Iran: What's the Game?
I've been wondering all day whether what's going on between the US and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, is a game of chicken--the drag-strip game where two drivers race toward each other and the first one to turn away loses--or something worse.
This wondering comes from Jerusalem, where I'm attending Shimon Peres' President's Conference on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. There's more to say about the goings-on, and the contribution I'm going to make tomorrow, but I'll do that later, when I have time.
For now, I'm preoccupied with Iran. The reason is that, for two days now, so many speakers have been preoccupied with Iran, and talking rather casually about the prospect of a preventive strike.
The sense of threat here is vivid, it is deeply felt, it is completely comprehensible, and it rises occasionally, or more than occasionally, to a well-nigh hysterical pitch--so much so that the Amerian strategist Edward Luttwak arose Monday night at a banquet at Peres' house to warn assembled luminaries against fearing annihilation at the hands of an Ahmadinejad who, after all, was not Hitler but Mussolini, and an inept one at that. It is not lost on any Israeli that Ahmadinejad, in his usual delicate manner, last week called Israel a "stinking corpse."
Weirdly, at a Wednesday afternoon workshop, the selfsame Luttwak declared that Iran's reformers would actually welcome a sharp outsider's attack on their nuclear facilities. No other panelist disputed his suggestion, which was greeted with much applause from a largely Israeli audience.
A sidebar: Three weeks ago, the Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi's talk at Barnard College, where she was reported to have said
that foreign attacks and threats on the Iranian government will only harm human rights efforts, since the government would act under the guise of "national security" to suppress "those who are seeking more freedom in the country."
But back to Wednesday afternoon in Jerusalem. After Luttwak's proclamation, and a game but much less applauded attempt by UCLA Professor Steven L. Spiegel to speak up for an alliance-negotiation approach to Iran instead of a mlitary attack, the session moderator, Israel's former ambassador to the US, Itamar Rabinovitch, somehow intimated--I'm sorry I didn't take down his exact words--that Israel's government would put it to Bush that if he didn't take action, Israel would.
Just outside the hall, I ran into a friend, also a liberal Jew, who had attended the same session, wasn't sitting with me but heard the same implicit threat. Alarmed (can one be too alarmed about such matters?), and assuming that Rabinovitch would be well informed, we checked out our dire impression with a sober, well-connected European official. This person isn't quite sure what's up against Iran but also worries that such an attack might be in the offing even if no government in Europe would be onboard.
Earlier Wednesday, a certain Henry Kissinger loaded his talk with rumbling cliches and managed the silences between his phrases in a simulation of gravitas. Almost nothing he said had any propositional content--almost. The exception concerned Iran. The "threat" of a nuclear Iran is a threat to "the viability of the international system," he said. "It will not go away. It can only get worse."
You can interpret his further suggestion that India and Russia also have an interest in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a veiled caution against unilateral action against Iran, and an invitation to collective action; or you can interpret it as a raising of the rhetorical stakes.
At another session, Sergey Mirinov, Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia said this:
If we deduce that Iran is refusing the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russia will act appropriately. A nuclear Iran will would [this ambiguity is in the published version--TG] be a threat to global peace. Russia will not allow for that to happen.Prime Minister Olmert, who has grave problems but still clings to office, said last month that "Iran will not have nuclear capability." Wednesday night, introducing George W. Bush--whose declaration of friendship for Israel struck his partisans as heartfelt and struck this observer as empty--Olmert repeated a frequent refrain: Israelis would "rely only on ourselves for our protection," though Israel knows "it can always count on the United States."
Who's well informed enough to know what's up? Are we crying wolf again? No one knows. Possibly not even Bush knows what he will do during the seven months that remain in his White House stay. Possibly we are witnessing a tit-for-tat game of threat and counterthreat designed to concentrate Ahmadinejad's mind and that of his supporters, who may or may not include the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.
Or possibly this is not just a game of chicken, and Bush's finger is getting itchy--Iraq having gone so well. Then what's the lame duck got to lose in his unending, unreasoning fight against tyranny?
Extravagant as it may prove, I would be derelict if I didn't pass on this worry,
Comments (52)
Very interesting and serious, Todd. I have heard the same concerns in London. The 'urgency' is that the Russians are providing significant ground-to-air systems which apparently are likely to be operational by September and could be relatively effective given the distances and the need for more than one strike and therefore the lack of surprise. It seems that the Bush administration is regarded as too weak and the US military too opposed for an American strike to be considered - so it has to be an Israeli one permitted by Washington over the summer.
May 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a thought, I am pretty sure Iran would give up it's nuclear program if there was a commitment to a nulear free middle east.
Starting with the nuclear disarmament of Israel.
May 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhhhh. Israel doesn't admit to having nukes.
May 14, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE,
"Pretty sure..."? Please explain.
May 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE, try this one for size:
Here is a thought, I am pretty sure Russia and China would give up their nuclear programs if there was a commitment to a nulear free world.
Starting with the nuclear disarmament of the U.S.
Does it work for you? Would you assume the risk and gut our nukes first?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
May 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something called negotiated, phased, verifiable disarmament.
May 16, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your impressions. The last few weeks has witnessed a number of hints that something might be up.
Of course Iran is no threat to the US, but if I were an Israeli I would be very worried. This is the harsh demographic fact of modern Israel. Eighty % of all Israeli Jews live in Tel Aviv or the near suburbs. They are all linked together in the blast radius of a few fission bombs. Just think, about 1/3 of all the Jews on earth have assembled into a single nuclear target zone. This is scary.
Since population dispersal would be seen as a sign of weakness, the next best thing is to manipulate the US into taking out the threat. And that might not be difficult given the moron who is our CIC.
May 14, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems obvious to me that the only way the Republicans can stay in power is to create another foreign threat, arrange a war, then present McCain as the the perfect wartime president. Maybe it's simplistic, but sometimes things aren't that complicated.
May 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only they still won't manage to cling to power, they'll just leave more of a mess.
May 16, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Li chaim to Israel on its 60th birthday. And if the Government of Israel decides it needs to eliminate the existential threat and kill as many Iranians as necessary for Israel to remain strong and secure, I say BOMBS AWAY!! AND I DARE SENATOR OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE TO OBJECT!
May 14, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I surmise by your cavalier attitude that you will be nowhere near the hot zone should Israel attack, or the US.
How so very cowardly of you.
May 14, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Counter hatefulness with hatefulness. Works every time.
May 15, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does the current situation seem incredibly similar to Shlomo Ben-Ami's description of the run-up to the Six Day War (basically, a leader playing threat blackjack to gain pan-Arab support, with 22 being Israel being spooked into attacking).
May 14, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman: Hillary's Plan to Bomb Iran Has a Certain Appeal to It
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/14/lieberman-bennett-bomb-iran/
May 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I shouldn't single out Senator Obama. I have no doubt that if israel attacks Iran before November, like John McCain, he will stand with Israel as a our "stalweart ally" in his words. I will enjoy watching M.J. Rosenberg and Daniel Levy and the rest of you writhe in pain when that happens.
May 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Ms. apacmember. Will you be the first in line to defend Israel on her own land, or will you be the last, like your bluster suggests.
May 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will be glad to support Israel in overcoming an existential threat to its existence in the most effective way that I know of: contributing a lot of money to the State of Israel and making sure that the United States provides military and economic aid to the extent the elected government of that country requests. And there ain't a fucking thing you or anyone else on this site can do to stop me and several million of my friends from doing that.
May 14, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like an Al Qaeda booster with a yarmulke.
May 14, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Al Quaeda members put their own lives on the line instead of egging on the Jingos of a country and sending a pittance when such activities allow the Queen of the Bath to kill our boys (yes, I'm an American, but I still see them as our boys [girls count as boys here])
May 15, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli government may be elected, but not by American voters, so why does our own elected government have an obligation to fulfill all its requests?
There is no mutual defense treaty between the U.S. and Israel.
May 16, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So let me ask, in what way is Israel an ally of the United states?
When has israel since the fall of the USSR helped the US in anyway. It seems like US support of Israel is a multi billion dollar per year cost that alienates about 1/3rd of the population of the world, and for payback, Israel spies on the US.
Not much of an ally. Israel has every right to defend itself as a free country, but the US has no responsibility to defend Israel.
May 14, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It puts up with us. Quite seriously, I think that the Bush administration makes Israel look worse than the Olmert administration does America.
I would also not be surprised if we found out that Bush was timing his trips and actions to hurt Labour.
May 14, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how it works: US politicians need the support of the American Jewish population, so they pander tirelessly to that demographic. Their votes in crucial swing states and their financial support make their support extremely valuable.
The US is also a major weapons dealer. Israel is a big customer. Israel doesn't have the money to pay for all the weapons themselves, so the US gives 'loans' to Israel to pay for the weapons. In short, the US taxpayer pays for them. In exchange for this, the Israelis occasionally defer to the US for foreign policy, but they pay absolutely no attention to the US when it comes to domestic policy, e.g. the internationally condemned settlement of the occupied territories. Of course, the settlements are a major cause of Israel's security woes, thus requiring massive amounts of weaponry. Rinse and repeat. In short, Israel is a mechanism for transferring money from US taxpayers to weapons manufacturers, and a mechanism for politicians to obtain generous campaign funding through socially acceptable pandering.
May 14, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when Labour comes into power, the settlers dig in their heels and bring any chance of accommodation to a standstill (with American Likudniks egging them on).
Meanwhile, Israel has to let us embarrass it so it can keep a military ally. I would bet a goodly sum that Olmert would distance himself from Iraq and talk with Iran if he thought he could get away with it without Bush screwing around with Israel's safety.
May 15, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo! Israel is good for making money for our armaments industry. Thus, a great ally. Who cares if people die - as long as money gets transferred fast enough to the wealthy elite here. And, it is our money being transferred.
May 15, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Israel's people dieing.
The military could at least show some gratitude by not ripping off the TROPHY system, but no, it has to take the profits. Meanwhile, American troops die because Boeing wanted to take the money that should have gone to Israeli industry.
May 15, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin,
I was way wrong when I entertained the possibility of simple-mindedness in a comment thread for Coates' "Zionism" post. You raise some mighty complicated points here with genuine sensability and intellectual integrity. I hope you accept my apoligies.
May 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's okay, it was a bad half joke about Florida, old people, and my mother's side of the family (not Likudniks, or even political, but still kind of... quirky) with a self-deprecating use of stereotypes.
I'm sometimes a little clumsy with my humour, most likely as a result of Asperger's.
May 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for sharing your impressions.
I used to follow the Iranian nuclear diplomatic game much more closely, for a couple years. I stopped when every time it turned out to be a "tit-for-tat game of threat and counterthreat designed to concentrate", except it wasn't just the U.S. doing it to this a specific mind of a specific Iranian poobah or poohbahs, it was the Iranians doing it, too, usually more skillfully than the U.S. or the E.U. or the I.A.E.
The main problem is that the U.S. and Iran have no relationship, therefore, they speak to each other, negotitate in a way, in code of press conference You cannot take this stuff at face value like normal talk. The neo-conservatives grab the press conference stuff "untranslated" and flog it, because of their inclination. But you have to compare what the most seasoned diplomatic correspondents say from their sources "what they really meant" or "what reaction was wanted" and then check against what the Iranian people are being told in IRNA, and things like that. So much of what is said is a big game. I think the Iranian mullahs are very very savvy at this, at talking "western media," you are not dealing with someone like a Wahhabi state cleric here.
I think that Shirin Ebadi is correct in the quote, and not only for the reason that she states in the quote. Everything I've read makes me believe that BOTH the urban Iranian people who are very pro-Western, including those that are anti-Mullah, and the more rural conservative Iranians, overall the majority, are very nationalistic and like the idea of having nuclear weapons, that it would make them proud. So a strike would cause not only a crackdown on those that are anti-nuclear, but cause the people to turn defensive. THAT SAID, I think many on the left gets overly alarmist (sort of the flip side of the neo-con anti-Iran frenzy) about what would happen if there was a strike against a facility.
I think the results might be something like that recent strike in Syria: more silence than you might expect. Why? Because:
If there is a facility, or there is not a facility, the Iranian mullahs like to play the game that they don't have one, and don't intend one, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, they like to play the game with the West and the IAEA thinking that maybe they do and maybe they will. It gives them the power of nuclear weapons with or without having them. They would like to stretch out this status quo as long as possible, it plays well for them, the people like it, too. Yes, it's the Cheshire cat. Don't forget that chess was invented in Persia.
If there was a strike, I think it would really be stupid, and I think it could cause a lot of trouble, but I think the chance of it blowing up to be WWIII like many on the left think is highly unlikely. I don't worry about it as much as many other things, and I don't follow it closely anymore because it's always the same old same old, over and over and over. If only people can get it into their heads that this status quo of gaming back and forth, threats and counterthreats, could go on for a very long time and everything would be fine, think of it as a kind of stability. The key is to have someone skillful doing it. That's where having a better U.S. administration come in--I think the Americans make the job more difficult for the E.U. diplomats and IAEA than is necessary. It's not like they play beta dog to Iran, for example, Sarkozy, and Chirac before him, could bluster and threaten Iran with the best of them when need be.
May 14, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have added that I think Ahmadinejad is a bit of a rogue inside the Iran power structure, as in, he's not always following the script the real boss men would like. But he has benefits for them, too. I guess a good analogy would be Tom DeLay being tolerated by the GOP power structure even though he was a doofus a lot of time, and abused power, and caused them a lot of trouble, he brought them a lot of benefits, too.
May 14, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a little more if Pat Robertson was an official figure, but with a similar level of power. At this point, Ach (don't want to bother w/ spelling) is just a big mouth, either intentionally (meaning he can, but he won't) or because he was stripped of power.
May 15, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here you do, a good May 17 "translation" of the "game" and all the neo-con "bluster" you have been subjected to, by a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service with 29 years experience:
from
Saudis, US grapple with Iran challenge
By M K Bhadrakumar
Asia Times
The entire piece is well worth a read.
May 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the all bold text--we regular posters don't have preview function to check out whether all of our format code worked out properly.
May 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant piece, Todd. And bravo to Steve Spiegel for standing up to the war mongering. I'm glad you are at that conference. And I'm glad I skipped it.
Sounds like AIPAC on steroids.
How utterly amazing that these guys would put their populations (and ours) under threat rather
than simply sit down with the Iranians and negotiate a "grand bargain" that would end the threat.
I say that both as an American,who has no interest in putting my kids at risk in a game of chicken with the Mullahs, and as a Jew who fears that an Israeli military attack on Iran would lead to the destruction of Israel.
Madness, absolute madness.
If it is going to happen, it has to happen between now and Jan. 20. Neither Obama nor McCain are embarking on a second neocon war. Onviously Obama wouldn't. But neither would Mc Cain because he is a patriot who would not let the Feith-Perle & Co. axis anywhere near power.
We need to worry from now until 1-20. After that,
this particular kind of nutcase will be out in the cold, celebrating the beautiful success their Iraq war turned out to be.
May 14, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But neither would Mc Cain because he is a patriot who would not let the Feith-Perle & Co. axis anywhere near power.
MJ, he's a patriot but not the way you mean. He's an American global hegemonist -- or, if you prefer, an American imperialist. I have no idea why you think he wouldn't start another war.
May 15, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain was the neocons candidate in 2000. His 2008 foreign policy team is dominated by neocons. His willingness to start war may in fact be worse than Bush.
May 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given what's being said by Thomas Friedman ("The New Cold War"), as reported by Glenn Greenwald, and by a Washington Post article that quoted a US armay officer—Iraq based—stating that Iran is behind assassination hits, I suspect that there's a more than 50-50 chance that the Bush admin. will attack Iraq before the November election (or Israel will).
What's to stop him? Them? What do they have to lose?
The fact that Obama is talking about speaking to Iran, trying to cool the incipient flames of war, is enough to make Bush, the McCain campaign and the Lukud wing of the GOP (and the Usual Suspects: Kristol, Feith, Krauthammer, et al), salivate at the idea of whacking Iran.
Who and what will stop them? Hell, Bush may even be in Israel giving the nod.
If you look at who's beating the drums of war it is the same cast of characters who led us into the most recent debacle.
And there's nothing like a US presidential election to make people go ape-shit crazy, jingoistically mad and froth about war or the possibilityof war, or hiding the flag for political reasons, or pandering to strategic ethnic groups.
That's what US elections have become: a time to go mad (""let's gro crazy!").
So, as much as I don't want to see any more bombs dropped, Ahmadinejad calling Israel a "stinking corpse" is just one more notch of a reason, in the eyes of the country's warfreak crowd, to do what Randy Newman once sang:
"Drop the big one."
May 14, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's not just the "left", appraiser, it's the U.S. military, the generals and the most experienced military minds being tasked to look at what would happen, and it's nearly unanimous that there would be a tectonic reaction on the part of Iran to its country being bombed the The Great and Greater Satan. And why wouldn't they react? I would if I were them.
May 14, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
One question: would the Iranians really kill the people who all their rhetoric has supposedly been in support of?
The Palestinians are all around Israel proper (class A territories?), so there is no way in hell they'd miss the fallout, and they'd probably be caught in the blasts, too. Does this make the Palestinians a defensive symbiont (or, if you have a more negative view, a human shield)?
May 15, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPACMEMBER: may the bodhisattva of tradgedy sit on your 'bloviating' face forever....
May 15, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
BOOM BOOM BOOM
Hmmm, sounds like a drumbeat....
May 15, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Iran is to the Iraq mess for the neocons what China was to the Vietnam mess for the LBJ and the Nixon people.
There were always frustration at the lack of success in 'Nam, leading to designs to attack China. But beyond a few small incidents not much happened, ultimately.
The reason was that Vietnam, after all, was the post-Cuba outlet to fighting 'Communism' without actually engaging the Cold War opponent(s) directly- which would meant escalation to a very bad and risky outcome.
Likewise, Iraq is in good measure an outlet for the post-9/11 desire to fight 'terrorism', but not attack any significantly capable source of anti-Western terrorism directly. But going up against Iran directly could lead to a worldwide terrorism campaign. So attacking Iran, like attacking China, could well backfire in leading to fighting the big fight that is in fact being avoided as too dangerous and in which control can be lost.
May 15, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attacking Iran would be the biggest, costliest and stupidest blunder -- more so than Iraq which is already considered to be in US history.
While the younger Iranians are pro-Western they will line up behind their government in support. It will also further isolate them. They do not want the US to attack, saying it would set their small amount of progress back decades.
Furthermore Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA and El-Baradei, who says Iran does not have any nuclear programmes. Iran opened up its doors to the IAEA -- they found nothing.
The weapons confiscated the other day, before checking, Bush and others told the press had been manufactured in Iran. Well as it turned out not one weapon had been made in Iran. Nothing like standing there with egg on your face.
The nuclear fall-out from bombing Iran's plants would kill millions of people including some of our US soldiers in Iraq not to mention neighbouring states. This is a very dangerous plan and it will backfire. We could expect something much worse than 911 by-ten. The world outcry and backlash will be ... well, nothing good can come from this.
Ahmadinejad is only a figure head who shoots off his mouth (like Bush) without thinking.
Most are not aware that Iran used back channels via Switzerland to talk with the Bush administration before the US attacked Iraq or shortly thereafter, conceding to all of Bush's demands; Cheney said no talks! There is no doubt Cheney wants war!
Some of the recent events in Iran raised ire of the Bush administration. Recently Iran switched from the petro dollar to euros. Iran is a member of OPEC which the US has no power or control over. Draw what you want from that, but combined with the upcoming elections Bush & Cheney believe that will ensure a McCain-republican win! And this is about regime change. Bush has said as much or rather verbatim a year or more ago. His oil buddies would be ever so grateful. China and Russia not so much and could Yes possibly even start the cold war -- more likely WW3. A pipeline from Iran to India also presents a problem for US oil companies. There are a myriad of things which the Bush administration do not want to occur. None of which is a threat to us or Israel except who controls the oil!
Kissinger said those who control the oil, controls the world!
Israel has always wanted to castrate Iran. Now Iran's growing power and influence in the region gives Israel incentive ... a chance to show off its military prowess -- maybe even use some of its nuclear weapons. Israel has an arsenal of 200 - 400 nukes. It is okay if Israel has nuclear bombs, but Iran cannot nor can they build nuclear power for domestic purposes. Oddly ironic it was the US that sold Iran the idea and equipment years ago and promised to help build the plants.
Don't think for a minute Iran will sit there and allow the US and/or Israel to attack without consequence ... Iran will attack back. The Iranian army is not Saddam's army; it is modern and powerful. So is Iran.
Moreover Iran has not attacked another country in two centuries and more. Israelis are not thinking straight. They are getting hyped by the fear mongering Bush is wont to do. Iran would never attack Israel because in doing so it would be completely obliterated. Iranians are not stupid nor cavalier about committing instant suicide.
Last but not least, the one good piece of news is Conyers letter to Bush this week threatening impeachment if Bush dare attack Iran or any country without Congressional approval.
May 15, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is with Ahmadinejad?
Why does he go around calling Israel a rotting corpse?
What good does it do Iran to provoke Israel?
If somebody was calling me a rotting corpse, it'd put me in a fighting mood. Eventually you get sick of being talked to like that.
We get de-sensitized to these kind of outrageous provocations against Israel, and think they should just ignore them...but, Jeez, how much can a guy take?
Why doesn't Ahmadinejad shut the fuck up? What's in it for him to keep poking Israel with a stick? I'm a peaceful person, and I sure don't want to see war break out, but I can understand that people can only be provoked so much.
Can anybody explain what's in it for Iran to allow Ahmadinejad to spout the nastiness he does?
May 15, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rest of people hate his guts because he ran the economy into the ground and did nothing about corruption. Getting into a fight with Israel (and the US) is about the only thing that can rally his political base.
Fine, let Israel strike, but as long as Iran doesn't Nuke Isreal, then they are on their fucking own. They want to act alone, they face those consequences alone. I'm damn tired of spending my country's money and political capital on them when the only thanks we get are Israeli spies all over the eastern seaboard.
May 15, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't that describe George W. and the Republican base to the T, as JohnW1141 nobly comments?
May 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheesemoose,
take your post and apply it to the Bush gang's saber rattling at Iran.
May 15, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that Iran might nuke Israel is ludicrous.
Yet its this ridiculous idea that is driving the impetus to bomb Iran. Its insanity. The Mad Hatter can't be far off.
I think Ahmadinejad makes outlandish statements about Israel and the United States and then sits back and laughs his ass off at the furor he created.
Please, no references to Hitler's speeches, they don't apply.
May 15, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
Hear hear! And please, no more Vietnam references either. I'm all for learning from an accurate historical perspective, but we need to ground it in the world we live in now.
May 15, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, and even more ridiculous is the idea that we need to protect israel. Does anyone seriously think that if Iran ever did launch on israel that israel would not be capable of, to use Hillaryism, obliterating Iran immediately.
May 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calling one another "stinking corpses" isn't the way to engage.
May 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing anyone should do is get into a war in the middle east (or anywhwere elese) because someone called you a name.
"I'm rubber, you're glue" should be the reply to
Ahmadinejad.
May 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink