Who Wants to Bomb Iran

Me, me, me!

Israel now leads lobby against Iran

"Some seasoned Israeli diplomats believe Putin may be playing a double game. Avi Primor, a former envoy to Germany and the European Union, argues that Iran is less interested in usingits nuclear profile to destroy Israel than in gaining hegemony in the Persian Gulf and controlling its considerable oil resources. Were that to happen, Primor says, Iran and Russia would have more than 80 percent of the world's oil and could hold the West ransom.

Israeli scare tactics to get us to fight Iran for them!

Fuck you, Israel, do it your god-damn self!

Until now, Israel deliberately had kept a low profile on Iran for fear that too active a role would make the Iranian nuclear issue seem like a bilateral confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran, absolving the international community of responsibility for dealing with Iran. But over the past few months, Israeli leaders have detected a number of worrying developments.

What fucking gall!!!!!!!!!

Israel is the WAR-MONGERING IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!

Veteran Haaretz columnist Uzi Benziman wrote:

"No thanks, Mr. President! There are already those who argue Israel's existence is the source of all the Middle East's troubles; references of the kind Bush made last week reinforce this impression and arouse dangerous anti-Israel sentiment in all corners of the globe. Bush's efforts -- diplomatic and economic pressure as well as increasingly explicit threats to employ military force against Iran -- are the way to tackle the problem. Israel should be left outside of the frame."

After Israel and its AmeriKan MSM lackeys have built that frame? WTF?

'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm'

They're ginning up another war, and the target is Iran. While the propaganda campaign started shortly after we invaded Iraq, with Rummy and the President ratcheting up the warlike rhetoric early on, the accusations and threats against Iran have lately taken on a new urgency. Whereas in the early Rumsfeld era we mainly restricted ourselves to warning Tehran against meddling in our newly-acquired province, these days we are blaming the mullahs for our failure to stabilize the country: Iraq won't stay conquered, dammit, and it must be the Iranians' fault – that's the narrative the War Party is pushing to rationalize the ongoing disaster, while simultaneously making the case for opening up a new front.

And an increasing number of Americans are falling for it. A new Zogby poll says 52 percent of the American people favor attacking Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. A recent Pew survey similarly indicates that war hysteria is on the rise, with 82 percent convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would pass off nukes to terrorists, and two-thirds believing Iran is likely to attack the US. The yearlong hate-fest directed at Tehran is clearly paying off.

I can't say I'm surprised. After all, as of this past summer, 41 percent of the American people still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for planning, financing, and/or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gee, I wonder how they got that impression….

To begin with, there is no chance Iran will have a nuclear weapon in anything short of 5 to 10 years: a few thousand centrifuges, while it sounds impressive, is not the equivalent of a nuke factory. It would take many more thousands to enrich uranium to weapons-grade quality, and Iran hasn't got the technical capability to construct and maintain such a large-scale operation, as pointed out by as Peter Beaumont, foreign-affairs editor of The Observer.

Secondly, even if Iran did one day join its neighbors Israel and Pakistan in the nuclear club, there is every reason to believe that "we have the power to deter" them, as General Abizaid put it: "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

The real fear, however, is that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the continental United States by passing off the technology to a terrorist group, such as al-Qaeda. It doesn't matter that this is the most unlikely scenario of them all: no nuclear power would ever give a non-state actor access to such technology for fear of the fallout, quite literally. With al-Qaeda in possession of nuclear weapons, the likelihood that they would attack Iran, or someplace nearby, is quite high – far more plausible a scenario than the dim prospect of somehow smuggling a nuke into the US, or delivering it by some other means. Yet no matter how far-fetched the possibility, even such a slim chance conjures a nighmarish fear, and that, in turn, is not quite rational....

How do we account for the sudden rise of a new war hysteria, this time directed against Iran? While the administration has turned up the volume of its anti-Iranian rhetoric, and the mass media has duly – and largely uncritically – reported it, this is only part of the reason for the ominous uptick. The core reason is that we're entering the political season, and none of the presidential candidates presented to us as "major" will take war with Iran off the table: indeed, the Republicans – with one exception – seem to be competing with each other to see who can take the most ferociously provocative stance. When it comes to Iran, the Democrats are almost as bad – and, in the case of the putative frontrunner, perhaps even worse. As Bill Safire put it on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, in the context of discussing Hillary's possible picks for the VP slot,

"What about Rahm Emanuel, the most powerful voice in the House of Representatives that agrees with Hillary Clinton on foreign affairs. He's a hawk. And although he's a rootin' tootin' liberal on domestic affairs, he is a hawk on foreign affairs. I was at the—a roast for him for Epilepsy Association, and Hillary Clinton was there, and I said, quite frankly, here you have the hawkish side of the Democratic Party. If they get together, the bumper sticker will read ‘Invade and bomb with Hillary and Rahm.'"

As the issues are increasingly framed in terms of presidential politics, there is little vocal opposition to the rush to war with Iran, even in the supposedly "antiwar" Democratic party. Many of the same people who think George W. Bush is a war criminal who lied us into invading Iraq will nonetheless dutifully pull the lever for Hillary, who has criticized the president for being soft on the mullahs.....

Beating the drums for war, the Israel lobby is pulling out all the stops, and this time they are out in the open about it. The fear that the Lobby would be too visible in promoting Israel's interests motivated them to keep a relatively low profile during the run-up to war with Iraq, but it isn't holding them back now. AIPAC, for one, is openly leading the charge for war...

The Democrats are terrified of the Lobby: the loss of all that New York money, which is essential for Hillary's victory, would be a disaster for them. Not that there is much danger of Hillary forgetting her good friends in the military-industrial complex, who have donated more to her than to all the others combined. She, after all, has a lot to prove: can a woman be a tough commander-in-chief?"

And if Giuliani gets it?

Norman Podhoretz wants to bomb Iran!

Norman is awarded the recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" at the beginning!!

What the Neocons Need

The neocons have confused what they think they need with what they really need. They firmly believe they need war, war, and more war. To get the right kind of Muslim carnage in the Middle East, neocons hope to instigate an act of war against Iran that will – in one fell swoop – merge four other conflicts into one burning pulsating endless bloodfest.

Which four conflicts? Palestinian versus Israeli, Kurd versus Turks and mullahs, Iraqis versus Americans, Iraqis, Kurds, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Iranians, and lastly, Afghans versus Americans, Paks, and Iranians....

Our Christian Dictator-in-Chief can scarcely control the quivering of his frothing jowls, his small eyes gleaming with what he imagines to be holy vengeance for Iran’s imagined crimes.

To get the unwarranted and illegal attack on Iran, the neocons chant each evening for a provocation, even as they provoke. They appeal to war gods at midnight for an accident in the region, even as they preside over the train wreck of their comprehensive foreign policy. They whisper and worry each other about the unknown, hoped-for date of an Israeli strike on Iran that will be the starting gunshot in a race they themselves will never run, and would never dream of running. The running and the dying should rightfully be conducted by lesser beings, those who follow orders, and ask no questions, those humans who, in the neocon world, must be either ruled, or destroyed.

Unlike select war lovers in Tel Aviv – the Washington neocons do not fear a change of administration in 2009. They’re voting Hilliani Clintonrude....

Neocons want another war, this time in Iran, and they are loudly demanding an unwarranted mulligan from the American soldier and the American taxpayer."

Looks like they are going to get it, too!

Sob!!