Freedom's Watch can certainly afford to fund public opinion analysis about a potential war with Iran. Its top donors include Sheldon Adelson, the CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, a philanthropist for pro-Israel causes, and, according to Forbes, the third wealthiest man in the United States; John Templeton, a conservative philanthropist; Mel Sembler, a shopping mall developer from Florida, former U.S. ambassador to Italy, and a board member of the American Enterprise Institute; Matthew Brooks and Richard Fox, co-founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition; and Kevin Moley, a former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and past U.S. ambassador to international organizations. One of group's financial backers told the New York Times that Freedom's Watch easily expected to raise $200 million in donations by November 2008. Raising big money "will be easy," said the anonymous benefactor, who added "that several of the founders each wrote a check for $1 million."

Mother Jones

Anytime multi-billionaires are pimping for the Iraq war and trying to kick start the war against Iran, one has to wonder what are their motivations.

FW isn't the only right-wing organization beating the war drums. There's the American Enterprise Institute, which is sheltering some of the at large Iraq war criminals.

And the Committee on the Present Danger, which has Norman "Kill them all and let Jehovah sort them out" Podohertz on board.

If the AEI, the CPD and Freedom's Watch were a family, they'd be getting arrested for incest.

Ready for some more news?  Over at Think Progress:

O’Hanlon Teams Up With AEI’s Kagan To Advocate Pre-Emptive Strike On Pakistan

What's going on?

Jan

Masturbation just ain't getting it for these guys anymore. War porn rots the mind and soon just watching it isn't good enough - you have to go out and start new wars.

Won't happen. It is very clear that none of the objectives, not even the most superficial, can succeed.

* The United States government cannot, with the military force available, remove the Government of Iran.

* The United States government cannot, with the military force available do sufficient damage to Iran's nuclear program such as to ensure against the possibility of Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon in the forseeable future of the next 20 years.

The rewards are nebulous and insubstantial at best, impossible to achieve.

The the possible risks are extreme.

It's not going to happen.

Of course they are. They'd be crazy not to. All they have to do is look at the other two members of the axis of evil and draw comparisons:

North Korea, nukes, negotiation, concessions.

Iraq, no nukes, no negotiation, invasion, hanging.

Has that stopped them in the past? (-_-)

The problem it would seem is that these rats know the ship is sinking. They seem to sense that the door to US foreign policy that the Republicans have left open to them in recent years is soon to close. So in the little time they have left they are determined to burn the rest of the house down. It truly is madness.

I fully agree with you though Valdron. Any goals they may have, no matter how fantastically optimistic they frame them, do seem impossible to achieve by any stretch of the imagination. Let us hope that the few people out there who still grasp some threads of sanity and reality will find their voices to resist this when they could not in similar circumstances 5 and 6 years ago. But now as then it seems to be shoot first, lie about why later. And when that is the driving principle anything is possible.

"The possible risks are extreme." An understatement to be sure, but the risks are not to those who are advocating war on Iran. Did they take any risks, have they realized any pain, suffering, economic deprivation as a result of the Iraq invasion which they pushed relentlessly?

And now they're spending zillions of dollars hoping to push us into yet another war. People don't spend those kinds of bucks if they don't expect to get something in return. But what the hell is it? For that matter, how are they profitting from the Iraq tragedy.

(Marx and finally Lenin said that communism would only work when and if the whole world was communist. Neocons purport to be on a mission to convert the whole world to democracy. Actually, converting the whole world to capitalism is closer to their truth. And what better places to start than oil-rich countries.)

Jan, it gets even better. In his Sunday column, The Friedman Unit went off his medication and came up with his version of an ideal U.S. strategy for Iran.

I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.

But Mr. Obama’s stress on engaging Iran, while a useful antidote to the Bush boycott policy, is not sufficient. Mr. Obama evinces little feel for generating the leverage you’d need to make such diplomacy work. When negotiating with murderous regimes like Iran’s or Syria’s, you want Tony Soprano by your side, not Big Bird. Mr. Obama’s gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm.

Tony Soprano, but not Big Bird, is what we need for Iran -- make sense?

“Some say we need a third party. I wish we had a second one.” Jim Hightower

"The Jews"? But what if they have different reasons for donating to a cause.

For instance, what if 30% donate right because of economic reasons, 30% donate right for political reasons, and 40% donate left for compassionate reasons.

Can you really say that "The Jews" are on that "Right Wing" side. Perhaps they're more properly on the "Compassionate" side.

Your methodology is flawed. I sentence you to go and study the Knesset.

I can think of a fair number of Californians who look forward to getting stoned. Just walking into the lower level of the City Lights Bookstore and taking a deep breath may be enough.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Zionista said:

Are we supposed to understand that only the furthest right causes are "pro-Israel" causes, and buy into the idea that there is no progressive-liberal-left to pro-Israel perspectives?

No.

I know you're being sarcastic here (at least I think you are) but isn't it going a bit too far to start saying things about making lists of Jews? Maybe I'm nit-picking here but it struck me as being in poor taste, even in a sarcastic manner. It certainly does invoke a very dark image, or was that your intent?

"But I guess the fact that Friedman Got The War Wrong means he's subject to eternal ridicule."

Right. 3800 dead Americans and God knows how many Iraqis, the worst foreign policy debacle in our history, pretty damn well should subject anyone to "eternal ridicule" not to mention eternal damnation.

I think the remedy for the whole thing is
impeachment, put Nancy in the Big Chair long
enough to pull every single troop OUT of the
middle east, charge all the affected nations
with solving their own problems, if they
need foreign aid there's enough of what used
to be our money rolling around over there that
they can apply to each other until at least 2315
or so, that's the YEAR 2315, and meanwhile
our troops come home from all over the place,
and Congress has a Frank Open Talk about
the use of our military to support oil companies
and stuff, and the War Powers Act, and letting
their authority be subverted etc etc etc.
And, about the time they let Cheney out of
Gitmo, there should be something like a workable
national energy policy that HE had nothing to
do with. Whatever it takes, just get the foreign
royalty OUT of our government...

http://www.impeachbush.org

Careful.  It has been suggested that even discussing such implications can have the effect of stifling valuable debate.

Well, we supposedly went into Iraq because they did have a nuclear weapons program. I'd like to leave "of course" out of these discussions in favor of some evidence. I don't know whether they are or aren't, whether it makes sense for them to do so notwithstanding.

So the 70% or so of Americans who initially supported the war should be subject to eternal damnation? 

I supported the war at the outset.  Am I to roast in hell for all eternity?

Valdron said:

Won't happen....

Up until some point in the mid 80s I had always believed there would never be a nuclear war with the Soviets because of the consequences.

Then along came Reagan, and he, and/or some of his cohort started to talk about winning a nuclear war/a limited nuclear war. This caused a light bulb to go off in my mind that rattled me;

"Those who decide whether or not to have a nuclear war know arrangements have been made for them to survive it."

Well, we never went to nuclear war, and all of that fear went by the wayside over the years, and the idea that "nobody would ever do this or that idiocy..." planted itself back in my mind again and serenity returned to life.

Then along came Bush/Cheney...."

phelicity,

Bush wants to spread Democracy all over the world. Stop and think of what he's done to this Democracy, the power and authority he's taken for himself; could this be the version of Democracy Bush wants to spread?

No, but your judgement is now suspect, you should be suspended from voting for 10 years.

It would be great if the whole world would be as democratic as US are today with all the power and authority Bush's taken for himself.
US are still one of the most free country in the world. Some people lose sense of perspective.
Josh who was trying to bring down the best Bush's friend is not in jail, he was not killed under strange circumstanses. He is celebrety now, while Bush's friend might end up in a jail.

"I think Friedman is a wuss who likes to live vicariously as our troops fight in foreign wars. He's another chicken hawk who obviously supports wars but just doesn't want to fight in them."

Friedman reminds me of the high school football coach's geeky late-bloomer assistant who tries to convince himself that holding the towels and cheering from the sidelines magically imbues him with some of the macho owned by the guys on the field running plays after the snap.

You are too kind to call him a "wuss". A similiar, but very impolite word is the first one that springs to my mind.

Not if you repent and sin no more.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, for I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, for I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up, for I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Social Democrats, and I didn’t speak up, for I was not a Social Democrat.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

[Adapted from Martin Niemoller]

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"What is past is prologue" [incised in stone over the entrance to the National Archives]

Somehow I don't think the fate of the city and the inhabitants of Seoul ever enters into George Bush's calculations.

He's more concerned about the American soldiers who would die in a nuclear exchange on the Korean peninsula. And really not so much their lives as the political repurcussions of getting so many killed in one day. (A dictatorship would be a lot easier.)

In other words, if Bush were to order the invasion of North Korea on no better evidence than he did Iraq, the resulting deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers in one fell swoop would threaten his power at home. You couldn't have Dick Cheney on Meet the Press selling a potential war with North Korea as a "cake walk." The fact that Iraq was known to be incapable of any significant resistence is how they sold the war. It was doable. If there had been the slightest real evidence that Iraq could have unleashed a chemical or biological holocaust on invading American soldiers, the invasion would never have happened. The fact that they were planning to invade was THE best evidence that they already knew Saddam had no chemical, biological or nuclear capability, no matter what they were actually saying.

Everything the Republican party does is for domestic political purposes. The Iraq war had more to do with clamping a lid on Democrats than in taking out Saddam Hussein - and it worked! They refuse to pull out of Iraq because it would harm them politically in America to admit defeat. Iran is such a tempting target because it would serve to clamp another lid on domestic political pressures at home. North Korea, not so much, because they'd nuke any army that crossed the border, and that would be... a political disaster at home.

The Israelis performed some kind of pre-emptive strike on Syria and the surrounding Arab Sunni states raised remarkably little objection.

How much more outrage do you think there would be if Israel took similar action against Iran?

Why do you interpret a poll testing how Americans would react if the Israelis made a pre-emptive attack as a maneuver to get Americans to go to war?

If one country threatens the existence of another, when does the right of self-defense kick in?

And since knowledge is hard to suppress we might want to find reasons to get along.

Then they came for the independent engineers, and there was no one...

Given the contempt for competence these days I'd be very afraid.

I agree with what you say, still

It would be great if the whole world would be as democratic as US are today with all the power and authority Bush's taken for himself.

Lebanon can't do anyting to defend itself against Syria and Iran.

I think their missile capability is sufficient enough to hit Japan, isn't it?

Iran has always looked like Cromwell's England to me: a cleric-ridden limited democracy with the possiblity of future evolution.

I know of no direct evidence about the development of bombs. I am disquieted by their prior secrecy about their nuclear activities.

Since I don't even trust us with nuclear weapons, I see little reason why I should be sanguine about the prospects of Iran having them. Without extensive controls, in a culture where some individuals believe that murder/suicide is equivalent to matyrdom leading directly to heaven why should I think the normal considerations apply?

It's questionable. They did overfly Japan with some test missiles, but their last major test exploded shortly after launch.

Japan is putting SM-3 theater ballistic missile defense systems on its AEGIS-equipped destroyers. SM-3 is a midcourse interceptor that is the first line of defense against theater ballistic missiles and has performed well. The Japanese destroyers can concentrate in the Sea of Japan, and also work with similarly equipped US vessels.

Japan also has US PAC-3 missiles for terminal defense against ballistic missiles, which form a second line of defense against incoming warheads that got past the SM-3 line.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

What would be a reason to be concerned about the Israeli nuclear arsenal? What scenario do you have in mind that wake you in the middle of the night? How this scenario would change if Israel acknowledes nuclear arsenal?

The "fuss" about uranium enrichment is merely that - a fuss. It's a useful cover for realizing neocon ambitions. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

I'm no longer responding to you until you start adding content to your questions. My experience is that answering your questions just gets more questions, and it's mostly trolling because you don't add any content to the conversation, just questions.

I also might respond if I had any indication you knew more about nuclear weapons and strategy than they make big booms and mushroom clouds. Things like, perhaps, Israeli versions of the Triad and positive control?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Without extensive controls, in a culture where some individuals believe that murder/suicide is equivalent to matyrdom leading directly to heaven why should I think the normal considerations apply?

Have there ever been suicidal countries vs individuals? Even Israel believes that Iran is going nuclear for defensive reasons, to protect themselves from the US.

...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers

AJM,

Pakistan is where the concern should be.

Bush has Iran out front for some ungodly reason but the real threat is Pakistan who we know has nukes and where probably millions of Osama supporters/sympathizers reside.

Hi Abdul, I'm curious, who you are? Is your online persona some kind of cruel joke?

I see no conceivable offensive use of those weapons for Israel.

Most of Israel's military actions have been in response to prior attacks.

I see these as morally justified but potentially politically extremely unwise because of the resentment created.

I don't understand the Palestinians -- if you throw a rock at a guy with a gun they seem to expect a rock back.

In Cambodia, a subset of the population killed 25% of the inhabitants over the course of 4 years.

Why should policy be designed to count on rational behavior from Iran.

That you believe that Israel too should not have nuclear weapons, is not an answer to the question of whether Iran can be trusted with them. And if I did feel that Israel should not have them that would not be a reason to be any happier with Iran having them.

Where did I say Israel should not have nuclear weapons? What I did say is that any kind of serious nonproliferation isn't going to happen until Israel declares itself a nuclear power. At that time, I would strongly push to amend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that India, Israel, and Pakistan can join as declared powers. It is far easier to have someone join in arms control from inside the tent.

One of the first things that one learns in military intelligence training is that you estimate on capabilities rather than intentions. In number of warheads, Israel is fourth, and possibly, third, in the world. No country in range can afford to ignore that capability.

Even if the NPT signatories vote down adding those three countries, I would offer incentives to Israel for simple declaration, some of which are right on the edge of NPT violation, but I think are arguably legal. AFAIK, Israel still has most of its Jericho missiles at an only lighly hardened base at Bet Zacharias (various transliterations from the Hebrew exist).

A first stabilizing step would be to provide Israel with silo superhardening technologies, which would strengthen their position of having an invulnerable second-strike deterrent. If they don't have them already, I'd offer them Permissive Action Link and Positive Control technologies, also to be offered to India and Pakistan as they were to the fUSSR. Since these do not have any effect on the warhead capabilities, I don't see them as NPT violations.

The "hotline" between the US and USSR has long been useful. Russia and the US have gone considerably further, including putting 24/7/365 liaison teams in one anothers' strategic warning centers.

HAMMER RICK is a hotline system between the US and Israel. I would urge a complete mesh of such links, and liaison exchange where practical, among all nuclear powers. All of these things are recognized contributions to stability. It might also be appropriate to offer those countries real-time feeds of US (and, ideally, Russian) launch detection satellites.

Since none of Israel's enemies are anywhere close to developing a deliverable arsenal of the size of Israel's, it is worth noting that I have no objection, and in fact encourage, Israel continuing to have a multilayered ballistic missile defense system of US/Israeli Arrows and US PAC-3s.

Not strictly a defense against ballistic missiles, I am puzzled as to why Israel appears to have suspended joint development of the Nautilus laser system (formerly the US MTHEL), and their adaptation of the Swiss Oerlikon Skyguard point defense gun system. Both of these can shoot down the sort of artillery rockets that are being used against Israel.

Your point is well taken about rocks versus guns, but the ratio is even greater between a Qassam and a M26 salvo. If I were a country that saw Israel using that strong a response of a weapon they were not to have used in that way, I wouldn't be certain they'd never make offensive use of nuclear weapons.

You may not see any possible offensive use of Israel's Jericho nuclear-tipped missiles, but the reality is that Israel's potential enemies do. I would not rule out Israeli offensive use of them against a major terrorist attack that Israel believed to have state censorship.

Nevertheless, you have yet to establish that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapons program, and, at this point, they are not developing the sort of facilities needed for one. Uranium enrichment is not nearly as important as plutonium generation and processing, and that sort of equipment is not built overnight and can be seen by various sensors.

You give me the impression that you are opposed to any nuclear development, of any type, IAEA-inspected or not, by any Muslim country. Is this correct? If so, why should anyone comply with the NPT?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Ah if only the whole world worked in mirror opposites, strategic decisions would be so much easier.

Step on every spider and you end up with a house full of crickets.