Commentators’ views on a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran.
Updated March 13th 2006.
The first section is a list of commentators who believed there would be a military or nuclear attack on iran in june 2005. The second section is a list of commentators who continue to believe there will be a military or nuclear attack on iran – some suggest the attack will occur in march 2006. Over the last few years, the bush administration has whipped up public support for a war against iran on a number of occasions. The third section is a list of commentators who disagree that america will attack iran. The final section consists of commentators who have changed their minds on this issue – some have gone from believing there will be a war to currently disagreeing with the proposition, whilst others have gone in the opposite direction.Commentators who believed there would be a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran in June 2005.
Chris Floyd.
"In their ignorance and arrogance, the Bushists will almost certainly strike at Iran - despite the fact that even Iranian dissidents support the effort to make their nation a nuclear power and would join the mullahs in retaliation. The result will be a conflict far surpassing the horror and magnitude of the Iraq disaster." (Chris Floyd ‘American Terror’ http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/01/21/120.html January 21st 2005).
Eric Margolis.
"This column has long predicted the Bush administration would orchestrate a pre-election crisis over Iran designed to whip up patriotic fervour in the U.S. and distract public and media attention from the Iraq fiasco. The growing clamour over Iran's nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran's reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis." (Eric Margolis ‘Those who deceived America into attacking Iraq may be at it again’ http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/07/25/556378.html July 25, 2004).
Michael Schwartz.
"After escaping the Cold War specter of nuclear holocaust, it seems unimaginable that the world would be forced to endure the horror of nuclear war in a regional dispute. However, the record of Bush administration belligerence makes it difficult to imagine America's top leadership giving up the ambition of toppling the Islamic regime in Iran. And yet, given that the conquest of Iraq led the administration unexpectedly down strange Iranian paths, who knows where future Washington plans and dreams are likely to lead – perhaps to destruction, certainly to bitter ironies of every sort." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6915 August 10, 2005).
William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon.
"The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus." (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDGB790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004).
Ron Jacobs.
"In recent weeks, the US press has printed thousands of lines regarding the Iranian government's pursuit of nuclear technology. It has dutifully reported outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell's allegations of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and openly speculated about a possible military attack on the country by the US or Israel. Meanwhile, the EU is attempting to negotiate some kind of agreement with Tehran that is designed to prevent said attack while keeping the trade lines various EU members have with Tehran open. In Iran itself, recent parliamentary elections (of questionable fairness) ensured a continued majority for the mullahs supporters." (Ron Jacobs ‘Iran 2004’ http://www.counterpunch.org/ December 28, 2004).
Jorge Hirsch.
"Is the U.S. willing to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary that is an NPT signatory, thus risking universal condemnation? Several statements and documents from the Defense Department suggest that it is indeed fully prepared to do so." (Jorge Hirsch ‘The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7431 September 29, 2005).
Steven LaTulippe.
LaTulippe suspects there will be a war against iran, "the drumbeat for an attack against Iran continues more stridently than ever. … it is becoming increasingly obvious that President Bush is now wholly on-board with the neocons’ agenda and that an Iranian conflict may be on the way." (Steven LaTulippe ‘A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html November 24, 2004).
Seymour Hersh.
Hersh suspects there could be a war but says nothing about whether nuclear weapons will be involved, "Moreover according to US journalist, Seymour Hersh, with extensive ties among top officials in Washington, "Defense Department civilians...have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential (sic) nuclear, chemical weapons and missile targets inside Iran" (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005)." (James Petras ‘The Song Remains the Same’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras02232005.html February 23, 2005). "The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html)." (Quoted in Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005).
Scott Ritter.
"According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June. The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005).
Michel Chossudovsky.
"The World is at an important crossroads. The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War. Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005).
Commentators who believe there will be a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran.
James Petras.
"Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras12242005.html December 24/25, 2005).
Bill and Kathleen Christison.
"The single most urgent objective we should have right now is to prevent a war, possibly nuclear, from being started by the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran. To repeat, such a war would be disastrous, and we should be doing whatever we can, with the highest possible priority, to prevent it from ever happening. Every peace activist on the globe ought to be in the streets and elsewhere lobbying in support of something very simple: do not attack Iran, even if this means allowing Iran to develop its own nuclear weapons. (Bill and Kathleen Christison ‘Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran: It's More Important Than Halting Nuclear Proliferation’ http://www.counterpunch.org/christison12292005.html December 29, 2005).
Michel Chossudovsky.
"The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Nuclear War against Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 January 3, 2006).
Wayne Madsen.
"Intelligence and military sources in the United States and abroad are reporting on various factors that indicate a U.S. military hit on Iranian nuclear and military installations, that may involve tactical nuclear weapons, is in the final stages of preparation." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).
Mike Whitney
"The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in Latin America and Asia." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006).
Kurt Nimmo
"As now appears obvious, the Straussian neocons will attack Iran, sooner before later." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iran Attack: No Way Back Now’ http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=194 January 18th 2006).
Paul Craig Roberts.
"Perhaps the greatest threat of all (to america) is Israel's determination to attack Iran, either directly or indirectly through its surrogate, the Bush administration. We are witnessing the same drumbeat against Iranian WMD as we witnessed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. If tactical nuclear weapons are used in the bombing of Iran, as the neoconservatives advocate, America will be reviled throughout the world. Americans will never recover from the burden of shame and war crimes inflicted upon them by the Bush administration." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01232006.html January 23, 2006).
William S. Lind.
"We are moving toward war with Iran. Our diplomatic efforts on the question of Iranian nuclear research and reprocessing are obviously designed to fail, in order to clear the boards for military action. It will probably come in the form of Israeli air strikes on Iran, which, as the Iranians well know, cannot be carried out without American approval and support." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006).
Norman Solomon.
"The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran. Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won't happen." (Norman Solomon ‘The Iran Crisis: 'Diplomacy' as a Launch Pad for Missiles’ http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=8505 February 7, 2006).
Scott Ritter.
"The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran. "We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night. Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don't overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran." (Ex-U.N. inspector: Iran's next: Ritter warns that another U.S. invasion in Mideast is imminent’ http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/02/06/1346123.htm February 06, 2006).
Jack A. Smith.
"The United States government is preparing for an eventual nuclear war with a determination approximating Cold War standards, but this time with an expressed preemptive first-strike option against even non-nuclear countries." (Jack A. Smith ‘Bush's War Plan includes the Use of Nuclear Weapons’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20060209&articleId=1928 February 9, 2006).
John Pilger.
.. "the prospect of an American attack on Iran, which is very real and probably imminent." (John Pilger ‘The Next War: Crossing the Rubicon’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006A.shtml February 10th 2006).
Philip Sherwell
"Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic." (Philip Sherwell ‘US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html February 12th 2006).
Geov Parrish.
"As incomprehensible as it might seem to most Americans in the wake of its Iraq failures, the Bush cabal is pushing full speed ahead for a military attack on Iran, perhaps as soon as next month." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006).
Gary Leupp.
"I have thought for a long time now that the U.S. would attack Iran." (Gary Leupp ‘The Mad is Not Out of the Question’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp02172006.html February 17, 2006).
Heather Wokusch.
"So the white-knuckle ride to war continues, with the administration's goals in Iran very clear. Recklessly naïve and impetuous perhaps, but clear: stop the petro-euro oil bourse, take over Khuzestan Province (which borders Iraq and has 90% of Iran's oil) and secure the Straits of Hormuz in the process. As US politician Newt Gingrich recently put it, Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, and they also "cannot be trusted with their oil."" (Heather Wokusch ‘WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran’ http://www.heatherwokusch.com/ Feb. 19, 2006).
LEAP/E2020.
"The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020, now estimates to over 80% the probability that the week of March 20-26, 2006 will be the beginning of the most significant political crisis the world has known since the Fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, together with an economic and financial crisis of a scope comparable with that of 1929. This last week of March 2006 will be the turning-point of a number of critical developments, resulting in an acceleration of all the factors leading to a major crisis, disregard any American or Israeli military intervention against Iran. In case such an intervention is conducted, the probability of a major crisis to start rises up to 100%, according to LEAP/E2020. The announcement of this crisis results from the analysis of decisions taken by the two key-actors of the main on-going international crisis, i.e. the United States and Iran:
- on the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil producers of the region ;
- on the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward[1].
These two decisions constitute altogether the indicators, the causes and the consequences of the historical transition in progress between the order created after World War II and the new international equilibrium in gestation since the collapse of the USSR. Their magnitude as much as their simultaneity will catalyse all the tensions, weaknesses and imbalances accumulated since more than a decade throughout the international system." (The Laboratoire européen d’Anticipation Politique Europe 2020, LEAP/E2020 ‘Iran-USA, beginning of a major world crisis’ http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3513&Itemid=85 February 25 2006).
Douglas Herman.
"Let the Neocons know that WE know exactly what they are planning. Forewarned is forearmed. The more people who know and understand the Neocon plan beforehand, the less likely they are to carry it out. After all, Pulitzer prize-winning author Seymour Hersh and former US Marine Scot Ritter proclaimed loudly, last June, that the Neocons planned a preemptive attack against Iran, and the Neocons backed down. If they backed down once they may back down again." (Douglas Herman ‘War-Gaming The Upcoming Iran War’ http://www.rense.com/general69/warfg.htm February 1st 2006).
Jorge Hirsch.
"All the elements have been put in place carefully and methodically for the U.S. to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran in a way that will seem "acceptable" at first sight, as discussed in previous columns: the new nuclear doctrine, the nuclear hitmen, the weapons, the justification, the legal framework, and the public mindset. The use of low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons will appear to be a military necessity, one that will save thousands of American and Israeli lives, deter an Iranian response, and achieve "rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms."" (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006).
Gordon Prather.
"The Bush-Cheney Pentagon is reportedly putting finishing touches on a plan to preemptively nuke Iran for insisting on its inalienable right – guaranteed by (a) the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (b) the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and (c) their Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA – to enjoy the peaceful uses of nuclear energy." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006).
F William Engdahl.
"In the past weeks, media reports have speculated that Washington is "thinking the unthinkable", namely, an aggressive, preemptive nuclear bombardment of Iran, by either the United States or Israel, to destroy or render useless the deep underground Iranian nuclear facilities." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html Jan 31, 2006).
Commentators who do not believe there will be a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran.
The Anti-War Movement.
The jewish dominated anti-war movement in both america and britain has so far been averse to debating the possibility of a jewish attack on iran and even more sceptical about a jewish nuclear attack on iran. Michel chossudovsky has complained, "The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Nuclear War against Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 January 3, 2006). Norman solomon has stated, "The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be groundwork for launching missiles at Iran. Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won't happen." (Norman Solomon ‘The Iran Crisis: 'Diplomacy' as a Launch Pad for Missiles’ http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=8505 February 7, 2006). James petras provides a reason for the anti-war movement’s disinterestedness in the warmongering of the jews-only state, "Despite sharp criticism from a minority of dissident Jews, both in Israel, the US and elsewhere, there are certain unstated codes which are observed even by the most critical commentators. One is to never criticize or identify the power of the Jewish organizations in the US and their influence in the government. Jewish progressives de facto denial of Jewish power in shaping US war policy in the Middle East severely restricts the effectiveness of the anti-war movement by exonerating one of the key ideological props of the imperial war machine. The second unstated code followed by the "observant" progressive Jewish intellectuals is a denial that Israel has an important influence on US Middle East and global policy via its tribal loyalists in the US. Jewish progressives deliberately and systematically exclude any mention of Jewish power and influence in shaping US policy in the Middle East by focusing exclusively on "oil interests" or "neo-conservative ideologues" (who just coincidently are mostly tribespeople and their camp-followers). In deference to or more precisely because they share a deep underlying identity with the tribe – they refuse to include any systematic study of the very obvious and blatant exercise of power in every branch of government, electoral processes and media reports. Likewise with the Middle East, Israel is considered by progressive Jews as an "instrument" of US imperialism even as the instrument cuts both ways – as Israel uses the US to savage its adversaries, to build up its military machine and to manufacture its commercial weapons systems to sell even to US competitors (i.e. China)." (James Petras ‘The meaning of war: A heterodox perspective’ http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=12606 January 2005). Paul sheldon foote concurs with petras over the strange quiescence of the anti-war movement, "James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran" is an excellent disclosure of some of the fraudulent techniques Israel has employed to promote a war with Iran and of the failure of significant opposition to develop in America." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ December 30, 2005 pfoote@fullerton.edu); "Washington's war drums over Iran aren't merely an election-year distraction or diplomatic maneuver. They're an urgent warning that the antiwar movement in the U.S. needs to broaden its perspective to include opposition to the entire U.S. imperialist project in the Middle East." (Lee Sustar ‘Target: Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar02252006.html February 25 / 26, 2006); "The war on Iraq is proving to be the worst foreign policy disaster in US history and the evidence is ample that it was a war that fit into the PNAC projection of the American global empire with Israel running the Middle East, as well as the Clean Break document drawn up in 1996 by neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Merav Wurmser for Benjamin Netanyahu which called for regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria, not because of any threats from those countries, but to extend Israel's power in the region. Even though this information is no longer a secret, the major pundits of the left have ignored it, absolving Israel and its lobbyists from any responsibility for the Iraq debacle. It is fair to say they have helped to pave the way or clear the air space now for an attack on Iran which will most assuredly have such horrendous results as to make the situation in Iraq seem like a garden party." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’ jblankfort@earthlink.net c.Jan 7th 2006); "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).
Xymphora
Xymphora does not believe there will be a zionist/american attack on iran. One of the reasons he proffers for this conclusion is that the zionists have been advertising their intentions. "Do you think Israel would be threatening war against Iran every day if it actually had any intention of attacking? Israel of all places knows the advantages of surprise (and the disadvantages of being surprised). All this warning has just given Iran the opportunity to buy and install the most sophisticated anti-aircraft defense systems available. You might argue that the Israeli threats are intended to influence Iranian behavior except for the fact that the constant threats have only served to influence the Iranian leadership to accelerate the development of Iran's nuclear program." (Xymphora ‘Iran Talk’ http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/12/iran-talk.html December 26, 2005). It might be thought the element of surprise comes not merely from what is done but when it is done. The jews-only state still has the element of surprise as to when it will attack iran. Xymphora’s stance ignores the fact that the jews-only state in palestine has to win public support from its own people and the american administration/public for an attack on iran. The jews-only state would suffer considerable political damage if it did not prepare the world for what it is about to do. Xymphora seems to believe an attack on iran is likely only if it is a bolt out of the blue such as the zionist attack on iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. But the zionists know that if they are to permanently stop iran from developing nuclear weapons then they have got to do to iran what the americans have done to iraq since their 2003 invasion. In other words, the model for an attack on iran is not the 1981 attack on iraq but the devastation of the 2003 attack on iraq.
Xymphora also argues, somewhat disingenuously, that, "Iran, even with a nuclear program, poses absolutely no real threat to Israel." This is true objectively but paranoid zionists do not believe it to be true. The jews-only state could live with an iranian state. It could even live in a mad predicament with iran. But this is not acceptable to those who believe in jewish world domination, jewish supremacism, and the sacredness of the jewish people - god’s chosen people.
Another argument xymphora proffers is that, "Israel's safety depends on the mythology that it cannot be defeated." However, threatening iran with an attack and then not going through with this threat is also going to undermine the security of the jews-only state. Nobody is going to take seriously what zionists say if they don’t do what they have threatened. Virtually all of the chiefs of the jews-only military establishment have made public statements concerning an attack on iran so if there was no attack then all of them would lose face and the jews-only state itself would lose credibility.
Robert Fisk.
"Now, we hear the rhetoric coming from Bush. I mean, he's got an absolute black-hole chaos in Iraq, he's got Afghanistan - not an inspiration to the world, it's been taken over effectively by narco warlords, many who work for Karzai, the man who's just been making jokes about the Afghan welcome for Bush - and Bush wants another conflict with Iran? I don't think the Americans are in any footing or any ability, military or otherwise, to have another war or to have another crisis in that region. They're in the deepest hole politically, militarily and economically in Iraq. The fact that the White House and the Pentagon and the State Department seem to be in a state of denial doesn't change that." (Robert Fisk quoted in Tony Jones ‘Robert Fisk shares his Middle East knowledge’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12137.htm March 03 2006).
Dilip Hiro.
According to jeff blankfort, "Hiro has ruled it out (but not an Israeli attack)." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 18th 2006).
Andrew Cockburn.
Jimmy Carter presented Iran with 52 hostages. George Bush has done a lot better, sending 130,000 Americans across the ocean as guarantees of his administration's good behavior toward the Islamic Republic." (Andrew Cockburn ‘Bush's 130,000 Hostages: Why the U.S. Probably Won't Attack Iran’ http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew01312006.html January 31, 2006).
Commentators who have changed their Minds about a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran.
Juan Cole.
Before, "If the Bush/Cheney team gets back in, there will be further wars and massive disturbances to world peace and security, starting with Iran. Maybe the whole doctrine of pre-emptive war is a form of inferiority complex, impelling Cheney to be a strident war-monger to try to vindicate his uninvolved youth. If he was a coward, he may be endangering us all (and especially our teenagers) in a desperate ploy to regain his own manhood." (Juan Cole ‘Harkin: Cheney is Cowardly’ http://www.juancole.com/ August 17th 2004).
Currently, "Any attack by the US or Israel on Iran's nuclear energy facilities would certainly bring massive crowds into the streets in protest in neighboring Iraq. The resulting violence and the attacks on US troops are not important demographically, but they could cost the Republican Party its majority in Congress, if the American public becomes alarmed that the US is losing (even more) control. This Iraqi/Congressional factor is among the reasons I believe that the current hard line taken by the US against Tehran is mere saber rattling." (Juan Cole ‘Muqtada Pledges Defense of Iran from US attack’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_01_01_juancole_archive.html January 23, 2006).
Charley Reese.
Reese originally held the view that america would not attack iran because he believed the bush administration was just bluffing . "There's been a lot of talk recently about Israel and/or the United States bombing the nuclear facilities in Iran. I wouldn't worry about that. I believe they are both bluffing." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006). Like a lot of commentators he concluded that an attack on iran would be irrational given iran’s capability for retaliation and simply assumed the bush administration would act rationally. Not any more, "Unfortunately, history shows that those who bet on wise political leadership avoiding war end up losing their shirts and often their lives and their fortunes." He now argues, "The third goal (of the bush administration) is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way." (Charley Reese ‘What Bush Is Up To’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8567 February 18, 2006).
Jeffrey Blankfort.
Blankfort originally believed there would be an american attack on iran, "I had predicted that Israel would attack Iran last year and suspected that had not Sharon had his stroke it would be almost a sure thing this spring." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006).
He has now changed his mind. However, he believes the jews-only state in palestine might attack iran. If it did then american politicians would find it difficult to condemn such an action, "should Israel do it, particularly in a US election year, that both houses of Congress will fall over themselves applauding, only taking a time out to appropriate an additional several billion dollars to Israel as a reward and to replace the bombs that had been dropped." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006).
It might have been thought that the likelihood of such a political reception would provide slam dunk proof that the jews-only state would attack iran. Whilst many would argue that a jews-only attack would almost inevitably drag america into a war blankfort continues to believe the americans will desist. "When the pro-Iranian US-trained Shia soldiers and the Mahdi army starts killing US soldiers, when Iran shuts down gulf oil shipments and gas goes up to $6 or $7 a gallon, they will then find a way to shift the blame on the victims. If the US does attack, as the Israeli lobby has been indirectly demanding, then the control over Washington and America's Middle East policies will be proven to have been far greater than even I, as a long time critic of the lobby, realized. After all, without the efforts of the lobby, there would have been no attack on Iraq in 1991 and the Kuwaiti invasion could have been resolved diplomatically, and there would have been no war on Iraq in 2003. While rationales can be made for both of those invasions by their supporters, a US attack on Iran at this time would be an act of madness." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006).
Blankfort’s main argument against a war is that it would be a military disaster for america because of the vulnerability of its troops in iraq. "In any case, I do not believe there will be an attack, if for no other reason that it would so quickly turn Iraq into a killing ground where US soldiers would become victims of both pro-Iranian Shia who dominate the new Iraqi army, as well as the Sunnis. While this outcome seems to have eluded the pundits focusing on the bourse, it certainly hasn't eluded the planners in the Pentagon." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006); "If the war in Iraq is the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history, an attack on Iran would make that seem like a garden party with the US trained Shia troops plus the militias almost immediately turning on the US soldiers and the Iranians blocking the Straits of Hormuz. Gas at $6 or $7 a gallon is not what the US public will vote for in an election year." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006). "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran, although I don’t think that will happen, simply because the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Besides, should the US attack Iran, the troops that the US has trained in Iraq who are very pro-Iranian and connected to the two parties the SCIRI and the Dawa that were founded in Iran in 1982 and fought on the side of Iran against Saddam, will certainly respond and Iraq will explode even more than it already has. That is why I don't think the US is going to do it, even though everybody over here seems to think so." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).
Blankfort dismisses a war against iran on a number of other grounds. "If there are truly elites who are pulling the strings in Washington and control Tel Aviv, as we are often told, there will be no attack because those elites would certainly be aware of the consequences it will have for the free-market capitalist system that they cherish. If there is an attack, it will be yet another proof that Washington is Israel's most important occupied territory, despite the efforts of a handful of brave individuals there to expose and bring a halt to the Israelization of US Middle East policy. I don't like the concept of elites, but I do not think there will be an attack and that the drum beats are designed to scare Iran because there are no other realistic options available. Nevertheless, beware the Ides of March." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’ jblankfort@earthlink.net c.January 7th 2006).
A number of commentators have made the same point that the global jewish elite would not push america into a war because this would undermine global capitalism. However, it could be argued that the global jewish elite are far more concerned about protecting the sacred land of the jews-only state than they are supporting capitalism and that if it came to it they would sacrifice the latter to the former. The idea of global elites implies the elite has no loyalty to any country. However, I do not believe this is true as regards the world’s jewish elite most of which supports judaic fundamentalism e.g. the super zionist jack abramoff.
Blankfort dismisses the role that turkey is supposed to play in prosecuting the war. "The problem is that the "left wing" critics seem to be more concerned with competing with one another than actually taking the time to think such as looking at the leaks that have been flowing from the Bush administration such as the Porter Goss visit to Turkey which started the latest go-round, and the statement by the very suspect Scott Ritter that Bolton's speech writer told him that Bolton's speech announcing the attack has already been written. Really? Does anyone in their right mind believe that Bolton's speech writer would reveal this to someone ostensibly against US policy or does Ritter have a role to play in this whole affair?" (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006). Blankfort also criticizes chomsky for the rumour concerning turkey’s co-operation with the jews-only state in palestine over an attack on iran. "Your column on what you and more others than I care to count believe will be an attack on Iran in the very near future contained a reference to a comment made by Noam Chomsky to an Armenian audience that 12% of Israel's air force and tank corps are stationed in Eastern Turkey. I am more familiar than I care to be with Prof. Chomsky's work and his use or creation of "facts" that cannot be substantiated and his omission of others that contradict his pet theories and this seems to be one of the former. I have tried to find a single reference or even a rumor that such an illogical situation exists and have come up empty handed. While I am not sure Prof. Chomsky would, at this point, respond to a request from me for some proof of his assertion, he might reply to you, so I have copied this message to him, as well." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006).
Blankfort believes, like raimondo and cole, that the bushies are bluffing, "My own feeling is that the US is playing high-stakes poker with a bad hand and all this build-up in the media, including sites shown on a map in the Telegraph is part of a bluff to force the Iranians not to move a head with nuclear enrichment in fear to avoid a US attack. I think Iran is likely to call the US bluff." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006).
It is possible the bushies are bluffing. But it is highly unlikely the jews-only state in palestine is also bluffing. Firstly, it has got the bush administration by the balls and it is highly unlikely it is going to waste the opportunity of using america to do its dirty work against iran. Secondly, the jews-only state cannot afford to be seen to be bluffing. It has twice threatened to use its nuclear weapons against the arab world in order to blackmail america into fighting proxy zionist wars – firstly in 1973 during the arab-jew war and then in 1990 removing saddam from kuwait. If the jews-only state bluffs over an attack on iran then america will never again take seriously the jews-only state’s attempts at nuclear blackmail and the jews-only state will have lost a critical grip over the world’s biggest military.
Blankfort argues that all those suggesting there will be a war against iran are boosting the bush administration’s bluffing game. "Finally, I think all this talk of a US attack on Iran is providing the Bush administration with the pressure it wants to sustain its bluff in the high-stakes poker game it is playing in a game in which Iran holds a winning hand." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 19th 2006). This is not true. Many of the media reports are being concocted by jewish zionists trying to force the bushies into a war. If they can hype up the threat enough then bush might cave in to public pressure and go to war whether he’s bluffing or not. The jews-only state in palestine has little to lose from the war and everything to gain from pushing america into a war. What does it matter to them that thousands of american troops might get slaughtered in iraq? The don’t care about america other than using it to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine.
Blankfort is on more solid ground when he dismisses the left wing idea that america is going to attack iran over the opening of its oil bourse. "Re the euro bourse, under the circumstances, even if they got the bourse going, it is highly unlikely in the present atmosphere and given the low level of competence in Iran these days, that any major country would get out of the dollar market and into Iran's euro bourse. Certainly, the countries that hold billions of US debt and have billions in trade with the US, like China, are not about to do that." (Jeff Blankfort jblankfort@earthlink.net February 15th 2006).
Justin Raimondo.
In the recent past, "The Israelis are now engaging in a bit of blustering, hinting broadly that they are ready to nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud by conducting a raid similar to that carried out at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed Saddam's nascent nuclear facility. That probably isn't going to happen in this case, however, for two reasons: (1) The geographical spread of the various suspected nuclear sites prevents any attempt to knock them out in a single blow, or even several blows, and (2) Instead of fighting their own battles, the Israelis would much rather use the U.S. to do their dirty work, whenever possible – and that seems highly possible given their past success in this area. When it comes to Iran, though, their (the jews-only state) strategy is just beginning to be put into practice – and is running up against a major roadblock in the reluctance of the Bushies to climb on board." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006).
Currently, "The regionalization of the war, and the widening split in Islam, are successes so far as the War Party is concerned. "Creative destruction is our middle name," says neoconservative guru Michael Ledeen, and there is no better phrase for a civil war. For the Iraqis and U.S. policymakers – as well as the Republicans – the chaos in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. For the neocons, however, it is a great victory. They have achieved half of exactly what they wanted, and now it remains for them to lure us into war with Iran and push their project to completion. If they have to do that under a Democratic administration, then so be it. Whether the Republican establishment succeeds in keeping John McCain at bay, or whether he bolts the party to lead a "Bull Moose" bipartisan coalition, the neocons – the vanguard of the War Party – will prove strategically flexible enough to attach themselves to whomever is left standing. In any case, they see this as a long-term commitment: it took them a decade to foment this war, and it will doubtless take another decade – they figure – to win it." (Justin Raimondo ‘On the Road to Empire’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8622 March 1, 2006).
posted by The Mundi Club @ 11:40 AM
<< Home