Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Is Iran the New Iraq?

Is Iran the New Iraq?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As I watch the news each day and hear the escalating rhetoric against Iran, it's hard not to get a sense of déjà vu. Let's be honest, it's the runup to the Iraq War all over again. The only thing we haven't heard yet is a high-ranking U.S. government official ominously warning us that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Reasonable people can differ about whether or not the reasons for the Iraq War were valid, although at this stage it's difficult to argue that the Bush administration was totally honest in its assessment of both the available intelligence and what the analysts in the intelligence community were saying at the time. While some may try to claim that the criticism is unfounded because 20/20 vision is hindsight, they should go back and take a look at the well-researched and riveting Frontline special, Bush's War.

And yet here we go again, it would seem. As the world's leaders gathered this week in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, much of the focus was on Iran (not to mention the entertainment supplied by Moammar Kadafi's bizarre, rambling speech) and in particular, the alleged bombshell revelation early Friday about Iran's construction of a second "secret" nuclear enrichment facility at Qom:

A senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified, told reporters in Pittsburgh September 25 that the covert underground Iranian facility, located near the city of Qom, has been known to intelligence agencies “for several years,” and described it as “a very heavily protected, very heavily disguised facility,” but one that is not yet operational.

The United States, the United Kingdom and France have been sharing intelligence on the facility and gathering “irrefutable” evidence as they built up a case to show the IAEA that its intended use was for uranium enrichment..

I'm not sure how the construction of nuclear facility which is reportedly not active and which the U.S. has known about for years, equals a bombshell revelation and renewed sense of urgency on the part of the administration. In addition, our science-impaired media and political elite tend to lump all enrichment activities into the bad category when in fact, uranium enrichment can be used for peaceful purposes.  it's not just a question of quantity, but also of concentration.

Nonetheless, there it was, all over internet, the portrayal of Iran as an urgent threat to world security, because of its newly-disclosed enrichment plant, as expressed by U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday:

This facility sharpens our sense of urgency and underscores Iran's absolute need to engage seriously with us on October 1 and take immediate steps to demonstrate the exclusively peaceful nature of their nuclear program.

Why the sudden rush, if the U.S. knew about it going all the way back to the Bush administration?

As a side note, I find it interesting that, completely absent from any discussion of the supposed urgent threat posed by Iran, is the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. Isn't it irresponsible of the media to parrot the talking point that Iran is creating an arms race in the Middle East when Israel arguably initiated that race long ago? That statement is not a value judgment as to whether Israel is or isn't justified in having a nuclear arsenal, but rather a simple statement of fact;  they do have nuclear weapons.

Most nuclear powers, including the U.S., argue that maintaining a nuclear arsenal is justified for its inherent value as a deterrent to attacks from hostile nations or people, and Israel is no exception. Given that, shouldn't the potential threat posed by Iran be viewed through the lens that one of it's stated enemies and likely targets in the region, Israel, has nuclear capability?

It's also worth noting that many of the people who were right about Saddam Hussein's lack of an active nuclear weapons program and who argued for more time for inspections, are currently concerned that the threat posed by Iran is being politicized and hyped. At the same time, many of the think tank pundits (John Bolton, Micheal Ledeen, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, etc.) who were so wrong about Iraq in the runup to war, have been almost shameless in their warmongering towards Iran.

Don't get me wrong; I am not arguing that Iran should be able to acquire nuclear weapons. What I am arguing is that I don't want to see the United States and our allies make the same mistakes we made in the runup to the Iraq War and its immediate aftermath. Instead, I think it would behoove the U.S. and its allies not to rush through the diplomatic options, particularly given there is absolutely no concrete evidence that Iran is anywhere near having the capability to create a nuclear weapon.

In addition, while many people chide the Obama administration for not being tough enough on Iran, very few of those same people can offer up a concrete plan for what we should actually do, other than to say we must do something. Sure, they bring up the fallback position of sanctions, but history shows us that sanctions often don't work, and some are saying that that may very well be the case with Iran this time around.

Given that the U.S. barely has adequate numbers of troops for Afghanistan and Iraq, it's interesting that those arguing that we should use military force in Iran tend to be noticeably silent about a) the short- and long-term security consequences of such action; b) the possibility that such action might play right into the hands of the extremists who use references to American hegemony in the Middle East as an effective terrorist recruiting tool; c) what the likely response of Iran would be, military or otherwise and e) who exactly is going to fight this third war should it escalate to that point? Keep in mind that one of the unintended consequences of the Iraq War was a strengthening of Iran's position in the region because prior to that, Saddam's Iraq had kept them in check.

So, what should be done about Iran? Unfortunately, I don't have a simple fix, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off diplomacy or working with moderate Muslim nations to encourage Iran to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country. I also don't think sanctions should be totally ruled out, but hopefully there will be an honest assessment about whether they will have the desired effect or whether they will simply end up providing political cover for members of Congress who think they'll benefit from taking a tougher, albeit largely symbolic, stand against Iran.

As for military action, I think it would be a huge mistake for the U.S. to rush this without first answering all of the above questions in an honest and objective manner, while allowing for a national debate on the issue, particularly given the possibility that any military action could possibly escalate into a full-blown war despite the necessary resources to adequately fight the two we are engaged in now.

Powered by

About StacyB

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    People have been tyring to make this argument since the middle of the Bush administration, even going so far as to just make up claims that an invasion of Iran was imminent. It doesn’t make any more sense now than it did then. To a large extent the entire strategy of going into Iraq and Afghanistan has been to bracket Iran so that we absolutely would NOT have to invade Iran. I don’t see how that strategy has changed and I see zero evidence that the administration is considering a military option in Iran any more than Bush was.

    At the most basic level, this article and others like it are nothing but fearmongering.

    Dave

  • http://www.secretaryclinton.wordpress.com StacyB

    Thanks for your comment Dave- the problem is that a) sanctions may not work and b) Israel has ratcheted up it’s rhetoric of late and while the US has not given a green-light for Israel to attack Iran in the past, this current Israeli govt may be more willing to not wait for a green light should “crippling” sanctions prove ineffective. I honestly think that people tend to think of sanctions as being a magic pill of sorts when in fact, do to current factors in the region (like some of China’s maneuvering with respect to Iran), they may prove more ineffective than in the past and if that is the case, will people continue to put pressure on Israel and the U.S. to consider military options?

  • Thain

    It’s a question worth asking- what happens if sanctions don’t work? And it seems to me that while Israel is pushing for sanctions, they have been posturing or military action, something which technically, they don’t NEED a US green light for. Given Bibi Netanyahu has just told the US to f**k themselves over settlements, he may be emboldened to attack without US approval.

  • http://departmentofhomegirlsecurity.wordpress.com/ Still4Hill

    Bibi is a loose cannon, and Thain is right, he does not need a green light from the U.S. This looks like it is shaping up to be a perfect storm, a confluence of events that can go two ways: either some kind of shaky resolution of Middle East conflicts or another endless war. I don’t see a middle here.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It looks like it’s shaping up to be an excellent distraction from the fact that the Democrats are about to pass their egregious health care nightmare unilaterally and under the media radar.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave: “It looks like it’s shaping up to be an excellent distraction from the fact that the Democrats are about to pass their egregious health care nightmare unilaterally and under the media radar.”

    yeah, no one will notice.

    area man: “what? we have a ‘public option?'”
    area woman: “the media didn’t tell us, so it isn’t true.”

    you really think that’s going to slip under the radar? no, you don’t. so why are you pretending so?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Unless Iran actually attacks Israel, the US or a NATO member, military action against it just isn’t an option, period. Not in the current economic and military/strategic climate.

    Not even if the IAEA announced tomorrow that Iran had 50,000 megatonnes of warheads all mounted on ICBMs and ready to go.

    Which they don’t.

  • STM

    The other issue is the internal situation; by and large, Iran – for a muslim country – is quite moderate and very modern (among the young especially, who can see the hypocrisy of what is going on there), although the current regime has run it into the ground a bit.

    Many Iranians understand that they live in a sham democracy that has nothing to do with their vote, even if “elections” give it that outward appearance.

    Most Iranians don’t like their president – who is really a puppet of the hardline mullahs, who are running the country and have always been the real rulers along with their fanatics like the Basij militia since the return of Khomenei from exile.

    However, the struggle you’ve seen on the streets recently is a macro symptom of the micro struggle going on behind closed doors between the more moderate mullahs and the moderate politicians they are backing and the hard-core hardliners.

    The majority of Iranians themselves don’t want war, especially against the west. They don’t see themselves as Arabs (because they’re not. They’re Persians) for a start, and because they are shi’ites their brand of Islam is rather different and in a moderate form, it is quite moderate indeed without losing the good parts of its belief system – mainly that of regular worship, hospitality, kindness (and they really are a kind people) and the internal “jihad”, the struggle with oneself (the toughest one of all).

    Expect a new revolution from within, not from without – which, as much as I hate the way the coalition has handled “the peace” in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (school report: could have done better … if America wants to be an imperialist power and the world policeman, it MUST learn to do things differently. I don’t see a problem with that but iron fists are better in velvet gloves, not chain mail ones), wouldn’t have happened with Saddam and his Iraqi henchmen, who as Ba’athists had bastardised that flawed pan-Arab philosophy and turned it into an Arab version of a Stalinist state.

    Arabs have a saying: “You better be nice to America, or they’ll bring you democracy”. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what they mean by that. I suspect most Iranians except lunatics like Ahmadinejad would be in agreeance with that, and would want their own form of home-grown democracy that takes into account their religion as well.

    Iran is best left alone for now, and dealt with by sanctions that target its nuclear and military capability – whether that be for peaceful purposes or not – rather than sanctions that target the ordinary people and cause them hardships that will end up making them hate us, which right now they don’t.

    It’s a place best left alone. We’ve already stuck our hands into one hornet’s nest … you’d think by now that’s a lesson we’d have collectively learned.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Stacy,

    I found this article rather amusing. Let’s have a look at why. Your write: As a side-note, I find it interesting that completely absent from any discussion of the supposed urgent threat posed by Iran, is the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. Isn’t it irresponsible of the media to parrot the talking point that Iran is creating an arms race in the Middle East when Israel arguably initiated that race long ago? That statement is not a value judgment as to whether Israel is or isn’t justified in having a nuclear arsenal, but rather a simple statement of fact- they do have nuclear weapons.

    How cute that paragraph is. Condemnation while proclaiming not to condemn! Slick!! I see you did learn something in law school.

    As we say in Hebrew, yesh hevdél, there is a distinctioon to be made. No Israeli leader has ever suggested that this nation obliterate any of its neighbors or wipe them off the map, as the little Hitler in Tehran has. India possesses nuclear weapons. So does Pakistan. Everyone who knows anything about South Asian politics, knows that each country is armed primarily against the other, even though Pakistan has declared that its weaponry are for the benefit of the entire umma or Moslem nation. But neither country threatens to wipe the other off the map with its nukes.

    I don’t suppose you wanted to bring up that little point in your article, did you?

    I don’t care about American policy – you are on your own on all this. I don’t really care what garden path your leaders take you down. They are your headache. But Israel is concerned about Iran’s possession of nuclear material because of the threats it has made against us – and because of the way it has made good on its threats. You may have forgotten about HizbAllah’s rockets falling all over the north of this country in 2006. I certainly haven’t. It may not matter to you what Iran’s lapdogs, Hamas and HizbAllah do. They generally do not attack Americans – yet. Why should you give a tinker’s dam?
    But I live in this country, under the cloud of an Arab and (for now) a Persian enemy.

    I do have an opinion on the matter, and you can reference it in detail here.

    So far as I am concerned, the smartest thing you Americans can do is to stay out of our way and let our government deal with the existential threat in Iran. But your leaders are too stupid to do that and they are too cowardly to solve the problem themselves.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    As I pointed out above, Iran’s nukes aren’t really an American concern. Your best policy path is to stay out of our way while our government tries to buy some time for the country by destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities. You Americans can stick your bankrupt and broke heads in the sand all you want. But wisdom dictates that your régime get out of OUR way. This is the reason it is OUR concern. From the Arutz Sheva story:

    On Monday, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi appeared on state television to threaten Israel with destruction in case of an Israeli strike on Iran. “If this [strike] happens… its ultimate result would be that it expedites the Zionist regime’s last breath,” he said.

    Vahidi claimed that Israel is “on a slope of destruction,” and that its “lifespan is today coming to an end,” whether or not it attempts to strike Iranian nuclear sites.

  • http://www.secretaryclinton.wordpress.com Stacy

    Ruvy, I’m glad you find my work “cute”.

    Despite your unbelievably condescending tone, I do appreciate your comment- at least the substance of it- and it did make me question whether, looking back, I should have added more in that paragraph. Which I guess is the point of all this, isn’t it?

    I’ll try to explain where I was coming from- yes, I could have gone off into a discussion of all the outrageous, offensive things the current (and past) presidents of Iran have said (and done) about/to Israel, but then that would have taken me off into a discussion of a whole different nature- and as I said explicitly in the post, I was not going to go into whether or not Israel was justified having them and the reasons why they were or weren’t. Rather, I wanted to simply state a fact that I felt often goes unsaid- that Israel does have them.

    My omission of including things like Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map, was not an attempt to be dishonest or strengthen my own argument, but rather as I said, a sense that that would take me off on a different tangent- one that could be an entirely separate post.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    My omission of including things like Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map, was not an attempt to be dishonest or strengthen my own argument, but rather as I said, a sense that that would take me off on a different tangent – one that could be an entirely separate post.

    It’s not for me to question your honesty, but the fact remains that by omitting the existential threats to Israel made by the Islamic Republic, you basically put forth a red herring.

    Iran does not want a nuclear weapon to counter Israel. Iran wants a nuclear weapon because the Persians view themselves as an empire, and therefore entitled to have the weapons an empire would have. ANY Persian government would want nukes. The Shah wanted nukes, too. A responsible Persian regime, even if it weren’t friendly to Israel, would not concern us.

    Any Israeli is smart enough to figure that the people who view themselves as the descendents of the Persian Empire will want the accoutrements of a major power. But a Persian government that threatens us with extermination cannot be allowed to acquire the means of that extermination. If the Israeli regime is too cowardly to act on its own and runs to your government whining like so many babies with wet diapers, they deserve the contempt they get. And so far, your government is waving its “helpless” hands, saying “there’s nothing we can do.”

    Maybe that is the view in the abomination that is the obamanation. But there is plenty that we can do – and should. Go read my links before you complain that I am being condescending, Sherry.

  • http://www.secretaryclinton.wordpress.com Stacy

    Ruvy, I did read your links- a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian facilities? Wow. I hope you make sure you know which way the wind is blowing first.

    I particularly like this passage from what you linked above:

    ” And those who do not will start killing every Arab they see, weaned finally from the illusory dreams of peace pushed by what is jokingly called “the peace camp” in this country. In other words, there will be an awful bloodbath in Israel, and the Arabs will discover what happens when disciplined Israelis finally lose it and start acting out their righteous anger against savage animals. The Arabs will first fight, but then they will flee like rats and run, and they will be chased and shot down like dogs. Arab blood will run in the streets of Israel, and Jews will rinse their feet in the blood of Arabs and in the blood of vengeance, venting an anger that has been 14 centuries in the making…”

    Honestly, I find your views shocking and if we interchanged the word “Jews” for “Arabs” and vice versa above, you yourself would probably be outraged and honestly, so would I.

    Hate is hate, whichever side it comes from. The common denominator is that each side feels justified in their hate while feeling the other is not.

    Thanks, now I know where you are coming from.

  • STM

    If Ruvy had his way, the whole of the mid-east except for Israel would be turned into glass.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sodom and Gomorrah would be better.

  • Clavos

    If Ruvy had his way, the whole of the mid-east except for Israel would be turned into glass.

    Well, glass IS more useful than sand…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Honestly, I find your views shocking and if we interchanged the word “Jews” for “Arabs” and vice versa above, you yourself would probably be outraged and honestly, so would I.

    Actually, if we interchanged the word “Jews” for “Arabs”, the paragraph would make no sense at all. But I could interchange the word “Jews” for “Arabs”, fix the paragraph a little, and make a great deal of sense, and I would not be outraged one bit. The content would be typical of the stuff one finds in the Arab world written against Jews.

    But, Stacy, the piece was not written for this venue. I do not tell you what I think should happen, I tell you what I believe will happen, based on what I see happening now. And what I write is not written out of hatred. I have no desire to see such a bloodbath in this country.

    But I lived through one bombardment with mere rockets. If the rockets didn’t kill someone, they would hit the street, and people would gather round, because the Katyusha’s did not explode. But the liquid-fuel missiles that HizbAllah has now will explode and will cause huge fires and many deaths – and the Arabs will be happy to inflict those deaths, and their Persian commanders will be happy to see those deaths. And the Israeli victims of these attacks, the ones who live and can kill, will be happy to seek vengeance.

    Being from the “civilized” United States, you may find that abhorrent, but living in the Middle East, as I do, I just find that is the way things work. I would also remind you, by the way, that it was what the United States and Great Britain did in World War II that legitimized mass murder as a weapon of war.

    Given that we are faced with an existential threat, we are entitled to exercise that option in order to survive. What you “civilized” Americans do is your problem.

    Honestly, I find your views typical for a navel-gazing American who does not understand these facts of life. But, thank you for taking the trouble to read the link you quoted.

  • Baronius

    I agree with Ruvy about the “it’s interesting that” method of argumentation. If you’re swinging at a pitch, you might as well swing for the fences. Life’s too short for coy almost-arguments.

    He also makes a valid point about India and Pakistan. They’re an eternal threat to each other, but their nukes aren’t aimed at anyone else. As for Ruvy’s nuclear first-strike proposal, well, the closest that BC has come to unanimity is the condemnation of that particular idea.

    STM’s right (not a rare thing); there is a strong moderate element in Iran. But if you look at what moderation means in Iran, it’s typically: loosen up on restrictions against women, destroy Israel, and reform the government. That sets them aside from the extremists, who want to keep the current religious and political system in place and destroy Israel.

  • STM

    Clav: “Well, glass IS more useful than sand…”

    Not at the f..king beach it ain’t, mate. I’d hate to come a cropper and dive head first into the surf and come up with me undies full of glass instead of sand.

    Oooh. Ouch. don’t even want to think about that.

  • STM

    Baron, the moderates (and genuinely, that’s about 95 per cent of the population) in Iran aren’t that interested in destryoying Israel.

    They just want what we’ve got: peace (although we don’t really have that, do we) stable, representative democratic government, equality for everyone, decent education, jobs, mortgage (who really wants one of those bastards though) etc.

    It’s the few lunatics running the joint who are stopping them from having that.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Baronius,

    Stan is right about the Persian people. Most of them, whatever their opinions of Israel, do not want to see us wiped off the map. Only the messianic murderers at the top actually want this. More to the point, they do not want to see Jeruslem destroyed. Their goal is to present the Mahdi from the Temple Mount to rule the world. They cannot do that if Jerusalem is destroyed.

    But do read comment 12 on this thread. A Persia with a responsible regime is not a threat to Israel, with or without nukes, even if it is not necessarily friendly to us.

    Finally do me a favor and read the link I sent Stacy to, and then read the link within the link. You cannot provide a workable alternative to my preferred solution, whether you like it or not, and neither can anyone else. Put simply, if you cannot provide an alternative to my solution for the survival of MY country, then MY solution, little as I like it, is the only one to be pursued. But as I point out in my link, it won’t be pursued – and disaster will ensue.

  • Baronius

    An apology – I should have said that within Iranian politics, even moderates seek the destruction of Israel.

    Ruvy, I read your “Persia Delenda Est” article at the time, and pointed out several alternatives to a nuclear attack.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Ruvy, I read your “Persia Delenda Est” article at the time, and pointed out several alternatives to a nuclear attack.

    I remember. And I continue to think they would not work. But at the link I directed you to, I pointed out what was likely if our airforce tried to take out Iranian facilities, an option I rejected. It will be a regional war with thousands of dead in this country. The Persians do mean business. They’ve proved that already.

  • Baronius

    Ruvy, that was a troubling read. They will run like rats and be killed like dogs? What kind of a New Yorker talks like that?

    More to the point, do you believe that a country has a moral responsibility to inflict the minimum damage on its enemies? All other things being equal, would you rather see a million Muslims die at the cost of a hundred Jews, or a thousand Muslims at the cost of two hundred Jews?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    ….that was a troubling read. They will run like rats and be killed like dogs? What kind of a New Yorker talks like that?

    More to the point, do you believe that a country has a moral responsibility to inflict the minimum damage on its enemies? All other things being equal, would you rather see a million Muslims die at the cost of a hundred Jews, or a thousand Muslims at the cost of two hundred Jews?

    First of all I’m from Brooklyn, Baronius – a place that was unfortunately annexed to New York in 1898.

    Second of all, what you miss is that in the fog of massive missile bombardments from the north, there will be no “Israeli” authority dictating policy – except on the most minimal level. The Arabs will have finally incited the “Jewish Street” – and when incited, we Jews are a lot more savage than Arabs. You have no concept of the amount of anger sits under the surface of Jews. And pissed off Jews, with their full anger flowing, will murder off Arabs like dogs, having finally (and correctly) concluded that all that “peace” bullshit was just that – bullshit. The burning buildings behind them from the missile bombardment will be the proof of the argument.

    All things being equal, I would rather see nobody die. But the Wahhabi worship death, and the Shi’a want extermination – so death and extermination is what they will finally get – in spades.

  • http://www.secretaryclinton.wordpress.com Stacy

    Thanks for the comments. I’m just wondering what happens after the US gets behind “crippling sactions”, if they don’t work- what is the next step. I guess that was why I wanted to write this blog post to begin with as opposed to arguing whether or not this or that country in their neighborhood was or wasn’t justified in obtaining their current nuclear stockpiles. That said, I take the point made by both Ruvy & Baronius that I sort of dangled a carrot out there but didn’t expand on it.

  • http://www.secretaryclinton.wordpress.com StacyB

    For all those who say the US has no intention of using a military option, you should check out the Sunday talk shows today- unfortunately this site doesn’t allow links in posts, but Sen. Graham & Chambliss think all-out war, not just hitting specific targets, will be necessary.

    It’s almost as though the chicken hawks want diplomacy to fail. I certainly hope their age-appropriate family members will be running to the local recruiting office to sign up to fight a 3rd war or maybe they will introduce legislation to institute a draft? Nah, that would take courage, something they are sorely lacking. They’d rather rely on private contractors than take any political risk.

  • Ruvy

    Stacy,

    Your leaders – the idiots you elected who do have their finger on the nuclear bomb – don’t have the guts to deal with nations that would irresponsibly wield nuclear power. So, the world will suffer from their cowardice, and those of us who actually understand the risk the mullahs in Persia pose will have to bear the risk – while you sit, comfortable in your illusory safety, condemning us for daring to protect our lives. We’ve seen it before, and we expect to see it again.

    You Americans may have a pack of chicken hawks. When we go to war, we have a very good idea of what the consequences can be – and we do have a draft – which only the cowardly lefties in the People’s Republic of Tel Aviv avoid.

  • Ruvy

    It’s almost as though the chicken hawks want diplomacy to fail.

    There is no such a thing as “diplomacy” with murderers. Either you kill them off – or they kill you off. That’s reality. Deal with it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Finally, I remind all of you that taking out Iran’s nuclear capability is not YOUR decision to make. You Americans still delude yourselves that you are a first class power. You are no longer a first class power. The Arabs, Russians and Commie Chinese all have you by the cojones, and your idiot of a president is going to spend you further into their power.

    The decision to get rid of Persia’s nuclear capabilities is Israel’s to make – we are the ones with the most to lose. I only pray that our own leaders will not cower before your idiots.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    As you love reminders so much, Ruvy, here’s mine.

    Despite your determined and repetitive attempts to minimise the role of the USA on the world stage, it is simple laughable to contend that it isn’t a world power.

    This is just your faithist prejudice speaking, leavened with a huge dose of “the mouse that roared” fantasy.

    In the real world, an attack of the kind you keep promoting would do more to bring Israel’s opponents together – and alienate the allies without which it couldn’t actually continue to survive – than almost any other act. As such, it would far more likely turn out to be a grand national suicide in effect rather than the clean surgical strike at your most vocal enemy that you seem to envisage.