Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
"War with Iran" rhetoric brewing again
The Bush administration is ratcheting up the rhetoric about Iran again. And this time seems a little scarier than others:
-Iran opened up its first oil bourse on Sunday. This is especially worrying to the administration because Iran plans to link their oil trade to the euro, not the dollar. (Saddam did the same thing and we know what happened)
-In the last several weeks, five different undersea cables that carry all electronic communications in and out of Iran have been "accidentally" cut.
-On the same day Iran opened its new oil exchange, a new U.S. military report was released that linked Iran to weapons caches in Iraq. Actually, the report said that the weapons caches have "growing links" to Iran.
I found an article on the Energy Bulletin website written in 2006 which predicted this chronology of events:
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
I don't know enough to draw a conclusion, but we should be aware of this right now as it would dramatically effectthe narrative of the 2008 presidential election.
McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee and Bush 41 is endorsing him today, and the rest of the warmongerson the Republican side are starting to back him.
If national security replaces the debilitated economy as the number one issue, McCain, rightly or wrongly, would be the beneficiary.
As I've mentioned before, these people will do anything to secure their power.
All we can do is make sure congress prevents Bush and Cheney from declaring unilateral action
Comments (16)
Although it won't be a popular view in the Progressive blogosphere, it is becoming more and more clear that we need a nominee who cannot be defined as "soft on Iran." Iran is a difficult problem, and no knee jerk anti-war solution is going to solve it. Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Which of our candidates can keep Israel from attacking Iran? Which of our candidates can handle the crisis if she does? We are going to have to face McCain on this issue. If we assume the American people are automatically on our side, we are going to just as surprised by the results of the general election as we have been by the fact that our 2006 "mandate" hasn't ended the Iraqi occupation.
February 17, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is actually becoming more and more clear that we need a nominee who cannot be defined as an unthinking, non-critical, kneejerk responder, who will immediately support a war anytime the pentagon and their supporting industries want one. We need a candidate who has no past history of behaving this way. We surely don't need Senator Clinton as that candidate.
February 17, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, hoppy. You'll have to tell the Israelis that. See below.
February 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
US/EU are threatening IAEA over Iran report:
“If the facts are at odds with the policy objectives of some people who are keen to impose further sanctions on Iran, that’s too bad,” the [IAEA] official added.
--Pressure on IAEA over Iran report
February 18, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
US/EU are threatening IAEA over Iran report:
“If the facts are at odds with the policy objectives of some people who are keen to impose further sanctions on Iran, that’s too bad,” the [IAEA] official added.
--Pressure on IAEA over Iran report
February 18, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will only be the benificiary if we nominate a candidate who cannot make the case in open debate that this is the wrong way to improve our security. Sen Clinton has proven that she cannot. She has bought into the false meme that military action no mater how foolish is strong and that diplomacy no mate how wise is weak. She will never be able to argue for sanity over machismo, or that true strength lies in serving our interest not merely swinging wildly like a drunken bully.
February 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you miss the point that it's not we who are likely to go to war with Iran. Of course anything is possible. I don't rule out that Senator Obama can bring the Israelis and Iranians together in the same way he is going to bring the Republican legislatures to see the light. I'm sure the Israelis are ready to listen to a President who called the invasion that removed a man who attacked them with rockets during the first Gulf War "dumb." They'll probably overlook the fact that Senator Obama has promised to meet face-to-face with Amadejinad, without pre-conditions, lending dignity to a regime that is providing weapons and training to insurgents who are killing American soldiers and supporting Hezbollah in their terrorist campaign against Israel while pursuing nukes. Once he gets the nomination, Senator Obama will crawfish desperately on Iran faster than you can say inexperienced and not ready to be CIC. But that won't save him from McCain.
February 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the Israelis are ready to listen to a President who called the invasion that removed a man who attacked them with rockets during the first Gulf War "dumb."
The Iraq was a dumb war. If you think that Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was a smart move, and you generally favor a hawkish foreign policy, then it's easy to see why you support Hillary.
A lot of us don't want a hawkish nominee. That doesn't mean (as you say in another comment here) that the nominee should be "anti-war". They should, however, be anti-dumb wars.
February 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comment wasn't directed to what you want, but to whom the Israelis are likely to rely upon for leadership in the ME, Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. What you think of war is of no consequence to the Israelis. What Mr. Obama is likely to do if they decide to attack Iran is.
February 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the Israelis are ready to listen to a President who called the invasion that removed a man who attacked them with rockets during the first Gulf War "dumb."
The Iraq was a dumb war. If you think that Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was a smart move, and you generally favor a hawkish foreign policy, then it's easy to see why you support Hillary.
A lot of us don't want a hawkish nominee. That doesn't mean (as you say in another comment here) that the nominee should be "anti-war". They should, however, be anti-dumb wars.
February 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no interest in the desires of the Israelis about who should be our president. They have their own government to work with. We have ours. Israel deserves the same considerations by our government as other countries get.
February 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you know I'm not talking about what they want. I'm talking about what we want. And I don't want a President who will leave Iran to the Israelis.
February 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reply to the 1st Billy Glad comment:
When you say
it suggests to me that such a candidate would be the one who is willing to withdraw some of our substantial support of the state of Israel if they attack Iran without "our" consent.
The er, skepticism expressed by some that Obama is not the best U.S. president that could happen to Israel is largely based upon the expectation that someone who (as you put it) would "meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad" is exactly the sort of President who would withdraw support if Israel acted unilaterally against Iran.
How all this diminishes or increases Obama's elect-ability is a valid question but the way you frame the issue sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
February 18, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. But I don't think either of our candidates is likely to be viewed by the Israelis as dropping support if they attack Iran. Obama is no more likely to drop support than Clinton is. He is just going to have to accept the reality that Israel (not to mention SA and other allies in the region) are not going to let him have a no conditions summit with Iran. He will extricate himself from that promise as neatly as he has extricated himself from the promise to set a date certain for withdrawing from Iraq. The real question here is when Israel attacks Iran, who do you want as CIC? Obama will have to say, well, I'll figure out if that's a dumb war or not when the time comes. Clinton can say that's between Israel and Iraq and everybody else had better stand down. Obviously, the more we do to contain Iran, the less chance there is that Israel will have to do anything.
February 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I dearly would love to see Obama bring the Israelis and Iranians together. Just as he has stopped all these filibusters the Senate GOP has been conducting as of late...
February 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to the Sixth comment of Billy Glad
If this "submission to reality" is as unavoidable as you describe it, what difference does it make if McCain or Obama is the one who submits to it?
If I am following your train of thought correctly, the only way to avoid being completely dictated to by Israel is to do exactly what they want. Call me Pollyanna but I was thinking that the dues the U.S. paid to create the existing international order gave us more options than that.
February 18, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment