|
Post by Cranky on Sept 18, 2006 23:47:04 GMT -5
Here we go again..............~~~~~~~~~~ www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html?section=cnn_topstories~~~~~~~~~~ Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story. (Time.com) -- The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1. A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran. The Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5 1/2 years in office. For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition, which includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council, that is trying to force Tehran to halt its nuclear ambitions. But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway. So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost. And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game? No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air. An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground. A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power. Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage. Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption. The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power. Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis. "Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences." ~~~~~~~~~~ Full article HERE..... time-proxy.yaga.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535817,00.html ~~~~~~~~~~ I rather NOT see another war but the prospect of a NUCLEAR arms race in the Middle East absolutely frightens me.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 19, 2006 7:04:50 GMT -5
HA, I haven't had time to read this over just yet. I will when work permits it.
However, Bush has already tagged Iran in his post-9/11 "Axis of Evil" speech. And his country does not want another war.
Really have to go.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 25, 2006 3:53:06 GMT -5
Hope so! This time we send bombs instead of soldiers. Guests of the Ayotolla? Bombing churches? Supporting terrorism? Death to America, the devil? Let's show them what a real Jihad is!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 25, 2006 9:53:01 GMT -5
Just had some time to read it over, HA. Just some opinions off the top of my head.
I hadn't realized just how extensive the Iranian nuclear program is. Eradicating the Iranian nuclear capability in its entirety will be very difficult. But, given their stand on Israel I can't see how the Israelis can stand pat on this. While the Israelis have already stated they'd take out "the Iranian nuclear power plant" the expanded capability makes this even more of a problem. I won't get into tactics, but it would take most of Israel's air capability to do this, if and only if, they ascertain exactly where everything is. Not easy.
Also, the Israelis shouldn't be the only country in the region to be concerned about this program. If I were a member of a neighbouring Arab country I'd be very concerned as well just based on Iran's oft-hardline implementation to their concept of Islam. And while there are several fundamental Islamic countries in the region, each of them feel their interpretation of Islam is the only way. Imagine several countries with this capability and mindset.
Yet this raises another problem where if the Iranian nuclear program goes unchecked, it would establish a precedence for similar Arab country initiatives. And this wouldn't be just a "nuclear cold war." Any offensive nuclear action will conveniently be initiated under the "will of God." And, of course, this deferrs any and all accountability and responsibility for any action they may decide to take. Conversely, Israel would cite survivability issues when they launched their initial preemptive air strikes. The mind boggles just thinking of this scenario.
The article goes on to say that the USA has the backing of four members of the UN Security Council. I'm wondering what action the UN is willing to take given the circumstances and possible future implications of an Iranian nuclear program. Their track record for international intervension has been terrible to date. But, the UN has been plagued with a plethora of problems that simply prevent it from being an effective organization. Therefore, it's reasonable to suggest that the UN's response will continue to be political.
I've been at this off and on for about an hour or so (damn work you know). Check in later.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 25, 2006 13:24:36 GMT -5
My uninformed 2¢: If I were a member of a neighbouring Arab country I'd be very concerned as well just based on Iran's oft-hardline implementation to their concept of Islam. . . Imagine several countries with this capability and mindset. I wonder if the best US/Israeli action is no action at all but to get the neighbouring countries a little worreid . . . let them do the dirty work/distract one another. Saves the US from backing up their (impossible) promise of intervention and allows Israel freedom to continue to build up their defenses. Yes, a promise of continuing dialogue and a verbal threat (of a slap on the wrist) I'm going to count to three: 1, 2, 21/4, 21/2 . . .
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 25, 2006 13:58:47 GMT -5
My uninformed 2¢: If I were a member of a neighbouring Arab country I'd be very concerned as well just based on Iran's oft-hardline implementation to their concept of Islam. . . Imagine several countries with this capability and mindset. I wonder if the best US/Israeli action is no action at all but to get the neighbouring countries a little worreid . . . let them do the dirty work/distract one another. Saves the US from backing up their (impossible) promise of intervention and allows Israel freedom to continue to build up their defenses. [/i] Well, the Arab League is in shambles right now as it is, Franko. The League comes together every once in a while to conveniently browbeat Israel. But, each country has it's own agenda of sorts. Iraq doesn't trust Iran; Saudi Arabia has too many ties with the USA; UAE is very westernized; Iran says they need the nuclear technology for their power requires. This is misleading because they're not referring solely to their future energy needs. Ideally, however, you're right in that you'd want an Arab nation to take issue with Iran's ascention. Yes, a promise of continuing dialogue and a verbal threat (of a slap on the wrist) I'm going to count to three: 1, 2, 21/4, 21/2 . . . [/quote] Again, if the UN is to be effective anywhere it must review and drastically alter its way of doing business. Member nations must be held accountable for no paying their bills and being able to provide support when called upon. Right now it's a joke. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 12, 2006 13:49:47 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm" ..................... Another potential opening came in May 2003. America's swift march to Baghdad the previous month had led to fears in Tehran that it would be next. So Tehran made a dramatic - but surprisingly little known - approach to the Americans. Iran's offer came in the form of a letter, although Iranian diplomats have suggested that their letter was in turn a response to a set of talking points that had come from US intermediaries. In it, Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. What did Iran want? Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'". The letter was the product of an internal debate inside Tehran and had the support of leaders at the highest level. "That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues," explains Seyed Adeli, who was then a deputy foreign minister in Iran. But in Washington, the letter was ignored. Larry Wilkerson, who was then chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, thinks that was a big mistake. ........... "
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 12, 2006 16:08:18 GMT -5
I rather NOT see another war but the prospect of a NUCLEAR arms race in the Middle East absolutely frightens me. Interesting article here, HA....and if true, someone's already at the finish line in that Middle East race. www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6071
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 12, 2006 20:11:21 GMT -5
I rather NOT see another war but the prospect of a NUCLEAR arms race in the Middle East absolutely frightens me. Interesting article here, HA....and if true, someone's already at the finish line in that Middle East race. www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6071That Israel has nuclear weapons, there is no doubt. That Israel will use those weapons ifthey are facing eradication, I have no doubt. I know that this sounds hypocritical, but to me, Israel haviing nuclear weapons is equivilant to the US and Russia having them. It's an evil that has a known reaction. If several countries of the Middlle East go nuclear, nobody knows what the potential fallout or consequences. Can anybody sleep soundly if a radiical regime decides to "help" someone's "cause"? CH, who do you hold responsible if Toronto goes up in smoke and there is no return address on the nuke? If Israel dropped a nuke, then you can hold them responsible, if the "Freedom Liberation Army" with no fixed address ignites one, then what? And what stops them if they want to since they know that they can do it with inpunity?
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 12, 2006 20:15:42 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm" ..................... Another potential opening came in May 2003. America's swift march to Baghdad the previous month had led to fears in Tehran that it would be next. So Tehran made a dramatic - but surprisingly little known - approach to the Americans. Iran's offer came in the form of a letter, although Iranian diplomats have suggested that their letter was in turn a response to a set of talking points that had come from US intermediaries. In it, Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. What did Iran want? Top of the list was a halt in US hostile behaviour and a statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'". The letter was the product of an internal debate inside Tehran and had the support of leaders at the highest level. "That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues," explains Seyed Adeli, who was then a deputy foreign minister in Iran. But in Washington, the letter was ignored. Larry Wilkerson, who was then chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, thinks that was a big mistake. ........... " I wish I knew if this is true. There is so much misinformation and misdirection by so many people with agendas, that it's hard to know what the truth is anymore. Now, if this is true, then Bush and his cons should die a slow and painful death. This "letter" would have solved so many problems on so many levels that no one with a modicum of intelligence could ignore.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 12, 2006 20:56:21 GMT -5
Now, if this is true, then Bush and his cons should die a slow and painful death. This "letter" would have solved so many problems on so many levels that no one with a modicum of intelligence could ignore. Bush ? Intelligence ? Come on, you've got your answer right there.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 13, 2006 15:27:27 GMT -5
Now, if this is true, then Bush and his cons should die a slow and painful death. This "letter" would have solved so many problems on so many levels that no one with a modicum of intelligence could ignore. Bush ? Intelligence ? Come on, you've got your answer right there. If true, a serious and costly mistake. Just when I thought Bush couldn't astonish me anymore. Hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 13, 2006 15:51:32 GMT -5
The sad thing is, if this is true – and it would be unlike the BBC to make something up - it would have meant that the Wolfowitz Doctrine actually worked, that the invasion of Iraq actually cowed Iran into submission, that everthing the US hoped to accomplish by taking over a middle-eastern country was actually about to come true. And yet somehow the Bush team managed to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory…
Worst President ever.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 13, 2006 19:01:17 GMT -5
The sad thing is, if this is true – and it would be unlike the BBC to make something up - it would have meant that the Wolfowitz Doctrine actually worked, that the invasion of Iraq actually cowed Iran into submission, that everthing the US hoped to accomplish by taking over a middle-eastern country was actually about to come true. And yet somehow the Bush team managed to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory… Worst President ever. I can't possibly believe this to be true. It's so well packaged and so obvious and so perfect that it can't possibly be true. Let's not forget that the BBC is not exactly unbiased. Their anti-war rhetoric is well known. To be honest, there has never been a point in history with so much misinformation as we have now. The internet and media are just spewing out at a billion bytes a second and the truth gets churned so much that it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe any single source.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 13, 2006 22:45:03 GMT -5
The sad thing is, if this is true – and it would be unlike the BBC to make something up - it would have meant that the Wolfowitz Doctrine actually worked, that the invasion of Iraq actually cowed Iran into submission, that everthing the US hoped to accomplish by taking over a middle-eastern country was actually about to come true. And yet somehow the Bush team managed to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory… Worst President ever. I can't possibly believe this to be true. It's so well packaged and so obvious and so perfect that it can't possibly be true. Let's not forget that the BBC is not exactly unbiased. Their anti-war rhetoric is well known. To be honest, there has never been a point in history with so much misinformation as we have now. The internet and media are just spewing out at a billion bytes a second and the truth gets churned so much that it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe any single source. I'd think it's true that Iran wanted to talk.... but it's hard to know what exactly was possible. But just that the US didn't bother to initiate a dialogue says a lot about the US mindset at the time....
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 14, 2006 1:59:23 GMT -5
That Israel has nuclear weapons, there is no doubt. That Israel will use those weapons ifthey are facing eradication, I have no doubt. I know that this sounds hypocritical, but to me, Israel haviing nuclear weapons is equivilant to the US and Russia having them. It's an evil that has a known reaction. If several countries of the Middlle East go nuclear, nobody knows what the potential fallout or consequences. Can anybody sleep soundly if a radiical regime decides to "help" someone's "cause"? CH, who do you hold responsible if Toronto goes up in smoke and there is no return address on the nuke? If Israel dropped a nuke, then you can hold them responsible, if the "Freedom Liberation Army" with no fixed address ignites one, then what? And what stops them if they want to since they know that they can do it with inpunity? Somehow I don't fear israel selling nukes to Al-kaida terrorists that want to bomb NY and LA.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 14, 2006 8:45:35 GMT -5
[ I can't possibly believe this to be true. It's so well packaged and so obvious and so perfect that it can't possibly be true. Let's not forget that the BBC is not exactly unbiased. Their anti-war rhetoric is well known. To be honest, there has never been a point in history with so much misinformation as we have now. The internet and media are just spewing out at a billion bytes a second and the truth gets churned so much that it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe any single source. Regardless of the BBC’s political stance, this story would be hard to refute, given the details that it contains. If only the Iranians say they were willing to negotiate, and there is a letter to prove it, but the Americans ignored them that would be one thing. You could say the Iranians were up to something. If only an ex-Bush employee says they were willing to negotiate, and there is a letter to prove it, that would be another thing. You could run with the disgruntled ex-employee angle. But both of them? Does anybody REALLY think Seyed Adeli and Larry Wilkerson conspired together, to fabricate this “letter” story? I’ve heard of strange bedfellows before, but that would be a little extreme, don’t you think? The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, and the Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff?? Are we watching next season’s 24 plot line? And if the BBC made the whole thing up, wouldn't Wilkerson, at least, be screaming to high heaven that it's a lie? Unfortunately, I think the letter was real.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 14, 2006 17:46:46 GMT -5
[ I can't possibly believe this to be true. It's so well packaged and so obvious and so perfect that it can't possibly be true. Let's not forget that the BBC is not exactly unbiased. Their anti-war rhetoric is well known. To be honest, there has never been a point in history with so much misinformation as we have now. The internet and media are just spewing out at a billion bytes a second and the truth gets churned so much that it's IMPOSSIBLE to believe any single source. Regardless of the BBC’s political stance, this story would be hard to refute, given the details that it contains. If only the Iranians say they were willing to negotiate, and there is a letter to prove it, but the Americans ignored them that would be one thing. You could say the Iranians were up to something. If only an ex-Bush employee says they were willing to negotiate, and there is a letter to prove it, that would be another thing. You could run with the disgruntled ex-employee angle. But both of them? Does anybody REALLY think Seyed Adeli and Larry Wilkerson conspired together, to fabricate this “letter” story? I’ve heard of strange bedfellows before, but that would be a little extreme, don’t you think? The Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, and the Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff?? Are we watching next season’s 24 plot line? And if the BBC made the whole thing up, wouldn't Wilkerson, at least, be screaming to high heaven that it's a lie? Unfortunately, I think the letter was real. Iran's not dumb ... They could have wrote the letter knowing full well the Americans were going to say no , and had a plan B if they said yes ...... Iran is not dumb and is no angel.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 15, 2006 9:16:30 GMT -5
The question is... why would they say no, and where was the American Plan B?
The Iranians aren't dumb, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean they have to be smarter than the US... As soon as the Iranians sent that letter I would have called a press conference:
"We would like to announce a break-through in Iranian-American relations! For the first time in 25 years the Iranians have suggested a diplomatic solution to the problems that have plagued the Middle East, and we would like to thank them for their leadership. Today, the government of Iran has offered to end it's support of militant Palestinian groups, to negotiate a peaceful and fair solution to the development of Iranian nuclear power, and to provide an active and supportive role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Copies of this letter, signed by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Adeli, are available in the back.
The government of the United States applauds this breakthrough in Iranian-American relations, and applauds the government of Iran for taking such bold and progressive steps. For too long the issues of Palenstinian extremism, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and the lawlessness of Iraq have been de-stabalizing influences in the Middle East, and by offering to reign in the militants, negotiate a nuclear settlement and aid a fellow Middle Eastern country, in partnership with the United States, the Iranians have shown their desire to finally bring peace to the Middle East and the world. We look forward to working with the Iranians on resolving these issues."
How many heads would roll in Iran after that press conference, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 15, 2006 9:44:52 GMT -5
In it, Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table - including being completely open about its nuclear programme, helping to stabilise Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah. I would be nice to have just one other credible source as backup proof of the letter. But I can't see it: Iran is just as anti-Israel as Hezbollah (and Hamas) and wants the destruction (annihilation?) of the country just as badly. But it is a nice feint.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 15, 2006 10:06:10 GMT -5
The question is... why would they say no, and where was the American Plan B? The Iranians aren't dumb, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean they have to be smarter than the US... As soon as the Iranians sent that letter I would have called a press conference: "We would like to announce a break-through in Iranian-American relations! For the first time in 25 years the Iranians have suggested a diplomatic solution to the problems that have plagued the Middle East, and we would like to thank them for their leadership. Today, the government of Iran has offered to end it's support of militant Palestinian groups, to negotiate a peaceful and fair solution to the development of Iranian nuclear power, and to provide an active and supportive role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Copies of this letter, signed by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Adeli, are available in the back.
The government of the United States applauds this breakthrough in Iranian-American relations, and applauds the government of Iran for taking such bold and progressive steps. For too long the issues of Palenstinian extremism, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and the lawlessness of Iraq have been de-stabalizing influences in the Middle East, and by offering to reign in the militants, negotiate a nuclear settlement and aid a fellow Middle Eastern country, in partnership with the United States, the Iranians have shown their desire to finally bring peace to the Middle East and the world. We look forward to working with the Iranians on resolving these issues."How many heads would roll in Iran after that press conference, I wonder? I meant Iran probably had a PLAN B if America said yes to the letter. America has this press conference you speak of and then Iran pulls some underhanded stunt (like what? ..I don't know ... I am not good at this geo-political mumble jumble like some ... ). But what if Iran comes out and claims the letter a forgery, that Iran would never do such a thing (and they wouldnt) and that this is another attempt by the infidels to put their noses in the affairs of Muslims where it doesn't belong. I am sure Iran had some underhanded PLAN B and that the Americans were trying to figure out what it was ... (quicker access to nuclear power?, bring the enemy in under the guise of friendship and then let the guerrilas know their locations? ....who knows) ...
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Nov 15, 2006 23:39:33 GMT -5
The question is... why would they say no, and where was the American Plan B? The Iranians aren't dumb, that's for sure, but that doesn't mean they have to be smarter than the US... As soon as the Iranians sent that letter I would have called a press conference: "We would like to announce a break-through in Iranian-American relations! For the first time in 25 years the Iranians have suggested a diplomatic solution to the problems that have plagued the Middle East, and we would like to thank them for their leadership. Today, the government of Iran has offered to end it's support of militant Palestinian groups, to negotiate a peaceful and fair solution to the development of Iranian nuclear power, and to provide an active and supportive role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Copies of this letter, signed by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Adeli, are available in the back.
The government of the United States applauds this breakthrough in Iranian-American relations, and applauds the government of Iran for taking such bold and progressive steps. For too long the issues of Palenstinian extremism, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and the lawlessness of Iraq have been de-stabalizing influences in the Middle East, and by offering to reign in the militants, negotiate a nuclear settlement and aid a fellow Middle Eastern country, in partnership with the United States, the Iranians have shown their desire to finally bring peace to the Middle East and the world. We look forward to working with the Iranians on resolving these issues."How many heads would roll in Iran after that press conference, I wonder? I meant Iran probably had a PLAN B if America said yes to the letter. America has this press conference you speak of and then Iran pulls some underhanded stunt (like what? ..I don't know ... I am not good at this geo-political mumble jumble like some ... ). But what if Iran comes out and claims the letter a forgery, that Iran would never do such a thing (and they wouldnt) and that this is another attempt by the infidels to put their noses in the affairs of Muslims where it doesn't belong. I am sure Iran had some underhanded PLAN B and that the Americans were trying to figure out what it was ... (quicker access to nuclear power?, bring the enemy in under the guise of friendship and then let the guerrilas know their locations? ....who knows) ... I think Iran's plan B would just be to show how they got the US to respect them and discuss with them as equals... remember, Western spin isn't as embarassing to them as it can be for Westerners !
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 24, 2006 11:13:17 GMT -5
Was watching CNN's, Glenn Beck the other night and he was interviewing former Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu made it perfectly clear that if he gets into office, the Iranian Nuclear program will be toast. His position is quite clear on this. Israel will survive. Not only has Russia provided the nuclear expertise in getting the plant operational, they've now begun delivery of Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran. The disclaimer at the bottom of CNN's web site doesn't permit me to cut and paste the article, so the link is the only thing I can provide. Please see arms deals. Very uncertain times in the Middle East nowadays. It looks as if Netanyahu will head the next government as well. Could prove very, very volatile. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 24, 2006 16:21:16 GMT -5
Agreed Dis. Interesting times indeed.
I remain unconvinced there will be an open war between Israel and Iran, though, despite the latter's nuclear program and rhetoric. It would serve no purpose. I see it more as part of the ongoing conflict via proxies. A lot will depend on how the U.S implements its' exit strategy in Iraq and if Hezbollah succeeds in toppling the present government in Lebanon, imo. Here is my reasoning:
For example, imagine if the U.S. withdraws north to Mosul, takes over control of Basra from the British, and covers the border with Jordan. By these actions, it can potentially run a proxy war against Iran through the Kurds in Northern Iran while acting as a buffer for Turkey, it controls Iraq's main port in the Gulf while preventing an Iranian land grab, and poses a direct military threat to Syria while protecting moderate pro-Western Jordan. In cooperation with the Gulf States, the U.S could potentially control tanker traffic as it did in 1983 and effectively strangle Iran's economy over time. I honestly believe that the Iranians are not foolish enough to take on the U.S. militarily and, despite neocon propaganda, far from being irrational. I'm not saying any of this will happen, but it does serve to illustrate that Iran is not invulnerable and they know it.
In a possible scenario where Iran's proxy Hezbollah takes power, I'm thinking the Israeli response will be to support the Phalangist Christians, Druze and Sunni in Lebanon as we saw in the 70s and 80s. Moreover, with U.S., French and, possibly, tacit Arab League approval, it's entirely plausible Israel may choose to go directly after Syria in an attempt to cut off Hezbollah's flow of arms. All Israel has to do is knock out Syria's oil production to ruin the latter's precarious economy, for example. Furthermore, it's only 40 miles or so to Damascus from Quneitra as you know - something Assad is well aware of, I'm sure.
So, status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 24, 2006 23:51:22 GMT -5
Agreed Dis. Interesting times indeed. I remain unconvinced there will be an open war between Israel and Iran, though, despite the latter's nuclear program and rhetoric. It would serve no purpose. True. I'm thinking the Israelis are considering a similar action that what they took against Iraq back in '81 when they took out the Osirak reactor. The problem is that Russia is supplying technicians to get the Iranian plant operational. It becomes even more convoluted if one or several of them are working on the plant at the time of the stike. I see it more as part of the ongoing conflict via proxies. A lot will depend on how the U.S implements its' exit strategy in Iraq and if Hezbollah succeeds in toppling the present government in Lebanon, imo. Here is my reasoning: I know it's all supposition, would the Kurds be prepared to do this? Right now they have an autonomous state of their own. Granted, US war planes provide security. I saw another CNN show tonight in which the moderate Gulf states denounced radical Islam. This strategy could work. I think if Netanyahu wins his election bid, we're going to be privy to some minor action. He mentioned very vividly on Glenn Beck last night that the strategy to take Hezbollah out wasn't a strategy at all. Basically, Israel used the same number of troops and more or less walked into Hezbollah sights. However, Netanyahu mentioned that their supply routes would have to be cut off. He didn't mention Syria by name, but this is where the supplies were getting through. As you know as well, the Israelis pulled down the town of Quneitra on their way back from an aborted attack on Damascus. During the Yom Kippur War the Israelis were getting to Damascus almost untouched at one point. However, someone thought about the logistical nightmare it would be just to hold certain parts of the city. Besides, who wants Damascus? It's a hemeroid. I can't say for sure, but if a conflict were to occur, say to block off Hezbollah supplies, the Golan Heights might look like a Mexican Standoff. The Syrians know that there is a permanent Israeli armoured brigade located about 5 miles from their border with Israel. Having said that, the only other route Hezbollah was getting supplies from was the Lebanese/Syrian border. This is where I think Netanyahu was going when the mentioned strategies last night. As for fighting a proxy war, well, the USA has been doing that off and on for years anyway. As was the former Soviet Union, France and Belgium (both in Africa). Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 25, 2006 1:09:23 GMT -5
In this corner, wearing the blue burka, fighting out of the Sunni Cripts, Iraq. In this corner wearing the red headtowels, fighting for the Sheite Bloods, Iran. Referee for the main event, the trustworthy Kurds. In the audience are former fighting champions, Al Kaida, Hamas, Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade, and Al Fateh.
Tell me again that the US is the bad guy in this unholy mess. If these guys want to kill themselves, have at it, but when they threaten to develop nuclear weapons and use them against NY or LA, then I say stop the police action and start the Holy War. It is not a couple of bad leaders or bad guys. When American soldiers/ peacekeepers/teachers/construction workers are kidnapped or killed, millions turn out in the streets to cheer.
I welcome an end to the peacekeeping farce and the start to a real war to end the war.
It's more than just war with Iran. It's a Jihad.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 25, 2006 9:58:18 GMT -5
In this corner, wearing the blue burka, fighting out of the Sunni Cripts, Iraq. In this corner wearing the red headtowels, fighting for the Sheite Bloods, Iran. Referee for the main event, the trustworthy Kurds. In the audience are former fighting champions, Al Kaida, Hamas, Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade, and Al Fateh. Tell me again that the US is the bad guy in this unholy mess. I guess you must want a list or something. * USA accuses Iraq of having WMD. The US-led coalition invades and no WMD are found; * USA accuses Iraq of harbouring terrorists and having a links to 9/11. While Iraq does harbour terrorists (like some of its neighbours do), it has yet to be proven that Iraq was involved in 9/11. However, the USA decides to invade Iraq all the while knowing the majority of terrorists on that day belonged to Saudi Arabia? And how is it that if eradicating terrorist groups is one of the agendas, the USA has failed to go into Syria, which harbours practically every terrorist group in the region? * USA says, Saddam must be removed as he is a brutal dictator. Well, the got him alright. But, what about the brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, North Korea? Why Saddam and why then and now? The precedent has been set. So, what's stopping the USA from continuing? * The USA denies as long as one year in advance that they were going into Iraq. And when it finally becomes public info, the UN denounces the US initiative to go into Iraq. Bush Jr. says, "... why doesn't the UN get a backbone?" and promptly pushes the UN out of the way. It's a full-blown civil war whether the USA want's to admit to it or not and they are the ones who set the wheels in motion. They had no idea what to do right from the beginning. They used faulty intelligence and pushed the UN out of the way. Then they had the audacity to try and guilt the UN into rebuilding Iraq as if it were their responsibility to do so. I applaud them for not wanting to clean up the USA's mess. Actually, it's more that a couple of bad guys, you're right there. However, these bad leaders and bad guys are not indicative of the entire Muslim race. I know quite a few very good Muslims who, while retaining their faith, have integrated extremely well into Canada. What we're talking about are the extremist dicatatorships who keep their people ignorant of what the real world is all about. First, I wouldn't be using the terms "American soldiers" and "peacekeepers" in the same sentence. Secondly, would you tolerate foreign occupation troops on the Continental USA? The US-led coalition in Iraq is just that, an occupation force. And you scratch your head wondering why it's resented in Iraq? Thirdly, the USA undermines the UN's authority and goes in unilateally That's what the extremist Muslims want too. But, you may get the war you want. But, you won't have to worry about fighting it yourself. If Netanyahu ends up winning the next election all initiatives that Israeli PM Ariel Sharon made will be off the table. I don't think it will be a war, but the Iranian nuclear program will be toast. And, it's also important to remember that not all Muslims are painted with the same brush. Netanyhu admits to this as well. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 25, 2006 12:06:49 GMT -5
I hope Netayahu take power. The Iranian nuclear program will be toast and with the blessing of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, UAE and every Middle East nation other then Syria. Almost all the Middle East nations want to keep their neighborhood nuclear free despite the de facto Israeli weapons. They also know that Iran as recently as last week is training sleeper cells to destabilize Kuwait. If I said it once, I said it a hundred times. Iran ambition is to CONTROL the Middle East and subsequently the oil. They are financing an endless supply of terrorist cells with the philosophy that the more they destabilize ALL their neighbors, the easier it is to instal Iranian puppet governments or make them tow the Iranian line. As for the dead Russians. WHO CARES. Russia will not do anything about it other then scream. WHO CARES. They are blocking any attempts to curb Iran so whats the difference. Netayahu will probably make it clear to Russia that if they interfered, they would arm Chechnya's and all their surrounding breakaway republics. Putin is an opportunist and not a friend to the West. I don't think Russia will do anything but whine and the US can easily curtail Russian thoughts of hard action. Iran is the problem. If the Israeli's dint do something right away, they WILL BE in peril. Period. Netayahu is the answer. www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/october/10_19_1.html
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 25, 2006 12:23:32 GMT -5
It's a full-blown civil war whether the USA want's to admit to it or not and they are the ones who set the wheels in motion. They had no idea what to do right from the beginning. They used faulty intelligence and pushed the UN out of the way. Then they had the audacity to try and guilt the UN into rebuilding Iraq as if it were their responsibility to do so. I applaud them for not wanting to clean up the USA's mess. You may applaud the UN but in the end, the US leaving the Middle East is going to be the nuclear nightmare nobody wants. There is a full blown civil war that is fed and supported by it's very ambitious neighbor. Every Shia cleric who does not take orders from Iran has been murdered. Iraq breaking up is Iran's wet dream and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. The US does not have a hope in hell of keeping that country together or stopping the bloodfest unless Iran is put in it's place.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 26, 2006 3:33:04 GMT -5
I definately agree that not all Muslims are bad. I personally know six in LA that I count as very good friends. There may be a dozen more in the world that aren't bad. Seriously though, many Muslims in America are very peaceloving, kind and good. Many are also radical followers of factions that hate their adopted country. The real problem is the rest of the world where over 50% would rejoice at the bombing of America and would bestow fame, money and virgins on the families of the martyrs that kill themselves in suicide bombing. REMOVING THE MURDEROUS SADDAM WAS A GOOD THING. Many objected to the intervention of Hitler in Germany, favoring ignoring the situation. Should we stand by while millions of Africans are slaughtered and raped in atrocities. Should we have ignored Duvalier? Kim's turn will come as will Iran. Bush may be wrong about a united Iraq. I don't think that the Sunnis and Shietes can play together in the same sandbox. The Sheites have suffered under Saddam. They want revenge. The Sunnis won't accept minority status and want to reduce the number of Sheites. The US soldioers are as effective as the referees in a WWF wrestling match. Watch this corner and the rules are broken in the other corner. Then the referee is hit on the head with a metal chair. Time for tough love, not killing them with kindness. Forget the UN. Saddam kept the trains running with ruthless retribution. It's the only thing they seem to know and respond to. Bush was right to have removed Saddam. He was wrong to declare Mission accomplished. He was right to attempt to broker a peace. He was wrong to allow american soldiers to become targets. It's easy for armchair quarterbacks to find fault on Monday.
|
|