Are we being suckered in to war by Israeli interests?

[Blakenzy]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/01/15/under-a-false-flag/

Isn’t it time we gave our “special relationship” with Israel a second look? As Israeli agents covertly seek to incite the peoples of the Middle East – including the Iranians – against us, one has to wonder, like those intelligence analysts cited above: just whose side are these guys on, anyway?

The article examines intelligence memos from the last year of Bush's second term revealing how Mossad operated posing as CIA, as well as current events in the Middle East.

[Monkeyleg]

I'm sorry, but the name and mission statement of the website causes me to question its credibility.

I've read reports that it was Mossad or the CIA that killed the Iranian nuclear scientist, or the Mossad trying to make it look like CIA. Whichever it was, the mission was a good one.

What should Israel do as Iran gets closer to having a nucular weapon? Given the slap in the face Israel has received from Obama, I'm not surprised if they take direct action on their own.

Israel and Great Britain are our two strongest allies, and Obama has sold out both of them. Israel, by Obama turning his back on them. Great Britain, by Obama giving the Russians some of Great Britain's nuclear secrets (and giving the Queen an Obama DVD).

[Waitone]

Countries don't have friends.  Countries have mutual interests.
Second, false flag operations are as old as espionage.  Nuthin'new.
Third, we are not being suckered into a war with Iran.  We are headed into it full-tilt boogie, voluntarily.
Fourth, events in Iran demonstrate a black war taking place.  A number of things happening point to capabilities beyond that of Israel.
Fifth, attack on the Liberty has never been explained.  That event alone give lie to a special relationship.

[SADShooter]

The notion that the current administration can be swayed by pro-Israeli interests into attacking Iran presupposes a conspiracist's wet-dream cabal which makes everything I've ever read look amateurish by comparison. If it is the case, then we've already taken the pill and are simply feeding bioelectricity to machines.

That said, I believe that in my lifetime Iran or its proxies will use nukes to obliterate Israel. I also resent the Liberty/Pollard et al, and I'm not particularly pro-Israel, but I forecast broken hands and bloody noses when I engage celebrating anti-semite/Zionist individuals I know personally.

[De Selby]

The only realistic prospect for ending Iran's nuclear program is nuclear disarmament by Israel, and a guarantee against invasion by the US.

The analysis is usually backwards on this issue - the question to ask is "what drives Iran to develop the tech despite the high penalties?".  The answer is pretty obvious - as an independent resource rich state, that is the only tech that prevents foreign invasions. 

In the middle east, US policy dictates that options are to either serve US policy without question like the Saudis and Kuwaitis (and look at the oppression and misery that requires), or face military action. 

A nuke is pretty much the only option Iran has to be safe, under the circumstances.   So if we don't want them to have nukes, we need to adjust the rules we set for that place.

[Blakenzy]

I'm sorry, but the name and mission statement of the website causes me to question its credibility.

I've read reports that it was Mossad or the CIA that killed the Iranian nuclear scientist, or the Mossad trying to make it look like CIA. Whichever it was, the mission was a good one.

What should Israel do as Iran gets closer to having a nucular weapon? Given the slap in the face Israel has received from Obama, I'm not surprised if they take direct action on their own.

I'm sorry too, but did you even bother to read the article?

It examines info found on more "credible" websites. The links are in the text.

And the Mossad operation in question was during the Bush years, Obama was not on the scene yet.

[roo_ster]

The only realistic prospect for ending Iran's nuclear program is nuclear disarmament by Israel, and a guarantee against invasion by the US.

The analysis is usually backwards on this issue - the question to ask is "what drives Iran to develop the tech despite the high penalties?".  The answer is pretty obvious - as an independent resource rich state, that is the only tech that prevents foreign invasions. 

In the middle east, US policy dictates that options are to either serve US policy without question like the Saudis and Kuwaitis (and look at the oppression and misery that requires), or face military action. 

A nuke is pretty much the only option Iran has to be safe, under the circumstances.   So if we don't want them to have nukes, we need to adjust the rules we set for that place.

Maybe in bizzaro world.  Israel is no threat to Iran and has not threatened Iran with genocide.  Can't say the same for the mullahs.

As for foreign invasion...who, exactly?  Afghanistan can't do it and neither can Iraq, after we finished with them.  None of the gulf states can do it.  The Turks could do it, but have no reason to.  The Pakis can't control their own territory.  Maybe the mighty Turkmenistan?

Sorry, but your post lacks any logic whatsoever.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

As for foreign invasion...who, exactly?

US invasion.

[De Selby]

Maybe in bizzaro world.  Israel is no threat to Iran and has not threatened Iran with genocide.  Can't say the same for the mullahs.

As for foreign invasion...who, exactly?  Afghanistan can't do it and neither can Iraq, after we finished with them.  None of the gulf states can do it.  The Turks could do it, but have no reason to.  The Pakis can't control their own territory.  Maybe the mighty Turkmenistan?

Sorry, but your post lacks any logic whatsoever.

Yeah, I'm surprised you missed the obvious one - the US, which has actually invaded two of Iran's neighbors and tightly controls the gulf regimes.

Israel is indeed a threat to Iran - it worked consistently to support the monarch who used to rule, and continues to undermine the Iranian regime in order to protect the influence of its gulf state pseudo allies.  Israel also holds nuclear weapons, making it a very real existential threat to Iran as a result of their conflicting interests.

[roo_ster]

Yeah, I'm surprised you missed the obvious one - the US, which has actually invaded two of Iran's neighbors and tightly controls the gulf regimes.

Israel is indeed a threat to Iran - it worked consistently to support the monarch who used to rule, and continues to undermine the Iranian regime in order to protect the influence of its gulf state pseudo allies.  Israel also holds nuclear weapons, making it a very real existential threat to Iran as a result of their conflicting interests.

You are still in bizarro world where time runs sideways.

The only reason there has been any serious talk about American military action vis a vis Iran has been over Iran's nukes, despite decades of provocations and outrages perpetrated by the Iranian savages.  Yet, you contend that the reason Iran wants nukes is to prevent an invasion by America.  Time for the rest of us mere mortals is linear and one dimensional.

You're seriously claiming that Israel's past support for the Sha constitutes a threat in the here & now?  And that Iran is getting all butthurt because Israel may be mucking about in Iran...after Iran has bankrolled both Hamas & Hezbollah for decades?  Cry me a river.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Iran deserves invading, Tamerlane-style.  I just don't think there are any countries who want to mete out such justice.

[Perd Hapley]

US invasion.

Let us know when that seems likely.

[Blakenzy]

The only reason there has been any serious talk about American military action vis a vis Iran has been over Iran's nukes, despite decades of provocations and outrages perpetrated by the Iranian savages.

What.. the alternate future nukes that Iran is nowhere near having at this moment?

And what provocations? Please elaborate...

[De Selby]

Roo, you can't be serious - we supported a king similar to the Saudis for decades in order to maintain a similar level of control there as to the gulf, then engaged in a variety of hostile avts when the Iranians deposed him - including bombing Iran and blockading the country, arming its enemy and sponsoring an invasion (Iran Iraq remember?), and only now are nukes an issue...as if the constant warfare should not weigh in on the Iranian policy makers.

Israel's support for the Shah was motivated by the same reason for Israel's continued belligerence - control of the oil producing states is central to US policy in the region and consequently Israeli security and wealth.  It's a lot easier to get resources and support from puppets like the Saudis and Mubarakmthan from regimes that aren't dependent on the US.

Support for the Shah was based on those policies that continue to make the US and Israel a threat, it was not the cause of the problem.

And the obvious fact is that, if Iran has nukes, those options are off the table, and the US has to negotiate with them like it does the Pakistanis, north Koreans, and lots of other regimes it would rather sanction and attack like it did to Saddam.

[TommyGunn]

Roo, you can't be serious - we supported a king similar to the Saudis for decades in order to maintain a similar level of control there as to the gulf, then engaged in a variety of hostile avts when the Iranians deposed him - including bombing Iran and blockading the country, arming its enemy and sponsoring an invasion (Iran Iraq remember?), and only now are nukes an issue...as if the constant warfare should not weigh in on the Iranian policy makers.

Israel's support for the Shah was motivated by the same reason for Israel's continued belligerence - control of the oil producing states is central to US policy in the region and consequently Israeli security and wealth.  It's a lot easier to get resources and support from puppets like the Saudis and Mubarakmthan from regimes that aren't dependent on the US.

Support for the Shah was based on those policies that continue to make the US and Israel a threat, it was not the cause of the problem.

And the obvious fact is that, if Iran has nukes, those options are off the table, and the US has to negotiate with them like it does the Pakistanis, north Koreans, and lots of other regimes it would rather sanction and attack like it did to Saddam.

Aaaaargh!    Rod Serling would be so proud.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The only reason there has been any serious talk about American military action vis a vis Iran has been over Iran's nukes, despite decades of provocations and outrages perpetrated by the Iranian savages.

Yes, because the window of doing something there is closing fast. We waited too long to deal with North Korea, and they got nukes. Now they're untouchable via direct means. If we wait too long on Iran, they'll have nukes and will also be untouchable.

Let us know when that seems likely.

Depends on the election. And if the candidates keep their promises:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

[MicroBalrog]

Aaaaargh!    Rod Serling would be so proud.

So why do you think America brought the Shah to power?

[TommyGunn]

So why do you think America brought the Shah to power?

  What does that have to do with anything?

[Monkeyleg]

I'm sorry too, but did you even bother to read the article?

It examines info found on more "credible" websites. The links are in the text.

And the Mossad operation in question was during the Bush years, Obama was not on the scene yet.

Blakenzy, I did follow the links to the "more credible" sites. In most cases I found a lot of liberal hyperbole and suppositions. You'll excuse me if I didn't read every last one. It's sort of like eating rutabaga: the first bite tastes like ear wax, the second like toe jam, and the third like pigeon droppings. After that, only true believers continue to eat it.

As for the Mossad operation I referred to, I was talking about the recent assassination of an Iranian nucular scientist, not the operations mentioned in your linked article.

[MicroBalrog]

  What does that have to do with anything?

The whole purpose of putting the Shah in power was to gain control of the oil contracts for English state-owned businesses. This isn't even very controversial.

The events afterwards can be easily seen as a long-range result of that.

[De Selby]

  What does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with why the US meddles in Iran, which at its core has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.  The only reason we care about it in the first place is that it restricts options for forcing outcomes - those outcomes are related to US geopolitical goals, not to freedom (it's laughable that we even pretend that) for Iranians or this or that weapons program.   It's also not related to religious fanaticism; we are fine with supporters of Al Qaeda as long as they do our bidding like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

If the Iranian Government was dependent on the US for its survival and completely obedient to its energy and other demands, we'd be arming its troops, irrespective of its barbarism towards its own people or it's religious fanaticism.  

So to say "it's only because of Iran nukes and aggression that we bother them" is simply untrue, and requires believing that a 50 year track record of involvement was all for fun.

[Blakenzy]

Fair enough Monkeyleg 

[roo_ster]

Roo, you can't be serious - we supported a king similar to the Saudis for decades in order to maintain a similar level of control there as to the gulf, then engaged in a variety of hostile avts when the Iranians deposed him - including bombing Iran and blockading the country, arming its enemy and sponsoring an invasion (Iran Iraq remember?), and only now are nukes an issue...as if the constant warfare should not weigh in on the Iranian policy makers.

Israel's support for the Shah was motivated by the same reason for Israel's continued belligerence - control of the oil producing states is central to US policy in the region and consequently Israeli security and wealth.  It's a lot easier to get resources and support from puppets like the Saudis and Mubarakmthan from regimes that aren't dependent on the US.

Support for the Shah was based on those policies that continue to make the US and Israel a threat, it was not the cause of the problem.

And the obvious fact is that, if Iran has nukes, those options are off the table, and the US has to negotiate with them like it does the Pakistanis, north Koreans, and lots of other regimes it would rather sanction and attack like it did to Saddam.

OK, there is more disinformation stuffed into that than I have time to debunk before bed, but surely you know that the US provided only token amounts of military aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war?  Likely Iran used as many American arms as did Iraq during that war.

What.. the alternate future nukes that Iran is nowhere near having at this moment?

And what provocations? Please elaborate...

I can not, in such a limited medium and with such limited time, make right the deficit of knowledge of late 20th century history that reply implies.  I blame the public schools.

[De Selby]

Roo, the diplomatic approval for Saddam was just as important as the materiel.  I'm curious as to which items you're disputing - the bombing, the history of involvement that long predates 1979, or the policy of installing clients in oil producing states?  Not sure how you would argue any of those

[Jamisjockey]

It has to do with why the US meddles in Iran, which at its core has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.  The only reason we care about it in the first place is that it restricts options for forcing outcomes - those outcomes are related to US geopolitical goals, not to freedom (it's laughable that we even pretend that) for Iranians or this or that weapons program.   It's also not related to religious fanaticism; we are fine with supporters of Al Qaeda as long as they do our bidding like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

If the Iranian Government was dependent on the US for its survival and completely obedient to its energy and other demands, we'd be arming its troops, irrespective of its barbarism towards its own people or it's religious fanaticism.  

So to say "it's only because of Iran nukes and aggression that we bother them" is simply untrue, and requires believing that a 50 year track record of involvement was all for fun.

Hell may have frozen over, because I agree with DS twice in like a week.   

[K Frame]

Its those pesky jooze again, isn't it?