News Will the U.S. Launch an Attack on Iran?

  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a report from Asia Times suggesting a potential US military attack within two months, citing an unnamed retired diplomat and claiming that Senators have been briefed on the matter. Concerns are raised about the implications of such an attack, including regional instability, a resurgence of Al Qaeda, and rising gasoline prices. Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Lugar reportedly planned to oppose the attack in a New York Times op-ed, although their offices later denied receiving any briefings or planning such an article. The credibility of Asia Times is questioned, with participants expressing skepticism about the reliability of the source and discussing the media's portrayal of US foreign policy. There is a broader commentary on the public's anxiety regarding potential military actions and the political implications for President Bush, particularly as his term nears its end. The conversation highlights the importance of verifying news from credible sources and the tendency for rumors about military action to circulate despite a lack of substantiation.
turbo
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
3,157
Reaction score
57
According to Asia Times the stage is set for a US attack within the next two months. The author cited an unnamed retired career diplomat and claims that Senators have been briefed on the upcoming attack. If this happens, I foresee counter-attacks in the region, deepening instability in Iraq, a revitalized Al Qaeda, and likely $20/gallon gasoline.
After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, how about the other way around? I have been recently been warned that all the Shi'ite women and children have all disappeared from my region in preparation for a possible attack... Either way, it is pretty scary for the US...
 
I have the feeling that if Bush tried to attack another country right now, the people would find a way to replace him long before his tenure expires.

- Warren
 
Ms Music said:
Well, how about the other way around? I have been recently been warned that all the Shi'ite women and children have all disappeared from my region in preparation for a possible attack... Either way, it is pretty scary for the US...

Ms Music, are you in the ME?
 
chroot said:
I have the feeling that if Bush tried to attack another country right now, the people would find a way to replace him long before his tenure expires.

- Warren
And have him replaced by the puppetmaster whose hand is up Bush's backside? Sounds messy, unless both are impeached together. Then President Pelosi would be the first female commander-in-chief.
 
I think an abrupt event has to occur in order for the US to attack Iran. Maybe another terrorist bombing?
 
Reported here as an untrue story: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Senators_say_report_of_planned_US_0528.html
"That story was inaccurate. Senator Feinstein has not received any briefing – classified or unclassified – from the Administration involving any plans to strike Iran," Philip J. Lavelle, the California Democrat's press secretary, wrote in an e-mail to RAW STORY Wednesday. "In addition, she has not submitted an op-ed to the NYT, or any other paper, on this subject in recent days. She has been a strong advocate for diplomacy with Iran, and will continue to be one."

Lugar spokesman Andy Fisher was more succinct: "No briefing. No oped. No conversations. No story."
 
Thanks DH! I hope that your source is correct. We don't need more killing.
 
lisab said:
Ms Music, are you in the ME?

Sorry, what do you mean by the ME? (I am not very good at acronyms)
 
  • #10
Ms Music said:
Sorry, what do you mean by the ME? (I am not very good at acronyms)

Middle East -- sorry, my bad!

I've heard (just on blogs, so consider the source) that in Tehran there is a lot of unease. People are scared that we will bomb them.

I hope the report in the OP isn't true!
 
  • #11
I never even heard of the 'Asia Times' before you posted this.
 
  • #12
No, I am in the US.
 
  • #13
Cyrus said:
I never even heard of the 'Asia Times' before you posted this.
I try to keep abreast of stories in the foreign press because the press in the US are pretty timid about some subjects, plus I like to get the viewpoints of people abroad, especially in regard to US policies.
 
  • #14
turbo-1 said:
I try to keep abreast of stories in the foreign press because the press in the US are pretty timid about some subjects, plus I like to get the viewpoints of people abroad, especially in regard to US policies.

Yeah, but normally its anti-US garbage.
 
  • #15
Cyrus said:
Yeah, but normally its anti-US garbage.
Anti-US garbage? Is it possible that people in China, India, Russia, England, Turkey, South Africa, etc, etc, might have some views that are well-founded, honest and worthy of our attention? The conglomerates that run the US media machine don't have a lock on truth, nor on objectivity.
 
  • #16
turbo-1 said:
Anti-US garbage? Is it possible that people in China, India, Russia, England, Turkey, South Africa, etc, etc, might have some views that are well-founded, honest and worthy of our attention? The conglomerates that run the US media machine don't have a lock on truth, nor on objectivity.

It depends on who says it. Id trust something like the BBC. But not any ole asian online newspaper. They may be big, I don't know. But I never heard of them before. Online papers are all over the place.

I've never even heard of Muhammad Cohen, the author.

I did a quick google on him and got this:

A graduate of Yale and Stanford's creative writing program, Cohen is currently a special correspondent for Macau Business magazine and writes guidebooks for Lonely Planet. Before Hong Kong, Cohen was a TV news producer at CNN in Washington and a US diplomat in Africa.

That being said, he seems to be pretty credible.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
turbo-1 said:
According to Asia Times...
The Asia Times is not a reliable source of news. However, they do have a great critique of that new capitalist/western philosopy propaganda film that topped the box office last weekend: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE24Dj01.html

Don't they republish that Bush-Is-Going-To-Attack-Iran article about once a month, or am I just having deja vu?

[edit] ehh, the deja vu comes from the fact that you've started similar threads before. It hasn't gotten more true since the last few:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=221398&highlight=Iran
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=188070&highlight=Iran
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=150141&highlight=Iran
 
Last edited:
  • #18
chroot said:
I have the feeling that if Bush tried to attack another country right now, the people would find a way to replace him long before his tenure expires.

- Warren
Yes, his lack of political capital is one of the many reasons why this just isn't in the realm of possibility.
 
  • #19
Cyrus said:
That being said, he seems to be pretty credible.
Not too credible if he doesn't check sources.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Not too credible if he doesn't check sources.
We may never know if he didn't check his sources, or if his sources were either misinformed or if they recanted on the release of the story. Perhaps he will give us the back-story in the near future to clear this up.
 
  • #21
Cyrus said:
I never even heard of the 'Asia Times' before you posted this.
Do a forum search for atimes.com There are plenty of citations of it in P&WA, most of them pretty funny (like the OP and the Indy review I linked above).
 
  • #22
turbo-1 said:
We may never know if he didn't check his sources, or if his sources were either misinformed or if they recanted on the release of the story. Perhaps he will give us the back-story in the near future to clear this up.
Given the supermarket-tabloid nature of the Asia Times, it is more likely that they just flat-out made the story up. There won't be any recanting - tabloids don't do that sort of thing.
 
  • #23
turbo-1 said:
Is it possible that people in China, India, Russia, England, Turkey, South Africa, etc, etc, might have some views that are well-founded, honest and worthy of our attention?
Yes. What does that have to do with anti-US garbage like the Asia Times?
The conglomerates that run the US media machine don't have a lock on truth, nor on objectivity.
Clearly. But just being non-American doesn't automatically make a source objective either. There are good sources and bad sources overseas. This one is an absurdly bad source. It isn't that tough to see: I just went to the homepage and picked the first juicy anti-American propaganda piece that caught my eye, when I linked the Indy review.
 
  • #24
Probably more interesting than the details of Asia Times is the following question: why are certain segments of the media/population so obsessed with the idea of Bush attacking Iran? There is almost zero chance of such a thing happening, and yet every week or two, a bunch of new unsubstantiated stories and rumors seem to pop up, indicating that there is a hungry audience for this idea. I get the impression that some people have invested so much into their image of Bush-as-warmonger that they are almost hoping for such an attack to provide them one last jolt of validation. Is it anxiety about his imminent departure from politics, and the consequent ungrounding of their political identities? It will be interesting to see how these types respond next January, when Bush leaves office without attacking Iran.
 
  • #25
quadraphonics said:
Probably more interesting than the details of Asia Times is the following question: why are certain segments of the media/population so obsessed with the idea of Bush attacking Iran? There is almost zero chance of such a thing happening, and yet every week or two, a bunch of new unsubstantiated stories and rumors seem to pop up, indicating that there is a hungry audience for this idea. I get the impression that some people have invested so much into their image of Bush-as-warmonger that they are almost hoping for such an attack to provide them one last jolt of validation. Is it anxiety about his imminent departure from politics, and the consequent ungrounding of their political identities? It will be interesting to see how these types respond next January, when Bush leaves office without attacking Iran.
Yes, it makes no sense and just gives less and less credibility to the hate mongering side of the press.

I should stress again, do not look to one source for your news and certainly not if that one source is not a credible mainstream source that is known to verify facts. Would anyone here believe anything they read in Pravda?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top