Some accomodation is certainly needed. Iran could agree to publically state no first use, as could Israel, in fact they could both say it at the same time. Regional MAD. The US could publically warn Iran that any use of nukes, in any way whatsoever (including proxy), will be met with Iran returning to the stone age. Global MAD.

Then if there is some uneasy peace, Iran could maybe do something about the disastrous state of its economy, which considering its hydrocarbon reserves and the voracious appetite for hydrocarbons in Asia, is frankly willful neglect.

If we want to beat the Iranian regime, rather than Iran as a country, people and government, surely the best thing to do is not to fight a war (wierdly, people tend to support governments against invaders, and especially against nuclear attack) but rather to encourage those who oppose the regime.

Which I’m pretty sure we are doing…

US Generals have run War Games simulating war against Iran and concluded they cannot win by any means other than all out nuclear war.

What is the evidence for this contention? From the article:

In the early 1990s, Clarke said in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton Administration had considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US,” he said.

So we have a discussion in the early 1990s, not the present, without a direct quote on nukes from any general.

Very weak.

What about this paragraph:

To avoid any doubt, US Generals are not suggesting just targeting military installations, they know Tehran will not be forced to surrender by anything other than massive attrition of its civilian population. They aren’t being callous, they must consider all avenues, and it is only down this murderous avenue (predicted death toll 5-10million) that is possible to see Tehran surrendering.

Can Left Outside provide any evidence for this grotesque assertion?

US Generals have run War Games simulating war against Iran and concluded they cannot win by any means other than all out nuclear war.

What is the evidence for this contention? From the article:

“In the early 1990s, Clarke said in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton Administration had considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US,” he said. ”

So we have a discussion in the early 1990s, not the present, without a direct quote on nukes from any general.

Very weak.”

No it isn’t.

There have not been massive technological advances in the conduct of conventional land wars in the last 10/20 years has there?

What has changed? Afghanistan and Iraq has. Also, Iran is less exhausted from war now then it was then.

I’m not sure what your point is.

Are you saying war is a good idea?

Are you saying that we might today be able to secure a victory, rather than a stalemate in the 1990, with massive casualties on both sides?

Or are you saying that I cannot conclusively prove the result of contemporary confidential US War Games?

If option C, then well done, you’ve just stated the obvious. However, you haven’t stated why the situation has substantially improved for the US.

Unless you explain the big differences between now and the 1990s with respect to the US and Iran I can’t answer you properly.

@4

What is your problem? It is in the New Zealand Herald article linked to.

The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (cities) and killing five to 10 million people. But short of that, nothing works.

From the New Zealand Herald. I’ve filled it out a little, but I’m not sure what your point is, please be a little more verbose so I can actually repsond to your criticism.

Funny how we never talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons. Which they still deny that they own, and lie to the Un weapon inspectors years ago when they inspected their various plants. Why is it that the biggest bully in the middle east is allowed to have nukes but nobody else is.

As for changing the regime in Iran, what is new. In the 1950′s Iran was a stable democracy that allowed woman to got to school and did not preach fundamentalism. But there was a problem. They would not allow that American oil companies to have their oil. So they over threw their democratically elected govt and installed their puppet the Shah of Iran. Everything from that moment. Including the rise of the Islamic fundies has been a result.

We don’t want democracy in Iran, and we don’t give a shit about their people. What we want is obedience , and resources.

You haven’t considered what side you’re going to be on when the fighting starts about what this “peace” means. As Iran goes nuclear; Arab and “Muslim” nations declare their new found peace for Iran; Turkey, long being rejected from the EU for not being Christian melt into the East; Iranians display unity against foreign invasion at all cost, despite what administration deploys Iranian forces, despite what country those forces are deployed to fight (US, Israel) – what will be the progressive move?

The world might just be turned upside down, and the left might have to ask whether Israel should or should not be pre-emptive, or wait to see whether or not Iran – the current administration of which country wants to see Israel blown to the sky (and there is no left wing waiting in the wings that is for sure) – use their nuclear enrichment for good or for bad.

To be frank, and we may as well be frank, what side will the European left be on when WWIII involves Iran and its allies against US/Israel and its allies? And what will the decision of “sides to take” be predicated on; history or future?

As Iran goes nuclear…

As I pointed out today, and has been repeatedly asserted elsewhere, the last National Intelligence Estimate said that Iran gave up trying to build nukes in 2003. Do you have evidence that contradicts this?

All the signs show that the political leadership in Israel is sufficiently daft to attack Iran regardless of the consequences for the region – or the likelihood of an ensuing global conflict – and the foreign policies of the EU and its member states should be developed on that presumption.

@10 Sunny,

yes sir I have, Russia will soon be filling up the Bushehr reactor with fuel. The Ahmadinejad administration has always said that it will become nuclear whether the Americans or Israelis like it or not, and that they would buy it from Germany or Russia. Russia has settled a deal and will begin the project soon [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10963821].

Iran has always insisted that it has a right to have nuclear energy, which means Schwarz can still be accurate in saying “Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003″. But as for becoming nuclear, in the strictest sense of the word, this is not out of the question.

Sally is right on. After the removal of the only democracy in Iran and the entire Middle East in the 1950′s, there has not been anything other than corrupt dictatorships who are some US’s best allys. And of course the little made up bully and the enforcer named Israel.

I think that when you find yourself arguing for, what, the third “pre-emptive” attack on a country in seven years, while the US, the UK and Israel between them have bombed or invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Gaza and the West Bank, Yemen and Somalia…

Well, maybe there’s been enough bombing for one decade, I think. It looks less like a strategy of last resort than it does military insanity. Iran – or anyone else in the region – acquiring nukes would be horrendous and we’d be looking at a new Cold War, but a cold war is better than a hot one, and the result of an Israeli attack on Iran would be scorching.

The Israelis don’t fancy a nuclear neighbour that they can’t attack any more than their neighbours have enjoyed it for the last few decades. Hopefully it won’t come to that but if it does, they’ll just have to lump it. An attack on Iran would be unpardonable lunacy, and anyone pushing for it is probably arguing for mass slaughter and regional meltdown, and should be treated accordingly.

Sally is right on. After the removal of the only democracy in Iran and the entire Middle East in the 1950?s, there has not been anything other than corrupt dictatorships who are some US’s best allys. And of course the little made up bully and the enforcer named Israel.

So Iraq is not now a democracy? And Israel itself is not (despite using PR, supposedly very democratic). There are also increasing (if infuriatingly slow) moves towards more democracy in Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia itself (considering their tradition of arguing about everything, Saudi democracy would be very interesting). But perhaps these minor facts spoil your story.

But Sally is right in that the US overthrew a democracy in the 1950s. Not sure we can say that directly lead to the current mess, but was clearly a factor. Still, since that was over half a century ago, and I think we have learned a bit since then (have you noticed we install democracies nowadays when we invade oil-rich countries?), so this is of limited use.

“Why is it that the biggest bully in the middle east is allowed to have nukes but nobody else is. ”

There is an international treaty called the NPT. If you sign up to it then you promise never to develop nuclear weapons (those five countries that had them before they signed are supposed to work to give them up as well).

Israel has never signed it. Iran has.

So, Israel is entirely within its legal rights to develop nuclear weapons because it didn’t sign the treaty saying it wouldn’t. Iran is acting illegally in developing nuclear weapons because it signed the treaty saying it wouldn’t.

That’s why.

As to a land war with Iran…..yes, of course, it’s bonkers. The US just doesn’t have the troops available for a start. However, if they did (ie, weren’t tied down elsewhere) I don’t think it would be the slaughter that LO is saying it must be. Yes, there have been developments in the last couple of decades…not least of which is having run two large scale invasions in exactly that region over that time period.

The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t gone well to be sure, but the two armoured invasions, Kuwait and Iraq, were of the hot knife through butter type. Defeating the Iranian military forces would be (assuming the availability of those troops that aren’t available) a piece of piss. The combined arms power of the US (infantry, artillery, armour and air power, that blitzkrieg thing that everyone’s been trying to perfect since we Brits started it all off in 1917) is such that there’s really not a military organisation capable of standing up to it. Maybe Russia could be retreating 1,500 miles again, China similarly, but not uniformed armed forces trying to duke it out, mano a mano.

It’s what comes after that which would be the disaster. What the hell do you do when the military and the government are hulks of smoking rubble?

16 – yes it’s faintly reminiscent of “Saddam’s elite Republican Guard” that was going to turn the battle for Baghdad into the new Stalingrad. I don’t think there’s much question that in an actual conventional war the US would deliver a pretty swift defeat to any potential opponent. It’s what happens next that’s concerning. And by concerning, I mean really deeply alarming.

I am sure President Palin will consider all options and then pick the dumbest. Got to do all she can to hasten the rapture.

In the 1950?s Iran was a stable democracy that allowed woman to got to school and did not preach fundamentalism. But there was a problem. They would not allow that American oil companies to have their oil.

Nonsense. What happened was that a radical nationalist government seized a British oil company. It had nothing to do with Iran not letting the US “have their oil” — what do you people imagine oil producing countries can do with their oil other than let other countries “have their oil” at a reasonable price on the world market?

But Sally is right in that the US overthrew a democracy in the 1950s.

Actually, there was an operation led by the British MI6 to lend support to conservative forces opposed to the regime. Or did you imagine that MI6 and the CIA can conjure up a new Iranian government in the absence of an already-existing section of the elite profoundly disgruntled with the country’s leadership? Now it so happens that this operation was a violation of Iranian national sovereignty and contrary to the democratic interests of the Iranian people. It was a crime. But it was a crime committed primarily by Iranians against other Iraniansin which the UK & US were accomplices.

Of course, the Ayatollahs would like to imagine that Iranians were entirely innocent in the affair, all the better to promote national chauvinism. And what a surprise — in the history of the coup blathered by leftists in this thread, the role of the British is conveniently airbrushed out and all the blame is dumped on the USA, in a rather similar exercise of national chauvinism.

Anyone remember around 1990? Before and after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Do you remember the news articles over and over about Super gun and fierce Iraqi revolutionary guards. Remember Kuwait;s ambassador’s daughter crying in front of congress telling Americans how Iraqis were pulling out babies out of incubators?

Well we all know all of those were pure lies made up by a PR groups to promote war with Iraq.

Guess what they are back. There are over 5 to 10 news articles or blogs everyday about the pros and cons of war with Iran. How fierce Iranians will nuke the entire world and kill all Jews.

The PR is working very hard to start this war again. They are spreading all the misinformation about Iran to make Iranians as scary as they can. BOO!

The war with Iran will be very easy…kill ratio will be 1 to 100,000+ , we American can still go to starbuck and watch Iranian slaughter on our iPhones. AIPAC and neocons will pad each others back for another job well done.

Carl: “the current administration of which country wants to see Israel blown to the sky”

Be that as it may, even with a nuke this would not happen.

Firstly, they couldn’t “blow Israel to the sky” without killing very large numbers of Palestinians and rendering the territory they consider should be handed to the Palestinians basically useless for many years. So it would fail to achieve the main objective fairly spectacularly.

Secondly, unless you make the assumption that Iran’s civilian and military leadership all have the mentality of a suicide bomber (except even more stupid), they wouldn’t nuke Israel since Israel would certainly nuke Tehran in retaliation, if not other places too. That would be something of an own goal to say the least, since Tehran is the largest Shi’ite city in the world. Without Iran, Shi’ism would be toast. Even if they did have the mentality of suicide bombers, I think they might have some concern for the future survival of their religion.

On that basis, I’d far rather have a nuclear Iran (even taking your claim that they are building military nukes at face value) than have a new wider Middle East wide war and all that entails, especially given that any such war would involve one country (Israel) who definately do already have nukes and already have a history of disproportionate retaliation.

I would agree with most of what you say, Get Over It. However, the Eisenhower administration had a more senior role with the British in the coup d’état than you are implying. For the British it was all about oil but from the Eisenhower perspective it was more a fear of Tudeh the Iranian communist party gaining power. Although the CIA had been involved in destabilising Mosaddeq before Eisenhower took over from Truman. Things really ratcheted up a notch in 1953.

Welcome back Conservative Cabbie.

To be frank, and we may as well be frank, what side will the European left be on when WWIII involves Iran and its allies against US/Israel and its allies?

That’s a bit like saying, “Which side will the European left be on when the US and China battle it out for control of Venus.” It isn’t going to happen (and I’m a very pessimistic guy). If Iran was mad enough to launch a nuke against Israel they’d be pancake-d before you could say “Farewell, deterrence theory.” There wouldn’t be a war to fight; just a big hole in the ground.

I don’t think the British role has airbrushed by the left or right “Get over it”. Pilger has certainly mentioned many times
As for a war with Iran.
1. Israel might bomb Iran, I doubt it.
2. There will not be land war, if for only the financial and manpower reasons.
3. If Israel did attack, would the UK government support the attack. Maybe but it would end of the coalition.
4. So Israel having atomic weapons is not illegal because they didn’t sign NPT, but nor did North Korea. So why make a fuss about those guys.
5. I love conservative cabbie come back sentence by Richard W .
The site is like a right wing bus station. Do you people not have homes.
6. Tim W do post you on any other site
7. Although if Iran did get nuke it would certainly turn on right wingers like conservative posters on the site like get over it, N Cohen, HP posters, Oliver K, Gove and the many more. Like Holocaust porn
Sunny you are a genius.

“Nonsense. What happened was that a radical nationalist government seized a British oil company”

It is you that talk nonsense. A Democratically elected govt wanted control of their own resources. Perfectly reasonable. I thought you brownshirts believed in sovereignty.

Oh silly me, you only believe in sovereignty for me but not for thee. .

By the way, I think you underestimate how many far right wing Christian nuts are in the Pentagon (Not the Obama govt) who are itching to use Nukes on some Arab Islamic country.

By the way, I think you underestimate how many far right wing Christian nuts are in the Pentagon (Not the Obama govt) who are itching to use Nukes on some Arab Islamic country.

Good job the nuclear button is not in the Pentagon’s hands isn’t it. Although you may be surprised by how few Christian nuts either a) are senior generals (for some reason they tend to try and appoint people who believe in force and tactics rather than faith, and most Christian nuts tend to prefer providence to strategy) or b) want to nuke things, that being a distinctly unchristian sort of desire. But I doubt this assertion which counterbalances yours will have any effect.

“itching to use Nukes on some Arab Islamic country.”

Phew, that’s Iran safe then.

Iran ain’t an Arab country.

28

True.

Watchman
i use to think that the Christian nut thing was over the top but after living there for a couple of years I have changed my mind. There are many high ranking republicans (ex president Bush ) and US military who are honest believers in the rapture. They think US policy in the region should adapt to that belief.
The US is a deeply religious country, after living there I was surprised how seriously they take this side of their life. I must say they are very nice and friendly as well but they can be extreme on this subject.

Outside of Saudi, The biggest oil reserves are in Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela.

So far, since the neo cons came to power we have started one war and overthrown the govt of Iraq. We are now trying to start another war against Iran, and under Bush there was a failed coup in Venezuela.

But it is nothing to do with oil and gas, you understand, no siree.

She has point.

Any attack on Iran would not end well

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

Mosadegh was the fierce anti communist prime minster in Iran. He was for a independence from either side. It was just easier to deal with a single puppet dictator than the entire Iranian congress represented by the Iranian people.

Look how easily shah was overthrown in 1979. Most of his powerful ministers fled Iran in 1976-77 and his generals started to drop dead in odd accidents. Before he departed Iran he was alone with his wife. Iran was given to the mullahs in a platter.

The Pentagon wargamed an attack by them on Iran. They found that:

Iran’s Shia allies in Iraq – including the present government – would surround and imprison (or worse) all American personnel.

Iran would give the Taliban in Afghanistan anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down American aircraft and helicopters (which ended the Russian invasion) and bring all the Iranian factions in the country (which until now have been neutral) in on the side of the Taliban. NATO troops would become for a short time prisoners and then dead.

The iranians would fire a couple of shore-based missiles into tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, block off the Gulf, and triple the price of oil. They’d fire more missiles into the Saudi oil refineries and the price of oil will quadruple.

They would start a serious terrorist campaign in the West (compared with al Qaeda).

Hezbollah will bombard israel with missiles as will Iran.

This whole grotesque “Let’s Bomb Iran” campaign is being conducted by the usual tired Likudnik and neo-con liars who promised us Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Israel can not bomb Iran. The US will not bomb Iran.

The argument of these genocidal scum is “We can’t bomb Iran so you (the US) must or else we will.”

What a strange thread, so rich in unsupported speculation and lurid Stopper-porn.

Here’s a couple of interesting facts: Israel bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear programme in 1981 without a wider conflict. And it bombed and destroyed (set back?) what was alleged to be a Syrian venture in 2007, without a regional war breaking out.

While I risk the wrath of logically-impaired imbeciles like Sally, allow me to suggest that these two precedents are rather more weighty when considering what can and cannot be done about Iranian nukes than some worthless rehashing of advice given to the famously risk-adverse Clinton administration in the last century.

23 @Bensix

I hope one day soon you come back to westminster skeptics, we’ve a lot to mull over together. You might deter, you might be deterred by a theory called deterrence theory, but will nutcakes in the Ahmadinejad administration be? Will Israel not strike first?

@36: ” Israel bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear programme in 1981 without a wider conflict. And it bombed and destroyed (set back?) what was alleged to be a Syrian venture in 2007, without a regional war breaking out.”

That’s similar to the way Hitler figured when Nazi troops in March 1939 invaded what was left of Czechoslovakia after the Sudetenland had been handed over in September 1938 by the Munich agreement. Next came the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 . . And then came the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. After that, on 11 December 1941, Germany declared war on America.

But his calculations turned out to be flawed. By the end of WW2, between 40 and 50 millions had been killed.

@% Left Outside: “There have not been massive technological advances in the conduct of conventional land wars in the last 10/20 years has there?”

Err, yes. During the cold war, western armies developed tanks that could run flat out for three or four days and which then required a major rebuild. The logic behind this was that a conventional war against the USSR would last that long, and then the nukes would start flying.

In the first Gulf War, the west used tanks and support vehicles designed for the cold war. Unsurprisingly, the invaders announced a cease fire 100 hours after crossing into Iraq. Just before the engine service interval for their tanks.

Owing to that lesson, military vehicles have been redesigned. Engines are required to have longer service lives. There are some modular designs too in which the engine/transmission can be quickly swapped out in the field.

Neither Syria nor Iraq were in much of a position to kick up a stink about it. The Iranians are; they could cause very serious problems for the Israelis in Lebanon in Gaza; the US in Iraq and us in Afghanistan.

They’ve got some functional anti-air and anti-ship weaponry that they could start handing out, assuming there are no counter-measures in place by then (unlikely) and they could easily shut down shipping from the Gulf – boom, instant economic disaster. That won’t be well-received in Russia or China, who are in a position to undermine the Americans and Europe.

That’s the best case scenario, by the way. An Israeli attack on Iran would surely be perceived as being US-backed. If it happens – and while I know the mental faction in the Israeli elite are keen, their colleagues may not be that insane – you might as well start sending coalition forces into combat in crusader uniforms. I wouldn’t be surprised to see traffic jams filled with suicide bombers right across the region.

That said, it’s not impossible that it could be a quick, in-and-out raid with no serious consequences. I’ll eat my hat if that happens, and yours.

@35 johnf: “Iran would give the Taliban in Afghanistan anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down American aircraft and helicopters (which ended the Russian invasion)…”

Times have changed since that study. Russia and China have signed up for the arms and technology embargo of Iran. Without external assistance, Iran cannot make new weapons and its ability to supply the Taliban is constrained by domestic defence requirements.

http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/iransanctionseffectonmilitary

@31 Sally: “We are now trying to start another war against Iran…”

Reflect, Sally, reflect:
* The majority of United Nations countries ask that Iran conducts fair elections.
* The majority of United Nations countries ask that Iran observes human rights conventions.
* The majority of United Nations countries ask that Iran observes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which it has signed.
* The majority of United Nations countries ask that Iran does not fund or arm terrorist organisations.

42 And when will the UN be invading Israel because they have not abided by Un resolutions?

If we are so concerned with human rights, and sponsoring terrorists why have we not invaded Saudi? Bin Laden is from Saudi. Most of the hi jackers on 9/11 are Saudi, and Saudi has financially been backing the Taliban.

We don’t give a rats arse about human rights, we only care about $.

@43: “And when will the UN be invading Israel because they have not abided by Un resolutions?”

This is an illuminating and helpful brief on the many UN resolutions relating to Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

Iran makes its own SAMs – it copies other peoples’ systems – a trick they learnt from the Israelis.

Fascinating and highly informaed debate – they’re all ex-intelligence people – on Iran’s possible reaction to an Israeli attack and on the Goldberg neo-con article in particular:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2010/08/of-chess-and-baseball-david-habakkuk.html

Godlberg’s article is the idiocy which kicked off this present round of sabre rattling. He was one of the prime propagandists for the Iraq War.

I wonder what the prospects for peace in the ME would be right now if there’d been no Iraq war and Saddam Hussein was still in situ?…what with his mortal enemies across the border blocking weapons inspections and *possibly* developing a fuck off nuclear weapons arsenal? I wonder what Saddam Hussein’s own response to inspections would be given out inability to force compliance from Iran?

An Iran-Iraq nuclear arms race with the UN and IAEA standing impotent on the sidelines. Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it?

An Iran-Iraq nuclear arms race with the UN and IAEA standing impotent on the sidelines. Doesn’t bear thinking about, does it?

For fuck’s sake, Brownie. I propose the ludicrous notion that an Iran that didn’t have two US-occupied states on its borders while US political lobbies vocally push for bombing Iran might not be quite as inclined to develop nuclear weapons.

It’s a crazy notion, I know.

Carl -

I hope I can, too (though I’ve left the Big Smoke). Ahmadinejad and cronies might be that insane but it seems a tad implausible. Their tolerance of Persian Jews suggests they’re not such rabid anti-semites they’d be willing to commit a Holocaust-sized harakiri. Heck, it’d render them more deranged than the Nazis (whose officials quietly ignored Hitler’s late request for national implosion).

Oh, and to summarise the concern-trolling argument here -

“I am not saying that we should intervene militarily. I’m just saying that nothing else can possibly have any effect and it would be morally impermissible to do nothing. But I am definitely not advocating for war.”

To be clear, these jokers aren’t arguing for war. Yet.

Israeli Generals and Intel Officials Oppose Attack on Iran

…Security correspondent Ronen Bergman reported in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s most popular newspaper, in July 2009 that former chief of military intelligence Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash said the Israeli public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat had been “distorted.”

Farkash and other military intelligence and Mossad officials believe Iran’s main motive for seeking a nuclear weapons capability was not to threaten Israel but to “deter U.S. intervention and efforts at regime change,” according to Bergman.

The use of blatantly distorted rhetoric about Iran as a threat to Israel — and Israeli intelligence officials’ disagreement with it — goes back to the early 1990s, when the Labor Party government in Israel began a campaign to portray Iran’s missile and nuclear programs as an “existential threat” to Israel, as Trita Parsi revealed in his 2007 book Treacherous Alliance.

An internal Israeli inter-ministerial committee formed in 1994 to make recommendations on dealing with Iran concluded that Israeli rhetoric had been “self-defeating,” because it had actually made Iran more afraid of Israel, and more hostile toward it, Parsi writes.

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2010/08/13/israeli-generals-and-intel-officials-oppose-attack-on-iran/

It’s a crazy notion, I know.

Damned right it is.

There is another political dimension.
The middle east has been relatively quiet recently.
Israel apart from the Turkish incident is not headlining.
Do the Israelis want more attention or less.
I feel less.
Off the topic
What is Iran,s problem with Paul the Octopus

I laugh at all the idiots who say “we will just nuke Iran. Problem solved”. re you seriously suggesting that you’re going to nuke a country to prevent them from having nuclear weapons which they mighty use on civilians? Have you not thought of what will happen afterwords? The radiation will spread to China, Russia and other places. And the last thing NATO wants is to piss off powerful countries like China and Russia (which I might add possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world).

@johnf CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP. Well said good sir, well said.