The headline should read: “Arsonists Call for Setting Controlled Fires in Iran.” Seven U.S. foreign policy hawks, with decades of disaster in the Mideast behind them, just published a statement urging the Biden administration to threaten a military attack on Iran. They said:
We believe it is vital to restore to restore Iran’s fear that its current nuclear path will trigger the use of force against it by the United States.
The statement is arrogant and irresponsible. General David Petraeus, one of the signatories, must have learned nothing from his experience in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Other warmongers include Leon Panetta, the former Secretary of Defense and CIA head, and Michele Flournoy, who Biden fortunately did not pick to head the Defense Department. Two former members of Congress and pro-Israel lobby stalwarts, Howard Berman and Jane Harman, also signed, along with the Professional Peace Processor, Dennis Ross. The statement appeared on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a front for Israel, but the signatories somehow forgot to mention Israel by name.
Meanwhile, the New York Times finally raised doubts about the wisdom of an Israeli attack on Iran. Long after the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and others ran skeptical reports, the Times finally found Israeli military officials and experts who warned that, “Israel lacks the ability to pull off an assault that could destroy, or even significantly delay, Iran’s nuclear program, at least not anytime soon.” The paper, possibly shamed by its media counterparts into catching up to their reporting, also pointed out that an Israeli raid, “would also likely set off retaliatory attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, allies of Iran that would try to force Israel to fight a war on several fronts simultaneously.”
Even the right-wing Times of Israel beat the New York Times to the truth. The Israeli Times just published a very long, valuable interview with Danny Citrinowicz, the former head of research at Israel’s Military Intelligence, who argued that Israel should not have vigorously tried to stop the 2015 Iran deal. Citrinowicz also “was dismissive of previous attacks attributed to Israel on Iran’s nuclear program, arguing that they at best delayed Tehran’s efforts and at worst led the regime to double down in its effort, craftily evading inspections in the process.”
Sina Toossi, an expert on Iran’s internal politics, has a thoughtful article analyzing the current negotiations to revive the Iran deal. Toossi recognizes that the new, even more hardline Iranian government did put forward “aggressive proposals,” at the latest round of talks in Vienna, but points out that the Biden administration is similarly inflexible, a losing strategy because Iran knows the U.S. already left an agreement that it was faithfully observing. Toossi says: “Biden has pursued a continuation of the Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign, and the only carrots he is offering provide Iran the prospect — but not any certainty — of long-term benefits in exchange for rejoining a deal the U.S. already reneged on once.”
Even a hard-core neoconservative like Max Boot recognizes the failure of the U.S. policy toward Iran. Boot writes:
President Donald Trump’s 2018 decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal might have been the most disastrous foreign policy miscalculation since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Biden administration is showing some caution. To attack Iran’s nuclear sites by air, Israel would need KC-46 refueling tanker aircraft, manufactured in the U.S. Tel Aviv asked the U.S. to speed up delivery of the planes, but the U.S. privately said no.
Once again, though, the dangerous parallel with the summer of 1914 comes to mind. On June 28 that year, an Austrian archduke was assassinated in the Balkans. No one expected that a local conflict would expand beyond an obscure corner of southeastern Europe. But the Great Powers got involved, and within weeks Austria, Germany, Russia, France and later Britain were at war with each other. Similarly, there’s no guarantee that an Israeli (or an American) attack on Iran will end there.
They are zionist American war hawks, and seems they have not learnt their lessons from our deadly mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Israel attacks Iran, it will be ugly. Iran is not Iraq, and they will retaliate in ways that will make the Israeli people wish they had not started it. Iran will not go down easily like Iraq, and we can expect it to be a disaster for the entire region. Despite the apologists whining that Iran is a constant threat, it seems it seems war mongers from Israel, and the US, are constantly threatening Iran.
If the US government had any sense, it would recognise these people as a valuable resource for direction of ME policy. Before any decision is made, they should be consulted and their recommendations noted. Then base US policy on the diametrical opposite of those recommendations.
I think it was Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different outcome.
1 of 2
Iranian general vows broad, decisive response against any Israeli attack on nuclear, military sites (presstv.ir)
“Iranian general vows broad, decisive response against any Israeli attack on nuclear, military sites” Press TV, Dec. 20/21,
“‘Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has warned Israel of a ‘crushing’ response to any attack on its nuclear & military sites, emphasizing that the country will target the source of any aggression against its sensitive sites.'”
“’If such threats are carried out, the Islamic Republic’s Armed Forces will immediately & decisively attack all centers, bases, routes, & spaces used to carry out the aggression,’” Major General Gholam Ali Rashid, commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said at a meeting with commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Force on Monday, Nour News reported.
“In a veiled warning to Washington, the top general pointed out that any Israeli threat against Iranian sites will be impossible without the support of the United States.
“The remarks come as Israeli minister of military affairs Benny Gantz told officials in Washington last week that he had directed the regime’s military to prepare for the possibility of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Iranian politicians & military officials have repeatedly warned Israel against any adventurism against the Islamic Republic, pledging a crushing response to any attack.
“Last week, Iran’s Army Commander Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi said Israel’s empty threats hail from Tel Aviv’s fear of the Islamic Republic, adding that the country’s firm response to any Israeli aggression would bring forward the occupying entity’s annihilation.
“The New York Times, citing several current & former Israeli military officials & experts, reported on Saturday that the Tel Aviv regime lacks the ability to act on its threats of launching an attack against nuclear sites in Iran, as the Islamic Republic has significantly promoted its defense capabilities.
“The report highlighted that a wider attempt to destroy dozens of nuclear sites in distant parts of Iran would be ‘beyond the current resources of the Israeli armed forces.’ (cont’d)
2 of 2
“According to retired Israeli air force general Relik Shafir, Iran has dozens of nuclear sites, some deep underground that would be hard for Israeli bombs to quickly penetrate & destroy.
“The Israeli air force, he added, does not have warplanes large enough to carry the latest bunker-busting bombs.
“’It’s very difficult — I would say even impossible — to launch a campaign that would take care of all these sites,’ Shafir said.
“One current Israeli security official said the Tel Aviv regime did not currently have the ability to inflict any significant damage to the underground facilities in Natanz and Fordow.
“Moreover, the Israeli military lacks the ability to simultaneously fend off Iranian fighter jets & air defense systems.
“’Iran’s defense capabilities are also much stronger than in 2012, when Israel last seriously considered attacking. Its nuclear sites are better fortified, & it has more surface-to-surface missiles that can be launched swiftly from tunnels,’ the article read.”