June 30th, 2008
02:23 PM ET

If Iran is attacked, should the U.S. or Israel do it?

Balloons in the colors of the Iranian flag read anti-US and anti-Israel slogans as Iranians take part in a rally to mark the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Tehran. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Time is apparently running out to do something about Iran's nuclear program.

In the latest issue of New Yorker, Sy Hersh reports the U.S. has stepped up covert operations inside that country–everything from spying on Iran's nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country's ruling clerics.

Meanwhile, a former head of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, tells London's Sunday Telegraph that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within a year. And he says there's no doubt Iran intends to use it once it gets it. He says the time is getting shorter for Israel to act.

Unlike the U.S., which has spent more than 5 years looking for Osama bin Laden and invading Iraq and not succeeding at either, the Israelis tend not to mess around.

Ask Syria. Last year an Israeli airstrike reportedly targeted a partially built Syrian nuclear reactor. Ask Iraq. In 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Baghdad, saying they thought it was making nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

While the international community, led by President Bush, continues to bluster and sanction and threaten, Iran continues its relentless march toward nuclear weapons.

There's a lot of stuff the civilized world doesn't want to deal with. Iran having nuclear weapons would be somewhere near the very top of the list. Unless they have a change of heart – a la North Korea – it looks more and more like Iran is going all in. And it's going to be up to somebody in the west to decide whether or not to call.

Here’s my question to you: If Iran is attacked, who should do it: the United States or Israel?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Maureen from Tewksbury, Massachusetts writes:
If the current administration decides that Iran needs to be invaded, they will invade. And they will probably do it right as they are walking out the door, handing the whole mess to the new administration. Right or wrong, it's as simple as that. With the U.S. backing Israel, and Russia and China backing Iran, we are poised to start a nuclear war, which will go far beyond the Middle East.

Matt from Omaha, Nebraska writes:
I can't believe some of the comments saying, "Let Israel attack Iran, and then we can defend Israel because we're her ally." That's a load of bull! If Iran is attacked by Israel, Iran has every right and duty to strike back. Our soldiers should not shed one drop of blood to protect Israel. If they want to stir up the hornets' nest, let them take all the stings.

Les from Lakeland, Florida writes:
Under what circumstances would an attack be justified? That would be a better question. An unwarranted attack by the U.S. would be a diplomatic disaster that would completely destroy what little credibility we have left in the area. An unwarranted attack by Israel could lead to a possible use of nuclear weapons upon other Arab nations as Israel attempts to protect its position after creating a renewed Arab-Israeli War.

Jan from Knoxville, Tennessee writes:
The United States should certainly not do it. Our military is overstretched as it is. Americans have had enough of war. I really don't think it would be a good idea for Israel to do it either.

Shane from Boston writes:
Jack, I have an intelligent idea: How about none of the above? And all I have to point to is North Korea. We sanctioned the hell out of them, used the U.N. to put increasing pressure on them and finally, Kim Jong Il broke. The same can be done with Iran. Diplomacy first!

Filed under: Iran • Israel • United State of America
soundoff (191 Responses)
  1. Terry in Hanover County

    Neither. Attacking Iran may very well be the start of World War III. Aren't we having enough problems now?

    June 30, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  2. Joy in Springfield, IL

    How about neither? If Cheney gets his wish we will be involved in another war, our economy will continue to tank, our infrastruction will crumble and gas prices? They will go through the roof. If you think getting Iraq's oilfields was tough, just wait until we try to get our mitts on Iran's.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  3. Mark - Asheville, NC

    No one should do it, unless we want the price of oil tripled, and just possibly the advent of World War III. However, I fear that GWB will do exactly this, perhaps the day after the November election. Having no conscience or scruples, he would htink nothing of plunging the world into such an abyss, to say nothing of leaving McCain with it. His father did this when he left incoming President Clinton with the mess in Somalia.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  4. RJ from Pennsylvania

    Israel. The United States has enough wars right now. We don't need another one.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  5. Jenny Rome Ga

    Seeing as how this country is already fight war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanastin maybe Isreal should take on Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  6. Jay-Mississippi

    Israel, should make the first move, not the US. Our role shold be one of ally and support. Allow Israel, to defend herself, fight with her enemies and what we should do is provide support. The US should not be Israel's attack dog.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  7. Frank from Peterborough

    The obvious answer is neither. Iran's President is a carbon copy of the U.S. President with both in dire need of adult supervision. The population of Iran is no different than the population of the U.S. and more than capable of living in peace and harmony amongst themselves and Israel. Put both presidents in a very small boat in the middle of the ocean and both countries would be saved.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  8. Michael Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: That is almost a moot question; Israel is definitively going to strike first......and you know what.......they are not going to ask for permission.....they are going to just do it. Never corner a badger in a corner with an exit strategy.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  9. Betty - AL

    Doesn't matter what we think – THE DECIDER will do as he darn well pleases between now and January.

    I think we don't need any more wars. McCain will only follow in THE DECIDER's footsteps.

    God Help America

    June 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  10. Stacy from Loudoun County, VA

    Jack, our standing in the world is so bad now; we should just go ahead and do it. Having Israel do it is the cowards’ way anyway. We are the ones providing the guns, bombs, and planes to Israel, so why have a US proxy bomb them when we can do it ourselves. Hasn't that been our foreign policy for the better part of the Bush administration anyway?

    June 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  11. Ed Reed

    Right now, nobody should do it! Ahmadinejad is the elected President of Iran and he is currently in some political trouble. There is a good chance he will not be re-elected unless our sabre rattling drives his opponents to support him against an outside threat. Remember how Democrats and Republicans came together after 9/11?

    June 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  12. Larry in Florida

    Trying to figure out first where the United States would find the money or the army to do any attacking on anyone. Guess that means it should be Israel. Maybe they still have something to attack with. The Iraq war has left us in sorry shape. A war we didn't need to start in the first place. Now if I have figured this out I'm pretty sure Iran has too. We're so depleted I don't think we could be very effective starting yet another war. The terrorists are winning and no one wants to admit it..Bring our young men home and let us regroup. There has to be a better plan.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  13. Emma, San Jose, CA

    With Israel's nuclear power, they should be the ones to fight for themselves. Despite Bush's attempt to find immortality by taking over Middle East conflicts, he did more harm than good by de-stabilizing that part of the globe.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  14. Bev, Los Angeles

    Jack, NEITHER! My goodness, what is wrong with the American public if they think we have the right to attack another country (again like Iraq) that has not attacked us directly. As for Isreal, let them do what they will but not involve us. We certainly can talk with Iran about their assistance in Iraq–but that's TALK! The McBush people would love another war but our youth cannot afford one and we should not LOSE ONE MORE LIFE TO THIS NONSENSE! Wake up America. Let's get out of this "mindset of war"!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  15. David, Orlando, FL

    Enie, mean, miney, moe…the UN.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  16. Michelle

    What I hope we have learned over the past eight years is that going on the attack isn't the best strategy, to say the least. Not only that, but we can hardly afford to extend our military resources to a third front. Bottom line? Just because we can do something, does not mean we should.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  17. Terry, Chandler AZ

    Israel of course Jack. The U.S. has attacked enough countries recently.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  18. Erin in Kalamazoo

    I'm sickened to even hear such a question. The fact that it can make your daily blog suggests it is a possibility and I don't know how the US can afford it–we're plain tapped out, Jack.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  19. Allen Lanai, Hawaii

    Today I would say neither. Should it be shown that Iran is indeed trying to establish a nuclear arsenal base I think Israel better not wait for anyone's permission to take such a sight out. As Israel is our ally the US should uphold Israel's right to protect itself. For whatever reasons that there may be that part of the world thinks it is ok to talk about sending in nuclear weapons and wiping a country and it people "off the map."

    June 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  20. Dan from NJ

    I don't think the U.S. would do it; at least not now, as we already have too much going on in that region. But we also wouldn't complain if/when Israel does it. And of course, i would expect that we'd back them up militarily. And, based on history, Israel certainly is not shy about protecting herself, no matter what the outside world thinks.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  21. Joe St Louis, MO


    It seems to me attacking them just puts off the problems for the short term. I say let Israel do what they want and let them suffer the fall out. Protecting Israel will be the downfall of our nation.

    Joe from St Louis,MO

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  22. Ron Mechanicsville

    Well, Jack, Who do you trust to do it right? I personally think a combined effort would be best, but since Israel is lacking in Stealth Technology, I think we should. But can our Air Force Leadership pass the Integrity Test? They've had a few problems of late. And will it be a limited engagement, to the Nuclear facilities only? And are we smart enough to protect Israel from the fallout afterwards?

    I ask all these questions , Jack, because when politics gets in to Military action, George W. Bush doesn't have a very good Record!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  23. Gary of El Centro, Ca

    In light of our Iraq adventure, if the U.S. was to attack Iran (or anybody else for that matter) it would not be viewed as a necessary or appropriate action by the rest of the world. Israel has more at stake, and is more likely to be seen as attacking in an act of self defense if in fact Iran must be dealt with in a military fashion.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  24. janet in oklahoma

    Neither one should do it .What kind of NeoCon question is this? War shouldn't be all the United States thinks about. Shame on you Jack.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  25. Lene'

    Preferably there will be no attacking anyone. If Isreal is directly threatened then they should initiate an attack. The US is an ally and what that means is we "assist" them if needed, noit start wars and fight them for them.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  26. Michael, Lorain, Ohio

    If attacking Iran is a must, then Israel needs to go after them alone. Israel stands to gain or lose the most from an attack on Iran. Thanks to the mess that we're in now, we don't have the military power to handle battles on three fronts. Not to mention all of the permanent bases with troops overseas in Japan, North Korea, Germany, etc. If we get into a war with Iran, we will be looking at a world wide depression never seen before. We could end up bombing the region and ourselves into the stone age.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  27. Dick B

    I have always believed in leasing out our wars to the highest bidder. This allows the free market to determine the cost and the lease period sets a limit on the term on the conflict. I believe this is the 21st Century way to kill and maim people who don't let us have our way.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  28. Wendy Jackson

    Jack, I think Isreal should take the lead on this for few reasons they are the neighboring country and by them being the first to strike would make a clear message as to their committment to solving the problems there. I do not think it is necessary that we alway draw first blood on every issue that effects the world. Our allies pretty much left us out to dry on Iraq and I don't blame them, but we are stretched out and our people need to come home to regain their lives and sense of self worth before sending them on their third and fourth tour of duty. That is insane!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  29. garrick

    hi jack
    Isreal should we have enough,but if they attack back everyone should fight this battle,but we shouldnt take the lead on this one

    June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  30. Connie

    Jack, I guess if we go by what John McBush has said, it will be the good old USA. Remember bomb,bomb,bomb Iran.

    Connie from indiana

    June 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  31. Chicago Bob from Illinois

    If it has to be done, the US should do it. We have the greater firepower and likelihood of success. But we need to get out of Iraq first. A lot of our forces are in harms way for a counterattack there.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  32. Joan: Burlington, VT

    Neither. What would it really accomplish!!!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  33. L.M.,Arizona

    What happened to the rule of law,what happened to taking the higher ground, why should any country consider attacking Iran. How do we hold other countries accountably when we are now considering attacking countries because they do not do what we tell them. When can america start treating people fairly if Israel has nukes I think that threatens the whole middle-east we have to hold everyone accountably.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  34. Kenny

    Neither should attack Iran. We need WW III like we need 4 more years of McBush. If there has to be a war, after Bush is out of office he can send Channey on a hunting trip and he can claim he accidentally fired the first shot.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  35. Tom in Desoto Texas

    Let George do it! I mean him personally, and have Cheney get some action too since they both "happened" to miss out on Vietnam.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  36. J.D. in NH

    War is in the air once more. Deja vu all over again. Our fearless leader is ready to bomb more innocent people in the name of spreading democracy. It doesn't matter who drops the first bomb, it's an election year and part of the Republican campaign mantra includes scaring the bejesus out of everyone and promising to keep us safe. If there was a spine somewhere in the House or Senate, this might be stopped.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  37. Michael Smith, New Orleans

    I think the U.S. should be the ones to attack Iran. We've already lost all credibility throughout the middle east. Most of the world hates us now. So why not add another foreign policy blunder to the Bush era?

    June 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  38. Jim from BC

    Would that not be the same country in the end? One country pretending to be independent from the other in this matter?

    Of course that attack would lead to a multitude of countries attacking each other. Then our cell phones and other tecky toys wouldn't work anymore.

    And that, in the end, would be the real disastrous consequence for many of the people I know and observe.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  39. Mary - California

    Negotiating is the safest direction – this very well could end up in a war against the U.S. if we "stick our neck out". I am hoping President Bush doesn't rush into extremes with Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  40. karen from Arizona

    why do we need to start another war when we have two others still raging. does anyone in Washington read a history book every now and then... great nations were destroyed because of arrogence and the desire to conquer and destroy ..why do we like to destroy instead of building our own country....I just wonder if we are writing the end story of another great nation

    June 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  41. Allen from Hartwell, GA

    I would hope that neither would strike first, but Isreal would be the one with most to gain. The US has enough on it's plate without looking for more – after all, how much oil de we need!!!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  42. Marie

    Niether country should attack Iran, for what? Oil. This administration and the media has such disreguard for human life. Blood for Oil. Meanwhile China is laughing all the way to the bank. Such fools we be.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  43. Jay, Denver CO

    Hopefully not us. I can't afford to spend any more money to support the war.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  44. Les Young Oklahoma

    Jack I don't think the United States should attack Iran unless we can prove that they are attacking us and not just suspension of it. If Israel attack Iran they better be willing to go it on their on. Now if Iran attacks Israel we should defend them.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  45. Deb, Allentown, PA

    Jack, is this a trick question? Haven't we learned our lesson yet? Neither should do it on their own. In fact, no one should be attacking anyone without direct provocation. And then, should an attack become necessary, it should be a joint undertaking, led preferably by a country NOT involved in the Iraq fiasco. Sarkozy seems pretty concerned over what's happening in Iran...maybe France will step up to the plate.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  46. Karen-Phoenix

    NO MORE WARS!!!! Diplomacy is needed. This could blow up the whole world!!! Listen to Obama!!! Our troops are stretch soooo thin!!! NO MORE WARS. NO MORE BOMBS!!!! Stop Isreal too!!! This is crazy!!!! Iran will also be defended by Russia and China. We will be lost forever!!! Only the very rich in the USA will survive because they are all moving to Dubi!!!

    June 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  47. leevaughn brown

    Hey Jack
    Neither, This is the agenda of the current Administration, Bush called Iran evil, they are just reacting to the situation Bush/ Cheney put before them. Everyday Iranians do the same thing that everyday Americans do, go to work and try to provide for their families.
    There should be a law that says when Leaders disagree they should be the ones to have to fight each other. I bet more world Leaders would get along than disagree. Just think Jack average citizens watching their Leader in an arena fighting another world leader, that's a world war that everyone would buy a ticket to see.
    Cinti Ohio

    June 30, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  48. Sid-Texas

    It doesn't really matter who attacks Iran, the US will get the full blame. What the US should be more concerned about is who will fall behind Iran against us. We can't fight all of the countries, who depend on Iran's oil and also have lucid contracts with Iran. Has the whole world fallen into the hands of madmen on both sides? It sure is begining to look like it has.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  49. Bob in Boise

    When Israel attacted Syria in 1967 it was appropriately called the 6 Day War. When the US attacked Iraq, it will took how long?

    June 30, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  50. Terry from North Carolina

    Do we really need to ask this question ? Why does it always have to be the United States ? Lets exhaust all diplomatic channels before anyone explores military action against Iran or anyone else.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  51. bob, oshawa, canada

    Jack, the country who can come up with the best lie. Both are itching to go to war yet again. Haven't they caused enough bloodshed and hardship already? What exactly do they think that will do for the peace process? Has the Bush administration learned nothing from its disastrous Afghanistan and Iraq wars? I find it difficult to believe that your elected representatives would allow your president to make another disastrous decision that would decimate the Mid-East but also reduce the U.S. economy to a shambles.

    June 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  52. James-Detroit

    Looking at world war III is not a fun thing.... they need to look before they leap... iran has friends russia and china.... you talk about nice situation.. i would have loved to see my kid grow up in peace...

    June 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  53. Jay in Texas

    How about both countries minding their own business for a change. All this talk about a war with Iran is just giving Big Oil another excuse to raise oil and gas prices. I think every American should write their do-nothing congressmen and senators and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they don't prevent this country from going to war in Iran, they will be thrown out of office when the next election rolls around. And no using Israel as a puppet to do the dirty work either.
    Brownwood, Texas

    June 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  54. Julie, NY

    It doesn't matter which flag it is done under, it will still be seen as both the US and Israel doing it together, even if not officially.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  55. Matt Callaway in Omaha, NE

    If Israel attacks Iran do you think American troops will be safe from reprisals inside Iraq or Afghanistan? I don't think so. Iran has the capability to hit not only the entire country of Israel, but our already overstretched forces in the region. Even if Israel strikes Iran I will not feel indignant if American troops are attacked in response. Sometimes I can't tell who dictates American and Israeli Middle Eastern policy, the Prime Minister of Israel or the President of the United States, but either way I'm sure they're in it together.

    Attacking Iran should be out of the question, and I'm disappointed that you have taken such a willing step onto an obviously slippery slope.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  56. Tina (Fort Worth)

    Neither. What is the rush? Why is Iran a bigger threat than Bin Laden? Why is Bin Laden not caught? Our country is going to ruin and all we are caring about is taking out Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  57. Julie, NY

    How about: Who should attack Iran, George W. or Barack Obama?

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  58. Ryan, Champaign IL

    Maybe if we hurry up and impeach these crooks out of office, no one will attack Iran and we can work toward solutions that aren't insane.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  59. James from Virginia

    How about no one should attack. This country needs to stop being the world's police and we need to start worrying about our own country before we meddle in someones business. Leave them eliminate one another.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  60. Tom, Avon, Maine, The Heart of Democracy

    The Iranians.

    If an outside force attacks, people will rally around the flag and support Ahmadinejad once again propping up an unpopular regime that would have collapsed a long time ago if it weren't for Bush policies.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  61. Marie Ontario

    There isn't any incentive for your current administration to attack Iran because by now they realize their only hope for an all out victory would be to go Nuclear and if they did that they wouldn't be able to get at the oil reserves in thier life time.

    When you look at it like Bush/Cheney/McCain do if you can't make a dollar then it isn't worth doing so Israel will have to swim for it on their own.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  62. Karen, Idaho Falls Idaho

    Hi Jack,

    It makes no difference! If we attack, we have another war to fight with few available troops. If Israel attacks, we still will have another war to fight because of our treaties to support Israel. Nobody should attack Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  63. Robert C Lowenthal

    IRAN SHOULD NOT BE ATTACKED. Are President Bush and Vice President Chaney so dumb that they cannot learn anything from Iraq. Is Israel so dumb that they cannot figure out that if they cannot defeat Lebanon, they surely can't defeat Iran. The question should be, what can we, the citizens of the United States, do to stop this madness.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  64. Paulina, Deventer, NL

    Sure, let's start another world war. Why not, could be fun. What do those morons think this is?! A freakin' computer game!!? Have we learned nothing? This "showing your manhood" thing is getting a bit out of proportion, isn't it? For God's sake, let's stop this nonsense before it's too late. Again. And again and again.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  65. Sandra fromTexas

    If Iran is attacked, I don't think it matters. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the U.S. and Israel are one and the same.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  66. Vinnie Vino

    Let us pray that a new round of diplomacy between all parties is avert to the necessity of either country attacking Iran. The United States can not afford to shot spit balls at Iran and an attack by Isreal would be devastating to it's survival in the Middle East...

    C.I., New York

    June 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  67. Patricia

    Israeli's live there, if they feel threatened it ought to be them....
    Palmdale, Ca...

    June 30, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  68. Ray,Florida

    Is there a difference Jack?
    Either way our country pays in the end, with our brave ones blood and our shrinking dollar. It's very sad.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  69. Christine in Natchez, MS

    Here's a thought Jack, how about no one. Can we all just try and get along? Why must our government always be the boss of everyone? I believe that's how dictators think.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  70. Andrew Gipson

    Iran shouldn't be attacked. But if it must be done, I say the Israelies do it. Too many American soldiers have died already.

    Andrew Gipson
    Arnold, Missouri

    June 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  71. Martha, Gardiner, Montana

    Let's let Bush and Cheney do it. Give them standard combat gear, drop them into Tehran and imbed a journalist with them so we can all watch. If they're so gung ho on war, let's give them a once-in-a-lifetime chance to show us all how it's done. That might solve a whole lot of our country's problems in just a few seconds.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  72. Bill from Ontario, Canada

    The Chinese and Russians have huge stakes in Iran. Imagine just for a second, what those two countries would do if either Israel or the US attacks? It’d give GW and his bible-thumping ‘Christian’ crew the “Apocolypse” and rapture they were praying for before he’s run out of office in January.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  73. Marty, Idaho

    It doesn't matter who should attack Iran, Jack, Bush is foaming at the mouth to be the first to bomb them and he doesn't care about the consequences, which could be WWIII or even the final straw that brings down this great nation. Unfortunately, him and his cronies don't believe in settling our differences by talking like mature adults and they certainly don't believe in agreeing to disagree. I am just hoping our country makes it until January and that Bush doesn't decide to make and pass a law appointing himself dictator between now and then.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  74. Michael Sparks, Nevada

    Neither, it is amazing that the media seems to forget or refuses to report on the fact Russia has made it clear they will not stand for military action against Iran. "Russia's foreign minister on Friday warned against the use of force on Iran, saying there is no proof it is trying to build nuclear weapons." (International Herald Tribune).

    I believe that the Bush Administration is not going to be happy until they have us in the middle of World War III. McCain is right behind the Bush Administration on this, I swear if Bush ever comes to a sudden stop McCain will go half way up his back side. (Got to remember this is a family show)

    June 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  75. Stuart Dicker

    I'm still waiting for one of you smart reporters to ask what happens the day after we bomb Iran. Oil at 143.00 is already choking off the economy. If anyone thinks we will recieve flowers and candy after the bombing, your a bigger head case than Cheney is. The gulf will be blocaded and little or no oil be shipped. I know that Iran is our lastest boogyman, but Conn. has a bigger economy then does Iran. The American people need to stop this maddness because it's clear congress can't or won't. What ever remains of a reasonable way of life for us is out the window the day after Iran is bombed

    June 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  76. Ethan

    Hello,Jack I think both the US and Israel should think twice about attacking Iran,since they have allies in China,Russia,and Venezuela.I'm 15 and I would like to grow up and finish High School without the thought of John McBush possibly reinstating the draft.I am anti-war and the US should:
    1.Get out of Iraq
    2.stop meddling in Iran
    3.Worry about the economy and what happens here at home.
    If McBush is elected(unlikely)I will move to Canada or China and become a citizen there.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  77. Lenore Z.

    I'm disgusted at the very question. Is this a serious question? Anyway, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business attacking Iran. Sounds like Bush and cronies are doing a repeat of what happened before the Iraq war. Are you going along with it?

    June 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  78. David in Natchez, MS

    Since Bush/Cheney got it right about WMDs in Iraq and the intelligence is unsure about their nuclear program in Iran, the decision has already been made.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  79. Allen L Wenger

    None of the above. I think Iran should be attacked by the country they attack first. If they don't attack anyone, maybe we should leave them alone. Sorry, I forgot that they have even more oil than Iraq. We better attack them and get our claim on the oil before someone else gets there ahead of us.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  80. JW Georgia

    You should realize that the United States and Isreal are one and the same. There would be no difference in the eyes of the attacked who dropped the bombs. More importantly, with G. Bush's help, America has lost her world standing and no longer has the moral ground that allows her to just attack at will. When America preemptively attacks, America is no better than any other terrorist in this world. Time to get a grip and reassess our position.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  81. Kristen- Philadelphia, PA

    Jack, Can't we all just get along, gosh. I think regardless of who attacks Iran, wont we just get ourselves in the middle anyways. This is just more reason to get our troops out of Iraq sooner rather than latter. How in the world would we fight two wars simultaneously? John McCain doesn’t mind staying for 100 years if necessary but Iraq is not the only threat to us apparently. Can we all chip in and buy him a clue?

    June 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  82. Ted Beaverton, OR

    Iraq should be at war with Iran. Shiite vs: Shiite. We could equip the Iraqis with CBR weapons just like Reagan did 25 years ago. Rumsfeld is still around, he could even put toghether another deal for al Maliki. It would be a breeze, since the template is already in place. Not only that the Pentagon has great expertise in wasting money on proxy wars.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  83. Cynthia

    Who knows who should be responsible but my question is – Where will we get the military personnel from? Afterall, we are overspent in Iraq.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  84. Jeanette Lewis

    Absolutely NOT! We can't afford three wars. If Bush does attack Iran, we should bring immediate impeachment proceedings against him and Chaney. Both are mad men. The democrats cannot continue to support Bush's policies for more money for war. It's about time Polosi and Reid step up to the plate and impeach these two. That's why they were elected. If Bush does attack Iran, Obama is a sure winner. Jeanette Lewis, Hilliard, OH

    June 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  85. Karen from Rocklin,Ca

    Hey Jack, Sounds like the draft is coming back!

    June 30, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  86. SC voter for Hillary

    NO ONE. Let's have some peace for a change.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  87. Franky, Chicago IL

    All I'm gonna say is if Iran is attacked, you better get ready for war! Hey, all I'm gonna say is I told you so....

    June 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  88. Dave in Saint Louis

    We support Israel no matter what! We join them and do it together.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  89. Alan, Buxton, Maine

    Since this administration is not capable of doing anything right and since Iran will not be attacking the United States it is something that Israel should take care of. I trust them far more to get the job done.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  90. Dan H ( North Carolina)

    the gangs of New york should do it... thats about how much I think the US should have to do with it.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  91. mitch martin arkansaw

    there will be anarchy in america's streets.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  92. Rosalynd Florida

    No thanks, to World War 3 thank you very much! if the US and Israel has any common sense left they will not attack Iran. Attacking Iran is an even worse proposition than the stupid idea someone had to go to Iraq. I am not interested in seeing the US fighting on a third front because it would leave this country in a very bad predicament economically and our security would be strained to the breaking point. DIplomacy is the right approach with Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  93. John S. from CA

    We've armed Israel to the teeth. Let's get (a little) our money's worth and let them do it (and by "it" I mean a surgical strike, taking out the facility with no loss of life).

    The Israelis are also less likely to botch it than this adminisitration.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  94. E Phipps

    Neither. We have no military left to defend any action against us, and our troops in Iraq will be overrun by Iranians.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  95. Pat Pa.

    Neither !!
    When did it become right for the U S to start thinking that we should attack other countries ? We never used to think this way.
    Heaven help us if we continue down this path.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  96. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    Iran shouldn't be attacked. WE certainly have no resources nor reason to do it. They're not a threat to us. But if Israel does it, we will back them up. We need to stop the madness and start the diplomacy.

    June 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  97. Nancy, Tennessee

    With the Iraq war we have a bit much on our plate to take on more. We may have to tell Israel, "Take this one; we got your back." The Israeli forces are strong and we are blessed to have them as allies. If they can stop the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran, I say they should handle this one.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  98. Tom from Boston, Mass.

    Unfortunately I'm afraid Israel will have no choice but to do it. I just hope it is a successful surgical strike with little or no "collateral damage," and that their intelligence is rock solid. I believe they could do this better than we could – and we have enough on our hands right now. I understand that this risks escalating hatred towards the U.S. (and Israel), but the fact is we cannot allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because there is no doubt they will use them – and that will lead to even more disasterous consequences.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  99. JD North Carolina

    The US *or* Israel? We are joined at the hip, jack. Israel launching a strike would suck us into the conflict. The problem is we keep using the military to play "whack-a-mole" on every emerging threat, and we've exhausted it.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  100. Alessio in England


    Israel finally needs to stand up for itself. They need to solve their own conflicts.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  101. William, from Cali!

    Israel is not us..............they will "protect" their Country, at all cost.With or without, U.S. approval. That's the bottom line..................Iran, Beware!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  102. Michael, Voorhees, New Jersey

    Israel should lead an attack fully supported (militarily and diplomatically) by the UN, NATO and a host of Arabic states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The Israelis know what they are doing, they know the terrain, and they know the enemy. Hopefully this coalition will signal that we are not just going after muslims, but actually a nation that wishes to do harm to others.

    Voorhees, New Jersey

    June 30, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  103. hugh ny

    Damn,how many wars does america need?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  104. David from Florida


    June 30, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  105. A Kraft Naples, FL

    No....has no one learned a lesson from what happened in Iraq...Bush is dying to go to war in Iran...we should not invade any countries...we should mind our own business....they are not a threat to us...let Israel stand up for itself without the US being involved

    June 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  106. Naomi, Texas

    Neither. Let one eyed sleeping dogs lie. Pay attention only when the toothless bulldog barks but don't always get into a fit.. as a nation we'd stroke!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  107. David from Baltimore

    hmmm Jack, let's see. Didn't we create the UN after WWII to stop problems like this?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  108. vern - anaheim ca

    jack,no, we should not attack iran,let israel fight their own battles.if iran attacks us then we should retaliate

    June 30, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  109. Nia - AZ

    Isreal needs to "man up" and stop leaning on us to fight for them. the US troops should be an after thought especially since we are over extended else where

    June 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  110. Bill

    I'm not a fan of either country attacking Iran. But if it must be done, let Israel do it. We have spent the 20th century bailing out all of our allies. But who will bail the US out as our economy spirals downward and we are saddled with a President to insensitive or stupid to realize the ragged shape of our country. If Israel feels strongly enough, then they should handle their own security with us acting ONLY as allies with logistical support. We should and cannot give them money to fight the war either. Lord knows we have given them enough. With out the promise of US dollars, it may give them a renewed interest in a more diplomatic approach! If only we could cut off our own Presidents spending!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  111. Janice Pound

    No-one should be. Another unwarrented war. Iran has not attacked another country in 235 yrs. Rembember, we're supposed to attack another country in our own defense.Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Even if they did SO WHAT! Nine other countries have those and we have the most. Israel does not have the weapons nec. thankl goodness. Only the Idiot in the W.H. has been hell-bent on invading Iran for the last 5 yrs. A journalist ,today ,stated he 's really afraid that Bush , who is uneducable, will attack Iran if Obama becomes Pres. Bush has no problem with McCain since they are both on the same page. Colorado

    June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  112. Jonathan from Philadelphia

    Let Israel do take the lead, we can simply fund them!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  113. Rick Hendersonville,N.C.

    If you think we should attacked IRAN ,this Country will be doomed. We are at a weak state in every way.But if you vote MCcain in to office Get Ready. Then you will see The so-called real american Flee this country. The rest of us will help bring PEACE if we can.....

    June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  114. ryan stern

    Is this a joke? how many wars do we need? has anyone learned anything from this one? Iran is not Iraq, a disparate group group of warring tribes. Iran is tens of millions of people who will make Iraq look like a cakewalk. Why does our government love wars so much!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  115. Ryan

    Today John Mccain reassured us (or scared the intelligent population) that he will always put his country first. Isnt there a wise saying that putting others first actually repays tenfold. This is proof of or arrogant culture unable to self-reflect. Go read Carl Gustov Jung, his collective unconscious is real even with todays science.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  116. anony

    either would be the start of world war 3.
    goddamn, i can't wait until we blast ourselves into annihilation.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  117. Alejandro


    We should attack in unison and in full force, allowing no chance for Iran to leak out any of their propaganda.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  118. Larry in Tuscaloosa

    No question about it Jack; France!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  119. Jonathan

    I love America for keeping the world 'in-check', no doubt about that, but every now and then we as Americans all think about how we go into a country and destroy the lives of many. Unfortunately, we have to do.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  120. Derick, Greenlawn NY

    It's time for a little good cop bad cop, Jack. Tactical strikes against Iran's most critical nuclear facilities should be conducted by Israel, while the U.S. pushes an aggressive diplomatic solution that promises aid in developing a peaceful nuclear program with U.N. oversight at every level. The West has to demonstrate that we're willing to strike, but we must also show Iran and the world that we are willing to help them achieve prosperity. North Korea could prove to be a valuable ally in negotiations.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  121. Vince Carson City, Nevada

    Jack, The very premise of the question presumes insanity. If you like 150 dollar a barrel oil, how does 500 dollars a barrel sound? How does worldwide depression, chaos, famine, war, and the onset of a new dark ages sound?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  122. Donna

    What happened to that Arab league of nations? Aren't they suppose to police their own?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  123. Randolph

    It should be Peter Graves and the Mission: Impossible team.

    This blog posting will self-destruct in five seconds.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  124. David Bakody

    Jack, why do you think Admiral Faloon was fired? Because he knows attacking Iran is bad news, America will loose two or three aircraft carries in a heartbeat. Iran has close to 1,000 small ships all fitted for suicide strikes plus an unknown number or small subs all fitted for suicide missions. Attack Iran and it could be game over for the US and Israel is a short time. It has been stated that the difference between Iraq and Iran is: " Some people in Iraq like the US while in Iran everyone hates the US" couple this with the fact America's brave young soldiers are on their last legs fighting a war they can not win ever!

    Dav id
    Dartmouth NS

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  125. charlotte

    Easy answer: Israel...

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  126. Dennis from Phoenix, Arizona

    Since the Bush / Cheney Crime administration are the driving forces that are blood thirsty for war here, I guess it will be up the USA to wage another illegal unconstitutional war. Perhaps with the assistance of Israel. However…after they do this, they should take accountability for their crimes and put permanent bases in Iraq and Iran that are composed only of this current genre of spineless cowardly Republican chicken hawks who love to say they are for war but have no intention of enlisting in the military to fight in their Republican wars.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  127. David from Baltimore

    Let's see, America is hated by well more than half of the countries in the world so attacking Iran couldn't possibly hurt our standing in the world much more. On the other hand, Israel is hated by nearly every country in the world, a good number of whom are just waiting for the ok to bomb it. So I vote the U.S., because as a Jew I'd rather not see Israel go to war with every country surrounding it.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  128. Will Cookeville, Tn

    Why not get North Korea to do it. I can't really think of a better way for them to show that they are actually serious about changing sides.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  129. Doug from Daytona Beach, FL

    To be sure that it is done right, Isreal should make the first attack. Followed up with the US doing what the treaty says, and backing up Isreal with military might.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  130. Donna California

    Israel, the U.S. would screw it up!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  131. Roger Ritvo

    WRONG QUESTION!! The issue how can the world get the other mid-eastern countries to stop Iran. Israel or US will unite other countries is either does it now.

    Keep a broader view..US is not the world's solo police officers!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  132. Dan, Maryland

    I'll put a little spin on your question Jack. Which presidential nominee do you trust to handle Iran? The answers are John McCain (bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran) or Barack Obama (let's see if we can talk this out). When we talk with children who are in an argument, do we tell them to fight each other and whoever comes out on top was right, or do we tell them to talk it out and work together?

    Let's set an example for our children, and for that matter, our adults, our politicians, and the rest of the world by electing a leader who actually learned something growing up.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  133. Jean in New York

    No-one should attack Iran unless Iran starts something. We can't go around attacking everyone that we THINK might do us harm. Look what happened in Iraq.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  134. Aaron from PA

    Israel should be the 1st to attack because Iran has said that the holocoust did not exist and they want to wipe them off the face of the planet

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  135. Chuck in Germany

    Hell, yes, let Israel do it. They seem to take less heat than we do from the bleeding hearts, plus they seem to get it done right the first time.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  136. Phil belmar,NJ


    Because of the U.S.'s blatant pro-israeli position, it doesn't matter who attacks first. If it's the U.S. it will be just another war off of bad intelligence and if it's israel we won't let our beloved jewish brethren go in it alone. WE have a recession now but if this iranian war happens prepare for the great depression.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  137. Nia - AZ

    P.S. I t wouldn't surprise me that another "terrosit attack" will occur just to justify the means, like the current war. Just the thought sickens me to the core given our troops are currently understaffed and over worked. again Isreal needs to man up ans stop using us as a crutch to hide behind.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  138. Nicole

    If Iran is attacked I think that we(the unied states) should do it. We need to show the world that we are about business, and not running our mouths!!! President Bush should just go ahead and bomb them now and get it over with. The president of Iran has already stated that he doen't like the United States and that he supports terrorist organizations!! BOMB THEM NOW!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  139. Francis, New Haven, Connecticut

    Israel should lead the charge if and when Iran is attacked because it is in their neck of the wood and also for the fact that Iran has constantly verbalized their intention to eliminate Israel. The United States should get involved only if it is in imminent and immediate danger from Iranian nuclear attack.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  140. Scott in Salem


    Neither. Since the Bush Administration has become more irrelevant than ever, and we know John McSame doesn't stand a chance in November, why not just have Barack Obama innaugurated as President of the US ASAP and have the diplomacy start instead. Did I hear someone say Madeleine Albright?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  141. Mohammad

    Neither. Iran is NOT Syria and will not be like Iraq when was hit by the Israelis back in 1981. Iran is predominantly Shiites and they are by nature very revolutionists, arrogants and hold grudges forever. If they are attacked they will have their kids BEFORE adults immediatly retaliate just as they did with their war with Iraq when the sent their 12 and 13 year old boys on bicycles to fight the Iraqis. The first and only nation to be badly affected is us Americans.

    Jack, war is no joke. No one should even think about going to war.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  142. Spencer from Toronto, Canada

    The U.S. wont strike first. Bush is already unpopular enough, and from what I hear he is trying to improve his image. Did you know Jack that he is actually looking for Osama now?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  143. Joe from Vegas

    Neither of this country should bomb Iran. Weapons of mass distractions are in Israel and civilized world should attack that country. On top they agents and lobby control media in the USA, manipulates public opinions and got total control over our goverment. By the way Israel was funded by Bajtars nazis organizations. Israel never paid any reparations for stolen property, land and real estate.

    As media in so call democracy as our you should be talking of putting on the trail war criminals from Iraq.

    I really doubt if we are democracy, only on the fasade to apear as such for people that are unable to think ontheir own.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  144. Cris

    No one can tell me that Mr. Bush and the Israeli Prez didn't have some secret agreement when Bush was in Israel recently, that if Israel would just simply attack Iran, (note the "exercises" begun after said visit), that the U.S. would support Israel's invasion. Of course he won't consult Congress, just as he didn't do so whn he decided to invade Iraq.!!!!!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  145. Andrew from San Diego

    Regardless of whether the U.S. or Israel attacks, Israeli warplanes would need to fly over Iraq to get to Iran. This means that even if the U.S. does not participate in the air strikes, allowing the Israeli planes to fly over Iraq would make the U.S. an accomplice, and would likely drag us into a major conflict with Iran.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  146. Bill from Alabama

    Actually, Jack, an anonymous sources should attack covertly! It should be made to appear as if it was a plant accident ,and no individual country's fault.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  147. Bill Finnish


    I am a fan of your segment, but with all due respect, this is the stupidest question you have ever asked on your blog! In a potentially explosive situation we are currently facing in that area of the world, we desperately need well-thought and constructive thinking–and questions!


    June 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  148. Scott, Minneapolis

    I think that attacking Iran is a very bad idea. But, if left with no option, and I mean literaly NO OPTION, I think Israel is more threatened by Iran than the U.S., so Israel would attack first. This attack had better be provoked and not because of 'possible WMDs' that may or may not be there. Would it really matter who because the other would either get involved or be dragged in.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  149. Laurence NY

    Neither. As I recall, didn't the National Intelligence Estimate released in December suggest that Iran had halted their nuclear weapons programs? Has our own government forgotten the debacle that we are in just next door in Iraq over Saddam Husseins supposed nuclear weapon program? I believe we are still waiting to see that evidence.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  150. John Hovland, MN

    Why not both Isreal and United States! Maybe those science fiction horror movies I remember in the 50's, after WW3 may come true. Only way to find out! Jack, I no longer care, being 64 I've lived an enjoyable life, ex-wife lives several states away. I live with my Blk Lab. Let's end civilziation as we know it. Maybe that is what happened to Mars! Last one left, please turn out the lights, no that would be drowned the camp fire. It's summer time, better to start WW3 when it warm, we can wear shorts vs fighting in Winter – it was minus 30 w/ 6 feet of snow last Winter.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  151. Sarah, NY

    Personally I think neither of them should attack first, yet it seems as if Israel is about to anyways, they have made that perfectly clear to us. Question is whether the U.S. will follow them to war.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  152. Chris

    Self-defense only means to protect ourselves, Israel doesn't of that right because 2 countries and a super power prevents or VOIDS all legitimacy in a preemptive strike as a wall.

    We need to stop giving unconditional support to Israel because of there behavior legally and ethically mounts to WAR CRIMES. We give them the legitimacy in the UN whenever a resolution to condemn or sanction them is brought forth. Enough is enough.....this violates the principles we swore to uphold.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  153. Kevin in Nashville, TN

    Why are we still talking about attacking Iran? Why are we leaking covert information about our intelligence activities? Is there a brain cell left anywhere? I'm broke here Jack, I can't afford another war.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  154. adam

    Without a doubt, it should be the united states! after all we are the only remaining super power in the world! I wonder? how would the united states respond if those missles were capable of reaching american soil?...my guess is, we would'nt be having this rediculous conversation!
    but let's face fact's! it will most likely be israel! however, I find it awfully funny, that we rushed into Iraq as fast as we did, for a man who denied his intention's in front of the world, and yet this suisidle maniac clearly tells the world of his intention to destroy both israel and the united states, and we're gonna just sit here?.! what are we afraid of? russia?..please! they would'nt dare!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  155. Dolores White

    If Iran is attacked, I don't believe she should be, Isarel should do it The US is already bogged down in two unwinnable wars and I haven't heard of Isarel joining the collilision of the willing yet. How many Israeli soldiers are there serving in Iraq or Afganistan?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  156. D. English

    The U.S. has been the big brother to the world's nations since we've become a super power. I feel strongly that it is our moral responsibility to lead a preventive strike against the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. We can fight them now or we can fight them later... I'd rather take the battle to them, before they have first strike capability. The preventive strike should be overwhelming and relentless with the ultimate goal of disabling their nuclear capability once and for all. I'm not saying that we should attack Iran, I'm saying that we should destroy the infrastructure that supports the development of nuclear weapons and places them in the hands of terrorists.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  157. Rey

    I believe that Israel should attack Iran because of all the signs. Why should Israel wait? If US and the rest of the world wait, again we allow another holocaust. I sure certainly would not want to see that. It took them 50 years to establish their promised land and we should just wait and see - that's not right. When should they attack? When mushroom cloud rise above Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other cities?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  158. Calum MacKenzie

    I usually respect your thinking.

    However, your questions, like Lou Dobb's, are no brainers which disrespect the intelligence of your audience.

    The obvious answer to your question is neither.

    The US has a long history of being at, or going to war, in every year of its existence. The hubris that diplomacy, tact, peaceful consensual peacemaking is for wimps and wuzzes, is so typical.

    Like the Israeli government, the US never takes an opportunity to avoid aggressive coflict, opting instead for appeasement to the military-industrial corporatocracy.

    Shame on you for raising the question as of only 2 choices and a pox on all your houses.


    June 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  159. Mike, Syracuse NY

    If Iran is attacked to prevent them from getting nukes, it should be by the country with the most to lose if they do- Isreal.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  160. Robert P.

    The American people do not want to engage in more overseas conflict. If we continue down this path our economy will fail and our cities will burn. Nobody will care about Iran or Israel, they will be too busy defending their homes from police and thieves.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  161. Deb n Texas

    Cafferty, neither one of those fools should do. The U.S. is over its head right now and too dumb to know it. It is time for SMART PEOPLE to run this country, we have had our share of dummies.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  162. Judy in Ontario Canda

    Why are you people so belligerent? You are going to get us all killed!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  163. jai

    Isreal should do it if any one does. Isreal is not the fifty first state even if powerful lobbying groups think it should be treated as such. They should handle their own security and warmongering knuckle dragging troglodytes in Washinton should keep their noses out of another country they cant properly handle. We already have to much on our plates.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  164. sandy in Ohio

    Jack, I am not in favor of anyone attacking Iran. How can we be certain any of the information we are getting is correct? we don't have a good track record in this department. If it turns out the "intelligence" is correct and the diplomacy diesn't work then we had better leave the attacking to Israel. We don't have a great record in the war business either.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  165. Gerald, Monroe Co. WV

    That's an easy one Jack, the one who was attacked by Iran. Aren't we done with pre-emptive war's?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  166. devenel

    no more,no more,jack we can do better@ home with those money we are using to fight over sea
    I no john mcaine would love us to do it but he won't get that far
    I am devenel n florida

    June 30, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  167. Timmy

    If Iran, ever gets nuclear capabilities you better believe that they will use it on someone. Regardless of who Iran, decides to attack it will effect us as a Country. So lets not sit here and just let it happen lets get in there and do something about it.
    After 9/11, didn't everyone wish that we had done more to prevent it?

    p.s. could you imagine how much gas would be then????

    June 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  168. Deb n Texas

    Cafferty, neither one of those fools should do it.. The U.S. is over its head right now and too dumb to know it. It is time for SMART PEOPLE to run this country, we have had our share of dummies.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  169. Dale- Anadarko, OK

    Let’s go for it and make it part of the Oympics. Our troops are already trained. A win over Iraq may help give us a Gold Medal in Military Combat.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  170. Phil G. Lake Butler, FL

    Nobody likes a bully. This country must never again be the military aggressor in matters of political disagreemnt. I cannot speak for Israel.

    phil g.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  171. William from Sanford, NC

    Neither. Israel, without our consent, turned the United States into an enemy of the Middle East a long time ago. It's time the United States freed itself from being Israel's military slave with a major nuclear bombing of Isreal.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  172. Carmelo, NJ

    Jack, we are in Iraq because of Israel and now we are talking attacking Iran again for Israel? Iran like Iraq has never threaten or attacked us. If Israel is concerned about Iran, then let them do it and let them pay the consequences. The US already has shed blood and treasury on behalf of Israel.

    Israel doen't have the military capabilies to take out all Iran nuclear facilities without losing the bulk of jet fighters and doesn't have the resources for a long draw out war. Which means the US has to do Israel dirty work again.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  173. ED in RI

    You and I know that the delinquent Bush administration is once again "beating the drum" with massive propaganda, like Iraq, to bomb Iran.
    Cheney is behind this , along with all the PNAC jews, dedicated to their NWO mission. IF- Bush bombs Iran, the entire world economy will meltdown, and we could be the target of the entire world. They already hate us (Bush), a great "pearl harbor" excuse to aim weapons at the US!

    June 30, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  174. dave walker,n. dartmouth,ma.,02747

    Neither one of us. Haven't we learned our lesson in the mideast yet? We are not welcomed there nor are we needed there. Stay the hell out of other peoples' problems. We have done enough damage and killed enough people needlessly for no reason at all. Get these bums that believe that this direction is neccessary out of office.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  175. Colleen, Weddington, North Carolina

    So, Iran has nuclear weapons just like Iraq had weapons of mass distruction...Geez Louise, what is wrong you Jack?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  176. Fred, Las Vegas, NV

    Who cares? Will these war mongers ever learn to master the art of peace making instead of war?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  177. Bob Kowlowitz

    The US is far better equipped to do the job than Israel. She has far more combat aircraft available, far closer to Iran. She has stealth aircraft, combat proven to defeat enemy radar. And, she has highly effective cruise missiles in great numbers. Israel has 100+F16s & F15s with pilots & weapons officers 2nd to none. The IAF has fewer aircraft, much farther to fly, no stealth aircraft & no cruise missiles. Israel can do it. The US can do it faster, more thoroughly, & with a high likelyhood of sustaining zero loses. However, from a purely political standpoint, Israel should do it.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  178. herschel

    both. Iran will have nuclear weapons in a year and trust, me they'll use em. Israel has the Intelligences. We have the power. Let them lead and together we can take out the Air Force and rockets and nuclear plants

    June 30, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
  179. Jaybrown NY/NJ

    Well Jack, I say neither. I think this whole thing is another way to help McCain on his bid for the White House. It's another ploy to play on the fears of the American people and stir up our false beliefs that they're the ones who will keep us safe. The Republicans has be be careful that it doesn't back fire on them. It will spark another unwanted war. I can't see the American people behind it, but the again, we weren't behind the last one. They already opened one Pandora box. Why start playing with another? And where are they gonna get the people to fight it?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  180. Sally Edwards

    We don't need to get involved in anymore invasions, no matter the
    reason. We're not getting anywhere in our current endeavors, so why
    step in to help Israel with the mad man in Iran? Besides, Israel is
    quite capable of doing the job themselves.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
  181. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    Doesn't Congress have to ok a war unless we're invaded? Isn't that how it goes? They have more oil and "America is addicted to oil". Write your Sens. and Congressman and tell them to stay out of Iran. Tell them to keep Israel out too. Let the UN intercede and see what happens. You might be surprised.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  182. joseph j zamiri

    as of today june 30th, the US spy agencies, the israeli Mosad and IAEA have not found a shred of evidence that Iran is planning to build a nuclear bomb. If you think the war in Iraq is a mess, then you wait and see the consequence of attack on Iran.
    from the strait of Hormuz to green zone in baghdad to oil tankers navigation in the Persian Gulf to the uprizing of Hizbalah in lebanon and the attacks to the small arab emirates would bring us close to doomsday. That fireball would not spare any body's life. Bush think twice before you bush the button.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  183. Paul Upland,CA

    Iran may or may not pose a threat to Israel,but not the U.S. When did Israel become the 51st. state? Israel, of course.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:48 pm |
  184. devenel

    none of them should do it,what the interest anyway?
    only if the pice of gaz will go down,maybe we think about it

    June 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  185. Gus from California

    What we really don't need is three wars in the Middle East. Iran will be a real handful, more than the other two combined. Would require most likely total mobilization and years of war even uglier than Viet Nam. With probably about the same end result.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  186. dennis north carolina


    June 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
  187. Phil belmar,NJ

    This world is currently in a syphony of corruption and destruction and the american and israeli leaders are the maestro's to play out their glorious WW3. The real quesiton jack, is when will the audience finally stand up and remove the wands from their hands. Apparently mrs. pelosi says its off of the table. so thank you historic elected leader pelosi for depriving us of a chance for harmony.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  188. Mike McKibben, lady lake, Fl

    Attack them for what reason,..............more oil reserves? What is that 400 million dollars going to now?

    June 30, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  189. Billy G in Las Vegas

    how about we contract it out to Senator Joe Lieberman and the Connecticut Air National Guard? he sure seems hot for bombing ANYONE in the middle east that isn't Jewish.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  190. Roy


    The USA should attack Iran, because Iran needs to understand that Isreal is our friend, and Isreal is the promise land. We live in a Jewish-Christian nation, and most of us believe that our Christian faith is rooted from Isreral Jesus is Jewish he is a desendent of King David.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
  191. Patrick Henry, Fort Myers

    The argument here is not who...but why?
    The U.S. should not be making pre-emptive attacks on another nation–period.

    Israel–can do whatever the they want-they always do.

    June 30, 2008 at 4:51 pm |