MoJo Convo: Iran Panic? Talk About It With the Experts

All analyses are interesting and I think, credible. Based on the fact that Israel and Iran are two regional powers jostling for positions in the Middle East, I cannot see a military confrontation, rather a lot of muscle-flexing that may determine who gets the bigger piece of the sweet pie, that is called the Middle East.

Funny how our media and the experts present us with a FALSE DILEMMA according to which we either have to sanction/bomb Iran or else face being nuked by Iran. This is simply not the case. Not only are Iran's centrifuges under IAEA safeguards but Iran has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion to resolve the standoff that is widely endorsed by American and international experts: multilateral enrichment on Iranian soil. This would address any REAL concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation whilst recognizing Iran's legitimate and inalienable rights too. And that's precisely why the Bush administration and our media are ignoring it - they are using the nuke issue as a pretext and smokescreen for aggression and the promotion of Israel's regional dominance. A secure and stable Iran with good relations with the US represents a threat to Israel. That's what the real "Iranian threat" consists of.

The Israeli attack on Osirak was a failure that backfired, incidentally.
"The destruction of Osirak did not stop an Iraqi nuclear bomb program but probably started it."
SEE http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1242

Would an attack on Iran by either Israel or the U.S. lead to significantly increased attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iranian sympatizers?

According to hass (above): "Not only are Iran's centrifuges under IAEA safeguards but Iran has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion to resolve the standoff that is widely endorsed by American and international experts: multilateral enrichment on Iranian soil." Is this true? What do the panelists say?

I side with Danny Postel on this one. Whether the likelihood of an attack is low or high, the entire saber-rattling exercise is deeply disturbing.

One of my hopes is that with an Obama Administration (if that happens) at least 1/2 of the insanity in the current policy approaches of Israel & the U.S. to Iran will be eliminiated. That just leaves a hot-headed Israel to worry about.

What most worries me about Israeli policy options is that they went into the Lebanon war with such delusions about what they could accomplish. An Iran adventure would be virtually the same type of situation: much ballyhoo about eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, a strike of limited success, then Iranian blowback that turns the region into a smoking ruin.

If Israel was stupid enough to sink into the Big Muddy in Lebanon, what's to hold them back from doing the same in Iran?

While I detest Ehud Barak politically, I'm hoping that he'll be a far stronger, wiser & more strategic defense minister than Amir Peretz was during the Lebanon misadventure. While Barak rattles sabers w. the best (or worst) of them, perhaps he has just enough saychel ("common sense") to know what Israel can & cannot achieve w. the military option regarding Iran.

George Scialabba asks about Iran's offer: "Is this true?"

Yes it is. Iran's offer can be found here (pdf).

It says in point C2:

Iran is ready to consider: "Establishing enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world - including in Iran"

The model would be the European consortium Eurodif(which I think Iran still has a 10% ownership in) and/or URENCO. Some U.S. experts think this is a good idea.

It is end of the road for current status quo for Israel Iran and US. Israel after 60 years has not fixed it's internal and external problems. What is the best they can do? they try to distract it's people by saber rattling their tail on attacking Iran with media support and half truth information.

On the other hand the mullah's of Iran have also failed after 30 years of ruling Iran internally. But they have successfully made this nuclear power situation a national event and have Iranian people's full support.

And US after killing 100s of 1000s maybe million people and destroying a country without any results needs to find another mess to distract its people's mind. But Americans will always remember the 4000+ young kids lost their lives for nothing in Iraq.

So go ahead Israel, attack Iran let see if your people will be more safe, but this will not solve your Palestinian issue or GolanHight issue or Lebanon issue.

If Israel wants real peace, she will go back to its 1967 borders, kick all the settlers out of occupied territories, compensate all the Palestinians they forced out of Palestine in 1948 and dismantle its nukes.

On the other hand US will force the Arab states to recognize Israel or they will not protect their so called governments from its own people.

Yes it is close to a dream and a big gamble with a good chance of no peace but it is better than a nuclear war.

I think Ill go it a bit stronger..it ain't going to happen. The war in Afghanistan is going poorly. The US is learning why that part of the world has been shunned by many great conquers and it is learning it the hard way. Iraq...much the same. Both of these conflicts have depleted the military assets of the US and the will of its people. Attacking Iran would drag the US into conflict with the Persian culture. After failing with the Asian and Arabian ones I think it not likely Bush wants another piece of Middle-Eastern pie.
But the real deal: Iran is no punk. It is a very large and very powerful country with the ability to knock Israeli and US tacticle aircraft out of the high skies. It has a large, well trained ground force and very sophisticated air defenses. It has a huge border with Iraq. An attack on Iran would result in significant losses for the US or Israel and it would cause a swarm across that border. hate to bust the Hawk's bubble but the US hasn't the stones for this war.

On the subject of the multilateral enrichment solution - just a few thoughts.
Yes, Iran has suggested this and several credible academic-based analyses have also proposed an Iran-based multilateral enrichment effort as a solution. While in an ideal world such an initiative would be most welcome, and perhaps a way can still be found to make it possible, it faces a number of hurdles. One is how the technology transfer would be addressed--would Iran accept "black-box" centrifuge enrichment technology that is several generations ahead of its current centrifuges at Natanz? Especially if in practice this resulted in Iranian employees of the facility being barred from certain areas or functions? If enrichment-services providers were found to operate Iran's current, early-generation centrifuge cascades, they would face the lack of their commercial viability, and likely need for government (I suppose not impossible, but hard to imagine the hearings on U.S. funding to support an international consortium enriching uranium in Iran.) Even if the regulatory, commercial-viability, tech transfer issues could be addressed, there is still the issue of whether this is a good precedent to set internationally for sound nonproliferation policies. In the bigger picture, especially as nuclear energy expands, a broader approach to controlling enrichment and reprocessing technologies is needed regardless of where the enrichment is taking place. For these reasons, I am of the view that mechanisms like guaranteed fuel supplies, "buffer stocks," and the international fuel bank initiative, are better mechanisms for addressing the enrichment proliferation dilemma.

Regarding Multilateral enrichment: The Pellaud Committee of the IAEA has also endorsed it. Funny how it is barely mentioned in the US. Anyway Iran shouldn't have to accept a "black box" enrichment program - under the NPT the nuclear-have states are OBLIGATED to share civilian nuclear technology, and Iran is under no obligation at all to accept a multilateral program anyway. The US was already planning to enter into such an arrangement with Iran before the revolution anyway. There's no such thing as "guaranteed" fuel supplies and no nation would base its fundamental enery security on such nonsense. Would the US agree to cease exploiting its own oil in exchange for non-enforceable "guarantees" from OPEC to sell it oil?

Incidentally, multilateral enrichment was one of many Iranian compromise offers that the US has refused to even acknowledge, along with Iran's 2003 comprehensive peace offer (which Rice falsely claimed she had never seen.) Other suggestions by Iran included placing legally-enforced and monitored upper limits on its enrichment program to make sure it can't create the "Highly Enriched" uranium necessary for bombs, to always immediately convert its uranium to fuel rods so that it can't be diverted to make bombs, and many others. The US has insisted on totally ignoring these options. Read more at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

Of relevance to this discussion:

new Seymour Hersh piece:

"Preparing the Battlefield"

Finally, whether the US thinks that sharing enrichment technology with Iran is a good idea or not, other countries are going the way of Iran:
"Developing nations are skeptical of the intentions of the five original nuclear states and are reluctant to give up the option of enriching uranium. Developing nations say they don’t want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don’t trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants.
(See New Global Nuclear Order; Los Angeles Times October 15, 2006 )

There is 'no living with the Iranian bomb' - that is a fiction tale. The story is called dying at the hands of the Iranian bomb.

BTW Mrs Shire, the seat of government, the capitol of Israel, and the Knesset are in Jerusalem, so posture all you want how this will be debated in Tel-Aviv, the decision is taken in Jerusalem in the security cabinet, which shows me how much weight I should place in your 'intellectual opinions'. I would imagine that you would have picked that up with your stint at foggy bottom, as last time I checked President Bush & Condi Rice visit Israel in Jerusalem to confer, despite your wishful dreams.

The only people panicking are the Iranian regime, and the pacifists, the rest of us are prepared to do what is necessary in the face of a real developing threat as opposed to what is pitiful.

Pseudo Intellectuals spend all their time turning over & over what Israel, or the US might do, not a moment or a second is spent pondering what Iran DOES, or might soon also DO if armed with nuclear weapons. This speaks volumes to me.

Are you seriously suggesting that a war on Iran is preferable than to even exploring the Iranian offers through real diplomatic efforts? Don't other countries such as Brazil and Argentina also have similar nuclear programs? Seems to me that we're trying to rewrite the rules of non-proliferation at the point of a gun. Maybe there really is another agenda at work here.

Since nothing the US government has done for the past 40 years has been based on what is best for America all logical people must conclude that a strike on Iran by Isr and/or the US is 50-50.

The sole business of the US congress is 1)to get themselves re-elected and 2) to support all actions by Israel/AIPAC no matter how immoral, illogical or destructive to the US or Israel or the world.

Just burn Orwellington D.C. to the ground and start over.
Anything less is just more eternal, never ending yada, yada "wonking" on the way to the bottom of the pit.

BTW...if anyone believes that Iranian nukes are or would be an actual threat to US soil I have some time share in Iraq that you can also buy.

Ahh finally some intellectual honesty..

Thank you Julia & TPA. Sure that is exactly what I am suggesting [sarc] since it is not as if the EU in conjunction with the USA has been trying to negotiate with Iran for about 6 years now on this issue. A glowing State Dept, UN & EU failure thus far I might add. Thanks Mr Burns.

How many more offers, each weakening the position of the West one after the other will we see exactly until we simply give THEM the nuclear weapons right out of the French or US arsenal? And when will we label this never ending slide or carrot bucket as appeasement, before or after the Islamic nukes go off?

Above we are already discussing full enrichment programs in Iran by 3rd parties, I have yet to see the discussion of the fact that the Iranian answers from top to bottom for six years despite the ever richening pot on a weekly basis are and have been "No,No,No, & No & you will NEVER stop us".

Let's have a real discussion about the situation. The one that highlights the fact that everyone intellectual or not knows exactly what the Iranians are doing and exactly where this is leading, maybe we can bring in some historical examples where Radical Islam or Islamists have shown us they are even credible examples as negotiating partners in the 1st place.

Everyone's opinions are certainly valid, but at some point we will need to examine the facts as opposed to the fiction. Where are the sticks I keep hearing about, let's talk about the 5 billion dollars in German investment this year in Iran, we are only 6 months into 2008 so we are on track for a RECORD year despite 'sanctions'..

let's talk about the multi-billion dollar swiss oil development deal with the ink so fresh the contracts may yet smudge.

Let's cut the intellectual BS, and start dealing with this situation before we back all of Julia's "Joooz who control America" into the wall and force military strikes, or Israeli ones.

If anyone thinks Israel or America will accept a nuclear bomb armed Iran they are delusional imho. If you want to avoid it, it is time to stop playing footsie and to start playing hardball with Iran as time is almost up.

That can begin by injecting a dose of realism (not State Dept 'realists') into this very difficult world wide security issue. They chant Death to America in Iran in state written sermons ACROSS the country every Friday, if someone thinks they are safe from Iranian nukes because they live in San Francisco they are equally ignorant of the realities, so let's also stop pretending that this is an 'Israel problem' lest the next bombing at the Atacho station in Madrid, or Picadelly Circus in London, or Casablanca, or Instanbul, or in Bali, or in Beirut is one that levels a city.

I agree with Richard with one exception: Iran's air defenses are not what they could or should be.

Ref:

....As mentioned previously, the remainder of the [Iranian] air defense network is primarily situated to provide point defense and as such does not represent a serious threat to a dedicated and sophisticated enemy. Even lesser-equipped nations would be able to explot the various gaps and vulnerabilities in the network provided the SA-5s could be neutralized in some fashion, be it through ECM, technical capability, or direct attack.

But that being said, relax, an overt attack on Iran by Israel or the United States is not going to happen. This demonisation of and supposed "threat" posed by Iran has been one long psy-ops campaign by Israel and the United States.

For Israel such a mission is out of the question. They don't have the conventional capability. Israel only has ~10 tankers in its air force and those can support maybe 100 aircraft for an hypothetical an attack on Iran. The complex logistics of mid-air refueling and maintaining surprise while conducting a raid involving that many aircraft on a long-range flight over politically sensitive or hostile territory (Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria) is implausible.

In other words the Iranians would have fair warning the Israelis are on their way and would take appropriate steps to alert their air defenses and move their scientists and technicians to safety if an attack were launched.

In addition, if the Israelis fly through and refuel in Iraqi airspace that would de facto involve the governments of Iraq and the United States in an unprovoked attack on Iran. Iraqi and American permission for the Israelis to do that would justify Iranian retaliation against Iraqi and U.S. interests, such as destabilisation of the Iraqi government and covert attacks against U.S troops in the region as mentioned below.

According to retired General Barry MacCaffrey, appearing on a panel discussion with Leon Panetta and televised on C-SPAN, the U.S. intelligence services have identified approximately 70 sites inside Iran that are related to Iran's nuclear program. One hundred aircraft can hit seventy sites but that would not be sufficient airpower to guarantee acceptable results. Mr Trita Parsi makes a crucial point here: An attack on Iran by Israel must be devastating and highly successful, otherwise Israel's military capability becomes even more suspect. Israel lost significant military prestige in its 2006 war with Hizbullah in Lebanon. An attack on nuclear facilities in Iran that results in only partial destruction and leaves most of the program intact and the technical people still living will further erode Israel's military reputation.

Regarding a possible American attack, the Americans at the moment do not have sufficient assets in place to undertake that mission:

If the 54 Burke-class destroyers and the 22 Ticonderoga-cruisers all carry 32 Tomahawks; if the 3 converted Ohio-class SSGN submarines carry 154 cruise missiles and the 50 Los Angeles-class submarines carry 16 Tomahawks, the total number of weapons that can be deployed is, 3694. The conventional armed (1000 lb bomb) Tomahawk has a range of 900 nm. Hint; the US Navy doesn’t have 3694 Tomahawks either. [That claim is not supported with references.]

The Americans have approximately 5300 cruise missiles in their inventory (~1600 air launced along with ~3700 sea launched) so a bombardment via stand-off systems is theoretically possible. However recent military history illustrates that the Americans restrict their attacks to nations they perceive to be "weak sisters" such as Iraq, Panama and Grenada. The Iranians are 70 million strong, well fed, well armed, well rested. They live in the region while the Americans would be putting themselves in a position of having to maintain and supply an army during an increased level of conflict half way round the world.

In the event that the Americans nevertheless did attack, that would still leave U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In retaliation for an air/missile attack on their territory the Iranians would likely concentrate their efforts on punishing U.S. troops in those countries. If the Iranians decide to fully commit themselves and their resources to engaging U.S. troops in the neighborhood, as well as destabilising Iraq, the American military will never achieve anything approaching political success in Iraq unless they can invade and occupy Iran. That is not possible given the current size of the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and mercenary forces.

Israel bunker busters(from US) can't get through 23 feet of concrete. After the first one, it turns the concrete into mush, so the subsequents ones do not get through. Israel would have to use some of their 200 nuclear weapons.

As Americans, we should do all we can to discourage Israel from attacking their neighbors.
Israel promotes NOT a vision of a inclusive "multi-cultural," "multi-ethnic" society (like we do in America) for Israel, but instead a racist exclusionary "Jewish state." It is racist because a Jew is defined as coming from a Jewish mother(genes). That state is openly dedicated to the advancement of the Jewish religion, culture, and even the genetic preservation of the Jewish people. Israel uses racial profiling. Israel values Judaism above other religions. Israel should seek to be welcoming and inclusive and respect all religions, or even those with no religion.
Israeli ethnocentric, chauvinism and xenophobic values are just too extreme. Israel does not share American values and let us therefore not share American taxpayer money with them. Israel needs to advance to the 21st century in its values. The days of racism should be a thing of the past. Israeli society is where America's society was 100 years ago. Israel can do better. Let us have that as our goal to advance Israel to the 21st century in the field of civil rights.

Secretary of Defense Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”

Israel's military planners have no illusions. They don't think in terms of destroying Iran's full nuclear program. When they contemplate hitting Iran's nuclear sites they talk about disruption, preventation and delaying the program for a couple of years.
The Israeli airforce and navy are capable of inflicting a serious damage. not on the same magnitude as USA's capabilities. nevertheless a painful damage. I am afraid thab some parts of the discussion here are prisoners of Iranian propaganda. The Iranians' languague is full of bravado and threats. I wonder how people can think that a corrupt regime to its teeth, a nation runs by doublespeak and double standards can produce a strong military? did you forget the Soviet Union?
Iran is a weak country with high degree of illetaracy, large number of drug users and prostitutes, high inflation, high unemployment no advanced infrastructure, pollution and deteriorating standards of living and growing dissatifaction with the oprressed theocracy .
And above all none of the participants here have addressed the question of how Israel can live in the shadow of a nuclear state whose leaders talk openly about the need to make Israel evaporate.
And what about the Arab world. How can they tolerate a Shiite nuclear bomb.
I don't advocate a military confrontation. I
strongly believe that a war might be a receipe for a turmuil but how can the world trust a regime which has been involved in consecutive lies to the IAEA in the last 20 years and broke its international obligations under the NPT and IAEA Safeguards Agreements.

HOLD ON! Am I to understand from Hass's post and Shire's response that Iran, the country that Bush accuses of secretly making nukes to attack Israel, actually offered to open their nuclear program for international participation, and we smacked back their offer without consideration? OBVIOUSLY there's something else going on here that's not being discussed.

Mr Melman - The issue is not should Iran's military nuclear programme be slowed down or not. It should. The question is if there is a need for war to slow it down. Political means are a much better tool than the triger happy militarism proposed by certain quarters. The propaganda on the miliary option might sound very exciting, but it is taking away the focus from the necssary political solution.

Ms Shire: I am not exactly sure how bombing a civilian, IAEA-monitored, NPT-compliant nuclear energy program in Iran which started under the Shah at the encouragement of the United States because it makes economic sense, is a "a good precedent to set internationally for sound nonproliferation policies" either.

Yossi asks "how people can think that a corrupt regime to its teeth, a nation runs by doublespeak and double standards can produce a strong military?" Good question. One possible answer: the only way such a regime can produce a strong military is by being able to mobilize the populace against plausible threats or actual aggression by an external enemy. Which would mean that the only way Iran can possibly threaten Israel militarily is for the Israelis to continue threatening or actually attack Iran.

Of course the world cannot and should not trust *any* regime. But Israel too has disregarded its international obligations for forty years, violating dozens of UN Security Council resolutions, has regularly destabilized regimes it considers unfriendly, and has urged its American ally to do the same. And of course, the only reason Israel's 150-200 nuclear weapons are not in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is that Israel has refused to sign the treaty. Perhaps we could discuss some ways Israel might gain Iran's trust?

Mark,

No where does Shire suggest bombing Iran is a good precedent. Did you draw that out of thin air?

Her post concludes that "We are left to continue watching closely all the variables and pressing for a diplomatic resolution."

It's propagandistic and disingeuous to suggest Shire is saying anything that could be construed as advocating striking Iran. On the contrary.

And keep in mind, the question posed to the panel above is not about what they advocate, but what they think will happen or not and why.

I chose the question because there has been so much panic in various communitities that possible military confrontation was imminent. I wanted to provide a forum where those who have some insights into whether that seemed likely could offer their insights to readers and readers could engage with them directly. Those who offered to take their time to provide that deserve a bit more respect, at least not to have their words misconstrued.

To answer Rozen's question. Yes, I believe this is propaganda, and many people are falling for it. It may pay off it may not.

The Iranians are dealing with it at two levels. One: Rise of militarism within all sectors of the state in order to deal with the possible military threat.

Two: Propaganda counter-offensive. The fall of the world stock markets last week and the rise in the price of oil came after a rumor was leaked from Tehran on a military attack on Iranian installations.

Mark,
You are profoundly off-base to suggest that I was in any way advocating the use of military force against Iran. I was simply noting that what may seem like a silver bullet to solving the Iranian-enrichment issue—establishing a multinational consortium to operate a facility in Iran—involves a number hurdles for both Iran and potential partners that its proponents underestimate. Of course, Iran under the NPT is entitled to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. It’s worth noting for some perspective on this issue that there are today about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in some 33 countries. There are only eight or so countries producing fuel for their own reactors or with commercial enrichment facilities. This is because it makes little economic sense to develop and operate the full fuel cycle, in particular the enrichment or reprocessing component. Of course, Iran is free to spend its money in any way it sees fit. But is also reasonable to seek assurances that its intentions are in fact peaceful, and an honest reading of Iran’s record at minimum raises questions about those intentions.

Why should Israel be allowed to have the bomb? How is Israel with the occupation any less corrupt than Iran?
Why is Iran the only rogue state? Why not Israel? Why not the US?
Again, as in the comment by me that the moderator- Laura Rozen?- refused to post, how is it possible for those who see Israeli lives as more important than those of Arabs or Iranians to be seen as neutral in this?
Why aren't Israeli nukes on the table?
Simple questions for those who assume their own moral superiority.

Ms Shire, my point was that you experts aren't talking about Iran's offers. But in any case you're being a bit disingenious. Most of the reactors you mentioned are in developed countries which either have their own nuclear fuel industry, or, quite unlike Iran, are in no danger of having nuclear fuel withheld from them by the self-appointed monopolizers of nuclear technology. And though not many countries have enrichment capabilities yet, Iran has joined a growing club (Brazil, Argentina recently joined, Namibia, Uganda, Egypt may soon join.)
And, most important of all, the reason the Iranians want their own nuclear fuel capability is for STRATEGIC rather than simply economic reasons: to have a secure source of energy for their economy.

You know this, as do I. So you're raising such a facetious argument only bolsters my view that you "experts" aren't being honest - yet again - about what's really going on.

Funny how iran's nuclear program only NOW supposedly doesn't make economic sense -- when the US was encouraging and participating in the same program under the Shah, as Washington Post reported:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

I also suggest reading:
Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics
Author: David Wood
Journal: Atoms for Peace: an International Journal
2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 - 300

and

Iran’s identified uranium ore reserves could produce as much electricity as that from some 45 billion barrels of oil – about one-third of Iran’s proven oil reserves – with almost zero emissions and atmospheric pollution.
Energy Tribune Dec. 11, 2006

My question concerns the longer term, the post-Bush era. Clearly it is now accepted dogma among all but the most informed that Iran is some kind of existential threat, not just to Israel but to all "right-thinking" people. (double-entendre intended)
The EU is ever more hawkish, the public only believes the headlines, the general populus is beginning to wish Iran would just go away. In this environment, is it likely that even Obama might become convinced that the situation can ONLY be solved with military action? That simply continuing the sabre rattling and hot air approach will just leave us with another Cuba, and endless suffering for the people of Iran?

Iran attempts at negotiation? What a fool you are! What the hell do you think we've doing for 30 goddamn years since they invaded our sovereign soil and held our hostages for 444 days? Not even a meager apology to our citizens... Only a fool will continue to negotiate with a gay-murdering, mysogynistic animal who unabashedly makes claims for 'nuking' the US, Israel blah, blah, blah. Besides you retard, Ahmadinejad and his henchmen are repeatedly on record saying sanctions and negotiations WILL NOT MAKE THEM STOP developing nukes. Do you self-serving Americans actually ever listen to what Ahmadinejad says? Or do you just like flapping your self-entitled pie holes???

No one suggested that multilateral enrichment is a "magic bullet" - certainly bombings and sanctions aren't magic bullets either but our media and experts seem to have no problem in artificially limiting the "debate" down to whether we should sanction Iran today or bomb them tomorrow, totally ignoring the other options. Wow, what a choice.

the BIG picture: The US has attempted to enforce a new interpretation of the NPT which (under the guise of nonproliferation - never mind disarmament of course) would deny other countries their NPT-recognized right to make their own nuclear fuel, thus creating a monopoly on the future's sole source of power. Developing states like Iran are naturally not buying this, and the policy is backfiring:

"Almost all the new and prospective entrants in the enrichment business appear anxious to establish their credentials as having existing technology in place. Driving this process, in part, is the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment "haves" (suppliers) and "have-nots" (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements.
(SEE: Lining up to enrich Uranium, International Herald Tribune, Sept 12 2006.)

Having failed to get this done through legalistic ploys at the NPT PrepComs, the US is now resorting to illegal threats and coersion in violation of the UN Charter and the IAEA Statute. Outfits like Shire's ISIS have expressed their support for this illegal attempt at undermining the grand bargain of the NPT, and by doing so, implicitly legitimate the use of coercive tactics to accomplish this policy. As Scott Ritter recently noted, every time the media wants a bit of nuclear scaremongering, they go to ISIS. Shouldn't be a surprise, because similar "think tanks" performed a similar legitimation function in the build up to the Iraq war too.

As for the "economic argument" raised by Shire: The US insists that Iran limit itself to importing nuclear fuel from Russia -- and yet Cheney explicitly accused the Russians of practicing energy blackmail. Would the US agree to import its energy solely from the Russians? Why should Iran? There are indeed many reactors operating in the world, and many more are planned, all of which will need uranium. The price of Uranium has shot up 10 fold in 5 years, and there's already deficit on the near horizon, which is why uranium extractions/enrichmnt companies are back in business in the USA too. Under these circumstances, to insist that a developing country like Iran should not be able to use its own resources for its own benefit, and should instead simply agree to remain reliant on the whims of foreign sources to supply its energy needs, is simply laughably transparent.

This debate is certainly illuminating but the actions the US takes holds consequences beyond the periphery of Iran and Israel.

Lest not forget the immortal words of Madison (1793) "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . ."

Currently the US federal debt is nearing 10 trillion dollar mark. Adding the promised entitlements such as medicare and social security we near a debt mark of $60 trillion and that is not a misprint. History has shown that all great powers that venture in unbridled adventurism will be prune to over extension and eventual down fall. The Greeks coined the term Hubris as an unsightly arrogance that blind both the victim and the purveyor of such arrogance. Are we to fall victim to such a fate?

We are financing wars and adventures with capital from foreign countries. This system of continuous deficit spending and continuous war is one that will end in inevitable cataclysm. While wars are being fought in far off lands and liberties are being eroded here at home that piece of wisdom left by the founding fathers (US constitution our great Magna Carta) is a relic that no longer matters to our government. We do forget that Thomas Jefferson summarized the value of constitution as the chain that enslaves the government, so that it respect and serves it purpose to serve the people by whom it has been entrusted with this power.

Yet when these liberties are more at stake than at any other time the appeasers and the purveyors of unabashed power argue that the times have changed since those immortal words were written and current circumstances dictate actions beyond the imaginations of those individuals who wrote those immortal words. Such is our folly that history is always irrelevant rather than ever present and a guide to our actions. I beg to differ that the nature of man remains much the same and history serves as an example to all those who fail to heed its lessons.

Laura Rozen: I understand that this forum is limited to predictions about whether/when Iran will be bombed - and that's precisely the problem.

Mr. Safdari,

As I just wrote you off list, you understand, this is not a debate about what the panelists personally advocate or would wish about their countries' policies to Iran. After all, none of them have policymaking power.

It is about what they think is likely to happen or not and why. That's the way I framed it.

It's important to recognize the difference.

It's not about what they think would be nice, or what would be preferable, but
what they think will happen. None of them- us have real policymaking power. Therefore, in some ways, what they would like to happen is not as relevant as the insights they can provide about what they think is likely to happen and why.

My precise point is the way you framed the question is the problem, and the experts unquestioning participation in this framing contributes to this problem.

Let me explain it more simply:

Instead of asking "Whether Israel will bomb Iran" why not ask "Why should Israel bomb iran"?

We tend to skip right over the "why" and go straight to the "when" or "whether" question. The requirement of bombing Iran is therefore taken as already established, taken for granted, not open to discussion.

We have seen this before. It was precisely this sort of endless and mindless speculation by experts that connected Osama to Saddam in the public mind, for example.

The idea of going for a multilateral enrichment facility definitely seems to be gaining some
traction and I would predict that if Obama wins, it will be a proposal that will
be considered seriously. The idea has the benefit of reaching both sides bottom
lines Enrichment on Iranian soil for the Iranians, and no Iranian nuclear bomb
for the US. The Bush Administration has shown little to no interest in this idea
since it doesn’t conform to the zero-enrichment objective. In fact, proponents
of the proposal make it very clear that since zero enrichment does not seem to
be achievable, alternative solutions must be sought.

There are various variations of this idea. One was recently proposed by former Under
Secretary of State Tom Pickering, Amb. Bill Luers and Jim Walsh.

Pickering, Senator Feinstein and former IAEA head Hans Blix discussed this proposal at the
National Iranian American Council’s Conference on Capitol Hill earlier in April. The
conference report was published today.

How likely a scenario?

The problem with this question is that there is too much uncertainty that goes into this question.

There are not enough facts.

One would try to use reason but we are dealing with Bush and Cheney and thus any decision would be by definition illogical.

Also, our Israeli friends want us to do their work for them or else they will do it anyway and then we will have to defend/ supply weapons, etc.

I dont understand why the Iranians are being so beligerent.

I also dont understand how Israelis can take land with consequences.

Its illogical.

So the question of likelyhood is therefore increased when you factor in the powers that be dont really want peace. To much money being made right now.

Not by most Americans. But if you have a government defense related contract, it could be socks, you're probably ok.

Israel cant take the chance of Iran having a bomb, especially when you take into context the words of their prez; mistranslated or not.

But the Israelis need to give some on the Palestinian issue and also denuclearize.

I mean seriously, we will nuke whoever for them anyway, right?

w/out consequences

Also, the increase in oil prices could be another indicator of things to be.

If I knew that we were going to bomb Iran I would be buying oil futures now to lock in the price b/c if you think oil is high now?, wait until they stop selling us oil, Venezuela stops selling us oil, Russia stops selling us oil. And the Iranians would be attacking ships? You dont want war with these folks. Its ok America. You need to talk....Period

Let the Iranians enrich with UN observers.

Its their right.....

And we should pledge for no new nukes and start dismantling our stockpile along with other nations with over 10 nukes. The Financial war could be worse then any conventional one.

Laura....Here is how you solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem:

1.) '67 borders but Israel gets a buffer zone to extend beyond.

2) Pals AND Israel renounce violence

3) 75% of Israel can only be owned by Jews.

4) Israel gets the rights to buy property for its citizens to equal no greater than 5% of Palestine.

5.) Jerusalem is the Joint capital under control of both States and housing both governments side by side in mutual understanding, peace AND Defense. There is only 1 country with 2 states. The country shall be called Israel by Jews and Palestine by Pals.

6.) IDF becomes 3% Pal. Pal official military 2% Jewish.

7.) Peace with all Arab states
including Iran

8.) Israel gets guaranteed water rights with Lebanon.

9.) Prisoner swap w/ promise of incarceration unless Trial in a court of law in the other prospective jurisdiction. (Room for negotiations of some total pardons and exonerations)

10.) Guaranteed Pal Access to ports and airspace w/ Israeli official control for a specific period unless expired upon agreement of the parties.

11.) The military of the two states SHALL generally be required to cooperate and coordinate by agreement of the parties.

I think they need to box up our military(their stuff, anyway, the troops can sit in seats on the plane, and stuff), and bring it back to the United States, and let all the middle east nations pull their sandal straps a little tighter, and work out their problems sans the US as middleman/sucker/etc. War is a racket, energy's a racket, and in my view, that whole region, being filthy rich, is a corrupting influence on our country, our troops, and so forth. The USA is not for sale, neither is our military, bring em home and make those folks sit down and work it out for themselves. That's my view. I don't care how much money they have...

At the risk of being impertinent, I wonder what the chances that funding Iranian Baluchis (as per Mr. Hersh) will somehow translate into greater instability in Pakistan (or Baluchistan, more specifically).

I think that anyone who wishes to forestall the truly horrible effects that a military strike on Iran, would almost certainly create, should start working now to prevent a US or Israeli attack. I am convinced that the current US and Israeli leadership wishes to attack Iran. Also, the current situation in the Persian Gulf, with at least two US Carrier groups floating around, is one which could easily start a conflict, even if one was not looked for. There are so many signs that the current US government intends a military strike, and so little real discussion about them in the pathetic US media. I am working to raise awareness of danger of an attack and its likely effects. If I am falling for Hawk propaganda, then I will gladly apologize later.

Congress is doing its part in making war with Iran that much easier. A resolution introduced by Democrat Gary Ackerman of New York effectively calls for a Naval Blockade. h.con.res. 362. It is now cosponsored by a majority of house members. While non-binding, passage of the resolution will be yet another signal to Iran that the US is not interested in negotiations, so they may feel that they have nothing to lose by "doing something the West will regret" as it said in a recent LA Times story. The war-pushers... namely the aipac/cheney/neo-con extremists, could not be happier with such a response. Giving the US (the only nation really capable of taking on Iran)the pretext for war.

See http://stopaipac.org/iranresolution.htm

what seems to be forgotten in this is that oil is at play and the power in the U.S. comes from the greed for more.You cannot allow speed boats armed with explosivies to ram super tankers, you have to eliminate this at ALL costs. Money is the real issue nothing else and the justifacation is we'll thank them years down the road because we got the crude. The state dept got it's way with korea now it's their turn in Iran, oh yeah it's coming down the pipes

Mark, you & others like hass keep talking about 'Iran's offers' as if the intransigent party here is not Iran, but the entire rest of the developed world??

What are these mythical offers, because Iran has flatly refused to halt enrichment - PERIOD. You are either determined no matter what to defend Iran's program or the most gullible guy on the planet.

Are you aware of the fact that the Russians have in the past year made 10+ shipments of nuclear fuel to Iran - All the fuel they need for their nuclear plant!? Meaning Iran does not NEED to enrich uranium right now, yet it is - and at a growing growing growing rate. These shipments are part of the endless offers by the West - ALL REJECTED by Iran. The offers are rejected, yet they are gladly accepting the fuel, because we are suckers. All carrots, no stick.

Why is Iran building & spinning thousands of centrifuges? Why are they investing billions in enrichment, Russia is GIVING them the fuel they need with US approval, the west has offered them all the fuel they need & requested only guarantees that the process be monitored. There is subtantial ignorance of the facts here. Let us be very clear - THIS IS REJECTED BY IRAN.

What are these mythical Iranian offers because the west's offers are numerous & on record, all REJECTED by Iran outright, sometimes within minutes of receiving them from the west, often rejected before even receiving them on the SAME DAY.

So, if the US, Germany, France, The UK, the IAEA, Russia etc etc all state that Iran is spinning thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium while we are ALREADY providing them with the fuel for their reactor process how on earth can one stick their head in the sand & pretend Iran is not rushing at full speed to develop nuclear weapons, is only concerned with building nuclear weapons, could care little about energy, has multiple tracks & hidden programs, has invested billions this past decade in ballistic missiles to be able to strike Europe & beyond, has built & invested in missile nose cones capabale of carrying multiple nuclear wareheads, has stated time & time again it WILL NOT halt enrichment, has illicitly purchased nuclear & missile technology on the black market, has worked with N Korea on reactor & missile technologies on the black market the list is endless..

I mean there is this stick one's fingers in their ears & sing lalalalala I can't hear you concept going on here. It seems to me some will simply deny all reality and plod on in the defense of Iran no matter what the collective west says or what the facts are.

Let's state them clearly. Iran has hidden an enrichment program from the world & the IAEA for 18+ years. This is a fact, let me state it again - Iran has been LYING about its nuclear programs for 20 YEARS. Iran has rejected all offers to halt that illicit program, these are the facts.

Even if all this bluster is intended to coerce Iran into concessions, it is dangerous. In August 1914, the European powers lost control of events and blustered each other into war.

No more wars for fascist Israel.3/28/01 Nelson Mandela Nobel Peace Prize letter: “If you follow the polls in Israel for the last 30 or 40 years, you clearly find a vulgar racism that includes a third of the population who openly declare themselves to be racist. This racism is of the nature of "I hate Arabs" and "I wish Arabs would be dead". If you also follow the judicial system in Israel you will see there is discrimination against Palestinians, and if you further consider the 1967 occupied territories you will find there are already two judicial systems in operation that represent two different approaches to human life: one for Palestinian life and the other for Jewish life. Additionally there are two different approaches to property and to land. Palestinian property is not recognized as private property because it can be confiscated. Palestinians are not struggling for a "state" but for freedom, liberation and equality, just like we were struggling for freedom in South Africa. Israel's racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.” Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter agrees.

Israel needs to be an example and give up its nuclear weapons, especially, while they are not in compliance with UN resolutions and continually violate human rights and international law. Green Party leaders are calling on the Bush Administration to put pressure on Israel to open up its nuclear weapons program to international scrutiny.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Israel cooperate with the effort to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons, but the Israeli government has refused to acknowledge that it possesses such arms.
"Israel may already have as many nuclear warheads as Great Britain," said Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Israel is not formally listed among the countries which have acquired WMDs. Western governments have allowed Israel to maintain its 'nuclear ambiguity' stance too long, provoking suspicions that the U.S. might have shared nuclear technology with Israel."
Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis.” Real environmentalists and progressives vote Green. If Israel attacks Iran, the American people, in their economic suffering, will demand reparations from Israel. The American Jewish community will also suffer, even if some were outspoken against the war.

"The Iranian negotiating offer, transmitted to the State Department in early May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, acknowledged that Iran would have to address US concerns about its nuclear program, although it made no specific concession in advance of the talks, according to Flynt Leverett, then the National Security Council's senior director for Middle East Affairs.

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism".

In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the US to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order.

Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini."

And again

And Laura, Cyrus Safdari is absolutely right. This is the coverage or war as a horse race.
"It's not about what they think would be nice, or what would be preferable, but what they think will happen. None of them- us have real policymaking power."
So much for the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy.

"Green Party leaders are calling on the Bush Administration to put pressure on Israel to open up its nuclear weapons program to international scrutiny."

Green Party leaders would be just as well advised to sit around and hit themselves in the head with a brick.
They'll be just as likely to achieve their objectives that way as they are by following their present strategy.

Seth ohhh lol, now I understand.. You are talking about the hand written 2 page fax which was anonymous sent by the reform movement in Iran via the swiss embassy.

I thought you were talking about Iranian official govt position & offers to IAEA, or the UN, or the P5, or one of the 25,000 other opportunities Iran has had to negotiate - yet its stated its policies quite clearly which is NO NEGOTIATION.

Please spare us, the reform movement was swiped right out of office in Iran & crushed, did not represent Iranian official policy, was not signed by the Ayaytollah the "Supreme Leader" despite what flynt will tell you, and others in the Dept of State have called that fax not very credible & Iran's senior officials themselves have stated bluntly they never EVEN HEARD of it, let alone signed off on it.

Are there people in Iran that want to dump the maniac theocratic oppressive regime in Iran? Yes, in fact there are millions, but until such a time that they do get rid of that theocratic regime they can offer, promise commit to the moon & the sun - That doesn't make it reality, it doesn't make it Iranian policy, and it most certainly is not fact.

I will ask again, is there an Iranian offer ON THE TABLE. The answer is no. You are blowing smoke and anyone who tells you otherwise is nothing more than an apologist for a brutal regime.

Ask those reformers what they think of you all defending the theocracy over the values of the United States of America and they will tell you you are an enemy to reform in Iran, not a supporter. The most telling detail of all, the US show of strength in 2002-3, not weakness prompted reformers in Iran to want to backtrack on Iran's maniac policies, in other words the USA should not only put the military option on the table, but make it clear as a last resort it will be used.

Am I the only one who has read this article?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has launched a
"significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S.
commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the
Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

We're already fighting in Iran.."covertly"..in preparation for a full scale attack. It's not a question of "if" at this point, but when.
Before Bush leaves office? I'd bet the farm on it.

I have a few comments somewhere in Limbo. Ask Laura Rozen to pull them out. I'm done.
But here is one of those reformers you talk about Azadeh Forghani

Zionism should have such reformers.

David Ben Gurion
"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

A comment to Ron M, and a question from the panelists. Ron, I understand your concerns for Israel. What I do not understand is how you propose to resolve those concerns. Neither US nor Israel are capable of a wining a WAR with Iran. Iraq and Lebanon were the failed dry runs here. I fully agree that the military brass all over have decided against an attack. What is perplexing is that the political forces are still pushing for a dead end scenario. My question from the panelists is WHY?
Are the people in AIPAC intelligent enough to realize what they are doing?

I believe this is a sound and practical assessment of the situation from The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon:

Israeli strike on Iran not likely - local analysts

Maneuvers by [the] Jewish state mere 'saber-rattling to prod west in nuclear talks'

By Michael Bluhm
Daily Star staff
28 June 2008

Analysis:

BEIRUT: The past week's spate of signals that Israel might be preparing a strike against Iranian nuclear targets -- an attack which would almost certainly provoke a wave of retaliation engulfing Hizbullah and Lebanon in regional conflict -- amounts to nothing more than posturing to prod the West in negotiations with the Islamic Republic, a number of analysts told The Daily Star.

"This is part of Israeli pressure on the US and the world community," said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center. "This is part of an ongoing, clear and fairly predictable campaign of saber-rattling to put pressure on Europe and the US. This serves to remind Iran that the military option is still on the table.

"I don't think [an attack] is going to happen. I don't think there's a sense that military action can be or will be taken now."

Israel would not be able to hit Iran without the consent and assistance of the US, because Iran's response would be sure to include US targets, Salem added.....

"This is not Osirak in 1981," Salem said, referring to the unilateral Israeli air raid in June 1981 against the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak that Israel feared was part of a drive for nuclear weapons.

The US would not likely assent to an Israeli strike on Iran, as long as some 150,000 US troops are stationed in neighboring Iraq, said Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, who is working on a book about Iran's role heading regional opposition to the US and Israel....

At this point, however, Israel and the US are simply not readying the military assets and logistics structure needed in the Gulf to back an attack, said retired General Elias Hanna, who teaches political science at Notre Dame University. The US Navy says it has one aircraft carrier group, led by the USS Truman, and the Marines have one combat group in place -- nowhere near the hardware necessary to suppress Iranian air defenses, mount recovery operations or assess damage after any strike, he added.

Full piece Here.

The likelyhood of one or the other of the following is very high (in no special order).
1. Iran backs down.
2. Israel strikes Iranian bomb making infrastructure.
The Israelis would rather deal with Iran as it is now armed then as it will be armed soon enough.
BTW: Players aside. Is is NOT good for the world to have the Security Counsel marginalized and rendered powerless. That is where we now stand. It is SO rare that the S.C. can ever agree on anything (without any vetos). Their resolve must not be disregarded.
PS> The exact sect of Islam which the President of Iran belongs was outlawed (years ago) by Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini as dangerous. They believe that scriptural "judgement day" must be cultivated and facilitated. No other part of Islam believes as they do, nor do any forms of Judiasm or Christianity.

I believe Bush & Cheney have conceded to the horrific mess they created in Iraq and are now considering their place in history. Another dubious attack in the Middle East is not a solution nor a panacea for the gross error in their ideological "thinking" and strategy. They've been caught short and this is now a matter of their historical reputations, not a matter of nuclear arms. That is just pretext. Iran knows that it has the upper hand in Iraq, not by subversion, but by the blessing of the Iraqi government. Another attack is only a matter of one-up-manship. How we can allow more conflict is no longer a matter of patriotism or protection. This is blatant Imperialism.

While we're on the topic of asking WHY should Israel attack Iran, someone please explain to me WHY we're at war in Iraq. It was certainly not because of "WMDS" and our officials knew perfectly well that Saddam had no connection to 9-11. And in fact some of the same officials had resisted invading Iraq in Gulf War I because it would lead to a quagmire.

So, tell me again, why are we fighting in Iraq?

I am perplexed by 2 things. 1. The assumption that any attack on Iran would be limited to nuclear facilities. If I am not mistaken, Hersh, in an interview on NPR today, used the words "regime change", and his article mentioned going after "high value targets". Who would have a higher value than Iran's leaders? 2. The assumption that an attack on Iran would be limited to conventional weapons and nukes, tactical or strategic, would not be used. Apart from repugnance (which is not universal) at the idea, why wouldn't Israel, if it was faced with what it considered an existential threat, use them? And, why wouldn't the US do so as well, given the widespread firestorm expected as a consequence (which would be, in fact, a casus belli)? The US did so, as a supposed protective measure, in Japan. Was Truman less of a moral person than the current administraion?

Israel's nuclear weapons are provocative. Mr Carter made his comments on Israel's weapons at a press conference at the annual literary Hay Festival in Wales. He also described Israeli treatment of Palestinians as "one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth". Mr Carter gave the figure for the Israeli nuclear arsenal in response to a question on US policy on a possible nuclear-armed Iran, arguing that any country newly armed with atomic weapons faced overwhelming odds.
During the press briefing, Mr Carter expressed his support for Israel as a country, but criticised its domestic and foreign policy. "One of the greatest human rights crimes on earth is the starvation and imprisonment of 1.6m Palestinians," he said. The former US president cited statistics which he said showed the nutritional intake of some Palestinian children was below that of children in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as saying the European position on Israel could be best described as "supine".

Israel is a tribal state with a tribal god. This is provocative. It is time that they come into the 21st century and be secular and not racist.

Israel does have it problems. A civil rights group in Israel has released a report which claims racism is rife in Israel and highly damaging to those it touches.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said Israel was seeing a new level of racism that was damaging privacy and freedom of expression.
The report pointed to a large percentage rise in the number of racist incidents against Arabs, sometimes brought about by Jewish youths who see Arabs as “unclean”.
Social analysts reported only half of Israel’s Jewish population believed that Jews and Arabs should have full equal rights.
Among Jewish respondents, 55 percent supported the idea that the state should encourage Arab emigration from Israel while 78 percent opposed the inclusion of Arab political parties in the government.
The report concluded the results were the consequence of a racist campaign and anti-Arab racist policies led by political and military leaders.

Trollstein, it is "Judaism', not Judiasm as you mistakenly believe.

How much worse or better would the Middle East be without the US presence so blatant? Isn't our mere presence enabling radicals to stir up hate?

How possible is it that this was a war with the only goal being profit?

It seems we are missing a lot of money, hired a lot of sham corporations and given companies like Haliburton a tremendous amount of wealth.

Is is possible we were misled purely for money?

President Bush is surrounded by a cabal of evil men. They WILL bomb Iran and thrust the United States into WW3. We must stop them immediately. We must IMPEACH now! How much more can we allow them to get away with? Remember if they bomb Iran, our energy prices skyrocket, our economy collapses and chaos will engulf the Middle East. All of this will be done in our names. We need to shout it from the rooftops that we won't sit back and let evil men rule the day. Why won't anyone (except Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler) speak up??

Long ago before Bush came to power here in US I had a little hope that there are regardless of the morons that capture the headlines in the popular media and so on.
I had a little hope that there is a real contingency of American intellectuals that have the capability of doing what is called strategic analysis does any body here remember the good old days of “strategic analysis” Brejinsky and even Kissinger you know the Israeli secret servant.

But that’s all gone.
America today is a corrupt democracy hand in hand with the criminals of telaviv
In a murderess quest for relevance and continuance, profit and dominance a sickening pathology of an absurdity and delusion, do I have to say it? You know? the absurdity of asking Iran to give-up its know how and yet secretly passing information and technology to the criminals of telaviv and so on and so forth.

There is one thing I know for sure that if America attacks Iran the madness the dark residual of all your past inhumanity to that grate land will become your down fall.

Iraq will be to US what the Boor war was to the British “the beginning of the end”

Mark my words.

Jen. I, too, am concerned but most likely we are NOT going to war. The cost is just too high. The key question that I have is why all the rhetoric. Does this have to do anything with OIL Futures?
Any comments from the panelists on this?

This government already lied us into one war, and is trying to do it again. Congress went along with it the first time[although why is still beyond my understanding] and it appears they will be willing to let them do it again. I think Congress is either not very bright, or just as complicit in the war mongering and treasury looting as Bush and Cheney.

Cheney is the warmonger. Bush is his puppet! If we bomb Iran, it will be the end of our world as we know it. We will end up like our ancestors, the cavemen. Radiation poisioning will spread around the world, killing any and everything. Bombing should be the very last resource and hopefully never used. Iran is trying to survive just like the rest of the world. God help us all if BushCo bombs Iran

Yes

excellent analysis. thank you for pointing this out.

I'm quite impressed not only by the thoughtfulness of the panel but by the knowledgeability and informedness of the respondents (by the way, hello, George Scialabba!)- I would love to have my fears of an Israeli (or US) strike against Iran allayed, so it's comforting to see that the "nays" are preponderant on the panel. But I, too, am deeply disturbed by all the sabre-rattling. It's test-by-talk: see what the public reaction will be, see how Iran and US govt-military will react, sort of like going to the end of the diving board and bouncing around, then retreating. How many times before Israel (or the US) actually takes the plunge? What about the recent Sy Hersch essay in THE NEW YORKER? Thoughts on this, anyone? He is not as sanguine by a long shot (forgiving the pun) as most of the panelists, and his views aren't, well . . . chopped liver.

The answer to the question

America does not have what it takes to defeat Iran and so what difference does it make? To attack or not to attack?
What difference does dropping a few Bomb makes in Americas future prospect in that part of the world America would only bomb if it could completely defeat IRI otherwise, God help us all.
I am sorry did I use logic.

See US does not even have the power to defeat the pitiful “insurgency” in Iraq
So what chance will it have against the might of Iranian Nationalism?
Does any body here know what that means?
Ask some Arabs and Indians they will tell you.
Can you bring upwards of 500.000 solders hey even then you will have the same kind of odds you have had against the disintegrated Iraqi army.

Of course America does have the power to “annihilate” Iran
But I guess that power is as useless to America as a nuclear bomb would be to Iran.

Bill. I think otherwise. President Bush has never said that he will go to war with Iran. He has on multiple occasions called the idea ridiculous or crazy. Dick Cheney, who might shoot first and ask questions later, has also said that maybe the Israelis should act themselves. Both of these people are under political pressure in Washington. Neither is unfortunately strong enough to fight that pressure. That is the sad part of all this. There is strong undercurrent to push the US to take military action, by certain lobbies. The NIE report was all the executive branch could muster to fight this pressure. Congress, unfortunately, has not even taken that token step and appears to be in the palm of the lobbyists as usual. All said there is plenty to worry about. Bahman's comments above show where the Iranians are going with this political pressure.
American Jewish groups should realize this. It maybe that the pain of the holocaust is too fresh. It still does not justify poor judgement and action.

Thanks for the reminder, Fly on the Wall. It is useful to listen to the US military experts - hardly wild-eyed radicals. I may have missed someone's comment since the comments are far more than I originally thought, can't read them all in f