You are on page 1of 17

DDI KO <Iran>

Iran Strikes
Iran Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Israel strikes Iran..........................................................................................................................................................................................2
Israel Strikes Iran.........................................................................................................................................................................................3
No strikes – US & Israel..............................................................................................................................................................................4
Obama Strikes..............................................................................................................................................................................................5
Israel Strike !................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Iran Nuclearization now...............................................................................................................................................................................7
US strikes solve Israeli Strikes....................................................................................................................................................................8
Iran not a threat............................................................................................................................................................................................9
No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................10
No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Yes Strikes..................................................................................................................................................................................................12
AT: Bush Strikes Iran.................................................................................................................................................................................13
Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise”.....................................................................................................................................................14
Israeli Strike - Obama................................................................................................................................................................................15
Iran Strikes – Turns Oil..............................................................................................................................................................................16
Iran strikes  terrorism.............................................................................................................................................................................17

1
DDI KO <Iran>
Israel strikes Iran
Iran strikes inevitable – Israel
SMH, 7-31-08, Sydney morning herald, Peace hopes up in air as lame duck flies out, http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/peace-
hopes-up-in-air-as-lame-duck-flies-out/2008/07/31/1217097436375.html

Both Bush, dogged by his invasion of Iraq, and Olmert by his invasion of Lebanon, are finished as leaders. Abbas has been
reduced to a weak, ineffectual leader of the Palestinians, propped up on one side with aid from the US and Europe and on the other by
the Israeli military. Waiting noisily in the wings in the event of an early Israeli election is the hawkish former Likud
PM Benjamin Netanyahu, whose opposition to any territorial concessions to the Palestinians has, according to opinion
polls, positioned him to win a national poll - despite the relief with which he was seen off by voters in 1999. But the issue of
what to do about Iran and its nuclear program is in a different category to the Palestinian and Syrian questions. It is one thing to be
talking about peace 40 years after a conflict - the world has factored in its absence on both the Palestinian and the Syrian fronts. But it
is quite another when influential figures in Washington and Jerusalem talk up the prospect of military strikes against
Iran. In June, Olmert warned that the international community had a duty to clarify to Iran that the
repercussions of its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons would be "devastating". That was followed by what
sounded like a threat from Shaul Mofaz, one of Olmert's ministers who also is a candidate for the leadership, who
warned that an Israeli strike on Iran was "unavoidable" because, in his view, sanctions and diplomacy had failed.
A wild scenario being canvassed by some Israeli analysts calls for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israeli or
American aircraft in the window between the US presidential election and the inauguration of the winning candidate
in January. With Bush and Olmert on the way out, it might be called the attack of the lame ducks.

Israel will strike Iran


AFP, 7-30-08, Obama says Israel could strike Iran if sanctions fail: report,
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSFLIDZBLLdXPlpUbrHbdCO00zGw

White House hopeful Barack Obama has told fellow Democratic lawmakers that Israel will launch a military strike on
Iran if nuclear sanctions fail, ABC News reported Wednesday. The comment was reportedly made in a meeting late Tuesday
between Senator Obama and Democratic members of the House of Representatives, following the presidential contender's return from
an overseas tour that included Israel. "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don't
work, Israel is going to strike Iran," an attendee at the meeting quoted Obama as saying, according to ABC. Neither the Obama
campaign nor his Senate office had any immediate comment. Iran has been slapped with three sets of UN Security
Council sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that makes nuclear fuel but also the core of an
atomic bomb. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that his country would not retreat in
the face of demands by world powers for Tehran to stop the enrichment. Obama also told Tuesday's meeting that
Arab states understood that a nuclear Iran would be a "game changer" for the entire region because of likely Israeli
action, another attendee cited by ABC said.

Israeli strike inevitable without US-Iran rapprochement


Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war,
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotator-
news

Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away
from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much
alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement
between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the
United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).

2
DDI KO <Iran>
Israel Strikes Iran
Israeli strikes are inevitable – candidates, diplomacy, and sanctions won’t solve
JOHN R. BOLTON, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 7-15, 2008; Wall Street Journal, Page A19, Opinion,

Israel, Iran, and the Bomb, http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121607841801452581.html


Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's
Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point. Tehran's
efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another
diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional
period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years.
Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran
cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure
when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they're not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial
turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the
decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is
that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer
to nuclear weapons. And yet, true to form, State Department comments to Congress last week – even as Iran's
missiles were ascending – downplayed Iran's nuclear progress, ignoring the cost of failed diplomacy. But the
confident assumption that we have years to deal with the problem is high-stakes gambling on a policy that cannot be reversed if it
fails. If Iran reaches weaponization before State's jaunty prediction, the Middle East, and indeed global, balance of
power changes in potentially catastrophic ways. And consider what comes next for the U.S.: the Bush
administration's last six months pursuing its limp diplomatic efforts, plus six months of a new president getting
his national security team and policies together. In other words, one more year for Tehran to proceed unhindered
to "the point of no return." We have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" for Iran to
abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively
enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer. Existing sanctions have doubtless caused
some pain, but Iran's real economic woes stem from nearly 30 years of mismanagement by the Islamic Revolution. More sanctions
today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran
would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five
years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different.
Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do
more now. That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's
indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air
strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that
critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's. With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime
change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply
unattractive alternative of all. But the urgency of the situation has not impressed Barack Obama or the EU-3. Remarkably, on
July 9, Sen. Obama, as if stumbling on a new idea, said Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions" and that we
needed "direct diplomacy . . . so we avoid provocation" and "give strong incentives . . . to change their behavior." Javier Solana,
chief EU negotiator, was at the time busy fixing a meeting with the Iranians to continue five years of doing exactly what Mr. Obama
was proclaiming, without results. John McCain responded to Iran's missile salvo by stressing again the need for a
workable missile defense system to defend the U.S. against attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He is
undoubtedly correct, highlighting yet another reason why November's election is so critical, given the unceasing complaints about
missile defense from most Democrats.

3
DDI KO <Iran>
No strikes – US & Israel
US and Israel won’t strike Iran now – next president is key
The Jerusalem Post, 7-7-08, 'Iran leaks reflect conflict in US administration'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330878502&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

One Israeli diplomatic official said that as the debate rages in Washington, it was clear that Israel would be unable to
take military action without a green light from the US. "Everyone understands that we could not take action without US
approval," the official said, "both because we would need to fly through airspace controlled by the US, and we would
need their help in dealing with repercussions from any attack." The most direct air route to Iran is through Iraqi airspace,
which is controlled by the US. "We would need their help in carrying out the attack, and also afterward," the official said. "We would
have to deal with possible military action from Hizbullah and Syria, and also diplomatic fallout. Don't expect the world
to clap if we attack Iran, and as a result oil prices spiral from $140 a barrel to $300 a barrel." The official said Israel
would need US diplomatic cover to deal with the world's condemnation, and possibly even sanctions, in the aftermath of a raid.
Although Israeli officials said they were not surprised by the various different assessments coming out of Washington, because they
have long been aware of the internal divisions on this matter, they said they were slightly surprised by remarks made by Mullen about
the "third front" because he had not issued these warnings in his meetings with top Israeli military brass during his visit to Tel Aviv
last week. At a press conference in Washington last week, Mullen said that "Opening up a third front right now would be extremely
stressful on us," adding that while he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons the efforts needed to focus on diplomatic,
financial and economic actions. The Israeli officials said that the talks with Mullen had focused primarily on Iran but had also
dealt with other regional issues such as Hamas's military buildup in Gaza and Hizbullah's in Lebanon. They added, however, that the
concern voiced by Mullen was real and reflected fears in Washington that a strike against Iran would destabilize
the region and undermine America's recent success in Iraq. Meanwhile, Anthony H. Cordesman, an American national
security analyst who served as a former national security assistant to presumptive Republic Party presidential nominee John McCain
said Sunday that the US is trying to pursue the diplomatic option with Iran over its nuclear program since it does not
view the nuclear threat by the Islamic Republic as an "urgent" crisis. "I think we are contemplating to do exactly what we said
we are doing - which is to try to pursue diplomatic options, and the reasons are very simple: We do not see this as an urgent crisis in
terms of Iran rapidly acquiring weapons or effective delivery systems," said Cordesman in an address at The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem. Cordesman, who also served as a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense,
conceded that the US assessment on Iran's nuclear program is at odds with Israeli intelligence estimates, and said that the whole
issue is likely to be left to the next US President. "If that assessment changes, it does differ from some Israeli experts, then
our timing might change. But I suspect that is going to be an issue for President Obama or President McCain," he said. "In terms of
US strikes on Iran, we have a contingency plan for virtually anything. And in this case, are we going to constantly have the
ability to execute some kind of strike plan against Iran's missiles and weapons of mass destruction, including its nuclear
facilities? Yes. Are we about to execute it? No! The president of the United States has said that, the secretary of defense, the secretary
of state [and] the chairman of Joint Chiefs."

4
DDI KO <Iran>
Obama Strikes
Obama will attack Iran
Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 7-28-08, LA Times, Obama the irony man,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-mead27-2008jul27,0,7118072.story

In Israel, Obama went to great pains to tell anxious Israelis that his commitment to Israel's security is "unshakable"
and that Tel Aviv would have no stronger or more reliable ally than an Obama administration. Like President Bush,
Obama has promised Israel that he would never ask it to make concessions that endanger its security. Obama also
appears to have cleared up the ambiguity in his stance on Iran. The world community, he told the Israelis, "must prevent"
the mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb. Presumably, that means if negotiations fail to stop Iran from enriching uranium,
and sanctions don't do the trick either, the world community will have to explore other options. Obama's pilgrimage abroad
points to a larger truth: In the midst of a bitter political year, a loose bipartisan consensus on the Mideast may be emerging. And,
irony of ironies, the consensus, seemingly embraced by Obama, seems closer to Bush's views than to those of the
antiwar activists who propelled the Illinois senator to the nomination.

Obama will strike Iran


Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take
Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html

Instead, what we have right now is a candidate in Obama who refuses to lead on this critical issue of war and peace. Thus,
Senator Obama publicly told Iran that it should abide by the Bush Administration's arbitrary deadline (which runs out a week
from now) to agree to suspend its nuclear enrichment program or suffer unspecified sanctions, possibly even a military assault.
Senator Obama himself now says that no option (which would include a military one) is off the table. Then, when
interviewed in the Jerusalem Post about whether he would support an Israeli strike against Iran, he stated simply
"that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security." In addition, Senator Obama
pronounced during his trip to the Middle East and in his Berlin speech that preventing a nuclear Iran is one of the top
priorities of the world today, thus giving encouragement to those in the U.S. and Israel who are considering a
military strike as we speak. The truth is that the premise of such a claim is simply false. First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear
weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel
in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
It must also be noted, lest we forget, that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with
the U.S. over "its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of
Israel," and it offered "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State
Department. In addition, it is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s
military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports. In short, Iran is not
the threat which Bush, McCain, and yes, even Obama through his rhetoric, are leading us to believe. Indeed, all of the
histrionics over Iran are eerily reminiscent of those which led us into the war against Iraq. However, Senator
Obama, in a reversal of his brave stance back in 2002 against the Iraq war - a stance which he trumpeted as one of the prime reasons to
vote for him for the Democratic nomination - is now enabling another ill-conceived and possibly much more
destructive, war to go forward.

5
DDI KO <Iran>
Israel Strike !
Israeli strike on Iran causes nuclear war
Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in
Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in
the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the
Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear
strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor,
for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know
what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military
consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s
atmosphere and water.

Israel-Iran war escalates to a nuclear holocaust


Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html

But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran
will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by
attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding
its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international
Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the
Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement). Such a situation would confront Israeli
leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a
nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other
would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually
destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of
the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational
men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology
and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps
toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear
holocaust would be in the cards.

6
DDI KO <Iran>
Iran Nuclearization now
Status quo won’t solve Iran nuclearization
Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli
conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is
geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of
additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be
applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and
Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that
Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four
years.

7
DDI KO <Iran>
US strikes solve Israeli Strikes
US strikes solve Israeli strikes
Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning
an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the
job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But,
as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little
enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign
in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans. Which leaves only Israel — the country
threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran
(the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel
will have support from a lame-duck White House). The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than
America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and
Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and
Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the
Iranian nuclear project. Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared
by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to
get the bomb.

8
DDI KO <Iran>
Iran not a threat
Iran’s not a threat
Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take
Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html

First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which
currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain
annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that
Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. It must also be noted, lest we forget,
that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with the U.S. over "its disputed
nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel," and it offered
"active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State Department. In addition, it
is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s military
efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports.

9
DDI KO <Iran>
No Strikes
No strikes now – moving toward peace talks
Harry Sterling, former diplomat, 7-30-08, Embassy, Bush Playing with Nuclear Fire on Iran,
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/july/30/sterling/

Until a few days ago, some feared increasing tension between Iran, Israel and the United States had reached the
point where actual hostilities were conceivable. Israel, as well as the U.S., had been signalling that military action against
Iran's nuclear facilities could be an option if Tehran didn't agree to end its nuclear enrichment program, which they believed is based
on an Iranian intention to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Several Israeli parliamentarians have called for their government to
move against Iran before it's too late. To up the pressure on Iran, Israeli authorities made sure that long-range exercises by Israel's
airforce—involving flights capable of reaching Iranian nuclear sites—were clearly publicized for the benefit of the Iranians. In recent
days, rumours had circulated that Israeli fighter aircraft have been spotted at American-controlled airbases in Iraq, their presence
supposedly a warning Israeli forces could attack Iranian facilities much easier than thought. (However, Iraq's President Nouri al-
Maliki insists Iraq will not permit its territory to be used for attacks against neighbouring states.) In response to such veiled threats,
the Iranians went on their own offensive, carrying out two separate missile launches, one involving the Shahab-3 missile with a 2,000
kilometre range, easily capable of striking targets within Israel and beyond. A representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, said Tehran would hit both Israel and 32 U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf if Iran were attacked. But then, in a sudden
reversal of the previous bellicose rhetoric, both the Iranians and Americans abruptly toned down their mutual sabre-
rattling, suggesting they were interested in entering a dialogue with each other. In an atypical conciliatory approach,
representatives of Ayatollah Khamenei indicated Tehran was prepared to discuss the most recent compromise
proposals tabled by European Union representatives (backed by the U.S.). And then, in a complete about-face from its
previous, uncompromising insistence that Washington wouldn't participate in talks with Iran unless Tehran first
suspended its nuclear enrichment program, the Bush administration announced it was sending Undersecretary of State
William Burns to Geneva to join talks last weekend between the EU and Iranian negotiators. Washington also indicated it might
establish a U.S. interests mission in Tehran, the first since the 1979 Iranian Revolution—a move Iranian President Ahmadinejad
uncharacteristically warmly welcomed.

10
DDI KO <Iran>
No Strikes
US won’t strike Iran
Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war,
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotator-
news

The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of
government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran;
and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military
confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the
joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy
scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with
a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I
don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a
nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)

11
DDI KO <Iran>
Yes Strikes
Bush will strike Iran while in office
PressTV, 7-29-08, Israeli says Iran war not imminent, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65061&sectionid=351020101
According to Jerusalem Post, the unnamed official involved in Tel Aviv-Washington talks referred to the ongoing strategic talks
concerning Iran and said, "We are still far away from the point where military officers are poring over maps together planning an
operation." However, some Israeli officials see the move by the US to send its number three diplomat William Burns to
the Geneva nuclear talks with Iran as an effort to garner international support in the event President George W.
Bush decides to attack Iran during his last months in office. "This way they will be able to say they tried everything,"
one Israeli official speculated. "This increases America's chances of gaining more public support domestically as well
as the support of European nations which are today opposed to military action." Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear
arsenal in the Middle East, staged a large-scale military maneuver in early June in a move interpreted as muscle-flexing against Iran.
Although US officials claim they are committed to a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear standoff, they
refuse to rule out the use of military option against Iran should it continue uranium enrichment.

Strikes now – election irrelevant


Andrew Glass is a contributing editor at Politico. 7-31-08, Waiting for an October surprise,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12185.html

The media happily chew on the next two predictable events on the political calendar: the choice of running mates by John McCain and
Barack Obama and the polling “bounce” the presidential nominees may harvest from their party’s national political convention.
Beyond those compass points, we sail into uncharted waters. Will a presidential campaign seemingly headed for victory
founder on the political rocks of this year’s October surprise? Merely raising that question presumes that there will be —
to use the current parlance — such a game-changing event. While the historical record reflects pretty good odds that at least
one October surprise will occur, the past cannot tell us what impact, if any, it would have on the November results. President
Bush’s status as an unpopular lame duck makes it less likely that he would pull one off, at least one that could aid and abet the
Republican cause. Thus, a Bush decision to order an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear sites could backfire with voters
when — not if — the Democrats brand it as a political ploy. Woe to McCain should that notion stick at the polls. And on a purely
political level, Bush knows, notwithstanding Obama’s assertions to the contrary, that McCain has no enduring
interest in preserving the Bush legacy. So this year’s top entry in the surprise sweepstakes is the prospect of
Israel attacking Iran on its own — without seeking Bush’s permission. The Israelis might wait until after
Election Day to launch such a salvo because, presumably, it would be easier for Bush to offer American support
with the campaign out of the way. But what if Israeli intelligence determines that the Jewish state is in imminent danger from a
pre-emptive blow?

12
DDI KO <Iran>
AT: Bush Strikes Iran
Bush is pushing for diplomacy with Iran
Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, 7-31-08, Why Bush folded on Iran,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/

Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State
Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had
addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false
comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign
policy prescription on Iran? Back in mid-July, the Geneva talks were attended by representatives of the five veto-wielding
nations on the United Nations Security Council, including the U.S., along with a delegate from Germany and chief European Union
negotiator Javier Solana. E.U. parleys with Tehran have been going on for years, but the presence of undersecretary
of state for political affairs William Burns signaled a new seriousness to Washington's commitment to the diplomatic
track. What the U.S. and its European allies were offering Iran at the Geneva meeting was termed a "freeze for freeze" deal. Iran
would not attempt to improve on its rudimentary ability to enrich uranium to low levels, or go beyond running 3,000 centrifuges, in
return for a pause in the spiral of economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.N. Security Council. The blogosphere and Op-Ed
pages were rife with speculation about the reason for Bush's startling reversal. Former National Security Council staffer and Columbia
University Iran expert Gary Sick implied that Vice President Dick Cheney and the hawks had lost control of Iran policy to
foreign policy realists such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a behind-the-scenes Oval Office rumble. His thesis was
supported by the howls of outrage against Bush's "appeasement" of Iran published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages by former
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and by the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, both prominently
associated with the neoconservative movement and with propagandizing for the Iraq war. As usual, the neocon doth protest too much.
Burns conducted no real negotiations with the Iranian delegation, simply restating Washington's insistence that Iran cease its
enrichment activities. His presence at the negotiations was mainly symbolic. Still, on the symbolic level of politics, Washington's
change of direction was momentous. Bush had clearly executed a "Rockford" or reverse 180 of the sort you see stunt drivers pull off
in spy movies. And the reason for that reversal of course was, indeed, reality -- not just a recognition of the limits of the
U.S. military, but a taste of $5-per-gallon gas. Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, invaded one oil-rich country and said its
reconstruction would be paid for by a flood of cheap oil. Now, ironically, one of the main reasons they have had to scale back their
ambitions for a second oil-rich country, Iran, is the crushing effect of expensive oil on the U.S. and world economy. It was just a year
ago that war with Iran seemed imminent. Last August David Wurmser, a major neoconservative figure who had just left Cheney's staff
revealed that the vice president was talking about having Israel hit Iran's nuclear research facilities. At the same time, Afghanistan
expert Barnett Rubin went public with what he was told by a Bush administration insider -- that Cheney would make a big push for a
strike on Iran in the fall of 2007. Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney was attempting to reconfigure the Iraq war as a
struggle with Iran. And, indeed, Cheney did make threats against Iran at institutions of the Israel lobby such as the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. In December 2007, however, the intelligence community pushed back. Key findings from the
National Intelligence Estimate, released that month, showed that Iran had mothballed any weapons-related
research since early 2003. The Cheney push for one more war was effectively blocked. In recent months, several major
developments have strengthened the case for dealing with Iran diplomatically rather than militarily. The U.S. military
is more overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of
northwest Pakistan has required a significant increase in the number of U.S. and NATO troops during the past year.
Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily target U.S. bases with Katyusha rockets in retaliation for any U.S. strike on the
nuclear research facilities at Natanz near Isfahan.

13
DDI KO <Iran>
Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise”
Bush will strike Iran before the elections to give McCain a boost
William O. Beeman, professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, 7-21-08, Playing
Games with Iran, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5387

Hostile rhetoric against Iran also plays into the U.S. electoral process. For American politicians, Iran is a universal
bogeyman, useful in an election year as a device to show elected officials as tough on foreign miscreants. Indeed,
since the Iranian Revolution U.S.-Iranian relations have been a centerpiece in election debates. Conspiracy theorists believe
fervently that the Republican Party engineered an “October Surprise” in 1980 with Iranian officials – delaying the
release of the American Hostages until after the U.S. Presidential election – and thus denied Jimmy Carter a second
term. The purported event -- true or not -- has supplied a permanent political term for American elections. In
every presidential election since, U.S.-Iranian relations have been featured in presidential debates and campaign ads, with universal
negativity toward Iran. This year is no exception with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all expressing hostile
attitudes toward Iran. And this year’s October Surprise is the rumor that the Bush administration will bomb Iran just
before the election to give a boost to John McCain. Unless the Israeli hawks get there first.

14
DDI KO <Iran>
Israeli Strike - Obama
Israel will strike if Obama wins
Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble
Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731

Another big factor in rising energy costs -- one that will become red hot after the November elections -- is Iran. The ruling murderous
mullahs are hell-bent to get the Bomb and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence calculates Iran will cross
the threshold in being able to create a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Iran recently conducted missile tests
that demonstrate that it can deliver such a bomb to Israel not to mention all of Europe. Iran could also use a shipping
platform to lob a weapon onto the U.S. The U.S. has been engaged in fruitless diplomacy with Iran for almost four
years. The Israelis feel the window of opportunity to destroy or seriously disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions is fast
closing. Thus there is a very real possibility that if Barack Obama wins in November, the Israelis will take action
before he is inaugurated on January 20. If McCain wins, the Jewish state will probably wait a few months longer to see
what will unfold with his administration.

15
DDI KO <Iran>
Iran Strikes – Turns Oil
Iran strikes cause oil shocks
Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble
Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731

To get to energy: The possibility of a war against Iran has not escaped the oil markets. The futures price of oil spikes
upward in early November. The market is thus betting that military action against Iran may well happen -- and that would, at
least short term, seriously disrupt oil flows. This helps explain why the price of oil in terms of gold has moved up in recent
months. Normally the ratio of oil/gold price is fairly constant.

16
DDI KO <Iran>
Iran strikes  terrorism
Strikes will cause retaliatory terrorism
Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, Focus on
counterterrorism, 3-1-08, Iran, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Informaworld,

Finally, policymakers should recognize that U.S. options with regard to Iranian support for terrorism are limited. The
United States has other vital concerns with regard to Iran—both its nuclear program and its activities in Iraq—and pressing hard on
terrorism may jeopardize any progress, however limited, in these areas. Iran has shown itself able to resist U.S. economic
pressure in the past and is likely to do so in the future as well. Limited military strikes would do little to damage
Iran’s capacity to conduct terrorism and would almost certainly increase its activities, both out of revenge and
out of a sense that the United States is irrevocably hostile. The best bet for the United States is to continue to try to shore
up allied support to increase pressure on Tehran and otherwise ensure that counterterrorism remains a priority in U.S. policy toward
Iran.

17