Isn't it clear that Iran wants this war?

[lwcon]

First, with great fanfare they announce what they called "good nuclear news," progress in uranium enrichment.

Then, they issue another "Israel will be leveled" pronouncement.

Why do you think they're egging us on?

Do they:
* Think we don't have the resources or cojones?
* Expect to prevail?
* Want to be martyrs?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[ShortnFiery]

1. It's not THEY (Iran) but one figurehead nutcase ...

This guy is just "a talking head." The Chimperor has far more power because he can act unilaterally. However, if we do something stupid like bomb Iran, the entire World Community would turn against us. Everyone save for US and Britain (+ a few other countries) would deal in NOTHING but Euros.

They (this figurehead) can be as pompous as he likes as long as they don't act and "mad King George" just may push the button.

In essence, in a world view, THEY have nothing to lose because we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, invade and occupy a country as large and fortified as Iran.

Methinks they just love to taunt the neocons. Like Moussoui "talks hideous trash" so we can kill him for Al Quaeda, the USA leadership are such mindless a**holes they just may start a World War.

[bullimiami]

2. maybe theyve noticed that bush only attacks the weak and helpless.

maybe they are countering bluster with bluster.

[lwcon]

17. It is ironic that...

Bush only attacks countries that have nukes, as long as they don't actually have nukes.

Would somebody please explain why Iraq (with no nukes) and Iran (with the beginnings of nuclear power technology) are more imminent threats than North Korea?
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[KansDem]

22. North Korea doesn't have oil.

Would somebody please explain why Iraq (with no nukes) and Iran (with the beginnings of nuclear power technology) are more imminent threats than North Korea?

Really though, the difference between Iraq and North Korea is that Iraq does not have nukes and does have oil.

I suppose Iran is the same.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. BINGO

at least ONE DUer gets it.

[Minnesota Libra]

3. Iran wants this war as much as idiot boy because that would............

....unite the entire Muslim world. All hell would break loose then.

[Kierkegaard]

5. It would also call many non-muslim nations to their side.

Why wouldn't they take advantage of this opportunity to get us into some shit that we can't get out of? If they manage to coax *Shithead into a war, it will likely unite the whole world against us, and that would make most of the middle east very happy indeed.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. Exactly!!!!

[Boojatta]

18. Consider just the people of Iran.

Cost: Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in Iran might die.

Benefit: The clerical rulers of Iran are unlikely to die and war fever might allow the Iranian leadership to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iran.

Is it possible that the clerical rulers of Iran consider that benefit to be worth the cost?

[Oversea Visitor]

4. Does it matter what they say

US marines according to sources are in Iran
Refer DK letter to bush.

If above true, then what they say make sense. What else to say
Mad cowboy already set in way has gone in.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. If the U.S. bombs Iran

It might well play into the hands of the hardest line faction there. Unless we use nukes destruction in Iran will be somewhat limited. The regime won't fall, but it would likely radicalize significant elements of Iranian society that currently are not supporting the hard liners. The U.S. bombing Iran may be a gift on a silver platter to the current Iranian President, who is NOT the Supreme leader of Iran. Tehran won't be targeted, he has nothing to worry about.

I wonder who the Iranian version of Ahmed Chalabi is? Someone is feeding Cheney and company a line again and they are eating it with a hook and sinker chaser. A U.S. attack on Iran will not turn the public against the hard liners by "embarrassing them" and making them lose face. The United States tried "embarrassing" Iraq prisoners inside Abu Ghraib once and we see what good that did us.

[Lerkfish]

8. If a pit bull is attached to your leg, is it ok to try to shake it off?

The US is already stirring up trouble there by hiring a terrorist group to foment discord. I'd say the guantlet was already thrown.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. No it isn't.

And nothing they have said or done would justify the current hostilities that we are engaged in against the sovereign state of Iran. We have put our troops inside their territory. We are already committting acts of war against them. Get a clue. Stop catapulting the propaganda.


But to answer your question yes I believe that they think that they can prevail against us in a conventional war intended to occupy Iran for the purpose of 'regime change', or a conventional air war intended to shock and awe the nation into submission. I think that they are correct in both scenarios. That leaves us with the nuclear option. I really don't know what happens if we use our nuclear weapons on a first strike basis against Iran, but I suspect it ends up with millions and millions of dead people.

[lwcon]

15. Catapulting propaganda?

Who said anything about these Iranian statements "justifying" what Bush is starting with Iran?

The first war to be fought, as always, is the public relations war in the U.S.

Whether it's bogus stories of babies being thrown out of incubators or (horrors!) aluminum tubes, the GOP's big first step is winning American hearts and minds to support the war, at least enough so we'll stay at the mall instead of massively protesting.

We need to recognize the P.R. boost that Iranian leadership is handing to Bush for his next disastrous war. If they want the war, too, it's going to be a cakewalk for Bush to start his End Times war, unless we can figure out what we can do about it.

Is anyone organizing *big* protests yet?

[Capn Sunshine]

48. welcome to DU

The election year brings a fresh crop every time.

[sendero]

10. I'll tell ya one thing..

... I'm no military expert but I know this - Iran is not Iraq. They have a well-equipped army, lots of men and weaponry and they will absolutely fight back with ferocity if provoked.

If we pick a fight with them we are likely to get our ass handed to us. If we go nuclear, the whole world will ally against us.

There is no dime-store solution to the Iran-wants-nukes problem. I'm sure that won't stop fearless leader from trying to implement one.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Per LBN thread: US & UK conducted mock invasion of Iran in July 2004

General Tommy Franks blurted out that war planning for the invasion of Iraq began 14 months before the US attacked Iraq in March 2003. We now know that the US and the UK were conducting mock invasion of Iran in July 2004.

It is the US that wants this war and has been planning for it long before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran.

The LBN thread quotes an article in The Guardian:

Britain took part in mock Iran invasion

Pentagon planned for Tehran conflict with war game involving UK troops

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday April 15, 2006
The Guardian

British officers took part in a US war game aimed at preparing for a possible invasion of Iran, despite repeated claims by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a military strike against Iran is inconceivable.

The war game, codenamed Hotspur 2004, took place at the US base of Fort Belvoir in Virginia in July 2004.

<snip>

However, Hotspur took place at a time of accelerated US planning after the fall of Baghdad for a possible conflict with Iran. That planning is being carried out by US Central Command, responsible for the Middle East and central Asia area of operations, and by Strategic Command, which carries out long-range bombing and nuclear operations.

William Arkin, a former army intelligence officer who first reported on the contingency planning for a possible nuclear strike against Iran in his military column for the Washington Post online, said: "The United States military is really, really getting ready, building war plans and options, studying maps, shifting its thinking."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html

The LBN thread by bear425 is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2227881

[saltpoint]

12. The bombastic toughtalk is coming from government up-high types

and is not the voice of the mother or father or son or daughter or neighbor or friend who would stand to lose loved ones in any military action against that country.

Knowledge of nuclear power cannot be jammed back into the jar. Once the genie is released, it remains released. The West knows it cannot, in the end, prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

What we're hearing is the political posturing of governments as they seek to enhance their leverage.

Peace is the longer-term goal, and it's much harder for any government to work at. It's easier by far to swap official statements of condemnation and warning, and that's what we're hearing from Rice and Ahmadinejad.

[stevietheman]

13. Both Bush and the Iranian President are traitors to their nations. n/t

n/t

[flordehinojos]

14. why are we the only ones to have the right to have nuclear power?

and by that i mean, why are we the only ones to have the right to have nuclear weapons?

we had worked so hard towards world disarmament.

[seabeyond]

16. i think flattening isreal would be them suggesting NOT having war

firstly. but we heard the same bravado from saddam. are you suggesting he wanted the war too? and even if iran wants this war, which i think is siliness, but even if they do want the war, is this what a bunch of adults do.... allow themselves to be drawn into a war because of another asshole, for a bunch of innocents and our soldiers to die. sounds like the typical male testotrones driven pumping the chest game. and as a mama and woman, i call bullshit. i dont care if the asshole wants a war or not, as mature adults, we resolve in a mature and adult fashion.

i dare you

is that how you suggest we handle our foriegn policy

korea dude does the same. should we go bomb their innocence too becuase of an i dare you

[Boojatta]

20. "we heard the same bravado from saddam"

Saddam Hussein said that he was enriching uranium?

[lwcon]

21. Don't let me be misunderstood

Again, I'm not saying that Iran's own brand of sabre-rattling justifies what Bush is doing, but it may help him "justify" it to the public.

We need to recognize that Iran's leadership may empower Bush to start a war that might have otherwise been hard for him to sell, given his increasingly recognized failure as President.

The secret war has already started, and Bush must be chuckling his evil laugh when he sees Iran say things that can help him saddle up again.

In case you missed it, here was a frightening exchange from Hardball about what Bush stands to gain from this next trumped-up war: http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/cant-get-that-flock-of-seagulls-song.html

We should not, I repeat, not allow this to happen.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. just last night I was talking to a Saudi Army officer I happen to know

and he was shaking his head about the Iranian President's stupid public comments. But those familiar with the Middle East are well aware of this kind of bravado. Just as those familiar with the Bush Administration are familiar with their kind of bravado.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons.And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

[seabeyond]

26. 10 yrs, not 16 days, or two days whatever condi started mouthing

every bit of this is parallel to iraq. gonna get sucked in again?

interesting your conversation and perspective. thank you

fool me once, shame on you..... fool me again, uh uh uh........

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. Supreme Ayatolah Ali Khamenei's fatwa agains nuclear weapons

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

[Boojatta]

24. The official position of Islam is that Jesus of Nazareth was the second

greatest prophet who ever lived. Perhaps that statement is completely meaningless because Jesus of Nazareth is merely a name and nobody has any idea of what his message might have been?

In countries that have Islam as the official religion, are the works attributed to Shakespeare banned? Perhaps, in the opinion of many Islamic clerics, whoever it was who wrote the words attributed to Shakespeare was the greatest prophet who ever lived?

[sallyseven]

23. No they want us to keep the hell out of their country.

They know that jr,. is insane and woulod do anything at all to pretend that he is the king if the world. If I lived in Iran's neighborhood I would want nukes. I want to know why we are itching to get into a fight with Iran? Republicans the war people. That will be the excuse to keep congress in line,as well as the sheeple.

[Boojatta]

27. Are you sure that the Iranian government wants to avoid conflict?

Was the "Israel will be leveled" pronouncement of the form "If any country invades Iran, then Israel will be leveled"?

[Neil Lisst]

28. I think Iran correctly believes they will survive Bush's attack.

And after that, the world will let them have their nuclear program, oil will be $100 a barrel and they will have plenty of it to sell, and the US will be further alienated from Europe and Asia.

I think Iran wants the US to attack, because it will probably light a fuse the talking Chimp cannot unlight.

[lwcon]

30. Re: unlighting the fuse...

One of the scariest things in this is that Bush's sense of machismo dictates that he must aways escalate, never negotiate, and never back down.

Like Marty McFly, if he thinks someone's calling him "chicken," he completely loses it.

Bush is a far cry from JFK when it comes to brinksmanship, so this is freakin' scary.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Neil Lisst]

36. Bush is so predictable, it's easy for Iran's president to play him.

Bush will always go for the head fake, because he overplays.

The sad truth is that Iran has figured out they can take the bombing campaign Bush will launch, and while it will be horrific, after it is over, the world will turn on Bush, and in the end, Iran will get what it wants.

[Doctor_J]

29. They probably surmise correctly that it's inevitable

in that we are now ruled by a satanic imbecile whose only skill is killing people. They're trying to:

1. Rally their people for the post-schock-and-awe comeback, and
2. Put on a brave face for the world

[yurbud]

39. look what being cooperative got Saddam

[quaoar]

31. Iran's president needs an enemy

Just like Castro does.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I posted this earlier in the GD Forum

A Strategy to Contain Nuclear Proliferation

Some times the obvious must be stated, and this seems to be one of those times. It may almost be too simple to easily grasp; War doesn't prevent War, Peace does. There may be times when War can not be prevented, but War is most effectively prevented by waging Peace. War inflames hatred, and hatred fuels War. Peace promotes understanding, and understanding furthers Peace. This is a good time to review these basics, because we are steadily moving toward war with Iran, ostensibly to contain nuclear proliferation.

War will never contain nuclear proliferation, just like Luddite sabotage of cotton mills in early 19th Century England could not contain industrialization. The prevailing logic that drove the industrial age could not be stemmed by violence. Individual factories could be and were destroyed, but never the knowledge that advanced the technology. It was never a possibility. Had luddites somehow managed to imprison or assassinate every individual with the knowledge needed to build textile machines, those machines would have been invented again. That's because every invention springs from a broad foundation of shared fundamental knowledge, but far more important, that's because the logic then driving industrialization was historically irresistible. Conditions were ripe for the Industrial Revolution. And conditions are now ripe for nuclear proliferation.

A military strike against alleged Iranian proto type nuclear weapons facilities may set back such programs by a number of years. People differ on the exact number of years, but it is always estimated in single digits. If Iran were the only nuclear threat facing America, and if our collective anticipated future life span was also estimated in single digits, a preventive military strike on Iran might resolve this potential threat. But how much comfort can the parent of a First Grader take in hoping that military action against Iran now will delay a nuclear threat from Iran until their child enters Ninth Grade? That's assuming of course that an American military strike against Iran didn't push Islamic extremists in Pakistan to seize nuclear weapons already inside that unstable nation, to use against America for once again attacking another Islamic nation.

The nuclear Genie isn't returning to his bottle anytime soon. The information needed to create nuclear weapons is spreading, not vanishing. The technology needed to create nuclear weapons is becoming cheaper, not more expensive. Stockpiles of radioactive materials that can be enriched to weapons grade yield are growing not shrinking. The geographic distribution of those stockpiles is expanding, not consolidating. But all of that is secondary to the logic currently driving nuclear proliferation, an inevitable by product of a poison stew of suspicion, hatred, pride and fear. Conflict is the fuel that boils that stew. Conflict can not contain it. Only Peace can contain it.

Peace comes in many forms. There is warm Peace and cold Peace. There is Peace that is wholeheartedly embraced, and Peace that is grudgingly accepted. There is Peace based on close cooperation, and there is Peace based on mutual deterrence. Many types of Peace, each with it's time and place, but what all Peace has in common is the lack of War. Conflict and War are driving Nuclear Proliferation. To the extent that conflicts intensify, nuclear proliferation will intensify also. Like a weed we can attack it in one place, but when winds of war blow strong, it's seeds blow far and wide.


I'll add this part here:

Most of us here understand that, in the world as we know it, sometimes War is unavoidable. And sometimes War is more than unavoidable, sometimes War is even a moral responsibility. The United States avoided military involvement in Rwanda during the Genocide there, but that wasn't the moral thing to do. We should have fought to stop it.

Some individual wars still have to be fought, but the solution to "War" with a capital "W" will always only be Peace, and everything Peace entails. Revenge cycles can last for generations. In some cases they survive for centuries. We saw that in the Balkans. We see that in the Middle East. A threat to the United States has to be serious and immanent before we consider unleashing violence in order to protect us from violence. The United States will not be able to intimidate those whom we view as adversaries from acquiring nuclear technology and/or nuclear weapons indefinitely. It doesn't matter how powerful we are. Israel got nukes, India got nukes, Pakistan got nukes, North Korea got nukes. Even South Africa got nukes and we didn't see it coming before they voluntarily gave them up. Escalating world tensions will not make us safer. Even Nixon knew that.

[lwcon]

44. Nice article / journal

It's stunning and depressing how "peace" has gotten a bad name in our homeland, as in the "footprint of the American chicken" bumper stickers.

Too many people in this country think all we're good for is Budweiser and war.

FYI, I've just added you to my blogroll.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Asgaya Dihi]

33. Not really

My take on it is that some hard liners in Iran might want this war, just like some hard liners here at home seem to want this war. That doesn't mean it wasn't or isn't avoidable, or that the populations as a whole really want it.

A few years ago Iran was on a path toward moderation, the Mullahs were becoming less popular and the elected leadership more moderate and pushing for more Independence. Student protests were generally in favor of reform, and the Bush administration seemed to entertain the fantasy that all we had to do was to raise hell and they'd turn against their leadership.

When we put them into the axis of evil, when we invaded their neighbor and put troops on their border, when we made it clear that they could well be next, they reacted just like we do when attacked or threatened. They rallied around their leadership and got more hard line, just like we recently had.

We helped to create an avoidable problem and put hard liners in charge where before we had pressure for reform. That's what seems clear to me.

[lwcon]

45. Actually, I agree

My whole point here is that hardliners in Iran's leadership -- most specifically Iran's President -- seem to be egging on the war, a war which Bush has already started with pseudo-Special Ops troops, and which he'll avidly escalate with less than no justification. The talking points he's getting from Ahmadinejad just help us drive faster into the heart of the sun.

I'm aware that there is a simmering progressive movement in Iran. But given Bush's unwarranted and chaotic takeover of neighboring Iraq and willingness to consider nuking Iran, even the most moderate folks there can't help but see us as an invading devil. I see us that way -- and I'm (ordinarily) a proud American.
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[TheBaldyMan]

34. It's not like Israel has the bomb or Bush is a whining fuckwit or anything

oh wait, Israel does and Bush is. How can you even suggest that this is somehow Iran's fault, what deluded universe do you inhabit?

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, neither India nor Israel are. America has been pals with both of them and totally ignored the fact that they have started a nuclear arms race in two of the most volatile areas in the world. Suddenly Bush gets on his high horse because Iran can make a glow-in-the-dark watchface and you start wetting yourself.

PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER. That's the sort of behaviour I'd expect from the slack jawed yokels at FReeperville.

[skeeters2525]

35. Great Question

Have been mulling that for awhile.

Maybe they think it will be a great way to rebuild. Nah, did work out for Iraq.

Maybe they know Bush is an impotent leader and they just like to rub his face in it.

Or maybe they want to start world war 3. Who knows who will be jumping in to help Iran. This could the ultimate war for oil.

OR Maybe Halliburton is paying him to make another trillion.

[Imagevision]

37. It's clear Iran knows they got Bush behind the 8-ball, americans don't

trust this president to run/start another major war when he is incapable of making key decisions!

[yurbud]

38. They might have an ace in the hole--like a promise from China to

put them under their "nuclear umbrella," which won't be revealed until chimpface is close enough to invading that it will be maximally embarrassing for him to back down.

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. Supreme Ayatolah Ali Khamenei's fatwa agains nuclear weapons

Those familiar with the Middle East are well aware of this kind of bravado. Just as those familiar with the Bush Administration are familiar with their kind of bravado.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[Ignacio Upton]

41. I think they are trying to piss us off

Or at least their figurehead President. He's trying to make it look like Iran is a more viable nuclear power than they really are.

[brazil]

42. Don't underestimate Iran...

They know how stupid our administration is, and how easily manipulated its leaders are.

It was an Iranian agent who was instrumental in providing "intelligence" about WMD in Iraq. It could well be argued that Iran provoked Bush into the Iraq war... not that it took much arm-twisting, but Iran understands the politics and mindset of the region, unlike the current administration. They also understand our politics and the mindset of our so-called leaders.

You have to admit that three years later, the current situation in Iraq is very favorable to Iran. They haven't had to do much at all to bring this about. I think it's pretty likely that ten years from now, Iraq will be a puppet state of Iran (assuming that Iraq hasn't turned into another Somalia or Afghanistan by then.)

This is a civilization that's been around for thousands of years, and while their technology is not all that advanced, they have watched a lot of nations come and go. If Iran is revealing that they have enriched uranium, we'd better think long and hard about what strategy lies behind this move.

It all reminds me very much of this Star Trek episode.

[lwcon]

43. Cool analogy

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Clarkie1]

46. The more we push, the stronger the radicals in Iran get.

It strengthens their hand. We need to do more talking and less saber-rattling. We should not respond to these kinds of pronouncements and understand they are meant for a domestic audience in Iran.

[lwcon]

49. Seymour Hersh's take

SEYMOUR HERSH:

Well, he's another sort of wacko, too. The Iranian president, he’s very mouthy, and he says a lot of things. I think the consensus among our allies who have embassies in Tehran and have had much more contact and know much more about that society than we do -- America is very, we're pretty much opaque on Iran. We haven't been there diplomatically in, you know, 25, 26 years, since the Shah’s days. Most people think the Ayatollah Khomeini, who’s the supreme leader, probably controls the nuclear option, although certainly the Revolutionary Guards, in which the Iranian president is a major player, have something to say.

Look, they didn't join the nuclear club yesterday. They've enriched -- they've done a partial enrichment of some uranium to a low level, a level that could possibly be used to run a peaceful reactor. They've done this before in a pilot program. Certainly, it's a feat that’s technically capable. Many governments have done it, not just the eight nuclear powers.

And so, what he's doing by embellishing -- and this is my guess, my sort of heuristic guess, because I don't know, but what I think he's doing, he’s basically playing chicken, like in the old James Dean movie, the two cars going at each other at high speed. He's playing chicken with the President of the United States. So that's what we're into. We’ve got the President of the United States, who’s been making -- Bush, as you know, and Cheney have been making an awful lot of bellicose statements in the last couple months, saying that they’ll rule out no option, which obviously is a nuclear suggestion, also making declarations about red lines and where Iran can or cannot go. So the bellicosity of the United States is now being matched by the bellicosity of the Iranian president. I mean, great way to run a world.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[leesa]

50. THEY are egging us on?? They were minding their own business until

WE started messing with them...accusing them of being part of an evil axis, spewing lying propaganda about them day and night...how are they supposed to respond to the way they have been treated??

[uppityperson]

51. Some everywhere want war, but overall no.

I think they are trying to do the best they can with and for their country and haven't given in to the bush-bullying. Everything is not about Mr.bush or the USA. Many countries have problems with Israel, problems that have gone on for a long time between different religious factions (fundamentalists) and different tribes throughout the world. I think they also fear that the USA will instigate a Israel/Iran incident to provide the excuse for the USA to bomb Iran.

Also, I see it as no one likes another country threatening them (do what I say, not what I do or I will hurt you) rather than egging "us" on.

[Berserker]

52. Don't shit yourself

We only know what we are being told. And where has that led us in the past?
We don't know shit about whats really going on.