Experts Say Iran Attack Is Irrational, Yet Hawks Are Winning the Debate

[Purveyor]

From the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the head of Mossad, the experts are speaking out against attacking Iran over its nuclear program, but hawks like the GOP presidential candidates are drowning out the warnings.

by Peter Beinart Feb 21, 2012 4:45 AM EST

The debate over whether Israel should attack Iran rests on three basic questions. First, if Iran’s leaders got the bomb, would they use it or give it to people who might? Second, would a strike substantially retard Iran’s nuclear program? Third, if Israel attacks, what will Iran do in response?
Mideast Iran Nuclear

The vast majority of people opining on these questions—myself very much included—lack the expertise to answer. We’ve never directed a bombing campaign; we have no secret sources in Tehran; we don’t spend our days studying the Iranian regime. So essentially, we decide which experts to trust.

As it happens, both the American and Israeli governments boast military and intelligence agencies charged with answering exactly these sorts of questions. And with striking consistency, the people who run, or ran, those agencies are warning—loudly—against an attack.

MORE...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/experts-say-iraq-attack-is-irrational-yet-hawks-are-winning-the-debate.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. In politics, rationality is considered a liability..unlike flag waving bluster.

[DCKit]

2. Again, calling something that isn't "A Debate".

It's not "A Debate" if we keep telling you to fuck off and stop saying stupid shit.

[gratuitous]

3. Our national religion does not yield to rational analysis

The High Church of Redemptive Violence demands our sacrifice. Whether it makes sense or not is beyond our purview as mere mortals. We must listen to the high priests of the church, and trust their inerrant and ineffable judgment. Unless you want the terrorists to win. And you don't want that, do you???

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. The saving grace this time (unlike in 2003)

is that, after nearly 11 years and two extended military campaigns, most people are pretty worn out with war and refocusing on domestic matters as the economy has gotten worse. The hawks are still out there preaching but they're mostly preaching to their choir. War with Iran is going to be MUCH harder for them to "sell" than the Iraq war and even harder with them out of the WH, which is another reason why Obama needs a second term. Any of these other guys get in, war with Iran will be ON before they've even unpacked their toothbrush. Unlike with Iraq, attacking Iran would be like striking a hornet nest with a club and we could have a serious war on our hands that could potentially suck in other countries and regime change would be nearly impossible. The idea that Iraq was ever such a dangerous threat seems even more laughable when talking about taking on Iran.


I think that neither the will nor the way currently exists for anybody to attack Iran, at least not in this country and hopefully Israel doesn't decide to pull anything reckless either.

[Octafish]

5. Gee. Who outranks the generals, admirals, all the top spooks, etc?

The owners of the MIC crowd, the 1-percent of the 1-percent whose hired stooge once observed:

Money trumps peace.

[woo me with science]

6. +100000

Say no to the one percent in both parties. Occupy now.

[flexnor]

7. even pat buchanan said obama should be re-elected to avoid a pointless war

that tells you something, and i respect him for saying it

[flexnor]

8. our reputation/credibility as a 'peacefull nation' is shot for 50 years, if we do this again

reputation lags reality, but it does catch up

Today's Germans are still paying for sins that happened before their parents were even born

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Our totally "underserved" reputation as a peaceful country.

[FogerRox]

10. Yes, Nuttery

If these sites are underground, under a few 100 ft of rock, there is no conventional weapon that can do more than close the doors to these facilities, as per the Union of Concerned scientists. Even nuclear penatrators cant do more than 60 to 80ft. The only thing that might penatrate more than 350 ft would be a kenetic strike, a tungsten rod dropped from orbit, which would look like a nuclear strike to most observers in the region.

Who wants to be the first to use nuclear weapons against another country since 1945?

Does Israel upset the Apple cart and increase the likely hood that as a result of an attack on Iran, that Israel wont exist as a nation state?

Iraq and Iran are Shite, KSA is Sunni, amazingly that makes Israel and the KSA potential allies, as long as Israel doesnt do something large enough to unset that Applecart.

Ive made this and other similar points, now in my journal.

Experts Say Iran Attack Is Irrational

And its been like that for years. Yes, Irrantional, sheer nuttery.