Ahmadinejad Calls Bush's Nuclear Bluff

In what's described as a "farewell tour," President Bush is on a six-country European visit. Included in his agenda is asking his hosts to make greater contributions to Afghanistan -- both in money and troops, as well as the ongoing issue of Iran's nuclear program.

When asked about Iran at a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Bush repeated his standard refrain of, "all options are on the table."

The president has used this statement frequently in the past, but it seems to have lost its luster since used at the Rose Garden in 2006 when responding to reporters about Iran's nuclear file and Ahmadinejad's defiance regarding it. At that time, analysts and pundits predicted an attack on Iran was imminent.

This time however, the buzz was missing, and his veiled threat to Iran seems of little concern to Ahmadinejad. If anything the Iranian president has been mocking Bush's threats, saying "Bush's time is up, and he was not able to harm even one centimeter of our land." He went on to describe an attack on Iran by Bush as "wishful thinking."

Obviously Mr. Bush did not make a direct threat about attacking Iran; many experts would argue the "all options on the table" slogan can mean many things. There is the economic sanctions option, the United Nations option, the diplomacy option, the IAEA option and the list goes on. But in the Middle East, Bush's words mean only one thing: the military option. This is how most journalist colleagues of mine interpret it whenever Bush or Rice makes such statements. They always ask me "is Bush going to attack Iran?", as if I were a guru on the Bush administration's war intentions.

Their fears however, are legitimate. Despite all the Bush administration's woes -- the Iraqi debacle, the economy, oil prices, and most recently the US Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo prisoners -- the administration's surrogates continue to rattle the saber towards Iran in the U.S. media. Just last night I was watching FOX news and talk about hitting Iran was ongoing.

What will happen if the U.S. even drops one bomb on Iran?

All oil exports from Iran will cease, removing close to twenty million barrels of oil from world markets within days. Iran would stop traffic in the Strait of Hormuz by attacking oil tankers. It may even attack key oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Gulf countries with its arsenal of Chinese Silkworm missiles.

If people are lamenting over gas prices approaching five dollars, I guarantee you that they will top off $10.00 at the pump and more than $200 a barrel within hours of an attack. The US can't afford to attack Iran and Ahmadinejad knows this. That's why he has a grin on his face.

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV

Follow Jamal Dajani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamaldajani

Comments

[southafrica4obama]

Nice report and nice accent. It's time to try a different policy position on Iran. If I were president bush, i'll be very ticked off bad knowing I can't bomb this guy coz i'm out of presidecy in 6 months. Wish he had said this last year.

[realtalk]

That is why we need to elect Obama who is willing to start on the road of developing new energy sources, and technology, so that our dependence on oil from the middle east will be greatly reduced, over time. We cannot get out of this oil dependency if we do not start now. The way to avoid having to deal with THIS particular idiot, Ahmadinejad, in Iran is to make sure we do not need them, and that means making sure that the USA becomes energy independent, and that means developing new energy sources, and technology.

[justice2008]

I totally agree but a quick fix towards reducing the oil dependency is for idiots in the US to stop buying SUV's and to force American car companies from manufacturing gaz guzzlers.

[mystic]

Remember Bush threatening a false flag against Iran?
According to Vincent Bugliosi, a proven prosecutor who put Charles Manson behind bars, says in his NYT best seller just published "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder", the best evidence for first degree murder was not the Downing Street Memo but the Manning Report: Briefly the argumemt in court would be that if Bush actually believed that Saddam had WMD (which was the main reason why he invaded Iraq) he would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have wanted to PROVOKE someone who was so intent on killing him, into war. The Manning Report describes how Bush told Blair that he would provoke Saddam into attacking unmanned drones painted with the UN flag flying over Baghdad. Why would he do this of he was so convinced about the WMD?

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=104&id=242336&catid=63&func=fb_pdf

The Manning report is so hot and damning, it has already been removed from the internet on many sites.Manning was Blair's chief foreign policy advisor.

Either way, this proves how readily Bush would employ a false flag, and this would most assuredly be the way Bush provokes IRAN with the same trick. Once Iran "attacks" (wink, wink) the US/Israel, fear will cause the sheeple to vote for McCain in the elections.
Voila. Our dictatorship will continue.

[jupitor]

We need to make it clear we are looking at all alternative fuel! We also need to drill at home more and announce we are doing so. Than we need to try to make nice with Iran while we build up our forces and improve our ability to go it alone! The world need to see us as a reconining force again. Not by wasting our Billions on a dead end war, but by keeping our billions at home and becomeing indipendent on foreign oil! Than those smiles on the faces of the foreigners who think their oil and our need for it , will not longer be in control of the United States and relize their mistake of doing this was a huge mistake.

[ahornick]

In the eight years of Bush's "regime" with the billions spent on the war and trillions he borrowed from our children and grandchildren, he could have brought Iran to its knees without a shot fired or a word uttered. It would have been plenty of time and money to wean this country off its addiction to oil and strengthen the dollar.

[CamJam]

Jamal, interesting report.. but why are you watching FOX news? I'm just surprised that you would waste your time on that garbage channel. Can't stomach it myself. But whatever...

As for Ahmadinejad & Bush... well, I think if they were not in power, the world would breath a little easier without these hot heads full of hot air going off at the mouth as they do. How easy it is for them to play power games like this while we're all just their little pawns.

Bush does NOT speak for me.. and I am sure Ahmadinejad does NOT speak for all of Iran.

It's tiring this game they all play and at our (the world's) expense really.

[ebanks84]

I agree and he doesn't speak for most Americans today either. And when you're in bed with the enemy, all the blurb is just for show anyway.

[jad114]

FOX and cabal, O'reilly, Hannity, and their star guest who they call the "architect" Karl Rove are still in denial that they've been defending a total moron for the past 7 years. Yes, people should not watch FOX but its nice to keep them in check.

[earthwealth]

Regarding consequnces, you haven’t seen the whole picture. Just imagine the future financial, psychological and moral burden to our veterans and their families.
Regarding Iran, since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations is ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequntly there would be no longer any reason for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. For that exact reason, every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel’s special interest groups. We have to learn to elect politicians who focus at America’s Interest not others.

[loki]

Do you really think Bush cares if Oil hits $500 a barrel. No, because he is heavily invested in oil, as is his family and his friends. Bush is a wanna be macho he man, but doesnt have the brains for it. If it was his asz on the line, he would run like a scared puppy , peeing his way all the way under the porch and whimpering. But its not his, its millions of young Americans, which he considers consumables in the pursuit of profits and power. Ahmadinejad's threats are more than likely to cause this spoiled rich kid to swagger more, and then commit more resources and lives so he can play John Wayne again. Bring em on Bush is a moron. He only got a C average in the Ivy Greed schools because daddy paid a lot of money , and that was the best millions of dollars could get because he was so dumb. So W will try to prove to the world that he is a bad asz. Just like teen white kids dressing up Ghetto pretending to be bad asz Black that usually ends up screwing his life and everyone else around his.

[earthwealth]

The real problem with Iran that no mainstream media discusses is that no matter how much Iran is threatened and intimidated, she refuses to restart her nuclear arm program as our own intelligent groups have unanimously reaffirmed. Iran without possible nuclear arsenals is no use to our great industrial military complex. How else future military expansions and expenditures will be justified? And convince the wealthy Persian Gulf countries to buy more pricy military hardware. A military strike on Iran may be the last resort to push Iran to finally get into nuclear arm race and achieve our goal.

[iratior]

"Experience keeps a dear school," wrote Ben Franklin, "but a fool will learn in no other." Unfortunately, as many posts to this message board indicate, many people are too dense to learn even from experience. Take the proposed war on Iran, for example. We've already had five years of war on Iraq, and what do we have to show for it? A booming economy? Fiscal responsibility? Greater international goodwill? Lower gasoline prices? More freedom? Answer: none of the above. Experience has indeed kept a dear school, unless by your reckoning, 4,000 servicepeople's lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are mere trifles. So why should we think the payoff for war on Iran would be any better? I can't see a benefit to anybody, except the vested interests -- weapons manufacturers and security contractors.

[loki]

iratior , You forget to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost in Iraq as well. But I guess those did not benefit us here though. And since many Americans seem to think that just being Muslim, or Arab, or from the middle east makes you a bad person terrorist, not many seem to care about the men, women and children killed by both sides in this invasion. I think if you actually got a hold of the real numbers though, our bombs and heavy artillery fire surly killed many more than insurgents ever could.
But thems the bad guys , I am sure many idiots will say.

[iratior]

Don't get me wrong; I deplore the indifference with which the Bush administration has let Iraqis die. But I postulate that the pro-war crowd doesn't give a damn about that, so the only thing left to do is point out that war hasn't even been in this country's narrowly construed self-interest.

[earthwealth]

The reason this is hard to digest is because you are assuming that these people are looking after American's interests! Perhaps you are not familiar with the power of lobbyists. Does AIPAC ring a bell?

[texastornado]

Iran is telling bush "bring in on" and bush is blinking like a strobe light.

[AdamWykle]

Iran is really not a threat, they dont even have nuclear weapons and yet again you have Americans who are falling into the propaganda that Iran actually has them. Lest we forget, our own NIE report concluded that Iran doesn't have them as well.

Israel has them though, LOTS of them, undocumented and in violation of more UN resolutions to add on their growing list.

[loki]

Last time I tried to post this , Huffpo censored it out. I will try again.
The IAEA report from June 3, 1998 titled
"Israeli Nuclear capabilities and Threats"
Covers the Israeli Nuke problem and how their having these weapons is possibly the biggest threat in the middle east and the safety of the world. But of course no one in the US has the balls to talk of this, as they coddle the Israeli government. I have nothing against anyone who is of Jewish faith. I do have problems with their government and their policies, just as I have problems with my own government and its policies.
http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC42/GC42Documents/English/gc42-8_en.pdf

Lets see if this gets censored out too.

[loki]

If you google UN resolutions on Israeli Nuclear weapons, you will find out there have been over 30 since 1981. Also, Israel has had over 100 resolutions condemning them on many actions against other states and people in the middle east since 1967, and not once have I heard any American President ask for sanctions or condemning them for this. And an excuse for Iraq was that they ignored what? 12-15 resolutions from the UN? I have also heard the same UN resolution squawk being bantered around for Iran. Seem like they pick and choose. Just like they do with the Geneva convention.

[xrepublican]

Funny how Bush is GIVING AWAY nuclear technology and material to India, Saudia Arabia and others in clear violation of anti-proliferation treaties.....

and NOBODY worries about the uberhawks in Israel having nukes? something is really 'inconsistent' with the US position

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

We're not GIVING AWAY nuclear technology to India... they're giving us MANGOS in return.

[GnitenGoodLk]

..and knowledgeable customer service call centers too...mangoes are alright but those call centers are crucial!

[earthwealth]

Frankly when it comes to danger from nuclear fall out, the biggest danger may well be from our own nuclear arsenals due to their large quantity (perhaps as many as 6000). There are very close to us already and although accidental discharge is not likely but not impossible. The recent news regarding mistakenly transferring 4 to 6 nuclear warheads cross the country may be an example.

[mh01]

That just leaves israel. Thankfully they have the will and the means to take care of Iran, because American's are being sissy-fied.

I hope if he's president, Obama has the stones to stand up to Iran, and do something about it when he emerges from his little fireside chat (without pre-conditions) understanding what Bush understands.

Like it or not, Iran, Hamas, and the rest of their ilk respect one thing, strength..

[Benton]

They are still accepting applications at the recruiting office.

[Pyrrhus]

LOL yeah and Soldier of Fortune has a ton of "Soldier wanted" ads too, so if he thinks the US won't go after him he can do it himself- somebody will pay his way.

[justice2008]

Israel wants the US to do its dirty deed for it. It lost a war in Lebanon against a militia group Hizbullah. With all its US made weopans and billions of US Taxpayers' dollars, it failed to stop Hezbollah's rockets from hitting one of its largest cities Haifa. More than halh a million Israelis ran away from Northern Israel down south to hide. Imagine what will happen to them with more advanced Iranian missiles. Talk is cheap.

[MagisterLudi]

"It lost a war in Lebanon against a militia group Hizbullah."

Hmm, I guess thats why Hezbollah no longer dares to stage any attacks against Israel... .because they won.

Regardless, ANY Muslim military force that manages not to run away from a Western-style army is automatically considered heroes by other Muslims.

[texastornado]

America nor Isreal have the cojones to fight anyone who will strike back. America and Isreal only picks fights with weak countries. Even with all the nuclear weopons they won't even stand up to North Korea. America is trying to make up for the "thumpin" Viet Nam gave us and we're getting another thumpin by people with no army, air force, tanks, drones, smart bombs, navy, cruise missles. All they have is cojones. America is big and bad with Grenada, panama, salvador, Nicaraqua, Iraq , Afganistan and Haiti. We don't #%ck with Russia, China, India, or even Pakistan.

[Ale]

It does not take strength to make idle threats
Its does not take strength to refuse diplomacy
it does not take strength to to torture and abuse prisoners
Israel will no more attack Iran then the US will because to do so would devastate the world oil market earning them the hate of many nations.
If Iran moved its armies into another nation that would be one matter
But if Iran builds the same weapons that the US, Chine, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, France and other nations have, no one will attack. Iran is not iraq, its citizens are not divided ethnically. We are unable to occupy Iraq, We have no chance, none, of occupying Iran, the US is simply not a country of enough strength, no matter who is in the white house. And as the author pointed out, Iran knows that

[mh01]

I think the jury is still out on Iraq.

We don't need to occupy Iran to stop them from having nukes. That's the point. We have the means but do we have the stones?

[texastornado]

Isreal is MORE sissfied than America.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

Ok, you made your point, Ahmadinejad owns our collective asses. Thanks a lot pal. You succeeded like no one else can in make all of us sympathetic to Bush. After reading your column I almost wish Bush would take care of Ahmadinejad once and for all. Remember, I said almost. Of course, we must remain at peace with our Iranian brethren.

[oxygen]

bushit brother you need to remember the great Persian magi who came with secret incenses and rubber stamped the legitimacy that this was the new man god - how on earth can anyone question the Christians and their magi brethren? He came to earth to protect you from your original sins and this is how you speak of the magi
shameful
embarrassing
eve il took the first bite of the forbidden fruit
jesus came to change all that
the persians are the leaders, above beyond and always will be the original christians
all hail jesus
the other day I had to explain to a nice chinese student why we use bush's name in a vulgar way
poor guy bring him back to maine for some booze and coke - there's plenty there I hear
let him recuperate and then ship him off to iraq where he can be greeted with democracy and freedom

[munkii]

Ahmadinejad is bluffing as much as bush, both are lairs, the only difference between them is that Bush actually believes his own lies, and acts accordingly, while Ahamadinijad is a little weasel who knows how to play politics.

[cct84]

That knife cuts both ways Jamal. True enough, an attack on Iran would likely result in Iranian action to stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, resulting in a sharp increase in the price of oil; however, Iran is just as dependent on the cash from the sale of oil as the world market is on the oil itself. In fact, one could make the case that the Iranian regime would feel the pain of the cessation of oil from the Persian Gulf more acutely than the rest of the world, since they are completely dependent on the derived revenues to support their economy, whereas the world market has access to other sources of oil--albeit at higher costs. Your scenario also assumes that Iran could in fact stop the flow of oil--possible, but by no mean a given. Besides, I have little doubt the Pentagon has war-gamed that scenario multiple times. Of course, until it actually happens, this is all just an academic argument. Be that as it may, I prefer to look at the bright side. If your scenario does play out and the price of oil goes to $200 a barrel the pressure on congress to drill in ANWR, off-shore, and everywhere possible will be overwhelming. Sayonara environmentalist movement...

[itmaybetoolate]

Frankly, Iran wouldn't need to stop exporting oil. The attack itself would send the price of oil soaring. And this could force Congress to start passing environmental legislation with real teeth, including increasing mileage standards for new cars. The alternative energy genie is out of the bottle and it ain't going away, especially after President Obama takes office. So, get used to it.

[SShaw490]

If you knew anything about oil exploration, you wouldn't put any eggs in the ANWR basket vis-a-vis Iran - yes, there is oil in ANWR, but America consumes 20 million barrels a day and produces 8 - even a 25% increase in domestic production, which is an absurd dream, would only yield a 10% decrease in our import requirements. And ANWR production is 3 - 5 years away even if we started today, way too late to help in any Iran scenario.

There is no way out of this by increasing domestic production. Period. It's way too late to start, there isn't enough definite production to be had with traditional methods even if you threw out every environmental restriction, it takes much too long to bring new fields on line, and non-traditional methods take too much development time and money.

The only hope for America is a drastic conservation movement - a 25% cut in gasoline consumption in one year. It can be accomplished, but it won't be easy. Even with a cut of that magnitude, we'd still be consuming more than 50% more oil per capita than the next-largest per capita consuming nation in the world. We have to stop wasting energy. Period. Now.

[manumoka]

Since that's not going to happen any time this century, perhaps we should begin to develop alternative energy sources more seriously.

[aznurse]

I heard they have drilling rights for hundreds of areas in ANWAR now, but they haven't used them.

[themodestagnostic]

If the US started an attack, or worse still an invasion, "cashflow" will be the least of Irans worries. Plus, this is a modern war and the climax will be reached in weeks rather than months.

If attacked the Iranians or likely the kick the living daylights out of everything they can reach, including quite possibly US forces in Iraq. US supplylines stretch around the world, the Iranians are at home and are on increasingly good terms with the Iraqi government. The scenario of a disastrous encirclement, and the destruction of tens of thousands of US troops, although unlikely, is chilling a possibility that has to be taken seriously given the geography involved.

What is almost certain, is that Iran will not simply sit back and let the US pound their infrastructure to rubble. The are going to do some very serious damage of their own, and they have been preparing for this eventuality for decades.

Attacking Iran would be both immoral and insane.

[SolarPowerGuy]

There we go! An honest statement from a conservative -- that he greatly wishes to give environmentalism a black eye.

When you've used up this planet, where do you plan to go next?

[levibatgirl]

bush is a pampered little wannabe. His fake cowboy act is a joke and he displays his insecurities like a waving red flag. No wonder the world does not respect him.