Would You Bomb Iran, Yes or No?

Sandwiched between the Clinton-bashing and UFO-sighting there was much talk of Iran at last night’s Democratic debate in Philly — as there has been at each of the eight debates so far. And for good reason. By all accounts Iran is involved to some degree in aiding and abetting the sectarian chaos in Iraq and it’s clearly working to develop a nuclear reactor. These are not insignificant details and will be among the most important issues the next president will have to confront. Then why could I do little more than yawn last night when the candidates were asked about Iran?

If you’ve listened to the debates, you know that Iran-related questions are always framed in one of two ways: Would you as president of the United States allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb? Or, more precisely, Would you, as president of the United States, bomb Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb?

We got it again last night, this time in the form of a pledge to the American people that Tim Russert, the debate’s co-moderator, tried to get each candidate to make, that “Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president.”

Even the audience understood, by the time the third candidate, Barack Obama, was forced to make the pledge, that this is a fundamentally uninteresting and unenlightening question. Obama even said so, to much laughter from the auditorium: “I think all of us are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. And — and so, you know, we — we — we could potentially short-circuit this.”

Any candidate with even a shred of hope of being elected president wouldn’t say otherwise. They all want to prevent nuclear proliferation, and especially to a country that has expressed the kind of belligerence we’ve heard from Iran’s leaders. Case closed. Even Kucinich, the leftiest of the bunch, agrees with this statement.

The more interesting discussion would be how the candidates would propose stopping Iran. But here, too, the question always hinges on whether the candidate would be ready to drop bombs. This sets up a situation in which there seem to be only two options, either doing nothing or taking the most extreme measures. Hillary Clinton presented a critique of just this line of questioning last night as a:

false choice between rushing to war — which is the way the Republicans sound; it’s not even a question of whether, it’s a question of when and what weapons to use — and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy, and I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy.

I have yet to hear an interesting discussion among the candidates of what various tools in the diplomatic tool box they would be willing or not willing to use. The debates consistently frame the question of what to do about Iran in such a way that the candidates are forced to take maximal or minimal positions that shed absolutely no light on how they would realistically deal with this situation once in the Oval Office. Leaders weigh costs and benefits and they take small steps towards bigger goals. It would be much more illuminating to force these candidates to describe the process of how they would deal with Iran than forcing them to check off boxes indicating a vastly oversimplified yes or no.

Another problem with journalists posing the Iran question in such an extreme way is that it is potentially dangerous. Dennis Kucinich - yes, him - actually made this very point last night to Russert and Brian Williams:

With all due respect to our friends from the media here, the media itself has to be careful how you frame these questions. We don’t want to be put in a position where we are taking this country to the threshold of war. The media did play a role in taking us into war in Iraq, and I’m urging the members of the media to urge restraint upon you and our president, whose rhetoric is out of control.

Now, Kucinich is being a bit hyperbolic, but the question he raises is an important one. Journalists have to take responsibility for the kinds of questions they ask. If the only conversation about Iran that they ever prompt is one that demands to know whether or not we are going to war, then they shouldn’t be surprised when that is the rhetoric that dominates the national discourse on this matter. To the Democrats’ credit, unlike the Republicans, they usually don’t take the bait. For the most part, they refuse to consider hypotheticals and demand that different kinds of questions be asked. Journalists manning these debates should listen. They can either help initiate a productive exchange about Iran and the options available to a future leader or they can shut down the conversation completely. In a setting such as the one last night, they have that kind of power and they should use it wisely.

– By Gal Beckerman

Popularity: 3% [?]

Does it really matter what the question is or the answer. They aree all politicians and will do whatever is necessary to avoid a direct answer. In addition, no matter what is said by the candidates the position he or she takes after gaining office may be quite different. All each of them is doing now is trying to minimize damage and avoid negative opinion prior to the election.

Yes

In either case I would never occupy the country with ground forces.

Yes

I wouldn’t bomb anyone unless they bombed us first. There is absolutely no proof Iran is manufacturing and distributing road bombs.No Iranian national has been arrested with these devices. Furthermore had Bush not led us falsely into Iraq in the first place there would be no need to be worrying about who is doing what in Iraq. This administration in fact is responsible for all of the violence there. First when they preemptively invaded, second when they decided to side with Shiites and thirdly when they changed their minds and then decided to side with the Sunni’s creating a civil war. Now the same type of hyperbole we’ve heard over and over on Iraq we are now hearing over Iran. When are people going to get it into their heads that our involvement over there has nothing to do with democracy. You would have thought this to be a no brainer by now.

Some of the previous responders have absolutely no regard for the lessons of history. Had we and the Brits stood up to Hitler in the early 1930′, there would have been no World War II.

Bush didn’t falsely take us into was in Iraq; the evidence of Saddam’s WMD was unmistakable. Bush said in his State of the Union address that “we can’t wait for Saddam to have these weapons and then give them to terrorists; we have to stop him before he egts them.” The same is true of Iran. I we can foment unrest among the young people there such that they stage a revolution, then we won’t have to bomb the shit out of the country. Bot if we can’t, let the bombs fall.

Maybe the questioning should start with whether Iran is, IN FACT, developing a nuclear weapon. I disagree with the author’s statement, “and it’s clearly working to develop a nuclear reactor.” Clear to whom? Where is the evidence? And if there is any evidence, is it more trustworthy than what was presented to the U.N. by Powell.

Maybe the next question should be whether the rest of the world should bomb the U.S. until it destroys its nuclear stockpile. Wonder how the pols would answer that. Of course, the world doesn’t need to bomb the U.S. Sanctions could work, like, an oil embargo.

NO! NO! NO! NO! Bush mentioned that if we don’t bomb Iran that we will have WWIII, this is Orwellian speak.
Bombing Iran would be a guarantee of WWIII Bush and his cronies, the military industrial complex would continue to rake in the billions and the world will burn. WAR WITHOUT END, that is the mission.
We need to stop Bush or we can kiss our country good-buy.

Absolutely NO NO NO AND NO

Aren’t we in enough trouble already? We have the stupid Blackwater group killing Iraqis and now we want to kill citizens in Iran? I don’t think so. American impearialism has gone way, way too far already!

John, where have you been? Iraq HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND IRAN CANNOT HAVE NUKES FOR AT LEAST 3 TO 5 YEARS!!! You must live in a cave!!! Bush wants ALL THE OIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND WILL BOMB ANYONE TO GET IT!!!
That is now and always has been his game —- GOD HELP AMERICA!!!

NO I WOULD NOT BOMB ANY COUNTRY. I WOULD PREMOTE PEACE THREW OUT THE WHOLE WORLD. NO ONE COUNTRY OWNS THE WORLD. WAKE UP PEOPLE LOVE AND PEACE IS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT NOT WAR AND OIL.

Com’on people. The issue is not Iran (public) but nuke processing sites. Our capability, as shown in Iraq can pinpoint exact areas that threaten the Middle East & eventually world. We would not be @ war with Iran but it’s lunatic leaders’ passion for destructive power which he has said he can’t wait to use. Especially on Israel first.The same is true in Iraq. It is not a war against Iraq but insurgents. We overthrew that tyrant (who murdered his own people & women were treated like dogs)in 2 weeks. So lets put the terminology strait. We are not at war with IRAQ or IRAN. Actually if we bombed a few NUKE sites it may give the young disgruntled Iranian majority the testicle fortitude to throw their dictators out of office. Now Wouldn’t they enjoy the benefits from that?

Thank you, Frank. You expressed my thoughts quite well. Our current President Bush thought he would send our American troops into Iraq and he would be hailed as the “great liberator” from the tyrant Saddam. He has such an inflated ego that he thought he could continue and finish the job his father started. This was an act of an egotistical son trying to get even with Saddam for his father’s embarrassment. He didn’t care what any other countries thought - he was going to do things his way. (And look at the opportunity to control all that oil).

I am a long-time registered Republican but I never just vote the party line - becuase of people like Bush. His (bumbling) brash, swaggering attitude is an embarrassment to America. We are the laughing stock of the world (not to mention being thought of as aggresive war mongers).

Come on America, bomb Iran? On what grounds? The word of a man that thumbed his nose at the rest of the world and said I don’t care what you think, I know they have weapons of mass destruction so I’m going to attack (and get control of all that oil). Are you crazy?? Let’s try some diplomacy and work with the other countries to resolve the problems. Let’s not rush to judgement and go in on some hyped-up situation, attack Iran and then force our way of living down their throats. Who are we to tell them how they have to live and believe?? Look at the mess America is in now days! We let the minority rule and ignore the God fearing ideals of the majority - upon which this country was founded. Why would any country look to us as the “peacekeepers of the world” any longer? Bush is a tyrant in his own right because he doesn’t get all the facts before acting and only sees things from his own point of view. He doesn’t value the opinions of those that disagree with him but appears to have such an inflated opinion of himself that his reasoning behind his action is “because I said so”.

Attack Iran? God forbid.

NO! PLEASE NO! Villifying Iran is how Bush and Cheney, and their mob operation called Haliburton, plan to continue their Nazi-like sweep of the Middle Eastern oil countries. If you bother reading, you would know that Bush is playing the game of RISK. First he takes control of Afghanistan and plants troops there, north of Iran. Then he takes control of Iraq, to the left of Iran. Then he bribes and climbs into bed with the liar Musarref(Leader of Pakistan)on the right of Iran. Iran is now surrounded. There is huge amounts of oil in Iran and Iraq. About 2 months before 9/11, Cheney was talking to Taliban about building an oil pipeline thru Afghanistan to Russia, but Taliban said no. Cheney renigged on an agreement he had with the Taliban, so then and only then, they became our enemy. Then Bush went ahead and took Iraq to take over the oil production, so they could eventually have that pipeline anyway. That is a fact, since the reason he hasn’t brought troops out of Iraq is because he can’t get the Iraqi government to sign over 70% of their oil to U.S. Oil Companies! Now you hear Condi and Bush calling the new Iraqi govt corrupt, so they can replace the president with someone who WILL sign over its oil interests! Another fact is that the sole job of our National Guard troops in Iraq are to escort trucks full of oil out of the country. Of course Iraqis have been trying to stop this stealing of their oil! But all we hear is how they are terrorists. Rosie was right–To Iraqis, WE ARE THE TERRORISTS. If Cheney and Bush take over Iran, they will have a clear shot at controlling most of the oil in the world. GREED, GREED, GREED. That’s all the Republican Adminstration has shown us.

You’re welcome, Joan. I am a very liberal Democrat but am very much okay with most of the conservatives in this country. Each of us has a point of view that we should be able to say without the fear of intimidation. I tend to think that the people in our country who object to opinions counter to theirs are more interested in keeping the country divided rather than united. Every idea is worth merit, whether the idea is a conservative one or a liberal one. When we are truly united behind something, we are at our greatest and our best. Part of the problem we’ve had is that on both sides of the political fence, there are those with an all or nothing stance, which is very, very wrong. The other part of that problem is the politicians who are more interested in playing to that crowd, not because they are the majority (as they’d like to think) but a minority that just happens to bellow loud enough to gain the attention of the politicians.

It’s time we make our country work again, for everyone’s benefit and not just for the benefit of a few.

Here we go again - Bush is Lying-thousands will be dying-and the media keeps on buying it…..

Chris, can you demonstrate any first hand knowledge of Iran’s murderous plans other than from the Bush administration, the source of a lot of misinformation? Again, I happen to think if the situation was as truly dire as being made out by the Bush administration, Israel wouldn’t hesitate to instigate a first strike option against Iran, as they would be the immediate target of an Iranian strike. Israel is doing nothing but sitting idly by. They, more than us, should be the ones more worried about the madman in Iran.

To the other Frank: Bush has consistently lied about our reasons for being in Iraq. From weapons of mass destruction that either didn’t exist or couldn’t be found to terrorists who weren’t in Iraq but are perhaps there now. Bush didn’t need any reason other than getting Saddam out of power and turning the keys of Iraq over to a government that was friendly to the US and US interests. Instead, we’re stuck in a political mudhole because of his stupidity and his ineptness on coming up with a game plan to leave Iraq once Saddam was rooted out and focusing back on finding Bin Laden and his followers, the real terrorists. It’s been reported that in the long run, Bush’s quagmire may end up costing the American taxpayer $2.4 trillion dollars. That’s a lot of money to be going into a sinkhole, money that you and I and everyone else will have to pay and will never get back. It’s money that could be better spent fixing up social security, which was broken because the politicians (on both sides) couldn’t keep their sticky fingers away from the funds, using it to fund other projects. It’s money that could go for health care for those who are truly in need of it. But, I have no doubt that those who holler the loudest about government spending - those who believe in a government so long as they don’t have to pay for it or for the privileges they enjoy made possible by our government - are the ones sitting back, enjoying Bush’s war. My questions to you and all the others who support Bush’s war: will you continue to support this war if the next election puts Hillary in the White House? (Which is a scary thought - as mentioned, I’m very much a liberal but I’m tired of people named Bush and Clinton sitting in the White House.) Would you support the war if it was stipulated that those who objected to the war - whatever their reasons - could stipulate that their tax dollars couldn’t be used to fund the war, thereby placing the burden of paying for the war on those who support it? War is sometimes necessary and I support our troops but not this unnecessary war. I rather imagine your support of Bush and his war would quickly evaporate if you and all others who support our presence in Iraq had to be the only ones paying quite a bit more to keep our soldiers there. Don’t get me wrong: Bush had every reason to justify taking the fight to Bin Laden and his followers. Saddam was no great loss but getting rid of him should’ve been the job of the Iraqi people and not our job. Now, the Iraq mess is a huge sinkhole on the US’s financial situation. If Iraq ultimately costs us $2.4 trillion or more, what kind of benefit do we get in return? None that I can see.

To John Meredith: mutual assured destruction (MAD) worked very well with the Russians but the Islamic fanatics don’t seem to mind risking their lives in advancing the cause of their religion. For that reason, the concept of mutual assured destruction wouldn’t work against them. But, not every Islamic individual is a fanatic or insistent that their view precludes all others. We use nuclear power ourselves for peaceful means and to penalize the Iranians or any other country of the middle east that’s not Israel for wanting the same kind of benefits that we have is wrong. Yeah, I know, the fanatics are a dangerous group, especially the Iranian president. But, that fool won’t be there forever and our policy on dealing with him should be one that on one hand, tolerates him and keeps him close (keep your friends close and your enemies closer) but on the other hand, figure out a method to quickly ease him out of power. We’re buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia - is it okay for their Islamic government to have nuclear power? Do we take them at their word that they wouldn’t use nuclear power for the purpose on making nuclear weapons, to be used against Israel or us? Islamic fanatics don’t care if their lives (and their neighbors’s lives)come to an end in killing others whose spiritual or religious outlook is different from theirs. They go to paradise to be with their many virgins for having wiped you off the face of the earth in the name of their religion. M.A.D. ain’t a gonna work against someone who doesn’t value their life enough to stop what they are doing. I think the better plan would be to simply isolate them, not allowing them to move about the rest of the world (exceptions being made for political or religious persecution), maintaining some contact but mostly leaving them alone. Would that work completely? Probably not as it would take getting the rest of the world to go along and enforce any isolation. They’d be prisoners in their own countries, in a sense, but as many of them despise outsiders, maybe they wouldn’t see isolation as being so bad?

Harsh realities, recently Tibbet died at 95, the Man who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, He said a few years ago, ” I never lost any sleep, I beleive I saved more lives than I lost”. History will repeat itself in Iran. It is not for America to ask yes or no, Ask Israel, who is being threatened. Israel will bomb out of survival, “Never Again” Ask Holocaust survivors. It’s not for America to say, it’s out of your hands, USA.

There’s a difference between the man who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima: we were at war with the Japanese in World War II. We are not at war presently with Iran, despite Bush’s desire to do to Iran what he has done to Iraq. Bush is not capable of stabilizing the middle eastern countries; he seems to be only capable of destabilizing and destroying that region and our economy in the process. It’s not for America to say? I wish but Bush is hell-bent and bound on doing what he wants to do and the hell with what the rest of the country thinks, even those within his own party.

I do agree with you that Israel wouldn’t hesitate for one minute to take out any nuclear facilities in Iran if they believed that Iran’s purpose is to construct nuclear bombs. Israel would be the immediate target by Iran, but again, they are sitting idly by and doing nothing, suggesting they’re not putting any faith in Bush’s rhetoric as to what’s going on there. Or perhaps they’re waiting in the hope that idiot Bush will be the one to go in and do the dirty work and that the US will draw the wrath and ire of the other middle eastern countries.

I read all of the hateful, militaristic rhetoric included in these posts and I cry. I do wonder if there is no turning back from a future with the United States as evil empire. Even when dealing with despots the goal is to rise above them not climb down to their level and use their tactics. Or maybe not, anymore, I guess.

As long as Ahmadinejad, the madman of Iran is in power, I think I’d want a little restraint as to what Iran could do with nuclear power. As long as it truly was for peaceful purposes, supplying electrical power to the people of Iran, that wouldn’t be a problem. But, Ahmadinejad doesn’t seem to get it that if he was to order a nuke bomb dropped on Israel, the fallout would also affect the people of his country. As long as he remains in power, it makes sense to monitor what Iran is doing with that power. Same goes for his replacement if that person holds the same belief as Ahmadinejad. Bush, I think, is still itching for some kind of showdown but can’t do much of anything because so far, all of Ahmadinejad’s talk is just that: words. He hasn’t put any of his words into action and I don’t think he will. He’s simply a dog whose bark is worse than his bite. As for Bush, with him having to battle with the senate and congress just to get the funding for the continued battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, he’s doing little more than saber rattling. But, he’s not a dog whose bark is worse than his bite; he’s a snake whose misdirections in the war needs to be reined in and then refocused on the true enemy: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The good people of Iraq and Iran were not our enemies but the damage being done in Iraq after removing Saddam from power and Bush’s saber rattling threats to Iran turns them against us. We need to remove our troops from Iraq and let their people decide what they’re going to do. It’s not our battle but Bush has made it ours and it’s not working. And the reason for that is that once Bush achieved his objective, he had no follow-up plans on what to do next. But, he’s been winging it ever since without success.

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links: