10 thoughts on “Former NSC and CIA Analyst, Saban Center Fellow Warns of Folly of Israel Attacking Iran, Urges Accepting Iranian Bomb – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Richard, I’m not sure this article by Reidel is not just a red herring to comfort people. There have been many similar articles published in the past months (albeit not from pro-Israel sources) stating essentially the same thing: the “folly” of bombing Iran. Yet the Lobby, in the form of propagandists like Jeffrey Goldberg, John Bolton, et al., continue to beat the drums. The Zionists accuse the Iranians of being crazies, but I have never come across a regime that seems more irrational than the present Israeli one. There is no reason to trust anything it says, and I am very fearful that it, with or without the aid of the U.S., will act.

  2. We can condemn israel’s paranoia all we want, but something is very wrong if the world is powerless to stop iran from getting nukes. A nuclear ayyatolah regime is gonna last a very long time, and it’s going to get away with any crime it wants. the ppl who will suffer for it are the iranians, who could find themselves getting a lot less international support in their fight for freedom, and ofc the arabs, pashtuns etc of the ME who will be under ayyatolah regional hegemony. Israel will also suffer – while a nuclear attack by iran is unlikly, ppl like bibi and barak will have a permmanent fear of apocalypse to throw at the voters, and tere goes democracy.

    1. Ofc the real crime is that no one stopped the ayyatolahs back in the 80′, but who cares about the rights of ppl who’s gov’t doesn’t threaten US interests…

      1. Your history is off, duck. The real crime occurred earlier in 1953, when Mosaddegh was overthrown and replaced by the Shah.

        1. That’s a whole other crime. Most liberals agree that the west shouldn’t meddle in other countries for it’s own benefit. Many liberals, however, don’t agree that the west should meddle in other countries for the benefit of their ppl, and that was the point I was trying to make.

          1. Actually, where many liberals (as meaningless as that term has become) disagree is that the effect of western meddling in other countries’ affairs is very often to their people’s benefit. And when the claim that such meddling is done with the people’s best interest in mind is made so frequently in a patronising, hypocritical, or downright cynical way, who can tell anymore when it isn’t?

          2. Western meddling is almost universally in the favor of western hegemony. The vast majority of true and honest intervention for the rights of disenfranchised ppls is done by NGOs.

            It’s rarely hard to tell the difference – dick cheney bad, amnesty int. good. Belgium funding civil rights groups here in israel is also good.

            One can only hope that one day the world will care enough to meddle on the side of rights even when it’s a country without any oil or without a west-unfriendly dictator or in a time when starting a war wouldn’t help the polls.

  3. That’s a schizophrenic argument. “It’s ok to let Iran have nukes because they aren’t crazy” and “if we don’t let them have nukes, they are crazy enough to launch a conventional attack on the United States in revenge for Israel attacking them”.

    Sorry, but if you are nuts enough to attack the strongest military power on the planet because one of their allies attacks you, you are too crazy to be allowed nukes.

    Cowardice and shortsightedness will probably give the Iranians nukes. Countries being preoccupied with other things have let tyrants gain military strength in violation of treaties before. “We don’t want a war with Germany, so we will let them re-arm in violation of the treaties that ended WWI” -European powers before WWII. That doesn’t end well. You end up fighting the war anyway, but against a better armed enemy.

    Iran may not be crazy enough to launch a first strike, but they will certainly increase their terrorist activities once they have nuclear weapons. After all, no one could retaliate against them for it because of the nukes. If Afghanistan had nukes, would we have been able to go after them for the 9/11 attacks? Nope.

  4. RE: IN A secret special national intelligence estimate (SNIE) in 1960, the American intelligence community concluded that “possession of a nuclear weapon capability . . . would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence, and assertiveness.” – R.S.

    FROM GRANT SMITH, 05/10/10:

    …In 1968 as Israel noticeably ramped up activities at the Dimona nuclear weapons facility, Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford placed a final urgent call to Johnson, “Mr. President, I don’t want to live in a world where the Israelis have nuclear weapons.” President Johnson was abrupt before he hung up on Clifford, “Don’t bother me with this anymore.”…

    SOURCE – http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/05/09/declassified-gao-report/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *