Author
|
Topic: Pro-Iran war faction winning in Washington?
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 15 July 2007 07:04 PM
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran quote: The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 16 July 2007 06:02 AM
There is about as much chance of a retreat to "normal" levels of US hegemony and "real politik" under a new Republican government as a Democrat government. That is, there is a small but real chance. The current Cheney government and the policies and policy makers he has installed is fairly exceptional--but that is now that precedent.For the expected attack within the next 18 months, the democrats will mostly be irrelevant, or cheerleaders to the attack. The supposed WMD threat will be the secondary excuse (in the U.S. at least) to the campaign of blaming Iran for all manner of military interference in Iraq and for killing US soldiers. The media campaign is already underway. Also from the Guardian article above: "The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway. "The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time. No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route...."
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 16 July 2007 11:59 AM
quote: "The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
And herein lies the way for Bush to remain President. Punishment Park was spot on. This was predicted in 1971: Punishment Park This movie was banned for over 30 years in the US for a reason.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 16 July 2007 01:35 PM
Yes well,Bush did give himself that executive power to hold office for a reason eh?Also, from Israel today: quote: Iran has marked 600 targets for its long-range missiles inside Israel, the Qatari newspaper Al Watan reported on Sunday. According to the report, Iran is threatening to hit the Jewish state with a massive missile strike if either Israel or the US attack the Islamic Republic or its allies in Syria. Recent political talk in Jerusalem and Washington indicate the time is rapidly approaching that Israel and the US will have no choice but to intervene militarily to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Likewise, Israeli military experts are predicting a full-scale war with Syria sometime in the coming six months,
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=13446
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 July 2007 03:56 PM
jpj, I take that back. I was doing research for an article today, and you're right - the Democrats are sabre-rattling over Iran as much as the Repugnicans are. Lord almighty.At some point, I'd like to write something really scathing about this stupid phrase, "on/off the table". Where is this frigging table and where the heck did I put my axe, anyhow? [ 16 July 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662
|
posted 16 July 2007 11:45 PM
quote: If the US and Israel want to attack Iran, they know they will have to bear horrendous casualties. To think they can escape scot-free is ludicrous, but perhaps in the reckoning of the warmongers, "worth it" for taking out Iran's imagined nuclear capability.[/QB]
I suspect that any US action against Iran in the near future would take the form of air strikes, rather than a full blown invasion. I believe that the US military is too overstreched to actually launch an all out invasion of Iran. That millitary action against Iran is most likely to take the form of air strikes poses a greater challenge for the anit-war movement. It is much harder to get the US public to oppose millitary action when it seems likely to be restricted to airstrikes, with none or very minimal US casualties. Note that there was far less oposition to the Gulf War in 1991, which was initially sold to the public as an air war with no ground component, than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Note that there was also far less oposition to the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia/Kosovo than there was to the US invasion of Iraq. [ 16 July 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648
|
posted 18 July 2007 07:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by Left Turn:
I suspect that any US action against Iran in the near future would take the form of air strikes, rather than a full blown invasion. I believe that the US military is too overstreched to actually launch an all out invasion of Iran. That millitary action against Iran is most likely to take the form of air strikes poses a greater challenge for the anit-war movement. It is much harder to get the US public to oppose millitary action when it seems likely to be restricted to airstrikes, with none or very minimal US casualties. Note that there was far less oposition to the Gulf War in 1991, which was initially sold to the public as an air war with no ground component, than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Note that there was also far less oposition to the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia/Kosovo than there was to the US invasion of Iraq. [ 16 July 2007: Message edited by: Left Turn ]
That the attack will take the form of air strikes doesn't mean there won't be heavy American losses of life and materiel. Iran appears to have the capability of sending a lot of US military hardware to the bottom of the Gulf or the Mediterranean and reducing American bases in Iraq to rubble. Unlike Iraq, Iran has enough up-to-date sophisticated weaponry to, while perhaps not score a win, hand out some devasting losses to both the US and Israel. According to a 2005 article at globalreasearch.ca
quote: Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
Also, there's information at the Iran Military Forum. (which on the surface seems to be unaffiliated with anything resembling an American think tank) [ 18 July 2007: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]
From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 July 2007 12:03 PM
The most simple way for Iran to retaliate against a US air attack would be to flood Iraq with volunteers who then attack US troops on the ground in that country.If you think it is a quagmire now, it will be ten times moreso. Iran also has a second place where it can impose casualties on the United States. It has a thousand-mile border with Afghanistan, as well as locaal populations which share ethnicity with Afghans on the other side of the border. In other words, a war with Iran would mean that the problem with the Pakistan border areas in Afghanistan would be doubled as the Eastern border also turns porous. Canadians in Afghanistan would also be targets. [ 18 July 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 22 July 2007 02:56 PM
That may happen. That's why, if Iran IS trying to get nuclear weapons, it would be in their best interests to do it as quickly as possible.Maybe it won't save them, but sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting for the US to invade won't either. The US is just looking for an excuse. We already know they'll invade countries for no reason - they did so with Iraq. While the US is the way it is, any non-nuclear country that's smart will try to develop nukes. Because if they manage to make it to live, they're safer than they are now. It's such a damned shame, too. BTW, this is the article I mentioned upthread that I was researching. It's about this very thing. I'd be interested in criticisms or comments. I thought of the Israel angle, but the way I see it, Iran's definitely damned by US invasion if they don't, and possibly damned by Israeli invasion if they do. But Jeff is right too - if they US invades, Iran can invade Iraq or Afghanistan. If Israel tries anything on Iran, I can't imagine that other countries in the region would just stand by and watch. This is ugly no matter which way you go. I'll say this, though: nuclear proliferation can't be prevented by war forever. Maybe right now it can be "contained" a bit. But the US can't fight wars on 20 fronts, and technology marches on, and it's just a matter of time before other countries get nuclear capability. This is not an issue that can be solved by war and "containment". That's a bandaid solution with diminishing returns, and eventually it's going to have negative returns when smaller countries start seeing an arms race as their only means of protecting themselves.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|