Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

Fermi, they have tried before and lost interest. I just have a big mouth. Take a look at the latest from Showdown with Iran

In "The End of America - Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," Naomi Wolf give us a recipe for creating an authoritian regime:

1. Invoke an internal and external threat
2. Establish secret prisons
3. Develop a paramilitary force
4. Surveil ordinary citizens
5. Infiltrate citizens groups
6. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
7. Target key individuals
8. Restrict the press
9. Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
10. Subvert the rule of law.

Any of the above 10 points seem familar? Do you see them being instituted anywhere? Ms. Wolf also provides additional insight as why Americans should take note: Eventually, these secret prisons, torture tactics, and complete subversion of the rule of law will come home to be turned against ordinary citizens like you and me. It always happens this way. It is simply a matter of time. So you can speak up and fight for those without a voice now, or you can wait until no one is left to fight for you.

Just a cursory look, but it seems like PBS puts most of the blame on the Bush Administration.

• "If only they had responded to Iranian moderates' conciliatory overtures."
• "If only democratization had succeeded in Afghanistan and Iraq."
• "If only we had reached an agreement on quelling the insurgency in Iraq."
• "If only Bush hadn't slapped Iran in the face by putting them on the Axis of Evil list."

And so on.

Bush: Missile shield is meant to deter Iran
Pushing just a little harder. Scaring just a little bit more. Fattening those MIC officers pockets just a little bit more. I am so glad that we have an administration that looks out for this country. One can tell that it is their number one priority!

I am glad to see, however, that this administration is quite efficient. They have addressed several issues with this one statement.

No, I will not be surprised when we attack Iran before Bush leaves office. It won't surprise me at all!

Steve, the most disturbing claim in the Frontline piece to me was that iran proposed a complete settlement of all issues, including nuclear capability in 2003. The US ignored it feeling that we had won in Iraq and could exert all our might against Iran at will. The result was the defeat of the moderate government of Iran and the installation of the current hard line one.

It is now claimed by our government that the Surpeme Ayatollah did not approve the bid, but indpendent observers have presented evidence to the contrary. If true this would seem to me to be new proof of the total incompetence of this Administration.

This was simply neocon thinking at it's worst. Gerecht was one of the leading neocon writers whose ideas were used by those neocons employed in policy making positions in the administration. From Regime Change in Iran? written in Weekly Standard, July 29, 2002 but posted at PNAC site he said

And the Pres continues to listens to clowns like this.

Won't surprise me either, especially since neocons are clamoring for an attack against Iran.

The two justifications listed, nuclear weapons and Iranian interference in Iraq i.e. supporting the crisis in Iraq, have no basis in evidence. The IAEA has stated they can find no evidence of nuclear weapons research or production, and yet the administration continues to parrot the right-wing Israeli paranoid delusions. The administration has begun the mantra that Iran is supporting militias which are killing US soldiers deaths and whereas the military has joined in that propaganda the military at the same time admits they have no evidence for the accusation.

If there is no evidence to support their claims, the administration will have no option but to provoke an appropriate response from Iran to justify an attack. There have been several articles written in recent months which suggest an internal conflict between those in the administration who would continue to pursue diplomatic options and those in Cheney's office who would simply resort to military action. As Cheney has currently been effectively grounded, if there is no headway and as the closing months of the administration come to an end, I think we can expect to see renewed efforts on Cheney's part to implement military action.

Even if ther eis evidence that Iran is supporting elements within Iraq that aim at or incidentally attack our troops, so what? We support the MEK, a Sunni terrorist group (our designation as well as Iran's) that repeatedly has struck inside Iran and contiues to do so. But of course that is our right because..... oh we will come up with some justification.

Apparently Iran offered a complete cease fire in 2003 if we would just reign in the MEK and stop sabre rattling against them. We demurred. We ignored. We thought our arrogance was all we needed.

Now Iran may support elements to counter the MEK in Iraq and we get our panties in a bunch and claim it gives us the right to invade yet another country.

What's the word? Oh yeah -- HUTZPAH

Oh. I thought you knew that already, Phil. Well. Yes, it's very disturbing. In all fairness to the historical record (whatever that is!), the election victory of Ahmadinejad in 2005 was likely influenced far more by the mere presence of the infidels in Iraq (I mean, the Occupying Forces of course) than by any obscure olive branch offering by the Khatami regime. The Conservatives in Iran engaged in the same kind of fear-mongering as we are accustomed to hearing from the fear-mongering Conservatives right here in the USA, with similar results. Enough of the populace were scared into voting against their own best interests.

Thank goodness steadier hearts prevailed on both sides!

Iran steadfastly refuses to concede their position. Until they do, there is nothing to discuss. They know the price; they're going to have to pay it.