Military attack on Iran "more likely"

Former US defense adviser Rober Kaplan predicts next 6-9 months critical


Recently by Ghormeh SabziCommentsDate
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day
Dec 02, 2012
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day
Dec 01, 2012
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day
Nov 30, 2012
more from Ghormeh Sabzi


by hirre on

Don't you think Nobel Peace Prize by itself is controversal?


Even Obama ordered to attack and kill people after he received the prize...

Nader Vanaki

آمریکا واقعاً هیچ غلطی نمی تواند بکند

Nader Vanaki

آقا تازه جایزه صلح نوبل گرفته حالا بیاد به ایران حمله کنه؟  تازه وقتی هم حمله کرد قیمت نفت شد بشکه ای دویست دلار با این اقتصاد زپرتی آمریکا، نتیجه ای میگیره؟  زهی خیال خوش.  سی سال هم هست که سَنکشن سَنکشن کردید جلوی چه کاری رو گرفتی؟  تآسیسات هسته ای هم وقتی سوخت گیری شد دیگه کار تموم شده. واقعاً که ریدن با این طرح.

شما هم که به امازاده آنکِل سام دخیل بستین سی سال دیگه هم منتظر می مونید.


Whether you like it or not its going to happen

by Simorgh5555 on

The IR's days are numbered. The IR is no match for Israel's military capability and this is a fact.  The objective of any action should be regime change and not IR's nuclear capabilities. 

This is no longer propaganda warfare because the Israeli's can no longer keep bluffing. Iranian opposition groups should begin drawing up plans for a liberation army and interim government post IR. 

Even if you are against military action accept the reality that it will happen and prepare for it.  


Aj, aj

by Rea on

So far we've heard that Israel should be wiped off the map as many times as we have that Iran will be attacked.

Hot air, political pressure, media warfare. On, and from, all sides.

@DK, very true about IAEA.

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Been hearing

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


This for the past 30 years. Nothing happened maybe it will or will not. But the news means nothing because they cried wolf too many times. The only reliable proof will be if it happens. The rest is just war of nerves meaning nothing.

Darius Kadivar

FYI/LSE IDEAS : Niall Ferguson On Nuclear Arms and Human Rights

by Darius Kadivar on

LSE IDEAS : Niall Ferguson On Nuclear Arms and Human Rights

Recommended Readings:

Wanted:A Grand Strategy for America by Niall Ferguson

Why are all the good historians rightwing? By Jonathan Jones (Guardian)

Writers such as Niall Ferguson are the only ones asking serious questions. Is leftwing history dissolving in a sea of good intentions?

Another Related Blog:

Niall Ferguson Blasts Barack Obama For Failed Egypt Foreign Policy

Darius Kadivar

With or Without a UN Resolution ? Ask Tom Clancy ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Don't see how they can justify an intervention without seizing the UN security council ?

U.N. Resolution Against Syria Fails In Security Council : NPR

They were not able to convince the Russians, Indians, Chinese or Brazil to endorse a European and American Resolution on Syria.

How do they want to rally them on Iran ?

If an attack ( in itself a far fetched terminology from let's say an D- Day Invasion) were to take place it would come from an Israeli or Saudi initiative as Israel did when it came to Saddam's nuclear plants or in Syria a few years ago and to my knowledge after some protests and outrage in diplomatic circles it hardly moved waves in the UN.

But I don't see what benefit Israel or even the Saudis could have in taking the responsibility of such an attack without evaluating the consequences.

The entire Middle East is in a very dangerous and chaotic juncture and nearly all the regimes in the region are at crossroads. Syria and Yemen being the tip of the Volcano.

An attack could only push regional tensions to boiling point including deteriorate relations with already estranged Turkey, hence isolating Israel even more in a region.

Unless the Think Tanks in Israel and Saudi Arabia are totally out of their minds then indeed there is a major risk.

But I do not see how and why the US or Europe would risk attacking Iran even despite the IAEA's made up report.

I say "made up" not that it is not true but merely because I think that these organizations are anything but independent. When that other nut head El Baradai was in charge it served the interests of those lobbies which seeked engagement with Iran. Once out it simply serving the interests of those who oppose appeasement.

Hence the lack of transparency and credibility of these organizations self imposed in the international arena ( very much like the Nobel Peace Prize Committee ) and presented as "respectable", "honorable" and "reliable" only to shape public opinion to satisfy the highest bidder.

Personally I believe until further notice which would prove otherwise that this is merely a psychological warfare. A risky one but psychological nevertheless.

Unless in a machiavellian calculation Europe and the US think that War in the entire middle east could boost their own crumbling economies and serve the pretext they were looking for to sell arms to different ethnic groups and countries which will have no other alternative than to fight for their survival and turn the middle East into a Balkanized war zone.

This would be an excellent plot for a Tom Clancy Novel "Sum of all Fears" but is it realistic or even plausible ?

The Sum Of All Fears (2002) Trailer

Only time will say ...

My Humble Opinion,