Comments on: Blame Israel and AIPAC for a U.S. war in Iran

By: Nas

Nas — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:02:15 +0000

if the americans are stupid and dumb and patheitc enough to be lead into a war with itan which will cost thousands of lives and coists the americans billions of pounds a america is bankrupt and a 2 wrod counytry as it is by th ejews and th eisreal then they desreve the treatment they recive. emricans shudnt be so dumb and ugly

By: JIM

JIM — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:48:09 +0000

THE POOR DUM GOY AIN’T GOING.THE JEWISH LOBBY CAN SEND THEIR DELICATE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OVER TO SAVE THE PROMISED LAND. GOOD LUCK!

By: Fred Mrozek

Fred Mrozek — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:43:45 +0000

The first paragraph is total lies. The great thing about Walt and Mearsheimer is that they were not writing fiction. The reason they asserted that Israel and the Israel Lobby pressured the USA into the Iraq war was because they did. It is amazing that you would even try to suggest otherwise. Have you read The Israel Lobby? There are boasts by Neocons bragging of their decisive influence. And by the way, Bush was looking for a reason to attack Iraq from the first days of his administration. See the 60 Minutes interview with former Treas. Sec Paul O’Neil where he recalls Bush saying, essentially, “Find me a way to do this.” to Rummy and Darth Cheney. Then note all the well known assertions in Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the PNAC necon abomination that provides clues to where the pressure was coming from. Face it, neocons are warmongering psychopaths who only have the strategic interests of Israel on their minds. So you are right about the Israel getting blame for a war on Iran, but you are totally wrong about this being the first time. Americans need to wake up as soon as possible. As Sy Hersh observed about the Iraq war, “we have been taken over by a cult” – “eight or nine neocons.” Naked racism, ethnic cleansing, and murderous land-grabs for “living space” should not be supported by the United States. Rather, the USA should oppose it and support the victims of it rather than the aggressors.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:10:03 +0000

Kolumn9,

Your assumption that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would inevitably lead to Iranian “domination” of the Persian Gulf is highly questionable. So if, say, Iran, invades Abu Musa, you really believe that the United States is going to back down just because Iran has nuclear weapons? Don’t you think that the United States could deter those threats with its own (much larger) nuclear arsenal? And even if the United States is unwilling to do deter Iran (something which is highly unlikely), other countries in the region like Saudi Arabia would likely respond to Iran’s aggression by building their own nuclear weapons capacity. That would erode Iran’s conventional military advantage vis-à-vis its Gulf neighbors, which would be completely counterproductive to Iran’s strategy.

So there are lots of reasons to think that nuclear weapons will not lead to Iran’s domination of the Persian Gulf.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:13:48 +0000

Iran is branded a rogue state because the US and Israel want it to be. If Iran were doing the branding, the US and Israel would both be rogue states, and with good reason. The US is a rogue superpower, out of control, and its protection of Israel makes it a rogue minipower, disproportionately to its size, waging aggressive war with impunity.

.
In fact, there is no real national interest for either rogue in an attack on Iran, there is only the political interest of certain parties who see warmongering as a means to retain political power.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:03:56 +0000

“Rogue”. Who knows what that could mean?

Aggressive though is obvious.

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:15:39 +0000

Aristeides, Iran is rogue from the point of view of American foreign policy in being both hostile to the US and in being a revisionist state in its international relations. The entire argument provided by Larry presumes that the US is not acting on its own interests so there is no need here to rehash old arguments about globally objective morality.
.

Laurent, I am not convinced that Larry is as mercenary as you seem to imagine. It does seem though that he is severely constrained in his logical reasoning by trying to argue the consensus position of a group that is predisposed to seeing Israel as the root of all evil. Whether he is actually fully convinced of this position is somewhat questionable.

By: Laurent Szyster

Laurent Szyster — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:18:53 +0000

@Kolumn9,

Your analysis is sound, backed by facts and well expressed. However, I disagre with on one point.

Larry’s knows perfectly well that his opinion is pandering to the public of antisemites.

What other vast audience can be reached by somebody who write three bad articles in a row on a false prediction that’s been around for decades ?

By: delia ruhe

delia ruhe — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:27:32 +0000

In October, when the unemployment rate will have remained unchanged or got worse, Obama will shift his focus to the christian zionists and other hawks by executing an October surprise against Iran. He will then campaign as a “war president“ and win his re-election. The rest will unfold, post-election, much as Larry describes it.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:41:23 +0000

Circular reasoning, K9.

.
Just who is behind the drive to consider Iran a “rogue state”? The only thing rogue about Iran is Israeli hostility.

.
In the meantime, what rogue state has developed an unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and engaged in unrestrained aggression against its neighbors for the entirety of its existence?