McCain: a roll-the-dice commander
Financial Times / Gideon Rachman
01-Sep-2008 (15 comments)

Mr McCain’s confrontational instincts are even more to the fore when it comes to Iran. He has said that the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran. Taken at face value – and given what we know of Iran’s nuclear programme – that sounds like a commitment to attack Iran within the first term of a McCain presidency.


McCain will attack Iran

by Q on

When a conservative paper like Financial Times says this, there is very little room for doubt.


Farhad Kashani

Anonymous1, the

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonymous1, the overwhelming majority of Iranians don’t want Iran to be attacked, as the overwhelming majority of any nation which doesn’t wanna be attacked. There are two issues here though 1- IRI and its supporters are using this call for no attack to A – look like victims B- Make others look bad 3- Further their power and agenda. And we need to be smart and confront that. 2- The only way for Iran to be at peace with itself and the world, is for this regime to be REMOVED since its an illegal, illegitimate, war mongering ,human rights oppressing and terrorism inspiring and supporting regime.





by janelle (not verified) on

is not dirty go-dust. If I could choose I would be an Israeli, not an American.


If walk ons cannot be

by janelle (not verified) on

If walk ons cannot be tollerated then why vote? Throw them both on the track and see who has the endurance.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

You will win the lottery before the U.S. attacks Iran.

All you are doing is stirring up a load of bs.



by Anonymous1 (not verified) on

I think that the point of view of Q and me and a lot of people here is : we all agree that the IRI regime is a theocratic; fascist; and an out of fashion regime and that mullahs ruling iran are mostly criminals BUT the solution of iranian people, who in majority live inside iran, is not to attack the country BECAUSE it's people who whould pay for the causlities not the mullahs. Mullahs seek an attack to renforce their power; OK?

I don't know who except MKO and other blind-minded people would like an attack, but if such horrible thing occurs either me and you have to bury the hope to return once into a free iran.

Farhad Kashani

Q, you guys have lost your

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, you guys have lost your self respect a long time ago in the eyes of the Iranian people by taking sides with the Islamic regime who is responsible for the death and destruction in Iran.


Furthermore, maybe you need to READ. You are so brainwashed, that is helpless. If you get out the bubble you created around yourself, maybe you can realize the truth. Listen and learn:


It was sometimes around Feb or March of 06 when Seymour Hersh came out saying he has “clear” evidence to show that Iran will be attacked in June of 2006. He said he has “first hand sources” within the administration. So tell me oh wise Q!!! , what did happen that made dramatic changes in Iraq and Afghanistan within that short period that caused the U.S to cancel it plans? The bombings and relentless killings by Islamic forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and the mass murders of innocent people by those forces whom are if not supported, but definitely inspired by the regime in Iran, has been going for 4-5 years now non stop, so what happened during that short period????? What drastic change happened?


Furthermore, what kind of nonsense is this to start an animosity and provoke someone, and when that someone prepares to defends itself or retaliate, it should be condemned for that? Are you for real? You don’t want the U.S to attack Iran, fine, go and tell, and fight, the regime to stop provoking, bashing, foul mouthing and threatening the U.S. That’s the only way you can stop a war against Iran.



No matter what regime, Iran has a right of self-defense. Period.

by AnonymousAnonymous (not verified) on

The IAEA has never declared Iran in breach of the NPT or found evidence of a weaponization program. Even the most recent NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) of the U.S. government stated that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapon program (the NIE asserted, on rather thin evidence, that Iran had a program until 2003, but it has since been shelved). In other words, there is little to no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

That being said, I will address your hypothetical scenario: I would prefer a nuclear Iran, for it is the lesser of evils. If Iran had had a nuclear deterrence, this would probably have prevented Saddam from invading Iran in 1980 (which led to the deaths of 1 million Iranians and Iraqis). Despite the enormous human rights abuses of Iranian regimes (most recently, the IRI), Iran has not initiated an invasion of another people's country since Nader Shah's campaign against India in 1739. The U.S. and Israel (as well as Russia and the European states) have far more aggressive and belligerent foreign policies than any recent Iranian regime, whether IRI or Pahlavi.

It's interesting that you raise the possibility of a "preventive war". Since Israel and/or the U.S. are far more likely to initiate an attack then Iran is, by the logic of "preventive war", Iran should attack the U.S. and/or Israel first to "pre-empt" them. Right? Needless to say, I don't think Iran should start any war. But if Iran is attacked, any Iranian regime (whether IRI, Pahlavi, Qajar or whoever) has a right (and arguably, a duty) to defend the country and to retaliate (just as Iran defended against Iraq's invasion in 1980).


How about a direct answer

by Zion on

If the only two possibilities were an armed nuclear Islamist Iran or a preventive war, which would you prefer?
Just say it out loud, for the record.


Georgian crisis started by US& Israeli undercover to aid McCain!

by gol-dust on

fo the election. I hope they are not adding Iran as they originally wanted to. Wag the dog! Dirty filthy american & israeli politics!

Did u know Ossetians in georgia are real iranians who even speak persian? So we really never totally left georgia 180 years ago.


Kashani, have a little self respect!

by Q on

Are you seriously calling London's Financial Times, the "loony left" ?

I don't think you even read or need to consult reality before opening your mouth anymore. It is a proven fact that Bush had a plan to invade Iran after Iraq. If we got lucky only because of how incompetent he was in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn't change the reality which is the INTENT of the Bush/Cheney administration corroborated by just about everyone including members of their own party. An intent that is still there. Frankly, the fact that you don't believe it means very little to anyone.

Zion: Thanks your highness for the warning. I guess there is nothing to worry about since US and Israel have a proven record of not killing any civilians in their "strikes". And whatever consequences happen after is the other guy's fault anyway. So... yea, it's good news for those who have their heads up their rear end.


Nuclear-Armed Iran

by Zion on

Those who officially admit they prefer a nuclear-armed Islamist Iran should of course be worried and whine.

Farhad Kashani

For the last 4-5 years,

by Farhad Kashani on

For the last 4-5 years, there hasn't been a day since some confused, anti Bush lefty loony journalist came out with some report that "U.S gonna attack Iran".."Bush gonna attack Iran"...and now "McCain gonna attck Iran"...and what happened? Nothing! As a matter of fact, this same ol Bush is preventing Israel from attacking Iran.

The trick this IRI supporters like Q use is to keep this propaganda of victimizing the regime in Iran running and alive. The more they write about "U.S preparing to attack Iran", the more victimized the regime looks. Thats all there is to it. They don't know the only ones they're fooling is themselves.


Iam hoping he will,,,,,

by nasser (not verified) on

thats why Iam voting for him.


Emrika vs Esraeel Goh Mikhorand ...

by soufi on

Khomeini (1982)