There has been speculation for months that officials around the VP were pushing for an attack on Iran. Recently, the President and others have intensified their rhetoric by charging Iranian officials with supplying weapons to insurgents attacking American forces in Iraq but without any verifiable evidence. Even though Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has gone out of his way to state that there is no evidence that the Iranian enrichment program presents any near term threat to western countries or its neighbors, the drum beat of threats continue to be issued. Meanwhile, despite pressure from their progressive constituents, the Democrats in Congress do little to make clear that the President must present solid evidence of provocation and gain the approval of Congress for any attack on Iran. Day before yesterday, the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University and at the UN. News coverage of the events were reminiscent of the vilification of Saddam prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Yesterday, Democracy Now devoted about 1/2 of their program to the events (Transcript 1) and to interviews with 2 Iranian experts (see Transcript 2). Both thought an attack on Iran was probable but deplorable. Today the Libertarian, Justin Raimondo, wrote an essay about the reception of the Iranian president and how it fits in with the propaganda campaign. (See Dress Rehersal for War).The Middle East expert, Juan Cole, also wrote a Salon.com article about the effort to turn the weak Iranian president into Public Enemy Number 1! (See Article but be prepared to watch an advertise between pages).

What should our policy be toward Iran?

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

What should our policy be toward Iran?
UN sanctions and lots of intel and monitoring.

Also we should aggressively locate and kill any Iranians in Iraq who are supplying IED components that kill American soldiers.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

Not sure it is a “propaganda” anything – clearly Iran is heading for nukes and defying the IAEA.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?
To declare war if it ever comes to that which will certainly not be in this Administration.

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

It will not happen. Iran is years away from a bomb and I see no strong indication we are heading for war. Certainly we cannot be happy with Iran working against us in Iraq or Iran in Syria and Lebanon but there is no need for war – not yet anyway.

Note that not one Democrat candidate for president has taken attacking Iran off the table if the nuke situation gets too far along.

The world cannot allow Iran to have nukes – period. To the best of my knowledge only France has mentioned war with Iran over this issue.

Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away? Ted's got it right. Intel followed by Sanctions if we don't like the Intel.
Huh? Is there a propaganda campaign? And why not?
The same as it would be otherwise? What are you trying to get at?
If Iraq has taught you nothing it should be that you can't stop a war from starting.

What should our policy be toward Iran?

The best policy is one of inclusion. That is one that called for Iranian particpation just like at the start of the Afghan war. I feel too many people attribute success to western cooperation and downplay the significance of the Iranian help. I think the Iranians can play a similar role in Iraq.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

If there is propaganda occurring in a democracy, one better look at the health of a democracy. If I was a student at Columbia, I'd openly hold discussions with the student body asking for the prof's dismissal. There is free speech and then there is slander. The professor crossed the line. If you had this professor utter those same words to any other head of state he would already be gone.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?

The best role congress can play is an active one. Stop taking the executive at the their word, and initiate direct dialog to establish a relationship. There are clearly common goals between the two countries despite what CNN will have you believe.

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

An attack against Iran will mingle nuclear weapons, al quaida, rumpelstiltskin, and IED attacks into one mass drive. To prevent this we need a more active media which follows the stories of the 20,000+ Israelis within Iran, by giving these people a voice like in the Israeli and Pakistani papers. And you wonder why I have contempt for the western media?

I'd also like to give El Baradei a forum to openly discuss the merits of removing Iran's files from the security council. After four years of continual allegations maybe it is time to start discussing repercussions for alleging countries that cry wolf too often.

No, Trouble, in a capitalist society like ours, there is only slander, albeit slander inclined either to the right, or to the left.

What we take for “balanced media” in America, is actually just a system of warring ideologies that barely manages to break even. What we see here is an ideological push by the “bomb Iran” faction. Give it a week or two, and it will be promptly replaced by an equally tasteless rebuttal.

Really, there was no need for such a campaign anyways. If Iran troubles us, our government will bomb it, regardless of public support for its actions. Do you really think that our current administration will wait for approval?

Let them bombard us with propaganda—we are but mushrooms. (they keep us in the dark, and feed us nothing but bull****) So long as we remain prosperous, no one will care.

Trouble, that link isn't to a Jewish newpaper, it references a statement that was published by the Iranian government news agency (IRNA). Well, I find statements made by an theocratic/authoritarian government's newspaper a little, shall we say, tainted. An example from a real Jewish newspaper.

Per the topic, there hasn’t just "been speculation for months" on this issue, every spring and summer for that past four years this rumor comes around. "We’re going to bomb Iran!", "We’re going to bomb Iran!" "OMG! We're going to bomb Iran!!!!!"

They've found many caches of weapons in Iraq that have come from Iran. Whether those are government sponsored or not is not verifiable, but the hordes of Iranian brought weapons are. There isn't much doubt that someone in Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq. But I haven't heard that used as reason to "bomb" Iran. The only place I seem to hear references to bombing Iran are from websites and articles espousing, 'Bush is going to bomb Iran!" (2004), 5, 6, 7 and counting...



Has Bush attacked any nation without Congressional approval?

What should our policy be toward Iran?

I don't see any need for a change in policy with Iran at this time.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?



The "propaganda campaign" is speech freedom. Columbia University is free to question their guest speaker and he is free to respond. If his own speech paints him as a lunatic that doesn't undermine democracy. And I don't recall Saddam coming to the US to speak at any University in the years prior to the invasion.

I will say this, I think that if the leader of any country is invited to speak at a University he should be received with courtesy or not invited in the first place (this would have been my choice). I think Columbia failed in this, and that does bother me. I don't think that the University president's conduct was appropriate, particularly for a Middle Eastern guest...a part of the world that is very hospitable towards guests, the most hospitable in the world. If you go into the home of a Muslim and say you like something in their house, they will likely give it to you. The University president's conduct was a slap at the entire country of Iran, IMO, and made us look like ill-mannered cretins. But that is all. There is no further nepharious underpinnings of bombings via University professor propaganda. Since when has our government looked toward academia for any influence in its international policies?

What should our policy be toward Iran?

Open dialogue; negotiation and compromise; tact. You know - diplomacy.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

This propaganda campaign? No. Propaganda in general is a more difficult question. Obviously, each side of any given issue is going to try to spin things to support their position. This is expected. A lot of propaganda simply exaggerates certain facts or skews emphasis or removes context, which is not ideal, but better than outright lies. The propaganda machine driving us toward war with Iran is based on lies, however - and that is inexcusable. It should be censured by everyone who believes in open and honest debate.



And it looks like it's working.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?

Central and unequivocal: nothing short of a formal declaration of war. Unfortunately, with the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, it looks as though Congress is already abrogating that right.

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

Regime change - in the US. Otherwise, as BA pointed out, autocrats will behave like autocrats: under some regimes, you can't stop a war from starting - and the Bush administration has been jonesing for a war with Iran from the outset.

I was well aware the statement came from IRNA. This wasn't the first time I've seen this point raised in the media. In August Jonathon Cook raised the same point. In 2006, an article in the Guardian newspaper had Maurice Motamed the sole Jewish MP in Iran go on record saying, "There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries." and this was after Ahmadinejad's controversial statements. Whether you feel he was intimidated in giving a "managed response" I'll leave up to you. My point is this I felt safe in making that statement because Iran's jewish community has been making itself heard.

Getting back your point, if YnetNews declares itself "The Leading Source for Israel News" which to me says its target audience is Israeli and if they can post can post stuff from a hated news agency that means:

1) Either we have Iranian inflitration in Israeli newsites
2) They did some sloppy coverage which is definitely possible
3) Or the target biases of western media have built up so harshly in the last four years that we are preconditioned for auto-responses from certain outlets.

Maybe a little for two and a few scoops of three?

Your link really strikes me as an op-ed piece.

However, Judaism does not accept the authority or divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, authentic believers in the Jewish faith would not issue a proclamation "in obedience to... Jesus."


I'm not saying he is wrong, rather I am suggesting that if he interprets Judaism to be not obedient to Jesus than maybe something was lost in the translations - we don't know how directly this statement was read. English only or from Israeli to Persian and finally to english. Look at it this way, we discussed at length whether Ahmadinejad really did claim to have 'Israel wiped off the map' and it turned out to be closer to regime change. If the possibility existed then, can it not exist now?



I feel the same way....except apply that to much of what passes for television. We will have to agree to disagree. I'll leave you with one observation regarding Iran, in 2003 very few authours believed the war would spread. In 2007 there are very few authours still holding that feeling. What I am saying is in the book community something changed and I am referring to over a dozen names when I make that statement. My point? Something is afoot.

What should our policy be toward Iran?

I agree with Wertz:

I would add that America has actually had fairly good relations with Iran in the past. We shouldn't just assume that we can't do so currently. Ahmedinijad's rhetoric doesn't make that particularly easy, but then neither does ours. But, we don't really want to attack Iran, despite what some people might be saying. Currently, I think it's even a fair statement that we simply can't attack Iran...we don't have the resources available. That being said...talking as if we wanted to creates a better bargaining position.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

To paraphrase Vonnegut...being anti-propoganda is a lot like being anti-glacier. You can talk about it all you want, but the glacier will still be there.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran? Again, I tend to agree with Wertz...I think we should declare war before we...go to war. However, that hasn't been the case in half a century, so, given that...it should be the same as it always is. I would hope that, if it comes to that, ALL members of Congress consider the actual ramifications of the event, and not focus, as politicians are wont to do, on the political ramifications.

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

Ummmm...not launch it? The question isn't what can we do to prevent an attack, it's what can we do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The answer to that might end up being...not much. Given that, it would then be a matter of containing Iran's ability to use a nuclear weapon. Here the tables would likely be turned....Iran might talk as if they really wanted to use them, but in actuality they almost certainly don't. They gain power from having such a weapon, but almost nothing from ever using it. The trick then would be to call their bluff by simply ignoring it, thereby taking away its power.

The other way to prevent such at attack is by engaging in the true diplomatic effort suggested above.

This is one of the more depressing tragedies of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Since the early eighties, Iran had been becoming one of the more moderate countries in the Middle East. We would have been much better advised to have courted them as a potential ally in the region rather than treating their leaders as adversaries and demonizing the entire nation. Indeed, it is primarily our actions and policies that stimied the reformist Majles and threw the parliamentary election in 2004 to more conservative politicians, setting the rising moderate movement back years. This is but one of the many, many, many foreign policy errors of the past six years or so, but it is possibly the most egregious (next to, of course, our illegal invasion of Iraq).

I would add, Hobbes, that we should take Ahmadinejad's pronouncements no more seriously than we take Queen Elizabeth's Christmas messages. It's Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, the Majles, and the Council of Ministers with whom we should be negotiating. Sadly, the Iranians have to take George W Bush seriously - he's the only head of state we've got - and he's not being challenged in the least by the Congress and the citizenry to whom he's supposed to be accountable.

I tend to agree with the "Iranian experts" cited by TedN5 that an attack on Iran is "probable but deplorable" before the end of Bush's second term. I'd hoped that Congress would do everything in its power to prevent such a cataclysmic mistake, but it looks as though they're doing nothing more than enabling such an attack. I find this terrifying - as would be the ramifications of our launching yet another war of aggression. Then again, maybe we deserve to go down for tolerating such criminal and incompetent leadership for so long.

It probably was. I didn't see that Y News was actually an Israeli paper when I linked to that.



Fair enough. From my perspective, the books on the shelves are hardly a sign of things to come. How many books in the stores regarding the "impending" US invasion of Iraq in 2000, 2001? How about an impending terrorist attack on the WTC? I'll bet you could count them with zero fingers. The numbers of books on the shelves do not reflect what authors generally think will happen, but rather what the publishers believe will sell. Right now, books on conspiracies to bomb Iran sell, and I believe that is the result of a deluge of paranoid rumor. If I'm wrong, we'll know it. So far I haven't been and this debate has been going on for years, and we are in much less of a position to attack Iran today than before.

I've tried to answer the questions, but the fact of the matter is that I don't know, and nobody else knows, just what that heck is going on here.

Iran is supposed to be supplying weapons or other war materials to Iraq. All right, I know we were supplying war materials during other wars, so that's supposed to be a big deal? Looks to me that it happens all the time and is part of commerce. So would the USSR have been justified in attacking the US during Vietnam? Or China? Both supplied N. Vietnam during that war. We were supplying S. Vietnam. Were the Japanese justified in attacking Pearl Harbor because we were supplying war materials before our involvement in WW II? How about Iran attacking because we supplied Iraq during that war of the 1980s?

Iran is supposed to be developing nukes, and of course we know how good our present administration is at calling that one.

Aye, it's a sticky and complicated mess. Circular arguments abound. It's like you have this kid who keeps getting into trouble and is working you again, manipulating, and you're not sure just how. Screw it, just say NO!

These propagandists have proved themselves untrustworthy time and again. So vote against them, that's about all you can do. Oh, and for you youngsters out there, don't forget to register for the draft. Maybe you can do that when you register to vote?

I'll give it another try:

What should our policy be toward Iran?

Something other than what we have now, which must be top secret because nobody knows what it is.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

It can neither be justified nor stopped. One needs to be skeptical.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?

Don't get fooled again.

If you oppose an attack, what can we do to prevent it?

Probably nothing soon enough. The war mongers still have over a year left, and that's plenty of time. I won't be surprised if it starts with an air strike. Then a redeployment, and of course we'll need a draft to support that. I'm expecting the worst.

It is a little strange to be so pessimistic. I'm usually not this way, but when it comes to this administration and war, can't help myself.

Just say no.

A thank you to those who tried to really engage with this topic. Nothing is more important to the future of our Republic and the international order!

I must admit that I share AuthorMusician's pessimism. The Democratic leadership seems so bent on keeping the discredited administration from out blusting it on national security symbols without regard for what constitutes real security. The two Senate resolutions were extremely depressing one condemning an ad that sought to bring attention to the use of a general in a political role and, arguably, as part of a propaganda campaign and the other condemning Iran without hearings nor examination of administration claims. In response, I wrote my usual quota of letters suggesting the Democratic Congress would be complicit in any attack on Iran.

In reality, there is little we can do. The Democrats need to feel some real political threat from the antiwar community. Should we begin to form a third party and withhold support from office holders who don't take a forthright stance against a new war?

Iran cannot be attacked just because they are supplying IED parts and electronics that kill American but we can try to stop the stuff coming into Iraq and we can kill any Iranians found in Iraq helping as above. Just as Russia could have killed any Americans who were in Hungary trying to support the uprising

Needless to say no Dem congress will ever vote to attack Iraq – and even the “warmongers” as you say have not indicated it will happen. Yes the Dems want to “look tough” for the swing voters – I wonder how many are really fooled?

Iran has issues with the UN IAEA. The group of six or whoever just decided not to tighten sanctions on Iran – giving then still more tome to do what they have not done.

They are a few years from a bomb – imo we have plenty of time.

What should our policy be toward Iran?

Apart from what we're already doing, we should give Israel a free hand to take out Hizballah. Last year's Bush-supported UN-engineered "ceasefire" victory for that Iranian-sponsored terrorist outfit was probably the best thing to happen to the mullahs' regime in a long time. Especially in the Middle East, people have a tendency to back what they see as the winning horse.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

I don't see where you've exposed a propaganda campaign. The fact that there are a lot of people saying things you disagree with is not evidence that they're part of some organized propaganda effort. The two articles you cited contained assertions aplenty, but nothing to back them up. The one from Salon tried to make something out of the fact that El Baradei said that Iran wasn't an "immediate" threat, but I'm not aware of anyone claiming they were an "immediate" threat. It doesn't change the fact that their behavior can very reasonably be construed as threatening. And the artilce about Baradei that Salon linked to containes this inconvenient admission from him: "Iran has not yet completely revealed all the aspects of its nuclear programme."

The drumbeat for a war with Iran (or at least a bombing campaign) would probably thrill Dick Cheney and the few remaining neo-cons in the White House, but The Pentagon would flip out if Bush tried to stretch our already stretched to the max military into yet another bungled and disatorous war.

But the bellicose and disturbing rhetoric isn't just coming from the Iranians. A foreign policy adviser to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently told a group of British politicians, "I hate all Iranians."

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

The drums are getting louder...

IMO I think our government has already declared war on Iran. We have labeled a portion of the military as a terrorist group which allows the government to seize their money. I was under the impression the terrorist list is for groups not associated with national governments, because it is up to Congress to declare war. IMO Bush has used it improperly to unofficially declare war on just the Iranian military, but not Iran itself. Of course that is going to put Iranian Guard in a position to do something rash, and at which time we can call it "unprovoked" to drum up support for a new unopposed war in Iran.

They are already doing “something rash” in funneling IEDs and their components to our enemies in Iraq and have been caught. If Bush wanted to go to war with Iran there are lots of things he could use as an excuse.

The fact is he does not want war and Imo will not do squat against Iran for the balance of his term.

“Ahmed admits he is a member of what the US military terms "Special Groups" -- secret Shiite cells it says wage acts of "terrorism" in Iraq with the financial and military backing of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards units.

"Our mission," Ahmed tells AFP during a discreet interview in a Baghdad hotel car park: "Kill the Americans, as many Americans as possible."
"The best go to Lebanon, to be trained by Hezbollah, or to Iran, in camps controlled by the Quds Force," the covert operations arm of the Revolutionary Guards.

"Others go to camps in the (mainly Shiite) south of Iraq," where they are trained by Iraqi, Lebanese and Iranian instructors
The US military has identified the Special Groups, which they say are fighting a proxy war for Iran, as a long-term threat. Tehran continually denies it is training or funding militants to fight in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070923/wl_mi...estiranusshiite



http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/Terr....camp.Iran.html

The discussion of this subject is hardly complete without considering the latest article by investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, in The New Yorker which apparently hasn't been released yet but which has been excerpted and discussed widely and discussed in this Interview by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.



And, in case Hersh's track record and ideological position is suspect to you, try This Article in The American Conservative.

What should our policy be toward Iran?

Iran should not be allowed nuclear technology under any circumstance during the reign of the current Iranian leadership. War will be necessary to stop Iran from becoming nuclear as a last resort if and when diplomatic options run out.

No matter how you feel about Iranian behavior, is the propaganda campaign justified in a democracy?

I'm not going to answer this obviously biased and leading question. Please rephrase.

Hint, "propaganda" is subjective in the case... IMO.

What should the role of Congress be in any decision to attack Iran?

Good question. As I am not a Constitutional Scholar I will have to give my lay view here. Every effort should be given to have Congress sign off on any conflict with Iran, but the President should be able to protect this Country even if one party is against action IMO.