Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says it is "definitely not" time to attack Iran. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin similarly caution against Netenyahu's impulse for military action. Sixty-three percent of Israelis oppose a unilateral strike on Iran.
What do these voices of restraint know that western hawks, and much of the American public, don't seem to comprehend? Perhaps that Iran is not nearly the threat its enemies have made it out to be.
In the decade since Bush's "axis of evil" speech, neocons have called for war with Iran. They have portrayed Iran as a nuclear threat. The propaganda has been effective. A poll two years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed Iran already had nukes.
Yet American and international authorities never claim such a thing. The International Atomic Energy Agency has consistently verified the "non-diversion" of Iran's nuclear resources from civilian to military use. In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate under Bush concluded Iran was not pursuing nukes. President Obama's Director of National Intelligence agreed with these findings in 2009. Just this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said unambiguously that Iran has neither been working on nuclear weapons nor shows any intention of building them.
Just as 70 percent of Americans polled once thought Saddam was behind 9/11, though Bush never made this claim, a strikingly similar percentage of Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons even though neither Bush nor Obama ever said so.
Not that our leaders have gone out of their way to quell the hysteria. In 2009, Obama made a huge deal about Iran's fledgling nuclear facility at Qom. Far from being caught red-handed, Iran had just begun constructing the facility and had reported their activities accordingly. At the time of this scandal, it was not much more than a "hole in the mountain," according to an IAEA official.
Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Israel), retains the authority to pursue civilian nuclear power. Its enrichment of uranium, now at 20 percent, has been legal and consistent with medical demands for the product. Iran has also expressed a willingness to negotiate this if it can meet these needs another way. However, even at 20 percent Iran's production is well below the approximately 95 percent purity needed for nuclear weapons. Many experts think Iran wants the capacity to "break out" and build nukes, but that would likely take years.
Some argue that oil-rich Iran has no need for nuclear energy, but any additional boost in resources is not wasted merely because the nation has other avenues of energy. The United States surely does not refrain from one source because it has others. Iran wants more independence like many other nations, having relied in recent years on importing refined gasoline.
We also hear that Iran seeks Israel's violent destruction. Many cast the Iranian state as a reincarnation of the Third Reich, run by a mad and genocidal president. But Ahmadinejad is not the true "head of state" in Iran, concerning issues of war. The Supreme Leader is the one who ultimately controls foreign policy, the military, and the nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad is often misquoted as saying he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" -- a mistranslation into an English of an idiom that has many believing that he seeks to "exterminate the Israelis." Rather, a more accurate translation is that he desires to "see the Israeli government erased" -- which is also the way American Cold Warriors talked about the Soviet Union. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor has conceded this contextual nuance recently in an interview with Al Jazeera:
"They didn't say 'we'll wipe it out', you are right -- but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor; it should be removed."
Indeed, Iran has its share of anti-Semitic hardliners. The last thing we should want is to enhance their influence by seeming to threaten the liberal spirit of the vast Iranian youth. Fear of war from the outside is the best way to unite and harden Iranian nationalism, which would ruin the chances for lasting reform.
Despite the ugly history of U.S.-Iranian relations since 1953, Iranians have shown remarkable sympathy for America's culture and people, including in the candlelight vigils that flooded Tehran in response to the 9/11 attacks. Normal Israelis and normal Iranians also have nothing to fear from one another.
We must ask: Among the United States, Israel, and Iran, which has been belligerent? The United States has tightened sanctions on Iran, which hurt civilians in the name of undercutting the regime. Has the U.S. supported covert ops in Iran? Perhaps. Israel surely has -- including support for the fanatical Jundallah suicide bombers, which it attempted to blame on the CIA.
The neocons accused Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq, although this is dubious at best. Yet, what we do know is that Iran has regarded the Sunni radicals in Iraq, like it views al Qaeda, as its enemies, and indeed reached out to its Shia coreligionists in Iraq to encourage a ceasefire with U.S. troops.
The Israeli state wants war, despite its people's wishes. Obama claims to want peace, even as he tightens the sanctions -- an act classically regarded a war maneuver. The presumptive Republican presidential candidate has promised to be even more extreme.
Both Israel and the United States have considerable nuclear weapons stockpiles. Iran has none. The U.S. conducts war policies that are widely unpopular among its own people. The Obama administration has provided bunker-busters to Israel, presumably for attacking Iran. In the last decade, both Israel and the United States have engaged in invasions of other countries. The Persians have not launched a conventional war in centuries.
There is much to despise about the Iranian government. Like most Muslim states, it is theocratic and thoroughly illiberal. But if we are searching for an aggressive nuclear regime, determined to wage war despite standards of constitutional restraint, democratic principles, and international law, we have two possible candidates that fit the bill. Iran is not one of them.
You need to read real experts on Iran, such as Amir Taheri (The Long Persan Night) and the dean of Middle Eastern Studies Bernard Lewis, both of whom think Iran will attack Israel at the first opportunity.
But Iran doesn’t have to attack Israel. The terror that a nuclear bomb in the hands of an enemy of Israel would cause in Israel would be enough to force many Israelis to immigrate to safer countries far from the threat. That is an old Muslim strategy, used since the days of Mohamed. When Muslim armies couldn’t defeat their enemies, they would terrorize bordering villages until the villagers moved away from the border then the Muslim population would move in and take over.
The UK government should end the so called 'special relationship' with the USA. Europe should order US troops out of their countries and we should tell the US that we don't want their missile shield.
Not if, but when, the war starts with Iran, I'll be getting the popcorn out, watching TV and hoping Israel gets wiped.
and as Afghanistan. The threat has nothing to do with politics or weapons. The threat is debt,
or more precisely the lack of it. All the nations we invade and destroy have one thing in common.
They have a public central bank with no western debt and sufficient natural resources to never
need western debt. The absence of a western private central bank also means that they will not
extend credit to the west. Western geo-political hegemony is completely dependent on debt,
being able to impose it on other countries with the natural resources capable of collateralizing it
and forcing them to accept petro dollars in exchange for their natural resources. Western
currencies are just worthless paper debt instruments unless the US military can force other
countries at gunpoint to accept them, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Iran will do neither hence
the "threat" and our posture towards them..
The only thing I'd point out is the author's point that Americans seem to be behind a war on Iraq despite what Presidents Obama and Bush have explicitly said. I'd say that what the Presidents say has less bearing on the public in general than the author would imply.
Something that would be worth investigating is why Americans feel this way. I think, it has to do with the mainstream media giving a forum for Israeli leaders to speak about going to war and other war mongers within our own American ranks. The forum is given to these leaders about going to war, but no forum is given to opposing views. Why is that? I'd like to see an investigative report on why mainstream media does not provide a forum for opposing views to going to war with Iran. Why not even interview Iranian leaders and people and hear their perspective? This is America, why are we not exposed to these points of view?
Does that include the ones in Israel?
Critisize Israel is antisemetic - we have no where else, we dont want anywhere else and no where else wants us.
What? Can I reject the existance of America!!!?
Nice but shallow platitude of borrowed talking points
They will not be asking permission of the US, UN, or foriegn Leftists if they determine Iran is weaponizing uranium.
Israel has ended all other regional nuclear programs by force.
None of those nuclear facilities has ever been rebuilt ,despite claims by anti-war critics that they would be.
Pipsqueak Israel would not dare attack Iran, since it will be the end of Israel. Israel only attacks countries or people (like those in Gaza) who cannot defend themselves. As the speaker of the Iranian parliament has said, Israel is like a dog that barks a lot but will not bite.
All these calculations are irrelevant. Iran is not going to "stand up like a man" and fight these barbarian hordes. Iran plans to use strictly asymmetric tactics. We saw how well shock and awe worked in Iraq.
Besides, are you guys sick or what? What on earth is the justification of an attack on Iran? Have you heard of the UN Charter?
And what do we know about Iran's intentions? Here's what the IAEA said in November, 2011: While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons. P.8, S.44 http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8410RD20120502?irpc=932
But Leon Panetta has admitted publicly that Oran is not building nukes.
Â
Rubbish. Â They prefaced every allegation with "may" and "could".
The IAEA is unequivocal - no "mays" or "coulds." Read the text. The IAEA also notes that Iran has breached what the Security Council requires it to do and what it agreed to do. Why would that be?
In acts and intent, Iran is a rogue and dangerous state, promoting instability throughout the region through proxy political actors. Iran currently supplies armaments and Rev. Guard advisors to the Assad regime in Syria.
1) the writer wants to get a job at Al Jezeera 2) Iran is paying him well for this article 3) the Huff pays well for anti Israel articles and make no secret of it
Here we are, ten years later, thousands of Americans killed, tens of thousand wounded, and trillions and trillions of dollars wasted....on the Iraq war to protect Israel from Saddam's imaginary nukes. And the lobby is not done yet. They still want the US to "finish the job." Saddam is gone, Syria is imploding, but Iran is still standing.
So, naturally, the lobby wants the US, the American people, to take down Iran. Thus.....this story, thus....the loud cries from Netanyahu, and thus....the loud demands from the neo-cons....to take down Iran.
And I say...No...No more. If Israel is going to exist, then Israel needs to get along with it's neighbors. And that means negotiations, not wars, and it means compromise.
Seriously though, the government has a soft spot for Israel. Not only for its political value to the Jewish diaspora in the U.S., but also because its destabilizing effect on the region facilitates U.S. hegemony.
Is Iran really a threat to us? No more than decades of U.S. interference in their affairs warrants. But we'll attack them anyway, because normal people take real jobs, leaving politics for megalomaniacs and photogenic idiots.
But, then, the US is certainly a threat to Iran.
Bombing them will do neither of us any good.
Assume for a moment that in order for a country like Iran to be a real threat to us, they would need a strong motive to do us serious harm, before they would choose to do it, because of the cost of retaliation.
Do YOU think that whatever motive they have today would, somehow, diminish if we bombed them? Quite the opposite. So, attacking them in such a manner would hugely motivate them to do us harm.
Sure, such a tactic would damage their ability, somewhat, to harm us in some ways, particularly in the short term. What about the mid-term? Long-term? Do we just go drop bombs on them whenever we feel like it? Whenever we see a suspicious building? What does a 'suspicious building' look like?
1. Nuclear material may be a lot easier to acquire than we would like, much easier than making it themselves. Any decent physics student can make a bomb, given the material.
2. They don't even need that. Are we planning to bomb all their medical facilities (over and over) on the grounds that they might develop deadly viruses, after we have ratcheted up their motivation a few dozen notches?
Attacking Iran to 'reduce the threat' is so self-defeating, it would be laughable, if it weren't so serious.
The current regime will rebuild nothing. The next regime? Who knows.
Keep in mind none of the regional nuclear programs ended by the Israelis have ever been rebuilt.
The economy is not in great shape, but Iran is entirely self sufficient.
Sanctions don't work. They never have.
The next regime? Who knows. Keep in mind none of the regional nuclear programs ended by the Israelis have ever been rebuilt.
Every single country on earth is a 'threat' in some way. All of us compete. Whoever competes the best will win.
Right now, the US is in a self-destructive mood, with roughly half of our population denying reality, denying science, denigrating education, conducting useless wars, doing nothing for our national competitiveness, etc..
We don't have to succeed, if we want to be so stupid. There are other countries that care about it, and are working their butts off. If we want to slip to the back of the pack, that's our prerogative. And it looks like our Republican friends are doing their very best to take us there.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154301