Apr 9, 2006

Attack Plans Against Iran May Include Nukes

Left: Iranian facility at Natanz, a site of much US consternation

(Washington, DC) An article by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh claims that the Bush administration, which publicly advocates diplomacy as a means to end Iran's nuclear program, is developing military plans for attacks against Iran and has not ruled out using tactical nuclear weapons in its campaign.

Hersh quoted a government consultant with connections to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon who said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if the US does not intervene.

An intelligence official was quoted as saying that Bush and others in the White House view Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler. "That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’"

Members of the Bush administration are concerned about Ahmadinejad's statement that Iran will "wipe Israel off the map," as well as recent statements by the Iranian president that the Holocaust was largely a myth.

The Pentagon source also claimed that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

On March 29 the UN Security Council insisted that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to present its findings in 30 days.

To date Iran has not complied with the demand, and maintains that its nuclear programs are geared toward civilian uses.


Petrograde said...

It doesn't matter if Iran has nukes or not. Bush will invade Iran just like he did Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone get angry that it's OK for us to use nukes, but not Iran?

McCaskey said...

HM: you need to correct that headline! Wrong country. I'll cut you some slack after reading about your insomnia, LOL

historymike said...

Ha! That's hilarious - and yes, sleep deprivation has its pitfalls.

Thanks for the virtual smack to the head, McCaskey.

historymike said...

Yes, there is a certain depressing irony in US demands that Iran forgoe nukes, but we retain the right to use them against Iran.

Irrespective of the legitimacy of the Bush policies vis a vis Iran, someone needs to nudge Bush administration officials and remind them of how hypocritical this looks.

Of course, this "plan" may not even be legitimate, designed either to attempt to scare the Iranians or to make a conventional attack seem more palatable.

Andrew of Arabia said...

It is not hypocritical to use force against an agressor. Average citizens are not allowed to carry automatic weapons around with them, yet we allow police officers to use them in protection of the greater good (often against these same citizens). An unstable, theocratic nation like Iran cannot be permitted to gain nuclear weapons and bring about the "coming of the hidden 12th imam." Not to mention their goal of wiping Israel from the map. Legitimate threat or no, the objective must be completed - the alternative is not an alternative.

M A F said...

Wait, didn't the Attorney General respond in a house hearing of Friday that the president is not to held to the same laws as everyone else? Yes he did in response to a question posed by Congressman Weiner.

Ahmadinejad is Hitler? Of course, this makes sense coming from the guy who believes he is doing the work of his god like Hilter.

Bush wants to deny Iran the right to possess nuclear technology while he is promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons here in the US and in India.

It should also be noted that Bush has recently stated that Iraq will the burden of future presidents. Hislife is about passing his failures to others. Of course when considering his contempt of the Constitution I can't help feel that we are one terrorist attack away from becoming a full-blown fascists state.

Dariush said...

Andrew of Arabia: "It is not hypocritical to use force against an agressor."

Agressor? Talk about hypocrisy.

It isn't Iran that is constantly threatening the U.S. with nuclear annihilation.

It isn't Iran whose vice president's sclerotic, twitchy finger is poised over "the button."

Iran hasn't flown any illegal unmanned drones over Missouri or Massachusetts, as the United States does routinely over Iran, launched from occupied territory in Iraq.

And it isn't Iran that's "spending $75 million" to fund "non-governmental organizations and alternative media broadcasts" in the United States.

"An unstable, theocratic nation like Iran cannot be permitted to gain nuclear weapons and bring about the 'coming of the hidden 12th imam.'"

Unstable and theocratic, ey? Reminds me of a certain fatfuck, greasy-haired, snake-handling "evangelical" who's begun his own lobby to help bring about the "coming of the Lord" and "The Rapture".

"Not to mention their goal of wiping Israel from the map."

And now we get to the crux of the matter.

The raison d'etre for the whole project of Pax Americana.

Or is Pax Judaica a more accurate term?

No matter. As every student of history knows Hubris is always followed closely by Nemesis.

Anonymous said...

Lots of nice arguements here on this one!
Should we just nuke Iran and be done with all it's BS? No.

Should we sit idle while they develope their own nukes while promising to use them on their neighbor? I'll answer a question with a question. "Would you sit idle while and nutcase neighbor obtains a gun to murder another neighbor?"
Sorry folks but, Iran has a history of being the "nutcase neighbor" of the mid east and has always been far from rational in world affairs. The "we got nukes, why can't they have em?" arguement is the most ignorant thing I've heard babbled from a supposed educated mind, let alone from a liberal that should be against nuclear proliferation in the first place.
Dariush, yes Iran has made threats against America. And, America didn't hold the Iranian embassy staff hostage for well over a year either.
No, Iran isn't spending 75 million a year for broadcasting in America--they have you doing it for free!
Voice of America has sparked the ideals of having a free society in more parts of the world than you know. ASK someone from Eastern Europe what those broadcasts meant to them. Ask dissidents from China what those broadcasts mean to them. It's hope. You wouldn't recognize it because you have never had to live under the system you help propagate.

And to M A F, scared of "one more terrorist incident turning the USA into a facist state"? There is a built in provision in the bill of rights to keep our country from ever becomming a facist, communist, socialist or, theologenic state. It's called the 2nd amendment! It's the last resort in the checks and balances of our form of government but, we have it!

-Sepp said...

I posted that.

Wally said...

Hey Dariush - when you talk about being a student of history, I suggest that you examine a British cat named Chamberlain - more popularly known as 'peace in our time' Chamberlain. I think that you, being the superb "student of history" you infer yourself to be, can expound on the results of that delightful policy.
Anyone who condones a rogue state such as Iran possessing nuclear weapons needs to re-examine his IQ and the quality of his/her common sense.
And in my experience, anyone who uses phrases such as 'sclerotic, twitchy finger" is more interested in impressing readers with his vocabulary than his erudition - or in this case, lack of same.
Bush may be everything his detractors say he is....but that doesn't mean the sun is coming up in the west tomorrow when he says it's coming up in the east.
The US, despite having had nuclear weaponry since WW2 has never used its capability, except in Japan. And historians have noted that the price of not using them was many many more deaths than were caused by their use.
Hitler would have had nuclear weapons within a year after his defeat...does anyone think that Europe would have survived in those circumstances, given the V1 and V2 rocket successes? How about England?
As someone else here said - the alternative is not an alternative.
So I will add - self styled 'students of history' should be a bit less selective of just what history they choose to examine and expound on.
Your grade: F-


Dariush said...

Sepp: "Dariush, yes Iran has made threats against America."

Saying that they will retaliate with "harm and pain" if attacked, in response to continuous verbal threats coming from the administration, is not the same as "making threats against America" out of the blue.

Unless you believe the proper response for any country that is threatened by the U.S. government is to lay down like a doormat.

"Should we sit idle while they develope their own nukes while promising to use them on their neighbor? I'll answer a question with a question. 'Would you sit idle while and nutcase neighbor obtains a gun to murder another neighbor?'
Sorry folks but, Iran has a history of being the 'nutcase neighbor' of the mid east and has always been far from rational in world affairs."

Actually, Iran has always acted in its own self-interest -- which is the only sane, rational foreign policy any nation can or should pursue. This is true for its actions in and relations with Iraq, Afghanistan (arming and aiding the "Northern Alliance"), Russia, China, India, Lebanon, Palestine, Ukraine, France, etc.

I realize though that the concept of a foreign policy rooted in the interest of one's own nation is something almost completely incomprehensible to most Americans -- so ignorant they are of the wisdom of George Washington who warned against "entangling alliances" and John Quincy Adams who warned against "going abroad in search of monsters to destroy"; preferring instead the "wisdom" of David Horowitz, Michael "Savage" Wiener and Michelle Malkin.

Wally said...

"and John Quincy Adams who warned against "going abroad in search of monsters to destroy";"

Dariush, Dariush - the world has changed since JQA spake those words...stick your head up from behind that liberal rampart you cower behind and take a look.
Again, your selective choice of historical nuggets reveals a lack of real understanding.

Dariush said...

Chamberlain? Who's that?

World War II? Never heard of it.

Dariush said...

liberal rampart?

Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

"the world has changed since JQA spake those words"

Oh, that's right. "Everything's changed" -- the endlessly repeated mantra of Freepers and LGFers.

Please, feel free to enlighten me with more WWII anologies. I never get enough, and your kind always seems to have an endless supply of them handy.

Anonymous said...

"Your kind"...yep, Dariush, you're running true to form. Like most of YOUR ilk, you don't LIKE being challenged by the facts.
And when you are....you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than intelligently confronting the issues.
How about an intelligent - might as well challenge you - discussion on how Chamberlains' policy of appeasement contributed to WW2, or, how might the world have been changed had Hitler's nuclear program been successful?
You up to that, rather than commenting on my non-association with Freepers and LGFrs....and fyi, I'm not an American - just someone who tires of your kind of mindset.
Think man - don't attack me, challenge my ideas - a new concept for you from what I see.

Wally said...

Whoops...the post that begins "Your kind" is mine...hit the wrong button. Don't want to be accused of waging this war on two fronts.

Dariush said...

It's not a "war".

It's an internet argument.

And in a couple of days it'll be relegated to the dustbin of the blogosphere.

You're not waging some titanic struggle of ideas here, any more than am I. We're just two opinionated assholes shootin' the shit and that's all.

Dariush said...

Admittedly this piece by Murray Rothbard was written a decade before "everything changed", but considering the rhetoric of "our" government (mirrored in the rhetoric of Wally) I think it's worth revisiting. It's quite long, so I'll just quote some relevant excerpts.


"...the Bush administration got its fondest prayers answered: an authentic-seeming menace popped up, as Saddam Hussein, maximum leader of Iraq, launched a lightning-fast, brilliantly executed attack on August 2 against neighboring Kuwait. Aha! Saddam is a despotic dictator who attacked a small nation (another Hitler!), in a quick strike (blitzkrieg, just like you know who!). That's it! Since Hitler kept attacking one country after another (to take back the territory taken from Germany at Versailles), it follows that Saddam will also keep attacking unless he is stopped!? Stopped, of course, by you know who – the divinely appointed international Policeman against Bad Guys all over the world: Uncle Sap! To save our beloved friend 'Saudi Arabia,' perhaps to kick the evil Saddam out of poor little Kuwait, the U.S. sends in a huge chunk of its army, air force, marines, and almost the entire navy to Arabia."


"And so George Bush got his lovely war. Everyone, of all parties and ideologies left, right, and center, all the media, the entire parade of Washington Middle East 'experts' who all seem to have just stepped out of a Mossad meeting, are unanimous in praise of Bush and okaying the alleged necessity to stop this 'megalomaniac,' 'this Hitler.' America must 'stand tall' and all the rest. (How about sitting for a change?) Bush's approval rating, shaky because of S&L failures, zooms upward; no one in Congress so much as mentions the War Powers Act designed to curb this sort of shenanigans, and everyone but everyone is saluting the marching bands and the soldiers off to war. Bush gets his military budget hands down. And as we go marching, virtually only Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, and Robert Novak show any reluctance or appreciation of the complexities on which we are embarked.

"All right, for a moment forget Vietnam: Remember Lebanon! Does anyone remember when Mr. Stand Tall himself, Ronald Reagan, got U.S. Marines into Lebanon, and how he/we turned tail and ran when the Marines were chopped up? Strange that no one, then or now, ever remarked on this fiasco, much less absorbed its lessons. Lesson of Lebanon: U.S., stay the hell out of the Middle East! (Another lesson: don't trust the Israeli state. A new book by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky reveals that the Mossad had advance warning of the car bomb attack on the Marine barracks, but withheld it to further 'poison U.S.-Arab relations.')"


"'He's Another Hitler!' Oh come on, knock off the Hitler analogy already. What are you saying, for God's sake? That 'if we don't stop him on the Euphrates, we'll have to fight him in the streets of New York?'

"Wouldn't it be great, by the way, if everyone observed a moratorium on Hitler for at least a year? No more 'another Hitler' every time someone starts a war someplace, no more bellyaching about Hitler in general. There is more hysteria now, 45 years after his death, than when he was still alive. Isn't this the only case in history where the hysteria against the loser in a war continues, not only unabated but intensified, 45 years after the war is over? And consider too, the guy was only in power for 12 years! In a sense, Hitler will achieve his 'l,000-year Reich' after all, because it looks as if we'll be hearing about him for another 900 years or so."

Wally said...

...and now, from the same source, some further quotes to illustrate its author's neutrality and adherence to the facts:

(George Bush, we are told, has an immense aversion to uppity short guys.) Gee, this dislike of short, pock-marked people, never kept Noriega from being a pet of Bush's so long as he continued to take orders from the CIA;

here's a chuckler: "But the U.S. government, and its kept sheep in the media..."

...funny, at that point in time, it was a reference to liberal press lackies, now we have conservative press lackies....guess it all depends on which side you're writing from?

"My favorite foreign-policy analyst, W.C. Fields,"
- yes folks, Dariush's source figures that the eminently funny W.C. is a foreign policy sage.

If this is what passes for intelligent commentary from Rothbard, I now understand the tone of the discussion thus far. We aren't in Kansas it would seem!

We've strayed from the original discussion - nuclear weapons in Iran and what the US might or should do.

When losing an argument, the best course to pursue is to change the topic. Question: what is a liberal's favourite debating tactic?

On topic questions: Iran's leader is on record as saying that Israel should be destroyed, and his country appears to be attempting to develop the means by which that may be done.
Is it responsible of the free world to permit this to continue?
Is the use of nuclear weapons, which appear to be the only weaponry tactically capable of removing this threat, and its inherent destabilazation of the world, a good or bad thing?

Note to students: before answering, please review media and other reports to determine why the word 'tactically' was used in the above question.

Wally said...

One last, irresistable remark on Rothbard: this man is a master of hyperbole, as witnesses the following statement. It would seem that Rothbard has never researched the 1930s and 40s...that, or he deliberately chooses to misinterpret what he sees. If he can't get this right, I wonder about all his other conclusions.
Dariush, I'd pick me a better spokesperson were I you.

"There is more hysteria now, 45 years after his (Hitler) death, than when he was still alive. Isn't this the only case in history where the hysteria against the loser in a war continues, not only unabated but intensified, 45 years after the war is over?"

Dariush said...

The Beav: "We've strayed from the original discussion - nuclear weapons in Iran and what the US might or should do."

Gee, I thought the original discussion had to do with Chamberlain and HITLER!!!! and APPEASEMENT!!!!


I mean that's why I chose those particular quotes from that essay.

"Question: what is a liberal's favourite debating tactic?"

Beats me, but for a shabbos goy, the favorite tactic when losing a debate seems to be to invoke the spectre of either a)HITLER!!! b)CHAMBERLAIN!!! c)WORLD WAR II!!! or d) all of the above.

I don't even bother responding seriously to such horseshit yiddishkeit anymore. The only response it deserves is an old Sicilian one. -- perhaps with et sua madre attached at the end of it.

Dariush said...

On topic questions: "Iran's leader is on record as saying that Israel should be destroyed, and his country appears to be attempting to develop the means by which that may be done."

He said "Israel should be wiped off the map" politicially, not physically destroyed. This is no more and no less than many what many in the activist community (most of them Jewish, in fact) propose when they say that Israel-Palestine should be one state, with one man-one vote ala South Africa.

Iran also stated that it would never initiate a war. And, in fact, the mullahs have not initiated any wars while in power. The last Iranian head of state to do so was, if memory serves, Nader Shah who invaded Afghanistan about 200 years ago.

"On topic questions: Iran's leader is on record as saying that Israel should be destroyed, and his country appears to be attempting to develop the means by which that may be done."

Given the fact that Iran is now bordered by two US-occupied countries, with US military and air bases all over the Caucasus, Central Asia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, it's only natural and sane for Iran to pursue defensive nuclear technology.

This article, from a well-known "liberal" journal, sheds some light on this.

And since this commentary by Michael Hoffman is not online, I'll post it here in its entirety.


Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History

Subscribe: HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor



Holocaustolatry does not play well in the Third World

by Michael A. Hoffman II | December 15, 2005

I'm going to spare you any lengthy sampling of western reaction to the Iranian president's prophetic remarks on Dec. 13, about Europe's Holocaustolatry. Jerusalem, Moscow, Washington and Berlin are taking the lead in seeing who can outshine the other in denouncing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and threatening sanctions by the European Union and even the UN. This is all pro forma barking which these lap dogs must perform on their hind legs. It is unworthy of verbatim citation, being clownish and servile in the extreme.

The uproar about "Holocaust denial" by President Ahmadinejad is racist to the core. Deborah Lipstadt has subjected the German survivors of the Allied firebombing holocaust in Dresden, Germany to withering scorn, contempt and outright denial, boldly asserting that no holocaust occurred there.

Holocaust denial by Judaics is legitimate, protected speech, because German victims are less than zero in Talmudic eyes. This is true as well of Palestinian victims of the Israeli holocaust against them. One may mock, diminish, suppress and deny Israeli mass murder and the western world will go on its merry way.

What is at stake in this controversy is the exalted status of a master caste of Holy People who alone among the nations of the world, have immunity from empirical and scientific skepticism, such as Lipstadt applies to Dresden and Peres and Sharon apply to the Jenin massacre of 2002, which they call a myth, with no fear of sanctions by the European Union or the UN.

If denial of a holocaust is a crime, and an offense against decency, what then do we do about widespread denial of the Allied and Israeli holocausts against German civilians in WWII and Palestinian civilians in the 21st century?

The Third World is far more sane than the West. Oh, yes, I know, your television is constantly showing you images of car-bombing and suicide-bombing Arabs and from that minuscule slice of the Muslim pie you deduce that Arabs are wild animals etc.

In fact, America and especially Europe are death cultures with self-extinguishing birth rates, i.e. deaths and abortions exceed live births among indigenous whites. People who do not have sufficient spark to reproduce their race are profoundly sick. While Europeans have sleek cars, and trains that run on time, and pride themselves on their hygiene and modernity, they are in fact mentally ill and one manifestation of that pathology, is their support for the infallible religion of Holocaustianity.

Having long ago rejected the infallibility of the Catholic popes, they have now embraced the infallibility of various Judaic popes, from Elie Wiesel to Abe Foxman and the Lubavtich chief rabbi of Russia, to name but a few. None of the wild statements about gas chambers by these religious fanatics may be weighed in the scale of science or historical research. To assess them is mortal sin, abomination and anathema. Abortion, contraception, greed, hatred of the family, these are no longer sins, because the Bible is no longer a document that compels any serious mass allegiance in Europe. The gas chambers alone exert the power of the holy relics of yore, and hence we have the spectacle of half-nude hedonists genuflecting in pious awe before the mystic holy grail that is Auschwitz.

One conceit of modern Europe is its sense of its penchant for irreverent satire. It no longer expresses its superiority over the Third World overtly, as it once did, through philosophy or colonization. In its conceit, it conceives of its superiority nowadays mainly by means of mockery. The Third Worldlings are "so serious and uptight about religion and moral codes," unlike the supposedly free-wheeling, free-thinking Europeans, who delight in satirizing fundamentalism.

This conceit is exploded when we watch the terminal case of rabies which Europe's Zionist lapdogs exhibit in the face of Iran's profanation of "Holocaust" fundamentalism. The shoe is on the other foot and the Europeans cannot take the medicine they dish out when approved heretics like Theo Van Gogh are attacked. When Zionist power attacks heretics like Ernst Zundel, David Irving and the president of Iran, Europe's radical pioneers of the frontiers of liberal freethought crawl back into their claustrophobic holes.

This is not lost on the Third World! At a fundamental level, the people of the developing countries are still alive, are still busy tending to life -- and therefore to the future -- having babies, rearing large families and husbanding the culture that attends that most natural of vocations. They cannot be made to swallow the UN's selective "Holocaust" mythos. To them it is a preposterous, racist and self-indicting set of legends.

A former member of the city council of Tehran, quoted in the Los Angeles Times today, gives voice to what tens of millions are feeling throughout the Middle East, Asia and Africa:

"One of Ahmadinejad's former colleagues on the Tehran City Council...said the Iranian leader truly believed what he said, as do many in the Muslim world. 'This (the 'Holocaust') is a scenario created by the West to justify their strategic interests to take part of Palestine,' Amir Reza Vaezi-Ashtiani said of Israel's existence. 'If it wasn't true, the West wouldn't hurt so bad and react so strongly."

Please read that last sentence again.

The Zionists and their masonic errand boys and rainbow girls are reputed to be cunning chess players, but one of their fatal traits is over-reaction to criticism. As the Israeli lobbyists and ambassadors ring telephones and fax machines around the world, demanding ever greater escalation of anti-Iranian rhetoric, they are confirming every word uttered by the President of Iran on December 13.

The Third World, though deprived of high definition TV and e-mail and cell phones, still knows what Americans and Europeans who are wired to the data hive, do not: that the West sheds not a tear for the survivors of the El Khiam concentration camp operated by Israeli proxies in Lebanon, for the survivors of Ariel Sharon's firebombing holocaust of Beirut in 1982, or for the grieving family of Elie Hobeika, a witness against Sharon in a proposed Belgian war crimes trial who was silenced by Israeli assassins before he could testify.

This double standard, this Talmudic racism, is seared into the guts of the peoples of the Third World to such an extent that no Spielbergian fantasy, no American bribe, no European threat, can shake it from their bowels.

Like their attachment to their children, their tribe and their soil, for these Arabs, Muslims, Persians, Asians, Africans -- and for that matter, many Latin Americans -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bound to be esteemed as the articulator of their rage against a western machine that has steam-rolled their economies and their self-determination for hundreds of years.

Be careful Europeans, Israelis and Americans about how hard you hit Iran on behalf of your fanatical Holocaustolatry -- which you hold above God and the prophets and freedom of speech itself -- beware to what extent you attempt to humiliate the Iranian people and their elected head of state. The blowback may surprise you, and not just in the Middle East.