Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The most revealing sentence is Greenwalds: Any attempts at diplomacy or institution of sanctions are, from here on out, aimed at building an evidentiary case that every non-military option will have been exhausted. There are certainly sanctions supporters who genuinely believedespite the protestations of U.S. intelligencethat the bill currently in the Senate will help facilitate a nuclear deal. But just as clearly, there are others, like Kristol, who see the new sanctions bill, with its patently unrealistic demands for what a final deal would contain, as a way to torpedo talks while blaming Iran for their failure. As a way to build an evidentiary case that every non-military option will have been exhausted.
For them to justify new sanctions as a means of settling the Iranian nuclear dispute without the use of force is patently dishonest. And its neither a canard nor a slander to point that out.
The Hawks' Hypocrisy on the Iran Sanctions Bill - Peter Beinart - The Atlantic
So it teeters more to the conspiracy theory side is your answer on it. Duly noted.
As if everyone else, left or right, doesn't want war with Iran. How long has that been building up? How long have we supported Israel? Saudi Arabia?
I just find that the same people pushing for more sanctions are among the biggest hawks out there. They want the sanctions to fail. Hey, I am for getting rid of the majority of our bases worldwide. I'm tired of the US subsidizing Europe's and the Far East's military forces.
As long as neo-cons are wanting to push sanctions and diplomacy, listen to them.
As soon as they talk hard power, put them in the corner with dunce hats on and not let them talk.
OK. LeadRoundNose, put on your dunce hat and go to the corner.
Sheesh.
No more Iraqs!
OK. LeadRoundNose, put on your dunce hat and go to the corner.
Sheesh.
No more Iraqs!
And our service men and women dying with nothing to show for it is better in your world? That's what I thought all along.
You would think they would learn but they are at it again.
"Earlier this month, the Foreign Policy Initiative, a think tank founded by William Kristol and other well-known hawks, gathered signatures for an open letter to congressional leaders. The letter did not explicitly endorse the sanctions bill currently awaiting a vote in the Senate, but it said, “Congress has a chance to play an important role in making clear the consequences of Iranian violations of the interim nuclear deal” and “in clarifying expectations with respect to future nuclear talks with Tehran,” which is exactly what the new sanctions bill does. On one particular point, the letter was emphatic: Sanctions can help diplomacy succeed. “Congressional action,” it read, “can thus substantially improve the prospect that Iran’s growing nuclear threat will be verifiably and irreversibly halted without the use of force.” (The italics are mine).
The letter’s signatories comprise a who’s who of Iran hawks. Reviewing all their past statements was too cumbersome, so I asked two talented college students—Rachel Cohen and Zachary Parker—to investigate a few of the signers. Is it really a “canard” that some of the people now claiming sanctions can help avert war actually want war? What follows are only a few of the clearest answers to that question:
•Joshua Muravchik, formerly of the American Enterprise Institute: “We must bomb Iran.”
•Matthew Kroenig, Georgetown University: “Time to Attack Iran.”
•Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations: “The only credible option for significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program would be a bombing campaign.”
•Eliot Cohen, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies: “The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time. Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion.”
•Cliff May, Foundation for Defense of Democracies: “Iran’s rulers are not open to engagement no matter what mix of carrots and sticks are offered.” (After I quoted May on the radio last week, he emailed to explain that he considers “diplomacy” and “engagement” to be different things).
•Abe Greenwald, Commentary: “The mullahs in Tehran are not open to compromise, and cannot be made any more pliable by the impositions of a stricter sanctions regime. Any attempts at diplomacy or institution of sanctions are, from here on out, aimed at building an evidentiary case that every non-military option will have been exhausted. Once that case can be made, Obama will either give the order to bomb Iran or let the Khomeinist regime in Tehran assert complete regional hegemony. There will not be, nor has there ever been, a third option.”
•And, finally, Kristol himself: “It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force…So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back.”
The Hawks' Hypocrisy on the Iran Sanctions Bill - Peter Beinart - The Atlantic
Iran's been a concern for quite a while now. But I can't help but notice it only comes up before elections so I question the validity of the worries. We thought the Nazis were working on an atomic bomb so rushed ourselves into making it first. Only afterwords did we realize they never anywhere close to it. So I wonder if that's what's going on here again with Iran.
War's a big business. People pushing for war are invariably benefitting from them. They and their children aren't gonna have to fight it, the US doesn't have to worry abou tanks or artillery or rockets raining down on our territory so going to war is something we're usually ok with. Our best defense remains the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. If we had to worry about retaliation like Israel does we might figure differently.
But the Iranian problem is unique. They're smart enough to not place all their nuclear research facilities in one, easily bombed location. They have over 100 such siters, many of which are so far underground nothing short of tactical nuclear weapons can touch themSo proposing we bomb our way to a solution reveals an ignorance of the facts. If we coulda bombed our way to Iranian compliance, why didn't we with North Korea or Pakistan?
Bombing doesn't work. Diplomacy does.
Diplomacy has been working so far. Let's give it a real try. If it does not work, you neo-con war hawks can bomb the shit out of Iran later if you want.
Diplomacy has been working so far. Let's give it a real try. If it does not work, you neo-con war hawks can bomb the shit out of Iran later if you want.
No it hasn't.
Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'
Iran on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything' - CNN.com
Diplomacy has been working so far. Let's give it a real try. If it does not work, you neo-con war hawks can bomb the shit out of Iran later if you want.
No it hasn't.
Iranian official on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything'
Iran on nuke deal: 'We did not agree to dismantle anything' - CNN.com
So you believe Iranian disinformation? OK. PM me and I will send you Netanyahu's private number so you can order an airstrike with your Stalin shakes.
Neocon hawks....hmmm....you do realize there are more active American military operations in more countries today than since WWII?
I didn't know the Obama administration was a NEOCON
Obama's not a Neocon.
He's a Warmongering Chickenhawk.
I am not going to be the one who loses his job because of his industry's insatiable greed, like a horde of pigs let in on a harvest that will not save seed for the following year.
Your problem, son, not mine.
