Daniel Pipes - Bush should attack Iran

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Daniel Pipes - Bush should attack Iran

Post by Glocksman »

USA Today Op-Ed
By Daniel Pipes

In a declassified National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, the U.S. intelligence agencies announced last December, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

This highly controversial conclusion encouraged the Iranian leadership to dismiss the possibility of an American attack, permitting Tehran to stake out an increasingly bellicose position and rendering further negotiations predictably futile.

Ideally, the Iranians themselves can still be induced to close down their nuclear program. The alternatives — either a U.S. or Israeli attack, or allowing the apocalyptically minded leadership in Tehran to get The Bomb — are far worse.

Reviving a sense of apprehension in Iran offers the unique way to achieve this goal. Only by convincing Tehran that it will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons can Washington persuade it to terminate its program, avoiding the need for a military campaign. This can yet be attained, but it requires a basic shift in U.S. policy.

First, the Bush administration must prepare for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and, second, signal this publicly. (Israeli leaders should do likewise, as some have done already.) Third, the administration must weather the inevitable tsunami of criticism. Fourth, it should encourage those governments most opposed to such an attack — including the European Union, Russia and China — to lean on Tehran to end its nuclear program.

Should this approach succeed, the crisis is resolved. Should it not, the U.S. presidential election will loom large. "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option," John McCain has said. "That is a nuclear-armed Iran." In contrast, Barack Obama has called for "tough-minded diplomacy," "stronger (economic) sanctions" and "alternative sources of energy" — basically, a call for more of the same.

If George W. Bush's term ends with a McCain victory, Bush will likely punt, allowing McCain to decide on the next steps. But Obama's intention to continue with current failed policies suggests that, if he wins, and despite the tradition of outgoing presidents not undertaking major initiatives, Bush might initiate military action against Iran.

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum think tank and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
So Pipes is urging that Bush throw a huge monkey wrench into the works if Obama wins the election, despite the longstanding tradition of not doing anything major before a new President takes office.

Just so he can get his war with Iran.
What a fucking tool. :evil:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
CaptainZoidberg
Padawan Learner
Posts: 497
Joined: 2008-05-24 12:05pm
Location: Worcester Polytechnic
Contact:

Post by CaptainZoidberg »

I don't think that could happen. If Bush tried to immediately attack Iran than the congress could very swiftly impeach him.
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

CaptainZoidberg wrote:I don't think that could happen. If Bush tried to immediately attack Iran than the congress could very swiftly impeach him.
While the House may vote to indict, there's no way enough Republican Senators would cross over and vote to remove him from office.

Especially since he's automatically out on January 20, 2009 and a lot of those Repubs probably agree with Pipes.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Daniel Pipes - Bush should attack Iran

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Glocksman wrote:USA Today Op-Ed
By Daniel Pipes

In a declassified National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, the U.S. intelligence agencies announced last December, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."

This highly controversial conclusion encouraged the Iranian leadership to dismiss the possibility of an American attack, permitting Tehran to stake out an increasingly bellicose position and rendering further negotiations predictably futile.

Ideally, the Iranians themselves can still be induced to close down their nuclear program. The alternatives — either a U.S. or Israeli attack, or allowing the apocalyptically minded leadership in Tehran to get The Bomb — are far worse.

Reviving a sense of apprehension in Iran offers the unique way to achieve this goal. Only by convincing Tehran that it will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons can Washington persuade it to terminate its program, avoiding the need for a military campaign. This can yet be attained, but it requires a basic shift in U.S. policy.

First, the Bush administration must prepare for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and, second, signal this publicly. (Israeli leaders should do likewise, as some have done already.) Third, the administration must weather the inevitable tsunami of criticism. Fourth, it should encourage those governments most opposed to such an attack — including the European Union, Russia and China — to lean on Tehran to end its nuclear program.

Should this approach succeed, the crisis is resolved. Should it not, the U.S. presidential election will loom large. "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option," John McCain has said. "That is a nuclear-armed Iran." In contrast, Barack Obama has called for "tough-minded diplomacy," "stronger (economic) sanctions" and "alternative sources of energy" — basically, a call for more of the same.

If George W. Bush's term ends with a McCain victory, Bush will likely punt, allowing McCain to decide on the next steps. But Obama's intention to continue with current failed policies suggests that, if he wins, and despite the tradition of outgoing presidents not undertaking major initiatives, Bush might initiate military action against Iran.

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum think tank and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.
So Pipes is urging that Bush throw a huge monkey wrench into the works if Obama wins the election, despite the longstanding tradition of not doing anything major before a new President takes office.

Just so he can get his war with Iran.
What a fucking tool. :evil:
That would be Daniel Pipes, who has basically dedicated his life to attacking muslims in the United States (including orthodox muslims with nothing to do with terrorism) and making the world safe for Israel.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Noble Ire
The Arbiter
Posts: 5938
Joined: 2005-04-30 12:03am
Location: Beyond the Outer Rim

Post by Noble Ire »

I'm still concerned that Bush might initiate a major military action against Iran before November, both as a last, bitter exertion of power and bloody-minded judgment, and as a political ploy in McCain's favor. I would hope that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the American electorate would see through such a transparent push for the "war" candidate, but I can understand why the current administration might believe that they could manipulate the populace in such a way. As a body, the American people have shown a disturbing tendency of late to completely disregard their own economic and civil interests in the face of war or "existential threats".

Were an attack to occur, I am quite confident that the Congress lacks the political will to stop it. There will be a great deal of bluster and justified outrage, but with a substantial portion of the legislative branch still in the president's pocket, not much could be done to stop an invasion. It might backfire in the populace at large, but I still fear that they would submit to it, too.

Fortunately, this circumstance looks increasingly unlikely considering Bush's diminishing public face and political power, but the last seven years have demonstrated that not even the most outrageous abuses of office are not beyond the realm of possibility.
The Rift
Stanislav Petrov- The man who saved the world
Hugh Thompson Jr.- A True American Hero
"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - President Barack Obama
"May fortune favor you, for your goals are the goals of the world." - Ancient Chall valediction
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

Since when does Iran have a confirmed nuclear weapons program? Or is enriching uranium on its own sufficient grounds to make that claim?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
The Grim Squeaker
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10319
Joined: 2005-06-01 01:44am
Location: A different time-space Continuum
Contact:

Post by The Grim Squeaker »

Noble Ire wrote:I'm still concerned that Bush might initiate a major military action against Iran before November, both as a last, bitter exertion of power and bloody-minded judgment, and as a political ploy in McCain's favor. I would hope that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the American electorate would see through such a transparent push for the "war" candidate, but I can understand why the current administration might believe that they could manipulate the populace in such a way. As a body, the American people have shown a disturbing tendency of late to completely disregard their own economic and civil interests in the face of war or "existential threats".
Of late? :lol: .
And it's not specific to a nation, external threats are jury built to trigger far greater alarms in our tribal brains. (It has a long and proud history since the day a shaman first went "Me no steal berries for clan, other clan come for them and steal women! And long-sticks! And babies! Ooga Ooga!")
Photography
Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.
To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

"Obama's intentions to continue with current failed policies"?!

Surely Mr. Pipes, those would be the policies of your fuehrer, Mr. Bush.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Post by cosmicalstorm »

General Zod wrote:Since when does Iran have a confirmed nuclear weapons program? Or is enriching uranium on its own sufficient grounds to make that claim?
Iraq didnt have WMD's either and everyone with half a brain knew it, that didn't stop them back then.
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29211
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Post by General Zod »

cosmicalstorm wrote:
General Zod wrote:Since when does Iran have a confirmed nuclear weapons program? Or is enriching uranium on its own sufficient grounds to make that claim?
Iraq didnt have WMD's either and everyone with half a brain knew it, that didn't stop them back then.
That's pretty much what I was driving at, actually.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
The Spartan
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4406
Joined: 2005-03-12 05:56pm
Location: Houston

Post by The Spartan »

I mean, sure, why the hell not? So what if Sun Tzu said something about not opening second, or in this case third, fronts...

It stuns me the lengths to which some people will reach to destroy this country in the name of patriotism. :evil:
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
Image
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari
Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
User avatar
Pu-239
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4727
Joined: 2002-10-21 08:44am
Location: Fake Virginia

Post by Pu-239 »

Daniel Pipes also wrote this enlightening article http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354 . :roll:

Not really worth paying attention to.

ah.....the path to happiness is revision of dreams and not fulfillment... -SWPIGWANG
Sufficient Googling is indistinguishable from knowledge -somebody
Anything worth the cost of a missile, which can be located on the battlefield, will be shot at with missiles. If the US military is involved, then things, which are not worth the cost if a missile will also be shot at with missiles. -Sea Skimmer


George Bush makes freedom sound like a giant robot that breaks down a lot. -Darth Raptor
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

The Spartan wrote:I mean, sure, why the hell not? So what if Sun Tzu said something about not opening second, or in this case third, fronts...

It stuns me the lengths to which some people will reach to destroy this country in the name of patriotism. :evil:
Only an idiot would wage war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would wage war on twelve fronts.
—Londo Mollari
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Worse: Iran says it'll attack oil tankers if even one bomb drops, sending oil upwards of $300 a barrel within minutes.

I have no reason to think that's any deterrent at all to Bush. He'd probably revel in the idea of $15 gasoline and massive rioting from Boston to Budapest. He'll get to execute his shiny new NSPD-51 martial law declaration. Hello FEMA Camps and 'Population Adjustment'. Talen knows what I mean.
Image Image
User avatar
Julhelm
Jedi Master
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2003-01-28 12:03pm
Location: Brutopia
Contact:

Post by Julhelm »

But don't you know? There's enough reserves on US soil to make the US completely energy independent within 10 years and stay that way at it's present consumption rate and annual growth for 300 years!!!1!11
User avatar
Pablo Sanchez
Commissar
Posts: 6998
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:41pm
Location: The Wasteland

Post by Pablo Sanchez »

I don't think it's politically feasible. Using the example of the run-up to the Iraq invasion, it takes a period of months to beat the drums, which would telegraph Bush's intentions and give the Democratic congress time to roadblock him. Those of you who are saying "lol we gots fooled in 2003" ought to wise up; if the 2006 elections demonstrated anything, it's that the situation and the attitude of the American public has changed. Basically Bush is not going to get congressional approval to start such a war, and he's pretty likely to get a specific congressional rebuke instructing him that he's not allowed to do a damn thing in Iran until congress specifically gives him a brand new AUMF.
Image
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Pablo Sanchez wrote:I don't think it's politically feasible. Using the example of the run-up to the Iraq invasion, it takes a period of months to beat the drums, which would telegraph Bush's intentions and give the Democratic congress time to roadblock him. Those of you who are saying "lol we gots fooled in 2003" ought to wise up; if the 2006 elections demonstrated anything, it's that the situation and the attitude of the American public has changed. Basically Bush is not going to get congressional approval to start such a war, and he's pretty likely to get a specific congressional rebuke instructing him that he's not allowed to do a damn thing in Iran until congress specifically gives him a brand new AUMF.
You still have the possibility that the Israelis will start it on their own before Bush leaves office, if the IAF shows up in the skies over Iran it would take five minutes until America was involved and by the time congress got their act togheter it would probably be too late, you'd also have the general population go into "durrr we are at war with brown people who attacked us"-mode.
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Post by Sidewinder »

Pipes is either insane, mentally retarded, blind and deaf, or a combination of the above. Considering all the negativity generated by the American public and the press because of OIF, Congress must realize advocating an invasion of Iran would be political suicide.
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Worse: Iran says it'll attack oil tankers if even one bomb drops, sending oil upwards of $300 a barrel within minutes.
The US is not the only nation in the world that imports gas from the Middle East. If Iran begins attacking tankers, the EU, Russia, China, and the Arab nations will quickly switch sides.
I have no reason to think that's any deterrent at all to Bush. He'd probably revel in the idea of $15 gasoline and massive rioting from Boston to Budapest. He'll get to execute his shiny new NSPD-51 martial law declaration. Hello FEMA Camps and 'Population Adjustment'. Talen knows what I mean.
Hurricane Katrina already proved FEMA is too fucking incompetent to be the Republican equivalent of the Nazi SS, i.e., a "state within a state" or a "shadow government." Stop buying into that bullshit from 'The X-Files'.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

Of course, the Israelis could all pre-empt us and take out Iran's bunkers....with nuclear weapons -- they don't have the airforce or precision guided munitions like MOPP that we do; so nukes are pretty much their only option to take out the uberbunkers that Iran has built for their enrichment program.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

MKSheppard wrote:Of course, the Israelis could all pre-empt us and take out Iran's bunkers....with nuclear weapons -- they don't have the airforce or precision guided munitions like MOPP that we do; so nukes are pretty much their only option to take out the uberbunkers that Iran has built for their enrichment program.
And what makes you think they'd cut into their own deterrent force for this undertaking?
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Post Reply