Control Congress is a multi-partisan, issue-oriented political forum that brings together the Left, Right, and everyone in between.

29 Responses to “Let’s deter Iran by threatening to nuke them if they nuke Israel?”

1. JohnKonop says:

   April 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

   Cheney on the Warpath Again?

   WP-Vice President Cheney went on right-wing talk radio yesterday with a dramatic new argument for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, casting the Iranian leadership as apocalyptic zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration.

   Cheney also notably refused to comment about any recent conversations he may have had with Israeli leaders about the possibility of their bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. Some observers suspect Cheney of encouraging Israel to attack Iran as a proxy.

   Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that Cheney and other supporters of military action against Iran were sidelined after a National Intelligence Estimate last November reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

   But the vice president sounded anything but chastened yesterday, speaking with two of his favorite media enablers. In fact, he sounded like the NIE never happened.

   Here he is talking to Sean Hannity:

   Hannity: “What did you make of Senator Barack Obama’s comments that he would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier who’s repeatedly threatened to blow up and remove Israel from the state — from the map, the world map, and obviously is pursuing some nuclear capability?”

   Cheney: “Well, he is, and I think the position we’ve taken with respect to that is that we would be prepared to talk when they stopped enriching uranium. Of course, they’ve never met that condition, so we haven’t had talks at that level.

   “But Ahmadinejad is I think a very dangerous man. On the one hand, he has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel. He also has — is a man who believes in the return of the 12th Imam; and that the highest honor that can befall a man is that he should die a martyr in facilitating the return of the 12th Imam.

   “It’s a radical, radical point of view. Bernard Lewis once said, mutual assured destruction in the Soviet-U.S. relationship in the Cold War meant deterrence, but mutual assured destruction with Ahmadinejad is an incentive. You have to be concerned about that.”

   The 12th Imam? What’s that about? Just over two hours later, Hugh Hewitt was happy to indulge Cheney on that very issue.

   Hewitt: “Do you — Mr. Vice President, do you have a personal sense of whether or not the Iranian leadership is actually motivated by this end-times, bring-back-the-12th-Imam sort of theology that we’ve read so much about?”

   Cheney: “Well, I’ve read about it, too. I don’t know that that motivates all of the leadership. The one guy who talks about it repeatedly is Ahmadinejad. And — in other words, a report even at one point that when he went to Iraq on a visit, that at least on one occasion, he insisted on there being a vacant chair at the table for the 12th Imam. And it’s a — it’s hard to tell. I mean, if I look at what his beliefs supposedly are, the allegation that the — a return of the 12th Imam is something to be much desired, and that the best contribution that a man can make is to die a martyr facilitating that return, and all that goes with it — I always think of Bernard Lewis, who said that mutual assured destruction during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets meant peace and stability and deterrence, but mutual assured destruction in the hands of Ahmadinejad may just be an incentive. It’s a worrisome proposition.”

   Hewitt: “If they actually possess nuclear weapons, do you think they’re deterable in the way that the Soviets were, or is that what you’re getting at, that they might actually use them because it’s part of the theological justification for their — ”

   Cheney: “Well, I think we have to be careful, obviously — it’s a difficult kind of a judgment to make. I think we do have an obligation to listen to what they’re saying. And there’s a great temptation, when he says truly outrageous things, for example, about the destruction of Israel, for people to write that off and say, well, he doesn’t mean it, it’s just rhetoric. But you can’t do that. And I certainly am — I know the Israelis well enough, and I was just there a couple of weeks ago, to know there isn’t any way they’re prepared to ignore those kinds of statements coming out of Tehran. They have to take them seriously, given their history. And I think they perceive the possibility of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons as a fundamental threat to the very survival of the state of Israel.”

   Hewitt: “Did you talk with the Israelis in any way you can discuss about action against Israel — against Iran’s nuclear capability?”

   Cheney: “No, I couldn’t talk about those matters here.”

   The 12th Imam

   Cheney’s talk of the 12th Imam marks his revival of an old neocon chestnut.

   The 12th Imam, or the mahdi, is considered by devout Shiite Muslims to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who disappeared in the ninth century and will reappear before judgment day to end tyranny and promote justice.

   The man Cheney cites as an authority on Iranian apocalyptic thinking, controversial mideast scholar Bernard Lewis, hinted in an Aug. 8, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed that Ahmadinejad might be planning a nuclear attack on Israel just two weeks later, on the date in the Islamic calendar when the Prophet Muhammad made his mystical journey to Jerusalem.

   “This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world,” Lewis wrote. “It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.”

   Needless to say, the day went by without incident.

   Noah Feldman wrote in the New York Times Magazine on Oct. 29, 2006, that “the relative absence of a contemporary Shiite trend to messianic brinkmanship suggests that Ahmadinejad’s recent emphasis on the mahdi may be interpreted more in terms of an attempt to summon [Ayotollah] Khomeini’s legacy and Iran’s revolutionary moment than as a desperate willingness to bring the nation to the edge of war. . . .

   “Ahmadinejad surely understands the consequences of using a nuclear bomb, and Shiite Islam, even in its messianic incarnation, still falls short of inviting nuclear retaliation and engendering collective suicide.”

   As for Wiping Israel Off the Map

   Back in March, William Branigin of The Washington Post shed some light on the administration’s continued insistence that the Iranian government had expressed its desire to wipe Israel off the map.

   Branigin wrote: “In an October 2005 speech to a conference on a ‘World without Zionism,’ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by a state-run Iranian news agency as agreeing with a statement by Iran’s late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’ Iran’s foreign minister later said the comment had been incorrectly translated from Farsi and that Ahmadinejad was ‘talking about the [Israeli] regime,’ which Iran does not recognize and wants to see collapse.

   “According to Farsi-speaking commentators including Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, Ahmadinejad’s exact quote was, ‘The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.’ Cole has written that Ahmadinejad was not calling for the ‘Nazi-style extermination of a people,’ but was expressing the wish that the Israeli government would disappear just as the shah of Iran’s regime had collapsed in 1979.”
2. JohnKonop says:

   April 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

   US military turns away speed boats in Gulf

   BB-Three speed boats of unidentified origin approached a US patrol boat as it transited the Gulf but stopped after a warning flare was fired, a US Navy spokesman said.
   The USS Typhoon, a Coast Guard patrol boat, was heading from the central to the northern Gulf when it was approached by the high-speed boats, said Lieutenant Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the US Fifth Fleet.

   “Typhoon issued the standard query to the incoming small boards via bridge-to-bridge,” he said by telephone from Bahrain. “Upon receiving no response, Typhoon activated a flare. Small boats stopped and Typhoon continued on its way.”

   Christensen said the small boats were of “unidentified origin.”

   The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Navy operate speed boats in the northern Gulf, and have played cat-and-mouse games in the past with US warships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

   In January, tensions between the two countries escalated after Iranian speed boats swarmed around three US warships transiting the Strait.

   The latest incident comes amid stepped US accusations against Iran of stoking violence on another front, Iraq.

   General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, this week blamed Iran for an outbreak of fighting in Basra and Baghdad, charging that the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was providing funds, training, arms, ammunition to so-called “special groups.”

   US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Friday it was “inconceivable” that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was not aware of the support.

   Gates said “there is some sense of an increased level of supply of weapons and support to these groups. But whether it’s a dramatic increase over recent weeks, I just don’t know.”

   Admiral William Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred that Iran appeared to have stepped up support for the armed groups militias, which fought Iraqi forces to a standstill in the southern port of Basra last month.

   Last year, US military officials said that the flow of weapons from Iran had declined but it was unclear whether it was in response to an Iranian pledge made to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

   “As far as I’m concerned, this action in Basra was very convincing that indeed they haven’t,” Mullen said.
3. Iran » Blog Archive » Let’s deter Iran by threatening to nuke them if they nuke Israel? says:

   April 13, 2008 at 9:05 am

   [...] Nachrichten – DerWesten wrote an interesting post today on Letâ��s deter Iran by threatening to nuke them if they nuke Israel?Here’s a quick excerpt…upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran. [...]
4. bb says:

   April 13, 2008 at 9:42 am

   “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.” — BRILLIANT!!!

   The ‘HOTAIR’ source is appropriate….does anybody doubt America under any president (even pacifists like B. Hussein Obama and Ron Paul) would respond in kind if Iran or any other country used nukes as the start of an attack??

   The challenge here is to prevent nuclear technology from being perfected by rogue nations like Iran. The Clintons assisted N. Korea…at least Bush is working to thwart Iran’s acquisition of the necessary technology.
5. Hugh says:

   April 13, 2008 at 12:56 pm

   Here’s a link that will hopefully expose the truth about Cheney, 9-11, the Neo-Cons, and “The Lobby”.

   http://tinyurl.com/4cp3jy
6. JohnKonop says:

   April 13, 2008 at 8:16 pm

   Bart

   Why do you support Bush selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
7. JohnKonop says:

   April 13, 2008 at 8:30 pm

   HP-Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall

   It was an otherwise normal day in the Land of the McLaughing Group. John got to bellow, “The answer is HILLARY.” And nobody minded that they weren’t as relentlessly dogmatic in the Papism as Pat Buchanan, and the whole panel kinda sorta agreed on the issue of China and the Olympics, but because this was the McLaughlin Group, they all agreed to pillory each other with loud sounds from their cakeholes for our amusement. But, about halfway through the show, Pat Buchanan said something that didn’t amuse – not one little bit I’m afraid!

   BUCHANAN: But I’ll tell you what’s coming, John. Petraeus pointed right at the special groups supported by Iran, as the main problem now. They are firing rockets into the Green Zone, they’re responsible for Basra. The president said that Iran better not make the wrong choice. We’re looking at 140,000 troops there by the end of the year, and very possibly airstrikes in Iran before this fall.
   Oh. Fantastic.

   [WATCH.]
8. bb says:

   April 14, 2008 at 10:53 am

   John,

   What the f are you talking about…where did Saudi Arabia come into this discussion?

   Why do you oppose preventing Iran from perfecting nuclear weapons technology and delivery systems?
9. JohnKonop says:

   April 14, 2008 at 1:50 pm

   Bart

   I am just pointing out the hierocracy of your position. You have no problem selling arms to Saudi Arabia or China but have a problem with Iran.

   The difference between us is I do not think we should sells arms to any of them.
10. bb says:

    April 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    John,

    So you are against having allies? And what does that first sentence mean?

    When did America sell arms directly to China (not counting the Clinton years)?

    The difference between us is you are living in some fantasy world of isolationism as a realistic diplomatic position v. the fact that we live and profit from a global economy.
11. Hugh says:

    April 14, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Here’s a link that will hopefully expose the truth about Cheney, 9-11, the Neo-Cons, and “The Lobby”.

    http://tinyurl.com/4cp3jy
12. Hugh says:

    April 14, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Oh, and Reuters is reporting that Israel refuses to provide the customary security to Carter, a former U.S. President.

    http://tinyurl.com/5k3ybo

    What a Politically Correct blog this is. Most on this blog refuse to acknowledge the truth!
13. JohnKonop says:

    April 14, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Bart

    Are you saying selling arms is the way we get allies?
14. JohnKonop says:

    April 14, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    NYT-The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

    The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

    But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.
15. JohnKonop says:

    April 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    The Wings of a Hawk

    Why is Bush selling F-16s to Pakistan?
    By Fred Kaplan

    With his decision last week to sell F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, President Bush returns to a dangerous game of self-deception that hasn’t been seen at this level of risk since Richard Nixon was in the White House.

    The deal involves a mere couple of dozen F-16s, but it opens up three avenues of great hazard.

    First, right after President Bush told the Pakistanis that the sale was on, he called the Indians to assure them he would take a well-disposed look at their weapons wish lists to redress the resulting imbalance. The unfolding dynamic is thus predictable: Pakistan orders still more weapons to compensate for India’s new purchase; India buys more to match the ante; and on the ratcheting goes, the tinderbox swelling.
16. JohnKonop says:

    April 14, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Don’t Sell Arms to Taiwan

    By THE CRIMSON STAFF

    proposed sale of submarines and the Aegis radar system to Taiwan. In this particularly tense time, the arms sale proposed by the Bush administration would be extremely ill-advised and could cause irreparable harm to the relationship between China and the U.S.

    Determining the exact status of Taiwan is a diplomatic nightmare. Because of its history, Taiwan is symbolically critical to the current government of China, representing the last remnants of the Nationalists, their predecessors and political enemies. Moreover, the current government of China has portrayed the retaking of territory held in the Qing dynasty—such as Hong Kong, Tibet and Macao —as a symbol of its resurgence in the face of Western opposition. On the other hand, traditional American foreign policy has portrayed Taiwan as a foothold of democracy against Communism. To avoid conflict on the issue, the two sides have agreed to a detente over the issue—the U.S. officially recognizes only “One China,” and China has moderated its rhetoric of reconquest.

    Bush’s proposed arms sale would send a strong signal to the Chinese government that the U.S. is no longer interested in maintaining the peaceful status quo. Besides the bad timing of the move, the sale could be construed as giving Taiwan offensive capability0. In the past, we have sold only defensive weapons to Taiwan, but the submarines included in the proposed deal could be used for the purpose of attack. The Bush administration should tread lightly over this issue, understanding that Taiwan is too important to the Chinese for them to ignore any aggressive moves.

    But the arms sale seems unjustified even within the context of American foreign policy. The U.S. recognizes one China and concedes that Taiwan is a province of China while still selling arms to it. It is a strange policy to sell weapons to a province within a country; Taiwan is not an independent country, and it is not recognized by the international community. Granted, the United States has strong interests in Taiwan and should protect these interests, but subtlety is required for dealing with such a sensitive situation. It is clear that the United States would defend Taiwan if China attacked, but this silent threat should be enough to preserve peace. Selling the Taiwanese weapons will not settle the dispute diplomatically, and it will only exacerbate the current tensions.

    The best result possible at the moment is maintaining the status quo. China’s government is in a position where it cannot back down for fear of seeming weak to its own people, but it will not attack Taiwan, because it understands that such a move would ignite a war. By selling arms to Taiwan we have everything to lose and nothing to gain. The Bush administration should take a far more conciliatory approach to rescue what friendly ties still remain.
17. bb says:

    April 15, 2008 at 7:43 am

    John wrote: “You have no problem selling arms to Saudi Arabia or China but have a problem with Iran.”

    When did America sell arms directly to China John (not counting Clinton years when it was done illegally)?

    Would you rather have Russia or China supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and the other countries you cite?

    Would you support disarming Tawain while that country is a target for China?
18. bb says:

    April 15, 2008 at 7:44 am

    Hugh,

    Why should Israel provide security for a traitor who provides support for their enemies?
19. JohnKonop says:

    April 15, 2008 at 9:08 am

    Bart

    Did you read this?

    The U.S. recognizes one China and concedes that Taiwan is a province of China while still selling arms to it. It is a strange policy to sell weapons to a province within a country; Taiwan is not an independent country, and it is not recognized by the international community.
20. bb says:

    April 15, 2008 at 9:26 am

    John,

    Yes, shows the ignorance of the author.

    Again I await your proof of America selling arms directly to China…it has not happened.
21. bb says:

    April 15, 2008 at 9:26 am

    Now why not address my questions posed in 17.
22. JohnKonop says:

    April 15, 2008 at 9:29 am

    Bart

    Are you saying The U.S does not recognize that Tawain is a province of China?
23. bb says:

    April 15, 2008 at 11:17 am

    America recognizes Taiwan as an endangered country with China as its main enemy.

    Now just admit America other than during the Clinton debacle has not sold arms to China.

    Then you can answer those other questions posed in 17.
24. JohnKonop says:

    April 16, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Bart

    That is not true U.S. policy is Tawain is a province of China.

    Do you just make it up as you go?
25. Bill says:

    April 16, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    This is a bunch of insane morons gone wild. Way too many pundits and corporate whores spewing the BS these days. And they get blind support from the lowlife fascists who took over the Republican Party. It’s about the military Industrial Complex which doesn’t have a braking mechanism and big oil.
26. bb says:

    April 17, 2008 at 6:55 am

    John,

    Do you put ketchup on the sand you eat while your head is buried in it?

    Still waiting for you to answer #17 and to show me where America sold arms to China directly.
27. JohnKonop says:

    April 17, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Bart

    Tawain is part of China
28. Joe Oliva says:

    April 17, 2008 at 10:34 am

    I agree with Bill #25.
29. David O'Rear says:

    April 19, 2008 at 1:46 am

    Mr Konop,

    Your source is inaccurate in the phrase The U.S. recognizes one China and concedes that Taiwan is a province of China.

    Back in 1972s, the agreed upon phrasing was “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.” http://tinyurl.com/5o6olg

    It says nothing about what the US believes; rather, it expresses the view of what the other parties (PRC, ROC) believed at the time, and does not challenge that.

    In the meantime, Taiwan changed. Since it is their island, perhaps any discussion should start with what the people of Taiwan believe, and want.

    .

    I’ve been dealing with this issue every single month for over 25 years. Trust me on this one.

|