US intelligence warns Iran poised to conduct terror attacks in US

posted at 11:00 am on January 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

During the debates, Rep. Ron Paul often wonders aloud why the US should fear an Iranian nuclear weapon.  I’d call this a good reason:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States in response to perceived threats from America and its allies, the U.S. spy chief said Tuesday.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

That plot “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime,” Clapper said in the testimony, which was submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in advance of a threat assessment hearing Tuesday. “We are also concerned about Iranian plotting against U.S. or allied interests overseas.”

The assessment signals a potentially dire new direction in the adversarial relationship between the United States and Iran, at a time when there are indications that a covert campaign is already underway to thwart Iran’s alleged ambition to develop a nuclear weapons.

And now that covert campaign takes on a lot more significance.  If Iran develops a nuke, the presumed primary target of such a weapon would be Israel, which could get devastated by such an attack.  An attack on Washington DC simultaneously would decapitate most of our government and military leadership and make it difficult to organize a defense or a response.  However, it would also make it clear that Iran would have been the culprit, and any opposition to a full-scale war on Tehran after conducting such an attack on American soil would dissipate overnight.

Iran knows this, and if they acted in a rational manner, they would not dare to invite such a devastating war on their country.  The problem for us is that Iran’s policy is neither rational or irrational, but non-rational.  The theocratic clique running the show are true believers in the Twelfth Imam and the need for a conflagration to produce him, and the promised result of Islamic rule throughout the world.  Starting a war with the US won’t bother them as they believe that (a) the Muslim world will find itself in such a conflict anyway, and/or (b) they can hasten the arrival of the mahdi by kicking one off.  If they see their position threatened in Iran, they may even accelerate those plans before they lose the chance to put them into action.

Even without the nuclear aspect to the threat, though, this report should make clear to everyone that Iran’s mullahcracy has been at war with us ever since it took power in 1979.  Sometimes they have been more effective at it than others, but they have conducted a low-level war against the US that Americans are loath to acknowledge.  Fortunately, our intelligence services have taken a more practical look at Iran than they did in 2007, when they produced a thoroughly political and widely discredited NIE that claimed Iran wasn’t working on nuclear weapons at all as a means to curb George Bush from acting against the Iranian threat.  What’s changed since 2007?  Hmmmm …..


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“Weeeeee are the praaaahblem” ~Alex Jones’s favorite dupe.

Western_Civ on January 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Oh goody all you isolationists, now there’s another Mid East country I’ll get to visit for a year or so.

LincolntheHun on January 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Of course they are, how else would the government keep us in fear without a periodic warning of imminent doom. So we can expect a vast increase in “security theater” with even more intrusive checks on Americans and even more dissolution of our rights.

clippermiami on January 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Iranian intelligence warns Ayatollahs Obama administration poised to turn other cheek

cartooner on January 31, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Simple solution. Tell all the Arab leaders and imams that if we suffer an attack they can kiss the ka Bah goodbye. Another attack, bye bye Al Aqsa mosque, and so on.

marinetbryant on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Maybe Obama can talk them out of it…/

idesign on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

This is the same country that wants to bring about the end of the world in order for their sacred imam to return.

Which would be the better option, attack Israel, or the US?

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Thank goodness Obamanure tasked NASA with making pi$$lam feel good about its contributions to math and science.

Western_Civ on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

“Don’t worry folks, the system will work.” – Janet Napolitano

Electrongod on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Que Vince Flynn and Tom Clancy

FLconservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Considering that Hezbollah has outfits in the TBA, Venezuela and on our own border in Mexico… I mean the cartels didn’t start headchopping until they got real terrorist training… how hard could it be for them to do this?

It is already happening.

It started out as simple funding ops years ago… a bit of grey market goods dealing, moving tons of pseudo-ephedrine to the cartels from Canada by driving across the US, going around State tax stamps for cigarettes… and those are just the individuals we know about and have been prosecuted. Easy enough to weaponize them.

ajacksonian on January 31, 2012 at 11:08 AM

0bama said that Iran was not a threat during the campaign and continues this meme. Nothing to see here.

cyclown on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Is this 2003 all over again?

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Yes… all history with Iran begins in 1979. Beat the drums, leak the intell, show our willingness to do what it takes to keep the machine going.

I hate it when Iran plans terror attacks. Pretty soon they will start killing our scientists.

al sends

afterdarknesslight on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

October surprise?!

FLconservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

But I’ve been told time and time again that there has been an Arab Spring (and that must mean a Persian Spring, too).

And that Iran doesn’t harbor hostile intent towards the U.S.

And that the Iranians aren’t to be taken seriously when they say that they will wipe Israel off the map.

And that their Navy will put our Navy on the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

And that they are only developing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes.

Thank goodness we have such a strong, steadfast Commander-in-Chief that we will always put the interests and security of the United States first.

We are so screwed. One of these days, Iran will act out in some manner and all of the talking heads will show up on television (provided there still is television) and act surprised that Iran was capable of such acts of war.

Which makes it all the more maddening because any one of our Boomers could turn the entire country of Iran into a shimmering sheet of glass with just the press of a button.

turfmann on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Thanks Jimmah! Great presidency.

MTF on January 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM

We probably deserve it.

-BHO

BobMbx on January 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Should they be calling it a domestic overseas contingency operation?

Flange on January 31, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Big deal?

With decorated war hero, General Barry Al-Obahmah as CinC and his faithful deputy Pancetta – we can look to the future with confidence.

CorporatePiggy on January 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM

It’s our fault
-paul

cmsinaz on January 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM

And now the Ron Paul folks will waltz in and talk about how Iran couldn’t harm a flea, and there’s no reason to think they’re working on nuclear weapons, and all the stuff about the 12th imam has just been cooked up by the CIA, and yada yada yada…

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Ron Paul will send them flowers…JugEars will deliver them…bowing of course.

KOOLAID2 on January 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I didn’t know we had troops stationed in Iran. I mean, that’s the only reason they would want to attack us, right Ronulans?

stefanite on January 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Ron Paul woukd just say Iran is responding to America’s imperialism and meanness. Its obviously all America’s fault, if we’d remove ourselves from even traveling overseas as tourists, everything would be fine.

And, of course, doing away with Israel.

William Teach on January 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM

There are what, 100 of these warnings issued every year? Yawn.

EddieC on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama said.

Logically, this means Obama believes that Iran is an un-serious threat.

BobMbx on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’m in no way advocating starting a war with Iran. (Even though to the Paulites I am a neocon warmonger) But Iran has said on several occasions it would like to wipe us and Israel from the earth. When someone says that you should take heed. History is replete with examples of turning a blind eye to threats. Ignore them at your own peril.

Minnfidel on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

We’ve heard in other contexts – What would Jesus do?

How about, what would Caesar do? Caesar was all about capabilities when he dealt with the Gauls and Germans. If we engage the Iranians militarily, why must we do so on their terms? Let’s strike their military capabilities without restraint, then leave. Really, if done correctly, we never arrive; we just destroy their armed forces and go.

The next time they try to pop their heads up, we do it again. Without any major military force, how long before their own people get rid of the 12th Imam worshippers?

Nemesis of Jihad on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

And now the Ron Paul folks will waltz in and talk about how Iran couldn’t harm a flea, and there’s no reason to think they’re working on nuclear weapons, and all the stuff about the 12th imam has just been cooked up by the CIA, and yada yada yada…

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM

We gotta keep feeding the monster somehow.

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

And yet this administration, Ron Paul and the majority of Congress will continue to stick its head in the sand, much like the CIA has for years.

“Oh, they won’t develop a nuke…” “Oh, it’s all bluff and bluster…”

When we have politicians and bureacrats that continue to view Islam through a Western lens and mindset, thus refusing to see it for what it is, we will continue to get milque-toast responses from them and our government.

marinetbryant has a good response, but it’d only be like waking up the hornet’s nest. Sure, we might obliterate the hornet’s nest, but we better hope we don’t go into shock while we look like we went ten rounds with Frazier. Besides, as I recall, there is an Islamic prophecy that says during the end times Mecca will be destroyed. So, they kind of expect it.

As I have often read on Islamist sites/comments: they love death more than we love life. And as Meir once said, “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

I believe we are heading towards another global war. It seems inevitable.

My only hope is that neither Barack Obama or Ron Paul are President when this occurs.

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Newsflash: the Twelfth Imam has already arrived, and he is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

SickofLibs on January 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I’m reading Joel rosenbergs

the twelfth iman

This is a scary coincidence

cmsinaz on January 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

NUKE them there Iranians and their land into glass. Nuke them now and often, wipe them from the face of the earth for Gods sake.

Brushjumper on January 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Another attack, bye bye Al Aqsa mosque, and so on.

marinetbryant on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I don’t really think we should blow that up. It might torque off the Israelis since it’s in Jerusalem.

Oldnuke on January 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM

“Throw the imam down the well”, paraphrased from Sash Cohen. NOt funny this time either. The mullahocracy needs to inflate the situation to a level that sparks the belief of moral righteous action on the part of their minions. Terror, yes, nuclear use? Not gonna happen. Isreal has a great deal of protection. The powers that be do not want the wrath of the Almighty coming down on their heads if they were to let iran bomb Isreal.

jake49 on January 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I bet that when Amadinnerjacket and entourage fly into town, they don’t get a TSA patdown.
Can you say diplomatic immunity?

Hey, what you got in that bag there, boy?
Nothin’ but us WMD!!

askwhatif on January 31, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Wait a second, didn’t President UNQ say Iran was tiny and no threat to the U.S.?

Pqlyur1 on January 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM

We probably deserve it.

-BHO

BobMbx on January 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I think that was actually Ron Paul, but I’m sure BHO agrees with him.

Oldnuke on January 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Nemesis of Jihad on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

That’s the Israeli preferred method.

Osirak 1981, Operation Orchard 2007, and there have been all of those “mysterious” deaths of Iranian nuclear scientists…

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM

This is what the Iranians REALLY believe:

Did you know they want total dominance of the world and Sharia law ruling the earth. Their intention is to kill all Jews and enforce faith change upon Christians and IF they say no then BEHEAD them.
They welcome Jesus Christ back on earth as a Muslim convert working for the Madhi, ruler of the Islam earth. The faith ALLOWS lying as required to protect their faith at all cost. They will be the largest religion on earth by 2025, and are aligned to rule the earth PRIOR to the return of the real messiah Jesus Christ. They have been planning this for 1425 years.

Brushjumper on January 31, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Well now, I thought “Imadinnerjacket” and Obama were best buddies.

rplat on January 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I see the Ron Paul hate is alive is well.

Listen, neocons, being the disgusting monster that he was, if Saddam Hussein wasn’t removed from power, Iran wouldn’t have filled the vacuum that was left in his place. I find it comical that moron politicians are willing to spend even more billions on the War on Terror when we have a cyber war, a drug war, and a trade war to fight.

Furthermore, it’s not being anti-Israel to say America shouldn’t fight Israel’s war when they didn’t send one soldier to help us fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s language and some of his views regarding these issues, but he’s hell of a lot better than the warmongers who won’t think twice about throwing America into another war, costing us more innocent lives and spending even more money.

Yep, that’s conservatism, alright. /

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

We need to concentrate our political energy into taxing the job creators out of existence and forget this terrorism nonsense. Iran is a tiny country without military capability to do us harm. We need to extend an unclenched fist and have a dialogue with them. Fortunately, our president is skilled at dialogue. It’ll be alright.

a capella on January 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

We’re just playing whack-a-mole for the time being.

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM

clippermiami on January 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Of course a Paultard refuse to address facts and instead sticks his head in the sand. Either this is not an issue for you morons, or it is. You can’t have it both ways by proclaiming everything you don’t want to hear to be propaganda.

NotCoach on January 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Furthermore, it’s not being anti-Israel to say America shouldn’t fight Israel’s war when they didn’t send one soldier to help us fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

.
Yeah, asking Israel to help out in Afghanistan would have really helped pacify the region.

LincolntheHun on January 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

They’re never going to attack us here in the US. Our border security is too good.

Oh, wait…

trigon on January 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM

…We need to extend an unclenched fist and have a dialogue with them b|+ch slap them into the next time zone…

a capella on January 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Better…

affenhauer on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

cmsinaz on January 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I just finished reading the second book, The Tehran Initiative.

Mr. Rosenberg has his fingers on the pulse of what’s going on over there, mostly because he’s been in the know and mixed with the US and Israeli governmental crowd for years. He also has a charitable organization involved in Israel iirc which he frequents.

That said, while Mr. Rosenberg’s got a pretty good grasp of what’s going on and how that’d pan out, his eschatology is worth a grain of salt.

If you agree with Rosenberg’s assessment but not his eschatology, another Joel to look at who’s also got his finger on the pulse over there – but with a much wider view – is Joel Richardson.

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Wrong title,the Tehran initiative is the latest book

Read it

cmsinaz on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Simple solution. Tell all the Arab leaders and imams that if we suffer an attack they can kiss the ka Bah goodbye. Another attack, bye bye Al Aqsa mosque, and so on.

marinetbryant on January 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM

If they are truly gaga over the 12th Imam such a warning is welcome. The 12th Imam returns when Muslims start the fire that burns the world, even if the fire burns their own country. Much better to keep the torches out of their hands to begin with then to respond to an attack later on when they welcome our response.

NotCoach on January 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Maybe the criminal racist Holder can ship some of them there weapons again to the MEXees so they can fight the their Muslim Iranians at our border – Just sayin …

Brushjumper on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM

We probably deserve it.

-BHORP

BobMbx on January 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM

FIFY

NotCoach on January 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Listen, neocons…

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

No.

lol

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Yeah, asking Israel to help out in Afghanistan would have really helped pacify the region.

LincolntheHun on January 31, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Then why the hell are we still there?

Why do you think the radical Islamists want to kill us? It’s not because of “retaliation” as Ron Paul says, and it’s not because of our “freedom” as Rick Santorum states, either. It’s simply because they loathe Israel and want them dead, and America is Israel’s greatest ally. Which is exactly my point; Israel didn’t want to get involved in Afghanistan or Iraq, for obvious reasons, yet our idiotic leaders get us involved, even though our enemies see America in the same light as they Israel. Does that make sense?

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Stay tuned for the UnAmerican Patriot Act 3, sponsored by McCarthy Obama, that does exactly jack squat to prevent terrorism and everything to take a wrecking ball to the Constitution.

All this and more…AFTER we’ve suffered another successful attack because we won’t profile.

MelonCollie on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

If we engage the Iranians militarily, why must we do so on their terms? Let’s strike their military capabilities without restraint, then leave. Really, if done correctly, we never arrive; we just destroy their armed forces and go.

The next time they try to pop their heads up, we do it again. Without any major military force, how long before their own people get rid of the 12th Imam worshippers?

Nemesis of Jihad on January 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM

..and this shall be done one week after the NYT prints the plans, location and schedule on PAGE 1.

askwhatif on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

“The problem for us is that Iran’s policy is neither rational or irrational, but non-rational.”
We wish this were the problem. Iran’s leaders are very good at rational geopolitical games, beliefs be damned.
If their religious beliefs overrode their rational thoughts, we could nudge them towards perceived self-interest that has no tangible gain. Win win for us. Unfortunately this is not the case. Iran’s leadership has a very sober idea of what is in the self interest, if not of the Iranian people, then at the very least of the Iranian leadership.
If the Iranian regime is raising the stakes, it is because we are pushing them to war with our sanctions. We did much the same to Japan in the buildup to Perl Harbor.
For further reading on this, check out Stratfor and George Friedman’s works there. He is pretty good at ferreting out these trends

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Thanks logus

cmsinaz on January 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Which is exactly my point; Israel didn’t want to get involved in Afghanistan or Iraq, for obvious reasons…

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

…so? I thought just as Israel shouldn’t be told what to do by the US, the US shouldn’t be told what to do by Israel.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Can we have a little (no victims, please) act of Iranian sponsored terrorism somewhere in the USA (San Francisco or Boston would be best), followed by a come-to-Jesus moment by Ron Paul, with him publicly abandon his foreign policy stance and winning the nomination by a landslide as a result?

Archivarix on January 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Yes… all history with Iran begins in 1979. Beat the drums, leak the intell, show our willingness to do what it takes to keep the machine going.

I hate it when Iran plans terror attacks. Pretty soon they will start killing our scientists.

al sends

afterdarknesslight on January 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Poor, persecuted and victimized Iran, hapless target of those evil Jews and Neocons, the real enemies of all that is good and true and pure. Thankfully, Dr. Ron Paul stands like a mighty Colossus on the world stage, ready to smite with great and furious anger those who would try to control our minds with fluoridated water and enslave our bodies for use in bizarre DNA hybridization experiments.

I really can’t despise you Ron Paul true believers enough.

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM

…so? I thought just as Israel shouldn’t be told what to do by the US, the US shouldn’t be told what to do by Israel.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The President of the United States, at the time (Bush), announced to the entire world that America is going to send thousands of troops to launch a ground invasion into Afghanistan. Even though Pres. Bush ordered drone strikes turning large parts of Afghanistan into rubble, giving your enemies a heads-up wasn’t the brightest of ideas, and it probably wasn’t necessary. America could’ve easily sent in several dozen/hundred CIA agents, have them gather intelligence, and then dropped the bombs where our enemies were located.

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Wow I don’t know whose ideas are more absurdly wrong, you or your hero Ron Paul.

You can be anti-war if you want but if your grasp of geopolitics so so limited that you think Iran merely filled a vacuum left by deposing Saddam Hussein then stick to Paul’s pro-pot talking points. The reality is that Iran was not held in check by Iraq under Saddam. Iran was and is a threat no matter what occurred in Iraq.

Secondly, advocating a strong national defense does not make one a warmonger. And it isn’t just Israel’s war, the United States has a vested interest in stability in the region whether you care to admit it or not. There are reasons why we have two carrier battle groups on station in the region right now and it has nothing to do with warmongering.

Finally, a strong and safe nation should be more than just a “neocon” thing. One of the things that most angers me about Ron Paul is his isolationist views- as if our enemies would leave us be if we simply withdraw to our own borders and take to the DOD budget and spend it on domestic issues. Why is it that you want to make the nation less safe?

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I really can’t despise you Ron Paul true believers enough.

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM

So you love us propping up leaders of other countries?

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Secondly, advocating a strong national defense does not make one a warmonger

Defense? Or offense?

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Not so sure it is that clear cut. I believe there may be an internal struggle between the 12th Imam true believers and the more cautious, “Maybe I’m not ready to see Iran burn yet” pragmatists.

NotCoach on January 31, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM

What does any of your response have to do with Israel’s opinion, and why we should abide by it?

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

As Jimmy Carter would say, Americans have an inordinate fear of Islamism. Especially Ed.

J.E. Dyer on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The best defense is a good offense.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Who are we kidding? We love war as much as they do but we want them to make the first move so we can pretend we’re morally superior. Killing is man’s favorite activity.

The coming war brought to you by the Abrahamic religions.

Dan_Yul on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Israel didn’t want to get involved in Afghanistan or Iraq, for obvious reasons…

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Having Israeli Jews participate in Iraq or Afghanistan would have exacerbated the Muslim world like no other single action could have. I can not believe that you are bashing them for remaining uninvolved which is precisely what the US wanted.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Ru Paul would blame it all on The Juice, false-flag and all that. That Mossad you know, they are capable of anything.

slickwillie2001 on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

The best defense is a good offense.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

The packers disagree.

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I see the Ron Paul hate is alive is well.

Listen, neocons, ………………

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I stopped listening after Neocon.

Logboy on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

If the Iranian regime is raising the stakes, it is because we are pushing them to war with our sanctions. We did much the same to Japan in the buildup to Perl Harbor.
For further reading on this, check out Stratfor and George Friedman’s works there. He is pretty good at ferreting out these trends

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Please go put another Ron Paul bumper sticker on your car and leave this discussion for the adults. Oh, and you might want to take a couple more bong hits to ease your pain.

VegasRick on January 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Who are we kidding? We love war as much as they do…

Dan_Yul on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Yeah, our leaders totally make speeches about wiping other countries completely off the map, denouncing the holocaust, and talking about how the mass slaughter of people with different religious beliefs than us will bring back our messiah.

The real question is, who do you think you are kidding?

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The packers disagree.

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I hate sports, so I really don’t know what that means.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I’m not anti-war, I’m anti-ground invasion, since it almost always leads to nation-building, occupation and propping-up dictators. Not to mention we give money to corrupt governments like those in Pakistan.

Secondly, I didn’t say promoting a strong national defense makes one a warmonger, but the war hawks don’t seem to understand the meaning of “defense.” Sending your troops into enemy territory to build bases and remain there for years is the definition of “offense,” not “defense.” I could use a sports analogy, but I won’t go there. “Defense” means shoring up America’s security here at home, which would include profiling people, securing/closing the borders/ports, and building more military bases within our own borders. Call me naive, but I don’t see how one of our bases halfway around the world keeps us safe, here.

Furthermore, I’ve actually criticized Ron Paul on this very site for suggesting that “blowback” is the sole cause of the Islamists attempting to kill us. Of course bringing our men home wouldn’t make Al Qaeda love us, but keeping them in the Middle East for an endless period of time without a logical goal in mind is not an effective policy.

Look, I have problems with some of the Ronulans (my flatmate, for instance), but when talk-radio hosts throw out the words “defeat,” “surrender,” and “apathetic,” it doesn’t further the debate.

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

For further reading on this, check out Stratfor and George Friedman’s works there. He is pretty good at ferreting out these trends

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Sadly Friedman and Stratfor seriously devalued their credibility with the recent hacking “snafu”. Not to mention that evidently, much of what they write about is merely rehashing other sources, so apparently/possibly, no real new analysis – at least according to one article I came across that was critical of them following the hacking scandal.

cmsinaz - you’re welcome.

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Defense? Or offense?

Notorious GOP on January 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM

National security requires a strong defense but also the capability and willingness to go on the offense. Much as cowards like Obama and Paul advocate otherwise. When the Achille Lauro was hijacked, Reagan didn’t think twice about using military force to intercept the plane carrying the hijackers. I doubt seriously that Obama would have done anything but talk.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM

If the Iranian regime is raising the stakes, it is because we are pushing them to war with our sanctions. We did much the same to Japan in the buildup to Perl Harbor.

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Because these regimes are/were all peaceful like and do nothing aggressive or evil unless American policy effects them…

Let’s pretend we never imposed sanctions on Japan. They stop their aggression and start chanting make love, not war? Or, they take over the entire Pacific (assuming they don’t attack us just because we never imposed sanctions), Great Britain is the only free nation left in Europe and they launch a western offensive on the Soviet Union (who they had fought with prior to Hitler and Stalin agreeing to be buddies) to support Germany who would be effectively fighting a one front war? Hmm, it’s a mystery to me which outcome is more likely.

NotCoach on January 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM

What does any of your response have to do with Israel’s opinion, and why we should abide by it?

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Uh, because Israel could wipe Iran out of existence in one move if they wanted to? Getting America involved is just going to break our bank even further.

Having Israeli Jews participate in Iraq or Afghanistan would have exacerbated the Muslim world like no other single action could have. I can not believe that you are bashing them for remaining uninvolved which is precisely what the US wanted.

Happy Nomad on January 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The jihadists see America as being no different than Israel, so I don’t see your point, there. And I’m not bashing Israel, I just find it disgraceful that we had to love innocent lives when the War on Terror affected Israel as much as it did us.

I stopped listening after Neocon.

Logboy on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Then stop referring to people like me as “isolationists.”

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I really can’t despise you Ron Paul true believers enough.

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Dont worry, Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in hell of actually winning anything. Soon the mad hatters will leave and go back to their basement Prison Planet bottom feeding conspiracy theories. You know, with the other “true conservatives.”

Logboy on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

If the Iranian regime is raising the stakes, it is because we are pushing them to war with our sanctions. We did much the same to Japan in the buildup to Perl Harbor.
For further reading on this, check out Stratfor and George Friedman’s works there. He is pretty good at ferreting out these trends

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Now you’re rooting for Imperial Japan? For Heaven’s sake: Imperial Japan was an aggressor state, busily engaged in the brutal conquests of China, Korea, and every other country and people within range of their war machine. And you’re saying we provoked them into attacking us at Pearl Harbor by not supplying them with the resources they needed to continue their conquests?

Are you people insane? Seriously, I’m not kidding. Is that truly how your minds work?

You’re saying, with a straight face, that the US is to blame for our involvement in WWII because we did not accede to the demands of Imperial Japan?

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Why can’t we send Zero,Holder,Clinton,and big sis over to Iran for a month or so to have dialog with the Iranian government. If they make any moves on our heroes we can then send more liberal morons over to have more dialog. If we get lucky we might clear out all of our problems before deciding whether to strike.

angrymike on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Wasn’t Iran always poised to conduct terror attacks in US?

albill on January 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Below is an excerpt from a brief by Gen Barry McCaffrey (Ret) that he gave to NBC executives earlier this month. Bottom line is that he sees every possibility that this will escalate to military action.

In my judgment we are now in a high risk situation in the Gulf-­-­-­ with a significant probability of Iranian escalation in the coming 90 days.

We are ordering three US Navy carrier battle groups into the region.

A basic axiom of military operations starts with an assessment of enemy CAPABILITIES-­-­ not enemy INTENTIONS.

There is now widespread intelligence agreement that the Iranians would be foolhardy (INTENTIONS) to blockade the Gulf inviting GCC and US retaliation-­-­and also shutting off their own oil exports which provides 80% of their foreign revenue.

There is also a widespread incorrect intelligence assessment that the Iranians lack the CAPABILITIES to shut down the Gulf exports.
NOT SO. They have three Kilo class silent ­subs and perhaps 19 other mini-subs-­-­-­ a significant sea mining capacity— some extremely effective shore based missile batteries-­-­-­ some highly effective air defense capabilities-­-­-­ and a small number of high performance aircraft with missiles that could deny the two mile wide Hormuz sea transit zone to safe tanker traffic. They could also place the GCC/Saudi Gulf oil terminals at risk.

The latest saber rattling by the Iranian Armed Forces threatening the US Navy Carrier Stennis Battle Group to not return to the Gulf was significant. It was immediately and widely derided as an empty threat by 5th Fleet in Bahrain. In my judgment the US will not and should not place a carrier at risk in the narrow Gulf waters if
combat operations are deemed likely.

There is a high probability that the Iranians could SINK a US carrier (with 5000+ sailors) in these constrained waters with their
current military capabilities. It would mean all-­out war if that happened.

Driving this confrontation was the extremely unwise move by Congress to overwhelmingly pass legislation forcing muscular Administration action to economically strangle the Iranians ability to export oil. Obama felt politically he had to sign it. Diplomacy should be the lead of the White House NOT Congress. This ties Secretary Clinton’s hands diplomatically. The Japanese get 65% of their oil-­-­ and the Chinese 50% of their oil -­-­-­ and the world 17% of their oil thru these narrow waters. We would have to spasmodically respond to Iranian interruption of the Gulf oil safe passage. We could not ignore a calculated interruption of transit.

We should not view the Iranian rhetoric as empty threats. They are likely to further escalate. There is great opportunity for miscalculation on their part. The Iranian regime is in political trouble domestically. They have a huge economic problem. They will not under any circumstance actually be deterred from going nuclear. They will achieve initial nuclear capability within 36 months.

IF the Iranians actually take further military action as a provocation and warning to the West we have very few good options. Substantially eliminating the Iranian threat to the Gulf for safe transit would require a major US military air and naval action of several months duration. It is not clear if the Iraqis would support such action. All the GCC states would back the US as an opportunity to avert the coming nuclear threat from Iran. The Israelis should welcome such a confrontation. They have an existential threat to their survival looming in the very near future.
-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­
15% probability of major military action in the coming 90 days.

SoonerMarine on January 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Johnny Mac, the carpetbagger who wound up in Arizona, got this one right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
(ht: beach boys)

Of course his singing leaves much to be desired, but you get the point.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Are you people insane? Seriously, I’m not kidding. Is that truly how your minds work?

You’re saying, with a straight face, that the US is to blame for our involvement in WWII because we did not accede to the demands of Imperial Japan?

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I read his post and thought what? Unfortunately they get to vote. He must be studying different WWII material than I have.

arnold ziffel on January 31, 2012 at 12:09 PM

daddytype on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Dude, you’re just freaking crazy.

I swear, you make a non-interventionist type like me look like Dick Cheney.

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Iranian intelligence warns Ayatollahs Obama administration poised to turn other cheek

cartooner on January 31, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Don’t bring Ms. Obama into this!

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Are you people insane? Seriously, I’m not kidding. Is that truly how your minds work?

You’re saying, with a straight face, that the US is to blame for our involvement in WWII because we did not accede to the demands of Imperial Japan?

troyriser_gopftw on January 31, 2012 at 12:05 PM

He’s right. We had a large fleet at Pearl Harbor which might have countered Japan’s territorial ambitions.

We embargoed sales of scrap iron to Japan in the wake of its invasion of China. That would, in a Ron Paul universe, be an act of war.

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM

The problem for us is that Iran’s policy is neither rational or irrational, but non-rational. The theocratic clique running the show are true believers in the Twelfth Imam and the need for a conflagration to produce him, and the promised result of Islamic rule throughout the world. Starting a war with the US won’t bother them as they believe that (a) the Muslim world will find itself in such a conflict anyway, and/or (b) they can hasten the arrival of the mahdi by kicking one off.

Absolutely untrue and thoroughly irresponsible for you to forward, Mr. Morrissey, and most of the scholarly community disagrees with you.

Let us see what Reuven Pedatzur said on the pages of Ha’aretz:

Iran is too rational to attack Israel

Prof. Ofira Seliktar of Gratz College in Pennsylvania examined the vast literature on this subject and found that two-thirds of researchers fall into the “nuclear optimist” category – they believe that a nuclear Iran would behave as a rational state and thus be susceptible to deterrence aimed at stopping it from using nuclear weapons.

I swear, I never thought conservatism would ever get to the day where fearmongering and Chicken Littlism would become the watchwords of the day.

Ed Morrisey, you should be ashamed.

JohnGalt23 on January 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Aizen on January 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Again with the ‘ground invasion’ strawman. When you start with that, I ignore everything that follows. No one credible is suggesting a ground invasion of Iran.

slickwillie2001 on January 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Of course they are, how else would the government keep us in fear without a periodic warning of imminent doom. So we can expect a vast increase in “security theater” with even more intrusive checks on Americans and even more dissolution of our rights.

clippermiami on January 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Say what you want, the debt bomb that has already been dropped on us is way more destructive than anything Iran could possibly do to us.

Spliff Menendez on January 31, 2012 at 12:20 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The “scholarly community” also supposedly confirms that man-made global warming is going to kill us all. I’d say you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into that old canard, but you made it clear you were shameless quite a while ago.

MadisonConservative on January 31, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Say what you want, the debt bomb that has already been dropped on us is way more destructive than anything Iran could possibly do to us.

Spliff Menendez on January 31, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Short of mushroom clouds over DC, pretty much. Actually that might be a GOOD thing in the end because our entire rotten-to-the-core government would have to be rebuilt from scratch…we’d get a chance to start over.

Isn’t there a Tom Clancy book where something like that happens?

MelonCollie on January 31, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4