Israeli assault on Iran is contrary to U.S. interests
From The Christian Science Monitor:
Senior Pentagon officials are making no secret of the fact that despite the apparent stepped-up drumbeat to war with Iran, they believe a strike on the country is “not prudent” right now.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, put this view – held by many in the Department of Defense – in perhaps the strongest terms yet this week.
True, Israel could bomb Iran and delay the country’s ability to create nuclear weapons “probably for a couple of years,” General Dempsey told CNN Sunday.
The problem is that many of the Iranian targets – buried deeply underground – would be “beyond the reach” of the Israeli military, in what Dempsey called a “zone of immunity.”
… Equally important, senior defense officials emphasize, while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology,
This was the finding of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)’s recent assessment on security threats facing the United States. Right now, Iran is “more than capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon if its political leaders – specifically the supreme leader himself – chooses to do so,” DNI head James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee February 16.
Yet so far they do not appear to have made that choice, Lt. General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers in the same hearing.
“The agency assesses Iran as unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict,” he said, concluding that though the possibility of Iran building a nuclear weapon is “technically feasible,” it is “practically not likely.”
It’s interesting: People who would ordinarily insist that politicians “listen to the generals” are themselves turning a deaf ear to the generals, preferring not to hear their advice in this particular adventure.
It’s also interesting to see it argued that a U.S. president ought to “get right” with a foreign country and in effect allow that foreign country — in this case Israel — to dictate U.S. diplomatic and military policy in a strategically critical area, even to the detriment of U.S. interests.
And no, U.S. interests and Israeli interests are not somehow cosmically aligned in perfect parallel to each other.
Finally, it’s downright fascinating to see the same people who were beating the war drums so loudly over Iraq, blind to the consequences of their preferred course of action, once again pounding out statements and op-eds demanding military solutions. The wonder isn’t that those people haven’t changed — they are who they are. The wonder is that they are still heeded.
If you want $6-a-gallon gasoline, Iraq up in flames and a lot more trouble in Afghanistan, with the lives of U.S. troops put at greater risk, then sure, an unprovoked assault on Iran is just the thing. If all that and more is worth a two-to-three-year delay in Iran’s nuclear program that a successful strike might produce, then make that argument.
Me, I’m not convinced.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
252 comments Add your comment
Not a Neal Boortz Redneck
February 21st, 2012
10:27 am
The USA now has more active drilling rigs than the rest of the world COMBINED.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/baker-hughes-announces-january-2012-141800899.html
“But Obama won’t let us drriiiiillll here!” – (right-wing lies)
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
10:29 am
Recon @ 10:04
That’s why my original statement carried the terms “theory” and “reality”. Reality shows that oil prices are affected, which is what we’re all seeing. Reality shows that any announcement causes changes in oil prices, regardless to the status of supplies. The theory of supply vs demand does not show any correlation with announcements having any effect on prices.
0311/1811
February 21st, 2012
10:29 am
No surprise here:
Headline: “Iran: No Nuke Site Visits for UN Team”
“A team of UN inspectors will not visit Iranian sites suspected of nuclear weapons development, but instead hold talks with its government, while a military official says Iran will ‘act without waiting’ if its interests are threatened.”
Mr. Snarky
February 21st, 2012
10:33 am
Potential downsides to military action? Pshah! Coward!
We always win!
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
10:34 am
What have you done (open question) to save gas ?
Jefferson
The only places I drive now are pretty much necessities. I drive to work and to drop off/pick up my daughter from school. Any other trips are usually combined into as few trips as possible.
Road Scholar
February 21st, 2012
10:34 am
0311: I didn’t think ANY conservative would want to associate themselves with any Europeans! (let alone say it!)
mm
February 21st, 2012
10:34 am
GOP:
BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, ANY DAMN BODY
Mighty Righty
February 21st, 2012
10:35 am
Can anyone point out a time when “sanctions” actualy worked?
Mighty Righty
February 21st, 2012
10:37 am
Obama foreign policy regarding Iran. Let them get nucleur weapons and then ask them to disarm. Meanwhile, we will go ahead and disarm as a show of good faith.
0311/1811
February 21st, 2012
10:38 am
Road Scholar:
You need to view the video !!!
mm
February 21st, 2012
10:41 am
“Can anyone point out a time when “sanctions” actualy worked?”
Yes, when we didn’t have to bomb any damn body.
Stevie Ray
February 21st, 2012
10:42 am
NOTNEAL,
I’m confused. Are you giving credit to BO for increasing active drills? If so, maybe he could do more to keep it from costing me $120 to fill may tank…can you help me understand?
Damn Bush sure left us with a mess huh?
Steve
February 21st, 2012
10:42 am
I think Jay has this one correct…let’s wait until Iran nukes Israel and then we should consider doing something…I think that is a great strategy.
Mr. Snarky
February 21st, 2012
10:43 am
They must have nukes. Otherwise we wouldn’t want to bomb them.
Jefferson
February 21st, 2012
10:43 am
Bro, it will take high prices to get folks to act like you do, using less gas or driving cars/truck with more mpgs is the way to slow demand. Still some have to ability to drive the big SUV with 1 passenger and think their actions don’t effect others.
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:43 am
Recon
No offense taken.
Of course the time you spent excusing your self from answering
was time you could have spent answering.
I see a lot of that….
Steve
February 21st, 2012
10:44 am
Spent $67 at the pump last night…thanks Obama…maybe if we could get our foreign policy sorted out…we could have W gas prices at $2 a gallon.
JOE Cool-Republicans Call Him MESSIAH, I Just Call Him Mr. President
February 21st, 2012
10:46 am
sheets
Granny Godzilla
February 21st, 2012
10:47 am
Steve
I spent 35.00 last week….and it will last me another week and some….
Thanks Democratic Presidents for reminding us that oil is finite and personal responsibility as far as our consumption of fossil fuel is smart and cool.
Mighty Righty
February 21st, 2012
10:47 am
Still waiting for someone to tell when sanctions worked. Anyone?
Soothsayer
February 21st, 2012
10:49 am
For those with time on their hands, here is a comprehensive timeline of our involvement in Iraq. (The good stuff begins on page 4.)
Reading this stuff is like a trip down nostalgia lane. It’s all there: weapons of mass destruction, yellow cake, aluminum tubes, neo-conservatives, regime change, no-fly zones.
This is great for those with short memories or the youngest bloggers who may not have been aware of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
You may want to bookmark this site so you can refer to it later.
Jefferson
February 21st, 2012
10:49 am
Steve you can thank the president, but the oil companies won’t thank you, they get the profit.
Jay
February 21st, 2012
10:51 am
So Steve, do you want Obama to interfere with the price signals that the $67 fillup is trying to send you?
Do you want him to save you from the consequences of your own decisions?
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
10:52 am
Jefferson
I parked my suburban back in 2008. I crank it just to keep things running, but I haven’t driven it much since the economy collapsed. We traded in my wife’s Pathfinder during the cash for clunkers thing, and her Traverse gets much better gas mileage. I’d love to cut my drive to work down, but if I do that, then my wife’s commute gets longer.
Stevie Ray
February 21st, 2012
10:55 am
Jay,
I want BO to get past his spinelessness and take charge. Talk up keystone, drill or at least show OPEC we mean to reduce our demand..see what that does to oil futures. What choices do most of us have to avoid our cars for commuting et al? Help me understand your point here please??
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
10:56 am
Mighty Righty:
They actaully worked during the Cold War but we actaully had a real leader then…..
Stevie Ray
February 21st, 2012
10:57 am
Jay,
Oh I forgot, your pal BO takes his marching orders from the source of his cash. A GOP onslaught regarding taking charge of the oil thingy could neuter your guy in November..How much cash does your pal get from big oil? I bet your paycheck that if they tossed money his direction, he’d change his tune…absurd..
Joseph
February 21st, 2012
10:58 am
I will give Obama credit though. He has used sanctions on many occassions but just for humor instead of substance. I would rather be feared than laughed at……
GT
February 21st, 2012
11:00 am
These wars just continue to show us how weak we are to prevent what is going to happen in the world. The right accuse the middle and left of spending their grandchildren’s future, at the rate we are going in relations with the world there will be no future to worry about. Keep pulling the war card out and you just make you enemies stronger until they are as strong as us.
Jay
February 21st, 2012
11:01 am
Stevie Ray:
1.) Keystone would do absolutely nothing to the price of gasoline. Nothing. If you have some study to the contrary, please produce it. But nobody has even attempted to make that argument, as far as I know.
2.) As I demonstrated earlier, US demand IS down. It’s down by some 2 million barrels a DAY from 2006.
3.) As I also demonstrated earlier, US production is up by some 20 percent over 2006 (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/02/17/of-presidents-petroleum-prices-and-gas-pumps/)
So if US demand is down significantly, and US production is up significantly, yet the world price of oil is rising, what does that tell you about the ability of the United States to alter global market realities? We’re pushing at both ends — supply and demand –and having no effect on world prices. Again, what does that tell you?
barking frog
February 21st, 2012
11:01 am
What are the oil companies doing with the wealth they are
accumulating?
The Fallen
February 21st, 2012
11:03 am
That is what the liberal left wants for everyone! The gubmint to save them and everyone else from the consequences of their own decisions…fair share anyone? Oh, and by the way, what is the fair share of the people with no federal income tax burden, but applicable tax credits that allow them to net profit from the gubmint? I would like to know what their fair share is.
Discuss.
Steve
February 21st, 2012
11:07 am
Hey Jay…we are not all going to drive a Prius (unless Obama mandates it) like you. Get over it. I drive a 6 cylinder that gets good mileage to transport the family around. At this point it is more important to have a safe vehicle than a aluminum box or a Volt that will spontaneously combust.
Why can’t Obama (the Great One) work with the Iranians and the Saudi’s to alleviate the spikes in price.
Why can’t he rethink the Keystone pipeline until we can come up with alternative energy sources?
MrLiberty
February 21st, 2012
11:19 am
The same people that lied us into Iraq to enrich the pocketbooks of the Military Industrial complex and to serve the requests of Israel are at it again with Iran but the US citizens seem all too stupid to realize that they are being CONNED again. Even the Israeli PM said before congress that Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would pose no existential threat to Israel, and ther reasons should be obvious.
What isn’t obvious to the naive in this country is that peace poses a HUGE threat to those who makes billions every year off war – and they cannot have peace breaking out anywhere soon. That is why they oppose Ron Paul and his efforts to restore an america-first foreign policy. Wake up america. They lied to you once and now millions of innocents in the Middle East are dead alone with thousands of american soldiers. They are about to do it again but this time it will likely result in WW3, $10 a gallon gas, and a global economic collapse.
Ron Paul 2012.
barking frog
February 21st, 2012
11:21 am
communications companies are regulated by the FCC,
Food and drug companies by the FDA, coal companies
by the Bureau of Mines, power companies by various
state agencies, what agency regulates oil companies?
Steve
February 21st, 2012
11:22 am
It’s all about perception Jay…perception…hope and change Jay. I have $120 less per month in my pocket on Obama’s watch.
“On Jan. 19, 2009, the day before Obama was inaugurated, the national average for a gallon of regular gas was $1.83, according to the EIA data. On Feb. 6, 2012, the day Allen’s interview was posted on Bearing Drift, that cost had risen to $3.44.”
Steve
February 21st, 2012
11:32 am
More bad news…
“Unemployment in the U.S. rose to nine percent in mid-February, up from 8.3 percent a month earlier, according to a new Gallup survey. “
Brosephus
February 21st, 2012
11:33 am
what agency regulates oil companies?
Wasn’t that the MMA or whatever the group was that was having wild parties and doing drugs? I think they regulate the drilling and stuff. The companies themselves were deregulated long ago if memory serves me correct.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 21st, 2012
12:00 pm
M. Righty — “Can anyone point out a time when “sanctions” actualy worked?”
Sure. Iraq, 1991 – 2003.
GT
February 21st, 2012
12:11 pm
Wake up one day and we have alternative fuel. That would be the biggest seachange since the wheel. No more dependence on a battleship to keep the path to our oil clear, no more wealth for our enemies. No one move would show the might of this great country, no shock and aw, like the discovery by some Rambo with thick glasses in the garage of his house of an alternative. America can do this, but what party do you think most sets the stage for this to happen. The same one that shot bin laden, the same one that brought the auto industry back to life.
By all means high oil prices should mean increase income for the US which controls a lot of that oil through domestic corporations that are some of the largest on earth. With the present tax structure do you think we are seeing any of this windfall profit as taxes? We just bleed.
John Birch
February 21st, 2012
12:13 pm
Ever since the would be Baptist missionary Carter sat by and let the shah be replaced by the religious extremists Iran has been a threat/problem. Now Obama will sit on his hands and let them develop nuclear weapon capability.
Fortunately, the Israeli’s will act unilaterally if necessary. Then what will O do? Invade Jerusalem?
Gator Joe
February 21st, 2012
12:37 pm
Jay:
As the price for a gallon of gasoline goes up, people change their driving habits, including their choice of more efficient vehicles. Eventually gasoline consumption decreases and prices are forced downward. It’s happened in the past and will happen again this time.
As for those of you looking for someone to blame, here are some suggestions: look in the mirror if you’re driving a gas guzzler, our “friends” the Saudis, and this group of “patriots” Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron (to name a few).
As for attacking Iran, I’ll go along as soon as every Chicken Hawk who is of age for military service is serving, and when all the eligible children of the Chicken Hawks are serving in the military.
middle of the road
February 21st, 2012
12:54 pm
“while it’s clear that Iran aspires to nuclear technology, it is far from certain whether the country is intent on actually weaponizing this technology,”
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
No one in their right minds think that the Iranians have any intention to do anything but create a nuclear bomb.
md
February 21st, 2012
1:17 pm
It doesn’t matter what WE think, Israel will do what Israel thinks is right for Israel…..just as we do.
WW3 with the ME as the battleground……..hmmmm…….that would be one way to get rid of a lot of bad players……
willydoit?
February 21st, 2012
5:55 pm
I wonder what the USA would do in this case back in 1945?
Do you think they would allow Iran to aquire nuclear weapons?
Too bad we don’t have the same kind of America first politicians we had back the days of WWII. Now those men were great Americans!
Jay
February 21st, 2012
5:59 pm
That’s pretty silly, Willy. The same leaders — Truman, Marshall, etc. — were still in power in 1949, when the Soviets exploded their first atomic weapon.
Remind me again of what they did about it?
willydoit?
February 21st, 2012
6:11 pm
The atomic bomb was dropped in August of 1945….then something terrible happened in American history…
…the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945
The United Nations loves communism and dictators!
US Shares Israeli Concerns about Potential Iran Nuclear Weapon – Voice of America – IranianRadio.ca
February 21st, 2012
6:30 pm
[...] conferenceJerusalem PostRepublican Candidates See Opening on Israel and IranNew York Times (blog)Israeli assault on Iran is contrary to US interestsAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)RT -Tablet Magazine -Haaretzall 476 news [...]
Obama to address AIPAC annual conference – Jerusalem Post – IranianRadio.ca
February 21st, 2012
8:15 pm
[...] to be top of the agenda. By Screenshot WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama will …Israeli assault on Iran is contrary to US interestsAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Netanyahu calls top US general a servant of IranRTOn Iran, US and [...]
independent thinker
February 21st, 2012
9:43 pm
Here is how Saint Ronnie and the neocons reacted to Israel destroying Iraq’s nuclear ambitions
“”The first crisis of Israel ties during Reagan’s presidency was occasioned by Israel’s attack in June 1981 on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.
Reagan, a proponent of nuclear power in the United States, was upset that an ally ostensibly was reinforcing perceptions that all nuclear power posed dangers, and he suspended arms shipments to Israel in response. Reagan said Iraq, which the United States then supported, may have been persuaded to use the nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes.”"
And Obama is condemned for trying to negotiate with Iran???
JKL2
February 21st, 2012
11:06 pm
-If you want $6-a-gallon gasoline
I think he just had an obamagasm. Hope and change you can depend on.
Bernie
February 22nd, 2012
4:28 pm
We are also contrary to $10.00 plus a gallon, increased produce,meat and vegatable prices, food shortages and excessive price hikes on everything that is petroleum related based products as a result of such an action. We are not prepared as a people and a Nation for such severe outcomes as a result of the actions of another country with perceived threats. We have been down that road once before already and we are still paying for it, Literally. It reminds me of a famous quote, “To Thine Own Self Be true”