18 September 2007
There is not the slightest actual evidence that the Iranian nuclear program has anything to do with creating nuclear weapons  and even if it did have a weapons program it would pose no threat to the United States . Nevertheless, the United States has been constantly and deliberately misrepresenting these realities  in order to create the false impression that there is some valid reason for us to attack Iran.
So why is the political leadership of the United States falsifying evidence to justify a war against Iran, a war that would make the current war in Iraq look like a cakewalk ?
… it's the threat against Israel,
Although the vast majority of Americans are opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran  – a fact that has been a problem for many leaders of the Israel Lobby  – roughly 71% of Israelis actively support the idea of the U.S. attacking Iran . The “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website - http://www.whyattackiran.com/ - shows this in detail, illustrating the current leadership (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader, Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, and House Minority Leader) standing before AIPAC  declaring their willingness to go to war against Iran on behalf of Israel. Further, recent news stories – primarily from pro-Israel sources – are listed on the left side of the site clearly illustrating the issue. There is no mystery or conspiracy about the fact that the pro-Israel lobby is leading the charge for war on Iran, it is all quite out in the open and freely admitted.
To learn more about the push for war against Iran and why, please visit the “Why Would the U.S. Attack Iran?” website at: http://www.whyattackiran.com/ If you find it useful, please be sure to pass it along to others.
 Mark Heinrich, "Western talk of Iran war premature 'hype': IAEA head," Reuters, 17 September 2007, http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-09-17T151816Z_01_L17903337_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IAEA-COL.XML
 Robert Burns, "Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran," Associated Press, 17 September 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran;_ylt=AoPcm9.sCbgOW.nDG7s0XqQDW7oF
 BBC Staff, "US Iran report branded dishonest," BBC News, 14 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm
 Paul Rogers, "Iran: Consequences of a War," Oxford Research Group, February 2006, http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/iranconsequences.php
 Quote given in context of Iraq, not Iran, but holds true in both cases. Philip Zelikow, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and executive director of the 9/11 Commission. Statement made at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002 http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083
 For a collection of recent polls, see: PollingReport.Com http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm
 James D. Besser, "Jewish Leaders Caught In Iran Bind," The Jewish Week, 31 August 2007, http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14460
 Aluf Benn, "Poll: 71% of Israelis want the U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail," Ha'aretz, 18 May 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html
 AIPAC, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, http://www.aipac.org/
You deserve more activity. I want you to know I have passed the site around and hope it and you are checked out. We are running out of time to stop this but can't stop trying. Here is my response to you. Keep it up!
an average patriot said...
I have said numerous times that there is no reason to attack Iran but Bush is going to do it and he will lie to stay in the middle east until coming to Israel's rescue gives him the reason.
Iran even if they had nukes could not reach us but their missiles and long range bombers can reach all of Israel. As you may have known or might have read in this story Iran and Syria by now have a missile armed with at least chemical weapons if not nuclear? nuclear waste?
Bush will stay in the middle east permanently until he attacks Iran and Larry is right that the defense industry is getting enriched and they will be a lot richer. This really stinks because this will all be to the detriment of the entire world.
Oh, I think Bush & friends plan to stay in the Middle East forever, in fact they’re already talking about modeling the occupation of Iraq on that of South Korea, an occupation that has last more than fifty years. I don’t necessarily think that Israel is the primary reason, but more for resource control (oil, natural gas, fresh water, &c.), enforceable market access (esp. Iran, Pakistan, India), and general geopolitical strategic significance (open military access the entire subcontinent, to central Asia, the eastern Africa) and so on.
Worse still, having us enmeshed in the Middle East, I don’t think we’ll be leaving even once Bush is gone unless we’re forced into doing so through an economic crisis or a massive public reaction against foreign military adventurism. Judging by the last few years of US public reaction, I’d suggest an economic crisis is more likely, but I don’t think Hillary or Obama would be interested in withdrawing anymore than Bush or any Republican is.
“Iran even if they had nukes could not reach us but their missiles and long range bombers can reach all of Israel. As you may have known or might have read in this story Iran and Syria by now have a missile armed with at least chemical weapons if not nuclear? nuclear waste?”
Actually there is absolutely no secret that Iran has massive stockpiles of chemical weapons  as they openly used them in defense against Saddam Hussein’s usage of the during the Iran-Iraq war. Further, Iran’s Shihab-3 & Shahab-4 missiles  have both the range to hit Israel (as well as all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Gulf States) and the carrying power to deliver chemical weapon warheads.
Iran’s recent declarations regarding the “600 missiles” aimed at Israel  is a very prudent move. Although it is virtually unquestionable that Israel has the military means (nuclear & chemical) to utterly destroy Iran’s urban centers and state, the simple reality is that Iran has this ability in return, although it is somewhat indirect. Specifically, a few missiles with chemical weapons landing in densely populated areas of Israel would be all that is required to end the Israeli “demographic contest” with the Palestinians and thus the whole Zionist project. Despite Israel’s overwhelming military might, it is in an extremely precarious position and simply can’t survive too many serious blows. This is why they’ve always sought to maintain a total regional dominance, to prevent any of its neighbors from being able to inflict any significant blows at all. This is plainly no longer the case. [For the record, Syria too has this “doomsday” option based on its own extensive – and perfectly legal – chemical weapons stockpiles and their Scud missiles. The Scuds are very undependable and crude, but Syria is so close to Israel, all it has to do is lob the missiles in the general direction and they’ll hit something. This is why Israel – despite the occasional potshots and the like – has no intention of forcing Syria into a “nothing to lose” type situation.]
In the end, unlike the raq war where a myriad of different interests (including the Israel-First crowd) united in support of Bush’s invasion; it is really only the Israel-Firsters and their allies that are promoting for war on Iran. All the other interests are either doing fine as it is (e.g. defense contractors, oil companies) or are stretched to capacity (e.g. the military, our “allies”). Only the Israel-First crowd is advocating for war on Iran, so Iran’s decision to make it crystal clear that Israel will NOT avoid immediate repercussions for any attack is a very good move. It is bound to make the Israel-Firsters think twice. It just wouldn’t take very much to bring the whole Zionist project to an end.
“Bush will stay in the middle east permanently until he attacks Iran and Larry is right that the defense industry is getting enriched and they will be a lot richer. This really stinks because this will all be to the detriment of the entire world.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words and you’re absolutely right, we have to keep this fight up. Most of the in depth speculation suggests that we probably won’t attack Iran until next year sometime, so if we can undermine all the arguments and have a decent anti-war infrastructure addressing Iran ready, we might just have some influence. Just let me know if I can be of any assistance.
 Federation of American Scientists, “Chemical Weapons,” FAS Website, undated, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/index.html or John Pike, “Chemical Weapons,” Global Security, undated, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm
 Charles P. Vick, “Shahab-4,” FAS Website, 1 December 2005, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm
 JPost Staff, “600 Iranian Missiles Pointed at Israel,” Jerusalem Post, 17 September 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411419433&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
I will do the same today. I planned on it because I want to stay abreast. I am doing an update on all of this today after the latest Congressional Report on the cost of setting up camp permenently in the middle east.
It is grossly way off knowing this is just beginning and it will spread 100 fold beyond Iran. Did you ever hear of the excellent sci fi book from the 70s "the forever war" It is no longer science ficyion. We are in it! And it gets worse!
I thought I coined a phrase this morming in Bush's Forever War but in doing Research I came across the video in the story. Please peruse it, it is very interesting. Get involved and let me know what you think. Bush's Forever War
Links to this post: