decide the future of the Middle East are the people who live there. And among these people, the future will be determined by those most willing to fight, bleed and die for years and in considerable numbers to realize that future.

We Americans, however, are not going to send another army to occupy another country, as we did Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

Bashar Assad, his army and air force backed by Vladimir Putin’s air power, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran, and Hezbollah won the Syrian civil war because they were more willing to fight and die to win it. And, truth be told, all had far larger stakes there than did we.

We do not live there. Few Americans are aware of what is going on there. Even fewer care.

Our erstwhile allies in the Middle East naturally want us to fight their 21st-century wars, as the Brits got us to help fight their 20th-century wars.

But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Coyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Iran, Kurds, Syria 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Miro23 says:

    We Americans, however, are not going to send another army to occupy another country, as we did Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

    That seems pretty clear.

    Tehran does not want war with us. It is the War Party in Washington and its Middle East allies — Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudi royals — who hunger to have the United States come over and smash Iran.

    Thus, the Congressional battle to kill, or not to kill, the Iran nuclear deal shapes up as decisive in the Trump presidency.

    There’s no battle here, Congressmen just vote how the Zionists tell them to vote (same as Trump).

    So that leaves the aerial destruction of Iran? And how will that work out with the US on its own?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Altai

    So that leaves the aerial destruction of Iran? And how will that work out with the US on its own?
     
    This is what concerns me. Trump may reject a serious air campaign or overt (It's shocking how the Western media covers Syria constantly but ignores the British/American/Norwegian occupation of Syrian territory! Nobody in those countries knows a thing about it!) military campaign but he seems to either be game or have been bent towards a low-level proxy war that throws ISIS under the bus for local not-ISIS salafists.

    Likewise in Iran. I can only hope that he is doing this out of pettiness to just end the Obama legacy and that he will renegotiate another deal. He seemed to frame the deal with Iran as too generous not a bad idea in itself. I'd disagree, even if the deal included the US giving Iran 100 billion for free it'd be a good deal for the US by neutering a primary war justification vector, the consequences for which would cost the US a lot more than 100 billion. Otherwise a serious air campaign coupled with arming various ethnic separatists could be one option they might go for, the Kurds can have their state, out of a piece of Iran!

    I don't know the neocons know what they're doing by having a Kushner (And his explicitly Jewish-supremacist sect.) in there pushing for this. It's a giant '/pol/ was right!' alt-right meme.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/is-war-with-iran-now-inevitable/#comment-2046322
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they’re done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don’t help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn’t do, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Read More
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Randal

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.
     
    This is your opinion, but it's clearly based upon "evidence" mostly supplied by biased and actively dishonest sources that desire above all to foment confrontation of and war with Iran.

    In reality, nobody can actually know with any confidence whether or not Iran desires or is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian case for and against acquiring them can be argued either way - on the one hand nuclear weapons are the only known way to deter US aggression, with which Iran has been repeatedly and plausibly threatened. On the other hand, conventional deterrence has also worked so far for Iran and gets stronger every year, and it's doubtful whether the gains from acquiring a nuclear deterrent would outweigh the diplomatic and economic costs of acquiring it.

    And as Ahmadinejad coherently pointed out, nuclear weapons have no other plausible use.

    Of course, it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning, but if that is the case it will certainly not be in the literally stupid manner put about by lying Israel Lobby and other propagandists, that the Iranian leadership are secretly some kind of glorified national suicide bombers. It would be that they actually do take seriously the religious prohibition on nuclear weapons stated by Khomeini and subsequently affirmed.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
     
    This suggests that your own position is not rationally based. There is no rational reason to fantasize about Iran as a national suicide bomber, and doing so is clearly either dishonest or based upon long absorption of dishonest propaganda. Like the US regime, Israel and its partisans have a well established track record of dishonesty about supposed threats being used to justify military aggression, and long ago forfeited any right to be taken seriously in such claims.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing
     
    That's pretty much word for word how the warmongers justified the attack on Libya when the dire Iraq precedent was pointed out. Surprise, surprise, Libya found its own ways of being a catastrophic and costly disaster.

    The "reality based community" knows that among the quickest ways to disaster are underestimating an enemy and assuming that an enemy will respond as you expect them to respond. That's certainly the case in spades with an attack on Iran.

    Of course, people adopting positions like yours here are either people who base their analysis on other than reality, or dupes for the same, like all those who argued for the Iraq war.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Liar! Iran's leadership stated that Israel would disappear from the pages of history, the lie that you repeat is a wilful mistranslation.
    , @MEexpert
    Indeed. Why are you here except to propagate Israeli/neocon line.

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.
     
    And you know this how? 17 US intelligence agencies issued a report in 2007 that they estimate with high degree of confidence that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. The same estimate was reaffirmed in 2011. President Bush who was almost convinced by Dick Chaney to attack Iran decided against it because of this estimate. Go read it in his book.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they’re done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don’t help Israel they will go it alone.
     
    They hate Israel because Israel and her agents, the neocons and AIPAC, have caused enough death and destruction in the Middle East, at the hands of clueless American Presidents, to last for a long time. And yet Israel is not satisfied. She wants the US to attack Iran so that Israel can remain the only nuclear power in the region. Bibi, the liar, Netanyahu has been shouting wolf for the past twenty years about the Iranian bomb, which has yet to materialize.

    The Iranian authorities have iterated several times that they are not interested in a nuclear weapon. The US intelligence agencies have attested to the same fact but they are all liars. Only Israel is telling the truth and her bought and paid for American politicians lap this up like the dunces they are. The American public is just as dumb. Their only source of information is the Israeli controlled MSM. Majority of these fools believe that Iran already has a nuclear bomb.

    Trump is under total Israeli control either, due to Adelson or Kushner/Ivanka combo. I truly believe that he was elected to destroy the United States from within, as President Lincoln predicted. He wants to nuke North Korea. He is now getting ready for Iran. Venezuela is next or perhaps Cuba and may be other countries as well. After all we have such a cache of rusting nuclear weapons that we must use them somewhere so that the Military/Industrial/Wall Street Complex could make more money by developing new weapons.

    Hillary could not have been worse.
    , @Lars Porsena
    I've been hearing Israel threatening to "go it alone" for years, I don't think they can. If they can, why don't they? If Israel wants to go to war with Iran by itself how is that a problem for the US? Have at them.
    , @jacques sheete

    Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map...
     
    Dusting off that old canard, huh? Either provide a credible source or your credibility is zero.

    While yer at it,tell us about the attack on the USS Liberty, and the NUMEC scandal.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Those assurances about the "limited" nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.

    Will we not conduct a "full-scale invasion and occupation" of Iran when Iranian missiles strike our ships?

    When Iranians shut down shipping of oil & gas & goods through the Straits, sending our fuel prices skyrocketing?

    When Iranians or their proxies attack US troops, with our vulnerable looooong supply chains, in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    When Iranian-funded terrorists set off bombs all across the USA in retaliation? (or when the US government stages an attack at home that it can pin on Iran, I suppose that's not aaaaaaaaaltogether implausible ;)

    And how about an Iranian electromagnetic pulse that causes trillions of dollars in damage to public and private property and substantially cripples our safety-communications infrastructure and our economy? That wouldn't be so "limited."

    Somehow I think there will be plenty of "good reasons" -- among them simple revenge at that point -- for the US gov to bomb the civilian population of Iran and invade on the ground.

    WE NEED TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF WAR AND PROVOCATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA.

    , @MarkinLA
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.

    First of all, even if true, there is nothing short of a nuclear strike or all out war that can stop Iran. They have uranium deposits and can build a facility deep into a mountain that cannot be touched. Let Bibi stop them if he has the balls and leave us out.
    , @renfro
    Israel can do nothing alone. They are like monkeys beating their chest and pretending to be silverbacks.
    Right now they are hawking their usual lies , trying to claim they now have US BASE...when it really isn't a' base'. Anyone can see thru them....they think in this case a US Base would deter their enemies from attacking the actual 'Israeli base"....or...if a stray bullet or missile hits their base their US congressional prostitutes can scream...'the US has been attacked"!
    The day the US drops support of Israel it will become a small Jewish 'commune'...if it even survives. Which I doubt....because in 3000 yrs nothing the Jews have ever 'settled' for themselves has lasted.



    'Col. Liran Cohen, head of the IDF’s air defense school, left, and Col. David Shank, of the US 10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command, cut the ribbon to open the first American military base in Israel, inside the Mashabim Air Base, on September 18, 2017. (Israel Defense Forces)

    The American military on Tuesday denied a claim made by the Israel Defense Forces that the United States had established its first base in Israel, saying the new buildings were instead a “living facility.”
    On Monday, the Israeli Air Force declared that the US military’s European Command (EUCOM) had opened a “base within a base” at the IDF’s air defense school, west of the towns of Dimona and Yeruham in southern Israel.

    “We established an American base in the State of Israel, in the Israel Defense Forces, for the first time, with an American flag. A permanent base,” Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch, head of the IAF’s Aerial Defense Command, told reporters.
    However, an official from EUCOM contradicted that account.

    “The new buildings located on the Israeli installation are not a US military base,” she said. “The buildings are facilities on the existing Israeli Air Force Base to support our US service personnel who are working there.”
    The message was passed along to the IDF, which quickly changed all mentions on its website of a “US military base” to read “US military facility.”
    A cached version of the IDF’s blog maintains the original language, referring to the site as a “base.”
    A preview of the story that can be seen in a tweet published by the IDF also refers to the facility as a “base.”
    An Israeli army official confirmed that the Americans had contacted the IDF and requested the change in terminology, as a base carries with it a number of legal distinctions and can only be applied to facilities of a certain size.
    The Israeli official said the rest of the information about the site and its significance remained the same.

    A tweet showing the IDF referring to a new US military facility in Israel as a ‘base,’ despite American claims that it is not, on September 18, 2017. (Screen capture: Twitter)

    US military forces are routinely based in Israel, for joint exercises, cooperation with the IDF, and to operate some US facilities in the country.
    The new buildings that were opened Monday are located not far from a US military radar installation east of Dimona that tracks ballistic missiles once they are launched and provides details on their flight paths to defense systems.
    “The buildings will function as a living facility for US service members, who are currently working at the Israeli base,” the EUCOM official said.
    Haimovitch on Monday lauded the opening of the facility for allowing “us to improve our defense, in discovery and in interception and in preparedness.”
    The air defense chief said the permanent presence of a US facility on Israeli soil sends a “message to the region and our surroundings that our partnership with our friend the United States is important.”
    In his speech, Maj. Gen. John Gronski, deputy commander of US Army National Guard in Europe, said the facility “symbolizes the strong bond that exists between the United States and Israel.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/contradicting-idf-us-says-it-didnt-establish-military-base-in-israel/


    Like
    , @falcemartello
    @whyamihere
    I have no idea in what planet u live on but one thing is 4 sure ur talking points are straight out of AIPAC and the Likudniks /anglo-zionist play book. mid 2000 Mossad report Iran has no nuclear weapons capacity Mossad /MI6 and CIA report in 2012 Iran has no nuclear weapons program. 2013 the Likudniks and the anglo-zionist circa 2014 we must bomb Iran . 7 nuclear engineers assassinated by Mossad and /CIA operatives.
    Now lets talk about reality. Israel and the anglo-zionist do not want Iran or any ME country to develop a civilian initiated nuclear program ? Nuclear technology has a lot of attachments to modern medicine . The intention here is to reduce any modernisation of the Iranian economy and make it totally reliant on petroleum and gas. By keeping them that way corners the Iranian economy to a single style economy. Iran has profited immensely in the embargo. Iranian academicians are second to the US in publishing scientific research. Their education system IE tertiary system and post secondary education is leaps ahead of most western universities minus Ivy league US institutions. The Iranian economy has been growing for the last decade while western economies are floundering and Docius in fundem last but not least occupied Palestine/Israel is living on my and my fellow citizens 3.8 billion dollar subsidy that pour puppets so willingly fork out to the criminal state of of occupied Palestine/Israel.
    Israel is an apartheid supremacist racist fascistic entity. and all we r experiencing with regards to the DRPK and Iran is smoke and mirrors to hide our defunct politicians, economy and lack of democracy .
    , @Talha

    Israel cannot and must not tolerate...even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran
     
    That's cool - they have their own government - they should do something about it. Their voices count to the government they pay taxes to - i.e. not here.

    If you think you have balls of brass to pull off another Osirak go for it - you can just tack it on the growing list of UN violations you guys have.

    If you want to go to war with Persia because you can't tolerate her actions - go for it - good luck with the missile shower coming in from Lebanon.

    Leave us the hell out, we're not interested in another round of "Let's you and him fight!"

    Peace.

    , @in the middle
    What exactly do we gain wondering if the most liberal Israeli PM do or don't? I can care less about what an Israeli PM does or thinks. Last I check its not an American colony, or State! Israel is simple a bully who bullies the surrounding countries thanks to our aid, and weapons. What we do need to do is to distance our selves from that war mongering little country then. May be if we do that, they will stop their mongering and become a normal, stable little nation, like any other.
    Oh if only we had cojones! and concentrate in our corner of the earth, instead of going around the wold telling others what to do, and how to live.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Art says:

    Our erstwhile allies in the Middle East naturally want us to fight their 21st-century wars, as the Brits got us to help fight their 20th-century wars.

    But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.

    Trump is setting America and the world up for a war between Israel and Hezbollah/Syria. He is setting the stage for war, by putting the blame for it on Iran and the Shia. Killing this nuke agreement is all about making Iran into a bad boy enemy – it is a ruse.

    If Assad wins against ISIS, then the collation of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia will become a powerful force in the ME. The Israelis cannot let that happen. They must stop that collation from permanently forming a defense. Israel must attack Hezbollah soon. The window of opportunity for doing this is closing.

    Trump’s role in this is to build the tension needed to take the onus of the Jews for starting the war between Israel, Hezbollah/Syria.

    Expect a false flag operation leading to war.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Bizarre how increasingly out of touch this fellow has become.

    He might be aware of the partnering between the NorKs and Iran, and worse, how Iran seems hell-bent on conquering Saudi Arabia.

    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    At what point, when threatened, should a country believe the threat?

    Just a weird kooky ol’ guy is Patrick these days!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Hey Rosie, have you always been a neo-Cohen Zionist troll?
    , @Art
    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    The misadventures of the CIA created the takeover of Iran by the mullahs. We helped Saddam attack Iran with chemical weapons. What can we expect?

    We abrogate our foreign policy to Israel who wants to hold hegemony over the whole ME by breaking up these countries. The Jews thrive on tribal hate – divide and conquer is their game.

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Kevin says:

    NO! Though it is a Wet Dream of Netanyahu……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Randal says:

    With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest, President Donald Trump may have put us on the road to war with Iran.

    The attempt to break the Iran deal isn’t in itself going to make war with Iran all that much more likely even if it succeeds. Sure, the attacks on the deal are just another ploy, by those who want war with Iran, to try to shape the political and diplomatic context to make that war more achievable (and to ensure they don’t get too much of the blame themselves when it all goes disastrously wrong for America and Americans), so breaking the deal would be a “victory” for those people.

    However, the US withdrawing, de facto or de jure, from the deal doesn’t in itself trigger war with Iran, by any means, or change the fundamental balance that means war with Iran would be infinitely more painful for the US sphere than was war with Iraq. What it triggers first is a struggle to coerce Britain and the European states to knuckle under again to the US regime’s self-appointed right to force them again to comply with its aggressive use of sanctions against Iran.

    The outcome of that struggle is by no means clear, especially in the context of a Trump presidency that is dramatically out of ideological step with the leftist European and British elites.

    The US regime still has a lot of the tools that allowed it to enforce its will on Europe and Britain in the past, but the Trump presidency weakens its political influence and in the economic sphere the US gets less able to use the tools it has with every year that passes. It might well be that such an attempt by the lobbies that manipulate US policy towards war with Iran will instead trigger a final break that will allow the creation of economic structures that are actually outside the US’s control. Russia and China have already moved in that direction as a result of past US abuse of its economic primacy for such manipulation, and the door is wide open for the European states and perhaps even Britain (though that country’s elite is more thoroughly dominated by US Quislings) to step right through it.

    After the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the war lobbies in the US have a very hard job to do in getting up a war with Iran, because only someone profoundly ignorant, basically dishonest or a functional moron could claim to believe that a US war with Iran would be a good idea for anyone but the lobbies directly benefitting from the chaos and bloodshed (Israel, first and foremost, but also Saudi, and military-industrial). That it’s still even a possibility is a tribute to the astonishing power those lobbies wield in the US and the distorted background they have created with decades of propaganda and fomenting of trouble between the US and Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    "After the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the war lobbies in the US have a very hard job to do in getting up a war with Iran, because only someone profoundly ignorant, basically dishonest or a functional moron could claim to believe that a US war with Iran would be a good idea"...

    Your point here is well taken, but could we see another 9/11 type false flag attack in the future that could somehow be pinned on Iran to lead the gullible populace to allow yet another war of aggression by the US on yet another hapless ME country?

    , @peterAUS
    Good comment.

    But, I do feel that you give to average American citizens too much credit.

    Their....silent consent....isn't just a result of "decades of propaganda and fomenting of trouble between the US and Iran."

    It goes deeper than that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. “… avoid the great war with the United States that Saddam Hussein failed to avoid.”

    As if Iraq had any choice in the matter. Smartest thing the Iranians can do is to follow the example of North Korea and nuke up before regime change is set in motion in earnest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Randal says:
    @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.

    This is your opinion, but it’s clearly based upon “evidence” mostly supplied by biased and actively dishonest sources that desire above all to foment confrontation of and war with Iran.

    In reality, nobody can actually know with any confidence whether or not Iran desires or is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian case for and against acquiring them can be argued either way – on the one hand nuclear weapons are the only known way to deter US aggression, with which Iran has been repeatedly and plausibly threatened. On the other hand, conventional deterrence has also worked so far for Iran and gets stronger every year, and it’s doubtful whether the gains from acquiring a nuclear deterrent would outweigh the diplomatic and economic costs of acquiring it.

    And as Ahmadinejad coherently pointed out, nuclear weapons have no other plausible use.

    Of course, it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning, but if that is the case it will certainly not be in the literally stupid manner put about by lying Israel Lobby and other propagandists, that the Iranian leadership are secretly some kind of glorified national suicide bombers. It would be that they actually do take seriously the religious prohibition on nuclear weapons stated by Khomeini and subsequently affirmed.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    This suggests that your own position is not rationally based. There is no rational reason to fantasize about Iran as a national suicide bomber, and doing so is clearly either dishonest or based upon long absorption of dishonest propaganda. Like the US regime, Israel and its partisans have a well established track record of dishonesty about supposed threats being used to justify military aggression, and long ago forfeited any right to be taken seriously in such claims.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing

    That’s pretty much word for word how the warmongers justified the attack on Libya when the dire Iraq precedent was pointed out. Surprise, surprise, Libya found its own ways of being a catastrophic and costly disaster.

    The “reality based community” knows that among the quickest ways to disaster are underestimating an enemy and assuming that an enemy will respond as you expect them to respond. That’s certainly the case in spades with an attack on Iran.

    Of course, people adopting positions like yours here are either people who base their analysis on other than reality, or dupes for the same, like all those who argued for the Iraq war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Excellent comment. The only quibble I would have is a rational American political establishment would be very aware how Iran would react and would not even contemplate war.
    Nearly all Saudi Arabia's oil is in Al Hasa, adjoining the Persian Gulf, which is close to Iran ( have to spell this out because I know many American politicians aren't good at Geography!)
    And it gets worse. 60% or more of Saudi oil is piped through a choke point not far from Dharan. This seems to be under 1km square. This choke point has been mentioned in at least one article by Dr Giraldi ( unfortunately I can't remember which one - it may even be one published in The American Conservative, before they purged him.)
    In the event of war, the Iranians would be able to take out a large percentage of Saudi oil production, particularly if they have access to modern Russian missiles, which seems to be the case.
    Production would be drastically cut for months, maybe for years. Aside from the massive social unrest inside Saudi Arabia, the Petro-dollar would collapse. American hegemony would be over.
    But, as you say, the American political establishment aren't rational. They really don't seem to see what's coming.
    , @peterAUS
    Similar to my comment about average Americans.

    You put, IMHO, too much emphasize on rationality in this game.
    Perhaps your approach is just a bit too simplistic.

    War, killings....they are much more complicated human activities.

    They can be, and are, always, rationalized but, often, their real reasons are much deeper.

    So, in Iranian case, I really wouldn't discard:
    "......it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning....."
    Or Israeli feelings about Iran.

    When we are on that topic, do you really believe that a mugger is just after your wallet?
    Or a rapist just after female "thing"?
    Or a robber just after bank money?

    The same in wars..........
    It's not just cold rational calculations. It's also about..........something else.

    The only scary thing today about all that is the "nuclear option".
    Our ...something else....destroying us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Randal

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.
     
    This is your opinion, but it's clearly based upon "evidence" mostly supplied by biased and actively dishonest sources that desire above all to foment confrontation of and war with Iran.

    In reality, nobody can actually know with any confidence whether or not Iran desires or is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian case for and against acquiring them can be argued either way - on the one hand nuclear weapons are the only known way to deter US aggression, with which Iran has been repeatedly and plausibly threatened. On the other hand, conventional deterrence has also worked so far for Iran and gets stronger every year, and it's doubtful whether the gains from acquiring a nuclear deterrent would outweigh the diplomatic and economic costs of acquiring it.

    And as Ahmadinejad coherently pointed out, nuclear weapons have no other plausible use.

    Of course, it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning, but if that is the case it will certainly not be in the literally stupid manner put about by lying Israel Lobby and other propagandists, that the Iranian leadership are secretly some kind of glorified national suicide bombers. It would be that they actually do take seriously the religious prohibition on nuclear weapons stated by Khomeini and subsequently affirmed.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
     
    This suggests that your own position is not rationally based. There is no rational reason to fantasize about Iran as a national suicide bomber, and doing so is clearly either dishonest or based upon long absorption of dishonest propaganda. Like the US regime, Israel and its partisans have a well established track record of dishonesty about supposed threats being used to justify military aggression, and long ago forfeited any right to be taken seriously in such claims.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing
     
    That's pretty much word for word how the warmongers justified the attack on Libya when the dire Iraq precedent was pointed out. Surprise, surprise, Libya found its own ways of being a catastrophic and costly disaster.

    The "reality based community" knows that among the quickest ways to disaster are underestimating an enemy and assuming that an enemy will respond as you expect them to respond. That's certainly the case in spades with an attack on Iran.

    Of course, people adopting positions like yours here are either people who base their analysis on other than reality, or dupes for the same, like all those who argued for the Iraq war.

    Excellent comment. The only quibble I would have is a rational American political establishment would be very aware how Iran would react and would not even contemplate war.
    Nearly all Saudi Arabia’s oil is in Al Hasa, adjoining the Persian Gulf, which is close to Iran ( have to spell this out because I know many American politicians aren’t good at Geography!)
    And it gets worse. 60% or more of Saudi oil is piped through a choke point not far from Dharan. This seems to be under 1km square. This choke point has been mentioned in at least one article by Dr Giraldi ( unfortunately I can’t remember which one – it may even be one published in The American Conservative, before they purged him.)
    In the event of war, the Iranians would be able to take out a large percentage of Saudi oil production, particularly if they have access to modern Russian missiles, which seems to be the case.
    Production would be drastically cut for months, maybe for years. Aside from the massive social unrest inside Saudi Arabia, the Petro-dollar would collapse. American hegemony would be over.
    But, as you say, the American political establishment aren’t rational. They really don’t seem to see what’s coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    In the event of war, the Iranians would be able to take out a large percentage of Saudi oil production, particularly if they have access to modern Russian missiles, which seems to be the case. Production would be drastically cut for months, maybe for years.
     
    Yes, but. You might ask yourself if the cutting of oil supplies for the American "discretionary spending" market does any harm to the oligarchy and the Israelists that direct its activities. I suspect the curtailment of such "But it's my RIGHT!" liberties indulged in by the American consumer might work more to the advantage of the kleptocracy oligarchy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @RoseColoredGlasses
    Bizarre how increasingly out of touch this fellow has become.

    He might be aware of the partnering between the NorKs and Iran, and worse, how Iran seems hell-bent on conquering Saudi Arabia.

    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    At what point, when threatened, should a country believe the threat?

    Just a weird kooky ol' guy is Patrick these days!

    Hey Rosie, have you always been a neo-Cohen Zionist troll?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. A nuclear armed Iran is no more dangerous than a nuclear armed Israel, in fact, less so.

    All nations in the Middle East are driven by religious fervor but of the flavours available, Shi’ia Islam is far more moderate and less aggressive than either Sunni Islam or Judaism.

    As usual the poor Christians and Yazidis are caught in between perpetually warring, competing groups of psychopaths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Liar! Iran’s leadership stated that Israel would disappear from the pages of history, the lie that you repeat is a wilful mistranslation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Blue Dot says:

    I think you need new glasses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Apparently Donald Rodham Trump wants war with Iran, Russia and China. America first my ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. anon says: • Disclaimer

    If US elites were determined to go to war with Iran, it would have already happened.

    I suspect that the US military is not interested in losing another war and are resisting. Boeing has already sold a lot of planes to Iran.

    Europe is seeing the US excesses in the Middle East as interfering with their globalist agenda. They want to simply buy gas from Russia and get back to business. They had a public fit over our last set of gratuitous Russia sanctions.

    The entire military industrial complex and especially the intelligence agencies have the GWOT. It is increasingly ‘cyber warfare’ which is virtual, never ending, and expensive activity can never be proven to either work or fail. Why bother with real weapons systems that can fail, a war that can be lost, actually dying … stuff like that. Complex computer systems that have to prevent something from happening? If it didn’t happen, it worked. If it did happen, they need more money.

    The Saudis have their IPO coming up. Maybe they don’t want it.

    I don’t know. These are just speculations.

    But for sure … someone is resisting. Otherwise, it would have happened long ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro
    '' But for sure … someone is resisting.''


    Russia's interest in Syria and Iran has changed the game.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. MEexpert says:
    @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Indeed. Why are you here except to propagate Israeli/neocon line.

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.

    And you know this how? 17 US intelligence agencies issued a report in 2007 that they estimate with high degree of confidence that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. The same estimate was reaffirmed in 2011. President Bush who was almost convinced by Dick Chaney to attack Iran decided against it because of this estimate. Go read it in his book.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they’re done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don’t help Israel they will go it alone.

    They hate Israel because Israel and her agents, the neocons and AIPAC, have caused enough death and destruction in the Middle East, at the hands of clueless American Presidents, to last for a long time. And yet Israel is not satisfied. She wants the US to attack Iran so that Israel can remain the only nuclear power in the region. Bibi, the liar, Netanyahu has been shouting wolf for the past twenty years about the Iranian bomb, which has yet to materialize.

    The Iranian authorities have iterated several times that they are not interested in a nuclear weapon. The US intelligence agencies have attested to the same fact but they are all liars. Only Israel is telling the truth and her bought and paid for American politicians lap this up like the dunces they are. The American public is just as dumb. Their only source of information is the Israeli controlled MSM. Majority of these fools believe that Iran already has a nuclear bomb.

    Trump is under total Israeli control either, due to Adelson or Kushner/Ivanka combo. I truly believe that he was elected to destroy the United States from within, as President Lincoln predicted. He wants to nuke North Korea. He is now getting ready for Iran. Venezuela is next or perhaps Cuba and may be other countries as well. After all we have such a cache of rusting nuclear weapons that we must use them somewhere so that the Military/Industrial/Wall Street Complex could make more money by developing new weapons.

    Hillary could not have been worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hillary could not have been worse.
     
    That's a bit fatuous. Hillary-Prez would mean "all of the above + open border chaos".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. What’s the worst scenario you can imagine?

    How about Israel with control of a significant percentage of the world’s oil supply? Then Jews would not only dictate the world’s monetary policy, but control the choke point of manufacturing and trade as well.

    This would not be in the United States’ interest. So we will dance with the girl we brought to the dance and that is Saudi Arabia. We will prop up co-operative, bronze-aged fiefdoms in preference to dealing with a nuclear armed Israel’s wielding such leverage. So we station troops in and around Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar et al. We twist these nations arms to break with other oil producing nations and destroy OPEC’s cartel (hence our threatening Iran). They are client states and provide a stable supply of relatively cheap (i.e. not too inflationary) oil. But there is a price.

    In exchange we allow them to spread Islam into Europe and America. Corrupt politicians like Merkel are modern day Ephialtes who are betraying their nations and peoples by showing the enemy the roundabout secret path by which they can flank the home guard. Saudi Arabia is willing to make concessions to the West (not that it has much choice) if in doing so it can justify this by spreading Islam. Don’t underestimate this religious dimension, which is easy for modern, agnostic Europeans to do. The Saudis are allowed to and have been building Mosques and madrassaes everywhere in the West, taking advantage of our religious tolerance and the separation of church and state (not to mention the special tax-exempt status these enjoy).

    This is why our in-the-know politicians have informed us that we had better just get used to the terror attacks in our midst. They know that a certain percentage of the Saudi’s they let in will be extremists but they have struck this bargain with the Devil and that’s our end of it.

    Israel, on the other hand, would love to see the US topple oil-rich states so that she has chance to swoop in and take control of territory which would give her clout on the world’s stage . All she has to do is sit and wait for the right moment to present itself.

    Since the Israel lobby is so powerful in the USA, American power Elite have to walk a fine line with a policy that restricts Israel’s expansionist plans yet ensures her survival while simultaneously bending Saudi Arabia to their will yet appeasing her with certain concessions. European and American populations are caught in the middle, abused by both Israel and SA.

    There is really only one solution to this that would preserve the West and that is utter annihilation of the peoples of the Middle East, seizure of the oil fields and repopulating the land with European and American immigrants. Neutron bombs would leave the infrastructure intact and relatively radioactive free.

    Of course, no one in the West has the stomach for this and so the immivasion of and subversion of Western Civilization will continue apace, this being preferable, in the eyes of our spineless politicians, to concrete definitive action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. epnngg says:
    @Randal

    With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest, President Donald Trump may have put us on the road to war with Iran.
     
    The attempt to break the Iran deal isn't in itself going to make war with Iran all that much more likely even if it succeeds. Sure, the attacks on the deal are just another ploy, by those who want war with Iran, to try to shape the political and diplomatic context to make that war more achievable (and to ensure they don't get too much of the blame themselves when it all goes disastrously wrong for America and Americans), so breaking the deal would be a "victory" for those people.

    However, the US withdrawing, de facto or de jure, from the deal doesn't in itself trigger war with Iran, by any means, or change the fundamental balance that means war with Iran would be infinitely more painful for the US sphere than was war with Iraq. What it triggers first is a struggle to coerce Britain and the European states to knuckle under again to the US regime's self-appointed right to force them again to comply with its aggressive use of sanctions against Iran.

    The outcome of that struggle is by no means clear, especially in the context of a Trump presidency that is dramatically out of ideological step with the leftist European and British elites.

    The US regime still has a lot of the tools that allowed it to enforce its will on Europe and Britain in the past, but the Trump presidency weakens its political influence and in the economic sphere the US gets less able to use the tools it has with every year that passes. It might well be that such an attempt by the lobbies that manipulate US policy towards war with Iran will instead trigger a final break that will allow the creation of economic structures that are actually outside the US's control. Russia and China have already moved in that direction as a result of past US abuse of its economic primacy for such manipulation, and the door is wide open for the European states and perhaps even Britain (though that country's elite is more thoroughly dominated by US Quislings) to step right through it.

    After the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the war lobbies in the US have a very hard job to do in getting up a war with Iran, because only someone profoundly ignorant, basically dishonest or a functional moron could claim to believe that a US war with Iran would be a good idea for anyone but the lobbies directly benefitting from the chaos and bloodshed (Israel, first and foremost, but also Saudi, and military-industrial). That it's still even a possibility is a tribute to the astonishing power those lobbies wield in the US and the distorted background they have created with decades of propaganda and fomenting of trouble between the US and Iran.

    “After the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the war lobbies in the US have a very hard job to do in getting up a war with Iran, because only someone profoundly ignorant, basically dishonest or a functional moron could claim to believe that a US war with Iran would be a good idea”…

    Your point here is well taken, but could we see another 9/11 type false flag attack in the future that could somehow be pinned on Iran to lead the gullible populace to allow yet another war of aggression by the US on yet another hapless ME country?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Verymuchalive
    Excellent comment. The only quibble I would have is a rational American political establishment would be very aware how Iran would react and would not even contemplate war.
    Nearly all Saudi Arabia's oil is in Al Hasa, adjoining the Persian Gulf, which is close to Iran ( have to spell this out because I know many American politicians aren't good at Geography!)
    And it gets worse. 60% or more of Saudi oil is piped through a choke point not far from Dharan. This seems to be under 1km square. This choke point has been mentioned in at least one article by Dr Giraldi ( unfortunately I can't remember which one - it may even be one published in The American Conservative, before they purged him.)
    In the event of war, the Iranians would be able to take out a large percentage of Saudi oil production, particularly if they have access to modern Russian missiles, which seems to be the case.
    Production would be drastically cut for months, maybe for years. Aside from the massive social unrest inside Saudi Arabia, the Petro-dollar would collapse. American hegemony would be over.
    But, as you say, the American political establishment aren't rational. They really don't seem to see what's coming.

    In the event of war, the Iranians would be able to take out a large percentage of Saudi oil production, particularly if they have access to modern Russian missiles, which seems to be the case. Production would be drastically cut for months, maybe for years.

    Yes, but. You might ask yourself if the cutting of oil supplies for the American “discretionary spending” market does any harm to the oligarchy and the Israelists that direct its activities. I suspect the curtailment of such “But it’s my RIGHT!” liberties indulged in by the American consumer might work more to the advantage of the kleptocracy oligarchy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @MEexpert
    Indeed. Why are you here except to propagate Israeli/neocon line.

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.
     
    And you know this how? 17 US intelligence agencies issued a report in 2007 that they estimate with high degree of confidence that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. The same estimate was reaffirmed in 2011. President Bush who was almost convinced by Dick Chaney to attack Iran decided against it because of this estimate. Go read it in his book.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they’re done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don’t help Israel they will go it alone.
     
    They hate Israel because Israel and her agents, the neocons and AIPAC, have caused enough death and destruction in the Middle East, at the hands of clueless American Presidents, to last for a long time. And yet Israel is not satisfied. She wants the US to attack Iran so that Israel can remain the only nuclear power in the region. Bibi, the liar, Netanyahu has been shouting wolf for the past twenty years about the Iranian bomb, which has yet to materialize.

    The Iranian authorities have iterated several times that they are not interested in a nuclear weapon. The US intelligence agencies have attested to the same fact but they are all liars. Only Israel is telling the truth and her bought and paid for American politicians lap this up like the dunces they are. The American public is just as dumb. Their only source of information is the Israeli controlled MSM. Majority of these fools believe that Iran already has a nuclear bomb.

    Trump is under total Israeli control either, due to Adelson or Kushner/Ivanka combo. I truly believe that he was elected to destroy the United States from within, as President Lincoln predicted. He wants to nuke North Korea. He is now getting ready for Iran. Venezuela is next or perhaps Cuba and may be other countries as well. After all we have such a cache of rusting nuclear weapons that we must use them somewhere so that the Military/Industrial/Wall Street Complex could make more money by developing new weapons.

    Hillary could not have been worse.

    Hillary could not have been worse.

    That’s a bit fatuous. Hillary-Prez would mean “all of the above + open border chaos”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Hillary could not have been worse.
     
    You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that.
    , @jacques sheete
    It would have been worse with Hillary. No question.

    Just imagine looking at that smug ugly mug and hearing that hyenic screeching for 4 years! I'd rather be boiling in pig scat for eternity. On the other hand,the orange fat boy and Shrub clone is mildly amusing. His base stupidity can even be entertaining in a fascinating way; a marvel to behold.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. MBlanc46 says:
    @Art

    Our erstwhile allies in the Middle East naturally want us to fight their 21st-century wars, as the Brits got us to help fight their 20th-century wars.

    But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.
     
    Trump is setting America and the world up for a war between Israel and Hezbollah/Syria. He is setting the stage for war, by putting the blame for it on Iran and the Shia. Killing this nuke agreement is all about making Iran into a bad boy enemy – it is a ruse.

    If Assad wins against ISIS, then the collation of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia will become a powerful force in the ME. The Israelis cannot let that happen. They must stop that collation from permanently forming a defense. Israel must attack Hezbollah soon. The window of opportunity for doing this is closing.

    Trump’s role in this is to build the tension needed to take the onus of the Jews for starting the war between Israel, Hezbollah/Syria.

    Expect a false flag operation leading to war.

    Think Peace --- Art

    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”.

    In the Iraq/Iran war, Iran lost 1,000,000 men. The US government supplied Saddam with arms while he was gassing Iran with chemical weapons.

    Is that cause for Iran to call the US government “the great Satan?”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace --- Art

    p.s. Did they kill anyone in 1979?

    p.s. How many Iranians has the US government hurt and killed?

    p.s. Will there ever be enough?

    p.s. Maybe we should look at the CIA?
    , @Avery
    {Iran is a bad boy enemy. .....}

    US & UK made Iran and Iranians our enemy in 1953 when they organized a bloody coup (operation Ajax) to overthrow the democratically elected President Mosaddegh and installed an un-elected dictator, the Shah. US&UK then trained Shah's notorious secret police the SAVAK to terrorize and torture any dissenters into submission.

    And the reason for the coup was that Mosaddegh wanted Iran's oil wealth for the Iranian people: US&UK wanted it all the extracted wealth for their oil companies, while paying Iranians peanuts, as they had done until the election of Mosaddegh.

    Yes, it was wrong for US embassy employees to be held hostage by Iranians. Wrong and stupid. Iranians should have expelled them promptly and be done with it. But you have to understand Iranian feelings too. The people were in effect held hostage and terrorized for more than 30 years by a dictator installed by US&UK. And the US embassy was the locus for organizing and overseeing the 1953 coup.

    In 1988 USS Vincennes which was aggressively patrolling near Iranian territorial waters and frequently going inside Iranian waters, looking for trouble, trying to provoke Iranians, shot down an Iranian passenger jet killing 290, including a bunch of children. Instead of being demoted, in 1990 Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ..".

    How wouldyou feel if someone who was responsible for killing 290 of your civilian countrymen, women, children, was awarded a medal?

    US&UK started it in 1953.
    But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).

    , @Chris Mallory

    but who made them our enemy is not.
     
    You are correct. It was the CIA who made Iran our enemy. Remember that good ol' CIA term "blowback". Well when you overthrow an elected leader, replace them with a dictator, and support that dictator's murderous secret police you do tend to make people a bit upset and you can get some blowback.

    Are Iran's chants of "Death to America" really any different than McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or the Israel Firster's infinite number of "Death to Iran" posts on any and every political or news website?
    , @jacques sheete

    chanting “Death to America”.
     
    Songbird McCain had a little "chanson" himself, if memory serves. Had something to do with bombs. What a lowlife ass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Art says:
    @MBlanc46
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.

    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”.

    In the Iraq/Iran war, Iran lost 1,000,000 men. The US government supplied Saddam with arms while he was gassing Iran with chemical weapons.

    Is that cause for Iran to call the US government “the great Satan?”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace — Art

    p.s. Did they kill anyone in 1979?

    p.s. How many Iranians has the US government hurt and killed?

    p.s. Will there ever be enough?

    p.s. Maybe we should look at the CIA?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    They were shouting “Death to America” before the Iran-Iraq War.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Huh, nope. Iran needs a pliant regime and American/Israeli tutelage. As Rex Tillerson knows better that most, and Jimmy Carter figured out way too late, it’s what will yield results at the gas pump.

    Regarding Iraq, and soon Iran, here is what matters https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Art says:
    @RoseColoredGlasses
    Bizarre how increasingly out of touch this fellow has become.

    He might be aware of the partnering between the NorKs and Iran, and worse, how Iran seems hell-bent on conquering Saudi Arabia.

    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    At what point, when threatened, should a country believe the threat?

    Just a weird kooky ol' guy is Patrick these days!

    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    The misadventures of the CIA created the takeover of Iran by the mullahs. We helped Saddam attack Iran with chemical weapons. What can we expect?

    We abrogate our foreign policy to Israel who wants to hold hegemony over the whole ME by breaking up these countries. The Jews thrive on tribal hate – divide and conquer is their game.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The misadventures of the CIA created the takeover of Iran by the mullahs

    There might be more to it than it is commonly believed. The 1979 Iranian Revolution could have been orchestrated to pry off Iran from the US to turn it into a hostile pariah state. Iran under Shah was friendly to Israel and the US but the problem was that it was developing fast and getting strong (see White Revolution). From Israel's perspective it was better to have weak and hostile Iran than strong and friendly. The revolution set back Iran development by several decades due to western sanctions and the war with Iraq. One may think that 1979 Islamic revolution was part of some kind of Yinon plan that at that time not yet publicly known to destroy all secular regimes in the Middle East and turn them over to Islamic extremists and thus deprive them of Western as well as Soviet support. Using Muslim extremists against secular Middle East states was nothing new. In 1950s Muslim Brotherhood was used against Nasser's Egypt but they had to be withdrawn and parked in Saudi Arabia for the future use. Islamists were used in the late 1970's to destabilize Afghanistan and draw USSR to invade it in order to stabilize the secular regime that was friendly to the Soviet Union. This operation succeeded and Brzezinski considered it as his greatest achievement. The subsequent help to Mujahideens to fight Russians to give them the taste of their own Vietnam was the well known second part of the operation. But the first part remains hidden.

    Shah spoke that western intelligence agencies (he mentioned British) were behind Iranian Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini was in contact with Carter administration prior to Shah's departure. However Israel is rarely mentioned in the context of Iranian Revolution. If indeed Israel was able to orchestrate it and manipulate western intelligence agencies to facilitate acting against interests of their states and an ate the same time manage to remain totally out of the picture would be the proof of Israel's intelligence services immense power but also of brilliance and genius.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest, President Donald Trump may have put us on the road to war with Iran.
     
    The attempt to break the Iran deal isn't in itself going to make war with Iran all that much more likely even if it succeeds. Sure, the attacks on the deal are just another ploy, by those who want war with Iran, to try to shape the political and diplomatic context to make that war more achievable (and to ensure they don't get too much of the blame themselves when it all goes disastrously wrong for America and Americans), so breaking the deal would be a "victory" for those people.

    However, the US withdrawing, de facto or de jure, from the deal doesn't in itself trigger war with Iran, by any means, or change the fundamental balance that means war with Iran would be infinitely more painful for the US sphere than was war with Iraq. What it triggers first is a struggle to coerce Britain and the European states to knuckle under again to the US regime's self-appointed right to force them again to comply with its aggressive use of sanctions against Iran.

    The outcome of that struggle is by no means clear, especially in the context of a Trump presidency that is dramatically out of ideological step with the leftist European and British elites.

    The US regime still has a lot of the tools that allowed it to enforce its will on Europe and Britain in the past, but the Trump presidency weakens its political influence and in the economic sphere the US gets less able to use the tools it has with every year that passes. It might well be that such an attempt by the lobbies that manipulate US policy towards war with Iran will instead trigger a final break that will allow the creation of economic structures that are actually outside the US's control. Russia and China have already moved in that direction as a result of past US abuse of its economic primacy for such manipulation, and the door is wide open for the European states and perhaps even Britain (though that country's elite is more thoroughly dominated by US Quislings) to step right through it.

    After the examples of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the war lobbies in the US have a very hard job to do in getting up a war with Iran, because only someone profoundly ignorant, basically dishonest or a functional moron could claim to believe that a US war with Iran would be a good idea for anyone but the lobbies directly benefitting from the chaos and bloodshed (Israel, first and foremost, but also Saudi, and military-industrial). That it's still even a possibility is a tribute to the astonishing power those lobbies wield in the US and the distorted background they have created with decades of propaganda and fomenting of trouble between the US and Iran.

    Good comment.

    But, I do feel that you give to average American citizens too much credit.

    Their….silent consent….isn’t just a result of “decades of propaganda and fomenting of trouble between the US and Iran.”

    It goes deeper than that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.
     
    This is your opinion, but it's clearly based upon "evidence" mostly supplied by biased and actively dishonest sources that desire above all to foment confrontation of and war with Iran.

    In reality, nobody can actually know with any confidence whether or not Iran desires or is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian case for and against acquiring them can be argued either way - on the one hand nuclear weapons are the only known way to deter US aggression, with which Iran has been repeatedly and plausibly threatened. On the other hand, conventional deterrence has also worked so far for Iran and gets stronger every year, and it's doubtful whether the gains from acquiring a nuclear deterrent would outweigh the diplomatic and economic costs of acquiring it.

    And as Ahmadinejad coherently pointed out, nuclear weapons have no other plausible use.

    Of course, it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning, but if that is the case it will certainly not be in the literally stupid manner put about by lying Israel Lobby and other propagandists, that the Iranian leadership are secretly some kind of glorified national suicide bombers. It would be that they actually do take seriously the religious prohibition on nuclear weapons stated by Khomeini and subsequently affirmed.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran.
     
    This suggests that your own position is not rationally based. There is no rational reason to fantasize about Iran as a national suicide bomber, and doing so is clearly either dishonest or based upon long absorption of dishonest propaganda. Like the US regime, Israel and its partisans have a well established track record of dishonesty about supposed threats being used to justify military aggression, and long ago forfeited any right to be taken seriously in such claims.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing
     
    That's pretty much word for word how the warmongers justified the attack on Libya when the dire Iraq precedent was pointed out. Surprise, surprise, Libya found its own ways of being a catastrophic and costly disaster.

    The "reality based community" knows that among the quickest ways to disaster are underestimating an enemy and assuming that an enemy will respond as you expect them to respond. That's certainly the case in spades with an attack on Iran.

    Of course, people adopting positions like yours here are either people who base their analysis on other than reality, or dupes for the same, like all those who argued for the Iraq war.

    Similar to my comment about average Americans.

    You put, IMHO, too much emphasize on rationality in this game.
    Perhaps your approach is just a bit too simplistic.

    War, killings….they are much more complicated human activities.

    They can be, and are, always, rationalized but, often, their real reasons are much deeper.

    So, in Iranian case, I really wouldn’t discard:
    “……it might be that the Iranian position is not based upon materialist reasoning…..”
    Or Israeli feelings about Iran.

    When we are on that topic, do you really believe that a mugger is just after your wallet?
    Or a rapist just after female “thing”?
    Or a robber just after bank money?

    The same in wars……….
    It’s not just cold rational calculations. It’s also about……….something else.

    The only scary thing today about all that is the “nuclear option”.
    Our …something else….destroying us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Avery says:
    @MBlanc46
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.

    {Iran is a bad boy enemy. …..}

    US & UK made Iran and Iranians our enemy in 1953 when they organized a bloody coup (operation Ajax) to overthrow the democratically elected President Mosaddegh and installed an un-elected dictator, the Shah. US&UK then trained Shah’s notorious secret police the SAVAK to terrorize and torture any dissenters into submission.

    And the reason for the coup was that Mosaddegh wanted Iran’s oil wealth for the Iranian people: US&UK wanted it all the extracted wealth for their oil companies, while paying Iranians peanuts, as they had done until the election of Mosaddegh.

    Yes, it was wrong for US embassy employees to be held hostage by Iranians. Wrong and stupid. Iranians should have expelled them promptly and be done with it. But you have to understand Iranian feelings too. The people were in effect held hostage and terrorized for more than 30 years by a dictator installed by US&UK. And the US embassy was the locus for organizing and overseeing the 1953 coup.

    In 1988 USS Vincennes which was aggressively patrolling near Iranian territorial waters and frequently going inside Iranian waters, looking for trouble, trying to provoke Iranians, shot down an Iranian passenger jet killing 290, including a bunch of children. Instead of being demoted, in 1990 Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ..”.

    How wouldyou feel if someone who was responsible for killing 290 of your civilian countrymen, women, children, was awarded a medal?

    US&UK started it in 1953.
    But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    Great historic perspective that is mostly unknown by the Western people especially the American public. There is simply too much insouciance and very little educational or mediatic focus on the history of Western Iranian relations for the majority of Westerners to make an informed opinion.

    "But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK)."

    Indeed I have kept hearing from American laypeople that Americans will not forget what they endured in Vietnam. Little did they reason that it was the Vietnamese that suffered the millions of dead by American napalm bombing. It is part of Western culture that only Western lives matter while the rest do not count for anything.
    , @renfro
    Excellent and totally accurate reply.
    , @MBlanc46
    Yet Iran was a major US ally in the Middke East 1953-1979.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Dubya was a little miffed when the intelligence agencies told him that Iran wasn’t pursuing a nuclear weapon. The sentiment expressed in his memoir is of the “Damn, I couldn’t find that excuse for another war” variety.

    A war against Iran would have been brutal enough in 2007, and more costly in terms of blood and treasure than Iraq. However, with Tehran and Moscow cosying up to defeat the ISIS scum in Syria, I have a feeling that an attack has the potential to ignite a global conflict.

    As if we didn’t have enough dangerous flashpoints already!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @MBlanc46
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.

    but who made them our enemy is not.

    You are correct. It was the CIA who made Iran our enemy. Remember that good ol’ CIA term “blowback”. Well when you overthrow an elected leader, replace them with a dictator, and support that dictator’s murderous secret police you do tend to make people a bit upset and you can get some blowback.

    Are Iran’s chants of “Death to America” really any different than McCain’s “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” or the Israel Firster’s infinite number of “Death to Iran” posts on any and every political or news website?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Art says:

    How Netanyahu Pulls Trump’s Strings

    It turns out that Hillary Clinton was partly correct: President Trump is a “puppet,” but his puppet master isn’t Russian President Putin but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, reports Robert Parry.

    … … …

    Meanwhile, in Syria, Netanyahu seems to have won more concessions from Trump. The U.S. military appears to be helping the remnants of Islamist forces still fighting the government, according to Russian officials. Their accusation is that the U.S. is secretly aiding the Islamist terror groups with weapons, tactical advice and aerial reconnaissance.

    In other words, Trump appears to be continuing U.S. military intervention in Syria – just as Netanyahu desires.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48027.htm

    The coming war will be against Hezbollah – not Iran.

    Trump will be called upon to block Russian help for Hezbollah.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    I’ve been hearing Israel threatening to “go it alone” for years, I don’t think they can. If they can, why don’t they? If Israel wants to go to war with Iran by itself how is that a problem for the US? Have at them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Iran shut down any bomb program it had because it does not want to share Iraq’s fate of being smashed and broken apart into Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Kurds and Baluch, as Iraq was broken apart by the Americans into Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, Yazidis and Kurds.

    Well that was a really poor choice.

    I’m still betting Kim Jong Un fairs better than Ghaddaffi did.

    Also, Iraq is not so broken enough for some of those groups. Turkmen and Yazidis are tiny minorities that don’t actually control any regions. As for Shia Arab, Sunni Arab, and Sunni Kurd those 3 were as divided as they still are decades back under Saddam Hussein, not really US doing. We helped the Kurds with the no fly zone but we were exploiting pre-existing divisions. Also Iraq, like Libya and unlike North Korea, had no real WMD program.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Is War with Iran Now Inevitable?

    Economic sanctions are recognized as acts of war.

    Economically, the US has been warring on Iran for quite some time.

    Who shot down the civilian jetliner , Iran Air Flt 655?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Iran’s leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map…

    Dusting off that old canard, huh? Either provide a credible source or your credibility is zero.

    While yer at it,tell us about the attack on the USS Liberty, and the NUMEC scandal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @MBlanc46
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.

    chanting “Death to America”.

    Songbird McCain had a little “chanson” himself, if memory serves. Had something to do with bombs. What a lowlife ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.

    Will we not conduct a “full-scale invasion and occupation” of Iran when Iranian missiles strike our ships?

    When Iranians shut down shipping of oil & gas & goods through the Straits, sending our fuel prices skyrocketing?

    When Iranians or their proxies attack US troops, with our vulnerable looooong supply chains, in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    When Iranian-funded terrorists set off bombs all across the USA in retaliation? (or when the US government stages an attack at home that it can pin on Iran, I suppose that’s not aaaaaaaaaltogether implausible ;)

    And how about an Iranian electromagnetic pulse that causes trillions of dollars in damage to public and private property and substantially cripples our safety-communications infrastructure and our economy? That wouldn’t be so “limited.”

    Somehow I think there will be plenty of “good reasons” — among them simple revenge at that point — for the US gov to bomb the civilian population of Iran and invade on the ground.

    WE NEED TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF WAR AND PROVOCATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. KenH says:

    But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.

    That’s right, but I always figured he’d break most of his promises of a neutral foreign policy and go (((neocon))) on us and become Dubya 2.0. And it doesn’t help that he has a Grima Wormtongue adviser by the name of Jared Kushner.

    Apparently by Iran “violating the spirit of the agreement” just means they are pursuing a regional policy at odds with Israel and their American vassal state which has virtually nothing to do with their obligations under the agreement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    It's time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. "Arise, Men of the West, Arise!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. I’m glad to see that the latest comments have come around to the topic of Big Oil. We forget that at one time OPEC held the Western nations’ economies hostage. This had to stop and we stopped it. All the murders etc. follow. Like it or not, that’s the way it is and likely shall be for a while. Iran’s getting nukes may change its relationship with Israel, but how would that affect the USA’s oil interests?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Avery
    {Iran is a bad boy enemy. .....}

    US & UK made Iran and Iranians our enemy in 1953 when they organized a bloody coup (operation Ajax) to overthrow the democratically elected President Mosaddegh and installed an un-elected dictator, the Shah. US&UK then trained Shah's notorious secret police the SAVAK to terrorize and torture any dissenters into submission.

    And the reason for the coup was that Mosaddegh wanted Iran's oil wealth for the Iranian people: US&UK wanted it all the extracted wealth for their oil companies, while paying Iranians peanuts, as they had done until the election of Mosaddegh.

    Yes, it was wrong for US embassy employees to be held hostage by Iranians. Wrong and stupid. Iranians should have expelled them promptly and be done with it. But you have to understand Iranian feelings too. The people were in effect held hostage and terrorized for more than 30 years by a dictator installed by US&UK. And the US embassy was the locus for organizing and overseeing the 1953 coup.

    In 1988 USS Vincennes which was aggressively patrolling near Iranian territorial waters and frequently going inside Iranian waters, looking for trouble, trying to provoke Iranians, shot down an Iranian passenger jet killing 290, including a bunch of children. Instead of being demoted, in 1990 Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ..".

    How wouldyou feel if someone who was responsible for killing 290 of your civilian countrymen, women, children, was awarded a medal?

    US&UK started it in 1953.
    But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).

    Great historic perspective that is mostly unknown by the Western people especially the American public. There is simply too much insouciance and very little educational or mediatic focus on the history of Western Iranian relations for the majority of Westerners to make an informed opinion.

    “But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).”

    Indeed I have kept hearing from American laypeople that Americans will not forget what they endured in Vietnam. Little did they reason that it was the Vietnamese that suffered the millions of dead by American napalm bombing. It is part of Western culture that only Western lives matter while the rest do not count for anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @KenH

    But Donald Trump was not elected to do that. Or so at least some of us thought.
     
    That's right, but I always figured he'd break most of his promises of a neutral foreign policy and go (((neocon))) on us and become Dubya 2.0. And it doesn't help that he has a Grima Wormtongue adviser by the name of Jared Kushner.

    Apparently by Iran "violating the spirit of the agreement" just means they are pursuing a regional policy at odds with Israel and their American vassal state which has virtually nothing to do with their obligations under the agreement.

    It’s time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. “Arise, Men of the West, Arise!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.
     
    They shouldn't. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm - without placing any troops in-country - by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased. Bridges can be brought down, power plants can be demolished, water treatment plants can be bombed, cell towers can be targeted and so on. That's the reality of smart munitions. Countries with superior resources can bring others to their knees. We might even have Sunni allies ride along to give the attacks an air of respectability in the Muslim world.

    The lesson of Iraq is that we don't yet have the technology to quell an insurgency while minimizing our own casualties and staying within the red lines we've set for ourselves re civilian casualties. Insurgencies can be quashed easily, but only by resorting to the mass killings that were highly-effective for other countries in the past. Since we lack the complete disregard for the lives of enemy civilians that these measures require, it's obvious that invasion and occupation by US troops are off the table, unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.
    , @KenH

    It’s time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. “Arise, Men of the West, Arise!”
     
    Except since Bannon doesn't associate the white race with Western civilization it will be, "Arise, civic nationalists, Arise!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. renfro says:
    @Avery
    {Iran is a bad boy enemy. .....}

    US & UK made Iran and Iranians our enemy in 1953 when they organized a bloody coup (operation Ajax) to overthrow the democratically elected President Mosaddegh and installed an un-elected dictator, the Shah. US&UK then trained Shah's notorious secret police the SAVAK to terrorize and torture any dissenters into submission.

    And the reason for the coup was that Mosaddegh wanted Iran's oil wealth for the Iranian people: US&UK wanted it all the extracted wealth for their oil companies, while paying Iranians peanuts, as they had done until the election of Mosaddegh.

    Yes, it was wrong for US embassy employees to be held hostage by Iranians. Wrong and stupid. Iranians should have expelled them promptly and be done with it. But you have to understand Iranian feelings too. The people were in effect held hostage and terrorized for more than 30 years by a dictator installed by US&UK. And the US embassy was the locus for organizing and overseeing the 1953 coup.

    In 1988 USS Vincennes which was aggressively patrolling near Iranian territorial waters and frequently going inside Iranian waters, looking for trouble, trying to provoke Iranians, shot down an Iranian passenger jet killing 290, including a bunch of children. Instead of being demoted, in 1990 Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ..".

    How wouldyou feel if someone who was responsible for killing 290 of your civilian countrymen, women, children, was awarded a medal?

    US&UK started it in 1953.
    But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).

    Excellent and totally accurate reply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. renfro says:

    Frankly the only country I would approve of bombing back to the stone age is Israel. Why? Because I don’t believe in ‘ coincidences.’ I don’t think that it was coincidental that Kennedy was assassinated 3 months after he told Israel to open its nuke facilities for inspection or else. I don’t think it was coincidental that 911 happened a month after Bush was scared enough by Saudi King Abdullah to prepare a new more favorable policy toward Palestine for announcement.

    2001: Crown Prince Abdullah Warns Bush Against Pro-Israeli Stance in Letter Crown Prince Abdullah writes to President Bush saying that the administrations increasingly pro Israel stance with regard to the Palestinians other issues is putting them in a very difficult position. The prince warns that Saudi may need to reassess its relations with the United States. Bush immediately responds by promising a new, more balanced initiative for peace in the Middle East, including support for a Palestinian state. But the new American initiative will be derailed by the events of September 11. ” 27, 2001: Saudis Threaten to End Their Alliance with US

    Prince Abdullah, the effective leader of SaudiArabia, is upset with US policy over Israel Palestine and threatens to break the Saudi alliance with the US. He has Prince Bandar ambassador to the US, personally deliver a message to President Bush on August 27. Bandar says, This is the most difficult message I have had to convey to you that I have ever conveyed between the two governments since I started working here in Washington in 1982. He brings up a number of issues, including the complaint that since Bush became president US policy has tilted towards Israel so much that the US has allowed Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to determine everything in the Middle East. The message concludes, herefore the Crown Prince will not communicate in any form, type or shape with you, Arabia will take all its political, economic security decisions based on how it sees its own interest in the region without taking into account American interests anymore because it is obvious that the United States has taken a strategic decision adopting Sharons policy. Bush seems shocked and replies, I want to assure you that the United States did not make any strategic decision. Secretary of State Powell later confronts Bandar and says, what the fuck are you doing? Youre putting the fear of God in everybody here. You scared the shit out of everybody. Bandar reportedly replies, I don’t give a damn what you feel. We are scared ourselves. Two days later, Bush replies with a message designed to appease the Saudis concerns (‘August 29-September 6, 2001: President Bush Tries to Repair Relations with Saudis, But Policy Change Is Halted by 9/11 Attacks’)” (‘Bob Woodward tem=a082901bushreply#a082901bushreply”>

    August 29-September 6, 2001: President Bush Tries to Repair Relations with Saudis, But Policy Change Is Halted by 9/11 Attacks The Bush administration attempts to repair its relation with SaudiArabia after a dramatic letter from Crown Prince Abdullah. On August 27, 2001, Abdullah, the de facto leader of Saudi sent a message to President Bush threatening to end the Saudi alliance with the US because of what they see as US favoritism towards Israel (see ‘August 27, 2001: Saudis Threaten to End Their Alliance with US’)” Two days later, Bush sends a two-page letter to Abdullah: Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us. There has been no change in the strategic equation. I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in their own state, in their own home land just as Israel have the right to live peacefully in their own state.

    Journalist Bob Woodward will later note that this was a much bigger step than President Clinton had taken. Even as Clinton had tried to fashion a Middle East peace agreement as his legacy, he had never directly supported a separate Palestinian state. On September 6, Abdullah replies, Mr. President, it was a great relief to me to find in your letter a clear commitment confirming the principle in which the peace process was established. I was particularly pleased with your commitment to the right of the Palestinians to self-determination as well as the right to peace without humiliation, within their independent state.The Saudis appear appeased. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006)., ”’

    Also on September 6, Bush holds a meeting with his top advisers and suggests a change of policy towards Palestine, including public support for a separate Palestinian state.

    However, days before Bush is to announce these new policies, the 9/11 attacks take place. None of the planned US policy changes materialize.

    http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Israel+and+Saudi+Arabia&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What you brought up from Woodward is very interesting. I was not aware of anything going on the SA Bush line. I am skeptical about that Saudis had enough leverage or were in positions to make any ultimatums because SA had nowhere to go. On the other hand it is known that Prince Bandar was every close to Bush. He actually tutored Bush before Bush decided to run for election. It was Bandar who reassured Bush that he can outplay the people who did not like his father, i.e., the neocons and Jews:

    Former President Bush Calls on Saudi Prince Bandar to Educate His Son on Foreign Affairs'


    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall97bandargwbush
    Finally, Bush says, “There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy.” Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: “Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or who doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.” Bandar’s message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. “Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar continues. “This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”
     
    As we know now he did not outplay the neocons. Richard Perle who visited Bush in Austin, Texas was the one who gave the green light to his candidacy saying that he was an empty vessel that can be filled with whatever they wanted to meaning the Bush will be easy to muanipulate and do whatever is planned. The question is who was Prince Bandar really working for? Certainly Saudis wanted to have another friendly Bush as president. It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected. So Bandar reassured Bush that everything will be OK and to worry about the enemies of his father. The question also is who does Woodward work for and what is his spin?

    Was 9/11 done to prevent Bush from getting too cozy with the SA? Nonsense. SA has no power. They have money and they put this money in use as they are told. Bush also was a minor player and I doubt that Cheney or Rice would fall for silly games coming from SA. They can be taken out of business in 24 hours following one telephone call from Washington DC. 9/11 was a part of plan of much bigger scope and it required lots of preparations.

    I agree with you that Israeli was the chief beneficiary of JFK assassination because of the Israel's nuclear program that JFK wanted to stop.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. MarkinLA says:
    @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.

    First of all, even if true, there is nothing short of a nuclear strike or all out war that can stop Iran. They have uranium deposits and can build a facility deep into a mountain that cannot be touched. Let Bibi stop them if he has the balls and leave us out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. renfro says:
    @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Israel can do nothing alone. They are like monkeys beating their chest and pretending to be silverbacks.
    Right now they are hawking their usual lies , trying to claim they now have US BASE…when it really isn’t a’ base’. Anyone can see thru them….they think in this case a US Base would deter their enemies from attacking the actual ‘Israeli base”….or…if a stray bullet or missile hits their base their US congressional prostitutes can scream…’the US has been attacked”!
    The day the US drops support of Israel it will become a small Jewish ‘commune’…if it even survives. Which I doubt….because in 3000 yrs nothing the Jews have ever ‘settled’ for themselves has lasted.

    ‘Col. Liran Cohen, head of the IDF’s air defense school, left, and Col. David Shank, of the US 10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command, cut the ribbon to open the first American military base in Israel, inside the Mashabim Air Base, on September 18, 2017. (Israel Defense Forces)

    The American military on Tuesday denied a claim made by the Israel Defense Forces that the United States had established its first base in Israel, saying the new buildings were instead a “living facility.”
    On Monday, the Israeli Air Force declared that the US military’s European Command (EUCOM) had opened a “base within a base” at the IDF’s air defense school, west of the towns of Dimona and Yeruham in southern Israel.

    “We established an American base in the State of Israel, in the Israel Defense Forces, for the first time, with an American flag. A permanent base,” Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch, head of the IAF’s Aerial Defense Command, told reporters.
    However, an official from EUCOM contradicted that account.

    “The new buildings located on the Israeli installation are not a US military base,” she said. “The buildings are facilities on the existing Israeli Air Force Base to support our US service personnel who are working there.”
    The message was passed along to the IDF, which quickly changed all mentions on its website of a “US military base” to read “US military facility.”
    A cached version of the IDF’s blog maintains the original language, referring to the site as a “base.”
    A preview of the story that can be seen in a tweet published by the IDF also refers to the facility as a “base.”
    An Israeli army official confirmed that the Americans had contacted the IDF and requested the change in terminology, as a base carries with it a number of legal distinctions and can only be applied to facilities of a certain size.
    The Israeli official said the rest of the information about the site and its significance remained the same.

    A tweet showing the IDF referring to a new US military facility in Israel as a ‘base,’ despite American claims that it is not, on September 18, 2017. (Screen capture: Twitter)

    US military forces are routinely based in Israel, for joint exercises, cooperation with the IDF, and to operate some US facilities in the country.
    The new buildings that were opened Monday are located not far from a US military radar installation east of Dimona that tracks ballistic missiles once they are launched and provides details on their flight paths to defense systems.
    “The buildings will function as a living facility for US service members, who are currently working at the Israeli base,” the EUCOM official said.
    Haimovitch on Monday lauded the opening of the facility for allowing “us to improve our defense, in discovery and in interception and in preparedness.”
    The air defense chief said the permanent presence of a US facility on Israeli soil sends a “message to the region and our surroundings that our partnership with our friend the United States is important.”
    In his speech, Maj. Gen. John Gronski, deputy commander of US Army National Guard in Europe, said the facility “symbolizes the strong bond that exists between the United States and Israel.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/contradicting-idf-us-says-it-didnt-establish-military-base-in-israel/


    Like

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. renfro says:
    @anon
    If US elites were determined to go to war with Iran, it would have already happened.

    I suspect that the US military is not interested in losing another war and are resisting. Boeing has already sold a lot of planes to Iran.

    Europe is seeing the US excesses in the Middle East as interfering with their globalist agenda. They want to simply buy gas from Russia and get back to business. They had a public fit over our last set of gratuitous Russia sanctions.

    The entire military industrial complex and especially the intelligence agencies have the GWOT. It is increasingly 'cyber warfare' which is virtual, never ending, and expensive activity can never be proven to either work or fail. Why bother with real weapons systems that can fail, a war that can be lost, actually dying ... stuff like that. Complex computer systems that have to prevent something from happening? If it didn't happen, it worked. If it did happen, they need more money.

    The Saudis have their IPO coming up. Maybe they don't want it.

    I don't know. These are just speculations.

    But for sure ... someone is resisting. Otherwise, it would have happened long ago.

    ” But for sure … someone is resisting.”

    Russia’s interest in Syria and Iran has changed the game.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. utu says:
    @Art
    Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?

    The misadventures of the CIA created the takeover of Iran by the mullahs. We helped Saddam attack Iran with chemical weapons. What can we expect?

    We abrogate our foreign policy to Israel who wants to hold hegemony over the whole ME by breaking up these countries. The Jews thrive on tribal hate – divide and conquer is their game.

    Think Peace --- Art

    The misadventures of the CIA created the takeover of Iran by the mullahs

    There might be more to it than it is commonly believed. The 1979 Iranian Revolution could have been orchestrated to pry off Iran from the US to turn it into a hostile pariah state. Iran under Shah was friendly to Israel and the US but the problem was that it was developing fast and getting strong (see White Revolution). From Israel’s perspective it was better to have weak and hostile Iran than strong and friendly. The revolution set back Iran development by several decades due to western sanctions and the war with Iraq. One may think that 1979 Islamic revolution was part of some kind of Yinon plan that at that time not yet publicly known to destroy all secular regimes in the Middle East and turn them over to Islamic extremists and thus deprive them of Western as well as Soviet support. Using Muslim extremists against secular Middle East states was nothing new. In 1950s Muslim Brotherhood was used against Nasser’s Egypt but they had to be withdrawn and parked in Saudi Arabia for the future use. Islamists were used in the late 1970′s to destabilize Afghanistan and draw USSR to invade it in order to stabilize the secular regime that was friendly to the Soviet Union. This operation succeeded and Brzezinski considered it as his greatest achievement. The subsequent help to Mujahideens to fight Russians to give them the taste of their own Vietnam was the well known second part of the operation. But the first part remains hidden.

    Shah spoke that western intelligence agencies (he mentioned British) were behind Iranian Revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini was in contact with Carter administration prior to Shah’s departure. However Israel is rarely mentioned in the context of Iranian Revolution. If indeed Israel was able to orchestrate it and manipulate western intelligence agencies to facilitate acting against interests of their states and an ate the same time manage to remain totally out of the picture would be the proof of Israel’s intelligence services immense power but also of brilliance and genius.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they’re just doing different parts at different times.”

    You can’t develop a nuclear weapon without a nuclear program free from inspection, which they no longer have thanks to that deal Trump just tore up. Further, EVERY US intelligence agency that has looked into the matter has certified multiple times that they are not developing nuclear weapons.

    “He might be aware of the partnering between the NorKs and Iran,”

    There is no such partnering, hayseed. Cite a link if you dare. The same crap was said during Bush’s run up to the Iraq War – lies about Iraq and Al Qaeda partnering. All lies.

    “and worse, how Iran seems hell-bent on conquering Saudi Arabia.”

    Saudi Arabia outspends Iran 8 to 1 on their military and has access to some of the most advanced US weapons. Iran has access to the latest of 1970s era tech with few willing sellers.

    “Is he also a bit aware of the overt threats that Iran makes to annihilate Israel and the USA?”

    1. Our Syphilis-brained prez threatened to destroy North Korea in apocalyptic fire and brimstone.

    2. Fear mongering by Free Republic type low IQs (or Israeli Hasbara scum). The fact that some guy in Iran says something doesn’t mean that is official Iranian policy. Otherwise, we’d already have used nuclear weapons against Iran (ahem, Sheldon Adelson).

    “Just a weird kooky ol’ guy is Patrick these days!”

    Patrick is a great hero and intellectual held down by low-IQ simpletons on the right.

    “By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn’t be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing”

    1. You don’t expect these people to hit back through terrorism and arming proxy terrorist armies in Afghanistan and Iraq against us?

    2. Yeah, it wouldn’t be like Iraq in the sense that it would be way worse. We probably could, at best, set them back a few years. In the mean time, they rush to get a nuke like N. Korea.

    Please don’t say you’re not that naïve. Please also say you don’t vote. It is sickening to think that some of the posters here have an equal voice to mine. Gross.

    “Apparently Donald Rodham Trump wants war with Iran, Russia and China. America first my ass.”

    Trump is a fool who has almost certainly set the course for his own destruction…and in less than one year after taking office! That’s got to be some kind of record.

    Unpopular tax cut for the rich.

    Threats against North Korea.

    Possible war with Iran.

    Repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.

    No movement on renegotiating free trade deals.

    “If US elites were determined to go to war with Iran, it would have already happened.”

    That’s not correct. US elites eventually get what they want. It doesn’t have to happen overnight. It took years to get us into Iraq.

    “Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”. How to deal with them is open to debate, but who made them our enemy is not.”

    What an embarrassingly simplistic argument. We overthrew their government in the 1950s and installed a hated dictator. They overthrew him in 1979 and took some Americans hostage. The vast majority were eventually returned alive (maybe all of them). We then helped an evil manic named Saddam Hussein murder hundreds of thousands of their people, including by the use of chemical weapons our CIA helped them out with, in a war Iraq started. There is no sense of proportionately here. Since you have no understanding of the situation (not uncommon for low IQs), all you can do is simplistically spout “day shout deaf to ‘Merica en da stets Ethel!” Whatever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. utu says:
    @renfro
    Frankly the only country I would approve of bombing back to the stone age is Israel. Why? Because I don't believe in ' coincidences.' I don't think that it was coincidental that Kennedy was assassinated 3 months after he told Israel to open its nuke facilities for inspection or else. I don't think it was coincidental that 911 happened a month after Bush was scared enough by Saudi King Abdullah to prepare a new more favorable policy toward Palestine for announcement.

    2001: Crown Prince Abdullah Warns Bush Against Pro-Israeli Stance in Letter Crown Prince Abdullah writes to President Bush saying that the administrations increasingly pro Israel stance with regard to the Palestinians other issues is putting them in a very difficult position. The prince warns that Saudi may need to reassess its relations with the United States. Bush immediately responds by promising a new, more balanced initiative for peace in the Middle East, including support for a Palestinian state. But the new American initiative will be derailed by the events of September 11. " 27, 2001: Saudis Threaten to End Their Alliance with US

    Prince Abdullah, the effective leader of SaudiArabia, is upset with US policy over Israel Palestine and threatens to break the Saudi alliance with the US. He has Prince Bandar ambassador to the US, personally deliver a message to President Bush on August 27. Bandar says, This is the most difficult message I have had to convey to you that I have ever conveyed between the two governments since I started working here in Washington in 1982. He brings up a number of issues, including the complaint that since Bush became president US policy has tilted towards Israel so much that the US has allowed Israeli Prime Minister Sharon to determine everything in the Middle East. The message concludes, herefore the Crown Prince will not communicate in any form, type or shape with you, Arabia will take all its political, economic security decisions based on how it sees its own interest in the region without taking into account American interests anymore because it is obvious that the United States has taken a strategic decision adopting Sharons policy. Bush seems shocked and replies, I want to assure you that the United States did not make any strategic decision. Secretary of State Powell later confronts Bandar and says, what the fuck are you doing? Youre putting the fear of God in everybody here. You scared the shit out of everybody. Bandar reportedly replies, I don't give a damn what you feel. We are scared ourselves. Two days later, Bush replies with a message designed to appease the Saudis concerns ('August 29-September 6, 2001: President Bush Tries to Repair Relations with Saudis, But Policy Change Is Halted by 9/11 Attacks')" ('Bob Woodward tem=a082901bushreply#a082901bushreply">

    August 29-September 6, 2001: President Bush Tries to Repair Relations with Saudis, But Policy Change Is Halted by 9/11 Attacks The Bush administration attempts to repair its relation with SaudiArabia after a dramatic letter from Crown Prince Abdullah. On August 27, 2001, Abdullah, the de facto leader of Saudi sent a message to President Bush threatening to end the Saudi alliance with the US because of what they see as US favoritism towards Israel (see 'August 27, 2001: Saudis Threaten to End Their Alliance with US')" Two days later, Bush sends a two-page letter to Abdullah: Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us. There has been no change in the strategic equation. I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in their own state, in their own home land just as Israel have the right to live peacefully in their own state.

    Journalist Bob Woodward will later note that this was a much bigger step than President Clinton had taken. Even as Clinton had tried to fashion a Middle East peace agreement as his legacy, he had never directly supported a separate Palestinian state. On September 6, Abdullah replies, Mr. President, it was a great relief to me to find in your letter a clear commitment confirming the principle in which the peace process was established. I was particularly pleased with your commitment to the right of the Palestinians to self-determination as well as the right to peace without humiliation, within their independent state.The Saudis appear appeased. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006)., '''

    Also on September 6, Bush holds a meeting with his top advisers and suggests a change of policy towards Palestine, including public support for a separate Palestinian state.

    However, days before Bush is to announce these new policies, the 9/11 attacks take place. None of the planned US policy changes materialize.

    http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Israel+and+Saudi+Arabia&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

    What you brought up from Woodward is very interesting. I was not aware of anything going on the SA Bush line. I am skeptical about that Saudis had enough leverage or were in positions to make any ultimatums because SA had nowhere to go. On the other hand it is known that Prince Bandar was every close to Bush. He actually tutored Bush before Bush decided to run for election. It was Bandar who reassured Bush that he can outplay the people who did not like his father, i.e., the neocons and Jews:

    Former President Bush Calls on Saudi Prince Bandar to Educate His Son on Foreign Affairs’

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall97bandargwbush
    Finally, Bush says, “There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy.” Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: “Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or who doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.” Bandar’s message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. “Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar continues. “This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”

    As we know now he did not outplay the neocons. Richard Perle who visited Bush in Austin, Texas was the one who gave the green light to his candidacy saying that he was an empty vessel that can be filled with whatever they wanted to meaning the Bush will be easy to muanipulate and do whatever is planned. The question is who was Prince Bandar really working for? Certainly Saudis wanted to have another friendly Bush as president. It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected. So Bandar reassured Bush that everything will be OK and to worry about the enemies of his father. The question also is who does Woodward work for and what is his spin?

    Was 9/11 done to prevent Bush from getting too cozy with the SA? Nonsense. SA has no power. They have money and they put this money in use as they are told. Bush also was a minor player and I doubt that Cheney or Rice would fall for silly games coming from SA. They can be taken out of business in 24 hours following one telephone call from Washington DC. 9/11 was a part of plan of much bigger scope and it required lots of preparations.

    I agree with you that Israeli was the chief beneficiary of JFK assassination because of the Israel’s nuclear program that JFK wanted to stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected.

    There is much truth there.

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush's name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Electing successive relatives is fraught with difficulties. Family pride and family feuds drive decisions.

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Art says:
    @utu
    What you brought up from Woodward is very interesting. I was not aware of anything going on the SA Bush line. I am skeptical about that Saudis had enough leverage or were in positions to make any ultimatums because SA had nowhere to go. On the other hand it is known that Prince Bandar was every close to Bush. He actually tutored Bush before Bush decided to run for election. It was Bandar who reassured Bush that he can outplay the people who did not like his father, i.e., the neocons and Jews:

    Former President Bush Calls on Saudi Prince Bandar to Educate His Son on Foreign Affairs'


    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=afall97bandargwbush
    Finally, Bush says, “There are people who are your enemies in this country who also think my dad is your enemy.” Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: “Can I give you one advice?… If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn’t, who likes Bandar or who doesn’t. Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make sure they help you.” Bandar’s message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. “Never mind if you really want to be honest,” Bandar continues. “This is not a confession booth.… In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”
     
    As we know now he did not outplay the neocons. Richard Perle who visited Bush in Austin, Texas was the one who gave the green light to his candidacy saying that he was an empty vessel that can be filled with whatever they wanted to meaning the Bush will be easy to muanipulate and do whatever is planned. The question is who was Prince Bandar really working for? Certainly Saudis wanted to have another friendly Bush as president. It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected. So Bandar reassured Bush that everything will be OK and to worry about the enemies of his father. The question also is who does Woodward work for and what is his spin?

    Was 9/11 done to prevent Bush from getting too cozy with the SA? Nonsense. SA has no power. They have money and they put this money in use as they are told. Bush also was a minor player and I doubt that Cheney or Rice would fall for silly games coming from SA. They can be taken out of business in 24 hours following one telephone call from Washington DC. 9/11 was a part of plan of much bigger scope and it required lots of preparations.

    I agree with you that Israeli was the chief beneficiary of JFK assassination because of the Israel's nuclear program that JFK wanted to stop.

    It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected.

    There is much truth there.

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush’s name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Electing successive relatives is fraught with difficulties. Family pride and family feuds drive decisions.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush’s name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.
     
    Hey, Art. Here is what Stephen Sniegoski has to say in The Transparant Cabal about this topic:

    As noted the previous chapter, the elder Bush himself expressed his opposition to the war in private. Joseph Wilson, an open critic of the impending war in 2002, wrote that he received a “warm note” from the former president, in which the elder Bush stated that he “agreed with almost everything” Wilson had written.

    From the neocon perspective, Jeffrey Bell in the Weekly Standard noted how the elder Bush’s position radically differed from that of his son, and that the adherents of his position staunchly opposed the neocon Middle East war agenda. “There is an alternative Bush I view that is now engaged in a death struggle with Bush II,” Bell wrote.


    It has a micro, not a macro, interpretation of what happened on 9/ 11. It sees Osama and Islamism as limited and aberrational. It mildly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but would favor no other significant military actions, backing mainly police actions geared toward catching Osama and other al Qaeda figures. It believes many of our problems in the Islamic world relate to our support for Israel. Bush I does not like Yasser Arafat, but believes the United States and Israel have no choice but to try to strike a deal with him.

    In the Islamic world, Bush I favors economic development through trade and internal, top-down reforms. While it does not oppose attempts to achieve democratic reforms in Islamic countries, it has little hope that this will be much of a factor in the immediate decades ahead.
     

    It should be added that this opposition from the elder Bush’s close associates and apparently from the elder Bush himself would seem to belie the argument that George W. Bush went to war to avenge Saddam’s alleged assassination attempt against his father. There is no evidence that George W. Bush launched the war in the interest, much less advice, of his father.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @RadicalCenter
    It's time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. "Arise, Men of the West, Arise!"

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.

    They shouldn’t. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm – without placing any troops in-country – by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased. Bridges can be brought down, power plants can be demolished, water treatment plants can be bombed, cell towers can be targeted and so on. That’s the reality of smart munitions. Countries with superior resources can bring others to their knees. We might even have Sunni allies ride along to give the attacks an air of respectability in the Muslim world.

    The lesson of Iraq is that we don’t yet have the technology to quell an insurgency while minimizing our own casualties and staying within the red lines we’ve set for ourselves re civilian casualties. Insurgencies can be quashed easily, but only by resorting to the mass killings that were highly-effective for other countries in the past. Since we lack the complete disregard for the lives of enemy civilians that these measures require, it’s obvious that invasion and occupation by US troops are off the table, unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    They shouldn’t. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm – without placing any troops in-country – by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased.
     
    The worry is that there are people close to decision-making in Washington who actually believe - or who claim to believe for manipulative reasons - this kind of delusional nonsense. For sure Iran has no real means of preventing such a US air and standoff attack campaign, and it will undoubtedly be far more brutishly uninhibited than was the Yugoslav campaign, which itself became ever more openly terrorist in its targeting of civilian life as the frustration and desperation of the NATO forces at the refusal of their enemies to admit defeat became ever greater. The suffering inflicted in Iran by the US regime and its Israeli and Saudi collaborators will surely be immense. But the mere infliction of suffering on innocents does not equal victory.

    Iraq in 1991-2003 was utterly isolated, with only enemies amongst its neighbours and no major states in the world willing to support it, though the wiser heads [than in Washington] in France, Germany and Russia all rightly counselled against the literally stupid US policy of invading the country, on grounds of basic practicality and morality, and were resoundingly prove to have been correct. The invasion of Iraq is generally regarded as one of the greatest blunders of modern times, and will likely be taught as such for generations to come (unless perhaps it is surpassed by a war against Iran)

    Iran is not isolated. To the contrary, the fools and scoundrels running Washington's foreign policy have implemented policies (invading Iraq, trying to regime change Syria) that have ensured that Iran is deeply involved in both Iraq and Syria and has a strong working alliance with those countries and with Russia. A shameless US repudiation of the Iran agreement that is generally recognised as having finally put a lid on the stupid and dishonest Israeli/Saudi/US attempts to use nuclear power as a pretext for aggressive sanctions against Iran will ensure that the US/Israeli/Saudi side has zero credibility in Europe, Russia or China for any future pressure on Iran, let alone an outright attack.

    Iraq in 1991-2003 was a shattered country with a shattered military with almost no access to the resources needed to repair and rebuild any kind of effective military force.

    Iran is not a shattered country, nor is it without access to military resources, though it is a naturally peaceable country that devotes only relatively limited resources to building a war machine despite the clear threats it faces. Nevertheless, it is all but certain that it will reveal unexpected capabilities if and when it is actually attacked.

    For the US to expect to conduct a prolonged standoff bombing campaign against Iran, facing no real costs beyond some general attrition of he forces involved, and actually achieve anything more than its own final discrediting is simply delusional. The suffering in Iran would be as bad as the suffering that country faced as a result of the US-backed Iraqi invasion under Saddam, and much more widespread, but the real risks are faced by the US and Israel. Those countries are all too likely to end up either defeated or, in their frustration and delusional paranoia, going too far, and finally and utterly discrediting themselves.
    , @Avery
    {.... and staying within the red lines we’ve set for ourselves re civilian casualties. }

    You are joking, right?
    US has never set any red lines re civilian casualties.
    Hollywood and MSM disinformation and propaganda has convinced middle America that US military in fact cares about civilian casualties in lands it invades. People here in US genuinely believe it.

    The reality is the exact opposite.

    Civilians in Dresden were deliberately cooked in Hellish fires to show Nazis what US&UK were capable of.
    Civilian targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized to terrorize Japan into unconditional surrender (...and also show Uncle Joe the terrible new weapon US possessed and had no compunction using against civilians......).
    Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo: it was a carefully planned bombing deliberately using incendiary devices to set fire to wood dwellings in Tokyo. About 100,000 civilians were burnt to death.

    During the Korean war USAF bombed and firebombed every major city in NK into rubble.
    The carpet bombing campaigns by B-52s in Vietnam resulted in massive Viet civilian casualties, because only about 50% of the bombs fell where they were supposed to (...USAF didn't really care).


    {...unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.}

    And which Sunni Arabs would be drafted to supposedly occupy and lay waste to Iran?
    Saudis maybe?
    In fact the minute a shooting war starts, Iranians will rain (domestically manufactured) missiles on Riyadh and KSA's oil production network. KSA population is concentrated in a few cities, the rest of the country being one massive desert. Those concentrations will make nice, rich targets for Iranian missiles.

    Oil price will shoot up to $200 @ barrel. How long do you think US economy will last with gasoline prices in US shooting up to $10+ @gallon?

    And, btw, as soon as 'we invade ', Russia will start pouring technical and military aid to Iran. Same with China, although Chinese will do it very much under the table.
    We'll leave alright: we will leave another batch of 1,000s of middle America boys dead in another foreign land 7,000 miles from US, defending not the US homeland,but foreign and globalist interests.

    , @peterAUS
    Up to

    If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased.
     
    agree.
    And then, Iran blocks Hormuz.

    THAT would be a game changer.

    From then on it becomes serious.

    How about this:
    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can "engage" surplus population in, say, "productive" way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What's not to like there?
    If you are US administration and its backers/supporter?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. utu says:

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush’s name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Perhaps GW Bush was manipulated into believing so, but what you repeat here is the neocon meme created to justify the Iraq invasion in 2003 and blame it on Bush Sr. that he did not go all the way and then on GW Bush that he did 2003 to avenge his father or whatever. Yes, it is the Bushes fault! I thought you are smarter than believing this BS.

    Bush Sr. was disliked by The Lobby for two reasons (1) Not expanding the Desert Storm and (2) Contesting Yitzhak Shamir about settlements though he backed off. The Lobby lost confidence in GHW Bush and considered him a potential danger to Israel and thus it made it certain he would not be reelected and thus Clinton was brought from Arkansas and Ross Perot was manipulated into running. It was the repeat of 1912 Taft-Wilson election trick when Teddy Roosevelt was doing the Ross Perot schtick to stop the incumbent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Perhaps GW Bush was manipulated into believing so, but what you repeat here is the neocon meme created to justify the Iraq invasion in 2003 and blame it on Bush Sr. that he did not go all the way and then on GW Bush that he did 2003 to avenge his father or whatever. Yes, it is the Bushes fault! I thought you are smarter than believing this BS.
     
    Neocon jibber jabber or not -- it is foolish to discount familial considerations.

    Jr. had two personal considerations – Daddy lost a second term and he left Saddam in power – Jr wanted to clear the Bush name.

    (At the time, Baker was the most competent person in politics. Because of the Jews, Jr did not put Baker in his administration – that cost him his legacy.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MEexpert says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hillary could not have been worse.
     
    That's a bit fatuous. Hillary-Prez would mean "all of the above + open border chaos".

    Hillary could not have been worse.

    You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith


    Hillary could not have been worse.

     

    You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that.
     
    I'll bet the pain lingers. ;-)

    These days, I'm finding it a bit painful to read most of the bilge that passes for political commentary. Buchanan, at least, is consistent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Art says:
    @utu
    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush’s name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Perhaps GW Bush was manipulated into believing so, but what you repeat here is the neocon meme created to justify the Iraq invasion in 2003 and blame it on Bush Sr. that he did not go all the way and then on GW Bush that he did 2003 to avenge his father or whatever. Yes, it is the Bushes fault! I thought you are smarter than believing this BS.

    Bush Sr. was disliked by The Lobby for two reasons (1) Not expanding the Desert Storm and (2) Contesting Yitzhak Shamir about settlements though he backed off. The Lobby lost confidence in GHW Bush and considered him a potential danger to Israel and thus it made it certain he would not be reelected and thus Clinton was brought from Arkansas and Ross Perot was manipulated into running. It was the repeat of 1912 Taft-Wilson election trick when Teddy Roosevelt was doing the Ross Perot schtick to stop the incumbent.

    Perhaps GW Bush was manipulated into believing so, but what you repeat here is the neocon meme created to justify the Iraq invasion in 2003 and blame it on Bush Sr. that he did not go all the way and then on GW Bush that he did 2003 to avenge his father or whatever. Yes, it is the Bushes fault! I thought you are smarter than believing this BS.

    Neocon jibber jabber or not — it is foolish to discount familial considerations.

    Jr. had two personal considerations – Daddy lost a second term and he left Saddam in power – Jr wanted to clear the Bush name.

    (At the time, Baker was the most competent person in politics. Because of the Jews, Jr did not put Baker in his administration – that cost him his legacy.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. KenH says:
    @RadicalCenter
    It's time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. "Arise, Men of the West, Arise!"

    It’s time for Steve Bannon to come riding over the hill. “Arise, Men of the West, Arise!”

    Except since Bannon doesn’t associate the white race with Western civilization it will be, “Arise, civic nationalists, Arise!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.


    I have no idea in what planet u live on but one thing is 4 sure ur talking points are straight out of AIPAC and the Likudniks /anglo-zionist play book. mid 2000 Mossad report Iran has no nuclear weapons capacity Mossad /MI6 and CIA report in 2012 Iran has no nuclear weapons program. 2013 the Likudniks and the anglo-zionist circa 2014 we must bomb Iran . 7 nuclear engineers assassinated by Mossad and /CIA operatives.
    Now lets talk about reality. Israel and the anglo-zionist do not want Iran or any ME country to develop a civilian initiated nuclear program ? Nuclear technology has a lot of attachments to modern medicine . The intention here is to reduce any modernisation of the Iranian economy and make it totally reliant on petroleum and gas. By keeping them that way corners the Iranian economy to a single style economy. Iran has profited immensely in the embargo. Iranian academicians are second to the US in publishing scientific research. Their education system IE tertiary system and post secondary education is leaps ahead of most western universities minus Ivy league US institutions. The Iranian economy has been growing for the last decade while western economies are floundering and Docius in fundem last but not least occupied Palestine/Israel is living on my and my fellow citizens 3.8 billion dollar subsidy that pour puppets so willingly fork out to the criminal state of of occupied Palestine/Israel.
    Israel is an apartheid supremacist racist fascistic entity. and all we r experiencing with regards to the DRPK and Iran is smoke and mirrors to hide our defunct politicians, economy and lack of democracy .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hillary could not have been worse.
     
    That's a bit fatuous. Hillary-Prez would mean "all of the above + open border chaos".

    It would have been worse with Hillary. No question.

    Just imagine looking at that smug ugly mug and hearing that hyenic screeching for 4 years! I’d rather be boiling in pig scat for eternity. On the other hand,the orange fat boy and Shrub clone is mildly amusing. His base stupidity can even be entertaining in a fascinating way; a marvel to behold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    On the other hand,the orange fat boy and Shrub clone is mildly amusing. His base stupidity can even be entertaining in a fascinating way; a marvel to behold.
     
    He's not stupid, but intellectual enhancement is lacking, fersher. 'Twas a bad bargain to accept either way. The prospect of Hillary as President is still appalling, eclipsing the mere incompetence of Obama. I thought -- as the remotest 'maybe' -- we might have a chance with Trump. I take solace in the reduction in velocity, but it sure ain't much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Randal says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.
     
    They shouldn't. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm - without placing any troops in-country - by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased. Bridges can be brought down, power plants can be demolished, water treatment plants can be bombed, cell towers can be targeted and so on. That's the reality of smart munitions. Countries with superior resources can bring others to their knees. We might even have Sunni allies ride along to give the attacks an air of respectability in the Muslim world.

    The lesson of Iraq is that we don't yet have the technology to quell an insurgency while minimizing our own casualties and staying within the red lines we've set for ourselves re civilian casualties. Insurgencies can be quashed easily, but only by resorting to the mass killings that were highly-effective for other countries in the past. Since we lack the complete disregard for the lives of enemy civilians that these measures require, it's obvious that invasion and occupation by US troops are off the table, unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.

    They shouldn’t. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm – without placing any troops in-country – by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased.

    The worry is that there are people close to decision-making in Washington who actually believe – or who claim to believe for manipulative reasons – this kind of delusional nonsense. For sure Iran has no real means of preventing such a US air and standoff attack campaign, and it will undoubtedly be far more brutishly uninhibited than was the Yugoslav campaign, which itself became ever more openly terrorist in its targeting of civilian life as the frustration and desperation of the NATO forces at the refusal of their enemies to admit defeat became ever greater. The suffering inflicted in Iran by the US regime and its Israeli and Saudi collaborators will surely be immense. But the mere infliction of suffering on innocents does not equal victory.

    Iraq in 1991-2003 was utterly isolated, with only enemies amongst its neighbours and no major states in the world willing to support it, though the wiser heads [than in Washington] in France, Germany and Russia all rightly counselled against the literally stupid US policy of invading the country, on grounds of basic practicality and morality, and were resoundingly prove to have been correct. The invasion of Iraq is generally regarded as one of the greatest blunders of modern times, and will likely be taught as such for generations to come (unless perhaps it is surpassed by a war against Iran)

    Iran is not isolated. To the contrary, the fools and scoundrels running Washington’s foreign policy have implemented policies (invading Iraq, trying to regime change Syria) that have ensured that Iran is deeply involved in both Iraq and Syria and has a strong working alliance with those countries and with Russia. A shameless US repudiation of the Iran agreement that is generally recognised as having finally put a lid on the stupid and dishonest Israeli/Saudi/US attempts to use nuclear power as a pretext for aggressive sanctions against Iran will ensure that the US/Israeli/Saudi side has zero credibility in Europe, Russia or China for any future pressure on Iran, let alone an outright attack.

    Iraq in 1991-2003 was a shattered country with a shattered military with almost no access to the resources needed to repair and rebuild any kind of effective military force.

    Iran is not a shattered country, nor is it without access to military resources, though it is a naturally peaceable country that devotes only relatively limited resources to building a war machine despite the clear threats it faces. Nevertheless, it is all but certain that it will reveal unexpected capabilities if and when it is actually attacked.

    For the US to expect to conduct a prolonged standoff bombing campaign against Iran, facing no real costs beyond some general attrition of he forces involved, and actually achieve anything more than its own final discrediting is simply delusional. The suffering in Iran would be as bad as the suffering that country faced as a result of the US-backed Iraqi invasion under Saddam, and much more widespread, but the real risks are faced by the US and Israel. Those countries are all too likely to end up either defeated or, in their frustration and delusional paranoia, going too far, and finally and utterly discrediting themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Here’s my take on the situation vis a vis Iran and N Korea too.

    There will be a shooting war when the US and/or Izzies no longer need(s) one or the other as a titillating distraction or when they wear out their usefulness as threats which can be manipulated to extort more funds for the Pentagon and/ or Tel Aviv.

    These things give the drama queens something to write about too.

    In any case the will of the people has virtually nothing to do with any of it so we peasants would be better off not worrying our ugly lil heads over it.

    So many threats; so few dollars. What’s a bloody bureaucrat to do?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Should India be allowed to have nuclear weapons? What of other I countries? Italy? Iceland? What other I country????? What gives them a right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Though the people seem sated for more,
    Mr. Trump’s ever-firmer for war.
    And if raping Iran
    Makes him feel like a man,
    He won’t feel like he’s Israel’s whore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @MEexpert

    Hillary could not have been worse.
     
    You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that.

    Hillary could not have been worse.

    You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that.

    I’ll bet the pain lingers. ;-)

    These days, I’m finding it a bit painful to read most of the bilge that passes for political commentary. Buchanan, at least, is consistent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @jacques sheete
    It would have been worse with Hillary. No question.

    Just imagine looking at that smug ugly mug and hearing that hyenic screeching for 4 years! I'd rather be boiling in pig scat for eternity. On the other hand,the orange fat boy and Shrub clone is mildly amusing. His base stupidity can even be entertaining in a fascinating way; a marvel to behold.

    On the other hand,the orange fat boy and Shrub clone is mildly amusing. His base stupidity can even be entertaining in a fascinating way; a marvel to behold.

    He’s not stupid, but intellectual enhancement is lacking, fersher. ‘Twas a bad bargain to accept either way. The prospect of Hillary as President is still appalling, eclipsing the mere incompetence of Obama. I thought — as the remotest ‘maybe’ — we might have a chance with Trump. I take solace in the reduction in velocity, but it sure ain’t much.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Avery says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.
     
    They shouldn't. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm - without placing any troops in-country - by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased. Bridges can be brought down, power plants can be demolished, water treatment plants can be bombed, cell towers can be targeted and so on. That's the reality of smart munitions. Countries with superior resources can bring others to their knees. We might even have Sunni allies ride along to give the attacks an air of respectability in the Muslim world.

    The lesson of Iraq is that we don't yet have the technology to quell an insurgency while minimizing our own casualties and staying within the red lines we've set for ourselves re civilian casualties. Insurgencies can be quashed easily, but only by resorting to the mass killings that were highly-effective for other countries in the past. Since we lack the complete disregard for the lives of enemy civilians that these measures require, it's obvious that invasion and occupation by US troops are off the table, unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.

    {…. and staying within the red lines we’ve set for ourselves re civilian casualties. }

    You are joking, right?
    US has never set any red lines re civilian casualties.
    Hollywood and MSM disinformation and propaganda has convinced middle America that US military in fact cares about civilian casualties in lands it invades. People here in US genuinely believe it.

    The reality is the exact opposite.

    Civilians in Dresden were deliberately cooked in Hellish fires to show Nazis what US&UK were capable of.
    Civilian targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized to terrorize Japan into unconditional surrender (…and also show Uncle Joe the terrible new weapon US possessed and had no compunction using against civilians……).
    Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo: it was a carefully planned bombing deliberately using incendiary devices to set fire to wood dwellings in Tokyo. About 100,000 civilians were burnt to death.

    During the Korean war USAF bombed and firebombed every major city in NK into rubble.
    The carpet bombing campaigns by B-52s in Vietnam resulted in massive Viet civilian casualties, because only about 50% of the bombs fell where they were supposed to (…USAF didn’t really care).

    {…unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.}

    And which Sunni Arabs would be drafted to supposedly occupy and lay waste to Iran?
    Saudis maybe?
    In fact the minute a shooting war starts, Iranians will rain (domestically manufactured) missiles on Riyadh and KSA’s oil production network. KSA population is concentrated in a few cities, the rest of the country being one massive desert. Those concentrations will make nice, rich targets for Iranian missiles.

    Oil price will shoot up to $200 @ barrel. How long do you think US economy will last with gasoline prices in US shooting up to $10+ @gallon?

    And, btw, as soon as ‘we invade ‘, Russia will start pouring technical and military aid to Iran. Same with China, although Chinese will do it very much under the table.
    We’ll leave alright: we will leave another batch of 1,000s of middle America boys dead in another foreign land 7,000 miles from US, defending not the US homeland,but foreign and globalist interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And, btw, as soon as ‘we invade ‘, Russia will start pouring technical and military aid to Iran.
     
    Will they? I'm not certain of it, though it seems the obvious and necessary Russian response.

    I'm conscious of, as I'm certain the Iranians are very aware of, past Russian collaboration with US machinations against Iran in the UN, and over for instance the delivery of S300s to Iran back in 2010.

    Has the experience of Syria really changed Russia's underlying untrustworthiness as a real opponent of the US and Israel in areas outside its own direct sphere? Iran is not part of that sphere as Syria was and is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have. It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities
     
    If you're innocent then you have no reason to refuse inspections of your home and belongings by your enemies.

    The domestic analogy here works well to point out the basic flaw in your position. Iran would have to be literally stupid to allow external examination of its military facilities, given the near certainty that any such inspections would be used for two purposes: the manufacture of black propaganda lies against it and the gathering of targeting intel for use by the US and/or Israel.

    Almost as stupid as Iran would be if it actually believed that trying to appease the demands of its enemies in this way would buy it any favour. Appeasement of established aggressors and implacable enemies such as the lobbies in Israel and the US pushing for war with Iran is literally a fool's game.

    It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development
     
    This is pure dishonest fantasy.

    If Iran is developing nukes, and that possibility obviously cannot be entirely ruled out though asserting it as you do as a known or even a likely fact is a flat out lie, then it must be accepted that Iran with nukes is infinitely better than the alternative of a US/Israeli/Saudi war against Iran. Nuclear weapons have a proven track record of deterring war, and indeed the evidence suggests that they might be the only thing that can deter the US regime and those who manipulate it towards war.
    , @Avery
    {If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have.}

    As soon as your Israeli buddies allow Iranians to inspect Israeli military and nuclear facilities - both civilian and military (bomb production, storage) - then I am sure Iranians will allow Israeli spies (aka "UN Inspectors") to inspect their military facilities.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have. It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development.

    If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities

    If you’re innocent then you have no reason to refuse inspections of your home and belongings by your enemies.

    The domestic analogy here works well to point out the basic flaw in your position. Iran would have to be literally stupid to allow external examination of its military facilities, given the near certainty that any such inspections would be used for two purposes: the manufacture of black propaganda lies against it and the gathering of targeting intel for use by the US and/or Israel.

    Almost as stupid as Iran would be if it actually believed that trying to appease the demands of its enemies in this way would buy it any favour. Appeasement of established aggressors and implacable enemies such as the lobbies in Israel and the US pushing for war with Iran is literally a fool’s game.

    It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development

    This is pure dishonest fantasy.

    If Iran is developing nukes, and that possibility obviously cannot be entirely ruled out though asserting it as you do as a known or even a likely fact is a flat out lie, then it must be accepted that Iran with nukes is infinitely better than the alternative of a US/Israeli/Saudi war against Iran. Nuclear weapons have a proven track record of deterring war, and indeed the evidence suggests that they might be the only thing that can deter the US regime and those who manipulate it towards war.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Iran would have to be literally stupid to allow external examination of its military facilities, given the near certainty that any such inspections would be used for two purposes: the manufacture of black propaganda lies against it and the gathering of targeting intel for use by the US and/or Israel.

    Almost as stupid as Iran would be if it actually believed that trying to appease the demands of its enemies in this way would buy it any favour. Appeasement of established aggressors and implacable enemies such as the lobbies in Israel and the US pushing for war with Iran is literally a fool’s game.
     
    Couldn't agree more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Avery says:
    @Quartermaster
    If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have. It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development.

    {If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have.}

    As soon as your Israeli buddies allow Iranians to inspect Israeli military and nuclear facilities – both civilian and military (bomb production, storage) – then I am sure Iranians will allow Israeli spies (aka “UN Inspectors”) to inspect their military facilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Damn straight! Israel can shove their hypocrisy up wherever they've got their undeclared nuclear stockpile.

    Mr. Buchanan starts out with "With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest..." and it isn't - the only question is which nation is this "national interest" referring to?

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. peterAUS says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Those assurances about the “limited” nature of a war against Iran ring hollow.
     
    They shouldn't. Uncle Sam kept a leash on Saddam for about 12 years, via no-fly, no-drive zones, after Desert Storm - without placing any troops in-country - by bombing military emplacements and troop formations from the air. If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased. Bridges can be brought down, power plants can be demolished, water treatment plants can be bombed, cell towers can be targeted and so on. That's the reality of smart munitions. Countries with superior resources can bring others to their knees. We might even have Sunni allies ride along to give the attacks an air of respectability in the Muslim world.

    The lesson of Iraq is that we don't yet have the technology to quell an insurgency while minimizing our own casualties and staying within the red lines we've set for ourselves re civilian casualties. Insurgencies can be quashed easily, but only by resorting to the mass killings that were highly-effective for other countries in the past. Since we lack the complete disregard for the lives of enemy civilians that these measures require, it's obvious that invasion and occupation by US troops are off the table, unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.

    Up to

    If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased.

    agree.
    And then, Iran blocks Hormuz.

    THAT would be a game changer.

    From then on it becomes serious.

    How about this:
    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What’s not to like there?
    If you are US administration and its backers/supporter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What’s not to like there?
     

    If you like that idea, then you also might also like this one (it's already been tried):

    That war could rejuvenate parts of German economy which benefits Hitler's base.
    That war, also, can channel the German national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in Germany.

    What’s not to like there?
     

    Lots not to like.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities
     
    If you're innocent then you have no reason to refuse inspections of your home and belongings by your enemies.

    The domestic analogy here works well to point out the basic flaw in your position. Iran would have to be literally stupid to allow external examination of its military facilities, given the near certainty that any such inspections would be used for two purposes: the manufacture of black propaganda lies against it and the gathering of targeting intel for use by the US and/or Israel.

    Almost as stupid as Iran would be if it actually believed that trying to appease the demands of its enemies in this way would buy it any favour. Appeasement of established aggressors and implacable enemies such as the lobbies in Israel and the US pushing for war with Iran is literally a fool's game.

    It is almost certain they are developing nukes, and it is know they are cooperating with the NorKs as well in development
     
    This is pure dishonest fantasy.

    If Iran is developing nukes, and that possibility obviously cannot be entirely ruled out though asserting it as you do as a known or even a likely fact is a flat out lie, then it must be accepted that Iran with nukes is infinitely better than the alternative of a US/Israeli/Saudi war against Iran. Nuclear weapons have a proven track record of deterring war, and indeed the evidence suggests that they might be the only thing that can deter the US regime and those who manipulate it towards war.

    Iran would have to be literally stupid to allow external examination of its military facilities, given the near certainty that any such inspections would be used for two purposes: the manufacture of black propaganda lies against it and the gathering of targeting intel for use by the US and/or Israel.

    Almost as stupid as Iran would be if it actually believed that trying to appease the demands of its enemies in this way would buy it any favour. Appeasement of established aggressors and implacable enemies such as the lobbies in Israel and the US pushing for war with Iran is literally a fool’s game.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Talha says:
    @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    Israel cannot and must not tolerate…even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran

    That’s cool – they have their own government – they should do something about it. Their voices count to the government they pay taxes to – i.e. not here.

    If you think you have balls of brass to pull off another Osirak go for it – you can just tack it on the growing list of UN violations you guys have.

    If you want to go to war with Persia because you can’t tolerate her actions – go for it – good luck with the missile shower coming in from Lebanon.

    Leave us the hell out, we’re not interested in another round of “Let’s you and him fight!”

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Talha says:
    @Avery
    {If Iran is not developing nukes, then there is no reason for them to refuse to allow inspection of military facilities, as they have.}

    As soon as your Israeli buddies allow Iranians to inspect Israeli military and nuclear facilities - both civilian and military (bomb production, storage) - then I am sure Iranians will allow Israeli spies (aka "UN Inspectors") to inspect their military facilities.

    Damn straight! Israel can shove their hypocrisy up wherever they’ve got their undeclared nuclear stockpile.

    Mr. Buchanan starts out with “With his declaration Friday that the Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest…” and it isn’t – the only question is which nation is this “national interest” referring to?

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Miro23 says:
    @peterAUS
    Up to

    If Iran should conduct any aggressive moves, those bombing attacks can be increased.
     
    agree.
    And then, Iran blocks Hormuz.

    THAT would be a game changer.

    From then on it becomes serious.

    How about this:
    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can "engage" surplus population in, say, "productive" way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What's not to like there?
    If you are US administration and its backers/supporter?

    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What’s not to like there?

    If you like that idea, then you also might also like this one (it’s already been tried):

    That war could rejuvenate parts of German economy which benefits Hitler’s base.
    That war, also, can channel the German national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in Germany.

    What’s not to like there?

    Lots not to like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren't "virtue signalling" here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
    Yeah........

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US "military enterprise" actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    And that is interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. peterAUS says:
    @Miro23

    That war could rejuvenate parts of US economy which benefits Trump base.
    That war, also, can channel the US national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in U.S.

    What’s not to like there?
     

    If you like that idea, then you also might also like this one (it's already been tried):

    That war could rejuvenate parts of German economy which benefits Hitler's base.
    That war, also, can channel the German national frustration outwards, which then can be kept under control.
    That war can “engage” surplus population in, say, “productive” way. And keep it under control, of course.
    And, of course, increase state power in Germany.

    What’s not to like there?
     

    Lots not to like.

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren’t “virtue signalling” here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
    Yeah……..

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US “military enterprise” actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    And that is interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
     
    Yes, I agree that the idea of starting foreign wars to provide an economic stimulus is a weak and slightly disappointing idea, apart from being slightly unethical and slightly stupid.
    , @Randal

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren’t “virtue signalling” here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
     

    Well no, more accurately he was comparing your arguments for the US attacking Iran with similar arguments for Germany attacking, say, Poland because it did not fear Britain and France, and Poland after all had no backing from either the Soviet Union or the US.

    It's a reasonably valid geopolitical parallel in this case, even though such comparisons with Nazi Germany are usually suspect because they are usually (as when directed against Iran or Russia by the Israeli/US propaganda machine) without any realistic basis and solely intended as smears.


    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US “military enterprise” actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.
     
    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.

    That said, it's highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US's economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US's own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.

    , @Chris Mallory
    Pete, you always seem pretty gung-ho for other people to fight and die in wars. How many years have you served in any military? Or are you not "surplus"?

    You want "practical"? Ok, nothing in the Middle East is worth one drop of American blood or one ounce of American gold. If you think fighting Iran is a good plan, start petitioning your government.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @whyamihere
    I disagree with Pat on some points on this one.
    Iran is most certainly developing a nuclear weapon, they're just doing different parts at different times.

    All Obama did with this deal is do what Bill Clinton did with North Korea; kick the can down the road and hail it as some great success. Some administration in the future would then have to have the same standoff with Iran in the exact way that Trump is having with North Korea now. The deal was a farce.

    Also, as much as I know people here hate Israel, Israel cannot and must not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Iran's leadership has declared multiple times they want to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel is a small country, so one nuke would just about destroy them, two or three and they're done for. No Israeli PM, no matter how liberal, would tolerate a nuclear Iran. If we don't help Israel they will go it alone.

    By the way, if we went to war with Iran, it would not be like Iraq in the sense that it wouldn't be a full scale invasion and occupation, we would just be bombing their nuclear facilities (likely teaming up with the Israeli air force).

    No matter what Trump does or doesn't do, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities was inevitable anyways. I must emphasize once again that even the most liberal Israeli PM you can think of would not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

    What exactly do we gain wondering if the most liberal Israeli PM do or don’t? I can care less about what an Israeli PM does or thinks. Last I check its not an American colony, or State! Israel is simple a bully who bullies the surrounding countries thanks to our aid, and weapons. What we do need to do is to distance our selves from that war mongering little country then. May be if we do that, they will stop their mongering and become a normal, stable little nation, like any other.
    Oh if only we had cojones! and concentrate in our corner of the earth, instead of going around the wold telling others what to do, and how to live.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Miro23 says:
    @peterAUS
    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren't "virtue signalling" here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
    Yeah........

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US "military enterprise" actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    And that is interesting.

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.

    Yes, I agree that the idea of starting foreign wars to provide an economic stimulus is a weak and slightly disappointing idea, apart from being slightly unethical and slightly stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren't "virtue signalling" here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
    Yeah........

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US "military enterprise" actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    And that is interesting.

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren’t “virtue signalling” here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.

    Well no, more accurately he was comparing your arguments for the US attacking Iran with similar arguments for Germany attacking, say, Poland because it did not fear Britain and France, and Poland after all had no backing from either the Soviet Union or the US.

    It’s a reasonably valid geopolitical parallel in this case, even though such comparisons with Nazi Germany are usually suspect because they are usually (as when directed against Iran or Russia by the Israeli/US propaganda machine) without any realistic basis and solely intended as smears.

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US “military enterprise” actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.

    That said, it’s highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US’s economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US’s own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.
     
    Pretty much.

    And, as for "American national interest':
    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.
    As, again:
    Rejuvenating domestic industries->hence employment of "undesirables".

    That said, it’s highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US’s economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US’s own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.
     
    Well...I'd really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I...suspect.......that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

    Just a feeling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. theMann says:

    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.

    1. Unknown, but significant number of Iranian submarines operating in the Persian Gulf, at least 3 of which are upgraded Kirov class boats more than capable of acquiring US carriers, etc. If even one boat got loose in the Med or Atlantic, consequences would be devastating.

    2. Logistically impossible to make a major occupation of Iranian territory as per Iraq, plus Iran has at least 350, 000 trained and equipped troops.

    3. Iranian resources with SS cruise missiles (or even subsonic ones) not entirely known, but certain to have enough ship killing capability to achieve deterrence.

    4. Spare parts flowing back into the country have restored air power, this is at least 150+ quality strike aircraft. Consider what Argentina did with a handful of Aircraft and a few Exocets.

    5. And this doesn’t assume major Russian or Chinese aid, which they would certainly get in event of a major conflict.

    6. Hezbollah would go nuts, the rest of the middle East would have an even more unpredictable than usual response.

    7. Pakistan might just come to an agreement to provide Iran with nuclear assistance.

    Any attack on Iran wouldn’t be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.

    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.
    ...
    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.
     
    It would be nice if what you write here were true, but sadly it seems unduly optimistic. Remember, the issue is not whether it's in the interests of the US or the American people to go to war with Iran, nor even just whether it's in the real interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy. The question is whether it's perceived to be in the interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy, by those people.

    People like the ones Giraldi talks about here, as well as assorted other dual loyalty, Christian evangelist zealot, and war profiteering types. A lot of those people either have very different objectives and desired outcomes than any patriotic American would have, or are not really members of the "reality based community", as they sneeringly dismissed critics of the advocacy of the disastrous attack on Iraq. Or both.

    From their point of view your points might be addressed as follows:

    1. You mean Kilo class, but they would have to go round Africa to operate in the Atlantic, let alone the Med. Not going to happen. Iran has better uses for them, so long as they survive at all, in the Indian Ocean.

    2. The idea would probably be to only occupy strategic shoreline areas on the Persia Gulf, and deal with any Iranian military response by air and standoff missiles using the many US systems specifically designed to destroy massed military forces highly effectively.

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.
    [Remember this is how the US advocates of war - men like Quartermaster and Johann Ricke on this thread - think reality is, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    4. There is no serious fear of Iranian air force capabilities within the US military elite. It is anticipated all Iranian aircraft will be destroyed or in hiding within hours of the initiation of open conflict. In fairness, the warmongers are probably correct on that one.

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.
    [Again, remember this is how the US advocates of war think reality operates, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    6. War with Hezbollah is a feature, not a bug, for the warmongers. The Israeli warmongers seriously think they can beat Hezbollah if they can get a proper go with full US backing. A large part of Israeli motivation in seeking a US attack on Iran is probably their assumption that manipulating the US into a war with Iran will bring them US backing to crush Hezbollah.

    7. Pakistan is not going to choose Iran over Saudi Arabia and the US.

    Any attack on Iran wouldn’t be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.
     
    A price well worth paying for achieving the goals of those pushing for war, as far as they are concerned, as long as they can establish a political/diplomatic context that allows them to evade too much of the direct blame.

    And that in the end is what it is all about. Can those who desire a US attack on Iran establish such a context and persuade those nominally making the decisions to act? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer was yes. In the case of an open US intervention against the Syrian government in 2013, the answer was no. In the case of Iran so far it's been no, but that can easily change. All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Randal says:
    @Avery
    {.... and staying within the red lines we’ve set for ourselves re civilian casualties. }

    You are joking, right?
    US has never set any red lines re civilian casualties.
    Hollywood and MSM disinformation and propaganda has convinced middle America that US military in fact cares about civilian casualties in lands it invades. People here in US genuinely believe it.

    The reality is the exact opposite.

    Civilians in Dresden were deliberately cooked in Hellish fires to show Nazis what US&UK were capable of.
    Civilian targets Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized to terrorize Japan into unconditional surrender (...and also show Uncle Joe the terrible new weapon US possessed and had no compunction using against civilians......).
    Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo: it was a carefully planned bombing deliberately using incendiary devices to set fire to wood dwellings in Tokyo. About 100,000 civilians were burnt to death.

    During the Korean war USAF bombed and firebombed every major city in NK into rubble.
    The carpet bombing campaigns by B-52s in Vietnam resulted in massive Viet civilian casualties, because only about 50% of the bombs fell where they were supposed to (...USAF didn't really care).


    {...unless we draft Sunni Arabs to occupy and lay waste to the land, after we invade and leave.}

    And which Sunni Arabs would be drafted to supposedly occupy and lay waste to Iran?
    Saudis maybe?
    In fact the minute a shooting war starts, Iranians will rain (domestically manufactured) missiles on Riyadh and KSA's oil production network. KSA population is concentrated in a few cities, the rest of the country being one massive desert. Those concentrations will make nice, rich targets for Iranian missiles.

    Oil price will shoot up to $200 @ barrel. How long do you think US economy will last with gasoline prices in US shooting up to $10+ @gallon?

    And, btw, as soon as 'we invade ', Russia will start pouring technical and military aid to Iran. Same with China, although Chinese will do it very much under the table.
    We'll leave alright: we will leave another batch of 1,000s of middle America boys dead in another foreign land 7,000 miles from US, defending not the US homeland,but foreign and globalist interests.

    And, btw, as soon as ‘we invade ‘, Russia will start pouring technical and military aid to Iran.

    Will they? I’m not certain of it, though it seems the obvious and necessary Russian response.

    I’m conscious of, as I’m certain the Iranians are very aware of, past Russian collaboration with US machinations against Iran in the UN, and over for instance the delivery of S300s to Iran back in 2010.

    Has the experience of Syria really changed Russia’s underlying untrustworthiness as a real opponent of the US and Israel in areas outside its own direct sphere? Iran is not part of that sphere as Syria was and is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @peterAUS
    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren't "virtue signalling" here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
    Yeah........

    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US "military enterprise" actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.

    And that is interesting.

    Pete, you always seem pretty gung-ho for other people to fight and die in wars. How many years have you served in any military? Or are you not “surplus”?

    You want “practical”? Ok, nothing in the Middle East is worth one drop of American blood or one ounce of American gold. If you think fighting Iran is a good plan, start petitioning your government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Randal says:
    @theMann
    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.

    1. Unknown, but significant number of Iranian submarines operating in the Persian Gulf, at least 3 of which are upgraded Kirov class boats more than capable of acquiring US carriers, etc. If even one boat got loose in the Med or Atlantic, consequences would be devastating.

    2. Logistically impossible to make a major occupation of Iranian territory as per Iraq, plus Iran has at least 350, 000 trained and equipped troops.

    3. Iranian resources with SS cruise missiles (or even subsonic ones) not entirely known, but certain to have enough ship killing capability to achieve deterrence.

    4. Spare parts flowing back into the country have restored air power, this is at least 150+ quality strike aircraft. Consider what Argentina did with a handful of Aircraft and a few Exocets.

    5. And this doesn't assume major Russian or Chinese aid, which they would certainly get in event of a major conflict.


    6. Hezbollah would go nuts, the rest of the middle East would have an even more unpredictable than usual response.

    7. Pakistan might just come to an agreement to provide Iran with nuclear assistance.


    Any attack on Iran wouldn't be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.



    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.

    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.

    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.

    It would be nice if what you write here were true, but sadly it seems unduly optimistic. Remember, the issue is not whether it’s in the interests of the US or the American people to go to war with Iran, nor even just whether it’s in the real interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy. The question is whether it’s perceived to be in the interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy, by those people.

    People like the ones Giraldi talks about here, as well as assorted other dual loyalty, Christian evangelist zealot, and war profiteering types. A lot of those people either have very different objectives and desired outcomes than any patriotic American would have, or are not really members of the “reality based community”, as they sneeringly dismissed critics of the advocacy of the disastrous attack on Iraq. Or both.

    From their point of view your points might be addressed as follows:

    1. You mean Kilo class, but they would have to go round Africa to operate in the Atlantic, let alone the Med. Not going to happen. Iran has better uses for them, so long as they survive at all, in the Indian Ocean.

    2. The idea would probably be to only occupy strategic shoreline areas on the Persia Gulf, and deal with any Iranian military response by air and standoff missiles using the many US systems specifically designed to destroy massed military forces highly effectively.

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.
    [Remember this is how the US advocates of war - men like Quartermaster and Johann Ricke on this thread - think reality is, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    4. There is no serious fear of Iranian air force capabilities within the US military elite. It is anticipated all Iranian aircraft will be destroyed or in hiding within hours of the initiation of open conflict. In fairness, the warmongers are probably correct on that one.

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.
    [Again, remember this is how the US advocates of war think reality operates, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    6. War with Hezbollah is a feature, not a bug, for the warmongers. The Israeli warmongers seriously think they can beat Hezbollah if they can get a proper go with full US backing. A large part of Israeli motivation in seeking a US attack on Iran is probably their assumption that manipulating the US into a war with Iran will bring them US backing to crush Hezbollah.

    7. Pakistan is not going to choose Iran over Saudi Arabia and the US.

    Any attack on Iran wouldn’t be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.

    A price well worth paying for achieving the goals of those pushing for war, as far as they are concerned, as long as they can establish a political/diplomatic context that allows them to evade too much of the direct blame.

    And that in the end is what it is all about. Can those who desire a US attack on Iran establish such a context and persuade those nominally making the decisions to act? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer was yes. In the case of an open US intervention against the Syrian government in 2013, the answer was no. In the case of Iran so far it’s been no, but that can easily change. All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Very good, IMHO.

    And, I could, probably, qualify as an "advocate of war" re:

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.
     
    and

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.
     
    The real problem for "advocates of war" is Hormuz.
    I am not sure that has been "solved" by people pushing for war.

    Preventing blocking of Hormuz would require good ground troops and plenty of them.
    Selling that to US public could be a challenge.
    Which brings back:

    All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.

     

    And, the best way for Iran to prevent all that would be possession of nuclear weapons.
    Which is the main reason The Empire is pushing for regime change there.
    Crazy.

    What a world we live in.
    , @Chris Mallory
    Iran's Kilos would be murder in the Persian Gulf. Shallow seas to degrade ASW. Diesel electric so the limited operational area would not require surfacing to run the engines. A diesel sub on battery is very quiet, quieter than a nuke that has to keep cooling pumps running 24/7.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Weak and, slightly, disappointing.
    You aren’t “virtue signalling” here, are you?

    Comparing Nazi Germany confronting Russia, US and Great Britain vs US (with allies/satellites/vassals) confronting Iran.
     

    Well no, more accurately he was comparing your arguments for the US attacking Iran with similar arguments for Germany attacking, say, Poland because it did not fear Britain and France, and Poland after all had no backing from either the Soviet Union or the US.

    It's a reasonably valid geopolitical parallel in this case, even though such comparisons with Nazi Germany are usually suspect because they are usually (as when directed against Iran or Russia by the Israeli/US propaganda machine) without any realistic basis and solely intended as smears.


    I am getting, from comments related to topic, an impression that people against this particular US “military enterprise” actually have no serious arguments.
    Practical, not moral/philosophical/ethical/whatever.
     
    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.

    That said, it's highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US's economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US's own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.

    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.

    Pretty much.

    And, as for “American national interest’:
    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.
    As, again:
    Rejuvenating domestic industries->hence employment of “undesirables”.

    That said, it’s highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US’s economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US’s own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.

    Well…I’d really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I…suspect…….that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

    Just a feeling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.
     
    I don't.

    The economic gains from war are usually spurious examples of the broken window fallacy, and this is especially likely to be so in the case of Iran where there are likely to be heavy collateral economic costs along with the direct costs of war-making. As usual, it would probably be a lot cheaper and at least as effective just to directly increase the subsidies to the military industries to the tune of the amounts they would gain from a war in return for make-work employment.

    The logic of your position is that the US regime should just pile up all the military material expected to be expended and/or destroyed or worn out in a war with Iran, blow it up, and then order replacements from the war profiteers.

    Well…I’d really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I…suspect…….that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

     

    I would question the honesty of many of the sources of information getting to Trump.

    As for the competence and honesty of any US mainstream analysis, well remember these are the people (broadly speaking) who thought systematically alienating Russia, invading Iraq and regime changing Libya were all great ideas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Altai says:
    @Miro23

    We Americans, however, are not going to send another army to occupy another country, as we did Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.
     
    That seems pretty clear.

    Tehran does not want war with us. It is the War Party in Washington and its Middle East allies — Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudi royals — who hunger to have the United States come over and smash Iran.

    Thus, the Congressional battle to kill, or not to kill, the Iran nuclear deal shapes up as decisive in the Trump presidency.
     

    There's no battle here, Congressmen just vote how the Zionists tell them to vote (same as Trump).

    So that leaves the aerial destruction of Iran? And how will that work out with the US on its own?

    So that leaves the aerial destruction of Iran? And how will that work out with the US on its own?

    This is what concerns me. Trump may reject a serious air campaign or overt (It’s shocking how the Western media covers Syria constantly but ignores the British/American/Norwegian occupation of Syrian territory! Nobody in those countries knows a thing about it!) military campaign but he seems to either be game or have been bent towards a low-level proxy war that throws ISIS under the bus for local not-ISIS salafists.

    Likewise in Iran. I can only hope that he is doing this out of pettiness to just end the Obama legacy and that he will renegotiate another deal. He seemed to frame the deal with Iran as too generous not a bad idea in itself. I’d disagree, even if the deal included the US giving Iran 100 billion for free it’d be a good deal for the US by neutering a primary war justification vector, the consequences for which would cost the US a lot more than 100 billion. Otherwise a serious air campaign coupled with arming various ethnic separatists could be one option they might go for, the Kurds can have their state, out of a piece of Iran!

    I don’t know the neocons know what they’re doing by having a Kushner (And his explicitly Jewish-supremacist sect.) in there pushing for this. It’s a giant ‘/pol/ was right!’ alt-right meme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    The American people don't have a problem with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran or the Middle East in general.

    But they do have a problem with Israel.

    US Zionists get to Trump in the same way that they get to every Congressman. They are Israeli agents and Israel Firsters and these are their wars.

    And, it's worth considering that the so called "US government" isn't even capable of investigating the obvious deception around 9/11. So, sadly, all that's left, is a discussion of the finer points of how the US is going to spend yet more $ Trillions to destroy yet another country in the Middle East, and kill 100.000's more civilians, while sliding into a truly dangerous military confrontation with Russia.

    The US public needs to stop being distracted, and think about the fact that they're quickly heading into a psychotic Zionist dictatorship, and the really bad consequences that will flow from this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.
    ...
    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.
     
    It would be nice if what you write here were true, but sadly it seems unduly optimistic. Remember, the issue is not whether it's in the interests of the US or the American people to go to war with Iran, nor even just whether it's in the real interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy. The question is whether it's perceived to be in the interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy, by those people.

    People like the ones Giraldi talks about here, as well as assorted other dual loyalty, Christian evangelist zealot, and war profiteering types. A lot of those people either have very different objectives and desired outcomes than any patriotic American would have, or are not really members of the "reality based community", as they sneeringly dismissed critics of the advocacy of the disastrous attack on Iraq. Or both.

    From their point of view your points might be addressed as follows:

    1. You mean Kilo class, but they would have to go round Africa to operate in the Atlantic, let alone the Med. Not going to happen. Iran has better uses for them, so long as they survive at all, in the Indian Ocean.

    2. The idea would probably be to only occupy strategic shoreline areas on the Persia Gulf, and deal with any Iranian military response by air and standoff missiles using the many US systems specifically designed to destroy massed military forces highly effectively.

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.
    [Remember this is how the US advocates of war - men like Quartermaster and Johann Ricke on this thread - think reality is, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    4. There is no serious fear of Iranian air force capabilities within the US military elite. It is anticipated all Iranian aircraft will be destroyed or in hiding within hours of the initiation of open conflict. In fairness, the warmongers are probably correct on that one.

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.
    [Again, remember this is how the US advocates of war think reality operates, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    6. War with Hezbollah is a feature, not a bug, for the warmongers. The Israeli warmongers seriously think they can beat Hezbollah if they can get a proper go with full US backing. A large part of Israeli motivation in seeking a US attack on Iran is probably their assumption that manipulating the US into a war with Iran will bring them US backing to crush Hezbollah.

    7. Pakistan is not going to choose Iran over Saudi Arabia and the US.

    Any attack on Iran wouldn’t be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.
     
    A price well worth paying for achieving the goals of those pushing for war, as far as they are concerned, as long as they can establish a political/diplomatic context that allows them to evade too much of the direct blame.

    And that in the end is what it is all about. Can those who desire a US attack on Iran establish such a context and persuade those nominally making the decisions to act? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer was yes. In the case of an open US intervention against the Syrian government in 2013, the answer was no. In the case of Iran so far it's been no, but that can easily change. All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.

    Very good, IMHO.

    And, I could, probably, qualify as an “advocate of war” re:

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.

    and

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.

    The real problem for “advocates of war” is Hormuz.
    I am not sure that has been “solved” by people pushing for war.

    Preventing blocking of Hormuz would require good ground troops and plenty of them.
    Selling that to US public could be a challenge.
    Which brings back:

    All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.

    And, the best way for Iran to prevent all that would be possession of nuclear weapons.
    Which is the main reason The Empire is pushing for regime change there.
    Crazy.

    What a world we live in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    The main reason you are getting this impression seems to be a semantic mismatch whereby you are talking about the outcomes for the lobbies pushing for war whereas others tend to be talking about outcomes for some plausible notion of an American national interest.
     
    Pretty much.

    And, as for "American national interest':
    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.
    As, again:
    Rejuvenating domestic industries->hence employment of "undesirables".

    That said, it’s highly unlikely that any war boost for particular sectors of the US military complex will outweigh the wider costs of the war, for ordinary members of the Trump coalition, and there is a real risk that waging such a war will have finally terminal results for many of the US’s economic and political levers of global power, and possibly for the US’s own rather wobbly political stability, which is not even in the interests of many of those in the US regime itself, other than those who are directly acting in the interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia, who will doubtless decamp from the country if and when any really disastrous political and economic costs hit home.
     
    Well...I'd really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I...suspect.......that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

    Just a feeling.

    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.

    I don’t.

    The economic gains from war are usually spurious examples of the broken window fallacy, and this is especially likely to be so in the case of Iran where there are likely to be heavy collateral economic costs along with the direct costs of war-making. As usual, it would probably be a lot cheaper and at least as effective just to directly increase the subsidies to the military industries to the tune of the amounts they would gain from a war in return for make-work employment.

    The logic of your position is that the US regime should just pile up all the military material expected to be expended and/or destroyed or worn out in a war with Iran, blow it up, and then order replacements from the war profiteers.

    Well…I’d really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I…suspect…….that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

    I would question the honesty of many of the sources of information getting to Trump.

    As for the competence and honesty of any US mainstream analysis, well remember these are the people (broadly speaking) who thought systematically alienating Russia, invading Iraq and regime changing Libya were all great ideas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The logic of your position is that the US regime should just pile up all the military material expected to be expended and/or destroyed or worn out in a war with Iran, blow it up, and then order replacements from the war profiteers.
     
    Sort of.

    You omitted an element there.

    Producing more war material.
    All this from 9/11 has been COIN.
    This is next level. Conventional. Real hardware and plenty of it.
    That means infrastructure, factories....the works.
    Didn't similar help with Great Depression?

    Based on that, say, economic, positive, there would be social-political positives.

    Simple.

    Well, that analysis wise, why we can't see them from different/opposing teams?
    Like, say, "Global Climate Change".

    Put ethic/moral/whatever aside and produce one.
    Say, somebody opposing that war. One would expect multitude of those made available on the Net.
    To influence public opinion, if nothing else.

    I simply feel that this ethic/moral thing ain't working with an average American.
    Or Westerner.

    Yes...yes...of course people will say in public what's required.

    But, promise them jobs/MONEY...and what they think in private is another matter.
    Fact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    I do believe there is plenty of that interest in (possible) war with Iran.
     
    I don't.

    The economic gains from war are usually spurious examples of the broken window fallacy, and this is especially likely to be so in the case of Iran where there are likely to be heavy collateral economic costs along with the direct costs of war-making. As usual, it would probably be a lot cheaper and at least as effective just to directly increase the subsidies to the military industries to the tune of the amounts they would gain from a war in return for make-work employment.

    The logic of your position is that the US regime should just pile up all the military material expected to be expended and/or destroyed or worn out in a war with Iran, blow it up, and then order replacements from the war profiteers.

    Well…I’d really like to see a good, comprehensive, analysis of that.
    I believe that the war hinges on it.

    I…suspect…….that a feasible outcome of that analysis has been given to Trump administration.

     

    I would question the honesty of many of the sources of information getting to Trump.

    As for the competence and honesty of any US mainstream analysis, well remember these are the people (broadly speaking) who thought systematically alienating Russia, invading Iraq and regime changing Libya were all great ideas.

    The logic of your position is that the US regime should just pile up all the military material expected to be expended and/or destroyed or worn out in a war with Iran, blow it up, and then order replacements from the war profiteers.

    Sort of.

    You omitted an element there.

    Producing more war material.
    All this from 9/11 has been COIN.
    This is next level. Conventional. Real hardware and plenty of it.
    That means infrastructure, factories….the works.
    Didn’t similar help with Great Depression?

    Based on that, say, economic, positive, there would be social-political positives.

    Simple.

    Well, that analysis wise, why we can’t see them from different/opposing teams?
    Like, say, “Global Climate Change”.

    Put ethic/moral/whatever aside and produce one.
    Say, somebody opposing that war. One would expect multitude of those made available on the Net.
    To influence public opinion, if nothing else.

    I simply feel that this ethic/moral thing ain’t working with an average American.
    Or Westerner.

    Yes…yes…of course people will say in public what’s required.

    But, promise them jobs/MONEY…and what they think in private is another matter.
    Fact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Miro23 says:
    @Altai

    So that leaves the aerial destruction of Iran? And how will that work out with the US on its own?
     
    This is what concerns me. Trump may reject a serious air campaign or overt (It's shocking how the Western media covers Syria constantly but ignores the British/American/Norwegian occupation of Syrian territory! Nobody in those countries knows a thing about it!) military campaign but he seems to either be game or have been bent towards a low-level proxy war that throws ISIS under the bus for local not-ISIS salafists.

    Likewise in Iran. I can only hope that he is doing this out of pettiness to just end the Obama legacy and that he will renegotiate another deal. He seemed to frame the deal with Iran as too generous not a bad idea in itself. I'd disagree, even if the deal included the US giving Iran 100 billion for free it'd be a good deal for the US by neutering a primary war justification vector, the consequences for which would cost the US a lot more than 100 billion. Otherwise a serious air campaign coupled with arming various ethnic separatists could be one option they might go for, the Kurds can have their state, out of a piece of Iran!

    I don't know the neocons know what they're doing by having a Kushner (And his explicitly Jewish-supremacist sect.) in there pushing for this. It's a giant '/pol/ was right!' alt-right meme.

    The American people don’t have a problem with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran or the Middle East in general.

    But they do have a problem with Israel.

    US Zionists get to Trump in the same way that they get to every Congressman. They are Israeli agents and Israel Firsters and these are their wars.

    And, it’s worth considering that the so called “US government” isn’t even capable of investigating the obvious deception around 9/11. So, sadly, all that’s left, is a discussion of the finer points of how the US is going to spend yet more $ Trillions to destroy yet another country in the Middle East, and kill 100.000′s more civilians, while sliding into a truly dangerous military confrontation with Russia.

    The US public needs to stop being distracted, and think about the fact that they’re quickly heading into a psychotic Zionist dictatorship, and the really bad consequences that will flow from this.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Randal

    Zero % chance of a direct war with Iran.
    ...
    The whole kerfuffle is just so much Kabuki Theater by the Israeli a$$lickers in Washington, nothing else to see here.
     
    It would be nice if what you write here were true, but sadly it seems unduly optimistic. Remember, the issue is not whether it's in the interests of the US or the American people to go to war with Iran, nor even just whether it's in the real interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy. The question is whether it's perceived to be in the interests of the people and lobbies who manipulate US foreign policy, by those people.

    People like the ones Giraldi talks about here, as well as assorted other dual loyalty, Christian evangelist zealot, and war profiteering types. A lot of those people either have very different objectives and desired outcomes than any patriotic American would have, or are not really members of the "reality based community", as they sneeringly dismissed critics of the advocacy of the disastrous attack on Iraq. Or both.

    From their point of view your points might be addressed as follows:

    1. You mean Kilo class, but they would have to go round Africa to operate in the Atlantic, let alone the Med. Not going to happen. Iran has better uses for them, so long as they survive at all, in the Indian Ocean.

    2. The idea would probably be to only occupy strategic shoreline areas on the Persia Gulf, and deal with any Iranian military response by air and standoff missiles using the many US systems specifically designed to destroy massed military forces highly effectively.

    3. Iranian missiles would be restricted in use navally by an inability to find US ships outside the Gulf, and would be dealt generally with by destruction of launchers and by countermeasures.
    [Remember this is how the US advocates of war - men like Quartermaster and Johann Ricke on this thread - think reality is, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    4. There is no serious fear of Iranian air force capabilities within the US military elite. It is anticipated all Iranian aircraft will be destroyed or in hiding within hours of the initiation of open conflict. In fairness, the warmongers are probably correct on that one.

    5. Any Russian or Chinese assistance to Iran will be too indirect, too limited and too late to materially affect a war. Those countries will not want to risk US responses against them for Iran.
    [Again, remember this is how the US advocates of war think reality operates, not how the rest of humanity necessarily does]

    6. War with Hezbollah is a feature, not a bug, for the warmongers. The Israeli warmongers seriously think they can beat Hezbollah if they can get a proper go with full US backing. A large part of Israeli motivation in seeking a US attack on Iran is probably their assumption that manipulating the US into a war with Iran will bring them US backing to crush Hezbollah.

    7. Pakistan is not going to choose Iran over Saudi Arabia and the US.

    Any attack on Iran wouldn’t be a few pilots, aircraft, and special forces, it would be massive casualties, especially to our surface fleet.
     
    A price well worth paying for achieving the goals of those pushing for war, as far as they are concerned, as long as they can establish a political/diplomatic context that allows them to evade too much of the direct blame.

    And that in the end is what it is all about. Can those who desire a US attack on Iran establish such a context and persuade those nominally making the decisions to act? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer was yes. In the case of an open US intervention against the Syrian government in 2013, the answer was no. In the case of Iran so far it's been no, but that can easily change. All it would probably take would be one sufficiently convenient pretext, such as a 9/11 type event (even one of much lesser scale) that could be pinned, however implausibly, upon Iran.

    Iran’s Kilos would be murder in the Persian Gulf. Shallow seas to degrade ASW. Diesel electric so the limited operational area would not require surfacing to run the engines. A diesel sub on battery is very quiet, quieter than a nuke that has to keep cooling pumps running 24/7.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    A diesel sub on battery is very quiet, quieter than a nuke that has to keep cooling pumps running 24/7.
     
    Well, let's be cautious about sweeping generalizations. Modern diesel/electric subs may be quieter than ... etc. Cooling pumps aren't the only things that make noise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Chris Mallory
    Iran's Kilos would be murder in the Persian Gulf. Shallow seas to degrade ASW. Diesel electric so the limited operational area would not require surfacing to run the engines. A diesel sub on battery is very quiet, quieter than a nuke that has to keep cooling pumps running 24/7.

    A diesel sub on battery is very quiet, quieter than a nuke that has to keep cooling pumps running 24/7.

    Well, let’s be cautious about sweeping generalizations. Modern diesel/electric subs may be quieter than … etc. Cooling pumps aren’t the only things that make noise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. MBlanc46 says:
    @Art
    Iran is a bad boy enemy. They made themselves our enemy in 1979. People who are not our enemy do not call us “Great Satan” or take to the streets chanting “Death to America”.

    In the Iraq/Iran war, Iran lost 1,000,000 men. The US government supplied Saddam with arms while he was gassing Iran with chemical weapons.

    Is that cause for Iran to call the US government “the great Satan?”

    Hmm!

    Think Peace --- Art

    p.s. Did they kill anyone in 1979?

    p.s. How many Iranians has the US government hurt and killed?

    p.s. Will there ever be enough?

    p.s. Maybe we should look at the CIA?

    They were shouting “Death to America” before the Iran-Iraq War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. MBlanc46 says:
    @Avery
    {Iran is a bad boy enemy. .....}

    US & UK made Iran and Iranians our enemy in 1953 when they organized a bloody coup (operation Ajax) to overthrow the democratically elected President Mosaddegh and installed an un-elected dictator, the Shah. US&UK then trained Shah's notorious secret police the SAVAK to terrorize and torture any dissenters into submission.

    And the reason for the coup was that Mosaddegh wanted Iran's oil wealth for the Iranian people: US&UK wanted it all the extracted wealth for their oil companies, while paying Iranians peanuts, as they had done until the election of Mosaddegh.

    Yes, it was wrong for US embassy employees to be held hostage by Iranians. Wrong and stupid. Iranians should have expelled them promptly and be done with it. But you have to understand Iranian feelings too. The people were in effect held hostage and terrorized for more than 30 years by a dictator installed by US&UK. And the US embassy was the locus for organizing and overseeing the 1953 coup.

    In 1988 USS Vincennes which was aggressively patrolling near Iranian territorial waters and frequently going inside Iranian waters, looking for trouble, trying to provoke Iranians, shot down an Iranian passenger jet killing 290, including a bunch of children. Instead of being demoted, in 1990 Capt. Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit decoration "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ..".

    How wouldyou feel if someone who was responsible for killing 290 of your civilian countrymen, women, children, was awarded a medal?

    US&UK started it in 1953.
    But Americans (and Brits) have a curious characteristic: they conveniently and quickly forget the misery, and death, and destruction their elected governments have visited on others, but have long memories when the victims fight back or retaliate against US (or UK).

    Yet Iran was a major US ally in the Middke East 1953-1979.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Think about it, Iran under the Shah was a tool of the MIC and globalists, not so much an ally of the American people. The same forces that supported the Shah are the very same ones that have besmirched and bankrupted the US and ruined millions of lives, American and others through needless foreign wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. MBlanc46 says:
    @Chris Mallory

    but who made them our enemy is not.
     
    You are correct. It was the CIA who made Iran our enemy. Remember that good ol' CIA term "blowback". Well when you overthrow an elected leader, replace them with a dictator, and support that dictator's murderous secret police you do tend to make people a bit upset and you can get some blowback.

    Are Iran's chants of "Death to America" really any different than McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or the Israel Firster's infinite number of "Death to Iran" posts on any and every political or news website?

    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.
     
    The only difference is that 99% of Iranians believe Pahlavi was installed by the US. Seems unlikely your opinion that he was not will have much impact.
    , @Avery
    {Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.}

    Reza Pahlavi, is the Crown Prince of Iran, the older son of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Shahbanu Farah Pahlavi. He is currently residing in US. He is a crown prince without a crown.

    You can be a Shah or a King or Emperor or whatever without a throne or a country or a kingdom.
    Yes, US & UK overthrew democratically elected Mosaddegh.
    Yes, Shah was already a Shah, but with just a title, nothing more.
    Yes, US&UK installed him as the un-elected ruler/dictator of Iran.
    After illegally overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh,

    'Nonetheless, it is a fact.'

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @MBlanc46
    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.

    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.

    The only difference is that 99% of Iranians believe Pahlavi was installed by the US. Seems unlikely your opinion that he was not will have much impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Nonetheless, it is a fact. Certainly Iranians at the time knew it. I am skeptical of yor 99% figure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. geokat62 says:
    @Art
    It was known that Bush was resentful of Jews whom he blamed for his father failure to be reelected.

    There is much truth there.

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush's name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Electing successive relatives is fraught with difficulties. Family pride and family feuds drive decisions.

    Think Peace --- Art

    One major reason baby Bush went into Iraq in 2003 was to clear Daddy Bush’s name for leaving Saddam in power in the 1991 war.

    Hey, Art. Here is what Stephen Sniegoski has to say in The Transparant Cabal about this topic:

    As noted the previous chapter, the elder Bush himself expressed his opposition to the war in private. Joseph Wilson, an open critic of the impending war in 2002, wrote that he received a “warm note” from the former president, in which the elder Bush stated that he “agreed with almost everything” Wilson had written.

    From the neocon perspective, Jeffrey Bell in the Weekly Standard noted how the elder Bush’s position radically differed from that of his son, and that the adherents of his position staunchly opposed the neocon Middle East war agenda. “There is an alternative Bush I view that is now engaged in a death struggle with Bush II,” Bell wrote.

    It has a micro, not a macro, interpretation of what happened on 9/ 11. It sees Osama and Islamism as limited and aberrational. It mildly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but would favor no other significant military actions, backing mainly police actions geared toward catching Osama and other al Qaeda figures. It believes many of our problems in the Islamic world relate to our support for Israel. Bush I does not like Yasser Arafat, but believes the United States and Israel have no choice but to try to strike a deal with him.

    In the Islamic world, Bush I favors economic development through trade and internal, top-down reforms. While it does not oppose attempts to achieve democratic reforms in Islamic countries, it has little hope that this will be much of a factor in the immediate decades ahead.

    It should be added that this opposition from the elder Bush’s close associates and apparently from the elder Bush himself would seem to belie the argument that George W. Bush went to war to avenge Saddam’s alleged assassination attempt against his father. There is no evidence that George W. Bush launched the war in the interest, much less advice, of his father.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. MBlanc46 says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.
     
    The only difference is that 99% of Iranians believe Pahlavi was installed by the US. Seems unlikely your opinion that he was not will have much impact.

    Nonetheless, it is a fact. Certainly Iranians at the time knew it. I am skeptical of yor 99% figure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I write subject to correction, but I doubt the 99% is a serious "figure". The current regime in Iran depends for its legitimacy on the idea that the Shah was illegitimate, somewhere between a vicious tyrant and a complacent American puppet. Therefore this view dominates culture and is the only accepted view in Iran. Coincidentally this view is also popular with a large American faction. Compare Spain and Franco.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Avery says:
    @MBlanc46
    Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.

    {Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.}

    Reza Pahlavi, is the Crown Prince of Iran, the older son of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Shahbanu Farah Pahlavi. He is currently residing in US. He is a crown prince without a crown.

    You can be a Shah or a King or Emperor or whatever without a throne or a country or a kingdom.
    Yes, US & UK overthrew democratically elected Mosaddegh.
    Yes, Shah was already a Shah, but with just a title, nothing more.
    Yes, US&UK installed him as the un-elected ruler/dictator of Iran.
    After illegally overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh,

    ‘Nonetheless, it is a fact.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Not all countries have elected heads of state. Just because a guy is elected doesn’t make him a good guy. It was the Cold War. Mossadegh was a Communist fellow-traveler. Mossadegh was stealing a British oil company. The Brits objected, the US helped their old ally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @MBlanc46
    Yet Iran was a major US ally in the Middke East 1953-1979.

    Think about it, Iran under the Shah was a tool of the MIC and globalists, not so much an ally of the American people. The same forces that supported the Shah are the very same ones that have besmirched and bankrupted the US and ruined millions of lives, American and others through needless foreign wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I didn’t say that he was a good guy, merely that he was an ally. And a better one than a lot of the thugs the US has buddied ip with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. MBlanc46 says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Think about it, Iran under the Shah was a tool of the MIC and globalists, not so much an ally of the American people. The same forces that supported the Shah are the very same ones that have besmirched and bankrupted the US and ruined millions of lives, American and others through needless foreign wars.

    I didn’t say that he was a good guy, merely that he was an ally. And a better one than a lot of the thugs the US has buddied ip with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. MBlanc46 says:
    @Avery
    {Muhammad Pahlavi was already the Shah, as was his father. He was not installed by the US.}

    Reza Pahlavi, is the Crown Prince of Iran, the older son of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Shahbanu Farah Pahlavi. He is currently residing in US. He is a crown prince without a crown.

    You can be a Shah or a King or Emperor or whatever without a throne or a country or a kingdom.
    Yes, US & UK overthrew democratically elected Mosaddegh.
    Yes, Shah was already a Shah, but with just a title, nothing more.
    Yes, US&UK installed him as the un-elected ruler/dictator of Iran.
    After illegally overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh,

    'Nonetheless, it is a fact.'

    Not all countries have elected heads of state. Just because a guy is elected doesn’t make him a good guy. It was the Cold War. Mossadegh was a Communist fellow-traveler. Mossadegh was stealing a British oil company. The Brits objected, the US helped their old ally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MBlanc46
    Nonetheless, it is a fact. Certainly Iranians at the time knew it. I am skeptical of yor 99% figure.

    I write subject to correction, but I doubt the 99% is a serious “figure”. The current regime in Iran depends for its legitimacy on the idea that the Shah was illegitimate, somewhere between a vicious tyrant and a complacent American puppet. Therefore this view dominates culture and is the only accepted view in Iran. Coincidentally this view is also popular with a large American faction. Compare Spain and Franco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    There might be something to that. Also, when that sort of question is asked, many people give the answer that they know is approved, despite what they might actually think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon
    I write subject to correction, but I doubt the 99% is a serious "figure". The current regime in Iran depends for its legitimacy on the idea that the Shah was illegitimate, somewhere between a vicious tyrant and a complacent American puppet. Therefore this view dominates culture and is the only accepted view in Iran. Coincidentally this view is also popular with a large American faction. Compare Spain and Franco.

    There might be something to that. Also, when that sort of question is asked, many people give the answer that they know is approved, despite what they might actually think.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?