Over the summer there has been a neo-conservative led effort to propagate the case for attacking Iran militarily.  This trend is exemplified by the cover of September issue of the Atlantic monthly boldly reading: “Israel is Getting Ready to Bomb Iran.” In the issue is Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, “Point of No Return,” in which he illustrates the Israeli view that it has no choice but to commence a bombing interdiction on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The media commentary arguing the case for bombing Iran strengthen the credibility of Israel’s threat in such a way as to convince the American public and perhaps the Iranian regime that it is not bluffing. Although this is by no means diplomacy, Israel is engaging in a strategy of sending signals intended to discourage Iran from further developing their nuclear program. In order for the threat to be credible the signal Israel is sending must also have costs. By issuing threats of attacking Iran, Israel is incurring the cost of appearing irrationally belligerent and reckless toward the vital interests of its allies in the international community, namely the disruption of oil flow in the Middle East caused by armed conflict.
Such signals in effect may end-up tying the hands of Israel and the United States into actually carrying out an attack when in fact the intent may have only begun as an act of posturing. Continued media campaigns proposing the “no-other option” scenario increase the consequences of backing down or waffling, setting a path for war which may not have been the intent in the first place. Such campaigns disproportionately show the benefits of military action compared to the consequences and almost always depict the opposing country as the willful aggressor. But a campaign for war is only viewed negatively as propaganda depending on where one sits and the subsequent preferences followed by that view. In his timeless work, On War¸ military strategist Carl Von Clausewitz once said, “The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over a country unopposed.” This is the essential crux of the issue, those aligned with Iran’s vital interest view Israel as the aggressor and those aligned with Israel see it vice-versa.
More than just a dispute between two major powers in the Middle East, there is a conflict between rational calculations of cost and benefit and blind emotions that lead to war. The nuclear question is just symptomatic of a larger issue: Iran is a dissatisfied regional power in the Middle East that is challenging the status quo and the distribution of power led by the United States. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration have used the nebulous expression, “All options are on the table.” Let us explore some of those options along with their present and potential outcomes.
Diplomacy is the least costly option, but arguably the most difficult to achieve. It can be sub-categorized as either secret diplomacy or open diplomacy. Israel and Iran have a long history of secret diplomacy spanning all the way from the Shah’s time and well into the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini.[1] However, after years of training and equipping Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and more recently Hamas, Iran’s actions against Israel have been more than just bellicose statements propagated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the holocaust.[2] Yet such actions circumventing diplomacy are not just one sided.  Just as Israel identifies Hezbollah and Hamas as Iranian proxies, Iran perceives the state of Israel as a proxy for the United States. As a result, the regime in Tehran has engaged in a three-decade tit-for-tat strategy of retaliation aimed at the U.S. vis-à -vis Israel. Such retaliation exceeds political and economic grievances caused by sanctions or meddling in the political affairs of Iran for the past sixty years. It is a tit-for-tat retaliation for the U.S. support of dissident groups responsible for attacking Iran.
Up until the Bush administration, the United States was directly engaged in supporting groups such as the Mujahedin-E-Khalq (MeK), a terrorist organization claiming responsibility for the killing of several members of the Iranian Parliament and a failed attempt on current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s life which left one of his arms maimed. Under the Bush administration, the United States was also supporting the internationally recognized Kurdish terrorist group PJAK and the Sunni Baluchiorganization Jundallah in conducting attacks on Iran. In a change of policy the Obama Administration made a commitment to cease support for groups such as the MeK, PJAK, and Jundallah. President Obama even went further by admitting and somewhat apologizing for U.S. involvement in the 1953 CIA sponsored coup which overthrew the once democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.
Such gestures have fallen on deaf ears by the hardliners led by the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and President Ahmadinejad. Prior to the emergence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  the U.S. and Iran were making headway in Track II negotiations led by reformist President Ali Khatami consisting of cultural exchanges and non-official talks. Yet even those instances came to a halt after President Bush labeled Iran as part of an “axis of evil.” Under the new Obama administration, relations worsened after candidates Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi lost to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the controversial 2009 election for Iran’s President. The continuation of hardliner policies in Tehran represented by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured negotiations would continue to be problematic under the status quo ante.
After a failed attempt at diplomacy, the United States approached the nuclear question with the second least costly option: a U.N.-approved resolution implementing the most stringent sanctions imposed on Iran since Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil resources. The purpose of such sanctions has been to force the Iranian regime into ceasing their nuclear program. Although such an action has imposed continued pain upon the general population and increased transaction costs for the regime, up until now it has proven to be equally as unfruitful as the diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration. Although the consequences are minimal compared to armed conflict, there are certainly costs incurred by American allies. Turkey, for example, which happens to be a major strategic ally for the United States, will certainly be negatively affected as a major trading partner with Iran, and it displayed its discontent by voting against the U.N. Resolution for sanctions.
Let us explore what the costs would be if the Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and what retaliation would look like. Â First and foremost, Iran has a population of nearly 70 million in a land-mass the size of Texas. Israel has just one-seventh of the population in a land mass approximately the size of Rhode Island. They are around 1500 kilometers distant. Â Even with their inferior technology, Iran’s retaliation on Israel would be devastating because of its size. Â But more important than Iran’s population, land-mass, and military strength is their strategic location in the Middle East. Forty percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments go through the Strait of Hormuz, amounting to nearly twenty percent of the total shipments in the world.[3] This narrow passage happens to go through the coast of Iran. In 2008 the Commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohammad Jafari, announced that if Iran were to be attacked, their first act would be to close passage by mining the Strait of Hormuz.[4] The next action stated by representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would be a bombing of Saudi oil refineries. Â Some analysts believe that Iran could further cause havoc by attacking Israel using proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The disruption of oil flow at such a scale would have devastating effects on the world. So although Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon, its strategic location and ability to stop the flow of oil allow it to have a deterrent equally or arguably more powerful because the impact would be global and the costs of catastrophically high oil prices would be imposed on almost all countries.
The question remains: Is Israel willing to take the risk of initiating a bombing campaign which could potentially threaten the world’s oil supply and arguably the economies of the world? Such an act at the present moment appears to be a risky proposition by Israel in the short-term, and appears irrational because the cost it will impose on itself will be higher than the benefit of setting back Iran’s nuclear program through any bombing interdiction. Just as important, such actions will impose tremendous costs for Israel’s allies. So in conclusion, all options remain on the table, even the use of nuclear weapons, but as a rational player in the international game Israel is not likely to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities because of Iran’s strategic location coupled with its capability to retaliate.
[1] Trita Parsi. Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press, © 2007.
[2] Robert Baer. The Devil We Know: Dealing With the New Iranian Super Power. New York: Crown Publishers. ©2008
[3] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html
[4] http://www.arabianbusiness.com/523163-iran-to-lock-down-strait-of-hormuz-if-attacked?ln=en
What a pile of ideological and sentimental, west-influenced, Iran-irrelevant bollix!
The article seems to subtly emphasize that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a bad thing- all the while failing to mention that it is purely speculative. The article seems to take the following approach: Metals make guns that can be used to kill people; so if a man is mining for metals, then he must want to make guns and then kill people.’ This article completely sidesteps all of reality that there is NO nuke-weapon building inside of Iran. So while it starts out as assailing the ‘war-mongering’, it too has aided in the war-mongering by stirring up fears of a provocative, mischievous, and deceitful Iranian leadership equipped with nukes. I say this article falls exactly within the same spectrum of those that it claims to be criticizing.
Banafsheh,
Are you referring to the war propaganda over the summer or something else?
The other argument here is: why can’t Iran have nukes? The country spearheading the charge against Iran is the only country to ever use nukes on a civilian population. As a matter of fact, it is the only country to ever use nukes on people at all!
We see that Russia has nukes, and so does China. These countries do not even think of war with each other simply because of the global mass devastation they may cause. It seems as if when everyone is equivalently or reasonably militarily equipped, the playing field is a bit more leveled. Countries tend to respect, or at least actively stay out of the affairs of other countries who have an equivalent military capability. I say let Iran build nukes if it wants to. Let them have as many nukes as they want- will they become an aggressive nation? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly America is a nation itself that actively engages in hidden warfare of all sorts against Iran and many other countries in the world. Perhaps if the bully were to fear a serious reprisal, he would be far less aggressive.
@Obzervor, agreed. Then of course you will not have a problem with Iraq getting one, Afghanistan getting their own. Saudi Arabia buying their own and Iran lending Hizbollah and Hamas one each to make them equal to Israel.
The world is a happy place and you and family sleep peacefully in your bunker 1 kilometer below ground.
Clearly the aim of the Western countries is to stop or slow down Iran’s progress in the nuclear field. The threat of a limited aerial bombardment of Iran’s nuclear facilities is not credible for many reasons including but by no means limited to what you mentioned. You have to view the consequences of such an incident in a much longer time-scale. Iran’s ability to retaliate against Israel and its backers directly or through its proxies at the time of its choosing and for a duration of its choosing is the main factor which should be bourn in mind. The acquirement of advanced missile technology by Iran and shipment of such arms to countries in vicinty of Israel means Israel’s own nuclear facilities can be hit. Nuclear inspectors will be thrown out of Iran. Enrichment at secret sites will continue and accelerate and Iran may acquire nuclear arms and justify it by indicating that they are needed for defending its security. Any chance for political development in Iran will be set back at least one generation and military dictators will rule for years to come. So unless the Western powers are prepared to go for a full-scale war against Iran to topple the regime (like the campaign in Iraq or afghanistan) and clearly pay a much larger cost, then they should not even threaten Iran. Issuing threats and not carrying them out when Iran clearly defies them only emboldens Iran and makes a mockery of the Western powers that issue them.
Its time to distinguish between Iran’s people and Iran’s regime. Respect the rights of Iranians but hit the regime where it hurts. The human righs issue and political development should be the top agenda with this regime in Iran.
I can see the intent of the article…discourage an attack on Iran. For the argument to succeed it has to ignore the very real efforts on the part of elements of the Iranian regime to actively incite some form of military action against Iran. The question then becomes how far will the US and Israel be prepared to bend over backwards to avoid the very real and most horrific consequences of an attack which is being actively instigated by those who stand the most to gain by an attack…the Ahmadinejad regime and the Revolutionary Guard.
The article also assume, as do so many who have written on attack scenarios, that the Israeli and US planners are not aware of Iran’s possible retaliation options and have not developed countermeasures.
Contemplate this…before there is an attack on the nuclear sites Iran’s coastal capabilities are taken out, then the air defense and missile capabilities are taken out, then the key military complexes are taken out. Only after this does the known and suspected nuclear sites get taken out. At the same time that the above scenario plays out in Iran, Israel takes care of business in its own backyard and takes out Hizzbollah and Hamas in a much more organized and sustained manner than the 2006 and 2008 events.
The above scenario has in part been shared by Seymour Hersh in his Vanity Fair article but the sequencing has only recently been refined to take care of the probable Iranian response. There will be very few boots on the ground in Iran, except for those Special Forces personnel who will be lighting up specific targets.
There will be no attempt at nation building like in Afghanistan and Iraq because the attack will not be about regime change. Obama has made this clear on more than one occasion. He is quite happy to negotiate with the current regime to achieve his supposed ultimate objective…global nuclear disarmament. It will be left to the Iranian people to decide what they want to do with their country where the US has now removed key elements of the oppressive regime for them without occupying their country. Again, this will be wholly different from the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. With no foreign troops to vent their anger and frustration at, they can only vent on themselves or they can vent on the regime.
It will be their choice.
As the article, correctly in my view, points out, Obama has gone the furthest of all recent American presidents, starting with Reagan, to try and find a way to deal with Iran from a diplomatic perspective. He repeated the collective mea culpa that was first offered by Madelein Albright when she was Secretary of State. He offered an open hand only to be hit with a fist. He even abandoned the Green Movement in the hope that he would score some browny points with the Iranian regime…all to no avail. He tried a year of solid diplomacy and it failed.
The 4th set of sanctions, while not failing in its economic impact, is not going to persuade the Iranian regime to stop its nuclear weapons programme. For the Iranian regime the stakes are just too high but at the same time they know they stand to loose everything if they do not find a way of reaching an accommodation with the US.
So it may be unlikely that Israel will attack Iran, but I am not so sure about the US when Obama makes up his mind that Iran is making the achievement of his dreams impossible.
“The article also assume, as do so many who have written on attack scenarios, that the Israeli and US planners are not aware of Iran’s possible retaliation options and have not developed countermeasures”
——————————————————————————————————–
Dear Cyrusix, what makes you so sure that American and Israel’s counter-measures will be effective against retaliation from Iran? Were we not told the same story when they were going to attack Iraq, and look what happened.!
It is said that if the hunter has learnt to shoot without missing, then the birds will be forced to learn to fly without perching. If the US and Israel are planning to destroy Iranian facilities, do you seriously believe the Iranians will sit down for that to happen without doing anything?Those of you who are advocating for war are the very people who will refuse to be drafted when the need arises.
I think its very hard for some of you to work for peace and rather easy to advocate for war. I don’t understant some of you guys: what did the US achieve in attacking Iraq apart bankrupting her own economy and losing thousands of life on top of it. Please, give peace a chance!
Dear Siam,
Believe you me. I am not advocating for war against Iran. My family is still there and they are terrified of all of this war talk.
Remember Saddam? He kept the world guessing about his nuclear programme because he did not want Iran to know he does not have one. He regularly paraded his military might and made all sorts of stupid statements..pretty much at the same level as the Ahmadinejad regime.
I am trying to say to all these idiots who are trying to “hype” up the Iranian military might that they should wake up and smell the roses. Of course nobody expect Iran to sit back and not retaliate. But we should remember. If you want to use your missiles…you have to bring them out of hiding.
You can be sure that there will be so much satellite and UAV surveillance over Iran that any movements will be picked up in real time and targeting will take place in real time.
You can also be sure the Americans have learned their lesson with Iraq. An attack on Iran will not be land based. There will be no storming into Mashad, Tabriz, Shiraz or Tehran.
The military plans are there for everybody to see. Even for the Iranians. Why do you think they have been unveiling weapon after weapon over the last 2 years. Their biggest problem is that all of these weapons systems and platforms are at least 5 years outdated. Most of them are not even in full scale production. All of it is to create a false sense of safety and confidence in Iran and to give the apologists of the regime a sense that there is a MIGHTY Iran. My goodness, they are using outdated North Korean and Chinese missile technology and parading it as Iranian technological advances.
So, to be clear. I am not advocating for war. I am trying to give some cause for pause to those who are saying to the US and Israel: “bring it on”. Because they are in all probability not living in Iran or they are part of this group who believe that the end is near and Ahmadinejad has been chosen to prepare for the return of the 12th Imam.
Peace to you…
Good article – but I disagree with Mehran – I don’t think the aim of the west is nuclear non proliferation – It’s a global banking consortium, and they need to have the players in place around the world who will go along with their plain for a single central bank that can issue currency worldwide. The enemies list of US foreign policy over the last twenty years is full of governments who oppose the move to a single world central bank.
Afghanistan’s Taliban didn’t want to play ball with Federal Reseve Notes , aka U.S. Dollars – BAM – They’re out and the first guy we send in is an Afghan ex-patriate who worked for the Federal Reserve in NY, and his first job is to set up the Afghan Central Bank.
Saddam didn’t want to sell oil in US dollars so first WHaM BaM in the early 90’s, and then Shock and Awe in ’03, and eventually the Fed’s puppets will be in charge of an Iraqi central bank that puts itself and all Iraqis under the thumb of the US controlled IMF and World Bank.
North Korea, again another country that won’t use dollars or subjugate itself to the privately owned Federal Reserve – It’s not about nukes.
And then Iran – Ahmedenijad is many things, but he’s not a fool, and he is one of the many leaders who sees the United States’ method of “central banking warfare” is not something that the West can sustain, and ultimately the house of cards will fall down. And if he has the patience for the house to become tall enough, it will only take a gentle breeze to knock the whole thing down.
The author does a great job of illustrating of how already, Iran does not need a nuke to absolutely devastate the American ‘way of life’. It only needs to mine the straight of Hormuz, and have a few well placed air strikes in Saudi Arabia, and in less than a week the under-stocked local grocery store will become an ugly scene for most Americans.
And this is the planned result – Reliance and dependence, not only on foreign oil , but also on our established economic system.
this is ideologies war. and the ideology will win which is close to god.
An attack on Iran is unlikely for the sole reason that the Zionist entity does not have the ability to take out Iran’s “known” (and i put quote marks around it as we saw with Qom, that Iran has many secret facilities) facilities. This is ignoring Iran’s capability to retaliate.
Iranian politicians and generals would welcome an attack, it would give them an excuse to wipe the middle east of Wahhabi Arab dictators and American military bases. Iran’s military power is no joke, we saw what 5,000 IRGC trained Hezbollah soldiers did to the zionist entity, what do you think Iran’s armed forces can do?
@sepah…it is exactly this self delusional claptrap that led Khomeini to believe that he can conquer Iraq in 1982 and prolonged the war by another 6 years and how many thousands of Iranians dead, before those around him finally persuaded him to stop.
I have no doubt that the attack on Iran will not be done by the Israeli’s. It will be the US who will do it. Israel will take care of their own backyard.
All the thousands of soldiers in Iran will be of very little use when they do not have anybody to fight inside Iran. The US is not going to put boots on the ground in Iran. You are dealing with a totally different president in the US. He may be pursuing the Bush policies, but he is doing it in an altogether smarter way. Do you think he pulled his soldiers out of Iraq just to push them into Iran. You can bet your bottom dollar he is not going to do that.
Iran’s military hardware is simply no match for the air and sea assault that the US (not Israel) can unleash. The “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign that Iraq experienced will be like a kindergarden fireworks display in comparison.
The Israelis stopped in 2006 but be sure of one thing…they are not going to make the same mistake twice with Hezbollah. It will be the entire Lebanon that will go up in flames and they are not going to be bothered with world opinion this time around. Any thinking person can see that.
Iran is a country deeply impressed with its own history and past grandeur. I am sure that for every success that they remember, they also remember how they have been humiliated over the centuries by conquering tribes, the most enduring conquest being the ones by the Arabs when they brought and imposed Islam on that country.
Each time this happened they were saying the same things that you are saying now. Their view was that they are the best equipped and the best trained and therefore they did not include in their calculus that their adversaries might be better in other ways. As a result the ordinary Iranian always came off second best.
So while the “Iranian politicians and generals would welcome an attack…” and it would seem you too, they will of course have to reckon with the people of Iran when the collective hallucinations of these politicians and generals result in millions of Iranians dead with Israel still around and the Wahhabi Arab dictators and Americans bases continuing to exist.
There is a saying: “Be careful what you wish for…” It might just turn around and swallow you whole.
you r stupid man, do you think usa have enought power to destroy iran without nuclear weapon ? do you think the irans did not hide their missiles on the coast ? do you remember the c-802 which hit an Israeli’s ship ,
You may think that the Iranians are stupident and they say hello bomb our missiles, look they are there they were not hidden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
iran has 15 submarine torpedo launchers
40 boats North Koreans missile launchers
1500 speedboats rocket launchers
and you and you think the USA can destroy all this even before iran strike back ??
you drank a lot before writing nonsense ???
even the navy usa wrote official reports in which it recognizes not be able to defend effectively against the threat of Russian missiles
This is just another example of truly delusional claptrap. It is easy to sprout this rubbish when one has no fundamental understanding of the capabilities that exist on the side if the US and on the side of the Iranians. Keep dreaming or smoking the stuff that you are on.
Cyrusix:
You seem to think that US military might is so daunting that they can never be defeated. Please remember the biblical story of David and Goliath. Even the mightiest has weaknesses. War is much more about technology. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that. Do not be surprised that if a war is started by the warmongering Americans, the only way they can stop it is by threatening to use nuclear weapons and then the whole world (not just the so-called world of US, England, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and Australia) will condemn them. History has shown that every so-called empire has crumbled.
It is true that every so-called has crumbled…please tell the Iranians that they had an empire once…and that is another lesson that history has shown us..you only get to be an empire once.
mouhahahahahahaha yes i smoke and please ,but you stopped the hashish and masturbation before the us flag lol.
all wargame simulation since the bil clinton give the same result impossible for the us to win vs iran on his land weaponwithout the use of nuclear s, concluding iran will get bomb sooner or later make beautiful dreams (nightmares or lol).
ps . for me i m sorry but the realty is that the winner from the war hezbollah israel is…..HEZBOLLAAAAAAHHHHHH
and abouth hezbollah let me laugh a lot., israel has stop before destoy hezbollah ,???? looollll do you remember this history…
Israeli soldiers trapped in a lebanese village surrounded by Hizbullah’s fighters (I forget the nameof the village) and abouth beint Jbil
Israel declared all the days they occupied the village, but they never managed to penetrate into the village despite intense bombing, the Merkavas (the best tank in the world) slaughtered like rabbits lol israel destroy Hizbullah, TODAY ‘Today Hizbullah is 40,000 mens with1500 Zelzal ballistic missiles
50 000 rocketts,, scuds,, missiles sea-sea, effective sol-air systems, not forgetting that this time Hizbullah can count on the Lebanese army as was the even lately, so if israel invade the lebanon his expeditionary force
will be annihilated, even without help of syrian army.
The name of the country is ISRAEL!!
Once I started to read the very first sentence and got to “neo-conservative”, I did not bother to read this column as it’s credibility and thoughtfulness is immediately called into question when it is written with an ideological agenda. What America does about Iran is not in the hands of “neo-conservatives.” It is in the hand of the weak, pathetic, neo-socialist president and neo-socialist democrats in both chambers of the congress.
p.s. – You are an idiot.
Articles like this littered the Seine in ’37. The Thames in ’39. Any argument that neglects the outcome of mushroom cloud is whistling in the dark, in ignorance, delusion, and self-destruction through paralysis. The violent muslim jihadists believe what they say. It is as simple as that.
It is necessary to point out a factual error in this article which claims that Iran is the same size as Texas. In fact, Iran is about 2.4 times the size of Texas.
On another point, the author claims, “The next action stated by representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would be a bombing of Saudi oil refineries. ” Which representative of the IRGC has made such a threat? It would be very uncharacteristic of IRGC to make such a threat.
Overall, the intent of the article is valid. More fundamentally, there is no justification for any attack on Iran even it is building nuclear weapons, which from all evidence it is not. Why don’t we bomb Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel itself first if building nuclear bombs is a sufficient reason for an attack? The threats on Iran have, in fact, nothing to do with nuclear bombs. It is simply based on the desire of the US to control the Middle East and to keep Israel as the dominant force in the region.
You are absolutely correct.
This talk of Israel attacking Iran has to be coming from people who have forgotten Humanity,Mother Nature, and also it is unilateral since Iran is a huge nation(not a skinhead group),with neghbour-friend Russia and friend China. Also, let’s not forget or ignore One Billion Mad Muslems surrounding Israel and all their bodies. Let’s encourage Peace, therefore Respect for Humanity and the Dignity of our Children who would like to live, more than seeing Israel or anyone else in total control of the world. Respect, Communication=Peace.
dear amir
very impressive attempt i am realy proud of you
An Iranian “Amir Bagherpour” is against Iran war. Our Iranian and “Hamvatan” freind is against Iran war because Iran would retaliate in such a case. The reason behind his argument is easy: because Iran will bite back nobody is going to bite Iran; I do not think if this bothers those who are working on such a plan. This would be a war, nobody is going to kiss you before ….Besides, the real question is this: Nuclear-capable Iran is more dangerous or attacked-nuclear-uncapable Iran in American’s perspective? I am sure the writer or readers know the answer.
Couple things. First about the comment by Shawn. WOW! This guy reads the first sentence of the article and makes a conclusion about the whole thing, a real man of wisdom. My article is not propaganda. The fact is that a lot of the rhetoric about bombing Iran is coming from neo-conservatives such as Jeffrey Goldberg, the gentleman who wrote “Point of No Return” is the same person who wrote all the propaganda on Iraq and WMDs, titling is “The Great Terror” (check it out– http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/03/25/020325fa_FACT1).
Hezbollah did not sink any Israeli ship.
What they did is to use a footage of the decommisions Australians ship HMAS Torrenes. The Australians sunk their own ship with a torpedo.
Just shows how delusional they are.
Just google for : Hezbollah sink Australian warship :))
As for the lebanon war 2,000 Hezbollah and their Lebanese fans died, Hezbollah’s headquarters and its neighborhood in Beirut were completely pulverized, and most of Hezbollah’s Iranian missiles got destroyed.
59 Israelis died and 5 tanks were destroyed, and there was some damage to Northern Israel, So Hezbollah put their hands up shouted “WE WIN!!!!!!!! ALLAH AKBAR!!!!!!!”
This is very well written, and insightful. No one ever talks about views like this. Thank you
just the same old jew propaganda mill. the world already know this kabuki jew theater real well.
I agree withall your sound arguments about why “Israel” is unlikely to take on Iran for just the sake of setting back its nuclear program a few years. Sure, it isn’t worth the cost for “israel” and the West at large.
But where your pro-Zionist bias shows is when you take for granted “Israel”‘s propaganda by branding Hamas and Hizbollah as Iranian proxies.
Those movements are authentic nationalist organisations with famous credentials. Without the Hizbollah, “Israel” would still be occupying southern Lebanon. Without Hamas, the Gaza strip would have suffered a worse fate at the hands of the Tsahal uniformed terrorists.
And how can you prove that Iran’s uranium enrichment would automatically lead to nuclear bomb development. The technological path, contrary to pro-Zionist US media propaganda, isn’t that straitforward.
watch rusian defector, yuri bezmenov on youtube. Shawn you are right its not right left or mcdonalds burger-king or coke pepsi. its total socialism. in fact ill go you one step further , we allready have pretty much a world communist state. and i ask you all: why do the comunist of china enslave themselves to the “capitolistic pigs”? and most will say: hey thats not true. really? i say: if i buy a $300 tv at walmart, then $100 goes to walmart $100 goes to the middleman and $100 goes to china. question for you all out there: what does china do with its $100 because duane, in san antonio, tx, usa buys a tv? well ill tell you: they buy a us treasury bond with it. if that is not the perfect definition of slavery than what is. so what i am saying is that the leaders of china, usa, britan, israel, iran, and many others are taking their orders from the same world rullers. and no its not the illuminati, and no its not the masons. these two entities are the feet of this beast, the heads are 7 magi still running everything out of greece through belgium and through the tlc and no tlc does not stand for tender loving care.
The writer is naive, and has to start liberating himself from the “educational” clutches of US universities. First, the world is an irrational place. Countries and people often act against their interests. Second, Israel is in the hands of fascists, pure and simple, and such people take their myths too seriously. Third, Israel owns the USA, not the other way around. Fourth, from the military standpoint, Iran is not match for the USA. Fifth, these fascists hope the straits will be closed–can you imagine then the profits to the bankers and oil men? That is one reason they do want to destroy Iran. Sixth, neither the USA nor Israel care about their ordinary citizens, and certainly not about the world economy. In the USA, they are deliberately destroying the economy, and destroying Iran might help that process. Seventh, the USA has a history of intolerance of anyone who escapes its clutches (actually, the clutches of the private owners of the Federal Reserve). I could go on, but let me just say: The writer of this articles needs to liberate himself from established cliches, disconnect his TV, and dig a bit more deeply for the truth. The nonsense is being fed in graduate school has almost nothing to do with cold, factual, truth.
Mr. Harry DuPraw,
Um Israel is in the hands of fascists, the federal reserve, the world is irrational? … very telling of your intellect.
No my friend, and it is not a question of intellect, but of ignorance and open-mindedness. What you need to do is start educating yourself about the real world. Go to Gaza or listen to the Israeli foreign minister talk–in Hebrew–that is what fascism is all about. Read Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt, for starters, or the Creature from Jekyll Island. Or just go on reading for another 20 years, and you might yet stumble on the truth. If you think the world is a rational place, well then, in that case there might be no hope for you at all. We’re destroying the environment, reproducing like rabbits, killing each other as if there is no tomorrow, needlessly keeping millions of children hungry–you call that rationality? Add this to your reading list: Jared Diamond: The Third Chimpanzee and Collapse. If truth matters to you, and this article was a genuine search for truth (and not for a job), then you owe it to yourself to read things your bought professors never suggested. Good luck!
Their studying the underground effects of follilization on the bathroom habits of the snow leopards…..silly.
iran is islamic country and muslim country
Allah will help iran and true iranians
Lailaha Illallah and Mohammedan Rasool allah
If Iran is moving to reach a kind of nuclear parity with Israel it would actually stabilize the reason because then Israel wouldn’t be the nuclear threat it is now. But there is little evidence Iran is doing so. Now if Israel (with the USA
If Iran is moving to reach a kind of nuclear parity with Israel it would actually stabilize the reason because then Israel wouldn’t be the nuclear threat it is now. But there is little evidence Iran is doing so. Now if Israel (with the USA backing) they would have to hit any facility and major populated area to render Iran a damaged country on a massive scale. To blunt the retaliation that would surely follow. They may even use nukes to do it. This must not happen and our country must in the strongest way tell them that no nuclear attack on Iran will be supported by the USA. [I know there is little chance that will happen.]
If war comes it will be, just like with the Iraq war (1990-2010?) be set up and made to happen by the USA and Israel.
I meant “stabilize the region…”