TToI:‘"Sparks fly"’ over US policy on Iran at meeting between Netanyahu and US envoy

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I didn't say Israel started the conflict. I said in her many wars, Israel struck first more often than not. Israel would always say their actions were necessary, or in a reaction to some provocation. If Israel attacks Iran tomorrow, they will say it was provoked. That is all neuanced. What is not neuanced is who attacked whom first. which is all my metric was trying to highlight.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 02:58 PM ----------

We don't typically deploy 3 aircraft carriers for a "show" of force.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 03:01 PM ----------

One of the things that makes us so uneasy about Iran getting nukes is the poliferation angle. If Iran got nukes, Saudi, Egypt would certainly follow suit and get a nucular arsanal of their own.

Iraq, Syria and Jordan wouldn't be far behind.

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

[JMS]

If I change my license I can't vote and I'm not sure if I will wait until the election or just say **** it.

Do you really think the Romney/Ryan ticket isn't absurd, but one with Paul is?

I independely know four professional GOP, politicians who work on the hill. At different times over the last three months all have exclaimed to me that Mitt Romney has no chance to be president in fits of dispare. The latest one was just three weeks ago before the GOP convention at a bar in St. Michaels. I said dude, why do you say that, he's statistically in a dead heat with the president? The guy who is a senate staffer says to me, can you name three issues which Mitt truely believes in. When I didn't answer right away, he says... Nobody can.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 09:25 PM ----------

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Well if Iran gave hezbollah a nuke, and hezbollah used it.... We would definitely hold Iran responsible, It's not like you can hide where those things are made.

[zoony]

I'm trying to think of 3 firm beliefs of any successful politician. Like a wise man once said, politics is the art of the possible. Unwavering beliefs don't allow for success

[Hubbs]

I can't be the only one who's more than a little amused by the mental image of a top Republican snapping at someone for misrepresenting Obama's position on something. And the same will be true in six months if a top Democrat does it for hypothetical President Romney. (I suppose I should add that I'm also slightly encouraged. It'd be nice if, when visiting other countries, our politicians adopted somewhat of a sibling rivalry mentality, as in an "I'm the only one who's allowed to beat up on my brother" sort of thing.)

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I independely know four professional GOP, politicians who work on the hill. At different times over the last three months all have exclaimed to me that Mitt Romney has no chance to be president in fits of dispare. The latest one was just three weeks ago before the GOP convention at a bar in St. Michaels. I said dude, why do you say that, he's statistically in a dead heat with the president? The guy who is a senate staffer says to me, can you name three issues which Mitt truely believes in. When I didn't answer right away, he says... Nobody can.

---------- Post added September-5th-2012 at 09:25 PM ----------

Well if Iran gave hezbollah a nuke, and hezbollah used it.... We would definitely hold Iran responsible, It's not like you can hide where those things are made.

Yes you can hold Iran accountable but they could easily say that they were stolen or something to that effect in order deflect blame. It's another fear that you have to worry about with a nuclear Iran.

[JMS]

I'm trying to think of 3 firm beliefs of any successful politician. Like a wise man once said, politics is the art of the possible. Unwavering beliefs don't allow for success

Ronald Reagan, (1) Pro Life, (2) Anti-communist, (3)stronger on defense, (4)smaller less attrusive government, (5)deregulation, (6)pro life.

George Bush Sr, (1) Strong Foreign policy (2) Increased federal spending for childcare/ education, (3) Immigration reform (4) Against N. Korea getting the bomb.

Bill Clinton, (1) Pro choice, (2) Support for Head Start (3) fiscal restraint, (4) Era of big government done, (5) Pay as we go government.

George Bush Jr. (1) Pro Life (2) Cut taxes (3) Increase Military Spending (4) No Child Left Behind

Romney (1) ?

[Predicto]

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Yes you can hold Iran accountable but they could easily say that they were stolen or something to that effect in order deflect blame. It's another fear that you have to worry about with a nuclear Iran.

I really do not think this is at all true. It's scare mongering. If you have nukes, you watch them like a hawk and don't let them out of your sight. I don't care how much you want to support your proxies, you don't give away nukes to them and lose control over them. One mistake, one change in leadership, one infiltrator - and that nuke could be going off in Tehran rather than in Tel Aviv. Plus, if any nukes go off, you are going to get blamed, and the mullahs know it.

We have reasons to not want Iran to get nukes, but this is not one of them. I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them).

---------- Post added September-6th-2012 at 10:14 AM ----------

Yes that is very true. Another angle is that Iran would provide there proxies like Hezbollah with weapons to carry out attacks too.

Ronald Reagan, (1) Pro Life, (2) Anti-communist, (3)stronger on defense, (4)smaller less attrusive government, (5)deregulation, (6)pro life.

George Bush Sr, (1) Strong Foreign policy (2) Increased federal spending for childcare/ education, (3) Immigration reform (4) Against N. Korea getting the bomb.

Bill Clinton, (1) Pro choice, (2) Support for Head Start (3) fiscal restraint, (4) Era of big government done, (5) Pay as we go government.

George Bush Jr. (1) Pro Life (2) Cut taxes (3) Increase Military Spending (4) No Child Left Behind

Romney (1) ?

Romney (1) Being President would complete my resume.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I really do not think this is at all true. It's scare mongering. If you have nukes, you watch them like a hawk and don't let them out of your sight. I don't care how much you want to support your proxies, you don't give away nukes to them and lose control over them. One mistake, one change in leadership, one infiltrator - and that nuke could be going off in Tehran rather than in Tel Aviv. Plus, if any nukes go off, you are going to get blamed, and the mullahs know it.

We have reasons to not want Iran to get nukes, but this is not one of them. I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them).

---------- Post added September-6th-2012 at 10:14 AM ----------

Romney (1) Being President would complete my resume.

This is a quote from an article written by Ehanaeh Sadr of Middle East Policy "This is particularly true given that Hezbollah, as a non-state actor with no cities to defend, has less to lose from nuclear retaliation and might, therefore, be more inclined to take risks" .Many like to think that the only reason that the Iranians want Nukes is for self preservation but the real reason is that they want to be the Regional hegamon this dates back to the time when the shaw was in power.

[Predicto]

This is a quote from an article written by Ehanaeh Sadr of Middle East Policy "This is particularly true given that Hezbollah, as a non-state actor with no cities to defend, has less to lose from nuclear retaliation and might, therefore, be more inclined to take risks" .Many like to think that the only reason that the Iranians want Nukes is for self preservation but the real reason is that they want to be the Regional hegamon this dates back to the time when the shaw was in power.

Of course they want to be the regional hegemon. Giving away your nukes to uncontrollable proxys does not make you a regional hegemon. It makes you a people at risk from the explosion of uncontrolled nukes.

No one gives away nukes. We wouldn't give them to England after WWII. The Soviets wouldn't give them to Cuba or East Germany. Pakistan hasn't given them away to its proxy terrorist fighting against India.

The only people that I have ever seen suggest that Iran would just give away a nuke to a terrorist group are neo-cons, and they never back up that claim with any reasoning.

[JMS]

I have heard this claim made many times, but I have never read a credible argument by a credible person to support it. It is just some sort of assumption, like "Hey Iran is bad, so anything bad we can think of, they will likely do." Fact is, Iran is run by human beings and has a huge self preservation instinct (which is why they are trying to get nukes in the first place - because we have them and the Israelis have them)..

That's funny actually, not that you are wrong, I think you are correct. But we have heard this exact argument used against Iraq in justifying our invasion primarily because of their (1) nonexistant ties to international terrorists (Al Quada). (2) nonexistant ties to attacks on us interests via those Iraqi backed terrorists. (Al Quada) (3) Iraq's non existant nuclear program.

No less than Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, even George Bush at times made this same exact argument.

So while I don't disagree with you, it is funny and even striking to hear.

[twa]

the idea is more to prevent the spread of nukes and having them in the hands of unstable govts.

Do Pakistan's or NK's bother you in case of coups or insurrections?

[Predicto]

the idea is more to prevent the spread of nukes and having them in the hands of unstable govts.

Do Pakistan's or NK's bother you in case of coups or insurrections?

I agree with you, and yes, that definitely bothers the hell out of me.

To put it another way, Iran is never going to give a nuke to Hezbullah. But Iran might collapse someday, and if it does, there will be a terrifying scramble to control the nukes that it has. Agree 100 percent.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Of course they want to be the regional hegemon. Giving away your nukes to uncontrollable proxys does not make you a regional hegemon. It makes you a people at risk from the explosion of uncontrolled nukes.

No one gives away nukes. We wouldn't give them to England after WWII. The Soviets wouldn't give them to Cuba or East Germany. Pakistan hasn't given them away to its proxy terrorist fighting against India.

The only people that I have ever seen suggest that Iran would just give away a nuke to a terrorist group are neo-cons, and they never back up that claim with any reasoning.

You said that they want the nukes for self preservation no they want the nukes so they can be the regional hegamon. When has Hezbollah been out control for Iran? Though I agree that Iran would not give nukes to Hezbollah I just pointed out that there are people who are out there that suspect that Iran would do this.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/06/us-usa-israel-iran-idUSBRE8851DK20120906

Congressman confirms high-level U.S.-Israel spat over Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blew up at the U.S. ambassador last month because he was "at wit's end" over what he sees as the Obama administration's lack of clarity on Iran's nuclear program, a congressman who was at the meeting said.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, made his first public comments about the late August meeting in Israel in an interview with Michigan's WJR radio on Tuesday.

His disclosure comes only hours before President Barack Obama will at the Democratic National Convention to accept the party's nomination as its candidate in the November election, in which the level of the Obama administration's support for Israel has become a contentious topic.

"Right now the Israelis don't believe that this administration is serious when they say all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing," Rogers said.

[Predicto]

You said that they want the nukes for self preservation no they want the nukes so they can be the regional hegamon. When has Hezbollah been out control for Iran? Though I agree that Iran would not give nukes to Hezbollah I just pointed out that there are people who are out there that suspect that Iran would do this.

They want nukes for lots of reasons. The biggest reason is that so no one can tell them what or what not to do - not even the superpower USA. That is not a good thing.

My only point is that they are not going to give nukes away to proxies. That is a scare tactic argument.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

They want nukes for lots of reasons. The biggest reason is that so no one can tell them what or what not to do - not even the superpower USA. That is not a good thing.

My only point is that they are not going to give nukes away to proxies. That is a scare tactic argument.

I agree

[nonniey]

Get out of the way? Aside from flying the planes themselves, America is currently getting impeding the Israeli mission how? Unless the CIA is secretly manning Iranian air defenses.

Clear a corridor? Israel would need to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and or Iraq. It's the USA that is denying Israel permission to do this?

Buy the missiles somewhere else or build them yourself Israel. You've stolen enough technology over the years to do this.

Well there was one report that the US leaked that Israel had an agreement with Azairbaijan to let them refuel and rearm. Just a press report but that would be one plausible way to get in the way.

[visionary]

Interesting timing. I wonder what's up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/07/pol-baird-canada-iran-embassy.html

Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels Iranian diplomats

Canada has suspended diplomatic relations with Iran and is expelling Iranian diplomats from Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced in a statement today.

Speaking to reporters in Russia, where he's attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-Operation summit, Baird said the government is formally listing Iran today as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorist Act.

"Iran is among the world's worst violators of human rights. It shelters and materially supports terrorist groups," Baird said.

In the statement, Baird said Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada. Those diplomats must leave within five days. All Canadian diplomats have already left Iran.

"Canada’s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," he said in the statement.

The statement cited Iran's support for the Assad regime in Syria and failure to comply with UN resolutions on its nuclear program, and its threats against Israel.

The statement also makes reference to Iran's "blatant disregard" of the Vienna Convention that guarantees the protection of diplomatic personnel.

[twa]

The last line is probably the main factor visionary...along with possible fireworks on tap

always good to watch if the diplomats start leaving in numbers or going to skeleton crews

[visionary]

The last line is probably the main factor visionary...along with possible fireworks on tap

always good to watch if the diplomats start leaving in numbers or going to skeleton crews

If you mean the protection of diplomats thing, I don't think that's anything new, those concerns were from many months ago.

[twa]

Those concerns remain and accelerate as tensions mount....history repeats if you allow it

[JMS]

Interesting timing. I wonder what's up.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/07/pol-baird-canada-iran-embassy.html

I don't know if you remember or not.. But when the Irainians took over the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 many of the Embassy people were not in the Embassy.

Those Americans went to the Canadian Embassy, which issued them Canadian Passports, and assisted them in getting out of the country.

I think this is very likely a precursor to an Israeli strike. We have no embassy in Iran, the Canadians are a likely target for retaliation given their support of us in the passed. It also makes sence the US would inform Canada that we think a strike is imminent... Canada is one of the four countries in the world which we recipricate with 100% of our intelligence assets... ( Canada, Britian, Austrailia, New Zealand ).

This coupled with us having 3 carriers off the coast of Iran is ominious.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-israel-iran-idUSBRE8891C920120911

U.S., Israel still at odds over Iran "red line"

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel and the United States were in talks on setting a "clear red line" for Iran's nuclear program, but the two allies remained at odds on Monday over whether to spell out a clear threshold for military action against Tehran.

The Israeli leader, who has been pressing President Barack Obama for a tougher line against Iran, again signaled that a sharper U.S. ultimatum for Tehran could deter it from developing nuclear weapons and mitigate the need for a military response.

[Thiebear]

Ronald Reagan, (1) Pro Life, (2) Anti-communist, (3)stronger on defense, (4)smaller less attrusive government, (5)deregulation, (6)pro life.

George Bush Sr, (1) Strong Foreign policy (2) Increased federal spending for childcare/ education, (3) Immigration reform (4) Against N. Korea getting the bomb.

Bill Clinton, (1) Pro choice, (2) Support for Head Start (3) fiscal restraint, (4) Era of big government done, (5) Pay as we go government.

George Bush Jr. (1) Pro Life (2) Cut taxes (3) Increase Military Spending (4) No Child Left Behind

Edit: Thiebear:

Barack Obama (1)HealthCare (2) Stimulus-Infrastructure (3)Don't Ask/Don't Tell gone (4) Drones-everywhere (5) No work requirement (6) Green companies

Romney (1) Supposed to be after they are elected?

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/pdanahar

Former IDF Major Gen told me "The American 'No' [to bombing Iran] is now presented in a way that [the Israeli PM] cannot really ignore it"

2:01 AM

Former Major Gen in israel's IDF told me some current not just former members of Israeli security establishment are reluctant to bomb Iran

2:13 AM

Former IDF Major Gen said PM believes in bombing #iran but doesn't have full support of IDF or Israelis so lacks 'the political capacity'

2:27 AM