Reply With Quote
I don't see the US taking military action against Iran.
Dr. Strange-love
Bolton: Unanimity not necessary on Iran
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo NewsVIENNA, Austria - Iran remained defiant Thursday as a U.N. deadline arrived for it to halt uranium enrichment, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said unanimity among the Security Council was not needed to take action against Tehran.
Key European nations will meet with Iran in September in a last-ditch effort to seek a negotiated solution to the standoff over Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment, a senior U.N. diplomat said Thursday.
President Bush said "there must be consequences" for Iran, adding that the war between Tehran-backed Hezbollah militants and Israel demonstrated that "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."
The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a report obtained by The Associated Press that Iran shows no signs of freezing enrichment, adding that Tehran started work on a new batch Aug. 24.
The confidential IAEA report will be given to its 35-nation board. That is expected to trigger U.N. Security Council members — by mid-September — to begin considering economic or political sanctions.
Bolton will claim that the trigger is the security council deadline that passed today, and that if Iran doesn't comply immediately that no more will be needed for the US to act on the security council deadline, no matter what the UN might say about further conditions.
The US demanded that Iran cede the primary point before negotiations begin, which Iran very rightly refused to do -- if they ceded that point, there would be no purpose to any further negotiations. Obviously, the US is not interested in negotiations. PNAC wants its war.
I don't see the US taking military action against Iran.
dubya has talked the big talk on Iran.
With the 2006 election in 2 months, let's see if he (actually, head and Rove) now thinks it's time to bomb Iran as yet-another Repug election tactic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083000681.html
"President Bush said today there "must be consequences" for Iran's "defiance and delay" in responding to U.N. demands it stop enriching uranium."
The Repugs are looking weak in several key races. Both houses are in play.
Come on, dubya, now's the time for some election shock-and-awe. God elected you for this moment.
An airstrike on Iran at this time would be stupid and counterproductive to U.S. interests.
I'm not saying that Bush won't do it, but rather that it would be stupid.
Ahh . . . you miss the old fellow!
Y'all are dumbasses, it will be Israel doing the bombing.
Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran giving every country in the middle east the excuse to go to war with Israel and inevitably dragging the US into a bigger ME war likely to be an even bigger cluster than things are now over there?
At least we are getting all of the dumb ideas out in the open.
This administration wants to do exactly that.
I think it has passed the line of incompetence and is nearing the line of just plain crazy. It is really starting to scare me how reckless they are.
Yuppers. This adminsitrations blunder in Iraq has tied our hands when it comes to Iran.
Ooops.
"nearing the line of just plain crazy."
Esp head. There's nobody in the Admin with enough weight to counter this lying, murderous, power-hungry mother- er.
I don't think we'll bomb Iran - unless we're softening them up for an all out invasion - which, considering there military, and alliances in the ME, we won't do with the current size & state of our military.
Israel might; and they might have to. Iran's "leader" has stated his goal to wipe Israel off the map; and that he'd be willing to sacrifice 1/2 of his country to do so. He probably means it. Israel truly cannot afford for that guy to have "the bomb".
Atlantic Monthly did a war-games study recently that determined the likelihood of success of airstrikes against Iran to neutralize their nuclear capacity. The study showed that Iran has been preparing for U.S./Israeli strikes for at least a decade. Airstrikes alone won't take out Iran's nukes. They have heavy missile defenses along their entire perimeter. Many of their facilities are buried deep underground, where only tactical nuclear weapons ("bunker-busters") would have any possibility of success.
The Iranian nuclear program would survive an American/Israeli air campaign. There would be absolutely no benefit to American interests, only grevious harm. All this would do is further elevate the prestige and influence of Iran in the region. The Shia in Iraq, upon whom whatever fleeting hope of stability in that country we depend, would side with Iran, causing a general uprising against the U.S. presence. This would solidify the "Shia Crescent" from Tehran to Damascus. Iran would still have the ability within five to ten years to launch a strike against Israel. The only difference would be that rather than launching from the Zagros, they would be able to stroll right up to the Israeli border with Syria and/or Lebanon.
If the threat in Iran so so untenable that we must act, then we have to do it right. And "right" means a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ troops. And a big-ass invasion with 1 million+ means a draft. If the President can't build a case for that, then either the threat isn't big enough, or he's simply not an effective enough leader. We cannot do this half-ass, or we will accelerate the flucht nach vor to a Middle East where Iran is the hegemon, armed with nuclear weapons, surrounded by sympathetic Islamist regimes bent upon the destruction of Israel and on the achievement of pre-eminence over the West.
And if there is not enough justification for an all-out invasion, then we keep working through the UN, however frustrating and useless that might seem. And if we haven't begun teaching half the CIA to speak Persian, we get a f***ing move-on. The Iranian economy has been devastated by this nuclear stand-off. They can't keep this up forever. It is the standoff against Bush which is rallying the Iranian people behind a government that otherwise would be weak.
This s*** is getting serious. We made a huge strategical error in Iraq. We're contemplating a huge strategic error in Iran. If we keep this up, we'll get to a point where the forces of Islamism might actually win.
Agree completely; only question I have is how much we might be contemplating a "strategic error" in Iran. I haven't seen anything official that indicates we are going to do something half-assed, or invade at all.
This, for sure, is true: Iran is pulling the strings right about now, and have been for a while; undoubtedly supporting the insurgency in Iraq (ostensibly backing the Sunnis for the time being because it serves there interest), at the same time funding the private Hezbollah type militias; keeping ties to Russia & China.
If this ain't WWIII yet, the sides are certainly being divied up.
"to do something half-assed,"
you mean like the phony Iraq war? under-manned, under-equipped, under-planned, mis-under-stood, under-managed, totally half-assed.
I, as opposed to you, think the administration has learned from this. They won't hit Iran unless they can hit really, really hard.
The good news is, w/in the next 26 months, one of will be able to say "I told you so".
"the administration has learned from this."
no, they think they've done Iraq just right (if they believe their own press releases), and if they could, they'd march into Iran also.
because politicians are so fond of Mea Culpas
When did Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski? Oh, thats right - right after they found his semen on one of her dresses!
I understand the analogy completely, but you know whats coming...
"Clinton finally own up to his transgressions with Ms. Lewinski?"
sexual relations between consulting adults is none of anybody else's business, esp not the government's.
101A, I don't think boutons is likely to grasp your point. There are certain phrases that trigger his auto-retort reflex.
I got the point, asshole.
The Repugs' incompetence in conducting state affairs like a ing war is vastly more important and deadly than a president getting a blow job, but bringing Clinton's sex life up now and forever is key tactic of Repugs/red-staters/conservatives who for some reason don't have their sex lives delved into by the government.
No, you didn't get the point at all. You went on auto-retort. As soon as he posted it, I thought, "The point will go completely over boutons' head and he will post something about 'repug lies consenting adults sex.'"
The point is that politicians will never admit they screwed up unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. So, though the Bushies will never admit they screwed up in Iraq, it doesn't they think they've done Iraq "just right."
I think republicans are in dire need of a blowjob.
The idea that this administration is planning any stategy on Iran is chilling.
I would say even airstrikes, even a tactical nuke or two would be "half-assed".
"really, really hard" would STILL be a US loss.
Diplomacy is the ONLY solution.
In this case I would also point once again to the author whose work I quoted. He is describing a substantial faction within the administration who seem to favor military action, even now. Does this indicate that the administration has REALLY learned from Iraq?
One has to structure any diplomatic solution to the point where there is no way that the Iranian government can use nationalism to make us into the bad guy.
You want this government to fall?
Give them aid and integrate them into the world community. If the aid is siphoned off by corrupt assholes, so much the better. The Iranians will realize their government for what it is that much faster.
Isolation does nothing but strengthen totalitarian regimes grip on their people, because it ignores the power of nationalism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
