In my mind , there is third option for crisis of middle east , it's change Mullas' Regim in Iran by support Iranian people and their resistance.
Because This regim export their crisis in Iran to all of the world with terror.
The Enemy Late Acknowledged
August 20, 2007
National Review Online
The Editors
Two reactions are appropriate to the Bush administration’s decision to place Iran’s Revolutionary Guard on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. First, one should cheer. Second, one should ask how much longer it will take the president to resolve the contradiction at the heart of his Iran policy.
One should cheer because the Revolutionary Guard is among the world’s most effective forces for barbarity and chaos. Separate from Iran’s regular military, it espouses the revolution-exporting ideology of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei (the latter of whom possesses ultimate control of its actions). It has killed Americans gladly, as at the Khobar Towers. Its current specialty is killing American soldiers in Iraq, through Iraqi proxies, with armor-piercing bombs. These things alone do not make it a terrorist group in the precise sense of that term, but its arming and financing of Hezbollah certainly does. Likewise the massacres of civilians that its aid to Iraqi militants has made possible.
To designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist en y, then, is to acknowledge reality. Yet there is something decidedly unrealistic in the idea that the Revolutionary Guard can be separated from the Iranian government as a whole. (The distinctions got even more jesuitical when it emerged that the State Department might not designate the entire Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, but simply its Quds Force, composed of special covert units.) There is no getting around the fact that the Revolutionary Guard — including the Quds Force — expresses the will of Iran’s highest rulers. If what it does counts as terrorism, they count as terrorists.
Given their history of working mayhem in the Middle East and beyond (recall, for example, their handiwork in Argentina in 1994), this is an obvious enough fact, and the State Department designation will do little to make it more obvious. It will also do little to hurt Iran — the designation would freeze any assets the Revolutionary Guard had in the U.S., but, as you might imagine, it prefers to bank elsewhere.
What the designation does do is lay bare the contradiction in President Bush’s Iran policy. After September 11, in a moment of great strategic clarity, Bush said that the U.S. would not distinguish between terrorists and the governments that harbored them. Yet his administration has approached Iran — the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism — as though it were a legitimate government, capable of being persuaded to adopt positions agreeable to liberal democracies.
On Iran’s nuclear program, Bush has deferred first to Europe and then to Condoleezza Rice’s State Department in allowing years of negotiating, followed by a few more years of negotiating, followed by (wait for it) more negotiating.
Worse than do nothing, this strategy created an illusion that the world was seriously confronting Iran when just the opposite was true. The two Security Council resolutions against the Islamic Republic were so weak as to be meaningless, except in distracting attention from alternative courses of action (e.g., effective sanctions or military force). Iran’s leaders have grown more brazen at every turn — kidnappings of foreign soldiers and proxy wars are now par for the course — yet the Bush administration has remained unable to forge a credible policy.
What one should hope now is that the administration, in its waning days, is making a course correction. The squeamishness with which much of Europe opposes the designation suggests that it fears just this. For a variety of reasons — economic interest, anti-Americanism, and reflexive pacifism chief among them — it would prefer to avoid any bad blood with the Islamic Republic. Most of the U.S. State Department feels likewise. But the simple truth is that, unless Iran’s regime gives up both its terrorist ideology and its weapons, we will never be safe. The president has taken an important — albeit partial and overdue — step toward facing that unpleasant reality.
MORE
Allawi discusses situation in Iraq with Kurdish authorities
Iran is "quietly" undergoing an internal revolution, brought on by their majority younger generation...Ahmadinejad is hoping and praying for the U.S. to attack (which he and everyone else knows would be limited to air strikes), for the express purpose of quelling the social unrest and consolidating power amidst a newly energized nationalism.
I hope such a thing can happen. The Iranian people themself are good people. Such a thing if true might be why we are so resistive towards any actions against Iran.
"hoping and praying for the U.S. to attack"
... will cement the tottering mullahs and their police/army solidly into power for decades. The Iranian young and liberals and middle class/business class will die in the 1000s when the US attacks, destroying any sympathy they had for the US "assistance, liberation bombing". It's their country and they will re-group behind even an unpopular leadership when attacked from the outside. Just like in the US, Iran is full of sheeple who believe" "my country, right or wrong". Iran is heavily equipped militarily and has 10s of 1000s, if not 100s in the Army and religious police, motivated to die for Allah.
Unlike bankrupted (Aghanistan, low-oil prices), industrially hollow USSR whose leadership folded when challenged non-militarily (another huge development totally unforeseen by the jerkoffs in the CIA/NSA), Iran's mullahs have 10 of $Bs from high oil prices to support themselves and to pay its radicalized, motivated "religiously" motivated police for leadership support and popular suppression.
Bush family geo-politics of liberation has failed twice.
After the Gulf War, dubya father supported vocally the southern Shia's against Saddam, and the Shias were slaughtered when he didn't give them any military help.
dubya son (actually the murderous neo- s behind him) miscalculated again that Iraqi would welcome his "shock and awe" and fraudulent invasion as liberating. We know how that turned out. Saddam got ed in Kuweit and ed when the US invaded because his army wasn't motivated to die for him, and his army and infrastructure was emasculated by 10 years of sanctions.
From everything I've read, head and the neo- s will attack Iran as their last major geo-political up, cementing their eternal legacy as absolutely, unquestionably the worst ever Exec in US history.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-02-2007 at 09:13 AM.
Pentagon "Three-Day Blitz" Plan for Iran
By Sarah Baxter
The Sunday Times UK
Sunday 02 September 2007
The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians' military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said.
Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: "Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same." It was, he added, a "very legitimate strategic calculus".
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust". He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran "before it is too late".
One Washington source said the "temperature was rising" inside the administration. Bush was "sending a message to a number of audiences", he said ? to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported "significant" cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.
Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.
Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which uncovered the existence of Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, said the IAEA was being strung along. "A number of nuclear sites have not even been visited by the IAEA," he said. "They're giving a clean bill of health to a regime that is known to have practised deception."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a "power vacuum" in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq.
The Ins ute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term "proxy war" and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq "increasingly under control", Iranian intervention is the "next major problem the coalition must tackle".
Bush noted that the number of attacks on US bases and troops by Iranian-supplied munitions had increased in recent months ? "despite pledges by Iran to help stabilise the security situation in Iraq".
It explains, in part, his lack of faith in diplomacy with the Iranians. But Debat believes the Pentagon's plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.
===============
dubya and head are gonna up the ME even more, then walk away from it, like the war-evading chicken s they are, in Jan 2009.
It's why Condi Rice and the State Department is resistive towards military action, anyway...unfortunately, Darth Cheney does not agree...
Rafsanjani get more power opposite Ahmadinejad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6977451.stm
I don't think you see any action against Iran any time
soon. We have enough on our plate right now.
Now saying this, I don't mean we might not try some
dirty work quietly to help undermine the present
government in Iran. And I don't think Israel will sit
quietly by and let them get an usable atomic weapon.
There's really nothing wrong with contingency planning. But attacking Iran right now would be insane.
Never stopped us before.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
