Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility

A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility
ASK THIS | February 05, 2008 
President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons
– and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither the
U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could
constitute another failure of imagination. Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests
questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what they
think the American response should be to various scenarios in the region –
including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation.
By Leon Hadar
Leon...@aol.com
Since the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was issued at the
end of the last year, much of the reporting and analysis in the MSM has
been promoting the conventional wisdom in Washington: That a U.S. attack
on Iran is now “out.” 
The Bush Administration had been warning that it might use its military
power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But with U.S.
intelligence agencies making it clear that Iran wasn’t developing nuclear
weapons, the administration had suddenly lost its casus belli. Without
one, the conventional wisdom suggested, President Bush would not be able
to mobilize American and international support for an attack on Iran,
which in any case would have been a very costly operation.
And yet, even as this conventional wisdom was taking hold, the following
events also took place:
1. Reports from Israel during Bush’s recent to the Middle East suggested
that the president made it clear he didn’t consider the NIE a reliable
source of guidance as far as his policy towards Iran was concerned. It was
not difficult to conclude based on reports quoting “sources” that Bush and
Vice President Dick Cheney seemed to be marginalizing the significance of
the NIE – recalling a similar kind of disdain they exhibited towards the
conclusion of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, based on Bush’s behavior then
– increasing the number of U.S. troops contrary to the recommendation for
establishing a timeline for a withdrawal – members of the press should be
considering the possibility that he is just as likely to act against Iran
as he was before. 
2. The incident in the strategic Strait of Hormuz during which Iranian
speedboats buzzed three US navy ships and the Pentagon said that US forces
were “literally” on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats. That
incident should have led journalists to put the scenario in which the
United States strikes Iranian nuclear sites on the backburner – and
instead consider the possibility that a military confrontation between
U.S. and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf could take place as a result
of (a) a provocation by the Iranians (b) a provocation by the Americans or
(c) a misunderstanding. 
3. Israeli officials also dismissed the NIE conclusions. Moreover, the
Israelis expressed concern that Washington seemed to be losing its will to
confront Iran and warned that they might have no choice but to launch an
Osirak-like unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear installation. Neither
officials in the Bush Administration nor Republican or Democratic
lawmakers in Congress have challenged Israel’s right to take such a
unilateral action, especially against a regime whose leaders have disputed
the legitimacy of the Jewish state and even made Holocaust-denying
statements. The media should consider the possibility that the Israelis
could take action – and that since they believe that a Democratic
administration would not be quite as supportive of the Israeli position as
the Bush administration, they could decide to take action against the
Iranians before or after Bush leaves office.
So here are some of the questions American journalists could be asking the
likely Democratic and Republican presidential nominees:
Q.  The recent incident in the Strait of Hormuz highlighted the danger
that provocations by either side or just misunderstanding could ignite a
Tonkin-Gulf-like military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran that
could degenerate into an all-out war. Do you believe that President Bush
has the legal power to retaliate militarily against an alleged Iranian
provocation without Congressional authorization?
Q.  Are you concerned about a so-called “surprise” in a form of a
Tonkin-Gulf-in-the-Persian-Gulf that could affect the outcome of the
election? Have you or your aides raised this issue with officials in the
administration or discussed it with your colleagues in Congress?
Q. Under what circumstances can President Bush count on your support if he
decides to strike Iran before the election in November? Under what
circumstances would he not have your support?
Q. The Israelis have also warned that they could take a unilateral action
and strike against Iran’s nuclear sites if the U.S. and the international
community fail to prevent the Iranians from pursuing their nuclear
military program. Should the president demand that Israel get U.S.
permission before deciding to strike Iran’s nuclear sites? What should the
consequences be if Israel attacks without U.S. permission?
Q. Would you agree to supply Israel with bunker busting bombs to help it
destroy the Iranian installations?
Q. Can the Israeli government count on your support if it decides to
strike Iran before the election in November? 
 
 Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in
foreign policy, international trade, the Middle East, and South and East
Asia. 
E-mail: 
Leon...@aol.com
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 foreign policy, international trade, the Middle East, and South and East
Ma ogni tanto qualche fonte che non sia paleocon la usi o pare brutto?

eugenio ha scritto:


addirittura "paleocon". LOL!
non avendo argomenti per rispondere al contenuto dell'articolo i cretini
alla mastroviti si inventano certe cazzate...


 addirittura "paleocon". LOL!
Giuanin, dove sei?
Adesso i fondamentalisti libertarian sono compagni, visto?

 Giuanin, dove sei?
mastroviti,invece di fare sempre il coglione puoi discutere
dell'articolo?
A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility
ASK THIS | February 05, 2008
President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear
weapons
- and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither
the
U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could
constitute another failure of imagination. Cato's Leon Hadar suggests
questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what
they
think the American response should be to various scenarios in the
region -
including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation.
By Leon Hadar
LeonHa...@aol.com




the NIE - recalling a similar kind of disdain they exhibited towards
the
conclusion of the Iraq Study Group. In fact, based on Bush's behavior
then
- increasing the number of U.S. troops contrary to the recommendation
for
establishing a timeline for a withdrawal - members of the press should
be
considering the possibility that he is just as likely to act against
Iran
as he was before.
2. The incident in the strategic Strait of Hormuz during which
Iranian
speedboats buzzed three US navy ships and the Pentagon said that US
forces
were "literally" on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats. That
incident should have led journalists to put the scenario in which the
United States strikes Iranian nuclear sites on the backburner - and
instead consider the possibility that a military confrontation
between
U.S. and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf could take place as a
result
of (a) a provocation by the Iranians (b) a provocation by the
Americans or
(c) a misunderstanding.
3. Israeli officials also dismissed the NIE conclusions. Moreover,
the
Israelis expressed concern that Washington seemed to be losing its
will to
confront Iran and warned that they might have no choice but to launch
an
Osirak-like unilateral strike against Iran's nuclear installation.
Neither
officials in the Bush Administration nor Republican or Democratic
lawmakers in Congress have challenged Israel's right to take such a
unilateral action, especially against a regime whose leaders have
disputed
the legitimacy of the Jewish state and even made Holocaust-denying
statements. The media should consider the possibility that the
Israelis
could take action - and that since they believe that a Democratic








-------------
le domande sono molto interessanti e andrebbero fatte ai candidati.

 dell'articolo?
Appena posti un articolo da fonte non compromessa sarò felicissimo di 
discuterlo. Finchè posti roba dei Giuliani Ferrara anglofoni, grazie, 
non spreco il mio tempo.
A margine: il primo "penitenziagite, domani gli amerikani attaccano il 
libero e democratico Iran" risale credo al 2004. Yawn.
Magari prima o poi ci azzeccano, eh, come quella "veggente" che ogni 
volta che Kennedy faceva un viaggio gli mandava una lettera dicendo che 
sarebbe stato assassinato - quella gente non esisterebbe se non ci 
fossero quelli come te, e in effetti vi meritate a vicenda.
Dai, vai sul sito di Alex Jones dove di sicuro ci saranno altri articoli 
a conferma di questo.

eugenio ha scritto:

i quasi anarchici libertari americani sono sicuramente meglio di chi 
vede nelle armi l'unico capitolo di spesa utile per lo stato come i neocon

 discuterlo. 
Mastroviti, stai facendo la misera figuretta del pirla che in mancanza di
argomenti la butta in caciara eh
-----








Tu cosa risponderesti, mastroviti?
-- 


 wrote:

miei?