More ‘magnet than a mallet’: RAND Corporation warns against striking Iran

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 68 Comments
2286052597
Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran Photo by AP

One week before the next P5+1 meeting with Iran in Baghdad, the RAND Corporation, one of the most influential and respected U.S. think tanks advising the Pentagon, has published a comprehensive report in the Rand Review warning against striking Iran.

The report, co-authored by RAND’s director James Dobbins, advises the US to  persuade Iran against nuclear-arms through diplomatic means including economic sanctions instead of a military attack.  “No effort at persuasion can begin, though, until the United States acknowledges that the Iranian nuclear program might not be reversed and thus commences preparations to deal with the consequences.”

The report predicts a military attack would have long-term disastrous consequences for Israel’s security.

How to Defuse Iran’s Nuclear Threat:

An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence.

………

Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked American or Israeli military attack. Reaction among neighboring populations would be almost uniformly hostile. The sympathy thereby aroused for Iran would make containment of Iranian influence much more difficult for Israel, for the United States, and for the Arab regimes currently allied with Washington. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, such as Egypt, where public opinion has become less fettered and more influential. International sanctions would erode, and Iran would likely redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

……..

Thus, what the region’s future may hold is not an Iran that has or has not acquired nuclear weapons, but rather a nuclear-armed Iran that has or has not been attacked by Israel. And while a nuclear-armed Iran that has not been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish its capabilities, to make sure that it is not attacked again.

Haaretz reports RAND has “come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran”, but that was not my understanding of the report. Nuclear Iran is not the same as a nuclear armed Iran.

In a document published in the think tank’s periodical, Rand Review, RAND openly disagreed with the belligerent stance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, which are set to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other high-ranking officials over the next several days. In doing so, and without naming names, RAND sided with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former head of the Shin Bet Yuval Diskin.

RAND’s call to prevent an Israeli strike and to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, on the condition that it does not test or deploy nuclear weapons, was published a week before the second round of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Baghdad, with a clear intention of influencing the Western position during the talks.

RAND, which has come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and the inability of preventing it from enriching uranium, as most of its citizens support such a program, believes that Netanyahu and Barak’s approach “rests on a faulty assumption that a future, post-attack Middle East would indeed be free of a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, a post-attack Middle East may result in the worst of both worlds: a nuclear-armed Iran more determined than ever to challenge the Jewish state, and with far fewer regional and international impediments to doing so.”

68 Responses

  1. Citizen
    May 16, 2012, 10:19 am

    So our lovely congress has read the Rand report and decided to push through a bill that eliminates containment as a whitehouse strategy for handling Iran? Thank god for Senator Lieberman.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 16, 2012, 10:41 am

      something tells me our congress is wrapped in the zio bubble, not sure if they’re listening to anyone else. the pentagon is another ballgame tho.

  2. OlegR
    May 16, 2012, 10:43 am

    Annie did you get my link
    or are they censoring the writers here as well from anything that they might find puzzling ?

    • Annie Robbins
      May 16, 2012, 11:14 am

      censoring writers? you’re posting here a lot oleg. maybe it’s not your ideas getting censored so much as your OT-ness or links to unsavory locations.

      thanks so much for staying on topic in this thread, since were on countdown for the P5+1 negotiations next week i’d really like to have a related discussion in this thread. if there are topics you’d like to discuss not being covered on MW try writing phil and adam with your ideas or links. thnx!

  3. OlegR
    May 16, 2012, 10:54 am

    A small exercise in incorrect historical comparisons.
    Just for laughs.

    “A Soviet or British attack on Germany weapons industry would make it more, not less, likely that the German regime would decide to produce and deploy more weapons
    for the Wehrmacht. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain German influence through Europe.

    ………

    Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked British or Soviet military attack. Reaction among neighboring populations would be almost uniformly hostile. The sympathy thereby aroused for Germany would make containment of German influence much more difficult for Britain , for the USSR, and for the European regimes currently allied with London. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, such as Austria , where public opinion has become less fettered and more influential. Versailles treaty sanctions would erode, and Germany would likely redouble its efforts to develop more weapons for the Wehrmacht .

    ……..

    Thus, what the region’s future may hold is not Germany that has or has not rebuilt it’s military might, but rather an armed Germany that has or has not been attacked by Britain. And while an armed Germany that has not been attacked is dangerous, one that has been attacked may be much more likely to brandish its capabilities, to make sure that it is not attacked again.”

    • seafoid
      May 16, 2012, 11:13 am

      Oleg

      Nasser was the Nazis. The PLO were the Nazis. Iraq was the Nazis.
      Give it a rest.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 16, 2012, 11:16 am

        he got one thing right: “incorrect historical comparisons

    • piotr
      May 16, 2012, 11:47 am

      Concerning OlegR preposition, it is hard to see what that could actually mean within historical realities of Europe in 1930s. Soviet Union had no border with Germany, instead it had border with counties deeply paranoid of possible Soviet intervention — perhaps with good reason. So neither Poland nor Romania would give a passage for Soviet divisions to buttress Czechoslovakia. Sadly, neither were those countries ready to mobilize to do it themselves.

      Also, there is not such a thing like “attacking weapon industries”. Germany could be occupied or not.

      Some politicians did propose “preventative war” but it was just harmful distraction from what was possible: an alliance that would draw a line at Sudetenland the way it was belatedly drawn over Danzig/Corridor.

      • W.Jones
        May 16, 2012, 12:42 pm

        Piotr,

        I think you know what you are talking about, being Polish :)

        In any case, I would add that it is probably better that the Allies didn’t attack Germany first. If the Allies were the aggressors, it would have been harder to rally popular morale for the war in the Allied countries. People could blame the war on their leaders, asking Who attacked first? It could also add more morale among Axis allies, like Italy, which in real life had partisan groups that attacked the fascists.

        This is just one example. It would have been better if the Allied countries were better prepared for WWII (USSR purged its own officers), rather than wildly attacking Axis countries.

        It’s like invading Iraq- a preemptive attack is still an attack, not “fighting back.” It’s also like the 1967 war, which Norman Finkelstein has shown wasn’t a war of defense, even though Isr.PR from time to time claims things like Arabs attacked Israel in 1967.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 16, 2012, 12:51 pm

        “Concerning OlegR preposition, it is hard to see what that could actually mean within historical realities of Europe in 1930s.”

        Of course, because Oleg’s statement is gibbish. It’s the babblings of a moron who can’t get over the fact that it’s not the 1930s anymore.

        “Soviet Union had no border with Germany, instead it had border with counties deeply paranoid of possible Soviet intervention — perhaps with good reason.”

        “Perhaps”?

        The other annoying thing that people who talk about Munich 1938 or who castigate Chamberlain forget is that they were trying to avoid another war, like the one they fought a few years before. They also forget the fact that the Germans’ request for the Sudetenland was a perfectly legitimate request in the context of the post-WWI paradigm of drawing borders around people. The people in the Sudetenland were Germans. Under the Versailles paradigm, it was not outrageous to say that they should be in a German state.

        • tree
          May 16, 2012, 4:20 pm

          Of course, because Oleg’s statement is gibbish. It’s the babblings of a moron who can’t get over the fact that it’s not the 1930s anymore.

          Yes, and it occurred to me last night when I read this from Oleg….

          Well Klaus we don’t remember the Holocaust for the early years
          now do we?

          that its simply another instance of Zionist hypocrisy. Israel and Zionist Jews are allowed to historically compare everything they find offensive today, from human rights complaints to BDS to Iran, to 1938, and imply ( or simply state outright) that if they aren’t forcefully quashed they will lead to a Holocaust. But if anyone points out that racist and anti-democratic developments in Israel bear a resemblance to what happened in pre-WWII Nazi Germany, suddenly the rules change and “We don’t remember the Holocaust for the early years” and how dare anyone compare Israel to Nazi Germany! Comparisons to Nazi Germany are reserved for every other nation. Israel alone is exempt from such comparisons in their minds. Another example of exceptionalist thinking.

      • OlegR
        May 16, 2012, 2:01 pm

        No problem Piotr substitute USSR with France
        that would be more accurate.And substitute the
        Nuke development with Germany’s violation of Versailles treaty
        restrictions on rebuilding her military might.
        Any way i think you got my point just as well.

        • Mooser
          May 16, 2012, 2:15 pm

          Oleg, you big brave Hebrew Warrior, if you want to drive a tank at the head of the victorious Israeli forces laying sack to Tehran, nobody here will stand in your way. Go get ‘em, paniolo.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 2:37 pm

          Don’t worry mooser if we have to do it in the end
          than we will, though i doubt it there will be tanks involved…

        • Taxi
          May 17, 2012, 2:58 am

          oleg,
          Your markava is laying dead on its side in a markava cemetry in south Lebanon – been there abandoned since August 2006.

          R.I.W. (Rest In War) markava dearest.

          (p.s. I don’t believe for a second you’re Russian, more like a UK paid hasbarado).

        • Annie Robbins
          May 17, 2012, 5:34 am

          Your markava is laying dead on its side in a markava cemetry in south Lebanon

          Mleeta!
          link to independent.co.uk

          Outside is a round sunken arena featuring wrecked Israeli tanks and artillery. A Merkava tank’s gun has been artfully knotted. Large Hebrew letters spell out “The Abyss” and “The Swamp” in stone at the centre of the circle – taunts meant to be seen and photographed by Israeli spy planes, drones and satellites.

        • OlegR
          May 17, 2012, 5:42 am

          This is supposed to get me angry or something ? :)
          You should visit the Yad La Shirion museum.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • Taxi
          May 17, 2012, 7:02 am

          No, not “angry”, oleg, but “something”… like give us a belly of laughs at the stupidity of the idf and its racist deluded supporters and propagandists.

          A mere 3000 hizbollah fighters modestly armed kicking the pantaloons off 35,000 hi-tec idf-ers is a fact worthy of a museum or two.

          Who you tryana kid?! ALL jewish-related museums I’ve ever been to have been as depressing as f*ck – and Mleeta is one heck of a fun-fun-fun museum, even for a foreign visitors like me. Truth is, I so profoundly enjoyed visiting it that I can hardly wait for the next opportunity to go again. And again and again and again.

    • Don
      May 16, 2012, 1:59 pm

      It might be a precisely correct comparison. The terms Britain (and the other allies) imposed on Germany after the first world war were certainly considered “an unjust attack” by Germany.

      You are familiar with the result, no?

      • OlegR
        May 16, 2012, 2:23 pm

        Well, had they all had the good sense to avoid WW1
        in the first place …

        What comes first the chicken or the egg.

        Does Iran s develop nukes because it’s afraid of Western pressure
        or is western pressure a reaction to Iran developing nukes
        because it wants to dominate the region.

        Hint: the correct answer would be, both.

        • eljay
          May 16, 2012, 7:52 pm

          >> Does Iran s develop nukes because it’s afraid of Western pressure or is western pressure a reaction to Iran developing nukes because it wants to dominate the region.
          >> Hint: the correct answer would be, both.

          1. Was the religion supremacist Jewish State of Israel…
          - created using terrorism and ethnic cleansing; and
          - maintained by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder;
          …because Palestinians retaliated against their oppressors and colonizers?
          - or -
          2. Did, and do, Palestinians retaliate against their oppressors and colonizers because:
          - the religion supremacist Jewish State of Israel was created using terrorism and ethnic cleansing; and
          - it has been maintained by means of a 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder?

          Hint: The correct answer would be #2.

  4. casaananda
    May 16, 2012, 11:07 am

    It is really pitiful when you have to have some big name think tank explain something that common sense would tell anyone with an IQ of 100. Yeah, duh, attacking someone does not make them compliant or friendly. Attacking a largely Muslim country does not make Muslims worldwide well disposed to any attacker. Those who engage in aggression always, in time, wind up the loser. Duh.

  5. Annie Robbins
    May 16, 2012, 11:25 am

    thought i would do a google search to see if any US msm (or any msm other than haaretz) had picked this up yet. nada. had it been a report that screamed bomb bomb bomb iran it probably would have been front page news for the big league.

    did notice james fallows over at the atlantic responded to rand review.

    link to theatlantic.com

    As a reminder of the main point: a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very bad thing. A military strike on Iran in the name of averting that possibility would similarly be a very bad thing in itself, and in all likelihood would make the original problem even harder to solve. The reason the Iran situation is genuinely so difficult is that both these unpleasant realities apply. Serious proposals for dealing with Iran’s ambitions, as opposed to the threats and bluster we have heard from many Israeli and American politicians (and very few military officials in either country), proceed from awareness of both truths.

    • OlegR
      May 16, 2012, 11:39 am

      He is undoubtedly right.
      The question remains which is the worst evil ?
      Have a painful armed confrontation now in hope of averting a disastrous armed confrontation later.(Read carefully that incorrect historical comparison)
      Wait and hope that the situation could be contained.
      Try and bluff.
      Set a blockade (JFK in the Cuban Missile crisis)
      Do nothing and pray for the best.

      Tough choices.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 16, 2012, 12:45 pm

        Oleg,

        It is interesting, comrade, that you failed to include in your list of possible choices, to simply have Israel/US stop rattling sabres at Iran.

        • Mooser
          May 16, 2012, 2:18 pm

          “It is interesting, comrade, that you failed to include in your list of possible choices, to simply have Israel/US stop rattling sabres at Iran.”

          Out of the question! If he does that, his schvantz will shrivel up, and fall off. Who wants that?

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 2:26 pm

          Two parts to my answer.

          A) Тамбовский волк тебе товарищ

          B) I think
          Do nothing and pray for the best
          pretty much covers that option.

        • Woody Tanaka
          May 16, 2012, 2:57 pm

          a) Come now, товарищ, is that really necessary? You know what I think of you… By the way, are you ever going to tell us what your grandfathers were doing when the Red Army was murdering all the Poles and raping all those German women?

          b) It’s interesting, but oh, so telling, that “not being a bully” is interpreted by you as “doing nothing.”

        • lysias
          May 16, 2012, 3:44 pm

          For those who do not know, “Тамбовский волк тебе товарищ ” (literally, “The wolf of Tambov is your comrade”) basically means “Don’t call me ‘comrade’, I’m no comrade of yours.”

          However, Oleg seems not to have realized that “comrade” has more than one meaning. Besides being more or less equivalent to “friend,” it can also suggest that the person addressed is a member of a Communist or similar party.

        • Tuyzentfloot
          May 16, 2012, 3:58 pm

          I think that the unfriendly expression (the wolf of Tambov is your comrade) originates from the large peasant uprising in Tambov against the Bolsheviks in 1920. The wolf could be the rebels, or one of the leaders named Antonov who in soviet history became the symbol of the uprising because they could compile a good shit sheet against him.

          Russians obviously used this expression to assert their gullibility, which was a requirement for being a good citizen.

        • Annie Robbins
          May 16, 2012, 4:32 pm

          thanks lysias, i should have scrolled before checking google translate. i had no idea what that was about even after the translation.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 7:13 pm

          It’s an old Russian word pan that suited perfectly the occasion.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 7:15 pm

          I was quite aware of it lysias that is why i used that particular reply.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 7:22 pm

          No Tuyzentfloot the phrase has earlier roots
          though it’s fame throughout Russia is related to the Tambov rebellion.

          Your interpretation is also incorrect the phrase was supposedly used by Antonov rebels when they were questioned by the Bolshevik interrogators.
          The term tovarisch was exclusively a communist term and was not used
          before that to address people.

        • Ellen
          May 17, 2012, 6:28 am

          Woody, Oleg tells us his father was in the Red Army and enjoyed the Victories, including the the Red Army siege onto Koenigsberg where, as Oleg tells us he believes, the civilians deserved all they got and more — in the mind of Oleg, that is.

        • OlegR
          May 17, 2012, 6:41 am

          Ellen my father was not yet born at the time.
          Learn to read before you post anything.

        • Ellen
          May 17, 2012, 6:54 am

          Oleg, my apologies…..my memory — which was wrong — was that you shared your father was in the Red Army.

          So to set the record straight: it was your grandfather?

        • Woody Tanaka
          May 17, 2012, 10:15 am

          Ellen, it was at least one grandfather. And you’re right. Knowing how those Red Army bastards “enjoyed” their victory over the Poles, such as at Katyn, and “enjoyed” their victory by mass raping German civilians, his silence on his family’s individual culpability is rather interesting. But who knows, maybe Oleg’s grandfather was that honorable Red Army soldier the stories keep talking about.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 16, 2012, 4:25 pm

        oleg, did you read the rand report or are you just shooting from the hip?

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 7:14 pm

          No that was me shooting from the hip i will read it later.
          Do you have some misgivings about what i wrote here?

        • Annie Robbins
          May 16, 2012, 7:19 pm

          i wouldn’t characterize it as misgivings, your 11:39 comment indicated to me you had not read the article, i was just checking. it’s actually interesting, might give you some ideas.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 7:45 pm

          Ok i have read it.
          Your and Haaretz’s quotes actually did the original a disservice.

          It’s an extensive analysis of the situation and i tend to agree to the proposed
          methods of dealing with it.
          I do object to some contemplation about living with a nuclear Iran
          but it’s on a more emotional level such contingencies should be accounted for.

          And i disagree that a military option should be officially downplayed or taken completely off the table.Soft power should always be accompanied by a big stick that gives it more credibility.

          And of cause there is one major thing that is lacking in the article
          or any other article on the issue.
          And it’s actual knowledge as to how much progress the Iranians have made.And what are their intentions.
          Hopefully the reality will support the article and Iran could be “persuaded”
          to remain on the brink or even freeze the program
          until such time as it would reach it’s own “Iranian Spring”
          that would change the current regime into something more enlightened.

        • OlegR
          May 16, 2012, 8:06 pm

          Haaretz
          as usual sees only what fits the paradigm and ignores everything else.
          Such a pity, that newspaper was at one time a good source of information.
          Now you have to check it all the time.

        • Annie Robbins
          May 16, 2012, 8:25 pm

          Your and Haaretz’s quotes actually did the original a disservice.

          sorry, fair use prevented me from posting more than three paragraphs. i actually had chosen other blockquotes originally but felt the ones i did choose communicated, overall, the most salient parts of the article. as a heads up, when i write in the first paragraph “a comprehensive report” that’s a fairly good indication there’s a lot of information in it.

          i disagree that a military option should be officially downplayed or taken completely off the table.

          you may have noticed i parted ways w/haaretz wrt my interpretation of the article wrt come to terms with the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran and i didn’t think they took a military option completely off the table. the focus of the article was how to diffuse the threat. the authors didn’t think there was enough of a threat level at this time (or that a nuclear armed iran necessarily would create that threat level) and stated they thought Western policy must be to dissuade Iran from testing and deploying nuclear weapons…seeking first to halt the Iranian nuclear program short of weaponization .

          under israel security they said:

          Increase understanding about how deterrence between Israel and Iran could evolve. War games now taking place at nongovernmental institutions in the United States and Israel explore conflict scenarios involving Israel and Iran. Such games clarify how an Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship might evolve and what military or political steps could heighten or diminish conflict.

          i agree that is iran did aquire a nuclear weapon they are no more likely to use it than other countries, like india. in fact..not sure if you were around back when we published that article from the neocon think tank stating the threat of iran having a nuclear bomb wasn’t that they would use it (they didn’t think they would) it was that they would have it and not use it, and the impact that would have on the region. i will go find the article.

          and, if you had only three paragraphs from the rand report and haaretz, which would you have chosen?

        • Annie Robbins
          May 16, 2012, 8:33 pm

          here it is..watch the video link to mondoweiss.net

          Israel’s true fear re Iran is… balance of power..Danielle Pletka Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute

          The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you that Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately…” And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

          they do not want iran to rise in power…but if the biggest fear is iran having a weapon and not using it..well then, get over it.

          Later, he cites Thomas Donnelly in the Weekly Standard noting the “real prize” for Tehran is “the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the greater Middle East.”

        • OlegR
          May 17, 2012, 5:06 am

          Well i agree with that the
          the fear in not that would actually use (well it is a possibility that we also have to take into account)
          but the impact on the region.
          And a fear of an armed race.
          Just imagine a scenario similar to the Cuba missile crisis Iran in which
          supplies Hizbollah with a device and deploys it on our border in Lebanon.
          A scary thought…

          I would say that yours is better . Haaretz simply misinterpreted
          the article to suit their own agenda

        • OlegR
          May 17, 2012, 5:11 am

          /but if the biggest fear is iran having a weapon and not using it..well then, get over it./

          Well entertain another scenario.
          Option
          1) Revolution the Iranian spring in a nuclear armed Iran in which the weapons may fall in god knows who’s hands

          2) A more likely scenario ,In case of a rebellion the government brutally crushes the opposition
          in a manner similar to Syria but in this case they also wield the nuclear
          club to deter anybody from interfering.

        • OlegR
          May 17, 2012, 6:24 am

          Here is something “reassuring ”

          link to haaretz.com

        • lysias
          May 17, 2012, 10:13 am

          If you fear a regional nuclear arms race, isn’t the best course of action to accept the UN proposal (already accepted by Iran) of establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East?

  6. American
    May 16, 2012, 12:45 pm

    If you don’t ever save anything else from AIPAC, save this mail they sent out today.
    Could not be any plainer what they are.

    – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

    A MESSAGE FROM AIPAC

    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

    There is too much at stake for domestic issues to be the only thing on the minds
    of our leaders in Congress.

    That is why as new leaders are elected to head to Washington this fall, we must
    ensure that from day one they are ready to tackle all of today’s pressing
    challenges, from the growing threat of a nuclear Iran to the peace process and
    more.

    Please help by becoming a member of AIPAC today. [ link to action.aipac.org ]

    Dear Friend of Israel,

    I have no way of knowing who you will vote for this fall. I don’t know whether
    you’ll vote Democrat, Republican or Independent.

    But one thing I am confident in is this:

    You want every leader you elect to share your support for a strong U.S. – Israel
    friendship, because helping ensure Israel’s security is just as important as any
    other issue this election.

    That’s why I’m writing to ask you to make a choice now that will be as important
    as the one you will make this November — joining AIPAC. Join now and help us
    work with our current leaders in Washington as well as with the 113th Congress to
    make Israel more secure by ensuring American support remains strong.

    As you likely know, this election will surely bring many new faces to Congress –
    most of whom will be brand new to the issues our community cares most about.

    From the rising threat of a nuclear Iran to the Palestinians continued refusal to
    abandon their harmful U.N. campaign and return to peace negotiations with Israel,
    we must be ready to work with all members of the new Congress to tackle these and
    other challenges that lie ahead.

    Every single voice will count. And there is no better way to make your voice
    count than by joining AIPAC.

    That’s because AIPAC and its members work with Congress on more than 100
    legislative and policy initiatives annually. We are the only organization who
    meets with all 535 members of Congress and White House officials on a regular
    basis to ensure American support for Israel is always a top foreign policy
    priority.

    And when important legislation reaches the House and Senate floor, only AIPAC has the resources to mobilize our community around legislation that can affect the
    Jewish state.

    But we can’t do any of this without your help. So if you care about how American
    legislation and policy can help or hurt Israel, please join AIPAC today.

  7. American
    May 16, 2012, 4:38 pm

    If the US policy was run on stragetic pragmatism we would make Iran a US ally.
    Enough of this ‘you can’t be friends with me if you’re friends with so and so’….ME teenage politics.
    Iran want recognition they think they are due as important ME state, give it to them, much easier to influence and get along with that way.
    Be a hell of lot better ally and less of a trouble maker than Israel that way.

  8. lobewyper
    May 16, 2012, 7:41 pm

    “It is really pitiful when you have to have some big name think tank explain something that common sense would tell anyone with an IQ of 100.”

    Well, half the population has to have an IQ less than 100, right? Why not the members of the US Congress?

  9. dbroncos
    May 16, 2012, 10:03 pm

    A ‘preemptive strike’ on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily, and quickly, get out of control. If Iran decided to answer Israeli/American bombing attacks with attacks of their own on American targets, civilian or military, the President would feel obligated to anwser in kind and the ‘surgical strike’ plan would be abandoned for a wider war that could conceivably include invasion, regime change, occupation… This scenario is the grand prize for Israel and her supporters. Send America’s men and women to kill and be killed for Israel, again, and send the bill to American tax payers. For Israel’s supporters this would be the best possible outcome of a strike on Iran that begins, however naively, as a’preemptive strike’ strategy – right Oleg?

  10. CloakAndDagger
    May 17, 2012, 1:55 am


    Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
    That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
    With carrion men, groaning for burial.

    We stand on the precipice, brought here by the treachery of those who would lead us, not leaders by our choice, but by the avarice of weak souls that would sell a nation to preserve their sorry hides.

    Thus we stand at the end of our grand experiment in liberty and justice, brought to our knees by a handful of despicable men that would overpower a great nation because we let them turn back this country of laws to a country of men. Above us, the thunder of encroaching battle. Below us: oblivion.

    So we stand, at the precipice of WW3 – the final war, self-fulfilling the prophesy of armageddon by fundamentalists of every ilk who envision redemption in our destruction, so that their messianic vision can be realized.

    That a tiny nation, embodied and enshrined in evil, could unleash the demonic forces that surround and suffocate us, as they bathe us in poison that corrodes our minds and dissolves our souls, and brings the once shining city on the hill down in shamble and ruin.

    Like demonic hordes they emanate, silencing all protests, enslaving, dominating, and ultimately, extinguishing all flames. We, who are so many, crumble before those who are so few, imprisoned by our mortal fears.

    The last leaf hangs poised to drop from the last oak, as darkness descends on bleak terrain.

    Damn you!
    Damn you all to hell!

    This shall not pass unavenged.

  11. Taxi
    May 17, 2012, 3:48 am

    I laugh at EVERY article on Israel’s so-called ‘plans’ to attack Iran. Why? Cuz in reality they can’t attack Iran cuz they lost their military deterrence back in 2006 against hizbollah and they been nothing but getting weaker and weaker ever since, both regionally and globally.

    My dear Mondeez, long gone are the days when israel could strike without fear of being struck back. The reality is that now its opponents can strike back and strike back hard and fatal too.

    All this zionist iran-bravado is naught but governmental ape-show designed to delude israeli citizens and overseas money enablers into thinking that strategically, militarily, israel still rules the middle east with a mighty unstoppable fist. They’re even scamming their own citizenry by not preparing them, not telling them it’s already game over for the zionist state – that each israeli offensive from here on will in reality be met with an equally deadly response, devastating israeli lives and (stolen) properties across the israeli (swindled) land.

    Long gone are the days where israel strikes at it’s neighbors willy-nilly and with a smirk, knowing no one can touch it. And be assured, folks, them isreali-thug days ain’t coming back any time soon in our lifetime either.

    A-ba-bye them days!

    The desperate zionist ruling elites at this stage can do zilch about this reality except to create the ILLUSION of continuing military might in an attempt to hide their hemorrhaging powers, and the utter failure and cowardice of all zionist principles.

    Israelis are so brainwashed, so easy to brainwash after 64 years of willful living with their constant politics-of-fear, that they absorb without question, all that supremist shit their leaders throw at them and remain therefore, like sheep led to the slaughterhouse.

    Behind the curtains of the holyland, there’s a jewish Nero playing the violin to the deluded ears of adoring citizens.

    Engaging the world with ‘talk’ about shooting up Iran, is that curtain.

    • CloakAndDagger
      May 17, 2012, 11:20 am

      @Taxi – you are right – I have no fear of Israel attacking Iran. That is all just rhetorics.

      No, what I fear is Israel inducing the US to attack Iran – probably using a false-flag against our assets in the gulf. This is what Israel and its neocon minions and congressional sayanim are up to.

      They’re even scamming their own citizenry by not preparing them, not telling them it’s already game over for the zionist state

      A cornered rat is vicious and dangerous.

      • Taxi
        May 17, 2012, 2:02 pm

        Cloaky,
        There’s no chance in hell the likudists here in USA and in isreal are gonna be able to take the American people to another mideastern war on behalf of Apartheid israel. The current consensus and the economic-political environment is simply nowhere near available or ripe like it was in 2003 and the build-up to the Iraq invasion. Even the likudists on Capitol Hill know this, but they’re just mouthing off too cuz they’re on the grand zionist payroll and must look like at least they’re working it, ‘doing’ what they’re being paid for, regardless of the results of their efforts.

        Not forgetting here that American hegemony in the ME is hemorrhaging as well, while simultaneously, Russia and China are now in our faces (read Syria and Iran), asking for a power-share in the ME and across the globe too. This declared double-challenge has, since the recent Libya Assault, made the USA on the global stage, strategically less israel-centric and more American-centric. Behind closed doors in the pentagon, our global strategy is being re-ordered to catch-up with the new emerging order of powers: China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa.

        Simply put: there ain’t gonna be a war on Iran, it ain’t worth it for us and Apartheid israel has no more cards to play on that front. A bigger looming problem for the zionists is actually the highly plausible re-election of Obama. Israel is currently more petrified of an Obama second term than they are of an Iran with nukes.

        And even if Romney wins, there’s no guarantee that the USA will strike Iran on behalf of israel and win flat out, considering Russia and China’s vocal objection and rising global influence.

        A disastrous USA military adventure in Iran will also create an American backlash against American jews and all things israeli and zionist. This is something that even the arrogant likudists are desperate to avoid.

        In the meantime, the Palestinian struggle is gaining global popularity while Apartheid israel is losing the narrative and the popularity.

        Who knows, cloaky, Aprtheid israel might actually end with a whimper and not with a bang.

  12. CloakAndDagger
    May 17, 2012, 4:38 am

    Meanwhile, back in Israel, US Ambassador Shapiro says that talks don’t mean US won’t attack Iran. Lovely!

    link to news.antiwar.com

  13. CloakAndDagger
    May 18, 2012, 4:00 am

    @ Taxi

    There’s no chance in hell the likudists here in USA and in isreal are gonna be able to take the American people to another mideastern war on behalf of Apartheid israel.

    From your lips to [insert deity]‘s ears! I hope that you are right about this.

    My recurring nightmare is that Israel sinks one of our ships in the Persian Gulf (they have these shiny new submarines from Germany, you see) and blames it on Iran. Subsequently, our spineless prez, for whom getting re-elected is far more important than American lives, will bow to AIPAC pressures, and off to war we go.

    Meanwhile, here at home, congress can’t shovel dollars to Israel fast enough, while our own people commit suicides as the banks foreclose on their homes (Huffpo), having exported all our jobs out of here. But hey, as long as Israel is happy, what’s a few starving and homeless citizens?

    • Taxi
      May 18, 2012, 5:56 am

      Cloaks,
      The global geo-political grounds have only recently shifted, notably over the battlefields in Libya, and have actually cemented a couple of weeks ago by the re-election of Putin and Hollande of France – not to mention the Fed’s approval of the first government-owned Chinese company takeover of the first USA bank: link to abs-cbnnews.com

      Having been the only super power in the world for the past two decades (a role we weren’t quite ready for when the USSR collapsed thus enabling our superpowedom), we’ve had plenty of time on our hands to play with and we chose to give this extra time to geo-political isreali concerns. But now that clock has run out and now the growing influence of the emerging powers are demanding much of our time and focused strategy. In other words, we got sudden bigger fish to fry on our own behalf, and much less time for our so-called bff, israel. It’s a brand new world order where israel is being forced, by circumstance, into the back burner.

      I still maintain, regardless of what the media and our whoring congresspeople say, there ain’t gonna be a war against Iran over it’s nuclear energy program.

      Israel has lost this issue. Their strategists know this but would want the whole world to believe otherwise, hence the ongoing charade of warmongering and banshee-ing.

      • CloakAndDagger
        May 18, 2012, 10:22 pm

        @Taxi – If we can get through 2012 without launching an attack on Iran, I will personally go to the ME and hunt you down and buy you a crate of Napa Valley’s finest.

        • Annie Robbins
          May 18, 2012, 10:47 pm

          i’ll tag along..we can party down.

  14. lobewyper
    May 19, 2012, 2:35 pm

    This statement by RAND is hugely important, in case those of us distracted so completely by Oleg haven’t noticed…

  15. lobewyper
    May 19, 2012, 3:37 pm

    Annie, I can’t get to your link, above. Is it my computer or the link? Thanks!

    • Annie Robbins
      May 19, 2012, 3:50 pm

      which link are you referencing lobewyper? i just checked the rand link and the first one in the main post. i didn’t want to check haaretz because someone reported this week they are only now allowing 10 visits per month and i didn’t want to use mine up.

      do you mean a link from a comment? if so which one..

  16. lobewyper
    May 19, 2012, 4:36 pm

    The link to jta.org

  17. lobewyper
    May 19, 2012, 5:45 pm

    Annie, it’s in your response to my initial post, where you suggest the RAND position may have “impacted this amendment.”