Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week. - Aaron Brazell
This is the one area I'm not sure Obama has the ability to handle if it were to go down. - Aaron Brazell
No American president -- from either party -- would tolerate an attack of this kind on an ally. - Chris Baskind
tolerate? Of course not. Manage the situation... different story? - Aaron Brazell
wow. I was hoping we wouldn't go to war with Iran for a few more years. This blows. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
I was kinda hoping we wouldn't go to war with Iran ever. But that's just me. - Aaron Brazell
Well, it's inevitable. It'll eventually happen. I was hoping it would at least be put off a few years, give everyone some time to cool out and figure out another solution (i.e. Iran to vote out Amadinnatime or whatever). Looks like no one's listening to me though. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
Granted. But how is it being managed today? Not so well, it would seem. - Chris Baskind
Chris, lest you forget... Iran is one of those countries we're not actually at war with today. :-p - Aaron Brazell
...or maybe we can just tell Iran to pay us not to go to war with them. Oil and caviar ok... - Mark Forman
My guess - the conspiracy theorist in me and what not - something happens (prob not nuke though) before the election. - Aaron Brazell
I think it would be groovy if it stayed that way, Aaron. ;-) - Chris Baskind
Mark (Rizzn), not that we're not listening to you. Quite the contrary. You're scaring the shit out of me with your neoconnity :) - Aaron Brazell
Yeah, something is likely to happen. Before November. - Chris Baskind
And another thing...why are you not sure Obama can handle this. Did pretty damn good with his Iraq decisions, thank you very much.... - Erin Kotecki Vest
Voting in the Senate is a hell of a lot easier than managing an international, nuclear crisis. Granted, the current administration hasn't been a good manager of the problems... but, we're talking about the possibility of a nuclear confrontation with explosions. - Aaron Brazell
...and the other candidates can handle this better because...... - Erin Kotecki Vest
Well, no one seems to deny McCain is more likely to pull the trigger on wartime issues... ;-) Not saying he WOULD be better, but according to recent polls, McCain is beating Obama on "war on terror" and "foreign policy" issues - whatever that means. - Aaron Brazell
@Aaron: I didn't mean you guys not listening to me. I know you guys put up with my rants all the time. I mean all the other guys at the secret NeoCon conventions never take my advice. Damn shame, too. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
Pulling the trigger is the easy part, I'm afraid. - Chris Baskind
This is why I'm so desparate this election. I want new ideas AND good ideas in the Whitehouse. Given that I'm a conservative/libertarian, I don't see Obama's ideas as good. Given that I'm under the age of 110, I don't see McCain's ideas as new. Srsly, though, they're both beltway boys, career politicians, and part of the system that keeps producing Bush's, and Clinton's. I don't trust that system. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
The saber-rattling with Iran frustrates me beyond belief. It's as if everyone has left their common sense at the door. Can't figure out what the hell is bad about diplomacy. As the close relative of a career diplomat who spent his career in Afghanistan/Iran/South Asia and who retired before Bush destabilized the middle east, all I can say is STAND DOWN. - Karoli via twhirl
If there is a nuclear attack in the Middle East it will contaminate the whole area including parts of Europe. - Igor The Troll
Karoli-As opposed to all the other sensible wars we've gotten into? Sorry to make you a straw (wo)man,but wars only make sense to the powers behind the scenes that profit from them. - Mark Forman
Karoli: For us folks in the cheap seats, it's difficult for us to tell when folks from the middle East mean what they say. For instance, when Osama bin Laden says he'll kill Americans, he tries to follow it up and sometimes succeeds. When Iran and Iraq say they want to kill Israelis and Americans, they do it sometimes, and sometimes not. Based on that, for otherwise smart folks like me who don't know all the Arab and Persian nuance, it's hard to decide if each threat calls for diplomacy or action. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
Nuance, Rizzn? When people tell me they're interested in killing me and manage to kill some of my friends and/or acquaintances, the times they've been too incompetent to actually pull it off doesn't ease my worries. It compounds them. Nothing's harder to defend against than a randomly-incompetent nutbar. Iran's not JUST saber-rattling, folks. They have intent, even if their means get temporarily diverted. - Alexander Williams
Alexander- the real power in Iran isn't Ahmadinejad, but the Ayatollahs. They've been in power since the late 70s, and haven't started a war with the US/ its allies yet- Ahmadinejad's playing to his supporters, but I don't think what Iran does against Israel or any of its other neighbours is really going to be up to him. - Mike
But they have authorized, pushed for, and actively participated in vilifying and demonizing America in specific and the West in general, plus not very shyly funded and planned actions that have cost American lives. Add to that it's hard to believe Ahmadinejad is off the reservation with regard to the mullahs and it's fairly obvious it's an intended action. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver
I do agree with that Alexander, but Iranian politicians have vilified and demonised the US and its allies since the revolution, and they're not the only country to have done this. Does that make automatically make them a threat? I think the US and UK are suffering much more in the eyes of the world due to our actions in the country just to the West of Iran than because of Iranian rhetoric. I also agree that Iran is involved in the Iraqi insurgency, but not to the extent that some would have you believe. Also, Iran didn't force the Coalition to become embroiled in Iraq. The thing is that Iran will be destroyed if it does launch an attack- it won't be a case of 'regime change' as it was with Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would Ahmadinejad's handlers risk that? - Mike
I would say it pretty much makes them a threat, taken together with the various other Iranian-backed terrorist attacks on US and allies. They also are trying really hard for big dog status in the MidEast, and have been for a while. I look at it this way: If we treat them like a serious threat and respond appropriately, then they can either back down in rhetoric or action and few people go 'splody. If we don't respond as if they're a serious threat and they are and carry out their intent, lots and lots of people go 'splody. I don't like people much, but asthetically the first seems preferable. The eyes of the world are worth about like they sound, $24 each organ on the open market. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver
It's also intersting to note that this entire article is based on an editorial in an Iranian newspaper, which talks about striking Israel as a "response" (presumably to "retaliate for any onslaught" by Israel). There's almost no analysis as to whether either side is going to actually do this. We're seeing the same kind of article from Murdoch's press as we saw in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. - Mike
And the mullahs would risk it because culturally, the MidEast is set up around face / respect, bluffing, and internecine tribal warfare. Plus the whole being stuck in the 14th century in a lot of ways. Between the past couple decades of softness US responses have sported (the Bush legacy being a recent aberration they think they can coast through 'til it's Obama-Nation time) and the way the media's been spinning US attitudes, they seem to figure it's a good gamble, one way or another. - Alexander Williams via NoiseRiver
I see Amerika war mongering on Iran, more a propaganda than realism! But the war will happen, probably sooner than latter. - Igor The Troll
So Iran will attack the US, Europe and/or Israel (possibly with nukes) because of internecine tribal warfare and in order to save face? Even though it's stuck in the 14th century? Where's the evidence for this? And what makes you think that, almost 30 years into their revolution, now is the time the mullahs will gamble on Iran being destroyed (which it inevitably will if they took this risk)? - Mike
Iran certain would like to / intends to do damage to the US and Europe, fully intends to do massive amounts of direct damage of Israel, has stated both intentions repeatedly, and wishes to do so / believes they can succeed because, culturally they're retrogressive and the Western leadership has been notoriously soft and Chamberlain-esque. As for why NOW, if Sy Hersh is any measure, it's because they have less to lose every day and need a big win. - Alexander Williams
What do you mean by culturally regressive, and can you point to any evidence for this? And why would that make Iran commit national suicide by attacking virtually every major military power in the world? - Mike
Mike: I think it's worth considering a couple things. (1) Why would Iran spend decades funding terrorism aimed at the U.S.? On a practical level, I mean? Pissing us off is gonna eventually lead to Iran being destroyed... and yet they do it. You're looking for logic from a theocracy. The same thing that makes GWB a pain in the ass makes the Iranian powers-that-be incredibly dangerous. - Roger Benningfield
(2) I think you're underestimating the power of fear and the fear of power. Look at how 9/11 brought all that latent paranoia out of Americans, and then consider being Israeli or Iranian for the last 30 years. People can't react rationally when death is in the air almost every day. - Roger Benningfield
Roger- I think your second point is very true. But I also think we're at risk of going over the top with these threats, as we did with Iraq in the final few months before we invaded. From 2002 onwards newspapers like The (London) Times started these stories about Saddam being out of control, and wanting/ having the capability to launch missiles at Europe (if not further afield), all of which turned out to be propaganda. Re your first point, I agree that Iran has funded terrorism, but then so have many other countries (the US (often with its allies' backing) being a major player in that field). I just think that if we assume that Iran is some kind of kamikaze nation which is willing to destroy itself in order to try (and fail) to take out the US or Israel then we lose all control of the situation, and we'll find ourselves in a scenario which makes the current worries in relation to Iraq and the price of oil seem positively cheerful. - Mike
Wow... all I did was bookmark a story on del.icio.us... Now look what happened? ;-) - Aaron Brazell
Sorry Aaron. I was just glad to come on FriendFeed and not see another discussion about *yawn* Silicon Valley. Especially that god damned puppet story :) - Mike
I wonder why it is difficult for people to understand that it is a game played by one set of conservatives to help another. Islamic fundamentalists want Christian fundamentalists to be in power here so that they can stay alive and vice versa. I would vote for someone who will promise me that he will never pull the trigger. Someone like Gandhi. Of course, people with residual tribal ideas will attack me on this. But, do I care? Hell, no!! - Krishnan Hussein Subraman
