News & Analysis
Lieberman: U.S. Must Plan to Attack Iran
Sen. Joe Lieberman (pictured left with John McCain) says the world is at a "turning point in history," and the United States should begin preparing plans to attack Iran's nuclear program – and use that option if all diplomatic and other means fail. In an exclusive interview with Newsmax ... Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler noted that a recent CIA report said Iran is capable of starting the development of nuclear weapons at any moment, and asked if the time has come to use military force to halt that development. "I don't think it's time to use military force against Iran, but I certainly think it's time for the United States to have plans that will enable us to use force to stop the Iranian nuclear program if the president orders such an attack," says Sen. Lieberman, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. – NewsMax
Dominant Social Theme: Perhaps the bombs must fall ...
Free-Market Analysis: So it has come to this. The chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, one of the most powerful men in Washington DC – and therefore the world – has declared that the "world is at turning point" and that the US must make plans to attack Iran. Here's some more from this startling interview (also excerpted above):
"I think it's deeply important that the fanatical leadership in Iran understands that we are very serious about their nuclear weapons program, and when we say it's unacceptable for Iran to go nuclear, we mean it – that we can and will do everything to stop Iran from going nuclear.
"The next step is tough sanctions, economic sanctions. Frankly it's a last chance for Iran to avoid giving the rest of the world, including the United States, a hard choice between allowing Iran to go nuclear and using military power to stop them from doing that.
"I cannot stress enough that this is a turning point in history. If we allow Iran to become a nuclear power, the world becomes terribly more unsafe for everybody. It's the end of the global nuclear nonproliferation attempts. All the work that President Obama's doing on the START treaty, trying to keep nukes from terrorists – if Iran goes nuclear, that's over."
Chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians would also be over, Lieberman adds, "because the clients of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, strengthened by an Iranian nuclear umbrella, will turn more ferocious, not just against Israel but first against their enemies among the Palestinians, which is the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority.
"We're going to be tested here. All the world is going to be tested, and it's a test that will affect the future of our children and grandchildren and everybody all around the world."
This is pretty clear-cut to us. The question then becomes whether Lieberman is speaking for the administration and the Pentagon or is he in some sense setting parameters for a larger debate on the subject. It is possibly a negotiating tactic, with Lieberman enunciating the hardest line, but to state publicly that the US ought to plan for war against Iran moves beyond rhetoric in our opinion.
We recall the rabid, murderous animosity of the Bush administration and how, after two wars, there was toward the end of his term a discussion of a third – Iran. We think two issues delayed an attack, one that conceivably could have been nuclear. First, Bush was blessedly very unpopular personally by the end of his term and had little political capital to expend on yet another war. Second, we believe – and this is admittedly hard to corroborate – that there was significant pushback from the Pentagon itself, or at least certain factions of it.
But now there is a new cool dude in the White House. He has committed tens of thousands of additional troops to the futile war in Afghanistan. He has pressured Pakistan to more actively fight the Taliban. He has consistently ratcheted up the pressure on Iran, to try to ensure its leaders do not attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Who knows what Obama is capable of? Probably more, unfortunately, than most allow.
Leaving aside the legal issues involved, one does wonder at America's insistence that Iran remain nuke-free. Back in the 1950s, America participated in a regime change in Iran and there is considerable evidence that America might have destabilized Iran again in the late 1970s. And despite mistranslations, Iran has never directly threatened Israel with nuclear weapons – even if it had them. Israel on the other hand is said to have up to 400 nuclear missiles or more, though Israel has never confirmed their existence.
States, in fact, usually do not commit suicide. The idea that a nuclear Iran would suddenly start lobbing nukes at Israel strikes us as preposterous. Even if Israel did not strike back, the US has enough firepower to turn all of Iran into molten slag. The regime would not survive the first missile. But none of this seems to matter. The US is the de facto policeman of the new global "Power Elite" order. It is harrying nations around the world into falling in line with the US position that so long as there is any hint of a possibility that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Iran ought to be severely boycotted, its economy squeezed and its businesses barred.
It is a serious situation. Boycotts are not inevitably a prelude to war, but they are often destabilizing and can well be a cynical prelude to action. In this case, we believe that certain US leaders seem to want to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to a point that is positively dangerous. Why would the US put world peace at risk over an atomic program that has not yet been proven to exist? The Bell recently reported on a prescient article by Patrick Buchanan in Human Events:
"Diplomacy has failed," Sen. Chuck Schumer D-N.Y., told AIPAC, "Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that." ... "We have to contemplate the final option," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." War is a "terrible thing," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but "sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time." Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight: "If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government's ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float." Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central, writes, "The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends." As to who starts it, we know the answer. Teheran has not started a war in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack us – to strip it of weapons it does not have.
Click here for full story: Fear-Rises-as-Iran-War-Looms
Buchanan gets it right. But Lieberman, unfortunately, seems representative of a trend, and not a pleasant one. Can we envision the results of a "first strike" on Iran – especially a nuclear one, as we think Lieberman implies? What was left of Iran would likely attempt to strike American interests around the world. The Muslim community itself would be left polarized and horrified. Gold would probably go through US$3,000-5,000 an ounce or thereabouts (and promptly be confiscated). Oil would go to God-knows-how-much a barrel. Whatever small "recovery" Western governments are now promoting would be shattered for years to come.
From the standpoint of the power elite, there is likely an upside to the chaos and ruination that a strike (especially a nuclear one) on Iran would create. War is always "the health of the state" and an active war waged against Iran would put turn a series of regional conflicts into a kind of mini-world war. Certainly both Europe and America would end up on some kind of war-footing with all the further curtailments of humans rights that such "emergency" measures imply.
US and European economies are a mess. The EU itself is gradually unraveling over the Greek debt crisis. In the US, The Tea Party is agitated over the terrible health care legislation that Obama just rammed through Congress and, generally, a series of increasingly unconstitutional acts taken by the Obama administration. In fact, Obama's agenda however is pretty much stalled at this point because he has made so many missteps. His approval rating has tumbled to 45 percent and his negatives exceed 45 percent. This is a steep, though deserved fall from grace. Does an expanded war loom as a promising distraction from all of this?
Conclusion: As this article was going to press, Reuters reported that Iran would not be "nuclear weapons capable for at least a year" – as per US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. We're not sure if this is a direct response to Lieberman's statements, but even so it is not exactly a soothing rejoinder. It seems obvious that there is some sort of orchestrated campaign in place to escalate military threats against Iran. One might be pleased to discount the rhetoric but the US has been continually at war in the Middle East (or thereabouts) for a decade now. It's not clear that those with the ability to wage war would pull back from the precipice – were it to be reached. We have a suspicion that some might welcome the view.
Posted by Goldfinger on 04/30/10 04:45 AM
@Bill Madden: Liebermann represents Israel, as do so many influential politicians in the U.S..
Lets hope that Obama remains firm against the tide of pro-Israel lobbying that is imposed on every U.S.president.
Posted by Tim Horton on 04/21/10 02:56 PM
Invite/send I.R.'s 95 top leaders to a historic site in Rus.(So they disappear in F.O.G.)? Good web spot/report. Whatsthe t-reason part tho?
Posted by Lila Rajiva on 04/21/10 09:59 AM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the links and for thinking of us.
Posted by You Can Do Something on 04/20/10 12:35 PM
There is one thing you all can do. Arabs, jews, americans and europeans. Raise your children so they never enlist in any type of police or military organisation. In the end it will lead to zero soldiers. I think many of you think it sounds stupid. But think - thats one thing you can do and it will make a difference....
Reply from The Daily Bell
But what about a draft?
Posted by Jeff Thompson on 04/19/10 09:15 PM
If we only had a brain. We used to. Someone from AIPAC came and standardized our textbooks so that we could all become Christian Zionist Zombies for the state of Israel.
Anyway - I think the Teaparty is full of Zionists (Palin), and - I think it is up to the likes of Ron Paul and his ilk to persuade Americans to exercise our ability to think again.
Christ would be in favor of the Palestinians having ALL of their land back, not just Gaza or the heights. Christ is not what we get in our churches.God bless those who truly have a brain.
Posted by Helen Daniels on 04/19/10 03:40 PM
Haven't we heard all this before? with the neocons (Wolfowitz and others of his ilk) in the Bush admin beating the drums of war (even before 911) to take out Iraq for "their country" Israel.
Yes, it was ok to send young americasn lads to be slaughtered in Iraq to protect their "precious" Israel. Now, the same people (Lieberman and his ilk) are at it again. Why not let Israel fight its own wars and spill its own blood.....why must it always be American blood spilt for Israel? Frankly, I think one American death is TOO MUCH to protect Israel.
Posted by Joe Emerson on 04/19/10 10:16 AM
Does anyone believe that the US can constantly act as the bully policeman of the world and never suffer the consequences that has always fallen the population remaining after the empire is dissolved. A good source would be the history of the last gentleman that started building the world capitol in Nurenbourg Germany. We all know how that turned out. The US is following the same plan with few changes.
Reply from The Daily Bell
A change of venue being the main one?
Posted by Penny on 04/19/10 07:22 AM
Well put and well done Canadian.
Posted by Canadian on 04/18/10 10:46 PM
I haven't read all the comments here, but the recent comments and anti-religious bigotry by GT was quite something!
GT, did you have a bad experience in Sunday school when you were a child? Seriously. Wow! People can rant all they want against God, but the fact is that we have a conscience.
Where did this idea of right and wrong come from? We all appeal to justice and a higher standad. Where did that come from?The word con = with and science = knowledge...Every time a person lies, steals or rapes they know in their heart they've done wrong.
I went through the 10 Commandments to see that I was truly an evil person and needing forgiveness! So...GT, when you stand before the Almighty who gave you life, what are you going to do about your wretched sins?
Saying you don't believe in heaven or hell or GOd is simply puerile naivete as any elementary study of science will show. It analogous to saying "I don't believe in the Law of Gravity" as you plummet down to earth at 9.82 m/s after stepping off a sky scraper.
As Pascal stated...a little science will take a man away from God; a lot will bring him back...
To pick and choose Bible verses out of context is obviously done to advance your agenda that somehow Jesus is a hate monger or violent man (like Mohammed truly was).
Please read the Sermon on the MOunt (Matthew 5-7 for the greatest speech the world has ever heard in its great call to peace!). The fact is that when someone claiming to be a Christian behaves violently, he is acting in direct opposition to the tenets of the New Testament. Conversely, when a Muslim acts violently, he is acting in direct obedience to the tenets of the Koran.
To compare Islam to Christianity is just as absurd as comparing a heliocentric view of the universe with a geocentric one. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but one view is true and one is not! In conclusion, be anti-religious if you want (I'm certainly NOT advocating organized religion at all!), but remember that it has been godless secularism, fascism and communism that has brought humanity the most death and carnage by a long Click to view link's not even close!
TO think man can be good without God is foolhardy...in fact the Bible itself says "the Fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'". Don't be foolish! Get right with God today and hey may forgive you. Don't delay!
Unless you repent, you will perish! You do NOT want to be the enemy of GOd on Judgement Day. He is HOLY and demands perfection. I'm far from perfect myself, but God did provide a way for us to get to heaven if we are HUMBLE enough to receive it.
Click to view link and Click to view link
Won't be back online to read any replies here, so rant away if you'd like, but just remember that we'll all have to give an account for our lives to God one day and none of us will escape the law of death!! I'm accustomed to name-calling and bigotry...The forces of darkness want the forces of light to SHUT UP (that this will happen and can be expected is also stated in the Bible) and intolerance is a growing phenomenon.Thanks for reading today.
Posted by GT on 04/18/10 06:59 PM
@ Jim on 4/14/2010 3:06:01 PM...
I think it's almost absurdly funny to mention this or that part of the Q'ran to attempt to counter the assertion that Islam is a religion of peace. There's something in the Judeo-Jeebus book about beams and motes... I refer you to the book of Deuteronomy (genocide, land theft, pillage... i.e., the blueprint for the behaviour of the modern 'state' of 'Israel').
For Jeebus-freaks, Matthew 10:34 ("Do not suppose I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword." ) and - in case you want to dissemble and pretend that this sword was metaphorical...
Luke 22:36 ("Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.").
"Prince of Peace"? Click to view link is to be hoped that you're anti-religion (as I am - I despise the religious impulse as primitive, stupid tribal ignorance that generally only exists in those who are indoctrinated as children).
If you're not (that is, if you belong to either the Jeebus or Joo traditions) then I suggest you look to your own theological backyard before passing judgement.
Besides - if being a genocidal religious nutcase precludes one from belonging to the Nookular Club, then the current occupants of Palestine ought to be disqualified first and foremost... ask any Amalekite whether the tribal Herrenvolk of 'Israel' can be trusted wit hany technological advantage.
Oh, you can't ask an Amalekite... they were Holocausted out of existence (I am deliberately vesting authority in the silly tribal narrative used by Zionists to justify their land grab: I am ignoring the fact that the Khazar peasant scum that infest the place now have no genetic link to the prior Israelites... Sephardim and Semites don't get Tay-Sachs). CheerioGT
Posted by Rwe2late on 04/18/10 05:48 PM
Obama, Lieberman, and others continuously repeat the alleged Ahmadinejad statement about "wiping Israel off the map".
Ahmadinejad never said it. It is hard to believe US leaders, and their expert advisors, are unaware that it is a fabricated misquote.Unlike Lieberman and Obama, Ahmadinejad's actual statements were not designed to fan the flames and provide an excuse for war.
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, we thought we made reference to this ...
Posted by Gary on 04/18/10 01:08 PM
Nuke Israel please Iran and put the Palestinians out of their misery Great chimp god save us "ooh ooh" said the chimp god and we kill You people have the wrong GOD
Posted by Alan on 04/15/10 12:34 PM
They are using the same old trick. WE MUST GET THEM BEFORE THEY GET US. It has worked a treat for a long, long time but at long last some of the tricked are beginning to wake Click to view linkan was of course on the PNAC list of August 2000. It has long been planned.
Posted by Stephen L on 04/15/10 03:21 AM
There are, in fact, two Irans. The first is the illegitimate one that politicians and their media consorts portray as worthy of attack: a holocaust-denying, U.S./Israel-hating, suicidally war-mongering country that destabilizes the entire region. This Iran we see constantly pictured in news reports is merely the ruling thugocracy consisting of a small group, probably all of them radical card-carrying members of the Muslim Brotherhood backed by brownshirt-style internal police, who hijacked that nation based upon a false promise of egalitarian reformation under the rule of the Ayatollah.
This regime is actually strengthened and internally legitimized by fostering a paranoid atmosphere of instability and fear (hmm seems like there is a Western counterpart to this phenomenon). The second Iran is the legitimate one that we rarely see, except when thousands take to the streets in demonstrations, such as happened in after the last fraudulent national election.
Within this Iran, encompassing the vast majority of its young and restless populace, a nascent drive to throw off the shackles of tyrannical governance has already been broadly expressed. Given the right combination of internal events, a popular overthrow of the current regime would be almost a matter of time. Unless, that is, there is a Western attack.
Such an event would be the best possible thing to happen for the current regime. Internal opposition could be disposed of in the name of national security, and the SAVAK/CIA-style imprisonment of political prisoners that took place under that Shah could be reinstated. If Obama, or even Lieberman, really wanted to foster stability in the region they could have provided clear moral support for the principles of freedom that the majority of Iranians embraced during their last protest against an illegitimate election.
By remaining conspicuously mute in the face of a tyrannical backlash against these peaceful demonstrations, this administration has apparently intentionally sealed itself into the ugly and unnecessary path upon which it has now embarked.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the insightful post.
Posted by Milton on 04/15/10 01:18 AM
The real problem is that Iran is preparing to go to war but not with Isarael or the US but with the Sunnis. Most Shiites are disgusted with the Sunni leadership in Saudi Arabia whose licentiousness and corruption are embarassment to the religion and who have probably the most suppresive policies on their citizens of any Moslem country, not to mention the most holy Islamic places of Mecca and Medina.
The Iranians would also not be unhappy with some added oil wells..They have Yemen to the south as a stopping off point for an invasion in addition to a cross border invasion. There are many Shia oil field workers ready to rise up at the command.
Iran sees itself restoring the glory of the Persian empire extending into Syria, Palestine, Iraq, etc. This is antithetical to the present interests of the US and its oil companies. Will we fight to prevent this fropm occurring? We shall see.
Posted by Clayton on 04/14/10 07:32 PM
Thank you for the important article on the possibility for War and the consequences that will attend an end to Peace.
As others have commented on above, what and who are we to believe? This fear of the Mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons has been dragged in fromt of us many times in the past. The Israelli posturing and threats have been seen for the past few years. We have Iran surrounded at the moment, but this incirclement is very expensive to maintain and once we give it up it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to establish it again for anything like the cost we paid for this one. Is this a case of shoot now or fovever keep your gun holstered?
Here are some questions: How does it play into the "Peak Oil" assertions and their Green Energy counter parts?
The Saudis have said nothing, nor have many of the other more establishment oriented despots in the region. Are they on board?
What about the Russian response? Has it already been discounted?
The CIA, the Mossad, MI6, etc. seem to me to be linked up together. Is the Iranian dispora working with these spooks to get back and get back in power?
If Israel does attack, will we do the occupying?
If so, how many "boots on the ground" will that take and for how long and how can we possibly pay for it?
Will the feds bring back conscription to get the youth unemployment under 30?
Will domestic dissenters be rounded up for reasons of national security?
Will we forgo the fig leaf of a UN resolution? Or using the model of good cop / bad cop, after the Israellis have done their business will we step in to provide "humanitarian" aid and to "restore order?"
Has an aid package been developed already to sell this to the American people?
Is this just a way to do some wedging on Obama, or is he doing a sneaky on us with them?
Or, is all this just happening to take our minds off some other event that will actually happen, like the withdrawl of Fed support to the bond markets that is scheduled come at us like it was just "out of the blue?"
We live in complex times. We are governed by craven and duplicitous individuals who have worked for decades to keep us spun off our axes, so as to be easily manipulated.
Nothing is straight forward anymore, everything is on the oblique. There is not enough bonafide "Greatness" in DC to fill a thimble.
So, we must rummage about in the pronouncements of grifters, lackeys and hacks to figure out how to move forward.
What is certain is that this is not the life most of us aspired to or planned for. It is like being a "stranger in a strange land."
Reply from The Daily Bell
So many eloquent questions and resonant statements. We have no answers either. We're not even sure there will be a shooting war. But the dialectic is in full swing and the lies spew forth like grapeshot.
Posted by Tom Johnson on 04/14/10 07:28 PM
The forthcoming war with Iran has little to do with Iran having nukes... Although most Americans are little more than worthless Golem, the steady destruction in the value of the dollar requires a "fall guy" for the Powerz to blame the imminent destruction of the US economy.
Most Americans get their news from the Main Stream Media, (MSM), and are clueless to the pending disaster about to impact their country. In Matrix speak, they are Blue pill types. Most choose to be stupid, even though many have elevated IQs. 9/11 conspiracy types? Hardly. They are lazy spineless sheep.
When the bombs go off in Iran, oil will shoot to $250 to $350/barrel. Ready for $9 to $13/gallon gasoline? Wall Street, 30 year Treasury Bonds, and just about everything you can imagine will collapse in value. Got Gold?
What will make this really bad is that Bush Jr. eliminated the strategic reserves of wheat, flour, dry milk, cheese, and all of those other foods needed during a famine...
And with the USA now using JIT, there are NO warehouses full of food to make it through a period of disruptions. Ready for a spot in a "detention camp"?
Sorry, but as the Powerz have conditioned the majority of people in the world into stupid sheep, we are sooooo screwed.
Posted by Kenneth M. Price on 04/14/10 07:02 PM
Almost every war fought by the USA in the 20th Century began under a Democrat President, and I fear that Obama will continue that "tradition".
Unfortunately, Obama is totally clueless when it comes to international relations, and believes that his "good desires" will result in the desired outcome. He is going to cost many lives, American and others, before the folly of his politics becomes clear to all.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Clueless or too smart for his own good?
Posted by Bill Ross on 04/14/10 05:19 PM
Rest my case: my comment post ampersand truncated. Just take Mark Y's link, append ampersand and aid=18522 (no spaces). Voila...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Posted by Iddy on 04/14/10 05:13 PM
Well now this is serious stuff right here folks! As our fearless leaders contemplate expanding the war on everything. It gives me a great sense of reassurance in our Government when I see our busy and overworked leaders grooming themselves like good little monkeys.
My question is,is Joe picking dead salty flesh of John's head to snack on during a lunch break at the pentagram? Or... is he cleaning off the head lice so John won't have to itch his head during his up coming filla BS Buster? I guess it could be a tick?
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is a hat.