A military war of nerves against Iran:

[Plane]

Israel will ask for permission no matter who runs this country.

They won't get permission to use nukes from any sane US president.

   How often do elect a normal Psyce to the Presidency?


http://www.people.hbs.edu/rfung/firstyearDBA/M&M%20B%20psychology%20Polzer%202006/11-17%20Personality%20and%20Charisma%20in%20the%20US%20Presidency%20-%20A%20Psychological%20Theory%20of%20Leadership%20Effectiveness%20House%20Spangkler%20Woycke%201991%20(11-17).pdf

Charisma
Charisma refers to the ability of a leader to exercise diffuse
and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and
performance of others through his or her own behavior,
beliefs, and personal example. Bradley (1987) defined three
types of charisma: charisma as a personality characteristic,
charisma as a relationship between leader and followers, and
charisma as a social structure. We define charisma here as a
relationship or bond between a leader and subordinates or
other followers, and although we do not define charisma as
a personality trait of specific leaders, we argue that certain
leader personality characteristics contribute to the formation
of a charismatic relationship with subordinates. Because
charisma is a relationship and not a personality characteristic
of leaders, charisma exists only if followers say it does or
followers behave in specific ways. Wilson (1975: 7) provided
an example:
If man runs naked down the street proclaiming that he alone can
save others from impending doom, and if he immediately wins a
following, then he is a charismatic leader: A social relationship has
come into being. If he does not win a following, he is simply a
lunatic.
Further, the charismatic relationship.......

[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
This one is less on topic but kinda interesting.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/08/26/presidents-as-patients-an-interview-with-dr-connie-mariano/

[Xavier_Onassis]

If man runs naked down the street proclaiming that he alone can
save others from impending doom, and if he immediately wins a
following, then he is a charismatic leader: A social relationship has
come into being. If he does not win a following, he is simply a
lunatic.
======================================================
I seriously doubt that a man can run naked down the street in such a way and be considered anything but a lunatic. Men who do this have been so far as I know nonexistent as a political force in this country.

One does need charisma and an unusual view of one's self in society in order to want to be president.It does a different sort of person to want to run any country.

I do not believe that a sane president would give Israel permission to nuke Iran. I also think that without such permission, this would not happen. The US would get almost as much of the blame for this as the Israeli nut that ordered such an attack.

[Plane]

How many US presidents have been normal psychologically?

Would you think most or just a few?

[Kramer]

How many US presidents have been normal psychologically?

Would you think most or just a few?

Liberalism is a mental disorder, now you do the math!

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no math. YOU are mentally disordered in too many ways to count.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Israeli president: Clock ticking on Iran  

Nov 4, 3:09 PM EDT

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's president says the international community is closer to pursuing a military solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program than a diplomatic one.

The remarks by Shimon Peres to Israel's channel 2 TV Friday were unusual because he is known as a dove and optimist.

Peres said world leaders need to "fulfill their promises" to stop Iran "whatever it takes." He said, "There is a long menu as to what can be done." He did not elaborate.

The interview comes days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reported to be seeking ministers' support for a strike against Iran.

Israel, the U.S. and other nations suspect Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program only has peaceful aims. Negotiations and sanctions have failed to resolve the standoff.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-04-15-09-11

 

[BSB]

What a US president would say is a mute point because Israel isn't going to nuke Iran in immediate future unless Iran starts throwing nukes around first. Secondly, if Israel felt the need at some point to use nuclear weapons they wouldn't base their actions on what we said. They might take our opinion under advisement, but that's all. The discision to move ahead would be theirs and theirs alone.

BSB

[Michael Tee]

It's kind of hard to imagine how any nuclear strike can avoid poisoning the environment for all the inhabitants of the Middle East, including the Israelis.

ANY attack on Iran that delivered more than purely symbolic damage, would be met immediately by the blocking of the Gulf of Hormuz with disastrous effects on the world economy which none of Iran's industrialized enemies can afford.  There would probably also be major attacks on US bases in Iraq and other regional locations with heavy loss of U.S. life, to no long-term benefit for anyone.

Short of an invasion and occupation of Iran there is no way to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, which for obvious reasons they require for self-defence, given the non-stop barrage of threats against them.  All that an air attack can accomplish is a relatively brief delay in the drive for nuclear parity with Israel and regional hegemony, and possibly not even that.  An invasion and occupation of Iran, a mountainous land of about 73 million people, is beyond the military capabilities of both the U.S. and Israel, especially given the near-bankrupt state of the U.S. at the present time.

The intriguing question for me isn't so much the truth or falsity of DEBKRAP's report, since DEBKRAP nearly always reports whatever the Mossad and/or the Israeli government tell it to "report," but WHY is DEBKRAP "reporting" what it does at this particular point in time?

My own guess, for what it's worth, is that the Americans have finally succeeded in buying off the IAEA inspectors' next report due on Tuesday and, with their Israeli paymasters, have orchestrated a veritable media storm of condemnation of Iran, including not only calls for military action but even reports that military action is underway (DEBKRAP'S role) so that when calls for tougher sanctions are made, the public, having been conditioned to think that all-out war is the only solution to the "problem" of Iran, will come to think of sanctions as a friendlier, kinder alternative to war, and won't raise a peep of objection.  In other words, the war hysteria that DEBKRAP is trying to whip up is hoped to "justify" the coming campaign for sanctions, which are basically all that the poor bankrupt U.S.A. can manage right now.

[Christians4LessGvt]

The intriguing question for me isn't so much the truth or falsity of DEBKRAP's report, since DEBKRAP nearly always reports whatever the Mossad and/or the Israeli government tell it to "report," but WHY is DEBKRAP "reporting" what it does at this particular point in time?

Once you get past the dumbass...out of ideas..."kill the messenger" XO tactic
you will notice the 2nd piece is the Associated Press....but I guess the AP
is also a stooge for the Mossad! Always some nutty theory to connect
the insane dots!

[Christians4LessGvt]

btw if Iran dares to cause "huge loss of life" to Americans
by some sort of bombing they will be sawdust
we have that ability....they dont.
Iran's threats to cause massive loss of life in Isreal and/or to Americans is crack talk
because if they do....they will be nuked.
Again we and Israel can inflict that on them and they cant!

[sirs]

What a US president would say is a mute point because Israel isn't going to nuke Iran in immediate future unless Iran starts throwing nukes around first. Secondly, if Israel felt the need at some point to use nuclear weapons they wouldn't base their actions on what we said. They might take our opinion under advisement, but that's all. The discision to move ahead would be theirs and theirs alone.

Perhaps you can try to educate Xo, on that little tidbit of info.  He seems to believe Ireael requires our permission, for any such action

[Michael Tee]

The nuking of an Iranian city would cause the immediate downfall of every puppet ruler in the Middle East, from Egypt with its phony new "democratic" facade to Saudi Arabia to Iraq.  This would ignite such a shit-storm of Arab Muslim fury that Arab armies would launch an attack on Israel from every direction as soon as they could coordinate such an effort.

In addition to that, the release of nuclear energy on Teheran would poison the air and water of the entire region, killing Jews, Christians and Muslims indiscriminately.

And if that weren't enough, the act itself would send the price of oil to heights that the world economy could not survive.

Let's bring this board back to some semblance of reality.  The U.S.A. is BROKE.  Just plain can't afford new disasters, no matter how much money the Zio-Nazi lobby pays into its legislators' campaign funds or bribes them under the table.   Nuclear attacks on Iranian cities are just not happening..  An embargo is about all that The World's Only Terrorist Superpower can manage against Iran, but it will have a little problem bringing the Chinese and Russians on board.  About the MOST that they can expect to achieve with their little games, including DEBKRAP'S heroic efforts, is that the Chinese and Russians might consent to a tighter embargo than the present one but still nowhere near the degree of their big Iraq embargo, which took the lives of half a million Iraqi children.  The embargo, even with token tightening, will remain eminently survivable by the Iranian regime, and that's a pity because they are even more morally repulsive than their American and Zionist enemies, and that's really quite an accomplishment.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't know that nuking Iran would cause the collapse of every Middle Eastern dictatorship, but the fact is that Israel will not and cannot attack Iran without a US approval. Nuclear weapons would make this much, much worse.

Debkafiles is indeed just debkacrap. Zionist propaganda in diarrhea form.

[Michael Tee]

<<Once you get past the dumbass...out of ideas..."kill the messenger" XO tactic>>

Nothing dumbass about recognizing what DEBKRAP really is and who they work for.  They're not messengers, they're mouthpieces.

<<you will notice the 2nd piece is the Associated Press....but I guess the AP
is also a stooge for the Mossad! >>

No, the AP is a stooge for Shimon Peres, the president of Israel.  The entire AP article was merely a repeat of what Peres told an Israeli TV station during an interview.

<<the Always some nutty theory to connect the insane dots!>>

The "nutty theory" in this case is simply that DEBKRAP and the president of Israel are both fulla shit.  And I don't think there's anything nutty about that.

[Christians4LessGvt]

US sources: Israel ministers who opposed Iran strike are now for it

DEBKAfile Special Report
November 6, 2011, 8:28 AM (GMT+02:00)


An IAF base

American sources told Fox television early Sunday, Nov. 6 that all the senior Israeli ministers who were formerly against attacking Iran's nuclear sites are now for it, having been updated on Iran's clandestine progress toward building a nuclear weapon. This information is due to be borne out when the IAEA publishes its next Iran report Tuesday, Nov. 8. The ministers are said to have changed their minds in the belief that the next round of sanctions will not be tough enough and point to the precedent of Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor which was never rebuilt.

According to debkafile's Washington sources, the Obama administration attributes the change of heart by those ministers to a conviction that Iran already has a nuclear weapon.

And so after ten days after feverish, unattributed Israeli news reporting on an imminent attack, the administration has drawn certain lines: Israel should go forward with its plans to strike Iran, while Washington will stress "diplomatic strategy."

This phrase, new in official US language on the nuclear controversy with Iran, does not rule out the military option. It was first aired last Thursday, Nov. 3 by US Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes, a member of the Barack Obama party attending the G-20 summit in Cannes.

All in all, public US administration responses to the prospect of Israel taking military action on Iran in own its hands have been unusually mild.

Friday, Nov. 4, another American television station CNN quoted a "senior US military official" as commenting that the administration is no longer sure that Israel would give the US warning of an attack.

However, while voicing concern and reporting stepped up "watchfulness" of both Iran and Israel, the official's tone was not critical of Israel, despite the fact that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had been understood to have assured the US president when they met in the past year that Israel would not attack Iran without prior warning to Washington.

A second US military official stressed that Iran is the largest threat to the United States in the Middle East.

These US officials appeared to be warning Tehran that because of the level reached by its weapons-geared nuclear program, the Obama administration could no longer hold Israel back from exercising its military option.

On the issue of Israeli action against Iran, the tone from US official sources has undergone a marked change.

The former routine putdowns from Washington sources asserting a) that Israel was not up to a lone military operation and that anyway b) it would only have the limited effect of putting the Iranian weapons program back four years, are no longer heard - especially since the US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited Israel last month.