• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PAPER: Military action against Iran 'likely'..

Could it be that the Iranians are trying to goad the Israelis into an attack? Are they taking a page from the neocon playbook?

Marty Martin, a former senior officer in the CIA, ran the unit that hunted Al Qaeda terrorists from 2002 to 2004. Iran’s most militant leaders “are goading the Israelis,” he tells The Daily Beast, “because a bombing will help them put their internal problems aside.”

Martin, who spent most of his 25-year career at the CIA in the Middle East, argues that some clerics and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, confronted with a discontented and restless population, are looking for ways to solidify public support. “The way they see it, if Israel bombs them it relieves the internal pressure,” says Martin. “Amid this turmoil, its always good to have an outside enemy.”

Iran’s internal troubles include a 12 percent unemployment rate, a shattered economy (due in part to international sanctions), resentment over the oppressive regime, and widespread disgust over corruption.

Former CIA Officials Say Iran
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Could it be that the Iranians are trying to goad the Israelis into an attack? Are they taking a page from the neocon playbook?
Click to expand...

With Obama having withdrawn all troops from Iraq, having not interfered during their street protests, and urging caution to Israel, he is probably not living up the Great Satan image that Iran has used in the past to bridge the divide between the leadership and the people.

Most of the foreign policy experts I've heard, suggest that a strike on Iran would be a nationalistic cause that would draw the people closer in support of the leadership there, so I would say CIA officials have a good point.
 
Boo Radley said:
Too simplistic. Many don't say no to all wars, just reckless and harmful wars. You have to have exact situations to compare properly.
Click to expand...

Would you lie and propagandize for the State, if you were paid Stewarts 6 million dollar annual salary?
 
Kane said:
Would you lie and propagandize for the State, if you were paid Stewarts 6 million dollar annual salary?
Click to expand...


Kane I bet you think zegitgist is a factual documentary don't you

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Kane said:
Would you lie and propagandize for the State, if you were paid Stewarts 6 million dollar annual salary?
Click to expand...
Stewart? Jon Stewart???
 
Kane said:
Would you lie and propagandize for the State, if you were paid Stewarts 6 million dollar annual salary?
Click to expand...

You won't mind if I ask for clarification: What the hell are you talking about?
 
Boo Radley said:
You won't mind if I ask for clarification: What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

He's under the impression that the most effective liberal satirist since Abbie Hoffman is actually a corporomilitarstatist stooge.
 
AdamT said:
He's under the impression that the most effective liberal satirist since Abbie Hoffman is actually a corporomilitarstatist stooge.
Click to expand...

OK. Just threw me for a second. He provide any evidence?
 
Boo Radley said:
OK. Just threw me for a second. He provide any evidence?
Click to expand...

He posted something about a position he claims Stewart took on something that he disagreed with, but I can't find it.
 
AdamT said:
He posted something about a position he claims Stewart took on something that he disagreed with, but I can't find it.
Click to expand...

No need to look. I'm only marginally curious. ;)
 
It was talked about on CNN last night how the Iranian complexes are too deep for even American bombs to disrupt the nuclear program. If bombs are out of the equation, what does that leave?
 
Jango said:
It was talked about on CNN last night how the Iranian complexes are too deep for even American bombs to disrupt the nuclear program. If bombs are out of the equation, what does that leave?
Click to expand...

(See Iraq War)
 
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
 
xpiher said:
Kane I bet you think zegitgist is a factual documentary don't you

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Zeitgeist is fake, new age crappola produced by SONY PICTURES.

Watch the BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" on YouTube, instead.
 
Jango said:
It was talked about on CNN last night how the Iranian complexes are too deep for even American bombs to disrupt the nuclear program. If bombs are out of the equation, what does that leave?
Click to expand...
Like CNN is privy to US military secrets? You think we release the specs on all the latest weaponry? Com'on, as far as I know the top speed of the SR-71 is still a secret (there are some guesses) - at least it was even after 10+ years of active service.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Like CNN is privy to US military secrets? You think we release the specs on all the latest weaponry? Com'on, as far as I know the top speed of the SR-71 is still a secret (there are some guesses) - at least it was even after 10+ years of active service.
Click to expand...

I'm still not clear why people aren't considering multiple strikes on the same point. If the first strike doesn't penetrate deeply enough, the next one will. Why is this simple solution so universally ignored?
 
EagleAye said:
I'm still not clear why people aren't considering multiple strikes on the same point. If the first strike doesn't penetrate deeply enough, the next one will. Why is this simple solution so universally ignored?
Click to expand...
They must be thinking of things like Cheyenne Mt. not realizing what a huge endeavor it is to build that kind of installation.
 
EagleAye said:
I'm still not clear why people aren't considering multiple strikes on the same point. If the first strike doesn't penetrate deeply enough, the next one will. Why is this simple solution so universally ignored?
Click to expand...

As we found though with Israel bombing Iraq in 81, the US completely destroying Iraq's military offensive capabilities in 91, multiple air strikes in 98, and even 10 years of sanctions, all of that didn't dispel the paranoia by some that Iraq had WMD. I think it will be the same with Iran.

I think the only real threat Iraq/Iran presented to the US was in disruption of cheap oil to the world oil market from the middle east.

Cheney and his Energy Task Force stated that Iraq sometimes would keep oil production low or withhold oil to drive up world oil prices for political purpose and was one of the reasons they recommended military intervention in Iraq. And when US forces invaded Iraq, their very first mission goal, was not securing the nuclear facilities or searching for WMD, it was to secure Iraq's oil wells.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
As we found though with Israel bombing Iraq in 81, the US completely destroying Iraq's military offensive capabilities in 91, multiple air strikes in 98, and even 10 years of sanctions, all of that didn't dispel the paranoia by some that Iraq had WMD. I think it will be the same with Iran.

I think the only real threat Iraq/Iran presented to the US was in disruption of cheap oil to the world oil market from the middle east.

Cheney and his Energy Task Force stated that Iraq sometimes would keep oil production low or withhold oil to drive up world oil prices for political purpose and was one of the reasons they recommended military intervention in Iraq. And when US forces invaded Iraq, their very first mission goal, was not securing the nuclear facilities or searching for WMD, it was to secure Iraq's oil wells.
Click to expand...
As long as the UN inspectors are saying there's a problem then I'll continue to believe there's a problem. IF, and that's a big IF, Iran gets to the point where the UN inspectors give them a clean bill of health then I'll also believe that.

With Iraq you're talking about an illusion created by an idiot to justify a war that shouldn't have been fought. With Iran it's the UN, not some American faction, saying there are nuclear issues that need to be addressed. Regardless of how many times you try to equate Iran to Iraq they simply aren't the same situation.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
As we found though with Israel bombing Iraq in 81, the US completely destroying Iraq's military offensive capabilities in 91, multiple air strikes in 98, and even 10 years of sanctions, all of that didn't dispel the paranoia by some that Iraq had WMD. I think it will be the same with Iran.

I think the only real threat Iraq/Iran presented to the US was in disruption of cheap oil to the world oil market from the middle east.

Cheney and his Energy Task Force stated that Iraq sometimes would keep oil production low or withhold oil to drive up world oil prices for political purpose and was one of the reasons they recommended military intervention in Iraq. And when US forces invaded Iraq, their very first mission goal, was not securing the nuclear facilities or searching for WMD, it was to secure Iraq's oil wells.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this relates to my comment about hitting deeply embedded targets, but...

I'll grant you that oil was a heavy motivator in the attack on Iraq. Many other things were intended too, but smooth unrestricted access to oil was one of the big ones. This was an "oil war."
 
MoSurveyor said:
As long as the UN inspectors are saying there's a problem then I'll continue to believe there's a problem. IF, and that's a big IF, Iran gets to the point where the UN inspectors give them a clean bill of health then I'll also believe that.

With Iraq you're talking about an illusion created by an idiot to justify a war that shouldn't have been fought. With Iran it's the UN, not some American faction, saying there are nuclear issues that need to be addressed. Regardless of how many times you try to equate Iran to Iraq they simply aren't the same situation.
Click to expand...

The UN has not proposed, nor have they endorsed a military strike on Iran by anyone. What do you feel the UN sanctions should be if someone bombs Iran without UN authority?
 
EagleAye said:
I'm not sure how this relates to my comment about hitting deeply embedded targets, but...

I'll grant you that oil was a heavy motivator in the attack on Iraq. Many other things were intended too, but smooth unrestricted access to oil was one of the big ones. This was an "oil war."
Click to expand...


It just serves to show that the ability to hit deeply embedded targets, just as we did in Iraq, does nothing to combat the paranoia of Iran by some, just as it didn't with Iraq.
 
Catawba said:
It just serves to show that the ability to hit deeply embedded targets, just as we did in Iraq, does nothing to combat the paranoia of Iran by some, just as it didn't with Iraq.
Click to expand...

I don't know why. The object is to stop a nuclear weapons program, or more accurately, stop Iran from processing their own nuclear fuel without full IAEA observation. Once that target is disabled that site can no longer process uranium. No more worries.

If Iran agrees to IAEA oversight, there's no reason to hit them at all, and no long-term reason to worry about Iran's nuclear program. Seems simple to me.
 
EagleAye said:
I don't know why. The object is to stop a nuclear weapons program, or more accurately, stop Iran from processing their own nuclear fuel without full IAEA observation. Once that target is disabled that site can no longer process uranium. No more worries.

If Iran agrees to IAEA oversight, there's no reason to hit them at all, and no long-term reason to worry about Iran's nuclear program. Seems simple to me.
Click to expand...

But Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, just as Iraq did not have WMD. And, I just read yesterday that Iran has opened their military base to inspection.
 
Catawba said:
But Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, just as Iraq did not have WMD. And, I just read yesterday that Iran has opened their military base to inspection.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone believes Iran currently has a nuke. The idea is to prevent them from getting one. To do that, some action must be taken before they actually develop the capability. Intelligence indicates they have assembled some of the pieces and technology to do so. That's why sanctions are in place now.

And yes, Iran has opened up the site at Parchin after denying access for...so long. Lots of time to remove anything incriminating. What do you suppose inspectors will find now at this military base? I'm betting nothing but a few metal shavings and a broken fusball table, and seriously nothing else at all in a very large space. It's an obvious shell game, so this article is no surprise:

Satellite photographs show the appearance of earth-moving vehicles and haulage lorries at Parchin, a military base where the IAEA said in its last report that Iranian scientists had experimented with a device that could only be used in the detonation system of a nuclear bomb.

When IAEA inspectors visited Iran last month, they were refused permission to visit Parchin. Since then, Tehran has partially backed down and conceded that the agency's experts can enter the location "once".

The satellite photographs appear to show a recent effort to sanitise the site beforehand, one IAEA official told the Associated Press news agency.

Last November, the IAEA said that experiments with the detonation system of nuclear weapons had been conducted inside a large metal container at Parchin.
Click to expand...
Iran 'trying to remove evidence that it tested detonators for nuclear weapons' - Telegraph
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom