Well, I don’t know why anything to do with Iran should be the last straw, but it’s about time the CIA went on strike!
What?
The guy you saw was sunni - don’t see the connection to Iran. The caliphate is more of a sunni thing. Don’t think the shia go in for it much (if at all).
Yeah Ahmadinejad is mad but he’s mad in a different way to the al-Q lot. His vision is different to the sunni vision and doesn’t include a caliphate (I think - although I’m sure someone can correct me if I’m wrong).
Also he has no real power anyway so who cares what he says? His job is to be a mouthpiece, a provocateur - the more outrageous he is, the more he is doing the job that the leadership want him to do. They want him to piss off America. And what better way than to turn up at the UN and give a long speech about the 12th Imam?
Michael Hayden - Wikipedia Heres his resume. He has been at the top of NSA and the CIA for a long long time. I somehow think his opinions are more relevant than those who are trying to dismiss them because they don’t like the facts.
The CIA has momentum on its own. the mission is not easily changed with a new administration . Bush did broom a bunch of the CIA pros who did not agree with the neocon policies. But that took a lot of time . Obama has been kind of busy.
Do you not understand that Obama replaced Hayden two weeks after he took office?
The replacement thinks Iran will have nuclear weapons in two years and does not think the international sanctions will prevent it. Article here.
Aside from military action, which will prevent it, what other strong options are there? You’d just have to hope they’re bluffing.
That’s because America IS a big mean (and cowardly) bully that won’t pick on anyone with nukes.
In other words, just what happens if they don’t use nukes.
There really aren’t any. But I don’t think war is an option either. Not with the public already rightly sick and tired of two other wars.
The fear is that he will bring forth the 12th Imam with the introduction of a nuclear war. According to the cite I listed he may even have made his cabinet sign a contract pledging to work toward the return of the Imam. Of course there is no way to verify that but it puts him high atop mount crazy if it’s true.
I agree he’s a mouthpiece. But he’s been saying crazy things for years which means his puppet master either agrees with him or is pulling the strings directly.
Or that they don’t much care what he’s saying.
It’s a theoretical possibility but in a country where words are censored it’s not logical that the religious leader isn’t riding shotgun over every single word that comes out of the President’s mouth.
Ahmadinejad? I think he’s powerful enough now – not constitutionally, but on a cult-of-personality basis – that he can speak without Ali Khamenei’s leave. However, he probably does not happen to disagree with Khamenei about anything important.
I don’t think the Iranian government is that harmonious. I think different factions jockey for power, and I know that Ahmadinejad has to get himself re-elected, which is not the case for the religious leaders. I am also pretty sure the theocrats were unhappy with his choice of rhetoric a few years ago, but he’s survived and at this point they probably have to accept it.
He doesn’t have the power to bring forth a nuclear war.
They’re pulling the strings but that doesn’t mean they agree with him.
He is the mouthpiece of those who do.
That’s not logical.
The religious police filter out who can run for office so there really isn’t any conflict with the winner of the election and those who rule the country.
Candidates who have a major conflict with the religious leaders aren’t going to be allowed to run. But there’s plenty of daylight between the Supreme Leader approving everything Ahmadinejad says and a what I think is the more likely scenario, which is that they find him acceptable.
If Dick Cheney went on the Sunday morning talk shows and started saying that it is now increasingly likely that Obama will have to attack Iran, would you:
(a) take him seriously because he was Vice President of the United States for 8 years, Secretary of Defense for 4, and general éminence grise of the neoconservatives for probably decades?
(b) note that we had an election and chose a government that is substantially different in its approach to international affairs?
Personally, I’m a (b).
John Mace nailed it, sort of - he’s been shilling Marc Thiessen’s book, for some reason.
Only Jose Canseco tells the truth when shilling a book.
(Underlining mine.)
I’m sorry, this just jumped out at me. I hope you’re aware that Afghanistan actually borders China, and we already invaded Afghanistan.
Oh gods…here we go again! :smack: I thought for sure that the frantic ‘we are poised to attack Iran!’ thingy would fade away once Obama came into office, but it seems that this stone just keeps on rolling.
So…‘military action’ (which could be a whole range of responses) is ‘more likely’ (than what? What was the probability before, and how much more is ‘more’?). And this by a guy who’s reliability and politics are suspect and who has been out of the loop for at least a year and a half.
As another poster eloquently put it: yawn
-XT