MJ's headline exaggerates the TIME headline, which in turn exaggerates its own story. While informative, and worth reading, the story itself is somewhat superficial. It adds some perspective and detail to this issue, but not much historical depth or strategic insight.

Of course there is a POSSIBILITY of an attack on Iran. There is also a POSSIBILITY of an attack by the US on Israel. (Suppose, hypothetically, some renegade Mossad unit tried to bomb some US facility, intending to make it look as though an Islamic terrorist group were behind it, but botched the operation and exposed itself. If it also turned out that the Israeli PM or cabinet had known in advance but not acted to rein in the renegades, then the US would have as much justification for a bombing raid on Israel as it had for bombing Qaddafi in 1986).

This admittedly quite unlikely scenario points to an important dimension, touched upon in the TIME article, but only very tangentially. Thanks to ten years of neo-con horse manure, "progressive" spineless irrelevance, and spiraling down-dumbing "journalism," many if not most Americans are now ignorant of a long tradition of our country attacking other countries, AFTER THEY ATTACKED US FIRST !!!!

Believe it or not, this tradition was NOT in fact erased from history, just because a perfect storm of blunders in 2001 resulted in a terrorist attack in the US that had hoped to kill a few hundred people at most, albiet spectacularly, killing thousands instead.

Outside of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Northwest Pakistan, a few districts of certain US states, and a smattering of other international locales known for moronic fanaticism, the distinction between aggression and self-defense is actually still recognized and valued in most of the world. An intelligent US administration -which, for all its weaknesses, we now have but did not consistently have during 2001-08- will look for opportunities to exploit provocations by Iran, and not lash out against it in response to squawking by chickenhawks.

Just some observations:

Incoming @ State on the Iran Desk:

Dibble to replace Limbert as State Department Iran official Foreign Policy: Josh Rogin [7/29/10]

"...Philo L. Dibble, a former longtime State Department official, will return to Foggy Bottom this fall to take over the Iran portfolio following the departure of John Limbert.

A State Department spokesman confirmed that Dibble is expected to start in September as the deputy assistant secretary of state (DAS) covering Iran in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA). According to his State Department bio, he was previously a DAS in NEA from 2003 to 2005, although he didn't deal with Iran specifically..."

Outgoing @ State on the Iran Desk:

Hostage to Events: In an exclusive interview, the State Department's leading Iran expert discusses his *resignation* and why the Islamic Republic and the United States keep on talking past each other. Foreign Policy: Barbara Slavin [7/27/10]

John Limbert: "...A number of players with more skeptical views about the prospect of rapprochement with Tehran such as White House aide Dennis Ross and nonproliferation experts like Robert Einhorn and Gary Samore -- appear to be driving U.S. policy now, and the president himself blames the Iranian government for failing to respond to his outreach..."

"...Limbert, a scholar of Persian history and poetry and former Peace Corps worker in Iran who is fluent in Farsi and whose wife, Parvaneh, is Iranian, wrote a book about how to negotiate with Iran for the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is also the only American official who has met Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- during the hostage crisis before Khamenei became Iran's president and then supreme leader..."

IMHO -- Not encouraging! On the other hand -- both Robert Dreyfus [the Nation] &
Steve Clemons [Washington Note] keep on telling us to calm down and stop panicking as there's no chance the US will attack Iran.

United States, Iran to Restart Talks The Nation: Robert Dreyfuss [7/29/10]

"...From discussions with US officials[?], here's what I've gleaned about the administration's policy on Iran. First, there is no appetite whatsoever, and no serious consideration, being given to a military attack on Iran. Not even Dennis Ross, the hawkish aide at the National Security Council, brings up the possibility of a military strike, US officials tell me. Second, they say, sanctions against Iran may or may not impact Iran's decision-making over its nuclear program, and it's unlikely that sanctions can work effectively, but in any case sanctions are designed for their long-term impact, over years and not weeks or months, so the latest round of sanctions isn't designed to have immediate impact on how Iran approaches talks later this summer. Which means that hawks who call for setting a tight deadline for the sanctions to work are simply trying to use the sanctions as a stepping-stone to war. Obama isn't listening..."

Ok, but doesn't mean or say there isn't a time-line somewhere? -- and somehow trying to bleed Iran dry as well as the rhetoric that went along with those sanctions doesn't seem like fuzzy carrot diplomacy to me? Plus, I wouldn't trust Dennis Ross as far as I could throw him.

Obama might have the common sense not to take the US to war, but what about that yahoo over in Israel? -- With his own little army in Congress (on both sides of the aisle), as well as using both private and public forms of threats, humiliation, and intimidation into getting whatever he damn well wants, whether it be aid packages, military weapons, military maneouvers, loans, resolutions -- you name it.

Plus, this is what Dennis Ross [aka "Israel's Lawyer"] had to say in 2007:

Dennis Ross [WINEP]": "...The Iranian nuclear problem is reaching such a stage that the Israelis are putting the United States on notice regarding the usefulness of the diplomatic path. Israel is beginning to arrive at the conclusion that Western diplomacy is not going to produce a desired outcome. If the United States does not want the Israeli military to provide its own answer, it is time to rethink American diplomatic strategy and hasten to make it work."

So yeah -- really what's changed?

All I ask is how long do we have to put up with pandering to this megalomaniac in Israel -- pulling the shots -- hogging the limelight -- sucking all the energy out of our political discourse when we should focusing on our own domestic and foreign troubles and interests. How long?

The betting line on this event has not moved up at all : look under Current Events on the Intrade betting site

http://www.intrade.com/#

I am not shilling for the betting site - I am saying that

(1.) This prospective attack is a very well kept secret if it is about to happen

(2.) A person who is quite sure can make some money if the attack does occur

(3.) The war promoters know how to manipulate the public - which they did masterfully in the case of Iraq - they know making something sound inevitable is a great way to promote it.

(4.) The US public lacks enthusiasm this time.

Thanks for the crap article in TIME, MJ.

On closer inspection (past the title, I mean), the only "war rhetoric" Tony Karon quotes is a reference to the opinion of another TIME columnist, Joe Klein!

Note which words are in literally in quotes and which ones aren't in the following paragraphs (because as we all know, words in quotes are the ones someone actually said, while the other words aren't):

But in Washington, the gloomy outlook on sanctions has been accompanied by a growing rumble of war talk. My TIME colleague Joe Klein recently reported that the military option was "back on the table" because Washington was not prepared to settle for "containing" a nuclear-armed Iran if sanctions failed and because U.S. officials believe that America's Arab allies support a military strike. A steady parade of pundits — many of them the same ones who advocated loudest for invading Iraq — is calling for military action. Hawkish former CIA operative Reuel Marc Gerecht advocated bombing as the "better safe than sorry" option, downplaying the backlash throughout the Middle East and possibly beyond that the Pentagon anticipates would result from a preemptive attack on Iran.

Excuse me? The phrases "back on the table," "containing," and "better safe than sorry" are not quotes that support Karon's (or MJ's) thesis; they do not remotely qualify as "war rhetoric."

Appearing on CNN on July 25, General Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, was asked if, assuming Iran remained defiant in the face of sanctions, there was "any alternative to taking out their facilities." Hayden answered that "Iran, left to its own devices, will get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage ... And frankly, that will be as destabilizing as their actually having a weapon." Then he suggested that the Obama Administration's aversion to bombing Iran had diminished: "When I was in government, what we used to mystically call 'the kinetic option' was way down on our list. In my personal thinking — in my personal thinking; I need to emphasize that — I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes."

The aversion to bombing has diminished? What on earth does that mean? A diminished aversion to something is not "rhetoric." My aversion to this article, however, is increasing by the minute.

Notice which words are Hayden's and which words aren't. TIME doesn't provide a link to the original CNN interview, so we just have to take Tony Karon's word for it that the exchange is as he describes it.

But should we trust him?

Not so fast!

Karon is so freakin' dishonest that he says Despite the escalating war rhetoric and THEN he quotes Dennis Ross from two years ago.

How is something that was written in 2008 "escalating" the rhetoric now, in 2010? (The current year is 2010, is it not?)

Answer: It isn't!

Looks to me like TIME and MJ are the ones escalating the war rhetoric. So I have to call this what it is: irresponsible, hysterical propaganda.

There seems to be a terrible misunderstanding on the part of this Administration, when they believe that the Arabs will back such attack, if ever it is going take place. Saudi Arabia may be willing to support such an adventure at its own risks. However, the majority of the other Arab countries believe that it will be a serious disaster for their regimes, for Israel, and for the U.S.
Most of the leaders in the region believe that this war may be the most traumatizing war for Europe and the U.S.
Surely, they argue, the U.S. can bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, but the Muslims around the world will see it as another attack on Islam, and across borders in the whole region, young independent fighters will pop-up, not necessarily hardcore Islamists groups, although they may seek their help, and they will target major infrastructures across the Middle East. Eventually, the whole Middle East will become lawless, something similar to Somalia, but on a much larger scale.
The Chinese, who look at Iran as sort of their backyard, are of the same opinion. Unlike the attack on Afghanistan, which they considered as self-defense, they consider an attack Iran, as a pure and simple provocation.
They proved their point recently with their military exercise. It was not a simple word of warning against an attack on North Korea, but also as admonition against an attack on Iran without a resolution form the U.N.
The military hardware was not as sophisticated as that the U.S has displayed in coordination with South Korea, but I am sure that the American generals would agree that it is equally effective, if not more deadly.
Ideologically, the Chinese do not care much about the Iranians or their regime. They are very piratical. Iran has resources, which they need, and Iran is US$ 10 billion market, which is expending fast, and will grow even faster now that there are facing stricter embargoes.
A Chinese diplomat told once, "Can you imagine how would the U.S. would react if we started to station troupes in countries to the South of Mexico or bombard any of these countries without any serious provocation from their part?"
Nevertheless, you never know, Obama may turn out to be more stupid or much weaker that Bu$h and Co.

Consider context. The sanctions merely push Iran closer to China, Turkey and Russia, while screwing Western companies. They won't work. The US economy is tanking, and unemployment is intractable. Israel is putting on the pressure. The Congress too. So that increases the pressure for action, either diplomacy or war.

How about diplomacy?

The problem with diplomacy is that there is no agreement on any agenda for negotiation.

Iran has a legal civilian nuclear program which has been in accordance with the NPT, a document that actually encourages civilian nuclear programs. The IAEA has continually verified that Iran has not diverted nuclear fuel to a weapons program. Iran wants to keep its program and is legally entitled to do so, according to the treaty it signed in good faith.

The US position has been all over the place with many false allegations. Iran has a weapons program that it must surrender, Iran has a secret nuclear facility, Iran hasn't fore-sworn a nuke program and needs to do so, Iran is obligated to obey UNSC dictates, etc. So the US wants Iran to give up its civilian program, but what would this solve? How would such a move be verified? Why would such a move stop the verbal political attacks on Iran, and the false charges against Iran? In the meantime the US has promoted more and more sanctions which merely help China, Turkey and Russia, among others, at the expense of Western nations.

So, in this light, the fictitious "Iran problem" obviously has another agenda and other motives, having everything to do with profiteering, political advantage and campaign contributions and nothing to do with negotiations which obviously aren't possible.

Of course the idea of failing at negotiations is appealing to the warmongers. "Well, we tried."

And since all options are on the table . . .

But Iran is no third rate banana republic -- they have the capability to retaliate, to destroy cities and sink ships. So the Pentagon will say no.

There is only one solution, and that solution IS NOT WAR either to satisfy the warmongers in Washington or TelAviv.

That solution is A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE MIDDLE EAST that includes all states in the region, specifically ISRAEL and IRAN.

Let the arms manufacturers gain their profits elsewhere.

http://www.juicyshoponline.com