What Drumbeat?

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

Last week, Flynt Leverett joined us to talk about the potential for an attack on Iran. Simply put, he believes that strikes are imminent. We'll get another view today, from David Frum. He is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and a senior policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani. During President Bush's first term, Frum worked in the White House as a speech writer. He does not believe that the Bush administration plans to strike Iran soon. "No, alas," he writes on his blog today. In March, in the National Post, he suggested some alternatives to war.

Our hope is to continue these conversations, about Iran, with experts from across the political spectrum, in the future. If you heard Leverett last week, did your opinion change? What questions do you have from Frum? And feel free to suggest other experts with whom we could talk!



Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

Air strikes are still an act of war, right? Do these "likely voters" want another war? Are they ready for the draft? Have you lost your minds! Wake up! Your neocon guest has no creditability and to give him a forum is a mistake.

Sent by David | 2:48 PM | 10-30-2007

David, this is an open forum. As I said in my post, suggest other voices from whom we might hear.

Sent by David Gura | 2:51 PM | 10-30-2007

Here's another voice. See the interview with a former Military Intelligence Officer at: http://www.chicobeat.com/?q=in_search_of_peace

See where it says, 'I have worked for the last few years to educate Americans about the real reasons why war with Iran is on the horizon. In 1997, well before President Bush walked into the White House, a U.S attack on Iraq and Iran was proposed by the "Project for a New American Century" neo-conservatives...'

Sent by inspra | 6:02 PM | 10-30-2007

Bill O'Reilly stated," Our Air Force and Navy aren't busy." I find it difficult to believe that this administration would not attack Iran with air and missile strikes towards the end of there presidency, possibly on the premise of defending our troops or the defense of Israel. The drub beats of war lie easy on the ears, of those who have never experienced combat or the horrors of war. With all the neocons on board I see an imminent danger from this bellicose administration.

Sent by Brian | 9:01 AM | 10-31-2007

It'd be interesting to hear what someone like Seymour Hersh has to say about it, considering his provocative articles in the New Yorker about this precise subject....

Sent by Patrick | 11:24 AM | 11-1-2007

I recall the first republican convention that Bush/Cheney conducted and their speech to get elected. The basis for their campaign was to FORTIFY/SUPPLY/FINANCE the military. No one seems to remember that was the predominant theme in the republican campaign. That theme was the root of our invading Iraq...the administration tried to pull wool over all our eyes with explanations of W.M.D's, dictatorship, etc. but all along they knew they were going to invade and start a war. The similarity to talk of Iran is reason to believe they intend to attack Iran. Face it, the similarities between how the administration conducted itself to justify invading Iraq are far too close when we discuss Iran. It's shameful that we as a nation aren't more proactive in preventing this likely action.

Sent by Michael | 12:24 PM | 11-1-2007