2 readers online now  |  69 million page views
Join Daniel Pipes' trip to Dubai & Abu Dhabi, Nov. 4-11. Click HERE for details.

"We make the strike we know we have to and don't worry about the retaliation" by Mr. James Vesce

Reader comment on item: Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes
in response to reader comment: We make the strike, knowing we have to, and don't worry about retaliation.

Submitted by Ed Melik, Esq. (United States), Jul 2, 2007 at 23:05

Brilliant deduction and what an intellectual analysis Mr. Vesce! Instead of dwelling on redundant issues that Mr. Vesce has raised, I'll confine on more important issue of Mr. Vesce's "Let's make the strike and don't worry about the retaliation":

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."-Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied,

"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations - without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News, August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position - making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in New York, said,

"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.

The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false - and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over a wide distance.

To use words such as "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFPs - explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.

Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war - in boldface.

Then there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets - a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the U.S. bombing destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.

Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences - and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists - exactly the opposite of the effect U.S. planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the U.S. as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.

As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.

"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength -- in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions -- and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

-Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06

"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a worldwide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear - real fear - in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.

Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in The New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (The New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."

What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.

* First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.
* Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.
* Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons - weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.
* Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.
* Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.
* Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" - or better protection for our troops from the EFPs, or single-shot canister bombs.
* Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.
* Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.
* Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.
* Get the press to go along with each step.
* Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say, "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.
* Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.

Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.

The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.

It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28s will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28s won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.

This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

Israel's security is the utmost concern of Bush Administration even if it costs additional 10,000 American soldier's lives. Insanity of this idea of nuclear strike on Iran will continue unless the American people have an open and honest debate without the self-serving lap dogs of our mas media.

We're not talking about hypothetical contingencies for extreme and unlikely circumstances (which we should expect military planners to have), but realistic plans for using nuclear weapons in order to eliminate Iran's possible development of nuclear weapons.

John Morrocco wrote in The Vietnam Experience: Rain of Fire about the attempt by President Nixon to force a diplomatic resolution to the Vietnam War by creating an image of a madman willing to use nuclear weapons:

To underscore further his determination to achieve a favorable negotiated settlement, President Nixon resorted to military threats and pressure to convince the Hanoi government and its allies that he was serious. Although the same strategy had been unsuccessfully employed by President Johnson, Nixon believed the persuasive power of military force had failed before because Johnson had employed it in a limited and indecisive manner.

He would follow the example of President Eisenhower, who brought a successful conclusion to the Korean conflict by hinting at if the Communists did not negotiate in good faith he would resort to "massive retaliation." He told presidential adviser H. R. Haldeman that he wanted the North Vietnamese to believe he had reached the point where he might do anything to stop the war. "We'll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God's sake, you know Nixon's obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button.' — and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace," Nixon explained to Haldeman.

‘This "madman theory," as Nixon liked to call it, was to be tempered by his aggressive efforts to undermine Hanoi's external support. While Johnson kept the possibility of a wider war with the Soviet Union or China to a minimum by carefully limiting U.S. military actions in Vietnam, Nixon believed he could do so through diplomacy.

So, it looks like Richard M. Nixon would call a person who would use nuclear weapons in a situation like Vietnam a "madman." At least Vietnam was engaged in an armed conflict with America, killing American troops. Neither applies to Iran, so if George W. Bush is seriously contemplating the use of nuclear weapons there, then he's even more of a madman than Nixon was only pretending to be in order to get out of a war.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (187) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Iranian defence? [175 words]PhilipJul 18, 2015 21:01224316
Iran Nuclear Coercion [111 words]Paul JefferyJul 16, 2015 19:01224275
Airplanes--Yes, but what about [36 words]Dave ALLANJul 16, 2015 15:05224266
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Says No Way Will Iran Get Nuclear Weapons [8 words]Tom SkylarkNov 25, 2013 14:05211801
1Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's Interesting Message [1 words]Tom SkylarkNov 24, 2013 18:07211753
2Another Most Important Requirement for Israel in addition to Fighter jets! [35 words]IndianJun 1, 2010 08:52173646
1Israel needs us to help them live, we should sell/give Israel long range missiles that are able to defend against nuclear iran. [87 words]Phil GreendMay 30, 2010 18:05173553
3Long Live ISRAEL! [65 words]J. WoodardMar 27, 2009 14:19152860
1Israel forever strong and a free society [27 words]Bruce Mark WeissOct 16, 2011 14:44152860
No to nuclear armed Iran [118 words]PritamJun 28, 2008 02:57133656
Do SOMETHING! [45 words]Iran CitizenJun 16, 2008 03:18132255
Finally, a voice of reason! [61 words]Larry B.Jun 28, 2008 20:19132255
1Uranium Enrichment [51 words]ParvezOct 5, 2008 16:12132255
EMP [191 words]AdeimusJun 15, 2008 03:56132181
THE MISSING TARGET IN THE HIT LIST: [68 words]IamJosephJun 12, 2008 03:10131850
Turkey has no nukes [65 words]Evren İşbilenJun 12, 2008 13:28131850
israeils don"t play [59 words]don kellyMar 17, 2009 17:21131850
TURKEY DOES NOT NEED NUKES - ISRAEL DOES. [78 words]IamJosephMar 17, 2009 22:22131850
I enjoyed (if that is the phrase) Dan's comments of June 18th re going to war with Iran [141 words]DanSep 29, 2007 06:37109891
Attack on Natanz [62 words]WIM hohageJul 10, 2007 10:52103345
so sad! [6 words]chekad saramiAug 20, 2007 13:08103345
VICTORY in Egypt for Women and Girls .......... GO EGYPT [62 words]KatJun 28, 2007 15:08101875
1iran said it will kill Israel [73 words]Phil GreendJun 25, 2007 21:46101165
prophetic b.s. [34 words]johnJul 8, 2007 06:51101165
attack israel [59 words]don kellyMar 17, 2009 17:33101165
Bush a disaster waiting to happen !! [126 words]dfwhite19438Jun 22, 2007 21:50100415
and then what ? [87 words]yuriyJun 22, 2007 17:54100402
What is this supposed to mean? [113 words]MosheJun 23, 2007 17:56100402
Facts and attitudes about Iran [325 words]YuriyJun 25, 2007 00:43100402
Dear Yuriy, don't change the subject! [134 words]MosheJun 26, 2007 04:47100402
Facts and speculations apart [160 words]YuriyJun 27, 2007 21:52100402
Israeli attack potential [84 words]gisellaFeb 21, 2012 11:14100402
would love to see Iran get hit. [63 words]Thomas FieldsJun 22, 2007 16:24100395
The most idiotic move imaginable at this point in history [331 words]DanJun 18, 2007 21:5099332
Iran and their need for nukes [70 words]InfidelJun 19, 2007 19:4699332
So what would be the wise move Dan? [67 words]MosheJun 20, 2007 09:5199332
Make some sense please [280 words]DanJun 20, 2007 18:3499332
Yes Dan, some sense please. [119 words]MosheJun 23, 2007 17:2299332
Re: Iranian irrationality [164 words]DanJun 24, 2007 22:0799332
some thoughts for Dan re his comments. [579 words]bosDec 13, 2007 07:3199332
Mutually assured destruction?? [264 words]Larry B.Jun 28, 2008 20:4499332
Israel Jets vs Iranian Missles [205 words]JayJun 17, 2007 22:2498932
Could Be an Interesting Summer [121 words]BlackspeareJun 18, 2007 17:4898932
2Islam the Religion of Peace [157 words]InfidelJun 17, 2007 16:3898897
Infidel [8 words]Samson BellJun 19, 2007 13:3898897
Islam=peace [25 words]muslimApr 29, 2009 22:0898897
Israel striking Iran is pointless [117 words]freemanJun 17, 2007 12:1498869
angels [54 words]Gary GoldsmithJun 17, 2007 01:2598839
NEVER MIND [32 words]Gary K GoldsmithJun 17, 2007 18:2198839
This is the Final Straw [144 words]lindaJun 16, 2007 02:4098564
New appointment announced [32 words]G.VishvasJun 18, 2007 17:0798564
ISRAELI JET IS USELESS [86 words]MAMAMIA TONTERIYAJun 15, 2007 14:5598412
Oh, One More Thing [29 words]BlackspeareJun 15, 2007 10:5498312
Either stop Iran or at least allow Israel to do the job. [23 words]GeorgeJun 16, 2007 05:0798312
Striking Iran [14 words]Bruce Alan NilesJun 15, 2007 09:1098308
Full support to Israel to help world get rid of Nuclear Ayatullahs . [40 words]AbrahamJun 16, 2007 05:1098308
throw this possibility into the mix... [54 words]fyiJun 15, 2007 08:2298305
Security of Israel and US troops in Middle East is in jeopardy due to Iranians and Hizbullah both. [62 words]TomJun 16, 2007 05:1598305
Right to Self Defense [240 words]John R. PeacherJun 15, 2007 07:0398301
John, unfortunately Israel is standing alone! [51 words]MosheJun 17, 2007 06:0298301
Targetted Annihilation or How Does One Stop the Chanting: Zulu, Zulu, Zulu... [340 words]Jack Ryan, IIIJun 15, 2007 06:5898300
Iran is buying time to prepare for the coming war [114 words]DorrisJun 16, 2007 05:4198300
You just want to kill, to feel powerful... [31 words]Gary K GoldsmithJun 17, 2007 01:4598300
Attacking Nukes not a Good Idea [271 words]Wesley ClarkJun 15, 2007 04:0698299
Putting The Cat Among The Pigeons. [136 words]marianaJun 18, 2007 13:0798299
Jets face to Nuclear missiles [81 words]HarrakJun 18, 2007 17:4698299
Dont forge the ground forces! [18 words]MattJun 13, 2007 23:1298209
No Chance [20 words]JeffreyJun 13, 2007 20:4798076
to jeff [79 words]garyJun 15, 2007 22:3498076
Le beau risque [32 words]Oliven├ža-BretagneJun 13, 2007 17:5298057
"First we take Manhattan, then…" (To "free bee") [399 words]Leonid Kaplun - LeonovJun 13, 2007 17:4798056
"First we take Manhattan, then..." [107 words]Another AmericanJun 14, 2007 23:2898056
Only acting alone Israel can survive [167 words]BenzionJun 13, 2007 16:4798055
Benzion's thoughts [55 words]Scott MyersJun 13, 2007 18:2498055
go for it [127 words]truth seekerJun 14, 2007 00:5998055
Frustration and Desperation. [204 words]Tom SchmittJun 14, 2007 11:4298055
Who Will Defend Israel's Rights [375 words]M. ToveyJun 14, 2007 15:3198055
Go it alone? [195 words]freemanJun 17, 2007 12:2298055
Israel will go alone [114 words]BenzionJun 17, 2007 21:0598055
No sense [49 words]RamidJun 18, 2007 22:1298055
What is your goal? [160 words]BenzionJun 19, 2007 18:4798055
tit for tat [51 words]Ben PerryJun 13, 2007 16:4098054
1Fulfilment of Ezekiel 38 & 39 ? [185 words]clarence paul puckettJun 13, 2007 22:4798054
Watch Israel, Watch. [721 words]M. ToveyJun 15, 2007 13:3298054
Attacking Iran's Nuclear facilities [63 words]Charles D. GelfandJun 13, 2007 16:1298052
permission [125 words]truth seekerJun 14, 2007 01:1098052
Israel must destroy Iran's nuclear threat [201 words]Mel LarawayJun 13, 2007 13:0598044
We need to eliminate Islamist Ahmedinejad and other fanatic ayatullahs of Iran . [32 words]GoraJun 16, 2007 11:3298044
What about the response? [425 words]PatJun 13, 2007 11:3197978
Pat, don't expect too much! [182 words]MosheJun 17, 2007 10:4997978
Shhh----It's Suppose to be a Secret! [72 words]BlackspeareJun 13, 2007 11:2797977
No ground incursion , Only Aerial Attacks and Tactical Nukes should be used to target Iran [94 words]VernonJun 16, 2007 12:1297977
And all of that fallout? [79 words]BryantJun 13, 2007 10:3997975
All that possible fallout [102 words]BenzionJun 13, 2007 16:2297975
This giant is not going to go away - ever - without a stone in the forehead [109 words]Anthony RoseJun 13, 2007 08:5497968
Why such an article ? [131 words]JonJun 13, 2007 08:0297934
1If Iran wants nukes...give them some [75 words]ScottJun 13, 2007 01:5197904
Iran's Islamic Government Must be Decapitated [39 words]Domenic PepeJun 13, 2007 01:2097897
Pre-emption Cannot Predict the Future [611 words]M. ToveyJun 12, 2007 23:5897892
Once again [74 words]David W. LincolnJun 12, 2007 22:4897886
Forgot Russian surface to air missiles [35 words]Gamaliel IsaacJun 12, 2007 21:2797880
Wonder may not happen, but the job needs to be done. To Moshe etc. [174 words]Leonid Kaplun - LeonovJun 12, 2007 19:2997866
Four negative scenarios in future . [909 words]RanetJun 12, 2007 19:2197864
WORLD WAR THREE IS UNDERWAY [356 words]Support our TroopsJun 12, 2007 19:1097860
how to support them [33 words]ASJun 14, 2007 13:5197860
The Mind Of G-D [204 words]Seamus MacNemiNov 27, 2007 08:5497860
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL [1010 words]Kaffir SoldierJun 12, 2007 19:0597857
A CASE FOR PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE AGAINST IRAN? [600 words]marianaJun 18, 2007 11:2297857
Jehad inspired Pakistani Agencies are helping Palestinian Terror Groups against Israel. [238 words]Sword of TruthJun 12, 2007 19:0397856
The Peace of Islam or "Devilishly Clever, these Islamists!" [241 words]marianaJun 17, 2007 14:0597856
Long live American-Iranian friendship ! [449 words]IanusJun 12, 2007 18:4397849
Pakistan bigger threat than Iran , Hizballah and Hamas ! [463 words]FriendJun 12, 2007 18:4197848
Please read the above comment; other comments are just random noise [243 words]Lonely in KabulJun 14, 2007 00:1297848
Suspicious [70 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Barry MillerJun 12, 2007 16:0997827
Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes [22 words]1bigtzionistJun 12, 2007 19:3197827
Expecting the Unexpected [168 words]MosheJun 12, 2007 15:4097823
Be ready to fight on five fronts before attacking Iran ! [154 words]RomiJun 12, 2007 18:1797823
Be ready to fight on five fronts before attacking Iran ! [170 words]Another AmericanJun 13, 2007 22:2197823
AA, can you be serious? [41 words]MosheJun 17, 2007 05:0097823
Be ready to fight on five fronts before attacking Iran ! [85 words]Another AmericanJun 18, 2007 01:3497823
Israeli Jets vs Iranian Nukes [66 words]Another AmericanJun 12, 2007 13:1597814
Nuclear Iran is in interest of none ! [34 words]BobJun 12, 2007 18:1097814
Iran problem [91 words]Hessel MeilechJun 12, 2007 12:2497809
Attack on Iran is most difficult but Its not impossible . [52 words]VanuJun 12, 2007 18:0897809
Haste makes Waste. [122 words]Bob SanockiJun 12, 2007 12:1097807
Disarm Iran before US chooses its next president in 2008 [67 words]DonJun 12, 2007 18:0597807
Iran is not Iraq, and Israel is not United States. [42 words]andy thompsonJun 13, 2007 14:3497807
good luck [35 words]John TheermanJun 12, 2007 11:5897805
WW III already started with Islam's attack on USA on Sept 11 . We have to fire final bullet to finish it with decisive victory. [128 words]CinisJun 12, 2007 17:5997805
Watch the fifth Column in USA before attacking Iran [229 words]PeterJun 16, 2007 15:3997805
Next: Rome via Jerusalem? [259 words]free beeJun 12, 2007 11:5397804
Ready-to-use , 100% elastic prophecies [266 words]IanusJun 15, 2007 17:5097804
What Will Iran Do In Response To An Israeli Attack? [138 words]yonatan silvermanJun 12, 2007 11:3197802
What will Pakistan , Al Qaida , Hamas , Hizballah , Syria, Mullahs do when Israel will take out Iranian Nuclear Facilities ? [699 words]BoskyJun 12, 2007 17:5097802
The Battle Is The Lords ! [63 words]clarence paul puckettJun 12, 2007 23:0097802
Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes [1637 words]Ed Melik, Esq.Jun 13, 2007 03:1497802
Israel vs Iranian nukes [548 words]Moshe LevyJun 13, 2007 08:5297802
Slave mentality [228 words]BenzionJun 13, 2007 12:0797802
What can be done to protect Israel from Iranian retaliation ? [622 words]GovindJun 16, 2007 12:0297802
Al Qaida planning to attack US and Israeli Embassies in India [2570 words]RohitJun 16, 2007 15:2897802
Hamas says , Kill the Infidels : So its best to finish them before invading Iran. [327 words]BrunoJun 16, 2007 15:4397802
We make the strike, knowing we have to, and don't worry about retaliation. [1056 words]James VesceJun 18, 2007 12:2997802
"We make the strike we know we have to and don't worry about the retaliation" by Mr. James Vesce [3022 words]Ed Melik, Esq.Jul 2, 2007 23:0597802
And there's always the "Turkey versus Iranian Nukes" option [872 words]James VesceJul 13, 2007 10:3197802
Turkey/Nukes/Revelation [23 words]TMSep 20, 2007 01:4497802
Not Easy without US [140 words]Constant HeadJun 12, 2007 11:1197800
read the article thoroughly [215 words]yuval Brandstetter MDJun 14, 2007 03:5597800
Better Europeans support Israel and US war against Terror , Islamism and Iran , otherwise .. [399 words]Proud FrenchJun 18, 2007 12:1997800
Make Master Plan to destroy all Iranian Nuclear and Miltary Facilities . [340 words]Proud WarriorJun 12, 2007 10:4397798
The bush brand of feinting [58 words]John W McGinleyJun 12, 2007 17:5197798
Good action analysis but how about reaction! let us be reasonable [167 words]HarrakJun 12, 2007 09:5697796
Judeocide [52 words]Yuval brandstetter MDJun 13, 2007 05:3497796
You are grossly over-estimating Iran's capabilities, Harrak [336 words]Bryan JacksonJun 13, 2007 12:3897796
Harrak's scenario [202 words]VijayJun 13, 2007 14:3397796
fear, fear and fear- [48 words]free beeJun 13, 2007 18:3497796
wipe out Iranian Regime power centers [134 words]HopefulJun 14, 2007 14:0897796
Free Bee- The Sancho Panza with no Horse. [140 words]YnnatchkahJun 14, 2007 17:4497796
Isreal Is Like David Up Against Present Day Goliaths, The Muslims [115 words]AnneMJun 14, 2007 19:4597796
It Can Be Done, Like It Was In 1981 [76 words]AnneMJun 14, 2007 19:5397796
No Western Plot,The Jewish People Went Home To Their Homeland [44 words]AnneMJun 14, 2007 19:5997796
Harrak may be right in his analysis [133 words]Sindy ShmidthJun 14, 2007 20:4897796
Harrak , you missed potential threat from Pakistani Nuclear Bombs and Long Range Missiles [57 words]LikadJun 15, 2007 17:4497796
pakistan!! [92 words]Sindy ShmidthJun 16, 2007 15:1697796
Million Muslims studying Militant Islam in Pakistani Madrassas [165 words]SamirJun 16, 2007 16:0997796
Samir wake up , India has more than 120,000 madrassas involved in imparting Islamist Education. [191 words]NareshJun 18, 2007 12:1297796
Mr Ynnatchkah's arrogance, answered [71 words]free beeJun 18, 2007 16:2797796
question for AnneM [24 words]free beeJun 18, 2007 16:3097796
Over optimistic [66 words]true believerJun 19, 2007 08:3197796
Nobel for mollas [27 words]true believerJun 19, 2007 08:3797796
Mr. Free Bee [411 words]YnnatchkahJun 19, 2007 16:0897796
Israelis Visit America All The Time [97 words]AnneMJun 20, 2007 09:2897796
Jews are Jewels and Muslims ... [215 words]BambioJun 20, 2007 16:1997796
Oh and I have a question for you our dear freebee aka un drained [53 words]dhimmi no moreJun 20, 2007 20:4397796
Ms AnneM- Home is ... [70 words]free beeJun 21, 2007 10:5597796
out-dated data from true believer [75 words]Sindy ShmidthJun 21, 2007 12:5497796
Despite Daily Dangers, Most Israelis Staying Put [130 words]AnneMJun 21, 2007 17:5897796
To Bambio, about free bee [109 words]YnnatchkahJun 21, 2007 18:5897796
AnneM- Palestinians are NOT moving to Isreal. [61 words]free beeJun 22, 2007 13:1697796
There Have Been News Reports Of Some Palestinians Fleeing To Isreal, That Is The Truth [56 words]AnneMJun 22, 2007 21:3697796
Thanks , With love to Ynnatchkah [432 words]BambioJun 23, 2007 05:5797796
Thank you free bee for your "answer"! [45 words]MosheJun 23, 2007 15:4997796
Listen Moshe and Remember. [34 words]free beeJun 24, 2007 23:0197796
Wake up sameer : Naresh comments: [394 words]sikJun 25, 2007 06:1897796
Thank you again free bee, you are a real asset! [36 words]MosheJun 26, 2007 03:5597796
not outdated [149 words]true believerJul 9, 2007 09:5997796
bravo [72 words]surjJul 22, 2007 20:1997796
israels a looser! [55 words]nikeFeb 21, 2011 13:2597796

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2017 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes