Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

The Iran Plot

22 Comments

…some useful thoughts. Bottom line, it’s not a distraction from Justice Department scandals, and it’s not really anything new. It’s just part of the war they’ve been waging, and we’ve been pretending isn’t happening, against us for over three decades.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some questions for the president:

Do you consider the Iranian plot to bomb a U.S. restaurant an act of war? If not, would it have been an act of war had the plot succeeded?

Are you still willing to negotiate with Iran without preconditions? Are you still willing to grant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad entry into the U.S.? Do you maintain that your failure to support the Iranian Green Movement in 2009 was not a significant mistake?

In light of the Iranians’ willingness to plant a bomb in Washington, D.C., do you now consider a nuclear Iran unacceptable? Is a military option to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon off the table?

Nah. All we need is another “reset” button.

22 thoughts on “The Iran Plot”

  1. Do you maintain that your failure to support the Iranian Green Movement in 2009 was not a significant mistake?

    Look, at the time we didn’t know they were practicing monkey-cide. So with that knowledge in place, we now can state definitively that… I’m sorry, I don’t understand that hand signal you’re displaying.

    1. Well, when you are the country that orders police officers on tops of buildings to blindly fire into crowds of protesting citizens then I think you’ve lost the ability the play the righteous indignation card.

      1. There’s nothing new regarding the US selling weapons to Israel. Unless Israel used one of those bombs against Iran; I don’t understand the invocation of Israel in a story about the US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia other than to say, “The Jews do it too!”

        1. Hmmph. I didn’t mean “the Jews do it too.” I meant *we* (the good guys) do it too (where “it” refers to conducting assassinations).

          I picked Israel because they conduct assassinations inside Iran. I could have picked the USA, but the USA doesn’t assassinate people inside Iran (as far as I know), we assassinate people elsewhere (Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan).

          Many Americans wouldn’t consider some of the USA’s assassinations an act of war, as they hold no grudge against the country where the killing took place, just against the target. Similarly, I’m not sure that Israelis consider themselves to be at war with Iran, while completely supporting the killing of Iranian scientists working on an Iranian nuclear bomb.

          “Act of war” is different than “act of cold war”.

          2. Wodun,

            Of course I don’t know. The killing in Dubai by Israelis carrying fake Western European passports seemed pretty clearcut, however. (And Israel is certainly not at war with Dubai, which was my general point.)

            The last paragraph of this story is kind of funny (killing people isn’t funny, but bureaucracy is).
            http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?R=R1&ID=232044

            Anyway, this is quite a list, even if it isn’t completely accurate.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

          3. I picked Israel because they conduct assassinations inside Iran. I could have picked the USA, but the USA doesn’t assassinate people inside Iran

            So you acknowledge that the USA isn’t commiting acts of war against Iran, so you invoked Israel because?

            Again, the story is Iran plotted to kill a Saudi diplomat in the US. There’s nothing there about Israel.

          4. Israel and the USA stand together against Iran, so it is worth considering what offensive actions from either party constitute an act of war.
            If you are trying to imply that I was being anti-semitic, you are nuts.
            —

            Iran blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina. Was this an act of war by Iran against either Argentina or Israel? Maybe so, but neither Argentina or Israel actually went to war with Iran over it.

            I’m certainly not defending Iran. I am defending Obama’s choice to not immediately go to war with Iran, and I’m trying to suggest some analogies to help put that choice in perspective.

          5. The offensive action is Iran’s plot to assassinate a Saudi diplomat. If your argument was Saudi Arabia stood with Israel maybe I’d understand why you brought Israel into the discussion. Otherwise, if you want to talk about selling weaponry, then where are the links to the US selling F-15s and M1A1’s to Saudi Arabia? Those links would be pertinent.

            Do you think bringing up Argentina now makes up for bringing up Israel earlier? Especially when the only connection Argentina has to this converstation is Israel? Why do you keep wanting to talk about Israeli acts of war in relation to Iran plotting to bomb a Saudi diplomat in the US?

            Whether you are defending Iran or not, you certainly seem to be questioning Israel in a discussion about Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the US. And I have no idea why you are defending Obama’s choice to not immediately go to war. First, I’m not so sure he’s made a choice one way or another yet. Second, nobody here was advocating going to war because of this incident. Iran has committed all sorts of “acts of war” on the US starting with holding our diplomats hostage in 1979. We didn’t go to war then or sense then. However, as a leader for the US, the President would do well to call out what are “acts of war” to make it clear to Iran what is not acceptable behavior. He’d be a fool to say, “well Israel does it too, so I understand”.

            We don’t need analogies regarding Israel to put Obama’s policy regarding Iran into perspective. Up to now, Obama has done nothing different with respect to Iran than Jimmy Carter. For that matter, he’s done nothing different than George W Bush, when Iran was clearly providing material support to Iraqi dissidents engaged in combat with the US. See, those are issues in relation to American/Iranian policy, which has nothing to do with Israeli/Dubai or Israeli/Argentinian policies.

            So I ask, why again did you bring up Israel other than to make a point “the Jews do it too”?

  3. On the other hand, this wasn’t for nothing:

    Right Bob, it was for…

    In the interim, Israel developed its own bunker-busting bomb, officials said, but the American variants were viewed as more cost-effective.

    So.

    1) Those bunker-busting bombs kill a lot of innocent civilians. (and their Hot)
    2) The American variants are cheaper. We’ve got a spreadsheet somewhere that shows price-per-iCiv goes down.

    Which one Bob?

    1. I have no idea what you are talking about. I think the the Obama administration is arming Israel for an attack on Iran (or helping Israel create a deterrence posture), and I don’t think this is a bad thing. And it is hardly hitting the reset button.

      1. I think the the Obama administration is arming Israel for an attack on Iran

        So let’s explore Bob’s fantasy:
        1) US arms Israel
        2) Bob says Israel is attacking Iran
        3)
        4) Iran plots to assassinate a Saudi diplomat

        I still can’t find the missing link, other than Bob’s link to “Jews do it too” articles. I guess in Bob’s world, if he believes Jews kill people, then it’s reasonable to expect the Persians to target Arabs.

        1. 1) The US arms Israel is an example of Obama not being soft on Iran while being a friend to Israel, both contrary to Rand’s worldview.

          2) The Israeli attacks on Iran sound like a good idea. I’m not criticizing them, certainly not without without knowing more. The individual scientists may have been nice guys enthralled with the joy of nuclear physics, but maybe not, and either way, their murders appear to be an attempt to prevent a nuclear war (worst case scenario) or at least a regional conflict.

          3) The Israeli attacks on Iran, which could have just as morally been conducted by the United States, were brought up as an analogy to the Iranian alleged plot. The Israeli assassinations are not morally analogous, but they offer a perspective on what constitutes an act of war.

          See my other comment. I’m asserting that actions by Israel, the UK, Canada, Holland and other allies might be analogous to hypothetical actions by the USA, and I’ asserting that such actions can sometimes be symmetrical in terms of “what constitutes an act of war”, even while failing to be symmetrical in moral terms. If you can’t see it, fine. There is no need to be rude, nor to imply any kind of anti-semitism.

          1. Why your comment implies anti-semitism: “Jews” and “Israelis” are not the same thing. Shame on you.

          2. Ok, so now Bob’s claim is that is morally acceptable to assassinate civilians. And another thread, he advocates the targetting of Israeli civilian airlines. And supposedly this is all ok, because the US sells weapons to Israel. In Bob’s world, trade is an act of war, but plots to kill peaceful diplomats, not so much.

    2. ” And another thread, he advocates the targetting of Israeli civilian airlines. ”

      In this thread, you are a moron.

      1. Bob, you can call me names, but let’s look at the statement you quoted:

        “[bob] advocates the targetting of Israeli civilian airlines. ”

        Here’s what you wrote: “If the shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons are used against civilian jets, it might be best if they are used against EL-AL”

        Looks like advocacy to me. Do you need a definition of the word advocacy? Otherwise, you can prove my statement false? Or failing to have a good reason to promote Israel into a war, is name calling all you have left?

  4. It really is sad that we’ve got so much scandal and corruption in our govt. today that a country that is working hard so they can nuke us barely registers on the edge of the radar.

Comments are closed.