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?


Filed under: Iran • Israel • United State of America
June 2nd, 2008
05:03 PM ET

Message to McCain: Most say president should meet with Iran


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

We have some bad news for John McCain who has spent the last couple of weeks beating up on Barack Obama because Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders of countries considered to be enemies of the United States. Most Americans support Obama. McCain was at it again today.

Speaking to a pro-Israel group, McCain said it's hard to see what a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would lead to "except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another"

Well, guess what. A new Gallup Poll suggests the country backs Obama. 59% of Americans responding to the poll say it's a good idea for the president to meet with the president of Iran. Here's the breakdown: 71% of Democrats, 58% of independents and 48% of Republicans support this kind of diplomacy. This is despite the fact that polls also suggest few people in this country view Iran favorably, and it leads Americans' list of top U-S enemies in the world.

This same poll also shows a majority of Americans, 67%, say the president should meet with leaders of other foreign countries who are considered enemies of the U.S. Apparently the American people are sick and tired of cowboy diplomacy.

Obama is the only one of the three candidates who has said he would personally meet with leaders of countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela. Both Hillary Clinton and McCain have criticized him for it.

Here’s my question to you: What message does it send to John McCain when most Americans say it's a good idea for the president to meet with Iran?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Posted by
Filed under: Iran • John McCain
May 27th, 2008
05:01 PM ET

What to do about Iran’s nuclear program?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz uranium enrichment facilities in April. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Iran is withholding critical information needed to prove whether it's trying to make nuclear weapons, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The U-N's nuclear monitor is out with a pretty harsh report, suggesting Iran has stonewalled them. The report says Iran has ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design – all activities that could go hand-in-hand with building nuclear weapons.

Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, namely for energy. It dismissed the documents put out by the U-N as "forged”, although it refused to provide any paperwork to back its claims. One Iranian official says the country will continue to cooperate with the agency.

But the report suggests there hasn't been all that much cooperation going on. One senior official close to the IAEA told The New York Times that there are some parts of Iran's nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role. The report also alleges that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges. The nuclear watchdog agency says that in April, it was denied access to sites were Iranians were making centrifuge components and researching uranium enrichment.

U.S. intelligence says that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons in 2003, but not everyone believes that is the case.

Here’s my question to you: What should be done about Iran's nuclear program?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Posted by
Filed under: Iran
May 5th, 2008
05:35 PM ET

Are Clinton's comments on Iran appropriate?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/05/art.clinton.lafayette.ap.jpg caption=" Obama says Clinton scolded him about Iran before."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Hillary Clinton sounds too much like President Bush. That's Barack Obama's take on Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacks Israel.

Clinton initially made the comments a couple weeks ago, saying: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Obama says this isn't the language we need right now. He says it's too similar to the kinds of things President Bush says, what Obama calls "bluster and saber rattling." Obama says Clinton is changing the rules right before an election. He said she scolded him about Iran before, saying "we shouldn't speculate about Iran, we've got to be cautious when we're running for president."

Clinton's not backing away from her comment. She says she wants to make it "abundantly clear" to Iran that if they attacked our ally Israel, they would face a "tremendous cost." However, Clinton adds that "nobody wants to go to war with Iran." She refuses to say whether she would order a nuclear response.

Here’s my question to you: Is Hillary Clinton’s comment that the U.S. could “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons appropriate?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: 2008 Election • Hillary Clinton • Iran
March 21st, 2008
05:59 PM ET

Pres. Bush puts foot-in-mouth on Iran & nuclear weapons

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/21/art.ahmadinejad.gi.jpg caption=" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad casts his ballot in the parliamentary elections at a mosque on March 14, 2008 in South Tehran."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's been quite a week for U.S. foreign policy.

In a radio interview meant to reach the Iranian people on the Persian new year, this is what President Bush had to say about the Islamic republic's intentions:

"They've declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people. And that's unacceptable to the United States, and it's unacceptable to the world."

Uh, Mr. President, your own intelligence experts have said that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation tell the Washington Post that the president is flat-out wrong, that Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. The National Security Council says Mr. Bush was referring to Iran's previous statements about wiping Israel off the map. But that's not what he said.

One global security expert says the president's comment on Iran is as uninformed as John McCain's statement in front of foreign leaders in Jordan that Iran is training al Qaeda. This is a man who touts his foreign policy experience as one of the top reasons why he should be elected, but who apparently gets confused when it comes to Sunni vs. Shia vs. Iran vs. al Qaeda. It's embarrassing.

Oh, and there was this: The White House announced that President Bush will still attend the Beijing Olympics despite China's crackdown on Tibet. Mr. Bush's position is that the Olympics "should be about the athletes and not necessarily about politics." So it's fine that Chinese soldiers are killing Tibetans... let the games begin.

Of course we owe China so much money, it would be a little tough for President Bush to say anything else, wouldn't it? We didn't used to be like this.

Here’s my question to you: Why would President Bush say Iran has declared it wants "to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people" when his own experts say that's not the case?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Iran
December 10th, 2007
02:59 PM ET

Whom do you trust on Iran’s nukes?

FROM Jack Cafferty:

Israel isn't buying into the new U.S. intelligence report on Iran.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the conclusion that Iran has given up its nuclear weapons program will not change Israel's view that Iran is still trying to develop

Olmert apparently told a closed meeting of his Security Cabinet that Israel has no reason to change what it's believed all along... that Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, is developing weapons and rockets, and enriching uranium.

For years, Israel has been calling on the international community to act to stop Iran's nuclear program. This has led some to believe that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Keep in mind, although Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Olmert says Israel would work with the International Atomic Energy Agency to expose Iran's plan to develop nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff Michael Mullen, is in Israel for talks with leaders there. No surprise that Iran is among the subjects expected to be discussed.

Here’s the question: When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, whom do you believe: Israel or the U.S.?

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Iran's nuclear program, whom do you believe: Israel or the U.S.?

Posted by , ,
Filed under: Iran
newer posts »