After a decade of calamitous western wars in the wider Middle East, the signs are becoming ever more ominous that we're heading for another. And, hard as it is to credit, the same discredited arguments used to justify the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan – from weapons of mass destruction to sponsorship of terrorism and fundamentalist fanatics – are now being used to make the case for an attack on Iran.

War talk about Iran and its nuclear programme has been going on for so long it might be tempting to dismiss it as bluster. The mixed messages about Iran coming from the US and Israeli governments in recent weeks have become increasingly contradictory and bewildering. Maybe it's all a game of bluff and psychological warfare. Perhaps Iran's offer of new talks or this week's atomic energy inspectors' visit might lead to a breakthrough.

But the mood music has become more menacing. US defence secretary Leon Panetta has let it be known there is a "strong likelihood" Israel will attack Iran between April and June, even as Barack Obama says no Israeli decision has yet been taken. US officials told the Guardian last week they believed the administration would be left with "no alternative" but to attack Iran or watch Israel do so later this year.

Meanwhile, a US-Israeli stealth war is already raging on the ground, including covert assassinations of scientists, cyber warfare and attacks on military and missile installations. And Britain and France have successfully dragooned the EU into ramping up sanctions on Iran's economic life-blood of oil exports as a buildup of western military forces continues in the Gulf.

Any of this could easily be regarded as an act of war against Iran – and Iranian retaliation used as the pretext for a more direct military assault, as the risk of escalation grows. But instead of challenging what is a profoundly dangerous path to full-scale regional conflict – with or without western intervention in Iran's ally, Syria – the bulk of the western media and political class is busy softening up the public to accept another war as the unfortunate consequence of Iranian intransigence.

When it was reported that British officials expected the Cameron government to take part in a US attack on Iran, it passed with barely a murmur. In a parliamentary debate on Monday, only six votes were mustered to press for the threat of attack on Iran to be withdrawn. The Times claimed yesterday it to be "beyond doubt" that Iran "is trying to develop a nuclear weapon", even though neither the US nor the IAEA has managed to prove any such thing.

And even when US and British leaders have called for Israeli restraint, as William Hague and US joint chiefs of staff chairman Martin Dempsey have done in recent days, the issue is only one of timing. Military force would, they say, be "premature" and unwise "at this point".

If an attack is launched by Israel or the US, it would not just be an act of criminal aggression, but of wanton destructive stupidity. As Michael Clarke, director of the British defence establishment's Royal United Services Institute, points out, such an attack would be entirely illegal: "There is no basis in international law for preventative, rather than pre-emptive, war."

It would also be guaranteed to trigger a regional conflagration with uncontrollable global consequences. Iran could be expected to retaliate against Israel, the US and its allies, both directly and indirectly, and block the fifth of international oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. The trail of death, destruction and economic havoc would be awesome.

But while in the case of Iraq an attack was launched over weapons of mass destruction that didn't in fact exist, the US isn't even claiming that Iran is attempting to build a bomb. "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No," Panetta said bluntly last month. Israeli intelligence is said to be of the same view. Unlike Israel itself, which has had nuclear weapons for decades, it believes the Iranian leadership has taken no decision to go nuclear.

The issue, instead, is whether Iran – which has always insisted it doesn't want nuclear weapons – might develop the capability to build them. So Iran – surrounded by US bases and occupation troops, nuclear-armed states from Israel to Pakistan and Gulf autocracies begging the Americans to "cut off the head of the snake" – is threatened with a military onslaught because of a future potential the aggressor states have long ago turned into reality.

Such a capability wouldn't be the "existential threat" Israeli politicians have claimed. It might, of course, blunt Israel's strategic edge. Or as Matthew Kroenig, the US defence secretary's special adviser until last summer, spelled it out recently, a nuclear Iran "would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East". Which gets to the heart of the matter: freedom of action in the Middle East is the prerogative of the US and its allies, not independent Middle Eastern states.

But if the western powers and Israel are really concerned about the threat of a nuclear arms race in the region, they could throw their weight behind negotiations to acheive a nuclear-free Middle East – which most Israelis favour.

What is clear, as both US and Israeli officials acknowledge, is that neither sanctions nor war are likely to divert Iran from its nuclear programme. Military attack can set it back – along with the prospects for progressive change in Iran – but would offer the strongest incentive possible for Iranian leaders to take the decision they haven't yet done and develop nuclear weapons.

Obama has every interest in heading off an Israeli attack on Iran that would draw in the US, until at least until after the presidential election. But as the sabre-rattling, crippling sanctions and covert attacks increase, so do the risks of stumbling into an accidental war. A military confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz in the next two or three months is now "quite likely", Clarke believes: "western policy towards Iran is a slow-motion road accident".

There is another factor driving towards war. The more they talk up the supposed threat from Iran's nuclear programme and the military option, the more US and Israeli leaders risk undermining their own credibility if they end up doing nothing. A potentially catastrophic attack isn't inevitable, but it's becoming perilously more likely all the time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/attack-on-iran-criminal-stupidity

Russia warns against 'catastrophic' Iran strike


"The scenario of military action against Iran would be catastrophic for the region and possibly the whole system of international relations," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told a news conference.
His comments came after a five-strong delegation from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) left empty-handed following two days of talks focusing on suspected military aspects of the country's nuclear programme.

Not if they're developing nuclear weapons!

Iran just did what iraq did before the bush invasion.
They won't allow the un to do inspections.
Wonder if our favorite crack head in dc will follow the bush and order an iran invasion?

OMg you have to be jokeing my brother. Iraq had nothing at all and as stated in this article lets have a nuclear free middle east its fair and just, Israel to my knowledge has never submited or been asked to submit to inspections and they do have nuclear weapons. I think the end game should be just and fair to all parties.

Anyhow with all the sabre rattling how do you like the gas prices?

Are you seriously comparing Israel to Iran?

Israel's prime minister doesn't go around saying he envisions a middle east without Israel like Muck Muck Iditarod does!

No Comparison....

Israel 5million pop.....200/300 Nuclear Warheads..Non signatory to NPT

Iran 80Million pop.....Zero Nuclear Warheads...Signatory to NPT

Exactly......... only in a dumbed down stupified propagated america can anyone even have this discussion and keep a straight face.

Gas prices up and up and away as soon as the first violence starts.

America cannot afford a friend like Israel lets make it a nuclear free middle east for everyone and a firm commitment from the US to aid Israel if it is attacked.

If Israel ever uses its nukes on the middle east it will be the end of the world as we know it since gas prices would be unafordable to just about everyone This will turn our economy and the worlds upside down right back to the dark ages.

No Need For Nuclear in The Middle East at All

America Can be Guarantor to Israel

Russia Can be Guarantor to Iran

I am quite sure Obama and his green nazis are loving it..

Thats a fairly absurd statement, lets be realistic here, Obama wishes to be re elected high gas prices will only drag down the economy makeing it more difficult for him, a bad economy only helps the republicans but with the candidates they are running I dont think it will matter if unemployment is ten or even twenty percent, they are uneelctable

"An attack on Iran would be criminal stupidity" Hmmmm.... Seeing as an attack is a government act, shouldn't "criminal stupidity" already be a given?

So based on your comments my opinion is quite plausible.

If he can't lose then gas can go to $12 a gallon and it won't matter.

The Enviro Nazis that support him want an end to fossil fuels and higher fuel and food prices help them with their depopulation agenda..

You can damn well bet they are very happy with this..

Sanctions on Iran: "American policy regarding Iran remains unambiguous. First and foremost, we must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." Under Secretary Sherman (Oct. 13, 2011)

Human Rights and Democratic Reform in Iran "Almost two years after Iran’s disputed presidential election, Iranian authorities continue to harass, arbitrarily detain, torture and imprison their citizens, as well as some of ours." Assistant Secretary Posner (May 11)

A nuclear-armed Iran would severely threaten the security and stability of a part of the world crucial to our interests and to the health of the global economy. It would seriously undermine the credibility of the United Nations and other international institutions, and seriously weaken the nuclear nonproliferation regime at precisely the moment when we are seeking to strengthen it.

These risks are only reinforced by the wider actions of the Iranian leadership, particularly its longstanding support for violent terrorist groups like Hizballah and Hamas; its opposition to Middle East peace; its repugnant rhetoric about Israel, the Holocaust, 9/11, and so much else; and its brutal repression of its own citizens.

In the face of those challenges, American policy is straightforward. We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must counter its destabilizing actions in the region and beyond. And we must continue to do all we can to advance our broader interests in democracy, human rights, peace and economic development across the Middle East.

http://www.uspolicy.be/dossier/iran-united-states-policy-toward-iran-dossier


21 Nov 2011
President Obama on Additional Sanctions on Iran

President Obama issues a statement on the announcement of additional sanctions on Iran, to further isolate and penalize the country for its refusal to live up to its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 21, 2011

Statement by the President on the Announcement of Additional Sanctions on Iran

Today, my Administration has taken yet another step to further isolate and penalize Iran for its refusal to live up to its international obligations regarding its nuclear program. For years, the Iranian government has failed to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has violated repeated UN Security Council resolutions, as well as its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the face of this intransigence, the world has spoken with one voice —at the IAEA, at the UN, and in capitals - making it clear that Iranian actions jeopardize international peace and stability, and will only further isolate the Iranian regime.

Israel's prime minister doesn't go around saying he envisions a middle east without Israel like Muck Muck Iditarod does!

i think the fact this nation is focused on other parts of the world and not there own front door is pure douche-baggory by the us gov our total number of homeless is in the millions and the unemployment is probably triple that **** the middle east help your people i pay my taxes and i demand satisfaction by this bull **** government

Israel 5million pop.....200/300 Nuclear Warheads..Non signatory to NPT

Iran 80Million pop.....Zero Nuclear Warheads...Signatory to NPT


No Need For Nuclear in The Middle East at All

America Can be Guarantor to Israel

Russia Can be Guarantor to Iran

See what i'm beginning to notice is a pattern,i think Russia is getting tired of the US being involved in everything.I think Russia wants to let it's presence be known and telling the US "You're not the only power house in this world".Also because of this i believe Russia will keep Iran in line.China is also showing signs like Russia is.

How so?
When Russia is supporting Iran,Syria,and by extension HAMAS and Hezbollah?
Your Recipe is a sure Guaranty for WWIII.

Russia is a Superpower as is America