Why the Pentagon Thinks Attacking Iran is a Bad Idea

Reader Comments
Back to article

There is no state called Israel.
State of thieves called Israel a
basis of the displacement
and killing of Innocent nation .
state of thieves basis
bloodshed and war
And the arrest of people
for tens of years to
prevent him from claiming
The right to life .
basis steal the land of the
Palestinian people
And then steal
the land of the Arab-Muslim
the entire .State of the
thieves do not know the law .....
Does not recognize the
law of the United Nations,
a state that considers itself above the
law . the law is the siege of Gaza
And the bloodshed and
destruction of houses and
killing innocent people
and occupying the country
This is a country named Israel thieves

arabmuslim of MA 5:06AM November 08, 2010

In sake of the world, why don't Israel state exist in the territory of USA if US love Israel sooo much.
Or people of the whole world may reject the religion from the politics in entirely in sake of the future.

New generation 8:44AM May 16, 2010

Iran is not truely pursuing nuclear weapons because of the US. Their true intent of pursuing the weapon is because of Israel. The Iranian regime has publicly stated it does not recognise Israel right to exist; not in the middle east anyway. The Iranian president has denied the holocaust and made statements about starting a new one. So it seems Israel is the nation that's really has it's back against the wall. Already having to deal with the threat of Hesbollah and Hamas, what option will be left for them? Even if they worked out a peace deal with the Arabs will this change the Iranian leaders thinking toward them? That's the question that have to be answered.

baybay of GA 11:22AM October 22, 2008

Uranium build-up by Iran with a quack for it's President does not sound, especially if it's a weapons grade build-up. We would have never tolerated it back in 2003, but we're gun-shy by what has happened these past 5 years. I'm glad that Iraq has a U.S. presence. It hasn't been pretty, but we're through some tough times. Where do we go from here. I don't think that we want to show weakness at this point, I don't think that it would be prudent.

K.T.G. of IA 10:43PM September 16, 2008

There is NO reason to imagine that, if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, they would ever GIVE one to an non-governmental entity they don't absolutely control, and plenty of reason to believe they would not do so (including that no other nuclear nation has ever done such a thing, and that there are very obvious ways that it could, and probably would, backfire on them if they did). Contrary to the heated rhetoric, Iran's government has, for the most part, been quite rational in pursuing its perceived interests....more rational, one could say, than has the United States government in its persistent petulance over the events of 1979. US interests would be well-served by good relations with Iran... a fact implicitly recognized by the architects of our subversion of their government in 1953, to install a government over which our officials could exert influence (if not control)... we could and should establish good relations on the basis of our mutual interests (rather than force and guile); if we did that, Iran would have far less reason to pursue the nuclear weapons. Threatening someone seems more likely to encourage them to arm themselves than it is to encourage them NOT to do so.

M David Levi of CA 7:17PM September 16, 2008

ANDREW BACEVICH HAS EARNED OUR EAR
Only rarely does someone surface with qualifications as well as insights and a delivery that stimulate thinking. Even more rarely does an individual stimulate the very personal mental articulation of self observation.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/08/andrew-bacevich-rare-sobering-voice.html
Bacevich deserves as broad an audience as can be exposed to his thoughtful analysis.

PacificGatePost of WA 7:17PM August 18, 2008

If Iran should get the bomb, what will prevent its rulers from using it in a terrorist attack on us? Several commenters here seem willing to trust in the brotherly feelings of Mssrs. Khamenei, Ahmedinejad, and their fellow war criminals in Tehran toward this country. The rest of us, noting the hundreds of American civilians and soldiers the leaders of this depraved Islamic Republic and their proxies have murdered since 1979, do not.
Can the apologists for these men really believe our own nuclear weapons could deter them? No sane leader would attack the U.S. with an ICBM or bomber, because the origin of the flight cannot be hidden. Not so with say, a bomb in a freighter crewed by suicides, set off as it tied up in New York or San Francisco.
Maybe someone willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons will explain how a U.S. President could be sure it was responsible, if terrorists were the "delivery vehicle" in a carefully disguised attack on this country. Not to retaliate would be to invite more of the same--but what country should receive our retaliatory response? Or if a nuclear weapon could not be brought to the U.S. in secret and then set off, explain why not.

Mike Hollins of CA 9:10PM August 16, 2008

Why is everybody assuming that Iran for sure wants nukes? They have repeatedly said that they are NOT after the bomb.The CIA and European intelligence say they are not working on nukes. Yes, there was a time when Iran studied it but that was when Saddam was suspected of going after the bomb & Iran wanted to be prepared. So, chill out and send some capable negotiators to talk to Iran IN PRIVATE to see what their real concerns are. Make a deal and then announce it publicly. Remember Kissinger & Le Duc To in Paris?

Truthseeker of CA 7:10PM August 11, 2008

So, it seems clear that both the neo cons and President George
W Bush and VP Cheney opemly want attack Iran and that Senator
John McCain must regret his infamous song,"Bomb! Bomb! Iran!"
nonsense...And which would be disasterous if China and Russia
came to Iran assistance,as well.
However,that leaves open the serious question of where exactly
does the Democrat's New Messiah Barack Hussein Obama really
stand on Iran,and how many times will Obama do his usual Flip!
Flop! And Waffle! on it as well?..Or will Obama quick cut and
run to Hawaii for a vacation,just like Bush43 did right before
9-11 that we deserve honest answers from Obama about as well.
Since this time Obama cannot just vote "present 130 times"
as that is not an options available to the President and
Commander in Chief of our Military, for Obama.
And so,it is very intresting that over 65% of voters still trust
Sen John McCain over Obama on National Security Issues and
today CNN reported over 30% of voters think Obama is too risky
to be President and Commander in Chief of our military.