Time to Attack Iran

[SixthSense]

In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon -- particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region
and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

...and more of this garbage behind a registration wall at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran


------------

Matthew Kroenig is a professor at Georgetown. Anyone else interested in organizing a protest to get him fired?

[markpkessinger]

1. Ironic, is it not . . .

. . . that the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon is . . . US. Who poses the real threat?

[mahina]

2. Aren't they signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that also

requires nuclear countries to assist them in developing nuclear energy?

Or did I dream all that?

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. Why do you want him fired? nt

[SixthSense]

5. because he's trying to get us in a war

and I'm really not interested in having one.... all downside, no upside

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. I don't want brussels sprouts - should I have the grocery store closed? nt

[superpatriotman]

23. What if the brussel sprouts were forced down your throat by the grocer?

Would you want it closed then?

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. I'd find another grocer.

Jesus, someone at a university says something you don't like and you want to shut them down. Gestapo.

[roamer65]

4. A regional ME war is coming in 2012.

It will then morph in WW III. Time for the bankers to make more money off of human suffering.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. screw US interests in the Middle East and beyond

if the 1% want their investments defended they can spend their own damn money on Blackwater and leave our taxpayer funded military out of it

[JCMach1]

7. and the Iranis are going to be in for a rude awakening when the UAE and KSA ship their oil through

newly completed ('secret') pipelines...

[leveymg]

8. Kroenig can be the first one in. He can live in that world, I won't.

[Zalatix]

26. +9000!

[Umbral]

9. I wouldn't worry, Obama is afraid to even posture overmuch in that direction.

The wingers can huff and puff all they want but any real action in that direction would force the complete revolt of the Democrats (well, not necessarily the patsies that Democrats elect. but certainly those casting a ballot, elections can be more consequential that you thought.)

[SixthSense]

10. Really?

I didn't see any revolt when we attacked Libya. Not even a hint of one. What makes you think there will be one if we attack Iran? They will just manufacture an excuse like happened in Vietnam, Iraq, or other interventions, and the media will all go along with it painting anyone who is not on board as an anti-American radical.

I've seen this script before and it doesn't end like you may imagine.

[Umbral]

11. Naw, I'll stand by it. All we'll see toward Iran, untill after elections will be bluff and bluster.

After the election, though, all bets are off. How could anyone who's shown himself to be such a willing ass kisser, so supine to the opposition's point of view, be trusted to maintain a consistent stance of defiance? Well, if I trusted him..........

[sad sally]

17. Election/campaign rheortic have been known to sway opinions.

... The really frightening thing about the situation is not so much the military preparations but that so many are ready to discuss war as if it was a perfectly rational, and indeed likely, possibility.
----
The pressures for war are there and growing. The right-wing governing coalition in Israel is publicly in favour of it. The military are advising that now is the time, before Iran progresses any further with its nuclear enrichment facilities. At the same time, the US administration of President Obama – which had been acting as a restraint on Israel – now appears weaker and weaker against the voices demanding confrontation with Iran.

When the so-called centrist contender for the Republican leadership, Mitt Romney, can say, as he did this week, that, "the greatest threat that Israel faces, and frankly the greatest threat the world faces, is a nuclear Iran", you know that the election is not going to allow the President to adopt a statesmanlike position where Israel is concerned.

Indeed Obama is not, signing into law as one of his last acts in 2011, a clause added on to the 2012 Defence Authorisation Bill, stopping any company working in the US from dealing with the Iranian Central Bank.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adrian-hamilton/adrian-hamilton-the-more-we-talk-of-war-with-iran-the-more-likely-?du

[peacetalksforall]

12. The source for this piece is commonaffairs . com which is published by the Council on Foreign

Relations - a sub-group of the Bilderberg Group. Many people write and have written for it. Sec. Clinton and all the other Secretaries of State going back decades are members of this group as are most of the staff, especially those at the top.

The State Dept delivers the Bilderberg Group's agenda of no sovereignty, one currency, one law.

The State Dept runs Blackwater (original name) as well as a number of intelligence services.

Just in case anyone doesn't know the magazine's purpose.

This writer must have been disappointed with the message coming from Panetta yesterday. (Unless it was a ploy or perhaps a simple stall while the currency of payment for oil discussion between Russia and Iran is figured out).

Secondly, here is link to an article in - foreign policy . com - denouncing the position of the foreignaffairs writer - Matthew Kroenig.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran

Here are three paragraphs and a sentence from the next paragraph.

[MineralMan]

13. No Bilderberger CT nonsense, please.

Thanks very much.

[SixthSense]

16. the war drums pounding are not CT

they are quite real

nothing conspiracy either about the fact that this was published

nor that there are a lot of elites slavering at the bit to get us into a war with Iran

[MineralMan]

18. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the claim that the Bilderbergers are dictating policy to the US. You didn't write that, and I'm not talking about your post.

[SixthSense]

20. well

if he took away the word "Bilderbergers" and gave the list of the very powerful people who compose its membership instead, I think you might agree that those people are very interested in getting us into war. Look up their membership list. It is a real organization and those people do meet to discuss policy, that part is purely factual and not CT. That group is so elite it looks down on the rest of the top 1% of the top 1%, and that group is also the ones who benefit most from war.

[MineralMan]

21. I'm not going to discuss the Bilderberger Group with you.

Or with anyone on DU.

[SixthSense]

22. that's your prerogative

however by refusing to even consider that it may have an impact on what is going on I think you are limiting your own ability to understand the machinations of the 1% on the macro level

however I will respect your wishes and discuss the topic with you no further

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. I'm more worried about the Pentaverate, anyway

The Queen. The Vatican. The Gettys. The Rothchilds. And the Colonel, before he went tits up.

[sad sally]

19. Did you hear Panetta on Face the Nation yesterday? Sounded like he's itching to bomb Iran.

And since he's the master of using drones to attack, his leaner/meaner military can inflict pain on whoever gets in the way without using troops.
#####

The United States is not ruling anything out when it comes to dealing with Iran, including military options, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

When asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether a military response is an option in combating Iran's nuclear ambitions, Panetta said, "You don't take any options off the table."

He emphasized that current multinational diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions are the responsible response right now, but added Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear capability represent a "red line" for the United States.

"They need to know that if they take that step, that they're going to be stopped," he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202951-panetta-all-options-on-the-table-for-dealing-with-iran?du

[Romulox]

14. I, for one, can't wait for the daily "Iran Liberation!" updates. Or Syria. Or whatever. As long

as our "Freedom Fighters" get to say "let's roll!" at some point, I'm good!