More Calls For War With Iran <--When Will This End??

[scorpio]

Posted By Philip Giraldi On March 3, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Wanting to go to war with Iran has created some very strange bedfellows.  Leading neoconservative Daniel Pipes' assertion that President Barack Obama can salvage his presidency and get reelected by attacking Iran is about as low as it gets, suggesting as it does that an act of war can and should serve as a diversion from a failed domestic agenda.  The soldiers and civilians who would inevitably die in such a conflict might not agree with Pipes that all is fair in politics.  They would no doubt consider themselves betrayed and manipulated by a venal and disconnected political leadership, but no matter.  It would not be a first time a neocon would consider a non-neocon casualty little more than a disagreeable statistic.

Sarah Palin is on the Pipes bandwagon, showing up at the mid-February Nashville Tea Party convention sporting an Israeli flag lapel pin and subsequently urging the president to do the right thing in supporting Israel by attacking Iran.  As she put it, President Obama would improve his chances of re-election by showing people how tough he is.  Pipes is at least smart enough to understand the implications of what he was saying, but Palin apparently was just parroting a line fed to her by Bill Kristol or one of her other handlers.  Even Dick Cheney found the Palin line to be too much, pointing out that no one should go to war for reasons of domestic politics.  Whether he actually believes that or not is unclear.

But possibly the most bizarre commentary supporting war with Iran was penned by Anne Applebaum for the Washington Post on February 23rd.  Applebaum is married to the reliably conservative Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who is himself an American Enterprise Institute alumnus.  She is an Obama supporter but generally has been described as a conservative who adheres to a hard line on foreign policy issues, perhaps not too surprising a triangulation as Obama himself has betrayed a goodly percentage of his flock by moving in the same direction.  She sometimes confuses her personal agenda with her public advocacy, writing, for example, several articles calling on Roman Polanski to be freed while her husband in his official capacity was garnering support from the European diplomatic community to the same end.

Applebaum's "Ready for an Iran war?" is not particularly subtle but it is interesting how she frames her argument.  The first three quarters of the piece could almost be considered an antiwar statement.  It details just how bad a war with Iran could be in terms of the possible consequences.  She notes that the US does not want to attack Iran because no one knows where all the nuclear sites are, because an attack would only set back the alleged weapons program by a few months, and because Iran could easily engage in serious retaliation both against US troops in the region and against Israel.  Applebaum also recognizes that oil prices would surge as soon as military action started.  And she then goes on to argue that the Israelis likely have the same reservations about the efficacy of an attack on Iran.  So far so good.

But then she shifts gears, warning "At some point, that calculation could change" because "the Israelis regard the Iranian nuclear program as a matter of life and death" due to the "Iranian president's provocative attacks on Israel's right to exist."  Per Applebaum, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports "historians who deny the Holocaust" and suggests that Israelis might become "the target of an attempted mass murder."

Applebaum then posits that there might well be a 2 a.m. phone call to the White House from the Israeli Prime Minister announcing the completion of a bombing attack on Iran. "I don't want this to happen – but I do want us to be prepared if it does," concluding that "I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity.  This is real life, after all, not Hollywood."

Actually Applebaum's analysis is itself more like Hollywood than real life and its claim of "necessity" is little more than an appreciation that someone you have just struck might attempt to hit you back.  A little fact checking for her article might have also proven useful.  Iran is a military midget compared to Israel.  It has no nuclear weapons and is apparently far away from obtaining them even if it makes a decision to do so and can master the necessary enrichment technology.  Israel has a large secret nuclear arsenal together with missiles and submarines to deliver the weapons on target.  Iran, far from a nation bent on a genocidal suicide mission, has never threatened to destroy or attack Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened to use force against Iran.  Many reported Iranian government "statements" to the contrary are deliberate mistranslations.

Applebaum cleverly dresses her scenario in a cloak of inevitability, suggesting to the reader that "this is what is going to happen."  Her dire forecast is intended to increase American acceptance of the likelihood of a preemptive war with Iran, but war is by no means certain if everyone involved makes a serious effort to avoid it.  As Israel knows its air force cannot cripple Iran, its government has had to devise a scheme to get the US to do it instead, which is precisely what is being promoted by Anne Applebaum, Daniel Pipes, and all the other usual suspects who have already brought America fun and games in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin used to describe people like Applebaum as "useful idiots," journalists who advance a cause in the belief that they are supporting something worthwhile, not understanding that they have been manipulated.

How to stop an Israeli attack?  All the White House has to do is to say "no" to Israel firmly and publicly and tie that no to a commitment to cut off all military and economic aid to Tel Aviv if Bibi Netanyahu opts to do otherwise. Applebaum only sees realpolitik in one direction, coming from Israel and what Israel's "needs" might be.  She is not alone in making that type of assessment.  She seems ignorant of the fact that an Israeli bombing attack on Iran would have to cross Iraq, where the airspace is controlled by the United States.  The Pentagon can tell Israel flatly that it will use whatever force is necessary to stop an Israeli overflight knowing that if the US were to permit the attack it would be an accomplice to it, virtually requiring the Iranians to retaliate and drawing Washington into the war whether it wanted to be there or not.

And if there remained any uncertainty about what to do about Iran after the Applebaum op-ed, the Post used the same page in the same edition of the paper for an additional article by Richard Cohen making pretty much the same points as Applebaum about those awful Iranians, "Fight crazy with crazy."  Cohen takes pains to ridicule any suggestion that the US might be tempted to use force to deter an Israeli attack on Iran, characteristically opining that we might thereby "Shoot our friends to defend our enemies."  Cohen and Applebaum together make the case that preemptive war against Iran is somehow both justifiable and inevitable, ignoring the fact that Iran has never threatened the United States.  Their Israel-centric view makes it appear completely acceptable for Washington to yet again go to war on behalf of Tel Aviv.

Well it all comes together neatly, doesn't it?  Those Iranians are well outside the pale and always will be, Cohen calling Ahmadinejad a Hitler come to earth again, and it is downright churlish of anyone to even suggest that we Americans might well have a national interest differing from that of Israel. How dare one express concern that the United States might be badly damaged if Tel Aviv starts another war in a deliberate attempt to "Wag the Dog?" But if there is a contrary view to Applebaum and Cohen you won't find it in the Washington Post unless you take the time to review the hundreds of comments posted on both articles, which are almost all hostile if one weeds out the syntactically challenged cheerleading entries inserted by the industrious drones at the Israel Foreign Ministry. A number of bloggers not surprisingly describe Cohen and Applebaum as Israel-firsters.  To be sure, the United States national interest as it relates to the Middle East quagmire would appear to be of no concern to Fred Hiatt and the others who manage the Post's editorial and op-ed pages.

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/03/04/ ... with-iran/

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I wonder Scorpio,

It seems they get this show started every so often. I first started seeing this back in 2006 at Iraq-war.ru. Hubris, Shilling, and Over Reach is always their  downfall because they are Idiotic Talmudics living an insane dream...


----------

Is another Jew Instigated 9/11 to happen in the US soon? Like a
Nuke going off?

By: Crack_Smoke_Republican on: 10.11.2008 [00:13 ] (326 reads)
(3502 bytes) [c] Print
Hey all at I-R.ru,

I've been looking at the appointment of Amero-Likudnik Rahm E., who is Mossad
and had a hand in carrying 9/11, and all I can surmise at this point is that some
"Big Event" is going to take place in the USA soon. Keeping ones eyes and ears
open to get a tip off of what's going on in the US is important these days. Keep an
eye open for "Israeli" movers ....

Couple of interesting links to lend credence to this view:

Rahm wants to Invade Iran
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0%2C7340%2 ... %2C00.html

Warnings from world leaders all within 72 hours (3 Nukes to go off in the USA)

http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/isr ... -political
/335-warnings-from-world-leaders-all-within-72-hours-.html

Banks and Industrial Bankruptcies abound now.

US Martial Law on the way?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10767

NorthCom Military Domestic Deployment (yeah its Rense but it should not be
ignored since the .mil link is actual)
http://www.rense.com/general84/moreom.htm

More martial Law plans:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=80539
Bush has set the stage:

Sat Oct 16, 2004 http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 1016204846
SUNRISE, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said he had signed
into law a bill requiring the State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism
and rate countries annually on their treatment of Jews. "This nation will keep
watch; we will make sure that the ancient impulse of anti-Semitism never finds a
home in the modern world," Bush said as he campaigned in the key battleground
state of Florida. The state's Jewish population is the third largest in the world
after Israel and New York.

The US State Department had opposed the legislation, saying it was unnecessary
as the department already compiles such information in its annual reports on
human rights and religious freedom.

"Extending freedom also means disrupting the evil of anti-Semitism," Bush told
thousands of cheering supporters packed into a sports arena usually used by the
Florida Panthers professional ice hockey team.

"Today, I signed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law commits
the government to keep a record of anti-Semitic acts throughout the world, and
also a record of responses to those acts," he said.

Florida is the richest haul among the battleground states expected to decide the
November 2 presidential election, with 27 electoral college votes out of the 270
needed to win.

Jewish voters are thought to favor Democrats historically, but the Bush campaign
Is another Jew Instigated 9/11 to happen in the US soon?

 Like a Nuke go... http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/180639
1 of 2 11/11/2008 5:47 AM

hopes that his strong support for Israel and aggressive outreach efforts could win
a majority of Florida's sizeable Jewish community.

The State Department had drawn fire for its position from Jewish groups — which
wield significant political power especially during a presidential election year —
and in September, more than 100 prominent Americans signed a letter to US
Secretary of State Colin Powell saying that stance was "wrong."

"The fight against anti-Semitism deserves specific, focused attention," said the
letter which was signed by former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack
Kemp and ex-UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick among others.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 016/wl_afp
/us_vote_bush_jews_041016204846

If you have a team, get extra clips. The Israeli Mossad-Rahm led hit-squads are
likely tracking with all tools available to them.

http://www.iraq-war.ru/tiki-read_articl ... eId=179195


http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/160880

Actually Israel was intended as a port...
by Crack_Smoke_Republican on 11.06.2008 [02:41 ]    
for Rothschild early oil exports from the lower Caspian region. Turkey was also brought under Jewish control for this reason. Arzerbaijan Oil/"Turkish" terminals were meant to export oil to "Israel" were it could be refined and shipped to Europe and the world. Only with actual Jews in the Region could Rothschild be certain that Europe would support the plans for Jewish control Caspian Sea oil.

Somebody returning from Iraq....
by Crack_Smoke_Republican on 05.04.2008 [03:56 ]    
can always drop something in the general direction of Jewish NeoCons in Washington, D.C. Perhaps some Accidental justice anyone? I mean Jewish people who lead a war propaganda campaign from the USA and eat Kosher foods should still worry that some "boys" are picking out their number like some juba in reverse stateside.

Pops and surprises shouldn't be unusual at this point in the Israeli JEWISH WAR using American puppets in Iraq. CSPAN Jew Journal smiles can go red and busted sometimes. What do you think ILYANA? Anybody in the USA can kiss JEWISH Ass too. And these deserve swift punishment at this point to prevent the more murders and deaths of innocents. Without Jews, America has no fangs.

Looks like NeoCon Jews making the case from Cheney's office — CSR
The Jewish Vote: Bush, Israel and Iran

By Raphael J. Sonenshein

As the Bush presidency winds down, there are probably only two things that could make a difference in the November election. American forces could capture Osama bin Laden, or we could end up in a war with Iran.

Certainly, bin Laden's capture would be popular. The political consequences of a war with Iran are much harder to predict.

Some Israeli officials are reputed to be telling their American counterparts that they would like the United States to launch an attack. The Bush administration is indicating that "all options are on the table." American special forces are rumored to be operating inside Iran already.

Leaks from Vice President Dick Cheney's office indicate that the veep does not favor an Israeli attack, only because Israel lacks sufficient force to eliminate the nuclear facilities. So Cheney is allegedly pushing within the administration for a U.S. attack. Others in the administration are allegedly pushing back.

There are also countersignals. The administration's eagerness to take North Korea off the list of terror-supporting nations is a major, abrupt shift from including that country in the Axis of Evil. The change of tone is so dramatic that congressional conservatives attacked the Bush administration's "coddling" of North Korea.

Clearly, the administration wanted a diplomatic victory that it could use to vindicate its foreign policy before the election. The United States is talking about opening up a consular-type mission in Iran, which would be a rather dramatic step to take.

A traditional view of American elections would suggest that a peace agreement before an election is a lot better than a war (see, for example, how the 1968 bombing halt in Vietnam nearly turned the election toward Democrat Hubert Humphrey).

The Iranians, meanwhile, swing from belligerence toward the United States, Israel and European nations to a sudden conciliation and then back again. One day, they give a positive response to a European initiative on nuclear disclosure and on another, they threaten to close the oil lanes if they are attacked. (American military leaders then respond that we will stop them from such a blockade.)

It's impossible to know how much bluffing is going on right now and whether any of these straws in the wind are real. Some say that the Iranians have made a preliminary determination that the Bush administration will not have the political leeway to initiate an attack on their nuclear facilities, but they certainly cannot be sure.

American military leaders like Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are on record stating that a war with Iran would overstretch the U.S. military. One obvious consequence noted by military leaders is that since our troops are currently propping up a pro-Iranian government in Iraq, our soldiers might be in some danger from Iraqi troops if the United States were at war with Iran.

Richard Nixon used to revel in his "madman theory," which suggested that it was best to keep adversaries guessing about his intentions and about whether he would be willing to undertake irrational action. One consequence of the ill-advised invasion of Iraq is that no one can predict whether Bush would take an action that has disastrous consequences, since he has already done so once.

I hate to be a party pooper, but one has to wonder exactly how the United States would manage the consequences of a war with Iran on top of the unpopular Iraq adventure, the problems in Afghanistan and the price of gasoline. Of course, noting and managing consequences is not one of this administration's virtues. And no matter how much of a mess we are in, it would be unwise to unilaterally declare that America is unable to take strong action if necessary.

The Republicans have sought to help the GOP candidate, Sen. John McCain, by putting out the word through at least one conservative pundit that Sen. Barack Obama's election would increase the likelihood of an American attack on Iran after November. (The implication, for those who are deaf, dumb and blind is that no Democrat would confront Iran, so the brave Republicans would have to go to war if the American people were foolish enough to kick their party out. Their message: You had better keep them in power.) It is a long stretch from this political argument to a certainty that an actual war would help the incumbent party.

The domestic political consequences of actual conflict with Iran are uncertain. Jewish voters differ from other American voters in their deep concern about Iran. While most American voters do not pay much attention to all these countries in the Middle East, American Jews know that Iran is Israel's most serious enemy. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a terrifying prospect. Some Jewish voters dread a war with Iran, while others favor a military confrontation.

War with Iran is not the only way to protect Israel. A diplomatic solution that takes Iran off the nuclear merry-go-round would be welcome. An agreement between Israel and Syria would be a severe blow to Iran's regional aspirations. And yet, a diplomacy-only strategy is likely to leave Iran feeling overconfident of its power.

This moment involving Israel, the United States and Iran is a fairly dangerous and unstable one. Finding a viable solution will be a real test for American foreign policy and for its defense of Israel as we seek to dig ourselves out of the Iraq disaster without losing our clout and world leadership.


Raphael J. Sonenshein is a political scientist at Cal State Fullerton. You can read Sonenshein's blog on the Jewish vote and the presidential campaign, JewsChoose2008 online here @ JewsChoose2008.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/ar ... _20080709/

China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal
(CRI)
Updated: 2004-10-31 08:51

China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field.

Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field.

Iran's oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, who is on a two-day visit to Beijing pursuing closer ties, said Iran is China's biggest oil supplier and wants to be its long-term business partner.

Official figures show that China imported 226 million tons of oil in2003, about 13 percent of which coming from Iran.

Beijing expects to secure foreign energy supplies by the deals for its economy, which has turned China into a major oil importer but suffers severe power shortages.

US Politicians are like "Coked Up" Whores Backstage of "PNAC" on Stage
by Crack_Smoke_Republican on 15.04.2008 [01:33 ]    

All of them serve one purpose - to get "used" by the Band. All of them are Pathetic and Disgusting whores.

Americans are entirely deluded at all levels. The Jew Media - wants the average American to wail and cry at pictures of Israelis getting wasted on TV but they absolutely cannot have any pictures of Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Arabs, etc. dying - suffering. They want crisp pictures of US stage handled Iraqi National Army soldiers walking the streets under guidance of US overseers.

The Jew Media handlers can not have a strong Goy Voice in the USA getting enough airtime to shut down this war. If this should occur, too many questions would have to be broached - an event that would let loose the demons that would chase them.
The Jew Media handlers know the "Whores" in Congress will bend over for any good photo-op opportunity - they can count on seeing the US politicians prostituting themselves to Israel. The Jew Media handlers want total distraction with their goal for total war. This is what the war in Iraq is to the Average American - a major, unending distraction. Most Americans have probably forgotten who Saddam is at this point and are fighting for "something" noble that the Jews have cooked up in a TV special. The images of the "brave" fight, the need for understanding, sacrifice sound like a Jew trained Staff Seargant telling his long neglected wife he must continue the mission of "nothing important" or the JEW TV images will mean nothing. He must fight to protect the "Good" TV images that the JEWs have conned over and over Americans with - instead of the actual criminal pictures of the Iraq War in stark truth with dead bodies of a lot of innocent (and well educated) people. Fight for the pictures of Bush, the Mission, Football, America, the Flag, the Team, God, Country - Israel (if they are so-called christian). GOOD JEW TV must be preserved. The reality of national decay, rot and a crappy Jew Stolen Economy must be forgotten. Americans have slipped down the slippery slope - they are living the video, the game, the dream because the reality of this Jew War for Oil is too obscene and criminal to look at. America is full of Israeli Duped "Whores" who rushed the stage and cheered PNAC, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the US military in 2001-2003. Like Groupies, they will continue to be abused by the Jew Media though they ask for more time and understanding - the reality is horrid but when the lights go "on cue" they can clap and still "believe" its all going to be all Okay. Jew Producers have used these "whore" types for years and know very well how long they are good for.

Get rid of the Jew Producers and this PNAC "show" is over.

Toss'em off balconey headfirst onto the "stage".

That should send a message that might even cause the "American Whores" to lift their heads up, look around, and worry.




Correction...
by Crack_Smoke_Republican on 15.04.2008 [02:03 ]    
the reality is horrid but when the lights go down, "on cue" the Deluded can still clap and still "believe" that its all going to be all Okay. Get ready for the "Iran Tour"!!! They are already selling T-Shirts! The worst, and ugliest, Coke Whores will push to the front to get their Tour Shirt first - they might even get a chance to sit backstage at the Think Tank as PNAC warms up.