Bolton: Israel might attack Iran between Election Day and Inauguration Day

posted at 3:42 pm on June 24, 2008 by Allahpundit

Let’s hope he’s right at least about nothing happening before the election, as the paranoia about Israel acting at Bush’s behest to initiate a crisis that might benefit McCain would blow as sky high as Iran’s reactors after an IAF raid.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”…

“An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush’s ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

“With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran’s side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development.”

How would Israel hitting Iran in December after Obama wins spare them the diplomatic “consequences” Bolton warns of here? Any attack after Election Day, or even before if Obama’s out to a big lead late in the race, will result in a major foreign policy crisis being foisted on him as he enters office without his having been consulted. If anything, waiting until after he’s elected but before he’s sworn in would be the supreme insult since it would look like a panic move precipitated by a total lack of confidence in the new administration to handle the Iranian threat. Which, needless to say, may be justifiable, but it’s bound to make for poisonous relations between President Obama and the Israelis. Bolton’s point, I take it, is that an Obama victory will leave Israel with the awful choice of hitting Iran at the price of (potentially) alienating the new U.S. government versus trusting the new government and risking Iran going nuclear — although if that’s true then logically they should want to act as soon as possible, election or no, since that would let them deal with the threat while also minimizing the political implications in the U.S. while we’re still four months away from the election.

Then again, if the threat is still sufficiently remote that they can afford to wait until November, presumably they can also wait until next spring. That would at least give them time to persuade Obama before risking the “consequences” of striking unilaterally and it would avoid the insult problem of Bolton’s scenario. If the attack goes well, Obama can claim credit for having helped to defend Israel; if it doesn’t, he can claim to have tried to discourage it. Question to our military readers, though: Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support? If they literally can’t make a move without us, then they really do have to assume that their window closes on January 19, 2009 unless Obama gives them some sort of informal guarantee before he’s sworn in.

For what it’s worth, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is headed to Israel later this week, his second visit in six months after a JCS hiatus of ten years. And here’s the obligatory link to the New York Sun’s piece on retaliation scenarios after an Israeli strike, ranging from a Hezbollah attack on U.S. soil to Shiite militias gone wild in Iraq to sabotage at the Saudi oil ports to an assault on the Fifth Fleet in the Gulf. No worries about that last one, you say? Guess again.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A little behind on this one, Allah. But, it’s a good one.

If anything, waiting until after he’s elected but before he’s sworn in would be the supreme insult since it would look like a panic move precipitated by a total lack of confidence in the new administration to handle the Iranian threat.

Well, duh

gmoonster on June 24, 2008 at 3:47 PM

I wonder what Obama supporters think about the fact that our allies so patently distrust the guy?

Eh, who am I kidding? They love the idea that Israel is scared of Obama letting them die. Obama supporters tend to love Iran and hate Israel… as well as America, I’ve noticed.

More precisely, they hate a strong America that stands for something other than weakness and liberal mishmash.

Vanceone on June 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Then again, if the threat is still sufficiently remote that they can afford to wait until November, presumably they can also wait until next spring. That would at least give them time to persuade Obama before risking the “consequences” of striking unilaterally and it would avoid the insult problem of Bolton’s scenario.

What’s the likeliness that they’d be able to persuade Obama no matter how good a case they make? He’s an inexperienced, far-left liberal who caters to the MoveOn base.

amerpundit on June 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

lets see Israel cannot find it within themselves to defeat hizbullah, and they’re going to attack Iran?

they’ve lost their nerve, just as the US has on this issue.

Iran thinks they’ve won, and they’re right.

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I would think its a pretty simple question of not wanting to affect the election.

infidel2 on June 24, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Hopefully, the only thing a potential Obama administration will face in Iran are smoking embers.

Shouldn’t be much at all to deal with if we do the job right.

NoDonkey on June 24, 2008 at 3:49 PM

If they go after Iran, they had better do a thorough job and flatten them.

LimeyGeek on June 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?

Isreal has more technology then the U.S. realizes. From Sats to Missiles. They could do a ground then to air via Satellite and UAV support (as they have that as well).

I don’t see why we should hinder it. We have always backed them… And they worry about the same things we here in the U.S. worry about, but unfortunately they actually do get the terrorists doing what we are trying to stop here.

upinak on June 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Bolton: Israel might attack Iran between Election Day and Inauguration Day

Couldn’t happen to a better bunch of Ayatollah thugs.

byteshredder on June 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

LimeyGeek on June 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Agreed. A significant enough blow that retaliation (at least from Iran directly) is essentially impossible.

amerpundit on June 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM

My guess would be that they might well wait for the elections, but primarily because the result would dictate their need to take action. If McCain wins, there’s at least a chance Israel might not have to go it alone, and they might wait to see what the new administration has to contribute to the situation before they strike. If it’s Obama, they can be relatively certain that Iran is on cruise control towards nuclear capability, and the only power left in the world with both the will and the ability to keep it from happening will be Israel.

Blacklake on June 24, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Agreed. A significant enough blow that retaliation (at least from Iran directly) is essentially impossible.

not a chance…..the ezekial option…

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 3:53 PM

They’re waiting and seeing. If they get McCain, they may hold it off and figure they’ll get support. If they get Obama, they’ll figure they’re going it alone so there’s nothing to wait around for.

amerpundit on June 24, 2008 at 3:54 PM

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 3:53 PM

A Russian retaliation? I doubt Russia is invested enough in the welfare of Iran, which hasn’t exactly been timely with payments and has had sanctions already leveraged against it by Russia, to retaliate against Israel/US.

amerpundit on June 24, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Maybe the Iranians should have listened……….


Jimmy Carter says Israel had 150 nuclear weapons

Seven Percent Solution on June 24, 2008 at 3:57 PM

“Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?”

Probably not a significant one, assuming they don’t use nuclear weapons. Iran has extensive air defenses, and while they can be defeated, I don’t believe that Israel has the air assets (including enough refueling capability) to launch the number of strikes that would be required to achieve significant damage.

exhelodrvr on June 24, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?

At a bare minimum, they’ll need our tacit approval for the airstrike when they fly over Iraq to get to the target.

flipflop on June 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Another possibility that crosses my mind is that the Bush Administration might already have an agreement in principle with Israel that it will support an attack during its lame duck period if the White House will be going back to the Democrats. I suppose in theory this could even go so far as to mean a prolonged joint US/Israeli strike, or perhaps just an Israeli strike with US logistical support. I guess we’ll see, but I’m betting that one way or another an Obama win would be a trigger for something.

Blacklake on June 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM

T

hen again, if the threat is still sufficiently remote that they can afford to wait until November, presumably they can also wait until next spring. That would at least give them time to persuade Obama before risking the “consequences” of striking unilaterally and it would avoid the insult problem of Bolton’s scenario. If the attack goes well, Obama can claim credit for having helped to defend Israel; if it doesn’t, he can claim to have tried to discourage it.

Oh, how nice. Will someone please let me know whether or not the attack goes well, and how well it played out for Obama? That, of course, must be the foremost concern.

BigD on June 24, 2008 at 4:05 PM

unless Obama gives them some sort of informal guarantee

If we have learned nothing else from the past several months, we should at least have learned that Obama guarantees aren’t worth a tinker’s damn.

Troll Feeder on June 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM

My worry is Iraq, how much progress would be undone when Iran retaliates? Looks like we`ll get that regional war afterall. :)

ThePrez on June 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM

I really think Israel will only do this if Barry HO wins. McCain is slightly more grounded in reality than the senator of the second coming.

Iblis on June 24, 2008 at 4:10 PM

if i was iran/jihadist, I would if possible plan some sort of attack on American Soil before the election and issue a statement it was for “US Troops located on holy land”. i.e. play to our emboldened useful idiots(Obama left, paultard right) and help get Obama elected and push further US capitulation.

jp on June 24, 2008 at 4:25 PM

That’s exactly what I was worrying about as well. It’s all a bit of a quandry really. The Israelis want to stop Iran, but they also know by doing so they could change the course of current events, hurting their image if anything.

If they do so, and Obama is elected, suprisingly, they risk his disapproval for the rest of his tenure as President.

PresidenToor on June 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM

This makes me miss Bush already.
He’s probably going to look like a genius for his handling of 9-11, after the success in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be supressed anymore, and the next guy has his chance to do something about Iran.

NellE on June 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM

At a bare minimum, they’ll need our tacit approval for the airstrike when they fly over Iraq to get to the target.

I’m just curious why they would need this. They certainly never asked Jordan’s permission when they attacked Osirak. I’m sure they never asked Turkey when they flew through after the Syrian thing in September. I suspect the Israelis really don’t care if they have permission from the US or the UN or whomever to do what they gotta do.

Iran would be the same thing. If the Israelis feel threatened enough, they’ll do what they gotta do to perserve their own little country. With or without the permission of the US or the UN.

mjk on June 24, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Israel can certainly mount an attack without our assistance, although they would probably take casualties due to greater difficulties of logistics and fighter support over long distances. It would require enough of their resources that they probably wouldn’t be able to make a repeat attack for a while, so they would be well aware they’d have to get it right the first time.

If they’re really concerned about Iran’s nuke program, and concerned that they’re on their own to take it out, they aren’t likely to give a damn about crossing Iraqi airspace. They’ll probably give us a heads-up once their planes are in the air, if they think we’d balk.

As for timing, if Obama wins in November, then yes, they’ll deliberately do it while Bush is still in office. Obama is probably seen as an easy mark by most of our allies as well as our enemies, and he’s going to get tested severely by every government that wants to take his measure. His first hundred days in office are going to be brutal, and Israel likely won’t be the only one that won’t wait for him to take the oath of office.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM

“Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?”

From what I’ve read the past few years the short answer is No, at least given the publicly available information. It’s quite a long way from Israeli to Iran; there are numerous targets spread widely throughout the vast Iranian landscape; the Israeli airforce isn’t built to perform multiple bombing runs so far from home.

In any case all any strike could hope to accomplish is to slow down the Iranian bomb. At this point I don’t think anything can realistically stop the Iranian bomb. They have lots of bright engineers, workable plans, the equipment, the raw materials, the political will, and lots of cash.

It’s only a matter of time.

Vote Sauron 08 on June 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Which reminds me. If a lame duck is a President waiting out the end of his term, what do you call a President-elect who’s waiting to take the oath of office? A lame Bambi?

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 24, 2008 at 4:44 PM

In any case all any strike could hope to accomplish is to slow down the Iranian bomb.

Slowing it down buys time, even if they don’t take out the entire nuclear infrastructure.

If buying time is all you can do, it can still be worth doing. And the fallout might prove illuminating, if not positively glowing.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 24, 2008 at 4:48 PM

take a look at Lew Rockwell’s childish take

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021673.html

Israel ‘Will Attack Iran’
Posted by Lew Rockwell at June 24, 2008 02:44 PM

Israel will do so after the US election but before the inauguration. Or so says neocon thug John Bolton. And shouldn’t he be in the first plane?

In fact, while that timing may be right, if the attack occurs, I think it will be Bush doing the killing.

UPDATE from John Margelewski: ur-neocon-jr. Bill Kristol says Bush will do it too, if neocon McCain is defeated (YouTube).

replace “neocon” with ‘jew’ or worse and you get what they really mean. What the idiots on the right are reading into this.

jp on June 24, 2008 at 4:52 PM

If BO is elected they can’t wait for the other shoe to drop. They will take out Iran’s capabilities. The only real question is can they do it without Nukes. If they do use Nukes we will have all the “do gooder’s” in the world screaming.

duff65 on June 24, 2008 at 4:55 PM

If Israel attacks Iran before Inauguration Day if Obama wins, they had better count on a VERY difficult four years. As Obama pulls the U.S. troops out of Iraq, angry Iranians could start attacking southern Iraq, testing Maliki’s mettle, and possibly controlling most of the Middle East’s oil, while having a closer launching pad (Iraq) for an attack on Israel, with no help from the United States.

His Majesty Hussein the Third (after Saddam and the king of Jordan) could then realize his dream of an undivided Jerusalem, in Iranian hands.

In order to avoid this, after an Obama election, Israel would have to launch the attack nearly immediately, in order to enjoy at least two months’ support from the Bush Administration to finish the job.

Steve Z on June 24, 2008 at 5:14 PM

I think that those pondering whether or not an attack will take place are in denial. We have no choice, if that does not register – clearly one does not think a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to this country, in which case I think one would be wrong, probably twice.

Even if the US admamantly opposes a strike, even if it pulls all support, there will be a strike. Again, there is not one, but two full precedents involving nuclear reactors & programs to go with. The USA opposed the Osirak strike, and the recent Syrian strike. Both were carried out.

You have assets in the region, 100,000+ soldiers – The US needs to start preparing for a strike now. No matter whether you take initiative or are caught like KSM with the underpants on, the USA will be hit in retaliation and needs to prepare.

The notion that Israel would halt its defense so as not to alienate Obama for 4 years is a non starter for me as well, the US opposed Israeli hostilities in 56, 67, in 82 in Lebanon, this has never stopped us from defending ourselves before, irrespective of who was in the administration or when.

I’m not sure why anyone might think otherwise now. Nixon coldly told us we would go it alone if we attacked Egypt to open the Straights of Tiran, their closing was considered an act of war for Israel, just as Iran’s nuclear program is. The USA wasn’t going to open them or help out, and neither would the UN. Egypt’s air force & all its airfields were destroyed about 24 hrs later so there’s plenty of precedent.

saus on June 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Air assets include long range refueling aircraft and the IAF has been conducting training exercises for at least the last 24 months. The capability allows a circumnavigation of Saudi Arabia in the event that no fly-over permission can be aquired.

The five Dolphin SSKs, while not initially delivered to fire Harpoons have been retrofitted with 533mm tubes that just happen to be just the right lenght and width to house a Harpoon or generic equivalent. The generic Israeli cruise missle (land based) has a range of 1500km. Just long enough to reach from Israel to Tehran.

Anyone who underestimates Israeli chutzpah is nuts.

Limerick on June 24, 2008 at 5:44 PM

You say that Israel does not want to appear to be acting at Bush’s behest, or in conjunction with Bush, as a means of influencing the election McCain’s way.

Then you ask why an Israeli strike after an Obama victory would remove the political consequences.

It wouldn’t remove all political consequences, but it would remove the appearance that there was timing involved to influence our elections.

Israel would be countering an existential threat. What in the world do political consequences really have to do with it?

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Seven KC 135 tankers in the inventory. That is a lot of gas.

Limerick on June 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM

saus on June 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Please understand there are plenty of people you do not have to spell that out for. It is well and completely understood.

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Question to our military readers, though: Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?

I believe so. With >100 F-15s & F-16s combined, each able to carry a couple of JDAMs, and enough AIM-9s & AIM-120s to blow up any given MiG, I think they would be more than ready to carry out a devastating attack on Iran. I’d actually feel somewhat safer if they did carry it out unilaterally, because then Iran wouldn’t have the capability to nuke anyone.

On the defensive side, they also have plenty of PATRIOT missles, which have become quite advanced in their maturity.

knob on June 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Nice, Jiang,

Why does the most violent country in the Middle East have to strike again?

Pork, plain and simple…

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM

No matter whether you take initiative or are caught like KSM with the underpants on, the USA will be hit in retaliation and needs to prepare.

And that will be made to be Israel’s fault too.

Pay no attention. Good luck Saus.

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM

American face or Israeli survival? If you were Israeli which would you choose?

Yes they need supply. They have fought two wars with the Arabs while under a total arms embargo, not the least of which was 1948.

If Israel wants to play she will, and she’ll play hard.

Limerick on June 24, 2008 at 5:57 PM

No worries about that last one, you say? Guess again.

No worries. Even Obama would retaliate if the US Navy were attacked on his watch. And Iran knows that.

bnelson44 on June 24, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Nice, Jiang,

Why does the most violent country in the Middle East have to strike again?

Pork, plain and simple…

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM

I don’t know what pork plain and simple means.
I also not sure if you mean Afghanistan or Iran or Iraq as the most violent.

As for why Israel must attack, it is because the democracies of the world and their international organizations have not met their responsibilities. Each passing day without serious action against Iran (the EU just took some by freezing Bank Mellis assets in Europe) brings us closer to the day when they force Israel’s hand.

We shall see. It’s not too late to force Iran’s hand, though China and Russia will have to be confronted politically.

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM

The USA opposed the Osirak strike, and the recent Syrian strike.

saus on June 24, 2008 at 5:31 PM

I doubt it.

SlimyBill on June 24, 2008 at 6:27 PM

Seven KC 135 tankers in the inventory. That is a lot of gas.

Limerick on June 24, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Dig. It’d like Shock and Awe. And Awe. And Awe. And Awe. And Awe. And Awe. And Awe. And Awe.

SlimyBill on June 24, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I meant Israel, Jiang.

Paranoia is no way to run a military…or a country.

Attacking Iran is a nice fringe right fantasy…but that’s all.

We’re back in reality-based times.

Thank god.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Paranoia is no way to run a military…or a country.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Nor is denial.

SlimyBill on June 24, 2008 at 6:37 PM

The US military not the Israelis need to hit the Iranians now! In order for the job to be done right, Bush needs to pull the trigger on Iran before he leaves office. Let McCain sort out the ashes later.

elduende on June 24, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Why does the most violent country in the Middle East have to strike again?

Pork, plain and simple…

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM

That’s not Kosher, troll.

omnipotent on June 24, 2008 at 6:47 PM

We’re back in reality-based times.

Thank god.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM

I would understand your point better if you thought Israel shouldn’t attack, or if you hoped Iran would win, or any number of opinions. But to think that Israel will allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon while threatening to destroy Israel with it will not lead to war is to live in a fantasy world.

I’m beginning to think your return to “reality-based” times might have something to do with Mr. Obama. Am I getting close? Or does “reality-based” mean it’s jew season again.

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 6:51 PM

it would look like a panic move precipitated by a total lack of confidence in the new administration to handle the Iranian threat.

barry’s foreign relations team will be even less qualified to deal with an even more dangerous world then they were the first time with carter. Things are going to be very scary this time next year.

peacenprosperity on June 24, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Or does “reality-based” mean it’s jew season again.

JiangxiDad on June 24, 2008 at 6:51 PM

That’s correct. But alphie is a pvssy so it really doesn’t matter.

Andy in Agoura Hills on June 24, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Limerick,
“Seven KC 135 tankers in the inventory. That is a lot of gas.”

NOt for the level of strike that would be necessary to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Much more likely to be a relatively small strike on a small number of targets that are central to the program; that would delay but not eliminate the potential for the bomb.

exhelodrvr on June 24, 2008 at 8:39 PM

Knob,
“With >100 F-15s & F-16s combined, each able to carry a couple of JDAMs, and enough AIM-9s & AIM-120s to blow up any given MiG”

For a strike at that distance, they would not be able to carry close to that much armament.

exhelodrvr on June 24, 2008 at 8:41 PM

Is it Muslim season, jiang?

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in hundreds of years…Israel attacks one about once a week.

Who’s the problem here?

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 8:48 PM

A Russian retaliation? I doubt Russia is invested enough in the welfare of Iran, which hasn’t exactly been timely with payments and has had sanctions already leveraged against it by Russia, to retaliate against Israel/US.

amerpundit on June 24, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Iran will be in the lead, Russia will enter that war reluctantly, but enter it they will

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:08 PM

Between election day and inauguration day is what I’ve been thinking too. It’s so easy to figure that it’s almost common sense.

petefrt on June 24, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in hundreds of years…Israel attacks one about once a week.

Who’s the problem here?

really? so taking our diplomats hostage isn’t an act of war? uh huh..so funding hamas, and sending bombs to Iraq to kill our soldiers isn’t an attack?

are you an iranian plant, or just a quisling?

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:13 PM

I’d say the Iranian civilian jetliner the U.S. Navy shot down is worse than everything Iran has done over the past 25 years, right.

All our hostages lived…remember?

Unlike the bloated children Iran had to fish out of the Gulf…nice shootin’, Navy.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 9:36 PM

I’d say the Iranian civilian jetliner the U.S. Navy shot down is worse than everything Iran has done over the past 25 years, right.

I’d say they richly deserved it, and much more, they were behind the Lebanon bombing of our marines that killed 241 american.

and given the Iranians, I would have no doubt they used that jet to violate our airspace to try to get international sympathy. I have none for them.

but you don’t have a problem with that, now do you? they were also behind the murder of our diplomats in lebanon in the 80s…they are terror central…

but you don’t have a problem with them killing jews and americans, now do you?

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Is Israel capable of staging an attack on Iran without U.S. air/logistical support?

The IAF has acquired 2 airframes designed for such long- range deep penetration surgical strikes. The F-16i and the F-15i; the F-16i Sufa is the most advanced strike version of the Falcon on the planet and the F-15i Ra’am is the Israeli version of our F-15E strike eagle. Both aircraft are arguably the finest strike aircraft in existence and should have little difficulty handling Iranian air-to-air and ground based threats w/o additional escort aircraft. Both aircraft are two up which allows for a much more complete and sophisticated ECM and weapons suit to be employed. It is a question of will, not capability.

dmann on June 24, 2008 at 9:41 PM

If Iran is so bad…why did Reagan(and Israel) sell Iran (and Hezbollah) missiles in exchange for cash for the Contras, right?

After the Lebanon bombings.

Because Israel and America’s right wing wasn’t so crazy back then…

Iran is no threat to anyone, especially not Americans.

The fringe right, however…is the most violent gang in the world today.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 9:48 PM

If Iran is so bad…why did Reagan(and Israel) sell Iran (and Hezbollah) missiles in exchange for cash for the Contras, right?

since they’re so nice, why are you here? why don’t you move over there? or are you some kind of plant?

Iran is no threat to anyone, especially not Americans.

yeah they just need nukes to ‘protect’ themselves from big bad Israel and Amerikkka…right. all that talk about wiping israel off the map is just the good ole iranian boys way of ‘making nice’

sure…

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:53 PM

The fringe right, however…is the most violent gang in the world today.

oh you must mean those NEO-cons (ie jews) right??

yeah you sound like one of those aryan iranians…

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 9:55 PM

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Seems you left what little grey matter you have in the porta-potty tank!

dmann on June 24, 2008 at 9:57 PM

80% of Jewish Americans vote for the Democrats every single election, right.

Seem your Antisemitism is showing.

You one of those Christians who expect all the Jews to be burning in hell soon?

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Seem your Antisemitism is showing.

this from a supporter of the mad mullahs in iran!!

and by the way you talk, you’re a muslim, an iranian right?

again, are you a plant??

sure sounds like it.

whatever you are, you’re a wacko nut job who doesn’t deserve the freedoms of this country…go back to iran you no good piece of trash.

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM

alphie does that to people….its not worth the effort!

dmann on June 24, 2008 at 10:24 PM

dmann on June 24, 2008 at 10:24 PM

very true, its not a good idea to cast pearls before swine!

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:25 PM

Does anyone else think that John Bolton would be the best VP choice for John McCain.

Heck, I wish John Bolton has run for president. He would eat Obama alive in the debates.

James on June 24, 2008 at 10:31 PM

Iran is no threat to anyone, especially not Americans.

The fringe right, however…is the most violent gang in the world today.

alphie on June 24, 2008 at 9:48 PM

You do realize people are snickering at this nonsense….

theregoestheneighborhood on June 24, 2008 at 10:31 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on June 24, 2008 at 10:31 PM

very good one!

right4life on June 24, 2008 at 10:52 PM

The Iranians haven’t a prayer!

dmann on June 25, 2008 at 12:42 AM