It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Will a U.S. attack on Iran become Obama’s ‘October Surprise’?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:03 AM
• December 16: President Obama, in a speech before the Union of Reform Judaism, goes from the passive “a nuclear Iran is unacceptable” to the assertive “We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

• December 19: Secretary of Defense Panetta, hitherto the main articulator of the pitfalls of an attack on Iran, suddenly ups the ante by declaring that Iran might be only a year away from acquiring a nuclear bomb, that this the “red line” as far as the U.S. is concerned, and that Washington “will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it."

• December 20: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells CNN that “the options we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable, if necessary”, adding: 'My biggest worry is that they (Iranians) will miscalculate our resolve'.

• December 21: Dennis Ross tells Israel’s Channel 10 television that President Obama would be prepared to “take a certain step” if that is what is required and “this means that when all options are on the table and if you’ve exhausted all other means, you do what is necessary".

• December 22: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, commenting on the above statements, says that they "make clear a fact that was already known to us from closed-door (discussions). It makes clear to Iran that it faces a real dilemma."

• December 23: Matthew Kroenig, former Special Adviser on Iran at the Pentagon, publishes an article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs, entitled “Time to Attack Iran”, in which he lays out the case for an American offensive against Iran – sooner rather than later.

Some may dislike Obama but IMO he has been holding off on green lighting Isreal....
When clearly another few years of Bush or McCain would have that whole region in flames before any uprisings could have taken place.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:08 AM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

The desire to do something about Iran is much bigger than Obama. In my view, he's just a face for the public to make people think he's one of us and that it's all ordinary. The reality is that proxy wars have been going on for 100's years. We've always been at war with Iran behind the scenes. It's just now building up to a point where it can't be in the back room anymore.

Anyway. We funded Saddam in the 1980's to keep Iran busy. They hated us. The bush administration funded undercover campaigns to cause protests/etc in Iran. We knew that Iran was funding unrest in Iraq. We've known the Iraqi insurgents are using mostly russian-made weapons. We know Russia (even China) is pumping up those regimes. We funded insurgent elements in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Proxy wars go on everywhere.

If you don't think that we're going to stand by Israel when they eventually attack Iran's nuclear facilities, you're in dreamland. We will stand by them and even offer assistance and form a coalition of we have to. This has all been done in the past. Convincing the international community that this attack is necessary is going on right now; sanctions, failed talks, etc.

Iran was not playing by the rules. This was all a foregone conclusion. The chances that things will get better are about as good as a american-friendly regime having control in Iran. The chances of that are about zero. Their memory is too good and they're caught up in a blood rage. Too many rogue elements within and without have themselves attached to the Iranian power system.

We aren't much better, in total. But we at least have some human rights and live in a developed world. It's true that might makes right. But somebody has to be right. That's the way it's.

If I could push a button to make em all docile, I would. But picture yourself on a playground and a couple kids are pushing to have a fist fight. It's not easy to stop them if they're determined. Just imagine that with every angry moment, thousands of people across the world die. And with every fist, tens of thousands more die. If the fight ends up in a bloody mess, then the tally is millions of people dead across the world. It's helpful to imagine it this way. Sometimes it can't be stopped.

A coward dies a thousand deaths. Is that true?
edit on 27-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

When I check on here in the morning I half expect to find the USA has full out bombed Iran . What is stalling this war is fear I think .The USA might get away with bombing small countries , where they can over whelm these small counties that have little or no support from other countries. Where here with Iran the western countries have serious opposition. China and Russia can do some serious damage to the western. Or the USA are getting all their ducks in a row before launching an attack. I would think they require the participation of all the western countries and I am sure not all leaders in the west feel the same way about starting ww3. They may commit so sanctions but to commit their military over a minor threat cascading to a full out world war.

P.s. Flames suck
lol go habs

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:36 AM
I was thinking that Syria would be next.

Either way, someone's probably going to be attacked.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:41 AM
And look what this man had to say... oh, 20 years ago:
Hey, isn't that guy a democrat? Yep! They flip flop, don't they? Yep!
edit on 27-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by CALGARIAN
I don't think we will attack Iran.

My explanation?

China really depends on Iran oil. We are not going to get ito a war with China. There will be talk, there will be drums beaten, but there will be no war.

Beezzer prediction number 1 for the new year.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:57 AM
An attack on Iran wouldn't be wise on any level, no matter how you look at it.

All Obama needs to do is lay low and do as little as possible. With the current republican candidates his re-election is nearly certain.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent, it is 100% certain.

In his second term, anything will be possible.


If he can keep complete economic collapse from happening before the election, and hold off new wars and conflicts, he can be THE president that was in office when the worst times ever in US history.... Yeah, it can get that bad, maybe even worse.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link not on iran..i would place my red chips on paki.

top topics


log in