One critical element leads me to the conclusion that the United States will not go to war with Iran, nor allow Israel to do so. It is this: common sense.
It is true, of course, that common sense dictated against invading Iraq. But the very fact that we did invade Iraq, and that the Iraq war is almost universally considered a catastrophe, should add to the weight common sense carries this time.
Then there is the war in Afghanistan, which most Americans are now desperate to see end, especially after the recent massacre of innocent Afghan civilians. The polls show that Americans are sick and tired of both the Iraq war (which has thankfully ended... for us) and the Afghanistan war as well.
And then, on Monday, the New York Times reported on a classified Pentagon simulation exercise which concluded that an Israeli strike on Iran "would lead to a wider regional war, which would draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead." On the positive side, the Israeli attack would "set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year." (Emphasis mine.)
It is inconceivable that the United States will get involved in a third Middle East war in a single decade.
That is why the New York Times front page story this weekend titled, "Hawks Steering Debate on How To Take on Iran" was so jarring. It seemed to accept war's inevitability.
(Worth noting. The Times likely changed the title from the original version "Pro-Israel Groups Differing Approaches on Iran" when it realized that most of the sources it cited were not so much "pro-Israel" as right-wing pro-war Republicans.)
In any case, according to the Times:
With Israeli leaders warning of an existential threat from Iran and openly discussing the possibility of attacking its nuclear facilities, pro-Israel groups on all sides have mobilized to make their views known to the Obama administration and to Congress. But it is the most hawkish voices, like the Emergency Committee's, that have dominated the debate, and, in the view of some critics, pushed the United States closer to taking military action against Iran and another war in the Middle East.
The evidence presented could hardly have been weaker. Here, in order, is a list of the luminaries that the Times cited for their conclusion that we are moving closer to war. (Note the absence of business leaders, like former Republican three-term Senator Judd Gregg — now a Wall Street analyst — who warned yesterday of the tremendous costs in blood and treasure of another war; this prediction is not surprising given that another war would cause oil prices to skyrocket and kill off economic recovery.)
Talk about your usual suspects.
Then, mid-story, the writers decided to conflate the Congressional supporters of Iran sanctions with those favoring military action, even though many backers of sanctions view them as alternatives to war. Lumping these legislators with William Kristol, Gary Bauer and Sheldon Adelson is ridiculous.
Besides, only one person is going to make the decision about war, and that is President Obama — who has repeatedly said that, for him, war is a last resort. That is certainly the case given that the military is so strongly opposed to it. Retired General (and former CENTCOM commander) Anthony Zinni puts it like this: "If you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll love Iran."
As for Congress, even the most hawkish will not likely jeopardize the lives of their constituents in uniform who are already deployed in the Middle East and whose lives would be endangered by a U.S. or Israeli attack. That became obvious when, after announcing at AIPAC that he would immediately introduce a resolution authorizing war, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) subsequently pulled back, understanding that his war resolution would not sail through the Senate with anything like the (sometimes unanimous) support of previous sanction bills.
Come on. Is Barack Obama really going to surrender to the pro-war lobby either in the run-up to November or in a second term, especially when most of the war lobby is comprised of his political opponents who are doing everything they can to deny him re-election?
This is not to flat-out predict that war cannot happen. It can and it might. But common sense, political calculations and, above all, the president's commitment to the national security of the United States — and to the brave men and women who keep us safe — dictate against a war with Iran.
In short, the Times gets the story all wrong. Except for this one thing (which we need to worry about):
In the standoff with Iran, it is the hawkish groups supporting military action that wield more money, political clout and high-profile names than do the advocates of a diplomatic solution.
In all, pro-Israel political action committees and donors affiliated with them have given more than $47 million directly to federal candidates since 2000, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. They rank among the top contributors to a number of prominent Democrats and Republicans, and pro-Israel groups have hosted many lawmakers on expense-paid trips to Israel. When Aipac featured Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu at its conference this month, more than half the members of Congress attended.
That is alarming. But it does not outweigh other considerations, prime among them that Americans want to extricate themselves from Middle East wars. Neither Sheldon Adelson, John McCain, Gary Bauer, nor William Kristol (and their neocon network) can change that, especially if the rest of us make clear that the very thought of a another war in the Middle East is intolerable.
And that this time, we won't take it lying down.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Rajan Menon: Why Israel Won't Rush to War With Iran
MJ Rosenberg: Abandoning "Israel Firster" to Fight a Battle to Win
Tom Engelhardt: The 0% Doctrine
Do you think they would go all obliging and cuddly is they acquired nuclear weapons?
The Iranian regime's English language FARS news website proves that Iran’s nuclear scientists are seeking Israel’s “annihilation”. For example: "Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.”
Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010175602
Mostafa Roshan was the senior Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated.
It was honest of his wife to confirm the purpose of the Iranian nuclear weapons program -
Israel's annihilation.
And here’s a senior Iranian politician calling for “the annihilation of Israel”, also on FARS.
"The visit can be interpreted as a 'political quake' leading to the annihilation of the Israel as it has already caused more fright for the Zionists than happiness and joy for the Lebanese," member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Mahmoud Ahmadi Biqash told FNA on Tuesday.
Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8907201727
And here's Ahmadinejad, chanting "Death to Israel":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
He's not trying to hide his intentions.
to US government stopping a supposed attack on the Saudi Amb. in DC
last year.
Now think, what sense would that make ?
It would only get rid of one or a very few, tick the hell
off of the US and Saudi's, etc., and mean Iran would
suffer a counter blow or worse. The payoff and
price simply do not add up.
So I'm taking all of this " the Iranian's are nuts " as
probably more revealing about our elite and media
than perhaps the truth.
Remember the stories widely spread about Iraq
killing babies during the 1990 conflict.....turned
out to be phony, just to manipulate the US and
world public.
Of course, the Iranian regime can not be counted upon to do none of those things.....they continue to work to develop their capacity to assemble nuclear weapons and that program is not acceptable to the rest of the world.
In 1982 Israel targeted the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq. One French civilian was killed and ten Iraqi soldiers. That was the extent of mission. It's true that the situation in Iran is complicated by the extent of nuclear operations and the locations of the facilities, but the distinction between a targeted attack and a full scale invasion is relevant.
I think the question is a moral one: is pre-emptive military action justifiable? It is difficult for Israel to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons because of the nature of Iran's government and statements made by those with absolute power. Whether you agree with the Israeli government's foreign/domestic policy, the threat of nuclear anihilation is not something any nation can take lightly. On the other hand, it's difficult to justify pre-emptive warfare because it risks civilian lives based on assumptions about what a nation might chose to do in the future.
It's unclear whether an attack is the best or right option for Israel, but that the situation is more complicated than most people are willing to acknowledge. Israel has faced existential threats before. It is at the very least understandable that they would take Iranian nuclear proliferation seriously.
Or do you mean that by taking away Israel's nuclear deterrant, you eventually remove Israel from the region?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
How could he be more explicit?
Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's annihilation on many other occasions - and he's still doing it. For example, as reported by the anti-Israel Lebanese Daily Star:
HEADLINE: "Ahmadinejad on Al Quds Day: Annihilate Israel"
QUOTE: "TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the Palestinians Friday to adhere to the goal of annihilating Israel and liberating all Palestinian territory, despite their plans to pursue statehood in September."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Aug-27/Ahmadinejad-on-Al-Quds-Day-Annihilate-Israel.ashx#axzz1mpx6wtJD
Iran’s OFFICIAL English language FARS news website proves that Iran’s nuclear scientists are seeking Israel’s “annihilation”. For example:
"Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.”
Mostafa Roshan was the senior Iranian nuclear scientist who was assassinated.
It was honest of his wife to confirm the purpose of the Iranian nuclear weapons program -
Israel's annihilation.
Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010175602
in attacking IRAQ $$$$$
the US public will not take another foolish war so lightly this time...
the internet has changed things, whether enough is another question...
[ and please, to those who
dispute that....the US politicans CLOSEST to Israel, from Lieberman
to McCain and others, were 110% for attacking IRAQ......they would
NEVER go against what Tel Aviv told them to support, and Aipac too !
so let's not even pretend they didn't help push us into that BLUNDER $$$$$ ]
There's not even a mild chastisement of Iran in this article, such as "Of course, I condemn Iran's reckless and illegal nuclear weapons program, and they should be more co-operative with IAEA".
No, Mr Rosenberg simply won't criticise Iran. I cannot understand this.
Mr. Rosenberg has recently written several lengthy articles about Israel's stance on Iran's nuclear weapons program, but he never uttered a single word of criticism of:
a) the Iranian regime, or
b) it's nuclear weapons program
It's very odd, to say the least.
Rosenberg is, he says, a liberal. But Iran is one the most illiberal countries on the planet. It executes women for having consensual sex, it executes gays for being gay, it rigs elections, it guns down its own people for daring to protest peacefully, it is an unelected theocracy, it threatens to annihilate a country three borders away, etc, etc, etc.
Why does Mr Rosenberg avoid any and all criticism of such a regime?
"The New York Times is reporting a classified war simulation held this month by Pentagon planners found an Israeli attack on Iran would likely lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead. The so-called "war game" has reportedly raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran"
The voice of reason. I hope and pray for once it will prevail..
Well that’s right – everything that changing the argument to worldwide fears the irrational Israeli state was going to attack Iran in the first place was designed to avoid – namely Israel being forced to come to grips with dismantling the Occupation and adoption of an One State Solution remedy or other major remedy to Occupation or Apartheid
That is why Bibi has been making such a big fuss about Iran – Bibi is nothing more than a sideshow magician trying to pull off a hand is quicker than the eye routine
All of rightwing Israel gives Bibi enormous credit for having miraculously 'changed the argument' away from the endgame in Palestine and focused the whole world on whether or not Israel is irrational enough to start a major illegal war and drag much of the world into it as it does it
The Trix rabbit says he's not coming out of Bibi's hat this time. Silly Netanyahu
That's the impression I get from talking to people on the street ; How dare Israel + Cronies manipulate our country into something against our interests!
Any US politician that supports a war against the people of Iran is a traitor to our country.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" is a phrase I find myself using often.
Decisions made by our government, and I suppose most others, are based on profit, not common sense.
If there is enough profit in it, for the right people, the U.S. WILL go to war.
Does it really matter against whom?
It's this; before any bombs are dropped Sheldon Adelson, John McCain, Gary Bauer, William Kristol and Richard Perle all strap on a parachute and jump into Iran to start the attack.
When they've proved that they're willing to die in another crazy Middle East misadventure instead of just shouting for it, then by all means start sending American troops to die in another hugely expensive disaster.