"Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk said on Sunday that he thinks the U.S. will go to war with Iran over its nuclear program in 2013.
Speaking during a panel on the CBS program Face the Nation, Indyk said, "I'm afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-will-go-to-war-with-ir...
This Martin Indyk dude is a bad dude. Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, was a co-founder of AIPAC - American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and served as director of WINEP - Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He's also been a major player with PNAC - Project for a New American Century. In short, this bastard is neocon personified and relative to concern toward human beings on this earth, evil personified.
"Regarding the recent friction between U.S. President Barack Obama and Netanyahu over "red lines" on Iran, Indyk said that he doesn't think "the difference between Netanyahu and Obama on this is that great, in terms of the president's commitment not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons."
He added, however, that Netanyahu's insistence on public "red lines" was unreasonable.
"That is an unreasonable requirement. The idea of putting out a public red line - in effect issuing an ultimatum - is something that no president would do. If you noticed, Governor Romney is not putting out a red line; Senator McCain didn't, either. And neither is Bibi Netanyahu for that matter, in terms of Israel's own actions."
In other words, he knows it's all bullshit rhetoric and Obama and Netanyahu are on the same page. The key is both know Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and is not even close to attaining that capability. Yet both maintain the charade that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction. Obama is Bush is Netanyahu.
Taking his case to the American public, Netanyahu said in U.S. television interviews that by mid-2013, Iran would be 90 percent of the way toward enough enriched uranium for a bomb. He urged the United States to spell out limits that Tehran must not cross or else face military action - something Obama has refused to do.
"You have to place that red line before them now, before it's too late," Netanyahu told NBC's "Meet the Press" program, saying that such a move could reduce the chances of having to attack Iran's nuclear sites.
Neocons and warmongers and evildoers are roaming the mainstream media spreading lies and propaganda. Iran is their cash cow. Will they go all in for the big payoff? I don't think they will. It's too risky and they won't be able to get an authorization for war as they have in the past unless they can somehow get Iran to take some bait. Then again, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
Comments
2013 is the new 2012.
Only worse.
Word is the sanctions, which in effect are an act of war,
are having an impact on the common people. When that happens, they're supposed to rise up against their government to allow those that did the sanctioning the opportunity to come in and really fuck them up.
Yep, a theory often proven wrong
at the cost of great suffering. We in the U.S could learn a thing or two from the courageous Iranians about rising up. I have to run now, but I'll post a link to a heartbreaking and moving documentary, created at great risk to the brave people who spoke openly and frankly during secret filming, detailing the attempts by the people to force their government to represent their views. It makes our Occupy look like a bunch of wusses. The government apparatus in Iran is in firm control, insuring that the suffering inflicted by sanctions will stay on the bottom. Sanctions such as this should be criminal, and perhaps they are.
Letters from Iran
Here is the promised documentary. I know we in America can seldom be bothered to listen to the people whose countries we are debating over whether to bomb, starve, or torture into submission. I wish this film would receive wide viewership. Having seen it and seen the terrible risks taken by the people who agreed to be filmed, it seems almost an obligation. The entire film can be watched on youtube or at the link below. The impact is quite different from reading a description or hearing statistics--this is how it looks when a people does what it can to stand up against brutal state repression.
The entire film can be watched on line.
The partial blockade is a systematic act of violence
intended to intimidate a population or government into granting political demands.
There's a fucking name for that.
You mean like the Cuba blockade?
The name for that is futile? Or vindictive? Pointless? Failure?
C'mon, spill, what's the name for that.
Not sure if I understand this comment
But I believe the poster was referring to the word "terrorism".
Sorry if you were making a clever point and it went over my head.
Terrorism ...
... I wasn't looking at blockades in the abstract, but the actual real world blockade of Cuba, and "terrorism" doesn't really spring to mind. "Futile", "Failure", "Pointless generation of misery" would be the words and phrases that come more readily to mind.
Even in the abstract, I don't think terrorism would be right. Its in the same family of thuggish intimidation family of strategies, but terrorism is more an underdog strategy, where blockades are more on the bullying side.
That's what I figured
War with Iran is going to happen, but Bibbi wants to boast about it and that's too much to ask during an election where dumbass puppets will believe anything in this Presidential campaign.
Thanks, Big Al.
The groundwork is already being laid.
It's not getting the kind of media coverage that the ramp-up to the invasion if Iraq did -- TPTB learned that much from the last go-round. But if you pay attention to the (mostly foreign) press, you see the pieces being put into place. Canada suspending diplomatic relations with Iran, UN/Iran nuclear talks being suspended, etc. My bet is this guy is exactly right, and we'll be invading before the end of 2013 - regardless of whether it's Mittens in the Oval Office, or Obama.
It will make no difference who is in office
Other than the rhetoric employed. With Obama, we'll be invading to save women, children, and kittens. With Romney, it'll be because Islam is evil. Either version will be consciously lying and will make no difference to the people of Iran. Of course, many liberals will be lulled into enthusiastic complicity by the words of Obama, whereas they would pretend not to be complicit should Romney be the figurehead for American imperialism.
Obama will be "reluctant" when he does it, and that
makes all the difference to the dead.
The uprising is coming.
The entire Arab world is ready to revolt against its neoliberal oppressors and their bourgeois puppets, like Morsi and his phony-ass Muslim Brotherhood. A study just came out predicting that food prices globally will rise to a point that will likely trigger global revolts next August anyway.
I think part of the purpose of things like this is to put out trial balloons so that when the uprising starts, there is a veneer to make it look like the west is the one making this happen rather than the one reacting to its own loss of control of its dying, self-imploding empire.
There is another charade
I am guessing that this apparent disagreement between 'yahu and Obama over attacking Iran could easily morph into something very different after the election, that it is a charade to insure the re-election of Obama. Let's see if the propaganda and rhetoric rev up again after the election.
Iran is still on the Neocon hit-list. It is too important to the present powers-that-be to rule out attempts at regime change sometime in the future.
The strategic goals appear to be elimination of a potential threat to Israel ("securing the realm") and securing a replacement source for a future decline in petrodollar recirculation to Wall Street and London banks as Saudi oilfields, which began producing in the late 50's and early 60's, suffer declining production and depletion in the coming decade. And securing hegemony over the Persian Gulf region is an important step towards global dominance.
It does not matter that there is no credible evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran and that the IAEA confirms that no nuclear material has been diverted from peaceful use. Propaganda and lies will override the facts, or the facts could be fixed around the policy as they were to provide a pretext for the Iraq invasion.
How could anything go wrong! Just look at how successful the Iraq invasion was, and Afghanistan, and Syria and Libya ( yes Libya ). Neocon chickenhawk wisdom. So clever and not an iota of understanding basic human nature.
Death and destruction? The war crime of aggressive war? Not to worry. We make the rules.
Blowback? Never mind. It will be flowers and candy as it was in Iraq.