Who Wants War With Iran?
Appearing alongside CIA Director David Petraeus before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said of Iran: “We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”
Before the hearing, as James Fallows of The Atlantic reports, Clapper released his “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” It read, “We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Clapper thus reaffirmed the assessment of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, that the U.S. does not believe that Iran has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state.
In December, when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said that if Iran went all out, it might be able to build a nuclear weapon in a year, Pentagon spokesman George Little hastily clarified his comments: “The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon.”
On Jan. 8, Panetta himself told CBS: “[Is Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us. And our redline to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon.”
On Super Bowl Sunday, President Barack Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he hopes to solve the Iranian problem “diplomatically.”
From the above, we may conclude that the administration does not believe that Iran has crossed any redline on the nuclear issue — and President Obama does not want war with Iran.
Who, then, does want war? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
From their actions, it would appear not. If Iran wanted war with the United States, any terror attack inside this country or on U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring that about in an afternoon.
Expulsion of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from the Natanz enrichment facility, covering up the IAEA cameras, breaking the seals on the low-enriched uranium stockpiled there, or removing the LEU would be a fire bell for the Pentagon.
But the IAEA inspectors and LEU are still there.
When the alleged plot by a used-car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican cartel criminals to blow up a D.C. restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador was revealed, Iran denied it emphatically and demanded to interview the alleged mastermind.
Moreover, Tehran has yet to retaliate for the assassinations of five of its nuclear scientists and four terror attacks by Jundallah in Sistan-Baluchistan and PJAK, a Kurdish terrorist organization operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran has alleged Western and Israeli involvement in these attacks.
Now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has denied any U.S. involvement, Mossad is the prime suspect behind the killing of the nuclear scientists. And U.S. writer Mark Perry, in Foreign Policy, alleges that Mossad agents posed as CIA and used U.S. dollars in London to recruit Jundallah.
If this is true, this would be a false-flag operation to provoke Iran into lashing out at America. Apparently, Iran did not take the bait.
Why have the Iranians not followed through on their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and begun to dial it back?
War with the United States would be a disaster. Though the Tehran regime might survive — as Saddam Hussein’s survived Desert Storm — Iran’s navy, most of its armor, anti-aircraft and anti-ship defenses, and its strategic missile force would be destroyed, as would much of the country’s infrastructure. Iran would be set back years.
Who, then, wants war with Iran?
All those who would like to see exactly that happen to Iran.
And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.
And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013.
Yet if the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence community are correct — Iran does not have a bomb and has not decided to build a bomb — why should we go to war with Iran?
Answer: Iran represents “an existential threat” to Israel.
But Israel has 200 atomic bombs and three ways to deliver them, while Iran has never built, tested, or weaponized a nuclear device. Who is the existential threat to whom here?
And though a U.S. war on Iran would be calamitous for Iran, it would be no cakewalk for Americans, who could become terrorist targets for years in the Gulf, Afghanistan, Baghdad’s Green Zone, Lebanon, and even here in the USA.
Year 2012 is thus shaping up as a war-or-peace election, with Republicans the war party and Democrats the peace-and-diplomacy party.
And as the months pass between now and November, this will become clear to the nation.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- He Who Defends Everything Defends Nothing – February 2nd, 2012
- Who Wants War With Iran? – January 19th, 2012
- Our Innocents Abroad? – January 2nd, 2012
- Make Congress Vote on War on Iran – December 22nd, 2011
- And Was the Mission Accomplished? – December 15th, 2011





Chris Moore
February 6th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
With Ron Paul being railroaded, it looks like the next presidential election will be a replay of the last: a war-fatigued country will reject the hawkish GOP candidate, and go with the (relatively) dovish alternative.
The GOP exists in a frat house bubble of belligerent buffoons filled with piss and vinegar, and then wonders why it has so much trouble competing with socialist Dems who can barely govern their way out of a paper bag.
Roger Lafontaine
February 6th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Does Iran 'represent an existential threat' to Israel ? Or is it an existential scapegoat ? I don't think there are any threats to Israel. There are just scapegoats for its vindictiveness and deep-seated need for vengeance for the Holocaust.
Pretty girls Tehran
February 6th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I am glad Obama is avoiding war with Iran, although I feel bad about the sanctions which are causing so much suffering in Iran, why we can't just talk to them, open an embassy and buy their oil, rugs and pistachios is beyond me.
Tom Mauel
February 6th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
The election becoming a war and peace election. No way. The candidates are the same on Iran.
sherban
February 6th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
Iran has not nuclear weapon how Israel has and Iran has not a huge propaganda at her disposition as Israel has,propaganda which works from years tirelessly demonizing Iran and her regime,her religion,her leaders,making possible that the victim to appear as aggressor and the aggressor as victim and such inducing in the people of the "free world"minds the idea that crippling sanctions and even war are necessary to stop the "Iranian threat".Of course no one in the "free world"can't hear the Iranian position.There are given as proves that some Iranian leaders spoke about Israel as a cancer in the ME but this is an answer of endless call Iran as "evil","the much evil regime"and many others variation of evil with terrorism,fascism,etc.Every Iranian leader in front with Kamenay mentioned that Iran don't want to get a bomb,that is forbid by Iran religion and that Iran doesn't intent to attack any country.But Iran is threatened daily and is sanctioned and sabotaged and "all the options are on the table"of course the option of treats,and discussions which were forbidden by Ileana Ross .
Who wants war with Iran? « The Passionate Attachment
February 7th, 2012 at 5:30 am
[...] Patrick Buchanan writes: And who are they? The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media, the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
spider
February 7th, 2012 at 5:36 am
I disagree, Obama is just as enthralled to Israel and AIPAC, but because his interventionist foreign policy, and assault on civil liberties has cost him some support he is walking a fine line. If elected I think he will be no different from any Republican. After all he did a complete about face on his 2008 campaign promises, and because of his speaking ability, and charm has become more dangerous than Bush/Cheney by contining and expanding their both their war and their assault on civil liberties. I see war with Iran no matter who the president is. Of course if by some miracle Ron Paul managed to get elected then the outcome would be different, However, this outcome would be in the realm of a miracle.
tomofsnj
February 7th, 2012 at 5:39 am
Iran is a great threat to planned Israel. Israel is out of water and they need to invade Lebanon and take land up to the Latavi river. Ben Gurion understood this and he tried to get the borders of his new nation up to the Latavi river. Every military action that Israel has had was somehow tied into the getting of water. Gaza, west bank, golan heights all have high water tables. Golan heights control the Jordan rivers.
As long as hezbolah gets arms then Israel will at best pay a very high price to reenter Lebanon. Lebanon has long been a very costly place for the IDF. Reagan greatly misunderstood the situation and placed the US Marines to cover the exit of Sharon's troops. 253 USA Marines died because of that mistake. Reagan quickly pulled the Marines out.
Syria provides the land bridge for Iran to move military equipment to Hezbolah. The actions of aggression by the old colonial powers now called NATO has been an on going war of aggression over 130 years old. I believe the first major action was when Lord Rothchild loaned 4 million pounds to the British government to buy the company who owned the bankrupt suez canal. That was 1872 and shortly after Egypt was occupied with British troops. Egypt provided the land base to attack the Ottoman Empire. Lord Rothchild at the same time was buying large land tracts in what to shortly be Israel. It is all been in the works forever and day to day events are just stunts in a very long war.
Who Wants War With Iran? by Patrick J. Buchanan — Antiwar.com | My Marketing File
February 7th, 2012 at 6:15 am
[...] Who Wants War With Iran? by Patrick J. Buchanan — Antiwar.com. [...]
John V. Walsh
February 7th, 2012 at 6:55 am
What is happening to Pat Buchanan?
He writes:"And as the Obama administration is the major force in U.S. politics opposed to war with Iran, its defeat in November would increase, to near certitude, the probability of a U.S. war with Iran in 2013."
Obama needs the peace voters whom he betrayed after the 2008 election. Why does PBS think he will do something different this time?
John V. Walsh
February 7th, 2012 at 6:58 am
Oops, PBS above is meant to be PB, Pat Buchanan. The spell checker changed PB to PBS!!
musings
February 7th, 2012 at 6:59 am
The statement in Mr. Buchanan's article: Any terror attack in the US or against troops in Iraq or Afghanistan could bring about war with Iran in an afternoon (if Iran wanted war) is just the problem. Having a switch like that (still not disconnected) in the American soul is the problem. Not because it would be better if we didn't defend ourselves if we are attacked, but because we have already demonstrated that once we feel aggrieved, we may be sent after anyone our leaders choose to send us after. Or we may sit upon an offense after it was discovered to have been a false flag like the USS Liberty during the 1967 war between Egypt and Israel.
The manipulation is already happening to place Iran in the wrong in any event which smacks of terror. It depends upon leadership to keep us from self-destructing if something ill should happen.
I recall that when Oklahoma City happened, someone I knew who longed for a war against Iraq ever since Saddam sent SCUDs into Israel, acted positively relieved and joyful that "at last" the US had been hit by Iraqis and understood the sting. I was joyful (if you can call it that) when my country sat still and determined that the attack had been domestic. The anthrax was domestic too and intended to set up Iraq. Once again?
We have seen with social media that immediate emotional reactions are now seen to be very potent and game-changing. Those who want to manipulate the public see it clearly. Beware the "terror attack" which causes a viral infection in the US public so that bad news travels faster than relative good. We can deal with domestic crimes or international ones if we pay attention to who did them. But we must first not surrender reason. Look for more movies and tv shows demonizing Iran, and then wait for the emotional marination to be followed by a spark.
Self-destruction is a two-way street and those who perpetrate it in others might well be "hoist by their own petard" as they yield to their own form of irrationality.
musings
February 7th, 2012 at 7:05 am
If you like pistachios, I have boxes of them brought back by Iranian students in the US who go and see their relatives in Iran. This is the standard gift upon their return. Always in the shell, so it plays the merry hell with my manicure. (I'm not the professor – my husband is). Not sure how long this visiting relatives can keep up and I also fear for the students being blacklisted just for going there. Naturally, there are no stories in the news about what sanction are doing to Iranian families. It might humanize them too much. Can't have them portrayed as people like us, can we?
JDonald
February 7th, 2012 at 8:29 am
As a nuclear scientist, I say let the IAEA do its job. When and if they detect any movement towards the contruction of a nuclear weapon we should cross that bridge then. In the meantime, Iran has every right to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear physics that they have signed up to do with the NPT. It is Israel that has not joined the NPT and poses the "existential " threat to all Arab countries in the Middle East. The neocons and AIPAC can go to H—–!
humanist
February 7th, 2012 at 9:43 am
The following is the last part of my today's comment in raceforiran.com:
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What you would have done if during Iran Iraq war you were in full charge of Iranian armed forces finding out thousands of your soldiers were subjected to atrocious slow death by Iraqi chemical weapons, also knowing that Iran could easily obtain or manufacture those weapons?
What would you have done? A more forceful and ferocious retaliation?.
Iranians decided not to use those type of weapons or any type of WMD. Were they stupid? I believe not. When Olaf Palme the prime minister of Sweden found out about Iranian strategy he must have been impressed since he took steps to help Iranians. Were some of his steps illegal? Why someone committed suicide? The is a long story.
humanist
February 7th, 2012 at 9:44 am
part 2
Yesterday I read the present (right wing?) prime minister of Sweden, strongly disagreed with any type of military action against Iran as you can read it here:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224799.html
Is this the first payback for Iranian refusal to use chemical weapons? I don’t think so. Indeed Iran by that refusal earned a very high place in human history …maybe at the very peak……that alone, in a subtle way, might keep Iranians proud forever and that is not insignificant or inconsequential from any angle you look at it.
Brian
February 7th, 2012 at 10:22 am
I think it's "hope" rather than "think". But let's face it. At this point it's Obama (maybe war with Iran) versus a bombastic buffoon (definitely war with Iran, from what they've been saying) who's for sale to the highest bidder (Gingrich) or so wealthy as to be out of touch with everyone (Romney).
For a while I held out hope for Dr Paul. He did surprisingly well at times. I'd say he had a chance next time around but he'll be that much older in four years and it's hard to say. Good luck to him just the same. What he really needs to do though is groom successors–as many as he can.
musings
February 7th, 2012 at 10:35 am
I agree with you, except for this: for Iran's sake, they should be wary of nuclear power. Look at Japan's experience. Even the US power plant at San Onofre, between San Diego and Los Angeles on a very productive coastline (for fishing and tourism that is) has developed a leak. I just drove by the place on my way to San Diego. It is right in the midst of one of the most desirable agricultural areas on the planet too. Iran should be careful with "progress" , even if as is inevitable the oil will become less drillable as it peaks.
Kolya Krassotkin
February 7th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Regime change in Tel Aviv is long past due.
Kolya Krassotkin
February 7th, 2012 at 10:47 am
All the Iranians I have ever known (and I have known many) have been kind, thoughtful, decent people, all of whom have asked for nothingmore than to live their lives freely and with dignity. They are wonderful people, something I cannot sayeven near the same about the people who are America's best "friends" in the ME.
The thought of destroying Iran for our two-faced, back-stabbing "friend" in the ME and its supporters saddens and sickens me.
CuriousPacifistCynic
February 7th, 2012 at 10:52 am
I rather suspect Paul uses the 'peace voters' too.
CuriousPacifistCynic
February 7th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Well, it's anyone's guess whether the 'peace' side of the Obama administration's rhetoric and/or actions is just for electoral gain, or if it's the 'war' side, or both. None of the Republican candidates (read: other than Paul) have exhibited a 'peace' side to date, so PB's point is not so controversial.
baz
February 7th, 2012 at 11:19 am
i have said many times
israel wants to destroy iran because,
1) iran should and could be an economic giant in asia
2) an economically strong Iran would force the US to respect it and play ball on the rights of the palestinians and to get the Israelis to give up their racist dreams of stealing all palestinian land and creating a purified jewish state.
That is it in a nutshell. israel is scared to death of any reporachment between the US and Iran despite 16 years of iranian presidents trying to normalize ties. Every offer made by Iran has quickly been torn up by Israels spies working in the white house
Sam
February 7th, 2012 at 11:34 am
A war with Iran is a bad idea and could prompt a collision with Russia and China. Let's pray that reason prevails.
andy
February 7th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
No war for Israel. No American lives for israel.
patriothere
February 7th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
At the end of the day obama is just another politician and will do whatever he has to do to get re-elected. Which means if he has to attack Iran or go to war with Iran to get re-elected, he will do just that. Because if he doesn't attack Iran, you better believe some psychopath will come out of that primordial ooze on the right and attack iran, not to mention drink the blood of all the innocent muslims killed.
jeff_davis
February 7th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
"consummate liar" = skilled politician
Nathan
February 7th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
In the event of war Iranians do not have to close the Strait of Hormuz. All they have to do is rain missiles on the oil production facilities of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al, who are U.S. allies, to stop oil prodiction for a coon's age.
gmc
February 7th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Never ceases to amaze me on how gullible Americans are when it comes to Israel. The facts are out there for all to see on Iran’s nuclear power and whether they have weapons thereof. For the gullible, the answer is NO. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. I ask, how in the hell does Israel have to right to attack it’s neighbors when it deems fit? This little place called Israel is a disaster. How in the heck does this country get away with the espionage it conducts throughout the world? I’m more concerned about what Israel is doing than Iran. Israel has nuclear weapons that it stoled from the U.S. and it’s allies. If theres one country that needs to be spanked good, it’s Israel. That includes the stopping of military aide and money that the U.S. provides for Free. Nothing more makes me sick when I see Americans suffering and yet we give one of the richest countries in the world free money. They have free higher education and free medical over there. What the heck is America doing? Iran is no threat. Actions speak louder than words. What one needs to look at is the actions of the nations that are conducting terrorist aggressions throughout the world. Let me see, what nation in the middle east fits that bill; Israel.
moe7
February 7th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Obama has proven himself to be a war monger. He seems to lack insight, understanding and conviction with respect to the great issue of war & peace. The Republicans are even worse. Gingrich & Santorum belong in the looney bin, but they are taken seriously. Mitt is a nit-wit and we don't know what he might do. Ron Paul, alas, doesn't stand a chance. The future is uncertain and the end is always near. It ain't looking good folks.
'Who Wants War With Iran?' by Pat Buchanan
February 8th, 2012 at 6:50 am
[...] 'Who Wants War With Iran?' by Pat Buchanan Interesting essay, although the Obongotards are now scrambling, trying to figure out a way an American-Irano War can be sold to John Q. Stupid and how it can propel him into a second term. The timing of the war and the dastardliness of the false-flag igniting 'incident' are key considerations. An early/mid summer attack on Iran could easily backfire on Obongo before the Nov. 'elections.' Who Wants War With Iran? by Patrick J. Buchanan — Antiwar.com [...]
Guest
February 8th, 2012 at 10:10 am
why so many negatives on a fact that is obvious to all but the most obtuse?
US media & government beating drums of war again | Southern Nationalist Network
February 9th, 2012 at 8:47 am
[...] Click here for Pat Buchana’s ‘Who Wants War with Iran?’ [...]