The West may now have no option but to attack Iran

The Telegraph (London) ^ | December 28, 2023 | John Bolton

[Jim Noble]

Houthi attacks on commercial shipping and US Navy vessels in the Red Sea threaten the global economy, endangering the vital Suez Canal trade route. As if 14 such attacks in the past month, and against Israel directly, were not enough, Iran has now joined the fray...

This marks the first time since October 7 that Washington has directly blamed Iran...

Just after Christmas, however, Iran committed the classic “Washington gaffe” – i.e., telling the truth accidentally – when the Revolutionary Guard Corps reportedly described Hamas’s barbaric assault as “one of the acts of revenge for the assassination of General [Qassem] Soleimani by the US and the Zionists”. Hamas immediately denied the linkage, no more credibly than the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ subsequent effort to walk back its revealing “revenge” declaration...

The Biden administration, much of the media, and Iran’s propagandists will probably continue ignoring the reality of who is calling the shots in this conflict. But the evidence is growing inexorably that October 7 was intended to draw Jewish blood to implement Soleimani’s “ring of fire” strategy, with Iran pressing Israel on multiple fronts, directing operations via terrorists and state actors it has armed, trained, and financed...

It has been clear for years that overthrowing the mullahs, , is central to decreasing insecurity throughout the Middle East. Arab funding of terrorist actions against Israel is hard to find today, especially as full, open diplomatic relations with Jerusalem continue to expand. If Iran’s line of credit to the likes of Hamas, Hizbollah, the Houthis, and other barbarians disappears, their ability to survive except in remote Afghan encampments will palpably decrease...

[cowboyusa]

Now you sootp to defending the Muhulas!?? The Iranians don’t want to b3 ruled by th. President Trump will but the donations back on, which I’m sure you will oppose.

[cowboyusa]

YOU ARE NOT EVEN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

[MinorityRepublican]

I guess we will wait till they have a bomb and ICBMs and say, nothing we can do.

Correct. Even then, under either Biden or Newsom Administration's, I'm not even sure we'll respond to Iran if they attack us in that scenario.

[Alberta's Child]

I’m talking about a country that is most dangerous to OTHERS.

[cowboyusa]

The Deep State is dangerous. A 2nd Trump Presidency would NOT be dangerous, but he would respond to threats or attacks with overwhelming force, as it should be. Peace through strength.

[Lurker]

“Iran has never affected my life in a negative way..”

243 dead Marines, many of whom were friends of mine, would argue that point if they could.

L

[JonPreston]

How is Iran involved?

[Paul R.]

Well then, accept the collapse of the (not “Global” but “Western countries and allies and some others”) economy when it sweeps us down with it.

Also accept the probability of a nuclear war in the ME and it could spread from there. You and I might not live to see it. But I bet your & my kid(s) will.

One problem with various countries having different roles in NATO (etc.) is that many literally have no resources to combat a threat such as this. That includes a number of NATO / Euro countries who have been or will soon be making their 2% of GDP NATO commitment. And, BTW, there is enormous good sense in NOT having them, especially the economically powerful over the years, all be well armed in all aspects. We already know what happens in Europe when various players or combinations of such get too big for their britches. If anyone thinks that has really changed, they are fools. And now, nukes are not all that hard...

Anyway, back to the “roles”, even many NATO countries with tech ability to build weapons for most any purpose instead build stuff mainly for... their roles, and don’t have comprehensive capabilities. The Germans (not at 2% but nonetheless have a large defense budget in absolute terms because they have a big economy) have certainly built some very nice big high tech frigates, but, none of theirs have serious air defense capability. In the Red Sea they’re sitting ducks, and of little use.

[Paul R.]

Disagree, in that if the mullahs had nukes, they would at a minimum be threatening with them by now.

The basic history is that Iran (and the rest) have already effectively declared war on us for "as long as it takes". The Muzzies have been at it for 1400 years. But... The more recent history is that members of the present group back down when seriously confronted.* See "Trump".

There's really no other option -- if we are gonna continue to appease and / or slink away like cowards as Biden did in Afghanistan, we may as well all start memorizing the Quran now. Or maybe Russian or Chinese. And that's the "good" scenario. *We the US have NOT "seriously confronted" Russia in Ukraine. You can get back to me on that IF we send, say, 200 F-16's and plentiful munitions for them in 2024.

[Paul R.]

Oops, was supposed to be:

Disagree, in that if the mullahs had nukes, they would at a minimum be threatening with them by now.

The basic history is that Iran (and the rest) have already effectively declared war on us for "as long as it takes". The Muzzies have been at it for 1400 years. But... The more recent history is that members of the present group back down when seriously confronted.* See "Trump".

There's really no other option -- if we are gonna continue to appease and / or slink away like cowards as Biden did in Afghanistan, we may as well all start memorizing the Quran now. Or maybe Russian or Chinese. And that's the "good" scenario.

*We the US have NOT "seriously confronted" Russia in Ukraine. You can get back to me on that IF we send, say, 200 F-16's and plentiful munitions for them in 2024.

[Paul R.]

Bolton goes too far (for the present situation.)

Pop a couple top Iranian economic assets and a couple high level figures like Soleimani. Inform them that is “Lesson #1”. #2 depends on them. The history is that they’ll back off for a while.

[Lurker]

Look it up.

L

[Lurker]

Look it up.

L

[Paul R.]

Iran's long term goal IS the destruction of the West with replacement by, if not them, like minded folks as them.

People (not you!) tend to forget that, or as we see here too often, lie by omission.

[JonPreston]

no answer?

[Lurker]

Here’s your answer, a-hole.

https://www.state.gov/40th-anniversary-of-the-beirut-marine-corps-barracks-bombing/

L

[JonPreston]

You silly Neocon freak. The origin of that explosion is unknown, and the absurd example of Lawfare you give, driven by Patrick Clawson and his Washington Institute, isn't proof of anything, rather it's a default judgement without legal teeth and referenced ONLY by warmongers: HERE -

I doubt you'll take the two minutes to watch this 'tube but it's a great example of who Clawson is, someone you take seriously and a person you offer an expert on Iran

Neocon Patrick Clawson (Washington Institute) Speaks on "Crisis Initiation" With Iran (2012)

[Lurker]

GFY, you freak.

L

[JonPreston]

5 Harrowing Facts About the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing

4. No one knows for certain who was responsible.

The official U.S. government report on the incident concludes the bombing "was a terrorist act sponsored by sovereign states or organized political entities for the purposes of defeating U.S. objectives in Lebanon." It doesn't say which entities are responsible.

A little-known group called Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, but in a 2001 interview with PBS' "Frontline," former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger reiterated that the U.S. didn't know who really perpetrated the attack.

******

And don't forget to say a prayer for those Marines you claim to know. Looking back thru history, they died needlessly, forwarding a Bill Kristol and Joe Biden foreign policy .

Clown.

[Lurker]

Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah were and are Iranian proxies. Always have been.

L