It’s unbelievable. Karl Rove said that Fall is the right time for a PR “roll out” on a war. Are we to expect another push at the U.N. and “authorization of force” vote just before the mid-terms? The playbook is all-too-well established.

Fitzy ‘em fast before they do something dangerous!

Well, we do know this happened in the past week.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/…..%20Affairs

-GSD

Fitz, please!

No you’re not already at war with them. You do however (and so do the Brits) have a terrorist group the MEK running round in the border provinces and I strongly suspect that you’ve got some “special forces” running round as well.

So you’re at unlawful combat with them which means that those MEK fighters and their British and US special forces colleagues are unlawful combattants. I invite you to reflect upon what that could mean for how they get treated when caught. It’s called reciprocity. Or in plain English “if it’s OK for Americans to do it others then its OK for others to do it to Americans.”

Attacking Iran is absolutely evil. I’m speechless.

I think this is the real “why” behind the six Generals coming out now against Rummy. They are saying in essence we don’t want this war, under this leader.

… which means one of these days, with this bunch of jokers running the show, the Iranians will no doubt capture some of our special forces guys, who they will no doubt parade on international TV.. and then what will happen? Our only hope is that strategic planners in Beijing, Moscow and Paris are laughing so hard at the preznit that they can’t concentrate on their work….

I’m sure the Central Bank of Iran has noticed a lot more cash in circulation …

There have been two plane crashes in recent months. One killed a large number of press/reporters. The other killed several members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

http://counterterror.typepad.c…..litar.html

oh god – fitz take me away

Is the tactic here, if true, one of fait accompli? Get something going so they can then drag out, once the shit really heats up, that old canard of “gotta get behind the Commander-in-Chief and show unity for our troops’ sake In THis Critical Time,” blah, blah, blah?

Thursday’s Hardball said there wasn’t even a consensus amongst Democrats that this was insanity (sorry I’ve been waiting for days for a transcript of this but MSNBC has not been cooperative).

I’ve been waiting too. Sometimes due to a “holiday” (Passover?) they do this (are late). Here’s the gist of it. Mathews asked Biden if Bush would have to go to Congress for permission to take military action against Iran. Bidden said yes, in his opinion. Mathews asked if this opinion was shared by the rest of the Congress, he said no.

A sidebar to BushCo Political Terrorism*:

His reelection seemed to infuse him with even more grandiosity than he showed before. For instance, his first order of domestic business wasn’t to disband the department of education, a longtime conservative goal. He set out to destroy social security — long known to be the third rail of politics.

Bush included privatization of Social Security in his 2000 campaign — 2005 was an attempt to deliver on it.

The scary part of Bush’s attitude, is that it was reinforced by polling — a majority of those under 45 believe Social Security won’t be there for them, while a majority of those over 45 believe it will. The truth is, Social Security is the most solid government program we have — if the annual GDP growth of the past 40 years continues into the next 40 years, Social Security will be solvent FOREVER.

*According to Mark Crispin Miller, Mary Matalin called George W Bush a “Political Campaign Terrorist.” I agree — and it his ONLY core competency.

Also, there have been some bombings in the Ahvaz region, some this year, some in October of last year…note the proximity to the border with Iraq.

Note that the Iranians explicitly call the British out for the agitation.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresa…..58870.html

-GSD

Cozumel — I think your recollection of Hardball may be more accurate than mine, I’m going to add that to the post.

Friendly word of warning: You can expect to see articles written by this guy: Amir Taheri he’s very plausible. He’s an Iranian born “journalist” who is member of Benador Associates. Quite a lot of his spewing is being published in the right wing rags over here so I expect your media to follow suit. He writes for frontpage too now that i think of it.

This might- might- explain Bush’s contined support for Rumsfeld. But I’m sticking to the saber rattling theory in lieu of some hard troop movements atm.

Last summer Britain accused Iran of helping Iraqis build bombs for use against British troops. This accusation was levelled after a number of bombs killed UK troops in the relatively quiet area in the South of Iraq where UK troops patrolled.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/…..lair.iran/

-GSD

Finally, in what could be used as one cause for strikes on Iran by the US. Bush accused Iran of making more lethal roadside bombs for use against American troops.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..wstop.html

Jane,

“I think at that point Matthews pressed him and said “even among the Democrats” and Biden again said “no.”

I think that’s correct.

I think the special ops folks are ratcheting things up in Iran a notch at a time to create a stir in the countryside, but also to provoke a maritime response against US naval forces of against tanker shipping in the gulf. If we get struck by Iran, we won’t have to bother with a UN war resolution, or any kind of a UN resolution. We’ll just deny we’ve got teams on the ground in Iran until or unless any of them are captured.

The Israelis, with US cooperation have quietly moved up to four diesel subs to Diego Garcia – not a good sign at all.

Remember those British soldiers dressed as Arabs and carrying bomb making equipment who had to be busted out of jail in Basra GSD?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..262336.stm

wasn’t there also a suspicious bombing in Iran which Iran blamed on British troops or am I just remembering the planes?

I suspect that W&Co will happily sacrifice a few special ops folks to provide another reason to attack … and Cheney’s favorite news station (Faux which he demands all tvs in his hotel rooms be turned on to) has been hyping the plan for attack for several weeks with military guys and maps and lots of fervor.

I have a feeling this is closer than the election – I don’t think W is particularly worried about the election but I do think he’s itching to expand his GWOT since Iraq is getting boring for his psychotic pleasure.

And I don’t expect to see troop movements since this will be primarily an air strike event … look for ship movements in the Straits perhaps?

so what’s with Blair’s no Iran pronouncement – fake or has he lost his nerve or been told to lose it?

Who could really eff this up big time are the Kurds. They’re busy turning Turkey’s worst nightmare into reality there’ve been a spate of bombings in Turkey recently (including the one targetting the bus that had a whole heap of the judiciary in it.) Guess what, the Turks and the Iranians are suddenly having talks. If it gets serious enough you can expect Ankara to cancel its cooperation with Israel and do a bit more than just refuse the US permission to use its bases.

Through the looking-glass:

Bush I’s cadre of October Surprise and Iran-Contra connections run deep in Iran. Karl Rove is working with these cats to stir up a big media show-crisis in order to save W.’s bacon and present the possibility of a Commander-in-Chief moment for Jr.

Imagine Bush announcing he’s going to Tehran. Oh, how the media will swoon once again! He’ll be strutting in his codpiece anew across the deck of a carrier in the Gulf, aiming that Texas boot heel right at rattlesnake Ahmadinejad’s neck. Crisis averted, war averted, nuclear threat at least temporarily curtailed. I can already see the Democrats running for cover, afraid to criticize this Presdident who breaks down barriers with such strength and conviction.

Of course this is just Machiavellian enough to work; while in Tehran, Bush will formally apologize for the US role in Mossadegh’s ouster, thus becoming a hero to Iranian liberals still fuming that we turned their enlightened Republic into a fascist hell-hole that developed as a result into a religious fundamentalist state.

It would be nice if these people were capable of weighing the number of lives to be lost in this potential debacle against their own political ambitions and making the right decision.

This occurs to me just about every day. Soldiers risk their lives to fight the politician’s war, yet the politicians won’t even risk their precious political careers to take a principled stand. Considering what is at stake in the larger view, their personal ambitions are just so small and petty.
How do they live with themselves?

Iran is not a nuclear threat to anyone. Unfortunately corporate media refuses to print the “news.” Via Juan Cole:
“Kiriyenko: Iran’s Method “Unfeasible” for Fissionable Material”
Here is what a nuclear official who has no interest in getting up a war on Iran says about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claims earlier this week to have slightly enriched a small quantity of uranium:
‘ MOSCOW (AP): Russia’s nuclear chief on Thursday said Iran is far from being capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the Interfax news agency reported. Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Natanz, equipped with 164 gas centrifuges, could not produce any significant amount of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel power plants or produce atomic weapons. “These centrifuges allow Iran to conduct laboratory uranium enrichment to a low level in insignificant amounts,” Kiriyenko was quoted as saying. “The acquisition of highly enriched uranium is unfeasible today using this method.”
How refreshing, a high government official who isn’t LWB (lying while breathing).
posted by Juan @ 4/14/2006 06:15:00 AM 1 comments
http://www.juancole.com/
Since the Leaker-in-Chief wants us, “to know the truth,” he can “declassify” the NIE on this.

Yes Siun your memory is correct. Blair is between a rock and a hard place he’s allegedly furious that Straw (his foreign minister) has categorically ruled out military action against Iran. That man is their worst primeminister since Chamberlain.

Chamberlain met with a tyrant and capitulated and then announced: “Peace in our time”.

Blair met with a tyrant and also capitulated and the result has been war in our time.

Different men, same results.

-GSD

Is the tactic here, if true, one of fait accompli? Get something going so they can then drag out, once the shit really heats up, that old canard of “gotta get behind the Commander-in-Chief and show unity for our troops’ sake In THis Critical Time,†blah, blah, blah?

BobbyG, exactly it I think. Plus provoke some Iranian attack maybe.

Siun, check out my several links upthread.

-GSD

How about this scenario? Bush’s squad gets captured by the Iranian, with lots of footage of them blindfolded and paraded through the streets. Bush is outraged and vows to “bring-em-home”.. you can fill in the rest.

I think the War with Iran has been set in stone since the 2004 election, if not since 9/11 or even earlier. I think at least the Senators have known it was coming for a long time. If you know how to stop it, let me know. The cards Bush holds is the timing and the secrecy. If any Democrats call him out, he can say “wild speculation”. That Democrats have known the Iran War was coming explains votes on habeus, Patriot Act, censure.

Timing? Well, after it starts Iran will strike back and Americans will die. Senator X criticizes Bush a week before or after the bombing starts. The next week Iranian agents manage another 9/11, with several thousand casualties. Or close off the Straits, or sink a ship, or cause an uprising in Iraq. Senator X might as well retire, unless saying “The dead Americans are Bush’s fault” or “Iran poses no danger” are good political moves. I doubt the left blogosphere will find it easy.

Not easy picking the smart move when you are ruled by a madman.

Bat out of hell

I agree completely Janes’ statement that “these people were capable of weighing the number of lives to be lost in this potential debacle against their own political ambitions and making the right decision.” Though I’m not talking about the politicians..

What’s the potential cost of lives of an apocalyptic Iranian theocracy possessing nuclear weapons? Here’s evidence that the Democratic leadership is at least somewhat responsible.

Mark,

That was a whole big muddled mess. That was also one of the earlier signs that the militias were running much of the show too.

We have unleashed so much cloak and dagger treachery and subterfuge in that region God knows who is doing what….That whole place must be a cesspool of spies and counterspies and traitors and cutthroats and the like.

As I have said earlier, there is one hell of karma boomerrang headed at the US for this skullduggery.

-GSD

Also as to Turkey and Iran in a new detente—wars are always rife with unintended consequences.

The blanket US Pravda line is “Iran must not get nukes.”

Why the fuck shouldn’t Iran have nukes?

And this fucking unelected universally despised little warmongering evil prick presuming to impose his will on the world, in the name of peace and democracy and nonproliferation? Jesus fucking fuck, it is to laugh and weep.

On a brief visit to Istanbul in the summer of 2004, my husband and I had a casual chat with another American couple at our small hotel. The subject of Iraq came up, and as I expressed my dismay about the war, the man we were talking to said “Iran is next.” He said his brother, who was in the Navy and part of some clandestine group, had told him that plans to attack Iraq were already underway.

I had no reason to doubt it then and even less reason to doubt it now. This is scary, scary stuff. Especially the nukes part. I’m old enough to remember the “Duck and Cover” movie from 10th grade. And I can’t believe we survived all those showdowns with the Soviets only to have our own government threaten to push the red button.

C&L has posted the video of Joke Line saying he thinks the nuclear option should stay on the table.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..html#a7936

The blanket US Pravda line is “Iran must not get nukes.â€

The problem is that no matter how much BushCo bombs Iran, it can’t do any more than put a dent in their nuclear program. In fact, bombing them tells Iran how hard and how deep they need to dig in the enrichment equipment.

Jack Straw is right — the only possible deterence is a Libyan style carrot and stick approach.

Don’t feed the troll please do a google for its name if you don’t believe me that its a troll.

Here is Professor Rabbi Daniel M. Zucker on the poor misunderstood MEK.

You have to love this final paragraph from the article:

And one more thing, when the regime is replaced-which it will be – Iran will still have oil and natural gas to sell, if we are so short-sighted, environmentally speaking, so as to continue to want to buy and use carbon emitting fossil fuels.

It was posted by This Old Brit – some 10 months ago – that the war with Iran had already started. Scott Ritter was quoted.

The US can’t attack Iran while large numbers of American troops are left within striking distance in Iraq. Which is why the new strategic objective is to ‘re-liberate Baghdad’ in a Tal Afar-style street-by-street operation (planned for this fall, timed to give a domestic political boost for the 2006 election) under the command of Lt. Gen. Dave Petraeus, allowing Iraqi forces to finish the process of taking over security for the capitol city so the main American force can be evacuated. Once that’s done, an attack on Iran can be put on the schedule, I’m guessing Spring 2007. You heard it here first.

ck @ 3:41 pm (#42) – At this point, with Iran being years away from creating a nuke anyway, the carrot and stick approach is still the logical approach, as well. We don’t gain anything but a whole lot of trouble by striking Iran.

That regime change can be accomplished with bunker-busting nuclear weapons is evidence of the lunacy of our leaders. And this is what they believe: that the Iranians will rise up in anger at their leadership for allowing the USA to nuke them. Duh.

Two “elective democracies” going to war against each other… I thought somebody noteworthy said that’s an impossibility. Of course, there’s the question of how either of the two countries in question define both an “election” and the word “democracy”… Now, on the other hand, two fascistic monotheocracies going to war wouldn’t raise any eyebrows would it? Oh God, how did we get to this place?

I love this quote from the Hullabaloos “very persuasive” post presumably about Cheney: “devious, powermad, greedhead.” Now that’s rhetoric! Maybe a pol can use that in a public debate? Best punctuate the “greedhead” with a few nyah, nyahs?

On 21 March 2006, crude oil had slipped to $60/barrel. Solely as a result of Bush’s sabre rattling on Iran, it’s back up to $70.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/in…..html#Crude
(good price graph of the last month)
One of the reasons Jack Straw may have spoken out, is because he understands that higher oil prices don’t help most of the world’s economies. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats appear to have grasped this. Clinton understood it. When he left office the price of a barrel of crude was around $25/barrel.

MarkfromIreland: I really don’t care if anybody responds to me or not. The juxtaposition of the posters here and my commentary is enough I think.

Were the United States to USE nuclear weapons in an attack against Iran to demonstrate the unacceptability OF nuclear weapons, our nation would be in moral Chapter 7. Such would constitute the utter triumph of the “Ends Justify The Means” ethos so clearly the guiding M.O. of the venal, arrogant moral gelding who soils our national character every day from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We cannot let this happen.

“We have no plans to go into Cambodia!!!”

Sorry, I posted to the wrong site…but what the hell.

We need a major reported to ask Bush point blank “Do we currently have any regular or special troops in Iran?”

scalefree – Bush can always go into Iran if he wants to. He doesn’t need logic on his side. He governs by sheer will. He doesn’t care about polls, he doesn’t care about public opinion, he doesn’t care about democracy (unless it can be exported for a profit). Bush is the one who if ran into the burning building and had the choice of saving a 2-year old girl or a petri dish of fertilized eggs, he would save the eggs. He does not bend to logic. To Bush, the world is flat if God says so.

Well, the DiFi oped is actually not bad.

But I’m sorry, Pakistan has nukes and that’s fine but Iran having same is worth destroying our own economy and balance of civilization for?

And blub, c’mon, we ceased being an elective democracy on 12/12/00. Our democracy was murdered before our eyes on that day. The five plus years since have been, pardon my crudeness, but just raping and dancing on the corpse.

mfi, thanks for the great update on the Kurds and Turkey. Do you have a feel for where Russia stands wrt an independent state for the Kurds?

Jane you’ve got a candidate for the trexitron here.

They’re against it John, they always have been.

Thanks Mark.
OfT: “The Revolt of the Generals”
“Here are the complaints against Rumsfeld from a growing list of military chiefs. Guess what Bush thinks….”
http://www.time.com/time/magaz…..48,00.html

*ilson #2 – Fitzy ‘em fast before they do something dangerous!

We and Fitz live in the world of mortals and the rule of law, which moves slowly. They are self-styled ubermenschen and history’s actors and they’re on dick-swinging mindlessness crack. And their upcoming horrorshow may well (I hope not) leave all things Fitz in the dust.

From Billmon on HuffPo: WaPo reporting the latest national threat -

“The Washington Post had a long story in Saturday’s paper (front page) about all those enraged liberals out in cyberspace who are doing completely crazy things — like blowing up federal buildings with truck bombs and threatening to kill judges.

Well, actually, who aren’t doing any those things — but who are a wild and crazy bunch nevertheless, the Post wants the world to know, completely unstable and liable at any moment to fire off an extremely profane e-mail to a hard-working, God-fearing newspaper editor.
Ticking time bombs of vituperation, in other words.

I haven’t read the whole dreary thing, but the chosen examples I did see were pretty telling: Maryscott O’Connor of My Left Wing and the Rude Pundit.

The Rude Pundit is, of course, the rude pundit — but the Tourette act is really just an inspired running gag, like Jesus’s General. I don’t think the rude pundit really talks that way in normal life, just like I don’t think patriotboy really is overcome by strange and inexplicable feelings of longing whenever he is in the presence of oiled-down Greco-Roman wrestlers. Although you never know. In any case, the blogosphere universally understands that the Rude Pundit is a schtick, but most Post readers don’t know, and the Post knows they don’t…”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..19239.html

LOL! Maurading blogosphere “lefties.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – Efforts to form a unity government suffered a new setback Sunday as Iraqi leaders postponed a parliament session after failing to agree on a prime minister. Bombs targeted Shiites near a mosque and on a bus as attacks nationwide killed at least 35 people.

Four more Marines were reported killed in fighting west of Baghdad as the U.S. death toll for this month rose to 47 — compared with 31 for all of March…

Heckuvajob, Bushie, Rummie et al. Things are going REALLY swell.

Did Iran finish moving their assets into a safe haven? Getting out of dollars and into yuans might also be a smart thing for them to do:

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s…..amp;v=dmax

As I commented at ThePoorMan.net, it’s the George W. Bush Underpants Gnomes Theory of Foreign Policy:

1) Bomb the fuck out of Iran.
2) ????
3) We all live happily ever after.

If Iraq is Vietnam does that make Iran Cambodia?

BobbyG @ 4:09 pm (#61) – Too bad BillMon didn’t read the whole thing. I think the article was written so that those with short attention spans would see it as derogatory toward left-wing blogs, but those who choose to read on see a more sympathetic portrait.

Cujo -

Yeah, I’d already read the whole thing. I agree with your take. It was relatively symapthetic overall, recognizing the justified outrage that is out there.

Well, a sub-issue is nukes, or no nukes. I don’t believe we’ll use nukes, the Hersch article actually said that nukes are being kept in some planning options, that’s all. But, air strikes with conventional weapons? Oh sure. I’ve stated before, that’s a done deal. Only question is the date.
Are we at war now? I guess it’s the Clinton thing, what is the definition of “is”. I don’t call air strikes being “at war”, but reasonble folks of this FDL disagree with me.
With a HIGH degree of confidence, I’ll say we have special ops in Iran right now. The primary purpose is recon. “Eyes on” intel always beats the spy-in-the-sky in value. The special ops guys are doing many things…snapping pics for study of material composition of a site (that helps in figuring out what type of bomb to drop), making detailed maps of the area, studying force and personnel numbers at sites (and when shift changes occur), mapping precise co-ordinates for way-points for tomahawks….helping map an area for the missiles to fly thru with minimal chance of being seen, and also….probably a few chit-chats with some groups out in the hills/mountains who may oppose the gov’t.
So, alas, the die is cast…just get your betting pools going on the date. I have no clue on the date.
Ghostman

clicked on local tv news to see if what our nasty storms were doing … they did a quick story, attributed to “a british newspaper” reporting the Iran is organizing suicide bombers to hit the UK and the UK if we hit Iran. Screen was simply the Iranian flag with the words “Suicide Bombers” … felt like brainwashing

god god god

ok, OT but not really – does everybody know about Cute Overload?

http://cuteoverload.com/

I got turned on to this site over at watertiger’s and it’s become a daily essential for my mental health, utter necessary refreshment from the Relentless Cheney Evil. Go often and be rejuvenated by the critters and the woman who knitted a sweater for a tree.

Ghostman -

If we bomb/invade and don’t take out their nuke facilities, it’ll be a monumental tactical disaster, given the worldwide rage that will ensue. It’ll be a strategic disaster regardless, but they gotta know that if they DO throw down, it’s gotta be a tactical “success,” or the whole exercise will result in a politically immolating blowback. That’s why I would not be surprised if they do go with tac nukes.

He he he sharkbabe waddya want to be that a certain Senator whose name is spelt S a n t o r u m is sporting some tented underwear as a result of those pictures.

#71, bobbyg….you may be right on the mess geo-politically (although I don’t agree that nukes are the only way)…but the bigger problem is that this WH does not agree with your over-all assessment. I wish more folks in the WH DID agree with you sir. Sadly, they don’t.
Ghostman

jane

i watched the segment with Biden twice and that is indeed what he said. It took me a swcond hearing to realize what he meant.

Kathi/Nanakat: Yes C&L just played it for me. They will have it up at some point. It even frightened Matthews.

Ghostman @ 4:21 pm (#68) – Might be they’re trying to figure out what’s going on at these sites, too. Thanks to some monumental stupidity we have lost a lot of our ability to know what’s going on in Iran with their nuclear programs. Just having folks there who can judge how active a site might be is probably helpful. I’m guessing we are really flying blind on this subject at the moment.

No, I don’t think it’s likely, but you never know.

markfromireland – argh, brain bleach please!

Does being liberal, anti-bushie, anti-Iraq fiasco make one automatically a pacifist? At some point it might be prudent to act on North Korea and/or Iran and I’m afraid we’re sending a message to the electorate that the left won’t fight. I wouldn’t trust this bunch to know who or how or when to fight, but that doesnt mean that, in the nuclear age, crazies get time to build their bombs.

I know the damage a nut job can do if left unchecked (unbalanced)–from Stalin to Hitler to Amin to Bush etc. Iran’s threats and boasts and messianic hatred of Israel make them likely candidates to join this select group and that might make action necessary–all the more reason the lone superpower needs a statesman, scholar and strategist. Put another way, we better win in 2006 and 2008. Wes Clark is indespensible for our credibility.

Sorry sharkbabe (but you’ve got to admit an easterbunnydog would be liddle Ricky’s dream) anyway sorry again.

MarkfromIreland: Fair enough, it’s Jane’s page (I assume) and she can do as she wishes. Though I think my commentary can be read constructively. If your preference is for the emotionalistic, factually challenged, demagoguery as opposed to reasoned argumentation I can see why you wouldn’t think so. But I certainly can understand why you don’t want someone pointing out your lack of clothes around…

#76, cujo: you’re right. That would also include leaving some listening devices roadside (you can sorta ID a vehicle type by it’s engine noise) around a subject plant/site. Yep, you’re right.
Ghostman

Dru sent me this article from the New Yorker– this whole carefully orchestrated debacle; tough reading but makes things clear and more frightening. Explains the role the MEK is playing in Iraq and Iran…

‘On a snowy mid-December day, Reza Pahlavi, the forty-five-year-old son of the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was seated at a table by the fire at a popular country-French restaurant in Georgetown, enjoying a bowl of cassoulet and plotting the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was accompanied by Shahriar Ahy, who in the months before the 1979 Iranian revolution had been an informal liaison between the Shah and the White House; after the Shah died, in exile, in 1980, Ahy remained close to Reza, whom many refer to as “the young shah.” By early 2004, Ahy, who had been running a multinational media company from Saudi Arabia, had left his job to work full time on unseating the Iranian regime. Although Ahy says that he has no factional affiliations, he has become, in essence, Pahlavi’s political strategist, mentor, speechwriter, monitor. He is also attempting, on Pahlavi’s behalf, to unite the atomized Iranian opposition. Ahy, an M.I.T. graduate-school alumnus, is often compared to his fellow alumnus Ahmad Chalabi, who, before the American invasion of Iraq, was the head of the Iraqi National Congress. An Iranian-American political activist with ties to Ahy and Pahlavi commented recently, “If Reza is ever returned to power, it will be because of Shahriar.” ‘

http://www.iran-interlink.org/…..060306.htm

MarkfromIreland: Fair enough, it’s Jane’s page (I assume) and she can do as she wishes. Though I think my commentary can be read constructively. If your preference is for the emotionalistic, factually challenged, demagoguery as opposed to reasoned argumentation I can see why you wouldn’t think so. But I certainly can understand why you don’t want someone pointing out your lack of clothes around…

Chris;
While I hesitate to enter this fray,its been my experiance that reasonable,factual discussion is welcome on this site.Insulting our fellow commentators is not.I do not pretend to speak for Jane,but dude,rile her up at your own risk.

Of course we are at war with Iran. And we are training in Iraq. Remember that senseless ‘operation’ last month, with the biggest Helicopter airlift ever in the region, all attacking a bunch of emtpy sand? Critics said that that was just a show of force. It wasn’t. It was a practice run for the very real airlifts which we need to prepare for in Iran. That was a training mission, not a security mission. It was a way to prep our troops for exactly the mission they would be expected to accomplish in Iran.

Other opinions are welcome. I draw the line at ad hominim attacks and flame throwing with other commenters.

Mel @ 4:36 pm (#78) – Does being liberal, anti-bushie, anti-Iraq fiasco make one automatically a pacifist?

Does saying that war is what you do only when you’re out of other options make you a pacifist? I don’t think there’s much unanimity here on the question of whether we should ever, under any circumstances, do what we’re talking about doing in Iran. What’s pretty close to a unanimous opinion here is that it’s a stupid idea for this country at this time, and for the near future.

Mel, the corporate media has allowed Rove to frame the argument that way all along, the “left” is afraid to fight. We make the decision to fight AFTER we identify a threat. Wrt Iran, they are years away from developing nuclear weaponse (see comment 29). IMO we need to influence the corporate media to start asking the WH the right questions about the threat that does not exist, the same questions the corporate media didn’t ask before we invaded Iraq. JMO.

John Casper, Re:Oil

Not soley on account of saber rattling. Even back then futures were in “contango”. Front month were trading around 60 but back months were already trading above 65 at that time. Yes, the Iran debacle is putting a premium in, but that was also the annual time when refineries shut down for maintainenane/formulation changes.

To make a blanket statement like you did shows a total lack of understanding of commodity markets in general, and crude markets in particular. No offense intended, but the oil scenario is much, much more complex than turning on soley on Chimpy McAsshole’s rhetoric.

John;
How can we influance the coperate media,we don’t sign their checks or effect the “bottom line.”

General Eisenhower was quite the pacifist when he saw the Korean War couldn’t be won. “Discretion is the better part of valor.” He was also wise enough to let the French do the fighting and dying in Vietnam – he did supply enough foreign aid to them for diplomatic propriety “to assist in fighting Communism” but Americans weren’t dying…

Alaskan_Pete, what else in your opinion has caused the rise since 21 March 2006?

One thing not to miss about the oil situation is that there are an awful lot of pipelines within (plausibly deniable) striking distance of Iran. The same goes for natural gas pipelines.

Why SHOULD the Dems not pander? I abhor Biden and would never vote for him. BUT talk to the average American — I mean those who don’t like Bush. They say, “What is wrong with Biden?”

I will visit the site you suggested, but the NO. 1 PRIORITY should be getting these heads out of their soup, or wherever they are. Without that, nothing else much matters.

Speaking of corporate media– read this!

Crooks and Liars has a video clip of the segment.

RAW STORY trancript of the exchange between Stephanopoulos and Klein:
#

Klein: And, by the way, we’re very much well liked among the young, educated Iranians. But this is not Iraq we’re dealing with here. This is an ancient country, a very strong country, and a very proud country. And so, yeah, by all means, we should talk to them, but, on the other hand, we should not take any option, including the use of nuclea-….tactical nuclear weapons off the table.

Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?

Klein: It’s absolutely stupid not to.

Stephanopoulos: That’s insane.

Klein: Well I don’t think we should ever use tac-…I think that…

Stephanopoulos: Well, then why should they be on the table?

Klein: Why?

Stephanopoulos: Why do we want that specter of crossing that line?

Klein: Because we don’t know what the options on the other side…what their options are on the table.

Stephanopoulos: Well we know that they’ve got 40,000 possible suicide bombers but I also think that line is one that we have to be very, very careful to cross.

Klein: Listen. I don’t think. I think the use of force here would be counterproductive. But I think that when you’re dealing in a negotiation you can’t take stuff off the table before it starts.
#

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0416.html

Ike did’nt help us much when he had the CIA “do away” with the elected officials in Iran,leaving the power in the Shah’s hands.And the beat goes on.

The Flight Forward
“By just about anybody’s definition – except maybe Hermann Goering’s – this would qualify as mass genocide. Even I don’t believe George W. Bush would deliberately and knowingly order the deaths of three million people. But I’m absolutely terrified by the thought that a popular novelist (or Dick Cheney) might waltz into the Oval Office and convince the president of the United States that all the scientific experts are wrong and that a tactical nuclear strike on Iran would only make the flowers there grow a little faster.”
http://billmon.org/archives/002390.html

DMM, newspapers survive on subscribers and advertisers. Those are their two primary pressure points. Letters to the editors and the criticism that blogs such as FDL provide are also important. Just since October Jane, Christy, and other blogs have had a tremendous impact on the quality of the coverage. In December Richard Morin, the WaPoo’s polling expert, was bragging that he wouldn’t poll impeachment. I don’t know if he’s polled impeachment yet, but he’s not bragging about it anymore.

DMM @ 5:00 pm (#95) – Long term, that has to be one of our stupidest moves ever. Replace an elected government with a dictator, and fifty years later we’re still dealing with the aftermath.

John#91
How ’bout fat quarterly profits?I’ll bet there will be a new record this year.

Ripples in the pond Cujo.And we keep tossing “pebbles”.

Now, Ms. Hamsher also writes about the political environment of all this. She mentions petitions, and reports on a so-far rather timid response from Democrats. What should Democrats do? Well, consider these things:
1. now, at much disagreement with most of you guys, I won’t advocate petitions, or speeches in opposition. I think it all falls on deaf ears. Sooo…..what about Democrats, RIGHT NOW, “pounding the podium” and demanding this WH share details on post-strike planning?? We’re NOT asking for strike plans (always properly classified), but the plans for what we’ll do after the air strikes. Where will we reinforce? What groups will give us trouble? What measures are we taking right now to defend against suicide bombers? What is the cost? How many forces, and where, and what’s the price tag? Just a thought.
2. If you REALLY want to see the WH shit a brick, as things heat up, send a delegation of Democratic leaders over to Tehran to talk with the leaders. Worst those Iranians will do is spit in our eye…but the Democrats score points for at least trying. And again, Bush Jr. WILL get his panties in a major wad…oh lordy lordy.
Ghostman

I think this is the real “why†behind the six Generals coming out now against Rummy. They are saying in essence we don’t want this war, under this leader.

This is, of course, the real reason. Sy Hersh’s report followed by — what, how many was it this week? Four more generals? — coming out against Rummy (a new one each day). There is just no way that this is a coincidence. This is a coordinated PR campaign by the military brass. “A military coup by media” as Digby noted. They are desperately trying to send the American people a message hoping to wake them up. From Hersh’s article, “It’s a juggernaut that must be stopped.”

Really, the entire Army is on the line here. Attacking Iran is likely to lead to a full-scale assault on the U.S. Army by Iran and Iraqi Shiites. If we can’t move the Army out of harm’s way, the Joints Chiefs will refuse to carry out orders to attack Iran. This is the reason for “the second liberation of Baghdad” announced today (yesterday?). It’s the minimum needed to ensure cooperation by the military brass for an attack on Iran (moving the Army out before the shit hits the fan). I suspect many in the military hate the thought of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. But they will follow orders. However, if they know those orders are likely to utterly destroy their Army, they will refuse.

If “the second liberation of Baghdad” goes badly and Cheney orders a nuclear strike on Iran anyway, I think the Joints Chiefs (and on down the chain of the military brass) will resign in protest and call for the President’s removal. Full-on, major Constitutional crisis. It’s coming.

Ghostman: show me one place where I mention petitions about Iran.

DMM, I agree, but imo they will need all that for exploration. Middle East has relatively easy to access oil that is also easy to refine. There’s a lot more oil in Alaska, but it has neither of those characterics.
I have great respect for Alaskan_Pete’s comments. We have too much good stuff on the WH, so I don’t want to overreach in my comments about them.

Thanks, Cranky.

everyone needs to realize the president believes he can begin war with any country he chooses, since he was given the authority to use “all neccessary force”

will congress finally realize we have a man run amok?

no

Sending a delegation of Dems to Iran is a horrible idea, on ever level.

I have a question. An iranian friend of mine tells me that the oil companies backed Khomeini, because the Shah was trying to increase Iran’s cut (not to mention his role in the embargo). This is plausible, but not a familiar storyline to me. What about you guys?

cranky, that strikes me as truest – thanks

me to me – you answered your own question correctly – sad indeed, but for all practical purposes the congress does not exist

“There’s a lot more oil in Alaska”
Apologies, meant to write: There’s a lot more oil in “Canada.”

“Pach has been doing a superb job of networking people in various states across the country to pay visits to their Senators through the Roots project and express their vigorous opposition to this. If unleashing a nuclear holocaust in Iran is not in your plans for the immediate future I hope you’ll drop Pach a line and get in touch with others in your area to do so. “
Ok, I’ll stand corrected, Ms. Hamsher. Accurately, you did NOT mention petitions. I read the above quoted material and thought petitions. My error. Apologies.
Ghostman

haven’t been able to keep up these last few days, so my appologies if you’ve already heard this interesting interview with Joseph Cirincione (director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). i thought the interview gave a good summary of recent reporting and analysis – and his is worried about us nuking iran.

interview (4/13/06): http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=17608

foreign policy article (3/27/06): http://www.foreignpolicy.com/s…..ry_id=3416

Nail em Jane! Gracious manly apology Ghostman!

ps – Cirincione argues that we should take off the table ANY military strike against iran (from the stand point of US interests).

Cozumel’s recollection is the same as mine

Manhood is the only way I knbow how to operate. (besides always sticking my nose out, and letting it get bopped every now and again!)
Ghostman

Jane

I think it even scared Biden, the tone of his voice was very telling.

#94
Klein: Listen. I don’t think.
I guess he’s just made it really obvious to all!

I’d really love to see all the nuclear weapons locked up somewhere, with the only possible use being ‘in case of alien invasion, when There’s No Other Way’. Since that policy ain’t gonna happen, I’d like to see nukes put in the mental category of ‘let’s not go there’.
And I thing Shrub, Dick and Rummy need to go to the Nevada Test Site and look at what nukes do in the real world. I’d like for them to get up close and personal with ‘hot’ spots, but I doubt it can be arranged. They do, however, really need to learn what kind of ‘toys’ they’re really playing with, since I think that, like Reagan, they think nukes are just a more-powerful HE.

Billmon is absolutely on fire over the Iran issue. His piece yesterday is one of the best things I have read on the Web, and I read a lot! Easily could be nominated as best post of the year.

This is scary scary stuff. I can’t see any good way out of it.

annie @ 5:02 pm (#96) – Well, no doubt I’ve just freaked out Iranian intelligence by Googling Esfahan (the city BillMon mentions as a possible target). Looks like an old-style dense-packed city of roughly 1.4 million people. A nuke anywhere near there could kill thousands, especially if the wind was blowing the wrong way.

I suspect this would be viewed as an act of aggression in some circles.

Ghostman: “send a delegation of Democratic leaders over to Tehran to talk with the leaders”

I don’t like this idea. Every indication is that Ahmadinejad is every bit a Strangelove as our own president, and the misadministration will be in a good position to brand us as Fondas. The party needs to do the following:–

1. emphasize Bush’s hypocrisy on proliferation (allowing non-NPT signer India to develop nukes is ludicrous) and take a firm stance on non-proliferation globally

2. emphasize that the UN is the appropriate forum for NPT-related initiatives, and give support to the IAEA framework and El Baradei’s work, and support the notion that escalating sanctions administered by the world community through this framework are the only acceptable means of action to counter proliferation

3. remind Americans constantly that NPT, although a critically important issue, has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 9/11 or the War on Terror

4. deal firmly with Iran through the IAEA framework but stop treating them like they’re some sort of outlaw terrorist warlordlery. They have an indisputably legitimate government, and we’ll make a lot more progress with them if we give them the respect due to them as such

5. make it clear to Iran that ANY NPT violater will get equal firmness from us, including our allies in Delhi.. demonstrate that they’re not being singled out

Sharkbabe, just saw your comment upthread about cuteoverload, I too found it via Watertiger and mentioned it here just yesterday

the pictures are good enough, but I made the mistake of reading some comment threads and the commenters are even better – you can tell they are otherwise rational folks who just lose it over the babies – hilarious and a godsend in terms of escapist fare

103: Jane, I’ll sign your petition, but I hadn’t heard of any!

Ghostman, any personell we have in Iran are “non-combatants.” Is there any way we could get evidence of this? The Padilla case and the Guatanomo detentions have educated the corporate media a little bit about what a “non-combatant” is. If we had evidence or even documentable inference, Seymour Hersh would probably publish it.

Thanks John,
you are right,but sometimes it feels so futile.Then to see the results when we do get together and make a differance,I know it can work out,if we make it so.I must say thanks to our hosts,Jane and Christy for giving us a place to listen,speak,vent and hear a call to action.I’m constantly amazed at the quality posts,and the level of comment and discussion on this blog.I read many,like a few,but FDL feels like home.
Perhaps we will make a differance.

Marky – for a detailed discussion of the ouster of the Shah and Iranian politics, I highly recommend the relevant chapters in Robert Fisk’s Great War for Civilization – must read for beginning to understand the mess we are making.

besides always sticking my nose out, and letting it get bopped every now and again!

c’est la vie, honeybunch – good on you for honestly stickin the nose out, the world needs more of it

The Democratic message about Iran needs to be distilled down to something like this:

Do you really trust them with Iran?

Marky 107:

“I have a question. An iranian friend of mine tells me that the oil companies backed Khomeini, because the Shah was trying to increase Iran’s cut (not to mention his role in the embargo). This is plausible, but not a familiar storyline to me.”

Very familiar to the Iranians marky. There’s a lot of truth to it too. It didn’t happen quite that way. What the Shah was trying to increase was not Iran’s cut but his so that he could spend more on SAVAK. It’s a long complex in and out story but that’s the gist of it.

#120…..yeah….”demos to tehran” could backfire. I can see some negatives on the idea. It may not be the red-hot strategy.
Otherwise, I agree with most of your points! Except….I think India is “a done deal”, not much we can do to slow them down, punish them, etc….and, your stuff about the iaea is a good route, but I just think that Bush will NEVER follow that road…but might make for some good demo speeches!
Ghostman

Panic in Year Zero…

Time to awake the Somnambulist.

Dennis Kucinich letter to Bush:

Dear President Bush:

Recently, it has been reported that U.S. troops are conducting military operations in Iran. If true, it appears that you have already made the decision to commit U.S. military forces to a unilateral conflict with Iran, even before direct or indirect negotiations with the government of Iran had been attempted, without UN support and without authorization from the U.S. Congress.

The presence of U.S. troops in Iran constitutes a hostile act against that country. At a time when diplomacy is urgently needed, it escalates an international crisis. It undermines any attempt to negotiate with the government of Iran. And it will undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.

Furthermore, it places U.S. troops occupying neighboring Iraq in greater danger. The achievement of stability and a transition to Iraqi security control will be compromised, reversing any progress that has been cited by the Administration.

It would be hard to believe that such an imprudent decision had been taken, but for the number and variety of sources confirming it. In the last week, the national media have reported that you have in fact commenced a military operation in Iran. Today, retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner related on CNN that the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, reported to him that the Iranians have captured dissident forces who have confessed to working with U.S. troops in Iran. Earlier in the week, Seymour Hersh reported that a U.S. source had told him that U.S. marines were operating in the Baluchi, Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran.

Any military deployment to Iran would constitute an urgent matter of national significance. I urge you to report immediately to Congress on all activities involving American forces in Iran. I look forward to a prompt response.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

There’s also an excellent article in the New Yorker (Mar 6, 2006), “Exiles: How Iran’s Expatriates are Gaming the Nuclear Threat” by Connie Bruck that deserves greater attention. She gives a detailed account with great background material on the current activities of the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, the people & politics of the MEK terrorist group that we’re currently running from Iraq into Iran, and a glimpse into the administration’s inner deliberations on Iran policy for the past 6 years in pursuit on regime change (which again like Iraq is the #1 priority, not nukes).

El Baradei won a friggin’ Nobel prize, for pete’s sake. Can’t we trust him this time to do the right thing? Lord knows I trust him more than Dear Leader.

cbl – yeah the finest escapist fare – but not really escapist because those kitties and hamsters are every bit as real as Dick Cheney blowing up the world – following the link to the tree sweater story just killed me – I totally want to marry that woman Erika – what a wonderful spirit

#123….huh? We have some smatterings of Seals and US Army Special Forces….they’re not non-combatants. As to evidence, actually in an interview Hersch came right out and said he wouldn’t go into any sort of detail about special ops force structure or location due to not wanting to put those men at risk. I agree with Hersch.
Ghostman

IRAN: CONSEQUENCES OF A WAR (Oxford Research Group) I know I know I post it endlessly. Please take it as a hint that it’s really worth your while reading.

What, I open My Yahoo this morning and Richard Clarke, Kofi Annan, and the Pope are all saying:”Don’t bomb Iran.” I do not think we are months away.

“Operation Baghdad” ? Move everything to protect the Green Zone when Iraq goes crazy. Sistani is an Iranian and can get a million civilians into the streets by raising an eyebrow.

Welcome to history, folks.

Chris Sandvick says:
April 16th, 2006 at 3:35 pm

“What’s the potential cost of lives of an apocalyptic Iranian theocracy possessing nuclear weapons? Here’s evidence that the Democratic leadership is at least somewhat responsible.”

If they were somewhat responsible they would rise up as one and loudly condemn the first strike use of any nuclear weapon. Period.

First, nuclear weapons under discussion here, especially so-called bunker busters are not clean ones. They would spread a radioactive cloud that would kill thousands in a short time and sicken and kill millions more, depending on how the wind blows, as far away as India. See this:
http://www.fas.org/main/conten…..tentId=401

Do you want to be responsible for killing millions over a threat that as of yet does not exist?

If that is your idea of realpolitik, then you are, indeed, insane, and a danger to mankind itself. What do you think the reaction of India and Pakistan, both currently nuclear powers might be?

Currently there is only one nation on earth with a large supply of nuclear weapons and the apparant craziness to use them. Unfortunately, it is the U.S. A system of deterrence using massive retaliation and/or mutually assured destruction has kept us from any nuke being used in anger for over 50 years. There is no reason to think it will not work for another 50 years.

So who are the true crazies here? And just who are the true apocalyptics?

I’m afraid Mr. Sandvick is either morally unhinged, certifiably paranoid, logically impaired, historically ignorant, or a combination of the above.

Contrast, compare:
http://www.televisionwithoutpi…..amp;limit=
Iraq says it shot down U.S. drone

Monday, December 23, 2002
and
http://dailytelegraph.news.com…..28,00.html
Iran ’shoots down unmanned plane’ April 09, 2006

“In a telling reflection of Bush’s erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to “make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran,” while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..nes-nation

You know,as i’m listening (reading)to this discussion,I stop and think about my outstanding 5 year old son,and I’ve got to tell you,this shit scares the crap out of me.And I’d do anything to protect my boy.Anything.
Do we think they love their kids any less?
I’m not talking about their nutty leaders(or ours)but the people.

Jane and DMM: What reasonable discussion starts with the premises that most of the people here seem to take for granted? Sharkbabes desire to arm the Iranians with nuclear weapons? RedDan’s statement that opposition to welfare is racist? Whether or not Tacitus is secretly longing for the Crusades? You have to enter the realm of reason first before you can demand that your are ideas are worth the attention of a responsible adult. It’s this site and it’s commenters commitment to emotionalistic irrationalism that needs to be challenged.

“some ambitious Dems might conclude that backing Bush’s plan is the safest way to go — that their presidential hopes will go up in flames if they don’t appear prepared to use limited force against a regime with nuclear ambitions.”

So have I completely lost my mind ? Is Roveworld so all encompassing that it would be political suicide for one of these guys to evince a willingness, a preparedness and strongly advocate Diplomacy ? Yeegawd, the 33% JAR is completely tied to Iraq.
The American People could at least grasp the concepts- regional consequences, impact on oil based economies, China – let alone the fact that Iran is years away from realizing any WMD ambitions – IF, someone was standing up and speaking these truths on a consistent basis.

Y’all are the reality based community, wtf am I missing here ?

Shorter Kucinich: What the fucking fuck, you crazy moron idiotic mofo, wtff!!

From the link at 82:

An Iranian-American political activist told me, however, that the N.C.R.I.’s intelligence had actually come from Israel. This person said that Israel had earlier offered it to a monarchist group, but that that group’s leaders had decided that “outing” the regime’s nuclear program would be viewed negatively by Iranians, so they declined the offer. Shahriar Ahy, Reza Pahlavi’s adviser, confirmed that account-up to a point. “That information came not from the M.E.K. but from a friendly government, and it had come to more than one opposition group, not only the mujahideen,” he said. When I asked him if the “friendly government” was Israel, he smiled. “The friendly government did not want to be the source of it, publicly. If the friendly government gives it to the U.S. publicly, then it would be received differently. Better to come from an opposition group.” Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K. at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.R.I. broadcasts from Paris into Iran. When I asked an Israeli diplomat about Israel’s relationship with the M.E.K., he said, “The M.E.K. is useful,” but declined to elaborate.

Same ‘ol song and dance.

Anybody here who believes George Bush hasn’t already committed to war with Iran is smoking crack.
Remember, this is the same moronic meglomaniac who wanted to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and provide a casus belli for the invasion of Iraq.

IMO we are well and truly fucked as neither Congress nor public outcry will constrain him from fulfilling his God-given mission to deliver the world into the hands of his personal Messiah. End of Times anybody?

Again, IMO our only small hope is that a small group of courageous active duty generals will honor their oath to the Constitution…
” I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”…

…come forward and refuse to participate in this insanity. I’m less than sanguine about that possibility.

I heard Hersh say that the US folks in Iran now were not special ops but army … confused me but that’s nothing new

To add a touch to MFI’s comment on Iran, I met two victims of Savak’s attentions back in the early 70’s when I was active in AIUSA1 and I will never forget their descriptions of what the US funded and carefully trained torturers of SAVAK did to them.

We, the US, has earned the hatred of the Iranian people and the thought that we might now bomb them to forward the PNAC world domination plans …

We get confused I think when we try to figure out when these plans started – they have been on the drawing board for decades amongst this evil crew and this is our last chance to stop them.

The point ghostman is not that they’re non-combattants. The point is that there is nothing to prevent them being declared unlawful combattants. That’s a very different can of worms and one that’s been well and truly and disastrously opened by the Bush administration.

Other more recondite clues:

Billmon is back and writing. Billmon has great instincts.

Tacitus (y’all here know Josh, don’t ya) all of a sudden became very active at his blog after being absent for months. Trevino has sources and contacts.

Maybe I am reading entrails and the flights of birds, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see bombing start this week.

#129: “Bush will NEVER follow that road”

Exactly. Which is why we, as a party, should make it part of our platform. We’re for multilateralism and peace. The other party is for foreign adventurism and permanent war. We have to contrast, for the American public, our commitment to the former route and put on every form of media we have visually explicit images of the preznit’s route:– more war, more war crimes, torture and judicial disappearance, more thousands of American lives lost, generals in mutiny, possibly a draft put in place over the objections of the military.

And with respect to India.. the Dems should put their foot down whether or not it’s a done deal. We have to draw the line on this preznit’s insane policies if we want to have any credibility with the voters.

Remember, the goal here is not to force Bushco to change it’s policies. That’ll never happen. It’s to be in a position by November 12, 2006 to end Bushco.

Chris;
I don’t belive I’ve attacked you in any way,in fact I welcome you to the conversation.Please conduct yourself with some manners.If not I must codually ask you to shut the fuck up.

cbear@143

Yep. Our best hope is for a military coup. An option I deplore and yet hope for on a daily basis.

#145….ummm, I’m still not understanding what you guys are trying to point out. But sometimes I truly am thick-headed….but can always laugh at my own foibles.
Oh! WAIT…..are you trying to say that US special ops guys could get captured and held indefinately by Iran, using the US rationale as to al queda???
Ghostman

Sorry folks,that slipped out.My apoligies

Chris,

Simple question. Do you support George W. Bush?

The little Paki, Ahmedinejad, has been communing with the soon-to-return Mahdi and believes that Allah’s will is the destruction of the US and Israel.

As you will all be pleading in the future:
“I’m a good Dhimmi, please dont hurt me. Still, Dhimmitude is your best option, the others being conversion to Shia Islam or Death.

the so-called “Right To Life Movement” should absolutely shrieking about potential use of nuclear weapons in Iran (or anywhere). Iran has a large population of 70,000,000 which does not yet include a count of the large number of fetuses. Nuclear war might incinerate the baby-factories carrying the all-precious fetuses: massive nuclear abortions! Radioactive fallout is known to cause spontateous miscarriages – and this fallout would spread all over the world causing untold number of fetuses to die prematurely. George Bush would truly be the nuclear abortionist!

Thanks mfi for your 145. “Unlawful” combatants was the term I should have used.

Yup – there is now nothing to legally prevent them from doing that. Iran after all is sovereign and with a legitimate government, and despite all the hype a legitimately elected government.

I may think they’re obnoxious but I also recognise that they have far more of a mandate than any other government in the region.

There is no state of war between the US and Iran ergo any foreign troops captured there can now be treated as they wish.

*ilson,
Oh no you di’int girl!ROTFLMAO!
there’s some dark humor!

mfi, nice catch at 43.

Ok fellas, I now see what you’re saying. However, I think, with or without unlawful combatant fiasco created by Bush, any US soldier captured by Iran would be there a long, long time.
Ghostman

Jane commenter @ 153 runs a hate site called iraniansforaryans. Also “paki” as I’m sure you know is like “nigger” except aimed at Pakistanis – could you do some cleaning please?

TIA

For me, my issue is not with the planning aspect because I am well aware that we have plans and contingencies for all kinds of scenarios. That much, I do not have a problem with.

What bugs me, is the fact that military generals and leaders are on the verge of resigning their commands because the Bush administration will not shelve the nuclear option. THAT is what I have an issue with. These military leaders know to go through with this kind of strike is suicide and their advice is being ignored, like it did pre-Iraq invasion.

The question should be, who do you trust to understand the consequences of a nuclear strike: American military leaders or the guys that brought you Iraq (Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney … and the most of the editorial staff at WaPo)?

Morris: Iran is an objective threat now; by it’s stated intentions and decades of action. If we use nuclear weapons to destroy that threat the responsibility lies with the Mullahs, not us. You have no right to ask American’s to live in fear of nuclear terrorist attack based on your estimation of Ahmadinejad’s rationality or ability to be deterred.

Reports of special forces reconnaissance in places that you would think they should not remotely be have circulated for years. The most recent one concerning Iran have been around for months at the least.

Good relations between Turkey and Iran are in no way contrary to American interests. Turkey I am sure is interested both in terms of its Kurds and the possibility of oil and gas pipelines through its territory. It is not going to drop its membership in NATO or its accession talks with the EU because of this. Another limiting factor on coziness between Ankara and Tehran is their conflicting historical interests in Central Asia: populated by Turkic peoples and still looked upon by many Persians as part of their cultural heartland and former empire.

Even the Iranians to my knowledge blamed only the incompetence of their own people for their planes falling out of the sky recently.

Fubar at Needlenose had a really excellent post on the Iranian nuclear program a few days ago (Look for funny car picture). The 164 centrifuge cascade is more of a proof of design rather than an operational assembly. This said, it is surprising how lackadaisical the Iranian nuclear program is. You just don’t get the feeling they are investing the really big bucks in it to make it happen in anything like a timely fashion. Up to now Ahmadinejad seems to be coasting on the propaganda value pretty much on the cheap.

And finally about Khuzistan, it contains most of Iran’s oil reserves and has a large and restive Arab Iranian population resentful of a domineering Persian central government. Blaming someone else for your problems is a common tactic as anyone who reads the life and times of George Bush can attest.

#149: “Our best hope is for a military coup”

Again, I would urge us to keep our eye on the prize here… and recommending coups against governments at least as legitimate as our own is probably not the right way to do it.

In my opinon, the question is not how best Clusterfuck can resolve the Iran/NPT crisis. The question is, how can the Iran/NPT crisis and Clusterfuck’s utterly incompetent mishandling of it can become yet another wedge issue for us in the midterm elections. I frankly don’t care what his foreign policy is anymore, and I’m way past giving him any more chances to prove his presidentialness.

This is about getting rid of Clusterfuck. To do that, the party must create our own foreign policy platform in support of global multilateralism, peace, respect fo the rule of law, respect for the UN and all the other things that went out with the bathwater with the current national disaster in the White House. And we have to effectively/ dramatically and ruthlessly contrast it with the stupidity that passes for policy today. What I think we need to get out of this is George’s face superimposed over a mushroom cloud every time we turn on the TV. Then we win.

@159 To be fair ghostman I don’t believe they’d do it. I know its not the image of them here in the West but they do stick rigidly to the Geneva conventions when it comes to captured soldiers. There were some incidents during the Iran Iraq war. They were investigated and the perpetrators given a trial. found guilty and hung by the neck until dead.

They have a very different take however on people like the the MEK and Kurdish pesh.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran
http://www.4tvs.com/iran/index.html

Jib Jab-like spoof of Bush.

To step into Ghost and Mark’s conversation,our leaders have thrown out the Genivea convention.I’ts our ‘operatives’that are in position to pay the price.Whatever happened to real diplomacy.Like actually talking to the other side.

Jay: I support George Bush as far as the United States has the right to be doing what it has been doing, and that it is both moral and necessary. Beyond that no.

On the subject of the last thread: Psalm 10 seems to apply this decade.

And with two religious nutcases threatening each other with whatever they can get their hands on as weapons, it’s worth remembering that the one thing we know Iran can’t build at this time is a nuke. I don’t think that the people who live in Iran are eager for war any more than we are.

new thread – tired old Joe

Chris Sandvick — You’re right on the line. Hurl out one more about “emotional irrationalism” of the people on this site and you’re out. If all you want to do is disrupt the conversation with insults you’re not welcome here.

I’d love to disagree with you DMM but I can’t. Americans innocent and not so innocent are going to be paying the price of that for years to come. They deliberately opened a Pandora’s box and all sorts of monstrosoties have flown our.

Look I’m a conservative, ok a European one which puts me somewhere on the vaguely leftish side of the American political spectrum. But part of that is that I have, perhaps a somewhat bleaker view of human nature than many here. Law IMO is what we use to protect society and societies from its/themselves to turn the US into a a machstaat instead of a rechstaat is disastrous for everyone – me you everyone.

I see there’s a new thread and it’s gone 3am here so now is a good time for me bow out and crash.

Jane please deal with very vicious racist troll @ 153 – he’s notorious.

Thanks

G’night folks.

*poof*

Don’t let Bushco continue to spin their war-doctrine as a preemptive. It is not. That’s just spin.

Anyone who refers to iraq as a preemptive war is either ignorant as to what preemptive attack means, or they are purposefully engaging in doublespeak. Preemptive attack is ‘just’, and preventive war is a war crime.

Iraq was a preventive war.

DoD Dictionary of Military Terms

preemptive attack – (DOD) An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent
preventive war – (DOD) A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.

Any attack on Iran before there is “incontrovertible evidence” of an “imminent” attack will be an act of preventive war also.

WWI and WWII began because Germany started preventive war.

Preventive War

World War I
Leaders of Imperial Germany were concerned that Russia was becoming more powerful and believed that war was inevitable, so sought to provoke a war with Russia as soon as possible.
World War II
Germany’s attacks on some neutral countries in the spring of 1940 are often given as examples of preventive wars aiming at preventing Germany’s chief enemy Britain from occupying their territories, which would have harmed Germany:…
The Bush doctrine, Iraq and Afghanistan
Preventive war has been described as an important element of the Bush Doctrine, although the U.S. government [read bushco doublespeak] uses the term preemptive in a way which is partly consistent with international usage…

#164 — I totally agree. A military coup is not the best option here.

I just don’t see another viable alternative. The drumbeat to war with Iran is getting steadily louder. The Democrats seem hopeless, and I think all of this will play out before the 2006 elections.

If I have to choose between a military coup in this country and a nuclear attack on Iran, I’ll take the coup. I think the downside of the former are far greater than the latter, but I would certainly love to hear arguments against this view.

So Chris,

You support Bush “as far as doing what the U.S, has been doing”, but not beyond that. Well ain’t that just peachy.

Troll.

Not only the morally bankrupt Joke Line says the use of tactical nukes should be considered, but I watched that muddled old war criminal Kissinger on with the Beard today say the same thing. He tried really hard to sound like he wasn’t saying it, but he most definitely was saying that tactical nukes should be in the set of offensive military contingencies.

How absolutely immoral some of our fellow humans are….

cranky: If “the second liberation of Baghdad†goes badly and Cheney orders a nuclear strike on Iran anyway, I think the Joints Chiefs (and on down the chain of the military brass) will resign in protest and call for the President’s removal. Full-on, major Constitutional crisis. It’s coming.

Yeah this is the problem. Their solution to the problem is to go all-in & plan multiple moves at once. If any link in the event chain fails, the plan as a whole is screwed. Unfortunately we know what these guys do when part of the plan fails, they go ahead & execute the rest of it anyway. It could very well end in a crisis between the civilian & military leadership.

moral and necessary…

where have I heard that before?

murder and illegal war are neither moral nor necessary.

think the downsides of the former are far greater than the latter.

Reverse. Sorry.

I hear ya mark,many times our troops were mistreated(Vietnam,Korea,etc)and it may sound stupid,but we took the ‘high road’.And now we’ve lost that.These ahhhh,’operatives’ we’re discussing,they’ve dedicated their lives to protecting us,years of training,sacrifice we can’t even hope to understand.True heros.To see them used as pawns by those who never served makes me sick.
In the intrest of disclosure I’ve not served in the Armed Forces.And I’m not sending them to die for my ideoligy.

Damn,missed Mark.I’m slow on the keyboard,what can I say?

A lot of comments on this thread already, but I’ll drop 0.02 in.

First, the whole MEK thing and Special Ops in Iran just plain sucks. This is a replay of the Mexican-American war and also very similar to the way that the Soviets were lured into Afghanistan, although in this case we are trying to lure ourselves into Iran. Bad idea?

Two other points. The first is that nobody seems to be willing to even consider the possibility that the Iranians are trying to achieve nuclear energy! Every discussion involves bombs! Granted, they have plenty of reasons to want the bomb, and the technology is closely related, but niether the IAEA, nor the Iranians, has indicated that they are pursuing a bomb. They have many years and dollars invested in obtaining nuclear energy. It is not fair to insist that their nuclear ambitions are inherently belligerent. Sometimes, when I go fill up my little plastic gas can, it is for my lawnmower. My gas purchases are very, very rarely related to large arson projects, although the gas does work quite well for those too.
Secondly, the idea that the Iranian president is a complete lunatic is fully accepted by even the progressives. Then, by extension, the conventional wisdom is that “The Iranians are Nuts.” Believe me, I’m not in favor of Holocaust Denial, but this conventional view must be challenged. The Iranian president is a politician, right? Any public statement he makes has a cost, and a benefit. What does it cost him to vilify Israel or deny the Holocaust? Internationally it costs him something, but it wasn’t like Bush was going to stop by and kiss him on the cheek for saying that the Holocaust did happen. So what was the benefit? Well, it appears that his people like it when he stands up and says that he doesn’t think that his country should kneel before Bush and Israel. There are quite a few Americans who behave the same way regarding the US’ willingness to listen to the UN, for example.

So, in closing, has Iran been meddlesome in Iraq? Probably, but that’s what you get when you don’t secure the borders, which was probably never even an option with 300,000 troops. Is there any possibility that we will come closer to a solution in the Middle East by bringing another 50 million people into the war? I doubt it. Is there any possibility of achieving a diplomatic solution with a country that you not only don’t have diplomatic relations with, but are actively attempting to violently subvert? Unlikely.

The big question is whether Bush thinks that he can save at least one house of Congress by starting another ware before the midterms. The current incursions into Iran indicate that he knows that he cannot start a preemptive war, he needs to generate a causus belli. Bad stuff.

peace,
jim

The consequences of attacking Iran will be grave, if not disastrous. The chances of an attack stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is nil; it might delay them by a couple years, it might speed them up by redoubling their efforts, but it won’t stop them. Nevertheless, I’m afraid an attack is a foregone conclusion. Indeed, the attack is already under way.

Why? Consider that Bush doesn’t really care what happens in Iran. Consider that what is going on in Iraq might be exactly what they want (or at least their 2nd choice) — chaos and anarchy with no legitimate government to tell the US to abandon its permanent bases. Look to see the US troops pull within the bases and let the Iraqi slaughter themselves (or even to foment sectarian violence).

What are they looking for in Iran? The same, I think. Chaos and anarchy. A country in anarchy can’t threaten Israel. It can’t stop us from occupying the oil fields in SW Iran. It can’t stop us from building and occupying military bases there.

I have believed from day 1 that the Bush administration would be a disaster. But I realize now that I grossly underestimated the sheer malevolence of Bush Co. I believe they genuinely are seeking chaos to maintain American hegemony, secure access to oil, and to guarantee the safety of Israel (oh, and to consolidate their own power). And I don’t know that there is anything, and I mean anything, they won’t do to pursue those goals.

#175

Sorry. I misundertsood. I thought you meant us instigating a coup in Iraq. No, the ONLY coup I care to see in either country would be an electoral one, involving 31 seats in the House and 7 seats in the Senate. Followed by Russ Feingold struggling to read articles against George over the thunderous applause of a completely united Democratic majority.

urh.. Iran I mean

Well said Jim!But a powerful motevation to wanting a bomb might be;look how much we’re not messing with North Koria.But lets not plant that seed.

Bang on Senator Richard Lugar, who has to pretend to be crazy in order to keep the (R ) next to his name, but in fact is not insane. He may be one person who can at least carry to the president that this is beyond absurd.

I don’t guess actual America troops have entered Iran, but that’s just my guess. I guess it’s “limited” to deniable MEK.

We do not want a military coup. We do want to give the military somewhere to hang their hat in case they get an order to strike with nuclear weapons. We must start yelling now about the constitutional need to go to Congress for an attack on Iran. I don’t think generals would use that as a reason to disobey an order for conventional attack; but they might be looking for a way out on nuclear, and we should provide them an escape hatch short of a coup.

Blub @ 6:43 pm — I’m assuming you’re responding to me…Cranky. I despair at the thought of a military coup in the U.S. It’s a bad choice all around. So I will fight as hard as I can for a legitimate electoral solution over the next few motnhs. I hope we win.

cranky@149

I’m not suggesting a military coup is our only hope.
I believe that our only way out of this madness is through the “constitutional crisis” that would follow the refusal of military leaders to carry out their orders.
Those who advocate that a constitutional crisis should be avoided at all costs fail to realize that we are already engulfed in one…and our side is losing.

blub@164

Unfortunately, I think that by the time the mid-term elections come around war with Iran will already be a fait accompli and it won’t matter a tinker’s damn what foreign policy platform is proposed.
Don’t we all know by now that these cretins will do absolutely anything in pursuit of their agenda….and all you have to do is read up the thread a little to the comments of Chris Sandvick to understand that they already have the support of the bed-wetting class circa 9/11.

What should we do? I have no fucking idea.
Yes, I do answer Jane and Christy’s every entreaty to contact our representatives, I donate money to progressive candidates, and I write letters to my local newspaper, but I am very afraid that it is too little, too late.

Jane: I stand by my statement. Your demands are hypocritical considering the relative civility of my criticism and the behavior of both your posters and commenter’s (with notable exceptions) towards people they consider their political enemies. The guest host series in particularly is a vile emotionalist attack on individual’s motives that the authors can’t possibly have any knowledge of.

The shoe fits and I would continue to point that out. Ban away.

I ask you to leave the threads intact though so people can decide for themselves but that is your prerogative.

I don’t disagree with you, but I think that the best we as a party can do in the meantime is to formulate and articulate a coherent policy framework on proliferation, based on peace, multilateralism and the NPT. We need to stop reacting to Clusterfuck inanities and wringing our hands about them.. and articulate our own vision for the future.

Sorry.. I was replying in 194 to cbear and cranky, and not Sandvick. I don’t engage in discourse with trolls :P

I’m ashamed of our current foreign policy. It is never ‘just’ to engage in a preventive war, and even though bushco have tried to redefine what they are doing as a preemptive war doctrine, it is not. There have been thousands of texts defining what is a ‘just war’ and on that foundation rests international law.

Anyone who refers to Iraq as a preemptive war is either ignorant of what the term means or engaging in doublespeak.

Preemptive attack is just, and preventive war is never just. Preventive war is a war crime.

DoD Dictionary of Military Terms

preemptive attack – (DOD) An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent

preventive war – (DOD) A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.

Both WWI and WWII began because Germany started preventive war.

iran would also be one more reason why rummy’s not going anywhere.
they’re not about to move a new defense secretary in when they have a new theater of operations already under construction.

cbear & blub — so we’re all agreed, we are in the shit! Coups, nukes, war…I don’t even know how to rank these anymore. Our best hope at the moment is November, 2006. Let’s just all do our best.

I’m off to bed. Night, all.

Chris Sandvick says:
April 16th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Morris: Iran is an objective threat now.

Chris, thanks for proving my point. (I’m afraid Mr. Sandvick is either morally unhinged, certifiably paranoid, logically impaired, historically ignorant, or a combination of the above.) I appreciate it.

After all, how many American governments has Iran helped to overthrow? None? Interesting. How many despicable American despots has Iran helped to power and propped up? None? Interesting. How many neighboring countries of ours has Iran invaded and destroyed for no actual reason, other than an attempt to control a region of the world thousands of miles away from its borders? None? Interesting.

Chris Sandvick’s relationship to morality or logic? None? Interesting. Chris’ comments about international policy? Far less interesting.

You have no right to ask American’s to live in fear of nuclear attack (by us or anybody else) based on your estimation of Ahmadinejad’s rationality or ability to be deterred, either. The remark about “the responsibility lies with the Mullahs, not us” is reprehensible beyond words. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

All the worse because you must know, unless you are a total ignoramus, that the consequenses of such an attack, like the consequences of the Iraq fiasco, are totally unpredictable.

But by now I expect Chris’s next comment to prove the ignoramus part beyond any reasonable doubt, as well.

To DMM #189,
Of course, there are many reasons that Iran would want a bomb. What would seem to make sense to me would be to give them a reason NOT to want one. Other than threatening them, of course, because that won’t work.
peace,
jim

Here’s the problem: in November, the US pushed the living daylights out of Musharraf to allow the IAEA people to interview Khan, the Pakistani nuke scientist who for years has been distributing nuke methodology to third world countries.

My understanding [from a reliable Canadian source at the UN, a former classmate] is that what the IAEA people heard has gone round the UN like lightning and made the UN take notice the Iranians were going their own way.

While the Iranian command structure keeps the Iranian president’s finger off The Button, my understanding is that a majority of mullahs in Iran are opposed to the use of nukes on religious grounds.

If this is so, the West’s problem is that our notional ‘clerical’ antinuke allies in Tehran are also the most active at repressing dissent among the young, the professionals and the vast peasantry who elected the present president, believing his promises of a quick economic fix.

My gut is that we’re in a footrace, to see if the possibility of internal dissension in Iran tips the country into such tension that the Iranian nationalism card [which Juan Cole notes mirrors Bush’s own lead] is too little too late. The present Iranian govt’s approval rating is less than half Dubya’s. They have cracks all over them. Why aren’t blue state senators all over this as a means of cooling US war fever?

I also think almost every North American commentator I’ve read believes implicitly in a degree of US influence on Iran that’s not there…at least not until there’s something like a conversation happening. The real infleunce in Tehran is from China and Russia, whose territories are at direct risk if Iran really goes nuclear. [Far more so than even Israel, given Iranian missile technology.]

Bottom line: I think Hezbollah [which is part and parcel of MOIS, the Iranian intelligence service] is far more dangerous than AlQaeda…and far more dangerous than any Iranian nuke threat this side of 2010. But that don’t sell newspapers or Faux TV airtime.

Last note: the real worry from Tehran, right now, given oil price instablility, is a Euro-denominated oil bourse. That was the final straw when Saddam tried…and if the Iranians try the same, the end result will be identical in Cheney’s Strangelovian eyes: the US loses control of petrodollar denominated debt forever

Morris Sheppard:

Iran has made explicit statements in support of the genocide of Jews and the destruction of the United States. It has funded, trained, based, and controlled terrorists that have killed Americans around the world. Iran’s government has stated that it’s long term goal is to conquer the Middle East and eventually swamp the world with its ideology, one that is absolutely barbaric in nature. And it is also clear where your sympathy’s lie and that’s with the Mullahs.

Jane: should I beg Morris to be “reasonable”? Argue with him on whether or not I have the right to live and the US the right to exist? Or consider the question beneath contempt and damn him for his moral treason?

canuckjourno…..

finger on button….? Maybe one of those Easy Buttons from Staples

BS

I will mention petitions. I think they will help encourage the Generals to continue their PR coup and maybe encourage anyone in a position to stop this horror or to refuse to obey an unConstitutional oreder from a madman.

Please copy this link and send it to everyone you know:
http://www.dontattackiran.org

Please ask Congress to instruct Bush and Cheney not to attack Iran: Email Congress.

Please stay involved by joining these organizations:

Gold Star Families for Peace

CODE PINK…

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran
Sign Petition Opposing Attack on Iran
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-04-10 20:23.
[This Petition and signatures and comments will be delivered to the White House by many activists, including Cindy Sheehan.]

In analogy to Hitchcock’s suspense thrillers, Iran’s nuclear program (much as Iraq’s) is the McGuffin, the item that helps to anchor the story but not really the main point. The bombing of Iran serves several strategic aims, hopefully cementing republican power in the short term (not sure that will work) but certainly cementing American hegemony over the oil regions of the mideast in the long term.

Jane thanks for deleting comment No:153 For those coming late to this thread this comment:

DMM says:
April 16th, 2006 at 5:49 pm

Sorry folks,that slipped out.My apoligies

Is NOT the racist comment I was complaining about. The comment numbers moved around when the original 153 was deleted.

Canuckjourno – spot on.

Don’t know if anyone else from CT saw this. Chris Dodd calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation: (paraphrase) Rumsefeld is “past tense.” We are not doing well in Iraq or “in Iran.” O.K. so that was a jolt. Slip of the tongue?
I am trying to control my emotions to be able to formulate some letters.

To the critical commenter. “emotional irrationalism” = venting. It’s human & normal. Once emotions are out on the table for examination, it’s easier to be “logical.” Should we be crippled?

Jane: should I beg Morris to be “reasonable� Argue with him on whether or not I have the right to live and the US the right to exist? Or consider the question beneath contempt and damn him for his moral treason?

No Chris. You should ask yourself why you are so irrationally afraid. Lots of people (many within the United States) promote killing or deporting liberals (Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter come to mind). Yet, I am not demanding military action against the scary bad people.

So attempt to incite by asking for “reason” and compain against emotional outburst. Yet yours is the position grounded in unreasoning fear. No doubt you were terrified of Saddam Hussein. I never was, since I never heard anything about Iraq’s ICBM program (mostly because there isn’t one), nor am I hearing about an Iranian ICBM now. There is no threat to the U.S. here, except in your fearful mind.

Chris: Even Anthony Cordesman (who as a former military advisor to John McCain, is not exactly a liberal) says that Iran can’t do diddly as far as nuclear weapons are concerned.

In fact, while Iran’s president is currently trading asinine chest-thumping statements with Bush, the reality is that he’s a figurehead — the real power in Iran is held by mullahs like Khameinei, and they’re all against nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam.

Meanwhile: Dianne Feinstein is telling Bush that his inflammatory rhetoric isn’t helping matters any.

My Iranian hairdresser just got back from Iran and said that US troops are there.