This guy is a lobbyist for Israel and works as Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (an AIPAC spin-off). He was on the “Working group on the phenomena of anti-Americanism” co-chaired by Suzanne Nossel.
I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming that the traditional way that America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”
Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war… you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode.
Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode.
We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded.
And… Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.”
So if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.
On can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th.
We could step up the pressure. I mean look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would know why?”
We can do a variety of things, if we wish to increase the pressure (I’m not advocating that) but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either/or proposition – just sanctions have to succeed or other things.
We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.