War This Year With Iran?

[phantom power]

Well, after reading through ten pages of information about the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, I come to Ronen Bergman's conclusion:

After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. Perhaps in the small and ever-diminishing window that is left, the United States will choose to intervene after all, but here, from the Israeli perspective, there is not much hope for that. Instead there is that peculiar Israeli mixture of fear — rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive — and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.

It's pretty tough to listen to Israelis lecture the international community about their responsibility to prevent Iran from going nuclear when Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to inspection by the IAEA. Adults can live with some double standards, but the lack of self-awareness on this score can be pretty appalling. For example:

In our conversation on Jan. 18, [Moshe] Ya’alon, the deputy prime minister, was sharp in his criticism of the international community’s stance on Iran. “These are critical hours on the question of which way the international community will take the policy,” he said. “The West must stand united and resolute, and what is happening so far is not enough. The Iranian regime must be placed under pressure and isolated. Sanctions that bite must be imposed against it, something that has not happened as yet, and a credible military option should be on the table as a last resort. In order to avoid it, the sanctions must be stepped up.”

I will have more to say about this later, but what I take out of this article is that the leaders in Israel have come very close to losing their minds. I support an international effort to deny Iran nuclear weapons. But that is based on the principles of nuclear nonproliferation. Israel isn't a party to the international treaty and has no credibility on the issue. And they can't destroy Iran's program anyway.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/1/25/222159/421

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. But who here would be so cynical as to question the timing? n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. I listened to a Diane Rehm show about this very topic

The people she had on her show seemed skeptical that Israel would do something like this during an election year here in the US but, of course, anything is possible. If something happens, it is much more likely that Israel would instigate it, not us. Obama has projected a much more slow, cautious, and, dare I say, conservative approach towards possible military action against Iran. He says that nothing is off the table (is anything ever really, though?) but I don't get the sense that he is itching to start up an armed conflict with Iran absent a clear act of aggression by Iran against us or another nation (i.e. Israel) and I'm pretty certain (or at least hopeful) that Israel is factoring that into whatever calculations they're making about possibly striking Iran. If Republicans win the WH next year, however, all bets are certainly off as they very clearly ARE itching to kick up some dust with Iran.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I used to share the idea that Obama was not the military adventuring type

until Libya. That was so far out whack for everything I ever believed about him. It was pointless, it had no US interest, the new bad guys are just as bad if not worse than the old bad guy, he was dragged in by European bluster, it defied congress and laws he himself had defended -- the list goes on.

I read yesterday the UK is sending additional ships to test (taunt?) Iranian claims to close the Straits of Hormuz. Meanwhile Iran, in addition to these threats also says it will end oil shipments to Europe...something Qaddafi said just before he was ousted. Will the EU drag Obama into an election-year war? He's let it happen before and it's his fault for letting it happen.

Sadly, I don't think Not In Our Name and World Can't Wait will mount much of an outcry.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Libya wasn't us playing a leading role but more of a supporting role

and it didn't involve us potentially bombing suspected nuclear sites. I had the impression that there was a revolution going on and the Arab League wanted NATO to get involved to help support the revolutionaries. We can certainly debate whether or not it was appropriate for him to do so but I think that there's a deadly serious difference between what we did in Libya versus what we would be getting involved in in Iran and I don't think that President Obama really wants to go there. Republicans are making no secret of their desire to attack/bomb Iran and that's one of the reasons that I'm really worried about the outcome of this upcoming election but I'll feel better if Obama wins re-election.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Since when did the US become the foreign policy arm of the Arab League

That makes it worse, not better. It's bad enough being the world's policeman, being the world's guns-for-hire is abjectly worse. But your recounting doesn't bear-up under the historical record because once AL support was lost the bombing continued.

CAIRO — The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.

Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces — whose images have filled Arab television screens for two days.

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html

Add to that the fact that the "revolutionaries" are al Qaeda sympathizers and the like. Remember how the GOP is not to be trusted because the aid they gave the Afghan mujahadeen under Reagan became the AQ network that attacked America in the 90's and 00's? Obama may just go down in history as the president who used the US military to give AQ its own country.

And yes, we MUST debate whether it was appropriate for him to do so because he is not president for life. He has 5 more years, tops; if not less. If he loses this year we WILL have a GOP president and we may have GOP president in 2017. We will have one again some day and when they run off to Iran or anywhere else without WPA notifications or an AUMF what will we say? Obama killed the WPA single-handedly and for no good reason.

Libya is the nadir of Obama's presidency. Nothing good has come of it and if anything it has opened the flood gates to much, much worse.

[TheWraith]

10. Preventing genocide isn't a US interest? Since when? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. We heard that a thousand times in the lead-up to Iraq

And Saddam was even engaged in actual genocide against the Kurds and brutal repression of the Shia. Still --

[FarCenter]

21. Since Cambodia, Uganda ...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I hope not (not this year or ever)

Even just bombing suspected sites is going to make Iran as mad as hornets and is only going to increase tensions between them and the rest of the world not to mention threaten some kind of retaliation against us and/or Israel and if we are wrong and they are not really building nuclear weapons, then we've just honked them off for no reason and then they are DEFINITELY going to build nuclear weapons. It's a no-win scenario. Absent actual aggression from them towards another country, we shouldn't even be talking about bombing, much less invading them.

[Odin2005]

5. WOLF, WOLF, WOLF!!! War with Iran is always "just around the corner".

...Yet never happens.

[phantom power]

7. Most sabre rattling is for display purposes only

Every so often somebody miscalculates, and you end up with an actual war.

[TheWraith]

12. Bingo. Every four to six months for what, seven years now?

Invariably and inevitably horseshit.

[thelordofhell]

6. No

Next fear mongering question.........

[piratefish08]

8. build it and they will come........

war. the only fucking industry we have left.

[onenote]

11. Its been predicted as imminent every year I've been on DU.

And I joined in July 2004. Maybe this year the prediction will be right. Or maybe not.

[Arkana]

19. The people predicting war are the Harold Campings of DU.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Or, in reality, an escalation of the war now being fought?

Israeli assassins knocking off Iranian scientists would certainly be called acts of war if the reverse were happening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. it is unfortunately looking more plausible now than it has -even Intrade gives it about a 30% chance

that it will happen this year. Reports of increasing mutual displays of belligerency on the Straits of Hormuz are very, very worrying as well as credible accusations of U.S./Israeli support for terrorist operations inside Iran. If the real issue is to seek regime change - then obviously all this talk of sanctions is just a prelude to war. However, there are some strong influences that might very well counter any agenda for a military attack on Iran. For one thing the knowledge that oil would skyrocket to at least $200 to $300 per barrel and basically trigger a global economic catastrophe. Also the strongest allies in opposing war with Iran are the Pentagon and the CIA who no doubt recognize that it is materially impossible to significantly degrade Iran's military and its nuclear program by air power alone. The military and the CIA certainly do not want to be put in a no win situation that will cause the collapse of the American economy. It is entirely possible that an American/Israeli attack on Iran could happen by the end of this year. - But I hope it is unlikely. The consequences would simply be so dear.

[MGKrebs]

17. Maybe, but it probably won't be an "official" war.

[Arkana]

18. Never happen

Even if Obama was the evil sociopath many here make him out to be, he would have to know that attacking Iran and starting a war with one of the only Middle Eastern countries that can actually fight back would be bad for his reelection prospects.

[BlueIris]

20. We. Cannot go. To Iran.

Any engagement with Iran will rapidly go nuclear. It cannot happen.

[FarCenter]

22. There will be bombing, and Iran will absorb the attack.

There won't be any invasion. Iran is a big country with 80 million people, and it has good anti-armour weapons like the Russian Kornets anti-tank missile.

Iran will host many delegations from around the world to view the damages and the civilian casualties.

Iran will gain politically, embargos will be removed, and relations normalized.

Israel's standing in the world will sink lower and lower, as will the US'.

[pokerfan]

23. US, Israel Agree: Iran Not Building Nukes

Of course, this won't slow down the corporate media warmongers or those politicians who don't want to appear weak.

by Ray McGovern, January 26, 2012

Has Iran decided to build a nuclear bomb? That would seem to be the central question in the current bellicose debate over whether the world should simply cripple Iran’s economy and inflict severe pain on its civilian population or launch a preemptive war to destroy its nuclear capability while possibly achieving “regime change.”

And if you’ve been reading The New York Times or following the rest of the Fawning Corporate Media, you’d likely assume that everyone who matters agrees that the answer to the question is yes, although the FCM adds the caveat that Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The line is included with an almost perceptible wink and an “oh, yeah.”

However, a consensus seems to be emerging among the intelligence and military agencies of the United States — and Israel — that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defense establishments of the two countries — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

You might think that you would have heard more about that, wouldn’t you? The United States and Israel agree that Iran is NOT building a nuclear bomb. However, this joint assessment that Iran has NOT decided to build a nuclear bomb apparently represented too big a change in the accepted narrative for the Times and the rest of the FCM to process.

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2012/01/25/us-israel-agree-iran-not-building-nukes/