I gotta say, this media blitz over the last couple of days smacks of the same stuff we saw in the lead up the the War Against Iraq. Disinformation and speculation is being bandied about mainstream media outlets such as NYT, Fox News, ABC as concrete evidence that Iran cannot be thought to act rationally, that it will act as an aggressor in the region, and that if we don't act now and invade and/or launch crippling attacks on their nuclear and civilian infrastructure, we will lose the chance forever. Ex. the attacks in India that the NYT and Israel are saying are linked to Iran that make no sense considering India still carries on strong trade relations with Iran. Last time around, the knee-jerk response by the US media came at the behest of neo-liberal hawks in the Bush administration hoping to stoke the fires of war with reports about mobile weapons labs and niger yellow-cake uranium. It seems obvious in hindsight that the plan to attack Iraq was a done deal within months of the 9/11 attack and the media run-up was simply a mummery to put a nice sheen of righteousness on the affair. Unlike with Iraq, I'm not sure whether military attacks by the US on Iran are such a certainty. The Obama administration seems to be increasing economic sanctions, which might signal that they have chosen the path of long-term containment ala the Cold War. This makes me wonder if the hawks haven't yet carried the day within the administration and this blitz is just the last gasps of hawkish neo-liberals hoping to persuade the administration by influencing public opinion during an election year. On the other hand, this media run up could be another Iraq war show from the Obama administration to pave the ground for sustained Israeli and/or US strikes designed to knock Iran's infrastructure into the stone age. Does anyone think the attack on Iran is a done deal and we are just along for the ride?
I think so, but on a less grandiose scale than the invasion of Iraq. They are trying to justify an Israeli attack with US approval and logistical support (maybe more than that, but not an invasion or prolonged campaign.) Bunch of bullcrap, if you ask me, but nobody generally does.
Calm the heck down. No sane person on either side of the aisle wants to pay for or live through another Iraq anytime soon. Honestly, if you've got school-aged children, this might be the best time in the world to steer them into the military.
I'm not sure what's going to happen. Israel (its government) seems to be chomping at the bit to strike Iran's atomic weapons "work in progress, and getting closer all the time" facilities, but do they honestly want to? The Lebanon excursion a few years back turned into a nightmare for them. If they hit Iran, you can be sure that Iran's "military arm" there will toss everything at Israel that they have, and that's quite a bit. Iran will throw missiles at Israel that are far more advanced than what Iraq under Saddam had. In other words, this would be very painful, no one knows how long a conflict would last, or who might be dragged into it. What does the US do? If they only provide logistical support, which seems the least that we would do, will it stop there? No. The minute some fool Iranians start shooting at our navy, we'll be up to our neck in no time. Maybe we'll get lucky and nothing blows up. I wouldn't bet on that, however.
Would be disastrous for everyone in the region, and possibly the world IMO. There are too many parties involved for the US/Israel to control collateral damage, though I don't believe they really care about that. Expect a lot more false media propoganda attempting to polarize hezbollah from other similar groups in the region. These will be sunni-shiite-related and will ignite a b**ch fit amongst religious psychos. Then the majority-sunni "Muslim World" will care a lot less about shiites getting murdered.
I think part of Israel's stance is posturing. If they seem eager to strike it may be easier to get other nations to issue harsher embargoes etc. in order to keep them from striking. What is surprising is how effective the boycotts have actually been. Obama's boycotts against Iran have been far more effective than anyone would have guessed. As of now tankers won't even move their oil because they can't insurance under the sanctions. That will also help Israel hold back a bit.
I think the difference is Iran actually deserves to be attacked and does actually pose a threat to the US whereas history tells us that wasn't true with Iraq. The other differences are there is actually an opposition movement in Iran that is notable, there is government that has internal factions battling and the US has learned (hopefully) that it has no interest in being bogged down in a rebuild. If we, or Israel, strike Iran I hope it is limited in scope but is provocative enough to lead to the fall of that government.
The people of Iran don't deserve to be bombed, they have done nothing wrong. Don't fool yourself into believing a war would kill more 'bad guys' than innocent people.
Glenn Greenwald calls the warmongering government-puppet media out, as usual. Much more at the links.
Let me clarify, I'm not advocating an all out strike against Iran's populace, but if Israel wants to attack Iran's nuclear sites I have no problem with that.
Even if it de-stabilizes all the countries in the region? How do you predict Iran would respond to that?
You ask me questions that I, like every person on this BBS, can't answer. I didn't call for war, I merely stated my opinion. I would hope that commander in chief and his staff and the leaders of Israel who actually have access to all of the top secret information and diplomatic communications wouldn't do something that would destabilize an entire region. I have not criticized Obama for his his handling of Iran and I won't. I'm not advocating war. Suggesting someone deserves something doesn't mean we should give ti to them. However, if the Obama administration and the Israeli government believe attacking Iran's nuclear sites is in the best interests of Israel and/or the United States, I will assume they have considered the consequences of that. I am not of the opinion that military action is always wrong, even if the Iranian government doesn't like it.
how does iran pose a threat to us? and even if they did, that doesnt mean we should attack. the bush doctrine is wrong - you dont go to war w/ countries b/c you think they might be a threat at some point in the future. and if we were to preemptively strike iran that opposition movement would unite behind the leaders or be shut down. it would be a rallying point for iranians in the same way 9/11 was a rallying point for americans. attacking iran would be excellent PR for the mullahs and the religious wackos there. imo, a strike on iran will invariably lead to a wider conflict. its a very dangerous game.
Iran hasn't started any wars under the current form of government. Iraq had started two under Saddam Hussein. Hezbollah is not Iran, any more than Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia.
If I could go back in time and attack Japan before Pearl Harbor I would do it. If I could go back in time and take out Hitler and his party before they invaded Poland I would do it. You actually have no way of knowing this. I can't say you are wrong. All I can say is that the Obama administration should have a good idea beforehand the correct answer to that question. If they believe an attack on Iran leads to a full scale war and destabilizing of the region, possible WW3 kind of situation, of course they shouldn't do it. But the suggestion that it would be inevitable is just as baseless on this message board as it would be for me to say a strike on Iran would inspire the region to straighten up and get in check.
This is a good fact, but not really relevant to be honest. At the time of the Bush2 Iraq War, Hussein was no longer in any position to launch a war of aggression. Iran certainly is in a position to do a lot more than Iraq was. Now, whether they want to or not is a fair question. Anyway, I won't get spend more time arguing this issue because in the end I would prefer to be completely wrong about the entire situation and you guys to be right. It makes it hard for me to have any passion for it. In the end, I hope the decision gets finalized while Obama is in office. I'd rather it be him making the decision on whether or not it should happen when he is constrained on the issue by his party than by a president that would be encouraged by his party to strike.
and during the iran-iraq war saddam was our ally and we supplied him w/ arms and intel. we also covertly/illegally sold arms to iran and used those profits to fund terrorism in latin america.
I do have a problem with it, purely because I just can't believe that Israel is actually capable of accomplishing such a feat, and I do not support an invasion of Iran. We're not ready for it. Obviously I don't hold any governmental intelligence, so if I'm wrong and Israel could actually pull off a completely successful airstrike and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, that would be great and if they did it, I would applaud Israel. But it's something I would be extremely careful about beforehand. That principle is absolutely. Totally. 100% wrong. You don't sit around, wait for your enemies to gain full power, and then let them attack you out of some desire to be moral. There are so many scenarios which show this, but you can start by going to go read some British history. There's a reason they fought in one war in Europe after another, whether against the Kaiser, Louis XIV, or Napoleon, even though these three countries never invaded Britain and the first in fact promised to leave the British Empire untouched. Does that mean Iraq was right? No. Mistakes will be made. Iraq was a mistake. But it doesn't mean that you utterly renounce the right for states to wage war save direct self-defense. As much as people like to think otherwise, states are not humans, and they are not bound by the same rules as humans. As Cardinal Richelieu famously observed, a state is not going to Heaven when it dies.
