Dealing With Iran and Reality

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

We have heard a lot lately from politicians of many stripes claiming that Iran must be stopped at any cost and that their Nuclear program is already a “clear and present danger” to Israel and its allies in the West.  We have had visitors to this site claim that Iran is already a nuclear threat and the Iranian nuclear facilities must be taken out now to protect Israel and our interests in the Middle East.  With that drumbeat of an alleged need to attack Iran, I thought it was especially interesting that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff seems to be against the idea of a unilateral strike against Iran, by any country.  Including Israel!

“Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters in London on Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme.” Dempsey — America’s highest ranking military officer — also sought to distance the U.S. from any premature attack, adding, “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”  Think Progress  

General Dempsey did not pull his punches in stating his concern over any unilateral attack and the political damage that it would do.  “Dempsey said he did not know Iran’s nuclear intentions, as intelligence did not reveal intentions. What was clear, he said, was that the “international coalition” applying pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely”. Sanctions against Iran were having an effect, and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed.”  Guardian

If we are to believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is uncertainty in the international intelligence community as to the actual intentions of Iran.  The former head of Mossad, the Israeli version of the CIA, Meir Dagan, has stated recently that any attack on Iran would have the reverse effect on their nuclear program and might actually speed up any Nuclear Bomb program.  “Moreover, he asserted that in the case of an Israeli strike, Iran could declare before the world that it was attacked even while adhering to agreements made with the International Atomic Energy Agency – by a country that reportedly possess “strategic capabilities.”  “We would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes,” he said.

‘Sanctions more effective’

The former chief of the secret service postulated that economic sanctions are more effective than military action.  “The military option must be given serious consideration. The fact that it is being waved around as means of deterrence does not deter the Iranians, but could provide the answer to their nuclear aspirations,” he said. “The ability to stop the Iranian nuclear program in a military strike, at this point, is very limited.” ‘  Ynet News

With Israeli and US intelligence and military operatives agreeing that Iran has not even decided on building a bomb, would it not be foolhardy to attack Iran and cause the international community to turn in favor of the Iranian regime?  Think Progress  We have already experienced what happens when a country is attacked based on shoddy or untruthful intelligence in Iraq.

Do we really want to back or assist in an Israeli attack when the majority of Israeli defense chiefs are reportedly against it?  If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs states that sanctions against Iran are working, why would anyone want to attack first and ask questions later?  Are these calls for attacks in Israel and the United States politically motivated and out of touch with the intelligence and military realities?  When United States Senator Joseph Lieberman and former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton make claims that it is necessary to attack Iran, should we believe them, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the former head of the Mossad?  USA Today  & Radio Free Europe

How accurate was the track record of hawks like Senator Lieberman and Ambassador Bolton prior to attacking Iraq because of its alleged weapons of Mass Destruction program?  Why do politicians want to send in the military, even before the military thinks it should be involved?  Could the upcoming election be part of the reason for these calls for war?

What do you think the proper course of action should be to control and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Let’s hear from you!

48 thoughts on “Dealing With Iran and Reality”

  1. If Iran was hellbent on getting nukes, why did it suspend enrichment totally for three years as part of the Paris Agreement negotiations? Why has it been converting its 20% enriched uranium into reactor fuel plates, thereby making ot practically impossible to be used for nukes? Why did it allow inspections of sites that fell well outside of the IAEAs inspection authority, including at Parchin which was already opened to inspectors, twice in fact? Why did it agree with Brazil and Tukey to ship out its enriched Uranium in exchange for reactor fuel, only to have the US kill the deal at the last minute, much to the consternation of the Brazilians and Turks who complained loudly that the US wasnt willing to take yes for an answer?

    The fact is the the “Iranian nuclear threat” is just a pretext for a policy of imposing regime change there, just as “WMDs in Iraq” was just a pretext. Elbaradei concluded the same in his book.

  2. Elaine,
    I saw that article about Michael Hayden’s comments. Maybe he reads the Turley Blog!?
    Thank you for your service.

  3. Do you know what a Navy AOR ship is? AOR stands for Ammunition Oiler Replenishment. The ship I was on had all the replenishment fuel and ammo for the entire aircraft carrier battle group, along with assorted other sundries. Talk about a massive floating bomb.

    There were over 400 guys on that ship. My battle station was the main switchboard. If a ship like that gets hit it will make the explosion of the USS Arizona look like a firecracker.

    In a real shooting war, do you think they will try to kill the supply line?

  4. Former CIA Head: Iran Attack Only Delays Nuke Program, Will Push Iranians Toward A Bomb
    By Ben Armbruster on Sep 4, 2012

    Former Bush administration National Security Agency head and CIA director Michael Hayden told the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz that Israel may not have the military capacity to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and reiterated his belief that any attack would only delay the Iranian program and perhaps push it toward obtaining nuclear weapons:

    “I do not underestimate the Israeli talent, but geometry and physics tell us that Iran’s nuclear program would pose a difficult challenge to any military, as it is not a raid, and Israel’s resources are more limited than those of the U.S.,” Hayden told Haaretz.

    “There is no absolute certainty that all targets are known,” he added. “They will have to be revisited – which only the U.S. Air Force would be able to do – and the operation will only set the Iranians back some time and actually push them to do that which it is supposed to prevent, getting nuclear weapons.”

    Hayden also said there is “still some time” before a decision needs to be made about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, adding that “real decisions are to be made in 2013 or 2014.”

    Hayden’s view is widely shared among current and former U.S. and Israel officials. “At best this would buy you a few years,” an anonymous Obama administration official told the New York Times recently.

  5. itchinbaydog,

    “If you want to deal with the Reality of Iran then think back to the founding moments when they put the student stooges in charge of invading the Embassy and holding hostages.”

    That’s not the founding moment. The founding moment was when the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953, at the behest of U.S.A. and British oil companies. The CIA post-mortem report is on-line.

    “If some students were sending rockets into Texas from Mexico we would not be sitting on our Laurels and Hardies.”

    OK, get back to us when some students do that.

    “When a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere in the world it will be ignited by a stooge but it will have come from Iran.”

    No, actually, it will have been furnished by Pakistan, our ally, who has admitted giving nuclear weapon technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
    “In early February 2004, the Government of Pakistan reported that Khan had signed a confession indicating that he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and centrifuge technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs, and said that the government had not been complicit in the proliferation activities.”

Comments are closed.