Will You Support a War with Iran?

[yellowwood]

"Salon" has an article: A campaign for war with Iran begins
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/13/trita_parsi_jeffrey_goldberg/index.html

Will we allow ourwelves to be pulled into a war against Iran? Is there a point where we say "no" to the neocons?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. Who is this "we" that you speak of?

Take it up with Obama and Hillary. The vast majority of people on this site opposed military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan; Iran isn't in our sights either.

[Glorfindel]

No

of course not.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. If Obama is for it I will figure out a way to say it's the best idea ever...

...and will slander everyone who disagrees.

:hi:

[geek tragedy]

7. I'd worry more about 'progressives' like Anthony Weiner

and Alan Grayson, who make the Obama admin look like Code Pink when it comes to Israel and Iran.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I do not think Obama will favor war with Iran

But the form of the question, "will you support...", left out a key datum that will be determinative for many.

[geek tragedy]

20. The question is whether Israel can drag us into one, or

to put it another way, if Israel is determined to drag us in, can we stop them?

[Selatius]

62. It is very possible and easy, but we would have to do something we've never done before.

Say Israel does decide to attack Iran; there's no stopping Israel's leaders at that point. The best way to drag the US into such a war is to send Israeli warplanes intentionally through Iraqi Airspace on their way to hitting targets in Iran. Iran would immediately assume the US gave those warplanes permission to fly through Iraq. The US would then be blamed along with Israel. The war would then be on, and many people on both sides will die in the chaos of war.

If Israel does decide to fly through Iraq to get to Iran, the US really is forced to entertain one of two options: Shoot down the intruding warplanes, or let them fly through unchallenged. If there were a president in office dead set against such a world war, he would order those warplanes shot down when they invade Iraqi Airspace if they did not heed warnings to turn around and go home.

We seriously do not want to get to this point. Being forced to shoot down an ally is where we should be moving away from, not towards.

[Odin2005]

97. Yikes! I wonder what the outcome of us shooting down Izze planes would be!

Whatever happens, no matter if we let Israel bomb Iran or we shoot the planes down, it's going to send the region into chaos. If we shoot down the planes There may be a RW coup is Israel. AIPAC and other RW Jewish groups will call the administration Anti-Semitic. Etc.

Israel has been essentially our ME attack dog, giving us plausible deniability. Now the dog has gotten loose and is infected with rabid theocratic insanity.

[Tesha]

146. Sternly worded letters to the New York Times. (NT)

[Catherina]

60. Alan Grayson needs to be watched closely. He's up to no good. n/t

[Bluebear]

8. +++

[Ignis]

26. Damn, KaH, you sold out too soon!

I was hoping we could hold out for another topless picture at the beach in response for our undying support of more wars. :(

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

76. Well, which is it? War with Iran or President Palin?

[awoke_in_2003]

82. Well played

:rofl:

[Greyhound]

91. We have a group for you.

But, it's kind of smelly...
:rofl:

[Deep13]

3. No, and it's not a knee-jerk peacenik response either.

Iran is dangerous and a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable.

We simply do not have the resources to fight Iran. Our military and the economy that sustains it is wrecked. Wars are chancy things. When asked to support a war, Americans tend to assume that the USA will be on the winning side. What if we throw the iron dice and lose? Also, iran isn't breaking any laws, so we don't have legal justification either. Given that, it would be hard to find the necessary help to prevail.

[Confusious]

12. Bone dice

With skulls for dots.

[Confusious]

13. Arrrrggghhh

[Confusious]

14. Fat Fingers on a Touch screen

[tavalon]

53. Yeah, dying empires should (actually, shouldn't )only start wars with helpless third world countries

We can't win those either but at least nuclear bombs are likely to be used.

I wish we would take our end of empire with a little dignity. But dignity has never been our strong suit.

[Pavulon]

69. Yeah, thats just horse shit.

the has a massive economy and if you want something done correctly it is done here. As for Iran there will be no war unless they attack the US first. If they do there will be no school building or insurgency. There will be a strategic air assault which will strip them naked and the will be broken. We dont do well trying to pacify people with funny clothes, we are quite efficient in destroying countries.

Winning would be a loss for both parties, but iran would loose more.

[Odin2005]

100. No, Iran has simply learned that Nukes are the only effective defence against US imperialism.

Blame it on Bush and his Axis of Evil BS. US Imperialism is CAUSING nuclear proliferation.

[Deep13]

120. I blame part of it on Bush etc., though they did not...

...invent American Imperialism. I also blame it on the religion that keeps crazy people in power in Iran, and a slightly different one that keeps them in power here.

[Chan790]

131. Yeah, but at this point they don't have any. n/m

[IntravenousDemilo]

4. If Israel wants to start a unilateral war with Iran...

we should say, "Well, OK, if you really want to, but you're on your own."

[AnArmyVeteran]

111. Yes, and it would be about time.

[liberal N proud]

5. I will not nor do I support any WAR!

[a la izquierda]

6. I haven't supported either war...

and I'm sure as hell not about to start with Iran (I'm an historian, I know how wars in that general region of the world turn out-not good, usually).

Not that anybody gives a shit what the American people think, though.

[Confusious]

9. No. Utter stupidity to even think about it. Nt

[gratuitous]

10. It would be the only sensible thing to do!

And let's all punch any hippies who say otherwise.

[Chan790]

135. Wait...

I need to get my hippie-punching pants altered. I haven't been allowed to wear them for a while and the years and my love of fried foods have caught up with me.

Oh huzzah! Oh hooray! It's hippie punching days again!

(I don't really support war with Iran, I just love me some hippie-punching. Smelly pot-headed shitty-music-listening homemade-clothes-wearing long-haired freaks. I can appreciate their politics, it's them I loathe.)

This post is absurdist if that needs to be said.

[anarch]

11. only if it's an all-out nuclear first strike

and we also simultaneously nuke North Korea, just in case. Hell, let's nuke Saudi Arabia while we're at it. That'll show 'em.

[Chan790]

136. I don't suppose we could just...

I dunno, not nuke Iran and DPRK. I think they're salvageable.

Saudi Arabia, I'm afraid we're going to have to destroy the village in order to save it.

[Autumn]

15. NO I will not support war with Iran

I do not support the useless wars we are currently in. No way in hell.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. no. i would not

[JohnyCanuck]

18. Will you support $500+ per barrell oil prices? n/t

[NorthCarolina]

19. Absolutely not.

[damntexdem]

21. Fuck no! Time to crank the peace movement back up.

Hit the streets and make some waves.

[Prometheus Bound]

22. If people in authority tell me it is good, then it must be good.

They know best.

Besides, the other wars are going swimmingly, so we need another big one to focus on.

So many people to kill. And hours to go before we sleep!

[quinnox]

23. No, but I'm sure I'd be called a traitor and worse by

the "Obama can do no wrong" people for not going along with it. I guarantee that if Obama said we must go to war with Iran there would be people cheerleading it here on DU just like they cheerlead whatever else Obama does.

[blm]

98. If Obama goes to war with Iran it's a sure bet Clintons pushed him to do it.

Obama made a HUGE MISTAKE bringing back so many Clintonites into positions of influence. Who wanted a committed neocon warhawk as SoS? Not me.

[Chan790]

137. Oh yes...

because all American imperialist evil stems from the Clintons. :eyes:

[blm]

143. Not at all....however it DOES stem from Bushes, and Clintons bought into their ideology

and the other neocons from Clinton's WH who are now in Obama's administration because of their prior 'experience' bought into to ti, too.

You LIKE having a neocon warhark as SoS? I don't.

[Chan790]

154. I do.

Even as I opposed her for the Democratic presidential nod (I supported first DK (who never had a shot), then Edwards (a mistake in retrospect.) and then Obama only grudgingly) I said repeatedly she'd make a great SoS.

I think she's done a fine job.

Also, disclosure. I'm a hawkish Democrat, a Kennanite international realist believer in the global cop. I'm just also a social liberal and an economic Keynesian.

[quinnox]

150. lol, so you already have that ready

"A war in Iran will be Hillary's fault!" "Blame Hillary"

Do you know how much of a right wing fruitcake you sound like when talking about the Clinton's?

Yea, we know, everything evil in the world is all because of Hillary and Bill Clinton. {sarcasm}

[blm]

151. Didn't say that, but the INFLUENCE of the neocon hawks, including the Clintons and those in Obama WH

who were chosen for their Clinton WH 'experience' will be clear if we end up using military force in Iran.

Are you claiming otherwise?

I wrote that, btw, knowing you want Obama to appear as warmonger completely on his own with ZERO influence from Clintons.

So...were you HAPPY that Obama selected so many hawks for his cabinet? I am not...especially a hawk as SoS.

Did you WANT a hawk as SoS?

Would you prefer Obama had FEWER hawks influencing his administration on military decisions, including possible war with Iran? I would.

Surely attacking me with hyperbole isn't ALL you have in way of reply, is it?

[Warpy]

24. No. HELL no. God damn you for entertaining the thought NO!

Such a war will finish us off as a first world nation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. Yes, My stocks in GE, Haliburton, Blackwater, GE have fallen lately

and a war would help my portfolio and Swiss Bank Accounts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Of course. Why screw up perfectly good losing streak by stopping another FUBAR war.

[hobbit709]

28. I said NO to the last two, for what good it did.

[TexasObserver]

29. No. It's one of the more idiotic memes out there, too.

There is utterly no basis for going to war to Iran.

[InvisibleTouch]

30. Absolutely not. The damn wars are bleeding us dry.

Put that money into fixing what's wrong here at home. Life could be so good here again if we weren't throwing all those resources down a never-ending black hole.

[chrisa]

31. No. War with Iran will not be like war with Iraq or Afghanistan.

Tens of thousands of American soldiers will die. A wave of patriotism unlike any other would sweep Iran, with massive support behind Ahmadinejad. This is a war I'm 100% sure America would lose, and cannot afford.

I don't care what Iran does, no matter how cruel or nasty. I unconditionally (minus, obviously, if they invaded the United States, which given their capabilities, is impossible unless if they resorted to a terrorist strike) support not going to war with Iran.

[Caretha]

67. Impossible you say?

Remember in 2003 when Fox News reported Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps. This 'BIG LIE' was substantiated by the U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA.

Oh they can drum up all sorts of lies, pump them through our media propaganda industry to the well educated citizenry of the US...and Wa-La! You got yourself a movement to go to war with Iran, all orchestrated & brought to you by our good ol' US Corporate Government.

[chrisa]

74. Yup, and no one questioned it.

The zeitgeist at the time in Congress was that Congressmen and Congresswomen had to do exactly what Bush said at all costs, or you were a terrorist sympathizing, Liberal-loving, America-hating hippy. They will try to recapture this feeling if an invasion of Iran were attempted.

However, they're jumping into the meatgrinder by invading Iran. It won't be an 'easy' army to defeat, like Iraq's poorly trained, poorly equipped army. This would be a 'real' war (not just an insurgency picking away at our forces). The morale is so low in the US Army right now that Iran would already have the upper edge.

But the greedy Heritage Foundation and PNAC types don't care. They actually believe that the only purpose of US citizens is to make them money. It's like replaceable cogs to be used and thrown away. They could care less if 1 million American soldiers died, or even 1 million citizens of our own nation, as long as it makes them money. The purpose of an Iranian war would be to feed the MIC and make war companies even more profitable.

[Greyhound]

93. Sorry, but you're wrong. Many not only questioned The Big Lie, but opposed it. n/t

[femmocrat]

32. No. No way. Never.

We couldn't afford it even if it was tenable, which it isn't.

[yellowwood]

33. From "The Atlantic"

The article by Jeffrey Goldberg says:
?What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)"

The question is: How do those of us who oppose such a war premptively keep it from happening? Shouldn't we have a plan? Nothing that we did before Iraq helped. What are your suggestions?

[Warpy]

37. If Israel decides to commit suicide

I think it far too likely that we will follow along into the abyss to hold out much hope.

Israel has always been the wild card here, a country driven collectively insane by years of war and paranoia.

[Mendocino]

34. If the professional left

objects to it, we'll be there faster than the time it takes Joe Lieberman to sound whiney.

[WhiteTara]

35. No. I'll be back in Washington and won't leave this time

I'll end up living with Code Pink and driving those bastards crazy.

[TheKentuckian]

36. The folks who's opinions we'd most like to see are painfully silent, of course.

[Raineyb]

38. Fuck no!

I'm pissed off about the two we're already wasting money on.

[Individualist]

39. What an offensive question! NO!

[pleah]

40. NO, HELL, NO! n/t

[Forkboy]

41. No, and if the Dems start it I will never vote for another again under any circumstances.

Having said that, I don't think they're going to do so anyways, because at this point the only way to beat Iran would be nuclear annihilation. We don't have the troops for any kind of ground campaign to take and hold cities, etc. The nuclear option is the only option for Iran and, as crazy as D.C. is, I'm not sure they're THAT crazy.

Yet.

[NC_Nurse]

42. Hell to the NO. They haven't attacked us. Just another Iraq in the making.

Stupid bullshit is what that is. An excuse to keep the military budget sky high.

[FiveGoodMen]

43. No.

[flpab]

44. HELL NO

nt

[Redstone]

45. Fuck, no. I didn't support the Iraq one, either. I didn't even support the one

I got wounded in.

Redstone

[tnlefty]

46. I hope that we wouldn't allow ourselves to be pulled into anything.

War with Iran? Hell NO, NO, NO.

If a democratic administration does this I will be done with them.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

47. Absolutely not. nt

[lib2DaBone]

48. All Depressions end in War.. this is where we are headed...

They need to destroy excess capacity.. kill lots of useless eaters and re-set the clock on the U.S. Dollar, so the Boys on Wall Street can start over for another 30 year cycle.

Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and the Neocons have already convinced Mr. Obama that this will be a "Cake Walk". A short 6-day-war.. Mission Accomplished- No Problem.

We all know that Mr. Obama supports Wall Street over Main street.. so let's get ready to "Rumble"...!

[mmonk]

49. Nope.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Hell no, there are three good reasons NOT to do this

1. Iran has never attacked us. Iran most likely would not be developing nuclear weapons if we didn't have it surrounded on all sides (look at a map--U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf)

2. Many Iranians may not like their government, but they are a proud and mostly ethnically unified people with a 3,000-year history, and a U.S. attack would turn them into instant patriots. Leave them alone, and the younger generation will eventually create a more moderate government.

3. We can't afford the wars we have going on now.

[Steely_Dan]

51. Are You Kidding?

NO

[tavalon]

52. No, of course not. I didn't support the Vietnam War, I didn't support the Iraq War and I was

even one of the very small number who never, ever supported a war with Afghanistan.

[Atticus]

54. Why, hell, yes, I would! I'm a liberal Democrat and our part in the national drama has been reduced

to muttering "Whatever" in the unlikely event we're even asked for our opinion.

[Luciferous]

55. Nope

[niyad]

57. NO

[pitohui]

58. there's not gonna be a war w. iran

sheesh we're their best friend, we have crushed their worst enemy, iraq, for them

all the rest of this is smoke and mirrors so the people won't figure out just how badly bush got played to do iran's dirty work for them...

we've pretending that we're about to go to war w. iran for the last 30 years, hell, more than that now, and you notice how we never do?

it's a game, and the people being played...are the american public...the leaders of both nations know they have to call ea. other names and play the game in public, and then behind the door they're drinking and laughing at the stupidity of the common man

[citizen snips]

59. Any rational person will not support an invasion of Iran.

However, a military strike is needed to nullify the threat of nuclear brinkmanship within the middle east. Beacause if Iran builds nuclear weapons so will Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Arab states. Even the UAE supports military options against Iran.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/uae-ambassador-endorses-bombing-irans-nuclear-prog/

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. the UAE does NOT support an attack on Iran and U.S. Intellligence does NOT believe iran is working

on nuclear weaposns.

While a staunch U.S. ally, the U.A.E. has also maintained cordial ties with Tehran, a big trading partner across the Persian Gulf. It and other Arab states in the region have long tempered their criticism of Tehran and have publicly called for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community

.....

The U.A.E.'s assistant foreign minister for political affairs, Tareq al-Haidan, meanwhile, said Mr. Otaiba's comments were taken out of context and "are not precise," according to a statement by the country's official news service released Wednesday.

"The U.A.E. totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Mr. Haidan said, adding: "The U.A.E., at the same time, believes in the need of keeping the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons."

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704545004575353233929950748.html

U.S. Intelligence Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work in 2003

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

snip: "But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html?_r=3

US finds no Iran bomb program: Nuclear effort ended in 2003, report says

By Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman

Globe Staff / December 4, 2007

"WASHINGTON - Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago and there is no evidence it has enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb, according to declassified portions of a secret US intelligence assessment released yesterday - directly contradicting the Bush administration's portrayal of Iran as a terrorist state bent on developing an atomic arsenal.

The much-anticipated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program, ordered by Congress in 2006, concludes that Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program "suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005." The Iranian government's decisions, according to the report, "are guided by a cost-benefit approach" rather than a rush to obtain a nuclear weapon "irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."

The report - considered the collective judgment of the nation's 16 spy agencies - estimated the earliest Iran could produce a bomb is 2010 if it resumed its weapons program, but it is more likely that the ability to make a nuclear weapon "may not be attained until after 2015."

The conclusions contrasted sharply with recent statements of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and many of the top Republican presidential candidates. Most seem to regard Iran as a nation that wants a nuclear arsenal despite the cost - including a potential military confrontation with the United States."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/12/04/us_finds_no_iran_bomb_program/

[Pavulon]

72. Incorrect. Iran is working on weapon and delivery. The space turtle

confirms this. They continue to work on the bomb and the means to deliver it. The will start a regional arms race if they do. The US should continue to increase sanctions and with EU assistance break the program. Your selection of sources does not reflect the current position of the IAEA or intelligence community.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16811/irans_nuclear_program.html#p4

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. the U.S. intelligence community has NOT revised its estimate or retracted its earlier position

that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 - The IAEA has never taken the position that Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

[Pavulon]

104. No other reason to enrich to 80%(nt)

[oberliner]

107. Yes they have

In an ABC News interview Sunday, CIA Director Leon Panetta alluded to a fact that was reported by NEWSWEEK months ago: U.S. intelligence agencies have revised their widely disputed 2007 conclusion that Iran had given up its efforts to design or build a nuclear bomb. That shift is expected to be reflected in an update of the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which was supposed to have been completed months ago, but according to three counterproliferation officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, the formal update still is not finished and may be delayed for months to come. Even when it’s done, officials have said, the Obama administration is expected to keep the revised report's contents officially secret—unlike the White House of George W. Bush, which published key portions of the 2007 nuke assessment, to the dismay of many of that administration's most hardline supporters.

As we reported back in January, the revised U.S. Iran nuke assessment, which is being prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and is supposed to represent a consensus of all relevant U.S. intel agencies, is expected to bring the Americans’ judgment of Iran’s program closer to the views of other countries' spy agencies (such as Britain's M.I.6, Germany's BND, and Israel's Mossad), which have maintained all along that Tehran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. But the new report also is expected to make what some officials call a "talmudic" distinction between conducting "research" on nuclear weapons—which U.S. agencies believe is now occurring—and actually building a bomb, which U.S. agencies believe the Iranians have not yet made a decision to do.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. according your article above titled: New Iran Nuke NIE Still Not Ready

But the new report also is expected to make what some officials call a "talmudic" distinction between conducting "research" on nuclear weapons—which U.S. agencies believe is now occurring— and actually building a bomb, which U.S. agencies believe the Iranians have not yet made a decision to do.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/06/28/new-iran-nuke-nie-still-not-ready.html

[oberliner]

122. That is not my article, it's from Newsweek

To set the record straight, I did not write the article and do not work for Newsweek.

In any case, the US intelligence community is clearly in the process of revising the estimate that your giant fonted headline and article make note of above.

It seems clear that this new estimate will indicate that Iran is indeed "researching" nuclear weapons - whether that is considered "working on" nuclear weapons is, I suppose, a matter of interpretation.

Do you think they would be researching nuclear weapons for purely academic purposes?

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. I don't personally know what the new national intelligence estimate will say - since it has not

been released yet and I know don't if the national intelligence estimate will be accurate or not or if the national intelligence estimate might be giving way to political pressure - as they did with Iraq.

But I will acknowledge that it is possible that Iran is doing research on nuclear weaponry - both as a bargaining chip and to be in the position to develop a nuclear deterrence if they become convinced that an attack is imminent. Iran is already surrounded by a vast array of hostile military forces. Increased saber rattling certainly increases their motivation.

[oberliner]

106. U.S. spy agencies see Iran pushing atom bomb research

(Reuters) - U.S. spy agencies updating intelligence on Iran see growing evidence that Tehran has pushed forward with nuclear weapons research but has yet to relaunch its atomic bomb program in full, U.S. officials said.

Analysts from across the U.S. intelligence community have been finalizing a revised national intelligence estimate (NIE) that is expected to bring the United States more into line with its European allies about the state of Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE65A16B.htm

Coming soon: a new Iran NIE?

The Cable is hearing from multiple congressional sources, diplomats, and former officials that the Obama administration is getting ready to finalize a new National Intelligence Estimate that is expected to walk back the conclusions of the 2007 report on Iran's nuclear program.

The new NIE has been expected for a while, but now seems to be close to release, perhaps within two weeks or so, according to the pervasive chatter in national-security circles this week. In addition to the expectation that the new estimate will declare that Iran is on a path toward weaponization of nuclear material, multiple sources said they are being told there will be no declassified version and only those cleared to read the full 2007 NIE (pdf) will be able to see the new version.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/26/coming_soon_a_new_iran_nie

[oberliner]

109. UAE ambassador backs strike on Iran's nuclear sites

Iran and the United Arab Emirates are embroiled in a furious new row after the latter's ambassador to Washington publicly expressed support for a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Yousef al-Otaiba commented bluntly that the benefits would outweigh the short-term costs of military action. "We cannot live with a nuclear Iran," the envoy said at a conference in Aspen, Colorado. "I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the UAE."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/07/uae-envoy-iran-nuclear-sites

The Wall Street Journal article you cited claims that the comments were taken out of context, yet the Wall Street Journal has another article with further remarks from al-Otaiba that do not support that claim.

To wit:

Speaking at a gabfest sponsored by The Atlantic, Mr. Otaiba was asked if he wanted the U.S. to stop the Iranian bomb program by force? He answered: "Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk. At 7,000 miles away, and with two oceans bordering you, an Iranian nuclear threat does not threaten the continental United States. It may threaten your assets in the region, it will threaten the peace process, it will threaten balance of power, it will threaten everything else, but it will not threaten you."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575353230693833718.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

117. "The U.A.E. totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue"

While a staunch U.S. ally, the U.A.E. has also maintained cordial ties with Tehran, a big trading partner across the Persian Gulf. It and other Arab states in the region have long tempered their criticism of Tehran and have publicly called for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community

The U.A.E.'s assistant foreign minister for political affairs, Tareq al-Haidan, meanwhile, said Mr. Otaiba's comments were taken out of context and "are not precise," according to a statement by the country's official news service released Wednesday.

"The U.A.E. totally rejects the use of force as a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Mr. Haidan said, adding: "The U.A.E., at the same time, believes in the need of keeping the Gulf region free of nuclear weapons."

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704545004575353233929950748.html

[oberliner]

121. That is the same quote and the same article

It still does not change the fact that the UAE ambassador to the US said what he said, and it is still unclear what "context" those remarks were taken out of. Have you read or listened to the entirety of his remarks? If so, can you explain how you think they might have been taken out of context?

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. he was obviously not speaking for the government of the UAE

if those quotes are accurate. The government of the UAE made that absolutely clear. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the politics of the Gulf states knows that the UAE has thousands of Iranian expatriates, a huge amount of trade with Iran and several flights a day between the two countries. It is ludicrous to suggest that the UAE wants war with Iran. The Gulf states are sitting directly in the line of fire of Iranian retaliation and will be in the very middle of the conflict. No there is no support for bombing Iran from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman or the UAE. They, more than anyone else know what the consequences would mean. To suggest the UAE or any of the Gulf states want Israel or America to initiate a bombing campaign on Iran is preposterous - to the point of insulting intelligence. All the governments in the region, in spite of whatever fear and loathing they may have of Iran have been very, very clear about this - just as the U.A.E.'s assistant foreign minister for political affairs, Tareq al-Haidan made clear.

[Catherina]

61. Under no circumstances. If war with Iran starts under a Democratic Administration

they can bid me adios forever.

[boppers]

63. We cannot win.

Thus, war is pointless.

[LooseWilly]

64. Shouldn't the US stop pressuring other countries to deport Iranians back to Iran, if an invasion

is in the works?... I mean, how stupid is it to try to have the rest of the world ship Iranians back to Iran in preparation for an invasion?

I know my cousins (Iranians) are facing deportation from India as a result of US government pressure... If the US wants to invade, shouldn't the government stop pressuring other countries to send more Iranians back to Iran? Especially Iranians who'd like to get the hell out of the toxic theocracy? Or— the government can have them sent back (and the Indian visa authorities were very honest that it is US government pressure causing them to no longer issue new visas to Iranians), have them known that the US was behind the deportations... and then have the US invade?... Are there strategists who think this will win any support from those who might otherwise be willing to provide intelligence/support for an overthrowing of the theocracy?

After the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan... one would think that the strategists would stop taking all invasions/occupations for granted... and just stop with the stupidity.

[JonLP24]

65. Fuck no

When was the last time they invaded a country?

[JoeyT]

66. If Iran actually attacked us

then I'd support a war. And by "attacked us" I don't mean some guy from a random Muslim country in the general vicinity blowing up a building over here and suddenly the government decides Iran is to blame. I mean an actual invasion.

Any other situation? Hell no.

[blindpig]

68. I support a war against Capital

That's the only war to support.

[maryf]

75. Yes for war on capital

NO for any others, nuff said...

editted to be very clear...

[Pavulon]

70. If for any reason Iran attacks US interests

we should take every opportunity to settle up with the Revolutionary Guard for Beirut. And that would mean killing them all. Short of a direct attack on the us there will be no war.

[Enthusiast]

77. No nt

[SidDithers]

78. Wasn't the last Republican President supposed to attack Iran?...

There will be no war with Iran.

Sid

[LWolf]

79. NO. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

80. No

[steve2470]

81. No. We are far too stretched now to do that anyway nt

[Iggo]

83. Yes.

With my taxes.

[awoke_in_2003]

84. War with Iran

Would be the final nail in the coffin for the economy, and probably for the country on the whole

[Sta au]

85. I'd support a covert war

But not actually sending in our army to go through the place and capture the clerics.

[Ichingcarpenter]

87. Why?

Because the USA has something to offer?
I don't give a fuck about their govt.

WAR MONGER.


My money is better spent at hone.

[Sta au]

88. Nah because it seems like the proclaimations are getting more and more insane

Besides I really think something must be done from the crackdown on the green revolution.

Best way is to just destabilize their government so it topples from the inside.

[TheWatcher]

153. You've been playing too much Call Of Duty.

Buy a clue, step away from the XBox, and get your head out of your ass.

[IDemo]

86. You could shout "No!" from San Diego to Bangor, Maine

Besides earning a few chuckles from the Faux crowd and getting yourselves called every name in the book by RahmGibbs, the MIC would get their way and their billions.

[krabigirl]

89. Hell no.

[L0oniX]

90. Eliminate SS and Medicare and spend more on the fucking military.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[LatteLibertine]

92. Profanity incoming

no more god damn motherfucking war profiteering bullshit! Stop squandering the nations wealth!

Focus that money on; infrastructure rebuilding, health care, jobs and education.

[GreenStormCloud]

94. That would depend upon how it happens.

US making a pre-emptive strike on Iran. Basically, No - but subject to details.

Iran blockades the straits. Limited action to open the straights would be OK.

Iran nukes Israel. Blast Iran off the map.

[lsewpershad]

95. NO

[Odin2005]

96. More crying wolf? There will not be a war with Iran.

We don't have the military capacity, despite the insane delusions of the neocons. I'm sick of this "we are about to attack Iran" BS coming up every 6 months.

[TheKentuckian]

99. Some folks still waiting on their position from HQ, I reckon.

There are surely some AYE's but they don't want to be caught off the reservation if the bossman says no way and of course the reverse is even more true.

[old mark]

101. I would have gladly if there had not been the pointless wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, but

I think we should just let Isarel bomb their nuclear sites and support them after.

Iraq or Afghanistan never was any danger to the US, just to Bush's ego because Saddam trashed his dad. I am still trying to find out why we went into Afghanistan in the first place - I don't recall ever heqaring a straight answer to that...

Iran at least hates us...

mark

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. Israel simply does not have the military capabilities to carry out a successful strike against Iran

unless they went nuclear. And I think it is fair to say that would be highly unlikely.

The Israeli military simply does not have enough long range bombers capable of flying approximately one thousand miles and successfully attacking Iran's massive array of North Korean style deep earth, heavily fortified bunkers in a manner capable of significantly degrading Iran's nuclear program and their military.

Furthermore an attack would require flying over Iraqi airspace when no democratically elected government in Iraq would ever, ever allow that. Talk of an awkward position that would the United State in.

The United States would find itself trapped into intervening given that Iran would retaliate against the U.S. presence in the Gulf. For the U.S. to continue such an attack and to make the attack at least technically successful, this would require forcing the Gulf states into granting rights to air space and facilities. Thus making the Gulf states and their oil fields, refineries, infrastructure and transport network targets of devastating Iranian retaliation. Although Iran does not have particularly sophisticated weaponry, they do have a vast array of relatively unsophisticated medium range missiles positioned in hostile and unapproachable terrain and quite capable of causing enormous and crippling damage very rapidly and choking off the Straits of Hormuz.


Even more importantly, any attack by either the United States or Israel on Iran would have a catastrophic effect on the world's oil supply thus sending oil prices into the stratosphere way beyond anything currently imaginable thus triggering a global economic collapse and worldwide depression of catastrophic proportions.


Would Israel really want to be seen in the eyes of the world as the ones who caused a global depression and economic collapse? I do not think even Benjamin Netanyahu is that mad. At least I hope not.

Here is an interesting article from salon. com during the last days of the Bush Administration when it appears the even the Bush Administration realized that they didn't want Israel bombing Iran

Reality, of the military and petroleum-based variety, forced the administration to change course. Now Bush sounds like Obama.

"July 31, 2008 | Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran?

snip:"It was just a year ago that war with Iran seemed imminent. Last August David Wurmser, a major neoconservative figure who had just left Cheney's staff revealed that the vice president was talking about having Israel hit Iran's nuclear research facilities. At the same time, Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin went public with what he was told by a Bush administration insider -- that Cheney would make a big push for a strike on Iran in the fall of 2007. Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney was attempting to reconfigure the Iraq war as a struggle with Iran. And, indeed, Cheney did make threats against Iran at institutions of the Israel lobby such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In December 2007, however, the intelligence community pushed back. Key findings from the National Intelligence Estimate, released that month, showed that Iran had mothballed any weapons-related research since early 2003. The Cheney push for one more war was effectively blocked."

snip:" Mullen seemed to warn hawks in the U.S. and Israel against a strike on Iran of the sort Cheney had earlier envisaged, saying that in light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, "opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us." Mullen admitted when pressed that the Iranians "have capabilities which could certainly hazard the Strait of Hormuz," though he was confident that the U.S. could reopen it. Despite that confidence, Mullen said that he was worried about instability in the Middle East, and about anything that might contribute to it. "

snip: "Both the U.S. and its European allies know that the negative fallout from a war could be immense. Its effect on the world oil supply would be catastrophic. Iran's perennial threats to close the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in the event that it is attacked have to be taken especially seriously when oil supplies are as tight as they are now. Some 40 percent of the world's petroleum flows through that choke point, and any significant interruption of supply under today's conditions could send prices skyrocketing so far as to threaten the world with another Great Depression. In short, Iran is far more powerful when petroleum is $127 a barrel than when it is $25 a barrel, and that power makes it more prudent to negotiate with it than to rattle sabers. The opening to Iran was not a victory of the realists, but of realism. That in the aftermath, Bush's Iran policy looks more like that of Barack Obama than that of John McCain, is just an indication that Obama is more realistic about the increasing constraints on U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle Eastern oil states than is McCain. "

link to full article:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/index.html?source=newsletter

[newspeak]

140. Isn't it just too bad that Brewster and Jennings was outed

you know, a network that was monitoring nuclear material, I believe, especially in Iran. Now one couldn't have that network if you wanted to make some bullshite claims like they did in Iraq.

Now before Little Boots made his statement about the "axis of evil", I had read articles and viewed a documentary on the life in Iran. Policies were becoming more liberal--until Little Boots MF'ing statement. Then the Iranians just had to elect an arrogant badass nut to equal our own. Does anyone have a real concept how much damage the Pnacer's neo-cons have done?

Like feckin vampires-they are draining us and those countries we attack--draining resources, lives and money.

And, WAR will not solve our economic crisis--if that was the answer we'd be all filthy rich from the past nine years of war. Oh wait, some war profiteering greedheads are getting filthy rich, but it sure isn't the majority of Americans.

Hell no to war--and the oil. Why don't we nationalize our own oil instead of selling it to the highest bidder?

[maryf]

103. Iran at least hates us...wtf

the whole world hates us...and would more if we supported Israel against Iran...

[Forkboy]

119. After 9/11 Iranians took the the streets....to support us.

Your thinking would ignite a war throughout the Middle East, resulting in perhaps millions dead. You ok with that?

[saltpoint]

105. I'd like to see peace prevail in that region of the

world.

And peace is still far too possible and desirable to be abandoned by any government.

[scarface2004]

108. no..first a war on arizona!

and other havens of right wing nuttery!

[Joanne98]

110. NO!

[snooper2]

112. post about blah blah blah...death by stone...

nah, we got to many wars going on right now...


Maybe in the next century when GE needs some more money from the feds :)

[craigmatic]

113. I would but not if America makes the first strike besides alot of our enemies have had the bomb in

in the past and we didn't start wars then so we shouldn't now. The best way to deal with Iran is to let the regime crumble from within and aiding the opposition.

[breadandwine]

114. This whole discussion is an incredible waste of time. On Aug. 21 Iran will load uranium into Bushehr

nuclear plant.

From there on out the plant will make enough plutonium for a bomb every two weeks.

The reason Iran halted its atom bomb project several years ago is because it already succeeded. They worked out how to build a bomb and from there they are just waiting for enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium to complete the bomb. Plutonium is especially good for a nuclear missile because the weight and volume needed to make a bomb is less than if you use highly enriched uranium, which means a plutonium bomb is easier to put into a missile. Iran now has missiles that can reach all of Israel and Europe. Iran has put satellites into space, which means they can send a satellite to the other side of the world. If you put an atom bomb in such a satellite, you have an intercontinental nuclear missile.

The time to have stopped Iran was before loading nuclear material into the Bushehr nuclear plant, which happens on August 21. The fact that Netanyahu never bombed Iran to this point means he isn't going to do it and doesn't have the balls.

If even he won't do it, for sure Obama won't, who is busy trying to disarm a nuclear world.

Case closed. End of story. There will be no military attack on Iran. Time to move on.

This whole subject is beating a dead horse.

There is no war with Iran. There won't be a war with Iran. Game over. Iran is about to become a nuclear power and can't be stopped without bombing the Bushehr nuclear plant. That would spread radiation all over. Even when Menachem Begin bombed Iraq's nuclear plant he was careful to do so BEFORE Iraq loaded nuclear fuel into the plant. Netanyahu is a wimp compared to Begin. He will never do it. And of course Obama isn't going to do it. That's why he's now trying to have a meeting with Ahmadinejad.

There is no war with Iran. The whole thing is an idle exercise by people who have nothing better to do than ramble on.

And Netanyahu wouldn't DREAM of bombing Iran without Obama's approval. Netanyahu is in awe of Obama and even modeled his campaign website after him. See here:










(Note that Netanyahu's website was even a copy SYMMETRICALLY. Hebrew reads from right to left.)

Netanyahu is not his own man. He is a man with a grinding insecurity, aping others. Netanyahu will NEVER bomb Iran. He's too chicken, too much of a momma's boy groveling before the US, Europeans, etc. He spends all his time traveling and schmoozing with foreign leaders and thinks the prime ministership is a post in the Foreign Ministry. He's a schmoozer, not a fighter. His brother, who died in the Entebbe hostage rescue in Uganda, was a fighter and would be turning over in his grave to see what a suck-up Netanyahu is. Netanyahu's own brother-in-law has turned against him over his wimpdom. Netanyahu is a weak, shabby politician. He has no guts like Begin. It's over. Iran is nuclear. They will be testing their first nuke any time now and Netanyahu hasn't the balls to stop them. In the end he will be put on trial in Israel for not stopping Iran and he will protest that he was all SET to bomb Iran, IF ONLY THE WORLD HAD GIVEN HIM PERMISSION. Begin never asked anyone for permission. Netanyahu hides behind everyone else's skirt and can't act on his own about anything.

Everyone better start preparing for a nuclear Iran because NOBODY is going to stop it.

[niceypoo]

128. You really need to make this post into a seperate thread

If what you are saying is true then this whole schlemiel will drop into Obama's lap.

[Jakes Progress]

115. What make you think those that wage the wars would care if we supported it?

[breadandwine]

116. It's not what I think. It's what Netanyahu thinks.

All over Israel everyone knows Netanyahu can barely move a muscle without US approval because he needs American aid, the F-35 jet fighter, etc. etc. In the US people think Netanyahu is a hawk. In Israel everyone attacks him for being a pathetic groveling wimp and suck up to Obama. He is.

Keep in mind that the entire state of Israel is only the size of New Jersey. The moment Israeli planes are aloft they are immediately seen by US AWACS planes in the region and US satellites. An American official picks up a phone, calls a contact with connections to Iran, such as the Russians, the contact warns the Iranians, the Iranians put their defenses up, Israel immediately knows the element of surprise is lost, Israel is forced to abort the mission. There is LITERALLY no way for Israel to bomb Iran without US approval.

[rusty fender]

123. No!!!!!

How stupid would that be? :grr:

[niceypoo]

124. Yes, if they were developing nuclear weapons

I would support it in that case

[w8liftinglady]

125. sigh..if you REALLY want to support the war-I suggest you reseach THIS first

recent DoD contracts

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/

[w8liftinglady]

127. and I'll be back when I find out which former politicians will reap the benefits of war...again

[w8liftinglady]

139. ok..sadly-lest ye think Repubs were the only ones profitting

Boeing http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000100&lname=Boeing+Co

lockheed http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000104&lname=Lockheed+Martin

general dynamics http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000165&lname=General+Dynamics

Northrop Grummond http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000170

raytheon http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000175

general Electric http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000125

Defense Aerospace...you can review previous cycles
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=D01&cycle=2010

defense electronics...ditto
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=D02&cycle=2010

misc defense
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=D03&cycle=2010

[w8liftinglady]

145. and a few more interesting tidbits

Dick Cheney: War Profiteer

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm

The Carlyle Group

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3309.htm

More info on Halliburton

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/iran.html


more to follow

[w8liftinglady]

147. and more

Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World

http://www.petroleumworld.com/SunOPF07040101.htm

POGO on National Security...if you have a few hours...
http://www.pogo.org/investigations/national-security/

[w8liftinglady]

148. A column in Ms. Magazine...from 2006?

http://www.msmagazine.com/iraq/
Next up on the U.S. war-plan stage is Iran—with the second-largest pool of untapped oil in the world—but military action there will likely be delayed until after the 2006 midterm elections. Women—the population segment most economically vulnerable to high fuel prices— are also the majority of U.S. voters, and the majority of those against a potential war (see Ms. Poll).

Although the ostensible reason for a U.S.-led invasion will once again be weapons of mass destruction, the politics of oil are peeking out from behind the WMD curtain. A new building under construction in Iran’s free-trade zone on the Kish Island is widely believed to be the future home of a new oil exchange: the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB). If Iran realizes its alleged goal of becoming the dominant center of Middle East oil commerce, the currency would be the euro, not the dollar. The dollar has long been supreme in international oil trade, and some analysts say that if petrodollars become petroeuros it could lead to a huge drop in value for American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s.

[w8liftinglady]

149. and a list of companies in the Military Industrial Complex

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/companies.asp

when they cease profit,then the war will end.

[mrs_p]

126. with what money?

edit - of course, NO

[alfredo]

132. Only if they attack us.

[BootinUp]

133. If we stay on track, it should never be a question needing to be asked.

I believe Obama is doing the right things to reduce the influence of those with extreme views on both sides.

Assuming this improves the situation through a 2nd term, so that there is less tension between the Muslim world and the west in 6 years, I find it unlikely the neocons will achieve their goal as stated in the article.

So the correct question is, do you believe Obamas foreign policy can succeed in, if you will, pre-empting any war with Iran? If not what needs to be changed?

[L0oniX]

134. Fuck no and hell no!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

138. Only if Iran verifiably attacks us (or somebody else) FIRST

Otherwise, HELL NO! Even Bush (and/or other *sane* individuals in his administration) realized that unilaterally attacking Iran without any direct provocation (even with Israel) would be a bad idea. Obama and his team are light-years smarter and saner than Buscho was, so, frankly, I'm not particularly worried about us pulling the trigger on Iran and, hopefully, people in Israel are equally sensible in opposing military action.
There is virtually nobody outside of Republicans/teabaggers (and their Israeli counterparts) whom actively supports a war with Iran, so any military efforts would either have to be unilateral and/or in league with Israel and I honestly don't see either scenario happening in the foreseeable future, especially not with Obama in the WH.
Besides, I thought that I heard that the UN sanctions were starting to have an effect on Iran, anyway, so it's possible that we'll get what we want out of Iran- no nuclear weapon acquisition- without having to seriously consider war with Iran or even a military strike.
Israel is the big "wildcard" in this but they have even more of a reason to avoid stirring things up with Iran than we do and Obama really hasn't shown himself being as much in Israel's "back pocket" as previous administrations were, so.......:shrug:

[lovuian]

141. absolutely NO

I wasn't for Iraq War

[KamaAina]

142. Not just no but HELL NO!!

:grr:

[Dr.Phool]

144. Too timid. FUCK NO!!! NO!! NO!! FUCK NO!!!

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

152. Well, it would give us an excuse to exit Afghanistan.

<sarcasm>

[sakabatou]

155. Absolutely not.