MSNBC contributor: State Dept. and NSC are building a case for war with Iran

[Mrs. Overall]

Link to tweet

Joe Cirincione
‏Verified account

I don’t want to be alarmist, but the State Department and the NSC seem to be steadily building a case for war with Iran. The fact that so few are paying attention to this campaign does not mean that it is not serious.

[badhair77]

1. Frightening. All the distractions and we are not paying attention to an even bigger

future distraction, anything to deflect Mueller.

[Ccarmona]

2. It's John Bolton's and His Neo-Con Friends' Wet Dream n/t

[Roland99]

8. Ayup. Afghanistan and Iraq were to be a Squeeze Play on Iran

[Me.]

10. It's Not Just THem

It's the Saudis, Israelis and Kushner.

And where are they going to get the money...the Dem House?

[klook]

3. War has always been my expectation from Trump.

We all knew he would want the distraction and the immediate infusion of political capital that would come from waging war.

And what better bogeyman than Iran? “Defend” Israel, check. Fight for oil, check. Kill Muslims, check.

I have no doubt it’s in the game plan, the biggest arrow in the quiver to fight the Mueller investigation’s revelations.

With this administration’s combination of paranoia, bellicosity, incompetence, deception, and craven self interest, we could be in a hot mess real soon.

[rurallib]

5. My understanding is that no president has ever lost while the country was at war

I have no doubt this was part of the calculation in invading Iraq in 2003. By the time the election came around W would either be a president shown a Great War or a president who was still conducting a war against a bitter enemy. he fucked it up, but still won (at least according to how the votes were counted).

So I have no doubt starting a war against any of a number of weak opponents is in the cards for Trump. Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, maybe even a Cuba? No doubt there will be an analysis of which country they can actually beat without having to spend lots of time and treasure occupying.

A war gives a sitting president stature, but the enemy must be painted as the devil incarnate. Beside boosting a president's stature it also accomplishes a couple of things for Trump and Republicans:

1) distraction from the Russia investigation which you noted.

2) It can be used to paint Democrats as unpatriotic even disloyal when they oppose this idiocy.

3) It has been one of the Republicans best tools for burning through money. They can then use these expenses to claim the country can no longer afford DEFENSE and the "Nanny" state or socialism or as I prefer the safety net.

War is very good for Republicans.

[klook]

6. All good points.

Bonus: huge amounts of cash for military contractors and consultants. And a cruelty dividend that the Deplorables will love.

[RHMerriman]

12. Still didn't stop the impeachment of Nixon...

Still didn't stop the impeachment of Nixon...

US troops were still fighting and dying in SEA in 1973-75.

[rurallib]

25. true - never thought of that

My memory remembers that the Watergate investigation and possible impeachment knocked any war news to the back pages. Great distraction from the war.

But to my point - IIRC a president hasn't been voted out when 'conducting' a war.

[RHMerriman]

51. True, but there's a first time for everything...

True, but there's a first time for everything...

Keep in mind, the professional military has no desire to get any deeper into the quagmire that is Southwest Asia, and any action against Iran would be simply another step deeper into the mess.

If the Iranians are foolish and prompt some sort of incident at sea in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea, they will go home sadder but wiser, but anyone in the Trump Administration advocating military action against strategic targets (R&D facilities, the Iranian Air Force, etc.) is going to be asked very pointedly a) what the justification is for action, b) what the exit strategy is, and c) what risks they are willing to run in terms of the US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the theater ...

There is no justification for US action against Iran, and no possible gains worth the risks.

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. Good points but I don't think they worry about "time and treasure occupying"

Anything that involves planning for the future, or paying for it, is not their concern. Usually a Democratic President is in charge by the time that happens, and they are always tasked with the cleanups.

An example is their tax scam bill.

[Ciaphas Cain]

37. Portray the war as confused and bungled

Trump's own reputation for incompetence and the messiness of war will do the rest.

[rurallib]

43. Wish the press would do that, but they will be cowed by the administration

and act just like they did during the 2016 campaign when they gave him billions worth of free access.

[GulfCoast66]

49. Only because Johnson did not run in 68.

He would have lost.

Americans have no appetite for more war. Right or left.


Of course that will not stop folks like Bolton.

[dem in texas]

52. The "wag the Dog" move

Start a war to create a diversion.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. Perhaps it will also aid Netanyahu w/bribery issue, if Israel is facing an immanent threat from Iran

[ewagner]

24. Time out.....

Wasn't/Isn't Iran a Russian client state?

I'm confused about Putin "high fiving " MBS the titular head of the Suuni Sect while doing business with Iran of the Shiite Sect...

...and to be more confusing, Putin and tRump are supposed to be BFFs?



Whole lotta double-crossing going on here.

[keithbvadu2]

30. Big money overcomes religious ideology. Why is it that Jewish Jared can be accepted so readily in vi

Big money overcomes religious ideology.

Why is it that Jewish Jared can be accepted so readily in virulent anti-Jewish Arab circles?

[bluestarone]

7. Terrible news if true!!!

SOOOOOO fucking wrong!! Why would they go along with RUMPY on this????

[moondust]

9. Maybe their re-election strategery.

Worked for Dubya. Ya can't change administrations in the middle of a war, ya know.

Bush's War For Reelection: Iraq, the White House, and the People

[BlueMTexpat]

11. NO! NO! NO!

NO!

When will we EVER learn?

[UniteFightBack]

13. This would be what it would take for rump to commit political suicide. The American people have in

no way an appetite for this AT ALL. Currently rump enjoys a 60% disapproval rate. I cannot imagine leading us into war with Iran will improve those ratings.

He should be very very careful.

[roamer65]

14. Perfect reason for secession if it happens.

CA, NY and New England will probably go first.

[Oneironaut]

15. Imo, not considering just the war, this would create horrific domestic issues.

Riots, extremism, and possibly civil war, imo. People will be livid. Don’t do it!

[roamer65]

17. It will be the birth of serious secessionism.

[D_Master81]

16. I've been waiting

We've had Republicans in power for 2 years and no new wars had been launched. It seems almost wrong.

[pecosbob]

18. Pretty apparent to me that that low-five was Putin selling out the Iranians to the Saudis

all so that they can get the Magnitsky sanctions dropped. That deal Tillerson made with Putin stands to bring the Russians trillions of dollars from arctic oil, but not if they can't get the sanctions dropped. We see that they allowed Deripaska to divest all his holdings in the world's largest aluminum producer as soon as China started screaming about aluminum shortages. The fix is in. Sounds like a win - win for Trump, Netanyahu, Salman Al Saud and Putin.

[roamer65]

44. I suspect the Iranians will ally with the Chinese.

Hell, most of their oil is going to China anyway. I think they will join SCO in a couple of years.

[elmac]

19. the only way tRump can stay in power is to start a war

bush jr did it and tRump will try the same.

[ancianita]

20. Most likely timed to halt all actions by Special Prosecutor Mueller and House Democrats.

[RT Atlanta]

21. Glad to know Country has so much extra $$ available to pay for this

And that pressing internal matters, including, without limitation, poverty, national health care, education, national infrastructure (transportation and communications), renewable energy and the like have all been addressed.

[NCDem47]

22. The US would be going at this alone

I can’t imagine the likes of Canada, UK, France, Germany, or Australia wanting anything to do with this. There is no coalition that has the appetite to take this on as a multi-national force.

Deploarables wouldn’t care about that.

I guess you can count Israel and Saudi Arabia in on this one.

[erronis]

23. A rhetorical question. How would we identify a disruptive comment into our discussions?

Should each one of us understand all to facets of the OP before giving our opinion? Joe Cirincione is a name I have seen before but I don't know all of his back-story. Is he a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian writer? Should every one of us have to vet every comment (including this one)?

[Turbineguy]

26. A distraction

good enough to get lots of people killed.

[PeeJ52]

28. All we need to do is "accidentally" maneuver one of our ships into Iranian waters to be attacked

and bam... instant war. It's too easy for Bolton to get what he's always wanted.

[rickyhall]

29. Republican Playbook

Get in trouble, start war

[saidsimplesimon]

31. Who would benefit if Iran is at war?

Our Dolt, BB in Israel and Russia would. All are seeking distractions from current scandals.

Putin is prancing on the G20 stage fresh from his incursion in the Crimea. The Kremlin is probably rocking daily with high fives on how they have used Donnie to bring down our political system and standing on the world stage.

There is also that pesky interruption of access to oil in the middle east. Some would profit "bigly".

[Kurt V.]

40. oil and gas industries

[saidsimplesimon]

41. Yes, Kurt

I sometimes think those rats are on the run and have retreated to the underground. They are a plague like Ebola.

[uponit7771]

46. Which is 90% Russia right now

[allgood33]

32. The only country left on the PNAC list to destroy from inside out.

[KPN]

33. Bring back the fucking draft!

[angrychair]

34. This is ridiculous fear-mongering

Congress would never authorize it.
Any military action still has to be approved by Congress and in no way would the House authorize it.

Any formal declaration of war would need Congress.

More importantly, trump has burnt all his bridges with the international community. The UN would not support it.

A unilateral campaign would have zero support publicly.
After the Iraq debacle and complete lies told to the American people and the UN, there is zero faith in a republican administration to tell the truth.

Especially ones with an agenda and a scandal to bury.

[bluestarone]

47. Not 100% certain BUT

I believe the president does have a 90 day window? ( i could be wrong) before Congress deals with it. So this asshole could go ahead and start it but then what??? Someone will correct me if this is not true i'm sure?

[left-of-center2012]

35. Maybe just before the 2020 election?

[LiberalArkie]

36. U.S. has been wanting war with Iran since the hostage situation way back.

[Dopers_Greed]

38. Dump is getting desperate, and needs to way to win back power

Starting wars in Iran and South America would do that

[yellowwoodII]

39. I've thought so all along

This would be a disaster worse than Iraq. Too many people don't know the difference. (They both begin with "ir".) Not to be confused, Iraq had been weakened by sanctions and Saddam. Iran is a much more modern country. People like John Bolton would support it. Trump would welcome the diversion. Pay attention! Pat attention!

[ProudLib72]

42. Can someone remind me if any other countries have pulled out of the nuclear deal?

I don't think they have. Maybe it's just me, but I think this has enormous bearing on our ability to start a war.

[still_one]

54. They haven't. In fact just the opposite. The reaffirmed their commitment. In addition, both

Russia and China are making major inroads in Iran because of our inept foreign policy.


This administration may want a war, but we don't have the resources. We are still engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and because of our invasion of Iraq, the Shia majority there now has political power in Iraq, and if we invaded Iran, I do not think the Shia in Iraq will sit idly by. In addition, our relations with Turkey have soured, along with other countries in the region.

Ironically, North Korea actually does have the capability.


Assuming we would not utilize nuclear weapons, just dropping bombs would accomplish absolutely nothing, and if we were stupid enough to utilize nuclear weapons in that region, not only would the world economy collapse, but it would be WWIII, and the game would literally be over for everyone. I also do not believe that the American public would support such an action


I think a war with Iran is unlikely at this time

[spanone]

45. with bolton, it's what I expected...

[Duppers]

48. Gee f****** God!

And Trump is so compromised with the Saudis and others that he cannot be trusted.

Take the focus off the investigation and put it on the war.

[Duppers]

50. Gee f****** God!

And Trump is so compromised with the Saudis and others that he cannot be trusted.

Take the focus off the investigation and put it on the war.


Remember: Trump cannot declare a war without Congress' consent, not constitutionally.

[still_one]

53. They may want it, but the resources aren't there, and I do NOT buy that our European allies will

jump on board with this.


I don't trust this report at all, but assuming it has validity, it was the U.S. who unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran, so they are under no obligation to honor it.

However, Europe and Iran are still committed to the deal without the U.S., and while the U.S. threatened sanctions against countries that obtain oil from Iran, they gave eight countries waivers of those sanctions, which include Japan and South Korea.

We don't know what the left hand is doing from the right hand.

My gut tells me a lot of this is being pushed by Saudi Arabia, but after the disaster in Iraq, which actually gave the Shia majority in Iraq power where they had none under the Sunni minority, it also united the Shia in Iran and Iraq. The whole balance of power was destroyed in the middle east by our illegal invasion of Iraq, both Russia and China have made major inroads in Iran because of our fiasco.

The Bolton's may want an invasion of Iran, but we would be doing it pretty much on our own, and we couldn't engage in a long term engagement because we are spread out too thin in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our relations in Turkey and other countries in the middle east have also gone down hill which also complicates the issue.

This is the same talk that was being pushed after bush invaded Iraq, that we were going to do the same with Iran. It never happened, because the reality was we didn't have the resources, and we still don't, and in addition our position in the middle east is even weaker than it was then because of our disasterous foreign policy there

[allgood33]

55. Do the Democrats have enough Barbara Lee s to stop this?