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!
http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/mitt-romneys-coming-war-on-iran-a-tale-of-two-conventions.html
Iraq War Vote in 2002: 156 Congress Members Who Voted NO
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members
By Deborah White
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
Elaine, yes yes, and here:
itchinbayDog: Are you SURE about that? 🙂
Elaine, thanks for that. I’d forgotten Eddie Vedder. Well done!
Kraaken—well said.
rafflaw,
I’ll let Eddie Vedder’s lyrics speak for me.
Eddie Vedder – No More
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. In Gaza their stooges send rockets into Israel on a daily basis. Iran employs stooges. We ignore it. We fall for the Bs. Oh, its Hamas or oh its Hezbollah. If you dont hold them accountable for the Three Stooges then you are chumps. If some students were sending rockets into Texas from Mexico we would not be sitting on our Laurels and Hardies.
>”What do you think the proper course of action should be to control and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? “
Don’t know what happened above at 3:12pm. However, IMHO, we have lost all moral authority to make such decisions. We attacked a country who had not attacked US, took it’s leader captive (a leader that WE supported), and hanged him all because of false intelligence. Somehow, we have decided that we are the ‘moral arbiters’ of the world without realising that because of what we have done regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, torture, drone strikes, etc. we have lost any moral imperative we ever had. Iran is a sovereign nation. We might not approve of it’s government, but for fair or foul, it it what they have chosen (after Bush v. Gore we have no right to criticize anyone’s elections, either) and they have that right. Were we in their situation, surrounded by enemies like Israel and Saudi Arabia (and I WILL stipulate that most of the hostility they have brought on themselves), we would be nervous too. One of the beliefs of our FF was that the first duty of any government was the protection of it’s people. Iran has the RIGHT to defend itself against aggression, even when the aggressors are Israel or the U.S. Since their enemies have nuclear weapons, in order to have some sort of parity, I’m certain they feel they need to be able to respond in kind. I would be happy if we could all just get rid of nuclear weapons, but once we released that genie in 1945, there is no way to get it back in the bottle. What is the proper action? Diplomacy? Why would ANY country believe our promises when they have the evidence of Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Gahrib, drone strikes, and a host of other situations which argue to the contrary? Sanctions? While they may be ‘working’, who is suffering? The Ayatollah? Hardly. Chalk up another one for our ‘human rights’ policy. Why should we have the gall to believe we should ‘control’ ANY country? There was a song popular in the 70’s, one line of which went “..he can’t even run his own life, I’ll be D*med if he’ll run mine”. Another interesting take is in this song from the mid 60’s (if I can get this embedding thing to work)!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrhXwf5cYwQ&w=560&h=315%5D
Hope this works because it’s worth the listen, not only for the humor, but for the fact that it is 50 years old and STILL germane.
Raffaw. The bomb only policy was not tried in Iraq. We invaded. We went after the wrong I (as in eye) country. Bushie was confused. The Iranians are building the bomb. If you want it in the hands of Hamas or the students then let them keep building their nuclear bombs.
>”What do you think the proper course of action should be to control and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? “
The same “Americans” who lied us into Iraq are desperately trying to lie us into Iran… Don’t fall for it.
Larry,
Good and timely piece.
The energy that represents the real “causus belli” in this instance is oil, not nuclear. I think that if your worrying about unstable governments having nuclear weaponry the first places to look would be North Korea and Pakistan. I dislike the Iranian government intensely on many levels, but consider it far more stable to deal with than either of the two countries I mentioned above.
itchin,
that process worked so well in Iraq, didn’t it?
The best course of action is diplomacy. The U.S. should resume full diplomatic relations with Iran. There is no evidence that Iran, subject to the NPT, has diverted any material for weapons use.
The crippling sanctions being applied to Iran are not benign and may result in another “Madeleine Albright” moment, where the deaths of a half million children is considered “worth the price.”
The only reason for an attack on Iran is to maintain Israel’s hegemony in the region, an insufficient reason for U.S. involvement.
When Iran took over the Embassy and held the staff hostage for over a year they said that “students” did it. Hamas is their present student stooge and Hezbullah is another stooge. They have the Three Stooges. When a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere in the world it will be ignited by a stooge but it will have come from Iran. These guys with the turbans are much more dangerous than the communist russians or the communist chines. The only thing close is North Korea. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is distancing himself. What we need to do is adopt the platform of the Saturday Night Live crew in1980. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran. Bomb their nuclear projects. Leave the turban heads in power, dont invade.
But bomb all of their missle and bomb factories. Now.
Good post Dean. Don’t forget that Israel has nukes too and they haven’t shot them off yet either.
If I were Iran just listening to all the war mongers rhetoric would have me building nukes as quickly as I could. I’d use them too on any attacking nation.
Frankly them having nukes might make them less volatile. At least everyone would know where they stand. What about Pakistan and India, they’ve had nukes for a while and so far haven’t destroyed each other and they’re a volatile bunch too.
It’s a sobering thought when you realise a war guarentees mutual destruction. Even the most rabid of Immams tends not to be too keen on dying, they’d rather get others to do it. (Same is true of politicians and dictators)