Max Power
Not Rod Carey
Posts: 10,061
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria |
RE: Is Israel pushing back?
Well when you have the Israeli PM, foreign minister, a bunch of ex Israeli PMs and foreign ministers, who have the second-strongest special interest lobby in this country at their disposal, agitating for war in US media and with US legislators, providing intel that turns out to be false, and at the same time there is no other group agitating as much for an Iraq invasion, yes I do believe the war was fought in part for Israel. Certainly not the sole cause but a major cause, yes. But if you think it was fought (at the cost of thousands of American lives, tens of thousands more Americans with serious injuries and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, not to mention a trillion dollars) for oil when Saddam was eager to sell all his oil to anyone who would buy it; out of concern for nukes when Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors in his country; or out of concern for democracy when we're actively supporting dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere..... be my guest. All I can say is you must watch a lot of Fox News. I don't see how in good conscience you can tell our soldiers they're fighting for freedom or even for American interests.
Owl, the Israeli operation would take days or even weeks. There are 300+ sites to hit, and while yes there are only a dozen or so big targets there is no guarantee of success (considering many are underground and in the mountains) and they could easily lose a few planes.
An Israeli attack would be disastrous. The Iranians would attack Jews in the region, Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cause tens of thousands of rockets to launch into Israel, disrupt the strait of Hormuz, and actually help the hardliners in their government. The economy would tank too and plunge us back into a recession, which I know you conservatives wouldn't mind so much because it would guarantee an Obama loss. No, Iran is not going to use the nuke when they get it, and it will be 3 more years at the earliest until they get the bomb.
And no, I did not get these opinions on Stormfront. I got them from our Defense Secretary, the former Mossad Chief, former head of the Israeli Defense Forces, current Mossad Chief, and former head of Israeli military-intelligence. Not exactly a band of skinheads.
-US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says an Israeli strike will only set Iran's nuclear program back two years at most.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/new...s-1.399371
Quote:It is this sort of statement that has Panetta worried because it implies that Israel may decide to attack Iran on its own.
Addressing the Saban Forum at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, he said that such an attack could disrupt the already fragile economies of Europe and the United States, trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces, and ultimately spark a popular backlash in Iran that would bolster its rulers. Panetta also warned that the effect of an Israeli strike is likely to delay Iran's nuclear program by only one to two years "at best."
"Iran's continued drive to develop nuclear capabilities, including troubling enrichment activities and past work on weaponization documented by the IAEA, and its continued support to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations," Panetta said in his opening remarks, "make clear that the regime in Tehran is a very grave threat to all of us."
However, "at this point, we believe that the combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been placed on Iran have had a serious impact," Panetta said. "Iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. It is truly becoming a pariah in that region. Their own government is off balance in terms of trying to establish any kind of civility within Iran."
Panetta reiterated that working together, through the international community, Israel and allies in the region, is the best way to achieve the common goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
"It's the best way I believe to ultimately weaken this nation, so that ultimately they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the international community," the secretary added.
Regarding the use of military force as the best option, Panetta noted "a greater concern is the unintended consequences."
The United State would be blamed for such an attack, the secretary said, "and we could possibly be a target of retaliation from Iran," which may try to hit U.S. ships and bases.
"Just get to the damned table"
During his talk Panetta also urged Israel "reach out and mend fences" with Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, saying that he is troubled by Israel's growing isolation in the region.
Calling in clear and blunt language on Israeli leaders to work hard to restart the peace talks with the Palestinians, he said that they should "Just get to the damned table."
-Mossad Chief from 2003-2011 Meir Dagan calls the attacks a "stupid idea," says the Iranians are "rational," and says even without a strike Iran will not get a nuke until 2018.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-de...r-1.398537
Quote:Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said in a television interview on Tuesday that if Israel attacks Iran, it will be dragged into a regional war.
According to Dagan, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas will respond with massive rocket attacks on Israel. In that scenario, Syria may join in the fray, Dagan said on the television program “Uvda”.
Dagan also followed up on recent public comments that he made on the topic, after which he was criticized for speaking out on, saying that the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Finance Minister cannot prevent him from speaking his mind. “We are not living in an undemocratic country; in democratic countries, even people like me have the right to express their opinions,” Dagan said.
Dagan added that such a war would take a heavy toll in terms of loss of life and would paralyze life in Israel. These comments were in response to a recent remark by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in which he claimed that if a war breaks out between Israel and Iran, it would result in no more than 500 dead Israelis.
"A war is no picnic, but in any scenario there won't be 50 thousand or 5,000 or even 500 dead,” Barak told Israel Radio in an interview three weeks ago, on November 8. Barak also attacked Dagan’s outspokenness on the Iran issue. “The way in which this discussion has taken place, by including those who previously held high positions, was sometimes despicable.”
Barak added, “When the head of the Mossad unprecedentedly brings journalists to Mossad headquarters and instructs them to oppose the prime minister… I think that is very serious behavior. I would have expected him to act intelligently, without manipulations."
It was announced earlier on Tuesday that Dagan will lead a group that will endeavor to immediately alter the system of government in Israel.
Maariv reported Tuesday that the group is operating without much publicity, backed by a group of leaders in the fields of business, culture and law that has already begun to raise funds.
Former IDF Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, businessman Gad Zeevi and Herliya Interdisciplinary Center President Professor Uriel Reichman have already joined the new group.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...-2,00.html
Quote:Meir Dagan is speaking out again. He's standing on the stage of the Industrial and Commercial Club in Tel Aviv, a low-profile venue for such a high-profile issue. Should Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities? Dagan, a 66 year old who until January served as the head of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency, thinks not.
Once again, he is issuing a warning. He's chosen the same words to do so this time, too: "We have to think about what would happen the day after." He has repeatedly said that an attack would have horrific consequences for Israel -- that it would be a disaster of unimaginable proportions.
Last Wednesday, just a few hours before Dagan's presentation, there were reports that Israeli fighter jets had conducted exercises over the Italian island of Sardinia. Their training program included attacking distant targets, conducting midair refueling and thwarting surface-to-air missiles. A vertical vapor trail was widely visible in the sky that afternoon as the military tested a newly developed Jericho 3 ballistic missile that can presumably also carry nuclear warheads up to 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles).
At the same time, London's Guardian newspaper reported that the government of British Prime Minister David Cameron was planning to deploy warships, armed with cruise missiles, on a course for Iran.
The next morning, sirens could be heard throughout the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. People jumped out of their cars in a panic and ran to take shelter in bunkers. They feared the war might already have started, but it was just an exercise.
An Attack on Many Fronts
Such occurrences give rise to a number of questions: Can this be a coincidence? Is Israel preparing an attack, or is this saber-rattling just psychological warfare? Or, rather, is this meant to put pressure on the world -- and on Europe and the United States, in particular -- while delivering the message that if they don't act, Israel will?
This week, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to issue a new report that officially confirms for the first time that Iran is experimenting with technology that serves only one purpose: building a nuclear bomb.
This would be an ideal time for Israel to push for tougher sanctions. Indeed, it can't be ruled out that a diplomatic maneuver is in the works -- and, in fact, it seems rather likely. But that doesn't mean that Israel isn't also nonetheless preparing an attack.
On the contrary, it's very possible that Israel is laying the groundwork, both politically and militarily, for a preemptive strike. Israel believes that it has a maximum of 9-12 months to militarily put a halt to Iran's nuclear program. The US estimate is 18-21 months. Either way, that isn't very much time.
Growing Speculation
The ongoing debate in Israel over whether to launch an attack is more open than it ever has been. This debate cannot be part of a bluff because it doesn't help the prime minister when the general public suddenly wants to have a say in such matters.
Of course, journalists have always speculated on an attack, but now politicians, military leaders and intelligence officials are also joining in the chorus of people issuing public warnings. Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai said this operation is keeping him awake at night -- though he retracted the statement the next day. The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth published a story under the headline "Atomic Pressure." The first sentence suggestively asked: "Have the prime minister and the defense minister decided among themselves to attack Iran's nuclear facilities?"
A Sudden, Terrifying Warning
Indeed, that is the key question. And the answer could lie with Meir Dagan, the man who moved this debate from the backrooms of the intelligence agencies and into the public limelight.
For over eight years, Dagan was Israel's most tight-lipped man -- the top-ranking spook at the Mossad, where he was known as "the man with the knife between his teeth." His special expertise is the "separation of an Arab from his head," then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is reported to have said around the time he appointed Dagan to run the Mossad. But since Jan. 6, 2011, Dagan has been speaking openly.
On his last day in office, Dagan invited Israeli journalists for the first time ever to the Mossad's headquarters, which has no official address and is not marked on any map. Then he announced that the Iranians would develop a nuclear bomb by the middle of the decade, at the earliest, but only if nothing and no one got in their way. He said it would take an additional three years before Iran developed a nuclear warhead. That would roughly put it in 2018, a date that would seem to make any attack now senseless.
Even if Israel attacked immediately, Dagan argued, it wouldn't halt Iran's nuclear program. On the contrary, the Iranians would be more motivated than ever to arm themselves and pursue a military course, while Israel would undoubtedly "pay a terrible, unbearable price." He said that Iran and Syria, along with Hamas and Hezbollah, the terror militias they financially back, would rain missiles on the country from north to south, killing thousands. "How can we defend ourselves against such an attack?" Dagan asked, adding: "I have no answer to that."
A Public Warning
Israel's top military censor sat next to Dagan, and when the presentation was over, the official told the journalists that they weren't allowed to publish anything they'd heard. This time it wasn't the Mossad chief who had to be protected from the public. Instead, it was the public that had to be protected from the Mossad chief.
This was an entirely unprecedented occurrence in Israel. The head of an intelligence agency had approached the public with a warning because he mistrusts the government, because he fears it could risk an unnecessary war, and because he apparently believes this decision has already been or is just about to be made.
With his statements, Dagan brought to light the secret wrangling between the intelligence agencies, the military and politicians over this issue, which is so essential to Israel's survival. What's more, if what Dagan said then and has repeated during his subsequent surprising appearances is true, then the prime minister and his defense minister actually intend to attack Iran.
Traitor or Hero?
Despite censorship, Dagan's words have trickled into the newspapers and caused a stir. Dagan is now making statements on nearly all political issues. He called the release of over 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier who had been held captive by Hamas for over five years, a "grave mistake." He criticized the government for not negotiating with the Palestinians, for allowing relations with Turkey to deteriorate and for further isolating Israel. But, above all, he has repeatedly warned against launching airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Since he started coming forward, some have viewed Dagan as a hero while others see him as an enemy of the state. The government, on the other hand, considers him a traitor and a madman, and people close to the prime minister accuse him of sabotage and maintain that he is trying to take revenge for being dismissed as the head of the Mossad. He has been forced to surrender his diplomatic passport, and a number of right-wing politicians have demanded that he stand trial. "If we could have arrested him," says one high-ranking member of the military, "then we would have done so."
According to Yedioth Ahronoth, Benny Begin, a member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's center-right Likud party, says that Dagan's actions amount to "a dangerous breach of trust verging on megalomania," adding that: "It's just despicable." Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon has called them part of an attempted coup.
For his part, Netanyahu is struggling to dispel the impression that there is still time to prevent the bomb. The Israeli prime minister considers the notion of an Iranian bomb to be comparable to the Holocaust. Indeed, he fears nothing more than the idea that the world might learn to live with a nuclear bomb in the hands of the ayatollahs. Even when he was still the opposition leader, he called on the Americans to take action on a number of occasions -- as can be read in the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables. He said that it was an historic moment -- and that world leaders had to make historic decisions.
Now it looks as if this moment may have arrived -- and as if Dagan might be trying to prevent precisely this from happening.
Preventing Another Holocaust
Who is Dagan, the man who was Israel's shadowy spymaster for so many years? Is he a courageous whistleblower -- or someone who is fed up with politics? How does somebody like him, a notorious Mossad chief, become the government's leading critic? And, most importantly, how credible are his warnings?
Dagan was born in January 1945 on the floor of an ice-cold freight train traveling from Siberia to Poland. At age 26, he was the commander of an elite Israeli military unit and was known for taking no prisoners. He was awarded a medal for taking a grenade from a terrorist with one hand and strangling him with the other. For him, being stronger is a matter of survival.
Throughout his tenure at the Mossad, he kept a photograph on his office wall of an elderly bearded Jew wearing a prayer shawl. The man is kneeling, his arms raised in the air, and an SS officer is pointing a gun at him. "This man was my grandfather," Dagan always told visitors. "Shortly after this photo was taken, on Oct. 5, 1942, he was murdered by the Nazis," he would reportedly say. "I look at this picture and promise that I will do everything in my power to ensure that something like this never happens again."
If one inquires at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, one can learn that a number of families claim to be related to the man in this picture. But Dagan firmly believes in this story. It is his personal link to the Holocaust -- and he sees it as a constant reminder of what an Iranian nuclear bomb could mean for Israel. In this sense, he resembles Netanyahu, who sees Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the new Hitler.
Part 2: One End, Different Means
Both Dagan and Netanyahu have made it their mission in life to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but they have different strategies and timetables for accomplishing this goal. Netanyahu wants to attack before it's too late. His model is two past successful air raids -- the one in 1981 against Iraq and the other in 2007 against Syria. In both cases, the regimes did not retaliate.
Dagan says a military strike should be used only as a last resort, or "only when the sword is at our throat." He believes that an attack would trigger a regional war without end. As the head of the Mossad, he fought a shadow war aimed at postponing the moment when the bomb would be built. He achieved this with the help of the Stuxnet virus, suspicious accidents and the "elimination of important forces," as Dagan described it in a private conversation. There is a "white defection," he says, with fewer and fewer Iranian scientists willing to volunteer to work as part of the nuclear program.
The idea is to delay the bomb's construction until the ruling regime in Tehran has been overthrown -- and Dagan believes this is precisely what is about to happen. Now, though, he is afraid that Netanyahu might jump the gun and ruin his plan. After all, waiting is not Netanyahu's forte. For over 10 years, he has been warning about Iran, and he doesn't believe that Dagan's shadow war alone can prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.
Some high-ranking military officials and politicians have gone so far as to accuse Dagan of actually winning time for the Iranians. But Dagan defends his strategy. He says he feels it is his duty to warn the public. Anyone who orders an attack, he contends, decides on the fate of future generations. This decision cannot be made in small circles, he adds. And, by that, he also means: not by these politicians.
Silencing All Criticism
As Dagan sees it, Netanyahu is incapable of leading Israel and has failed on all fronts. Israel has never been so strong militarily, he argues, yet had such weak political leaders. While he worked together with Netanyahu, Dagan says that the prime minister never informed him of any concrete political or military objectives. It is only when it comes to Iran that Netanyahu has an opinion -- and a goal. In order to achieve this goal, Dagan accuses Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak of trying to silence all criticism. The two politicians want to make this decision without involving the rest of the government, Dagan contends. And he views this way of doing things as legally problematic.
Indeed, Dagan says, this is why he and Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from 2007 to 2011, were removed from their positions during the first months of this year, and why Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency, was not allowed to succeed him as head of the Mossad. Instead, they were replaced by individuals who reportedly have less critical views on attacking Iran and at least lack enough experience to take a firm stance against such a move.
Dagan calls this a plot, a clandestine putsch by the politicians against the intelligence agencies. "Diskin, Ashkenazi and I succeeded in blocking all dangerous adventures," he says, adding that now there is no one left to stand in their way.
This version is supported by many former military officers, intelligence officials and politicians who defend Dagan and strike similar tones. "Listen to them, in every field," says Tzipi Livni, the parliamentary opposition leader and head of the centrist Kadima party. Open criticism used to be rare in Israel, but that is no longer the case.
Danny Yatom and Efraim Halevy, both former Mossad chiefs, say that Dagan is right to speak up -- and that he apparently has good reasons for doing so. "The public should hear his opinion on Iran," Yatom says. Those who know Dagan -- and, particularly, generals and former colleagues -- confirm he means what he says. They say he is neither interested in launching a political career nor seeking any benefit.
Efforts to Halt an Attack
For a long time, the Americans have also been afraid that Israel would make good on its threat to attack. In the spring of 2008, then-US President George W. Bush flew to Israel for a surprise visit. He demanded to see then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, neither of whom knew the reason for the meeting. "I need you to promise that you won't use the transitional period between me and my successor to attack Iran," Bush reportedly insisted, apparently highly concerned.
A similar visit was made this October by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. All steps against Iran's nuclear program must be coordinated with the international community, he warned Israeli leaders -- so emphatically, in fact, that it sounded as if US intelligence agencies had gotten wind of preparations for an attack.
Has Dagan postponed an attack or perhaps even prevented one? It may be possible to answer that question someday, or we may never know the answer. What is certain, though, is that nothing undermines a secret attack more than talking about it. Menachem Begin, Israel's prime minister from 1977 to 1983, called off the first air operation against Iraq's Osirak reactor after then-opposition leader Shimon Peres found out about it. The pilots were already sitting in their fighter planes. A month later, they destroyed the reactor.
"Forgive me," says Dagan, "but I will continue to speak at every opportunity." He adds that one shouldn't try to stop him. He has a good lawyer, he says, and a good memory.
TV interview with Dagan:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_...interview/
Quote:Ilana Dayan has the first interview former Mossad director Meir Dagan has ever given to Israeli TV. For many Israelis, it must be a bit like hearing Marcel Marceau speak the first word of his career, as Dagan has a reputation for being exceedingly laconic and unwilling to speak publicly or to the press. He’s changed his view over the past year since he’s left the agency and faced the very real prospect of an Israeli war against Iran.
Dayan is a superb interviewer who both brings out the best in her interviewees by being sympathetic to them, but also by challenging them in a dramatic fashion. For example, at one point she says to him: Barak says we have to act within the next nine months or Iran will have the bomb. You say we have till 2015. What if you are wrong? What if we wait as you suggest and they get the bomb and the Jewish people face a Holocaust? We will then have a situation we never experienced, in which we will face a nation of madmen with a nuclear weapon.
Dagan’s reply is quite interesting. He disagrees with her and says: Iran acts as a rational state. It takes into account the implications of its actions [and those of others]. Therefore, it’s not in a mad dash to get a nuclear weapon. Dayan responds: are you telling me that Ahmadinejad is a rational man [in Hebrew, she calls him a "rational goy" which is an odd, slightly racist locution]? Dagan answers: I think he is a sophisticated individual, but his audience is not an Israeli or western one. The Iranians are sophisticated, quite wise, and we should not make the mistake of dismissing them.
He says that for Israel enter into a regional war with its eyes open, this [going to war] should be necessary only if we are attacked or the sword is “beginning to cut the meat off living flesh.” To Dayan’s question whether or not Israel can successfully fight a war against Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria, he concedes that it could. But he adds: what will happen the day after? We have to think about the high price we will have to pay for this victory. To Barak’s foolhardy claims that there will be no more than 500 Israeli dead after such an attack, Dagan responds that the level of destruction, of paralysis of normal life in Israel, the ability to conduct an orderly society for any length of time, the price we will pay in human lives [lost] will be higher.
-CURRENT Mossad chief Tamir Pardo says an Iranian nuke is not an "existential threat" and Israel’s former military-intelligence chief Zeevi Farkash has said that the Iranian regime is pursuing a nuclear weapon to deter American intervention, not to attack the Jewish state.
http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu...ial-threat
Quote:Hysteria over Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons program has been steadily rising among some U.S. and Israeli officials. But Tamir Pardo (left), the chief of Israel’s intelligence service known as the Mossad, said last week that a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian government would not necessarily pose an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.
“What is the significance of the term ‘existential’?” Pardo was quoted as saying in an article by the Washington Times. Citing Israeli diplomats who met with the spy chief last week in a closed-door session, the paper reported that, according to Pardo, the danger posed by a hypothetical nuclear weapon in Iranian hands was being overblown.
“If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop,” the Mossad boss told the gathering of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. “That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”
Speaking to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, several diplomats said Pardo had stated that a nuclear-armed Iran would “absolutely” pose a threat to the nation. But even if the Iranian regime were to acquire a bomb, the intelligence chief was quoted as saying, it would not mean the destruction of Israel.
Still, Israeli officials are already working to disrupt Iran’s supposed nuclear-arms program using various measures, Pardo reportedly told the ambassadors. And they will continue to do so indefinitely.
The head of Israel’s powerful spy agency did not comment on the much-discussed possibility of a military attack on Iran, according to ambassadors cited in press reports. But other U.S. and Israeli officials have become increasingly vocal in promoting a preemptive strike, with some lawmakers and leaders openly proposing an armed confrontation to prevent Iran from acquiring the hypothetical bomb.
Tough international sanctions have already been imposed on Iran, and many experts view such measures as akin to an act of war. In mid-December, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also said his government and U.S. officials were determined to stop the Iranian regime from developing the nuclear weapon it is allegedly seeking.
President Obama, meanwhile, has refused to rule out military intervention against Iran even as the U.S. government turns up the heat on the Syrian government and fights multiple unconstitutional wars at home and abroad. And prominent advocates for a new war on Iran — “war mongers,” neo-cons, and “war hawks,” as critics refer to them — can be found on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
But despite the heated rhetoric, more than a few respected voices in Israel and the United States have publicly opposed an attack on Iran. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who was succeeded by Pardo last year, has very publicly opposed a military strike. He also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for banging the war drums, saying an attack on Iran would have devastating consequences.
Ex-Israeli military chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi is also against attacking Iran, according to news reports. And U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned about the consequences of such a strike, too, though he later insisted that the Iranian regime would not be “allowed” to develop a bomb.
The Iranian dictatorship, of course, insists its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes — medicine and energy. And so far, no concrete evidence has been publicized to the contrary.
However, many analysts believe the Islamic government — which maintains friendly relations with the communist dictatorship ruling mainland China and the government of Russia — is indeed pursuing a nuclear weapon. Still, most experts do not believe a hypothetical bomb would be used offensively against Israel or any other nation.
Israel’s former military-intelligence chief Zeevi Farkash has been quoted as saying that the Iranian regime is pursuing a nuclear weapon to deter American intervention, not to attack the Jewish state. Countless other analysts agree — especially in the aftermath of several recent U.S.-led “regime change” operations against governments in the region that did not posses weapons of mass destruction.
Most GOP presidential contenders have been engaged in something of a rhetorical competition to see who could be the most belligerent toward Iran, with some candidates even proposing a preemptive, unilateral American attack on the Islamic Republic. Former Senator Rick Santorum, for example, recently vowed to unconstitutionally attack Iran if elected — unless the Iranian government bowed to his demands.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who promotes a non-interventionist foreign policy, has urged a more cautious approach. Pointing out that no solid evidence has yet emerged proving that the Iranian government is even developing a bomb, Paul frequently stresses his opposition to ongoing and potential future wars based on several constitutional and pragmatic arguments.
"To me, the greatest danger is that we would overreact," the Texas Congressman and top-tier Republican presidential contender said about the Iranian nuclear issue in a recent debate, comparing the pro-war propaganda on Iran with the inaccurate arguments used to launch the war on Iraq almost a decade ago. Paul also regularly emphasizes the constitutional requirement of a congressional declaration of war.
Some proponents of preemptively attacking Iran have said the fanatical regime in Tehran should not be trusted to make rational decisions. Others have claimed the Iranian government might offer nuclear-weapons technology to terrorist groups which might be more inclined to use it.
However, it is well known that the Israeli government possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons — not to mention the thousands of warheads maintained by the U.S. government. Given such a reality, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear missiles, it would almost certainly be suicide to launch them.
Stop trying to neo-con us into another unnecessary war.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2012 11:14 AM by Max Power.)
|
|
