Pat Buchanan on war with Iran

[huisache]

Interesting article by my favorite anti war right winger in Taki's Magazine. He says all our intelligence groups say Iran is not building a weapon at this time and in fact has not decided to do so.

We are not whacking the Iranian scientists, though some of the groups doing the work have said we were the ones supporting them. He says that is false flag stuff and the Mossad is behind it. Suggests they are trying to provoke the Iranians into attacking us on some front.

Then he says something I never thought I would ever see: he says the present occupant of the White House is opposed to war with Iran and that the republicans, especially Newt and Rick, are in favor of it (Except Ron Paul, of course) and that the election in November will in effect be a referendum on whether we jump Iran.

In my reading, he comes this close to saying Obama needs to be reelected.

Never thought I would see Buchanan suggest such a thing.

I've always seen him as a polemicist of the highest order but so partisan as to be dismissed. Wonders never cease.

 

[Knoxville-Horn]

Buchanan's history has been all over the map. I think he sees the West - specifically the U.S. - as somewhat of a lost cause with isolationism the only short-term solution.

I heard someone on the radio yesterday (can't remember who) state that Israel will attack Iran well before the 2012 election due to the fact that Obama would be painted into a corner of support for Israel. If they were to attack after his re-election then he would not have to support Israel as he wouldn't be concerned with another term. Something like that. I wasn't paying too much attention but the concept was interesting.

I'm intrigued by what you wrote about Iran not developing nuclear weapon technology. I've heard this on another show and am perplexed by how there could not be a consensus. Seems like a pretty easy determination. I mean, they either are or are not. How could their be conflicting intelligence on something like this? There are certain physical objects that have to be present for nuclear weaponized technology. Seems like it would be easier to prove than the whole Iraq/WMD stuff from the 2000's.

 

[Hpslugga]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Knoxville-Horn]

Then why would the President himself threaten Iran and initiate economic sanctions if there entire nuclear program is peaceful.

 

[Hpslugga]

The United States has had a hostile position against Iran long before anyone was even talking about them possessing nuclear weapons. Again, there have been 16 US military intelligence reports in the last 4-5 years that have addressed this exact issue and they've concluded the same thing:

1. They cannot determine if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons
2. To the remote extent that they are, they are for deterrence purposes.

The Obama administration is threatening Iran for political reasons, not military.

 

[mcbrett]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[buckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

We should also consider that Israel is not the only actor in the area worried about Iran. The Saudi royal family has got to be dreading their ascendancy, as well as area Sunnis. The Lebanese can't be actors in this drama but are directly involved via Iran's violent proxies in their country, etc.

The US has a lot of interests in the area and none are friendly with the idea of a powerful Shia regime in Iran.

And Buchanan's take is that we are not unsure about whether they are trying to make a nuke or several but that we are sure they are not doing so at present and have not decided that they will.

 

[borna_horn]

So Buchanan's Anti-Semitism outweighs his support for the Republican party. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[borna_horn]

Buchanan has a history of Anti-Semitic, anti-Israel sympathies, going back decades, including questioning the validity of the Holocaust. He is by far the most anti-Israel voice amongst notable political figures.

I didn't make my comments in a vacuum. I am well familiar with Buchanan's views.

 

[Bevo Incognito]

His history is only relevant if it somehow precludes him from being right about this issue., Bornahorn. It does not.

Yours is an ad hominem argument.

 

[borna_horn]

Obviously, an Anti-Israel commentator is going to be much less concerned with preventing Iran from getting nukes. See hpslugga, 2003texasgrad, buckhorn...