http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/the_quds_puzzle
http://www.alternet.org/story/48083/
No One’s Drinking Bush’s Kool-Aid on Iran
[quote]Bush is discovering that boldly lying about Iran isn’t enough. He needs his chorus of liars behind him … and they’re all gone.
It was, President Bush must have been thinking, a heck of a lot easier five years ago. Back in 2002, the president had a smoothly running lie factory humming along in the Pentagon, producing reams of fake intelligence about Iraq, led by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans. Back then, he had a tightly knit cabal of neoconservatives, led by I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, based in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, to carry out a coordinated effort to distribute the lies to the media. And he had a chorus of yes-men in the Republican-controlled Congress ready to echo the party line.
In 2007, Bush stands nearly alone, and he never looked lonelier than during a bumbling, awkward news conference on the Iraq-Iran tangle Wednesday.
Feith is long gone, and last week his lie factory was exposed by the Pentagon’s own inspector general, who told Congress that Feith had pretty much made up everything that his rogue intelligence unit manufactured. Libby is long gone, apparently about to be sentenced to jail for lying about Cheney’s frantic effort to cover up the lie factory’s work. And the congressional echo chamber is gone: In six weeks, the Democrats have held more than four dozen hearings to investigate the White House’s catastrophic Middle East policy, and even Hillary Clinton is warning that Bush had better keep his hands off Iran, saying: “It would be a mistake of historical proportions if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran.”
Without his Orwellian apparatus behind him, the president spent most of his hour-long news conference yesterday shrugging and smirking, jutting his jaw out with false bravado, joshing inappropriately with reporters asking deadly serious questions and stumbling over his words. It was painful to listen to him trying to justify the nonsensical claims that Iran and its paramilitary “Quds Force” are somehow responsible for the chaos in Iraq:
What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That’s a known. What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.
Pressed about what the “head leaders” are doing, he went on:
Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they’re there. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know? … What’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening?
If that makes no sense to you, well, that’s because the whole thing makes no sense. It’s a farcical replay of Iraq 2002, when the White House demonized Saddam Hussein with fake intelligence, turning him into a menacing al-Qaida backer armed with weapons of mass destruction. This time, however, the lie factory has been dismantled. All by himself, the president is trying to turn Iran into a scary, al-Qaida-allied, nuke-wielding menace. But he’s not fooling anyone. The potent “war president” of 2002-2003 is now an incoherent, mewling Wizard of Oz-like figure, and people are paying attention to the man behind the curtain.
Unlike 2002, when the White House fired salvo after salvo of fake intelligence about Iraq, today it can’t even stage its lies properly. Like the incompetents who couldn’t organize a two-car funeral, the remaining Iran war hawks in the administration held a briefing in Baghdad on Sunday to present alleged evidence that Iran is masterminding the insurgency in Iraq. But it was a comedy of errors that convinced no one. Twice, at least, the administration had earlier postponed or canceled the much-promoted event, designed to reveal the supposed secrets behind Iran’s actions in Iraq. When it was finally held, it was not in Washington, but in Baghdad, with not a single White House official, no U.S. diplomat, no State Department official, no CIA official and no one from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Instead, a couple of anonymous military officers held a background-only briefing, barring cameras and tape recorders, to present some blurry photographs of bomb-looking things – and not a shred of evidence of Iranian government involvement.
It was as if Adlai Stevenson had gotten up at the United Nations during the missile crisis in Cuba and, rather than showing detailed U-2 photographs of missile emplacements, had simply said, “Ladies and gentleman, some Cuban guy we talked to said the Russians are putting missiles in Cuba.”
According to The Washington Times, the effort to blame Iran was directly torpedoed by the U.S. intelligence community, through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The ODNI, said the Times, “sought to play down the intelligence on Iranian involvement, fearing that the report will be used as a basis to launch an attack on Iran.” Many earlier reports noted that both the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community were strongly opposed to any attempt to demonize Iran. There’s nothing like a bureaucracy scorned to conduct passive-aggressive sabotage of misguided policies, and in this case the bureaucracy apparently succeeded. The dog-and-pony show on Iranian meddling in Iraq not only didn’t scare anyone, it caused guffaws of laughter and ridicule.
And then there was the hilarious presidential press conference yesterday, to top it off.
There is, of course, no basis for arguing that the civil war in Iraq is caused by Iran. And there is no basis – “not supported by underlying intelligence,” as the Pentagon I.G. said about Doug Feith’s 2002 work – to argue that Iran is responsible for a significant part of American deaths in Iraq. Nearly all of the U.S. casualties in Iraq are caused by the secular-Baathist Sunni-led resistance and religious Sunni extremists fighting the occupation, and none of the forces allied with the resistance have ties to Iran. Even the anonymous briefers at the dog-and-camel show in Baghdad admitted that Iran is helping the Shiite militias, not the Sunnis; in other words, Iran is helping the self-same militias that are being trained and armed by the United States.
And the spurious claim that 170 Americans have died in attacks using Iranian-supplied super-IED’s since 2004 can only mean one thing: that the Pentagon is counting the numbers of U.S. soldiers and Marines who died in April and August, 2004. That was when the United States waged two mini-wars against Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. It was the only time in the past four years when the United States suffered significant casualties fighting the Shiites – though the administration presented zero evidence that Sadr’s Mahdi Army gets weapons from Iran, or needs to. But if they’re counting as far back as 2004 – and, according to the Pentagon, the super-IED’s started showing up in 2004 – then the whole issue is absurd, since what happened three years ago has little or no relevance to current conditions.
Those prone to believe, along with the president, that Iran is fomenting the violence in Iraq have already drunk deep of the neocon Kool-Aid. The rest of us can only shake our heads in wonder that the president thinks he can get away with this.[/quote]
I didn’t drink the kool-aid last time. I hope there are enough of us that see through his malarky now.
In the following article, a case is made for sanity. I know, your first gut response is to scream, “those crazy rag heads are not sane!”, but this piece has within it evidence of the sanity that truly rules Iran. Remember, Iran does have biological and chemical weapons. This is undisputed, yet they have not used them, and have not threatened to use them against Israel.
The sanity that this fact suggests, is simply, they value their existence. Israel would wipe Iran off of the map with even the slightest provocation. They are itching for a reason to strike and cripple Iran. Iran would be insane to offer this golden calf to Israel.
Evidence Suggests Iran Wouldn’t Pull Nuclear Trigger
by Justin Logan and Ted Galen Carpenter
[quote]Justin Logan is a foreign policy analyst and Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies. Both authors are members of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.
French President Jacques Chirac caused a stir last week by suggesting that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have little offensive use. “Where will it drop it, this bomb?” Chirac mused. “On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”
Though he later retracted this diplomatic faux pas, Chirac’s remark represents a fundamental reality.
Some hawks in the Iran debate argue that the Iranian leadership is not rational, and hence, fundamentally undeterrable.
Bernard Lewis, the Princeton historian and adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, argues that Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government “clearly believe” that “the cosmic struggle at the end of time … ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil” has begun. Israeli historian Benny Morris posits that a nuclear Iran would bring about a “second Holocaust.”
If Lewis and Morris were right, there would be no point even contemplating deterring a nuclear Iran ? Israel’s and even America’s nuclear arsenals would be useless against it. Thankfully, their reasoning is flawed and their evidence thin.
First, Ahmadinejad is not a Stalinesque ? or even Putinesque ? center of power in Tehran. The Iranian president has increasingly been a target of official criticism, and recent reports indicate that he may not remain in power to the end of his four-year term.
Iran’s powerful Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a more significant political player than Ahmadinejad. Though Khamenei also embraces odious ideas, it is important to evaluate Iran’s actions, not just its rhetoric.
Consider the Iran-Iraq War. Smoldering with radicalism from the Islamic revolution, Iran’s early rhetoric was uncompromising, and in November 1981, it issued clear proclamations that it had no intention of stopping the war as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power.
By 1988, however, a long string of devastating tactical routs had made clear that outright strategic defeat was possible, so the Iranian leadership changed course. They sued for peace, jettisoning their original objective of deposing Hussein and taking a deal that left Iran on the light side of the postwar balance of power.
That the clerical leadership saw this reality and decided to end the conflict suggests that for all its religious bombast, it was making rational strategic calculations. In hindsight, even extreme radicals like Khomeini ? who were viewed at the time as irrational ? did not meet the description.
The evidence indicates that Iran’s leadership remains rational today. Though it would certainly terrify the Israeli population, Iran has never passed chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah or other client organizations.
Why? Most likely because they fear Israeli reprisals. And if the Iranians fear Israel’s response to a chemical or biological attack, they are certainly aware how much more severely Israel would respond to a nuclear assault, whether by proxy or directly launched from Iran.
Never in history have leaders made a decision that was absolutely certain to destroy their own country in a matter of hours. Until someone can come up with definitive evidence that Iran is the first such country, we must work from the assumption that Chirac’s reasoning is right. [/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Grimnuruk wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
In my view, Iran poses a military threat that will be far harder to deal with than Iraq.
Agreed. The threat posed by Iran militarily is bad enough to give even the most aggressive of Hawks pause. Combine this with the vast oil reserves they are sitting on and their terrorism apparatus…the most experienced and possibly most funded in the world…and what we have is a disaster in the making that will have us looking back at Iraq with fond nostalgia…
So the thing to do is ignore them and hope they don’t attack us? Newsflash: they’re doing it NOW.
[/quote]
Newsflash: the boy is crying wolf again.
Another newsflash: the moron sees no alternatives between ignoring and attacking. That makes him about as smart as an ant.
In a rational analysis,war is always a race,desired outcome vs. resources (money,men,etc).
In Iraq it’s clear that the desired outcome has not been achieved and is not even on the horizon.
Resources on the other hand,are being burned up at an impressive rate.
So what would going into Iran produce?
There is absolutely no evidence that any desired outcome would be achieved.
But it is absolutely guaranteed that it would be a tremendous resouce drain on the US.Enough to bankrupt the Federal Govt?I don’t know but it’s certainly feasible.
Apart from any political views on the issue ,it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to invade Iran.
There is no upside.
[quote]hedo wrote:
My two cents, politics aside.
First phase will involve the sinking of the navy in port and as much of the airforce as they can on the ground. This will happen after an Iranian provocation real or implied. A naval embargo will ensue that will blockade oil exports and imports of refined fuel.
At this stage I think they will destory the airforce and then maintain air superiority. Any massed armor or infantry will be hit and destroyed
I’d look for special forces to stir up resistance.
At this point they will be offered terms and conditions. I don’t think we ever invade with ground troops. The regime falls because they can’t protect the population. [/quote]
Has a regime ever fallen due to airstrikes before? The answer is no, not even in Yugoslavia. Bombing a country has the tendency to lead a people to rally around the flag, regardless of how bad their rulers may be. They may not like the mullahs, but they’re going to like being bombed by foreigners even less.
We could do a lot of damage with airpower, but let’s not kid ourselves and say airpower will topple the theocracy. Not gonna happen.
[quote]blck3jack wrote:
Teran will be parking lot. Israel is likely to jump in on the boat as well and eliminate hezbollah at the same time. At its current state the Iranian people hate their current leader and a special forces effort to overthrow Iran from within is in the most likely possibility. As for specific military strategy its pretty smiple.
-
Concentrated airstrikes eliminate navy and large military bases.
-
Coast will be blockaded
-
Special Forces will work with current resistance in Iran to secure Teran and stage a coup.
[/quote]
Is the sky blue in your world? Israel didn’t have a ton of success in “eliminating” Hezbollah last summer, did they?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
In a rational analysis,war is always a race,desired outcome vs. resources (money,men,etc).
In Iraq it’s clear that the desired outcome has not been achieved and is not even on the horizon.
Resources on the other hand,are being burned up at an impressive rate.
So what would going into Iran produce?
There is absolutely no evidence that any desired outcome would be achieved.
But it is absolutely guaranteed that it would be a tremendous resouce drain on the US.Enough to bankrupt the Federal Govt?I don’t know but it’s certainly feasible.
Apart from any political views on the issue ,it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to invade Iran.
There is no upside.
[/quote]
A war doesn’t have to include a ground invasion. The regime could be nuetered from a tactical perspective.
Iran is fueling an arms race in the Middle East. Nearly $100B is being spent by potential Iranian opponents who fear it’s military rise. One way or another Iran will be fighting someone in the near term.
We can look for clues to what they really mean but in the end what they state publicly is what they will be held accountable for. They don’t even have nukes yet but are already threatening others with them.
It’s not so much that the desired outcome is too costly but it must be weighed against the cost of doing nothing or allowing Iran to set the agenda. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Iran as has been demonstrated. Diplomacy, sanctions and the threat of military action may. In the end hoping for a benevolent Iran is not the most prudent course to follow for anyone.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
My two cents, politics aside.
First phase will involve the sinking of the navy in port and as much of the airforce as they can on the ground. This will happen after an Iranian provocation real or implied. A naval embargo will ensue that will blockade oil exports and imports of refined fuel.
At this stage I think they will destory the airforce and then maintain air superiority. Any massed armor or infantry will be hit and destroyed
I’d look for special forces to stir up resistance.
At this point they will be offered terms and conditions. I don’t think we ever invade with ground troops. The regime falls because they can’t protect the population.
Has a regime ever fallen due to airstrikes before? The answer is no, not even in Yugoslavia. Bombing a country has the tendency to lead a people to rally around the flag, regardless of how bad their rulers may be. They may not like the mullahs, but they’re going to like being bombed by foreigners even less.
We could do a lot of damage with airpower, but let’s not kid ourselves and say airpower will topple the theocracy. Not gonna happen.[/quote]
That’s my prediction and analysis…not my warplan.
WW3 in the making gentlemen.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
In a rational analysis,war is always a race,desired outcome vs. resources (money,men,etc).
In Iraq it’s clear that the desired outcome has not been achieved and is not even on the horizon.
Resources on the other hand,are being burned up at an impressive rate.
So what would going into Iran produce?
There is absolutely no evidence that any desired outcome would be achieved.
But it is absolutely guaranteed that it would be a tremendous resouce drain on the US.Enough to bankrupt the Federal Govt?I don’t know but it’s certainly feasible.
Apart from any political views on the issue ,it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to invade Iran.
There is no upside.
A war doesn’t have to include a ground invasion. The regime could be nuetered from a tactical perspective.
Iran is fueling an arms race in the Middle East. Nearly $100B is being spent by potential Iranian opponents who fear it’s military rise. One way or another Iran will be fighting someone in the near term.
We can look for clues to what they really mean but in the end what they state publicly is what they will be held accountable for. They don’t even have nukes yet but are already threatening others with them.
It’s not so much that the desired outcome is too costly but it must be weighed against the cost of doing nothing or allowing Iran to set the agenda. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Iran as has been demonstrated. Diplomacy, sanctions and the threat of military action may. In the end hoping for a benevolent Iran is not the most prudent course to follow for anyone.
[/quote]
Fair points.
The whole area has always been unstable.Since the Iraqi invasion ,even more so.So how do we attribute the arms spending in the region solely to the Iranian perceived threat?
I’m not seeing the connection.I may be obtuse,but I don’t know what the exact reasoning of the countries in the region may be in pursuing a build up.(And I have not and will not check the figures you propose.Your posts are intelligent and well thought out so I’m sure the figures are fairly accurate)
As for public statements,also not really an accurate gauge of intent.Individuals say things that may not be really indicative of what the government of a nation may or may not do.(The comments about nuking Pakistan back to the stone age come to mind.)
Can Iran set any agenda?Not any more or less than any other nation.I could care less for a benevolent Iran.What I can measure and see is what Iran can or may do.As of now ,not that much.All this pre emptive action position does just not sit well with me.
Is Iran nuclear?No.
May it become so?Likely.
Is Israel nuclear?Yes.
Will they tolerate a nuclear Iran?Probably not.
Can they handle Iran?For sure.
To me these are regional questions that can and will be handled by the regional ruling power,
Most answers are already provided in history.Bigger,more financially powerful Empires have been broken by the pursuit of foreign military goals.The original reasons for the actions are not what I’m debating.I’m saying look at the realities.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
WW3 in the making gentlemen.[/quote]
Maybe…
We will see how things go in Iran. If the American Empire attempts to take it.
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
WW3 in the making gentlemen.
Maybe…
We will see how things go in Iran. If the American Empire attempts to take it.
[/quote]
As soon as US bombs Iran, based on a fake terror attack blamed on Iran, they will block any oil coming out of the gulf which will send the price of oil through the roof, also, by attacking Iran we’ll be stepping on Chinese and Russian toes and you know they’re itching for a fight.
Coincidentally this chinese new year is “year of the pig” according to ancient Chinese belief, the Year of the Pig is symbolised by two elements – fire sitting on top of water.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
brucevangeorge wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
WW3 in the making gentlemen.
Maybe…
We will see how things go in Iran. If the American Empire attempts to take it.
As soon as US bombs Iran, based on a fake terror attack blamed on Iran, they will block any oil coming out of the gulf which will send the price of oil through the roof, also, by attacking Iran we’ll be stepping on Chinese and Russian toes and you know they’re itching for a fight.
Coincidentally this chinese new year is “year of the pig” according to ancient Chinese belief, the Year of the Pig is symbolised by two elements – fire sitting on top of water.[/quote]
The Russians would be the big winners if the flow of oil out of the Gulf were disrupted. Not only would they generate massive windfall profits, but it would enhance their political influence as Eurasia’s energy superpower even further.
On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: “If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities”. The white house’s spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer and called it a “false offer”. That’s a pretty ironic turn.
Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran’s nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing. Mad world.
US plans to attack Iran’s military facilities, BBC says
The United States’ contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC reported Monday night.
According to the report, any such attack would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers.
[quote]lixy wrote:
US plans to attack Iran’s military facilities, BBC says
The United States’ contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC reported Monday night.
According to the report, any such attack would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centers. [/quote]
Statement of the obvious by the BBC.
[quote]lixy wrote:
On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: “If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities”. The white house’s spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer and called it a “false offer”. That’s a pretty ironic turn.
Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran’s nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing. Mad world.[/quote]
Are you actually making a point or simply pointing out how silly the Iranian response is? More bluster no substance.
US citizens aren’t dancing in the strrets calling for “Death to Iran” and “Death to Israel” and US elected representatives aren’t calling for anyone’s distraction.
You do realize one nation is a superpower and the other a State sponsor of terrorism.
Reality what a bitch huh?
Originally Posted by bbc news
[b]US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.[/b]
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Two triggers
[b]BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called “bunker-busting” bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC’s Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.[/b]
Deadline
Earlier this month US officers in Iraq said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. However the most senior US military officer later cast doubt on this, saying that they only had proof that weapons “made in Iran” were being used in Iraq.
Gen Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he did not know that the Iranian government “clearly knows or is complicit” in this.
At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were “excuses to prolong the stay” of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain’s previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
[b]The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.[/b]
Seriously though the ball is firmly in the US’s court on this one. I’m pretty sure they could invent smoking gun in regard to Iranian involvement in Iraq if they so desired. However with the election looming next year and American troops already bogged down in two middle-eastern nations, I would find it surprising for an action against Iran before the election.
There would have to be a catalyst, and Iran would have to be involved. well… you know… officially. However we’ve already seen some of those attempts fizzle. The pentagon presented exceedingly sketchy proof and was met with a deluge of criticism. I think that the trigger would have to be something tangible that the american people could plainly see and rally against. Saying ‘the iranian government is involved’ and pointing to a table of metal parts wasn’t even enough to convince the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Are you actually making a point or simply pointing out how silly the Iranian response is? [/quote]
I’ll try to draw an analogy for you. Suppose I want to talk you into quitting weightlifting. Since it’s your right to do, you’d want to hear some reasons, or maybe get a compensation for that, right?
Now, I demand that you quit lifting weight before we even sit down and talk about it. What is there to negociate if I’ve already got what I wanted; i.e: you quitting the gym and protein shakes.
No. US elected representatives are not calling for anyone’s distraction(sic). They only call other countries “axis of evil” and such then proceed to obliterate them. The task of expropriating and raping the locals is then started.
Read a bit on the forums around here. Americans are calling for them to be “nuked”. Ask JeffR on his opinion on the matter.
I agree with the US being a state that sponsors terrorism but don’t see why you call Iran a superpower. As a matter of fact, the International Court of Justice agrees with that as well (look up their verdict on American sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua from 1986).
Contrast the following:
The US has more history of state-sponsored terrorism that iran could ever dream of.