Ex CIA Director Warns Iran on ‘Inexorable’ Path to Nukes

[jimnyc]

I'm sure someone will give us great reason to believe that Iran having nuclear weapons is all fine and dandy and they mean no harm to anyone. :rolleyes:


Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, warns that Iran is on an “inexorable” path to develop a nuclear capability and that the time has come for international unity for the broader good.

Hayden declared in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Friday that Iran is shaping up to be the single biggest threat of 2012.

“I’ve been asked, ‘what’s the greatest potential for something very disruptive in 2012,’ and my mind immediately goes to the Persian Gulf and to Iran. And when I ask myself, ‘who is liable to go dramatic in the Gulf in 2012?’ I certainly don’t think it’s us,” said Hayden, who serves as an advisor to LIGNET, a global intelligence and forecasting site.

“Frankly I don’t think it’s the Israelis, but I do believe it could be the Iranians. I’m not saying it’s more — rather than less likely — but I think that’s got the highest probability, and it probably will be based not on a rational calculus of external affairs.”

While Iran’s provocative statements in recent weeks seem counter intuitive to logic, Hayden suggests that they may also reflect a much deeper internal power struggle taking place in that country.

“We’ve got different factions vying for control, vying for positions of advantage and each one of them might actually perceive that they can gain domestic advantage by putting themselves to the right of the other factions when it comes to this issue,” explained Hayden who is also a former director of the National Security Agency and a former principal deputy director for national intelligence.

“So what I fear the most is that the Iranians will badly miscalculate — do something externally that will be ultimately bad for them and bad for the region. But they’ll do it because of their own internal domestic pressures.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CIAHayden-Warns-Iran-Inexorable/2012/01/06/id/423322

[ConHog]

I still maintain that we should offer to help them along in their quest to obtain nukes. Throw a few their way and tell them if they catch em they can keep em.

[gabosaurus]

I still maintain that we should offer to help them along in their quest to obtain nukes. Throw a few their way and tell them if they catch em they can keep em.

You do realize that if you drop a nuke on Iran, it will destroy the entire region. Including that other terrorist state that you think we should protect.

Warning to anyone who thinks Iran will be a cupcake invasion like Iraq was: Iran fought an eight-year war against Iraq. Over one million Iranians died in the conflict. But they didn't give up an inch of territory.

QUESTION: Why are so many people afraid of Iran developing nukes when Pakistan already has some? And they are just a crazy.

[ConHog]

You do realize that if you drop a nuke on Iran, it will destroy the entire region. Including that other terrorist state that you think we should protect.

Warning to anyone who thinks Iran will be a cupcake invasion like Iraq was: Iran fought an eight-year war against Iraq. Over one million Iranians died in the conflict. But they didn't give up an inch of territory.

QUESTION: Why are so many people afraid of Iran developing nukes when Pakistan already has some? And they are just a crazy.

A) It was a joke

B) No, the Pakis are NOT as crazy as the Iranians. Much as they would like to see the Indians dead, they don't want to die themselves. The mullahs who run Iran would gladly sacrifice their population in order to kill Israel.

[Dilloduck]

Then Israel can blow the hell out of them. Leave the US out of it.

[ConHog]

Then Israel can blow the hell out of them. Leave the US out of it.

I'm actually fine with that. If the US just said do whatever, Iran would be back to the stone age within a week and we wouldn't be responsible for paying to rebuild them.

But it is stupid to tell Israel to stand down, we don't care if Iran gets nukes.

[Dilloduck]

Israel is stupid if they really worry about Iranian nukes but stand down because of American pressure.

[ConHog]

Israel is stupid if they really worry about Iranian nukes but stand down because of American pressure.

yeah , either that or they realize were their most important allies and so they try to cooperate with us.

[Dilloduck]

Mighty nice of them. The US has set them up with trillions and armed them to the teeth. If they don't intend on handling their own affairs what do they want the US to do ?

[ConHog]

Mighty nice of them. The US has set them up with trillions and armed them to the teeth. If they don't intend on handling their own affairs what do they want the US to do ?

That's the point. IF we told Israel do what you want about the middle east, we won't stop you. They would own the entire region and we wouldn't have to worry about Iran anymore.

[Dilloduck]

So the Arabs are correct when they call Israel "America's lap dog" ?
Seriously--they aren't stupid. If they really feel threatened by Iran they will do something about it no matter WHAT the US says.

[ConHog]

So the Arabs are correct when they call Israel "America's lap dog" ?
Seriously--they aren't stupid. If they really feel threatened by Iran they will do something about it no matter WHAT the US says.

More correctly, they will do something that we know about under a guise of plausible deniability and we'll both proclaim innocence.

[revelarts]

I'm sure someone will give us great reason to believe that Iran having nuclear weapons is all fine and dandy and they mean no harm to anyone. :rolleyes:



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CIAHayden-Warns-Iran-Inexorable/2012/01/06/id/423322

So JIm as long as we have established that the FORMER CIA etc etc here is a legitimate source of info, my CIA and State dept sources are often Former or retired as well. So I guess we have to listen to both and gauge what they say based on the reasons they present, other activity we can discern and Iran's history.

But concerning Hayden's statement lets see what he says
"While Iran’s provocative statements in recent weeks seem counter intuitive to logic, Hayden suggests that they may also reflect a much deeper internal power struggle taking place in that country.

“We’ve got different factions vying for control, vying for positions of advantage and each one of them might actually perceive that they can gain domestic advantage by putting themselves to the right of the other factions when it comes to this issue,”"

Ok 1st thing i notice is that this seems to be a political stuggle than primarialy religious and it's internal. He also uses words like MIGHT & MAY, not "as some here seem to think "WILL and NO DOUBT and BOMB Israel and or Attack us as some as they get X number of nukes.

He donest mention any "plans" that he KNOWS of but mentions that there is a CHANCE that some political faction my take a MORE far right POSITION. Which might mean Harsh talk or Maybe some type of political or economic action or MAYBE some military action they think will benifit them POLITICALLY in the country. A hot war with israel and the U.S. doesn't seem to me to be a point you want to use to get votes on, to me. so I'd assume Based on these statements AND the statements of the Former CIA and Ste dept people who know the country well and it's History of general non aggression that we still don't have to worry about a War unless we provoke one.

And here's a point I heard the other day that had never occured to me before concerning ANY Muslim power striking Israel with Nukes. It's This. Israel has Several Muslim holy sight in it boarders , truly religiously motivated Muslims would not NUKE Jerusalem becuase of the doom of the rock and other holy siights. so, nuke wise, Jerusalem is probably one of the safest places to be .


More correctly, they will do something that we know about under a guise of plausible deniability and we'll both proclaim innocence.

I understand that some many U.S. Generals would rather not go to war with Iran. and have suggested a hotline to Iran to avoid any BS incidents lighting a match there. ANd have also suggested that we let Israel know that if they attack Iran that they are on thier own. we are friends but we are not in any treaty agreement. This would give israel pause in any preemptive Action and let them count the cost in their on treasure and blood without counting on more of ours.

[revelarts]

Atlantic Monthly


A week ago Ron Paul tried to convey how the ever-tightening sanctions on Iran--which may soon include (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/world/europe/europe-moves-toward-ban-on-iran-oil.html?ref=world) an embargo on its oil--look from an Iranian point of view: It's as if China were to blockade the Gulf of Mexico, he said--"an act of war".

This is sheer conjecture; Ron Paul is no expert on Iran. But now someone who does have relevant credentials has weighed in, and the picture he paints is disturbingly reminiscent of the one Paul painted. It suggests we may be closer to war than most people realize. Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the Middle East, belongs to a family that, according to Lobelog's sources (http://www.lobelog.com/things-are-getting-very-serious-vali-nasr/), has "a direct line into Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle." In a Bloomberg View piece (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/hard-line-u-s-policy-tips-iran-toward-belligerence-vali-nasr.html) that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr reports that "Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war." Indeed, the Iranian leadership now sees U.S. policy as "aimed at regime change."
In this light, Iran's recent threats--notably that it will close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an oil embargo--shouldn't be dismissed, says Nasr. "The regime in Tehran is ready for a fight."
The good news is that Nasr thinks war can be averted. The bad news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers need to "imagine how the situation looks from Tehran"--not exactly a favorite pastime among American politicians these days. till, if only for the intellectual exercise, let's do try to imagine what things look like from Iran's point of view.
Iran's nuclear scientists have recently evinced a tendency to get assassinated, and a mysterious explosion at a military facility happened to kill the general in charge of Iran's missile program. These things were almost certainly done by Israel, possibly with American support. If you were Iranian, would you consider assassinations on your soil grounds for attacking the suspected perpetrators?
Well, we know that some notable Americans think assassinating people on American soil is punishable by war. After the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador in Washington was uncovered, Bill Kristol (whom you may recall from our previous run-up to a disastrous war) recommended (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/15/345044/bill-kristol-iran-war/) that we attack Iran.
But I'm guessing that if I tried this Iran-America analogy out on Kristol, he might detect asymmetries. For example: We're us, whereas they're just them.
Underlying our Iran strategy is the assumption that if we keep ratcheting up the pressure, the regime will eventually say uncle. A problem with this premise is that throughout human history rulers have shown an aversion to being seen by their people as surrendering. Indeed, when you face dissent, as the Iranian regime does, there's actually a certain appeal to confronting an external threat, since confrontation tends to consolidate domestic support. As Nasr puts it, "the ruling clerics are responding with shows of strength to boost solidarity at home."



http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/ron-paul-vindicated-on-iran-unfortunately/250955/

[ConHog]

So JIm as long as we have established that the FORMER CIA etc etc here is a legitimate source of info, my CIA and State dept sources are often Former or retired as well. So I guess we have to listen to both and gauge what they say based on the reasons they present, other activity we can discern and Iran's history.

But concerning Hayden's statement lets see what he says
"While Iran’s provocative statements in recent weeks seem counter intuitive to logic, Hayden suggests that they may also reflect a much deeper internal power struggle taking place in that country.

“We’ve got different factions vying for control, vying for positions of advantage and each one of them might actually perceive that they can gain domestic advantage by putting themselves to the right of the other factions when it comes to this issue,”"

Ok 1st thing i notice is that this seems to be a political stuggle than primarialy religious and it's internal. He also uses words like MIGHT & MAY, not "as some here seem to think "WILL and NO DOUBT and BOMB Israel and or Attack us as some as they get X number of nukes.

He donest mention any "plans" that he KNOWS of but mentions that there is a CHANCE that some political faction my take a MORE far right POSITION. Which might mean Harsh talk or Maybe some type of political or economic action or MAYBE some military action they think will benifit them POLITICALLY in the country. A hot war with israel and the U.S. doesn't seem to me to be a point you want to use to get votes on, to me. so I'd assume Based on these statements AND the statements of the Former CIA and Ste dept people who know the country well and it's History of general non aggression that we still don't have to worry about a War unless we provoke one.

And here's a point I heard the other day that had never occured to me before concerning ANY Muslim power striking Israel with Nukes. It's This. Israel has Several Muslim holy sight in it boarders , truly religiously motivated Muslims would not NUKE Jerusalem becuase of the doom of the rock and other holy siights. so, nuke wise, Jerusalem is probably one of the safest places to be .



I understand that some many U.S. Generals would rather not go to war with Iran. and have suggested a hotline to Iran to avoid any BS incidents lighting a match there. ANd have also suggested that we let Israel know that if they attack Iran that they are on thier own. we are friends but we are not in any treaty agreement. This would give israel pause in any preemptive Action and let them count the cost in their on treasure and blood without counting on more of ours.


I am in agreement with you and your savior ron paul on this one,, let Israel deal with Iran on her own.

[gabosaurus]

Mighty nice of them. The US has set them up with trillions and armed them to the teeth. If they don't intend on handling their own affairs what do they want the US to do ?

Is Israel launches a first strike attack on Iran, then calls on U.S. support, I wouldn't answer their call. Israel has more weaponry than all of the other nations in the Middle East put together. They have their own nuclear arsenal. Western countries should stand down and allow Middle East terrorist states to destroy each other.

[ConHog]

Is Israel launches a first strike attack on Iran, then calls on U.S. support, I wouldn't answer their call. Israel has more weaponry than all of the other nations in the Middle East put together. They have their own nuclear arsenal. Western countries should stand down and allow Middle East terrorist states to destroy each other.

Israel is neither batshit crazy nor a terrorist state.

[gabosaurus]

Israel is neither batshit crazy nor a terrorist state.

I believe they are both.

[ConHog]

I believe they are both.

Wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong.

[Dilloduck]

Is Israel launches a first strike attack on Iran, then calls on U.S. support, I wouldn't answer their call. Israel has more weaponry than all of the other nations in the Middle East put together. They have their own nuclear arsenal. Western countries should stand down and allow Middle East terrorist states to destroy each other.

oooops--that comment makes you an anti-semite.