Iran top of "trouble spots" - Cheney - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 01-21-2005, 02:36 AM

No surprises here.

Quote:

Cheney says Iran tops US list of 'trouble spots'

US Vice President Dick Cheney has said Iran is at the top of the administration's list of world "trouble spots".

He also expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate any nuclear threat from Tehran.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Mr Cheney said in a TV interview aired on the day Mr George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president.

Mr Cheney, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, said the administration would continue to try to use diplomacy to address what he said were serious concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons programme and ties to terrorism.

The administration has also accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of neighbouring Iraq, where US forces have been bogged down in an insurgency since the 2003 invasion.

If Iran resists demands to rein in its nuclear programme, Mr Cheney said the next step would be to take the matter to the UN Security Council and seek international sanctions "to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations".

He described Iran's nuclear program as "fairly robust"- but Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make weapons.

Mr Cheney said one concern was that Israel might act against the Iranians. "If . . . the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

Israel set a precedent for such action in 1981 when it sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's French-built Osiraq reactor, seen as the key to President Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Mr Cheney said.

After being sworn in yesterday, Mr Bush admonished what he called "the rulers of outlaw regimes" and said: "We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

The New Yorker magazine reported this week that the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.

The White House and Pentagon have disputed the report.

I wonder if they're trying to scare Iran into the diplomatic solution. I've read that the Administration privately opposes the EU efforts here, but can't afford to be seen into publicly obstructing them. I have also read that they are willing to wait and see.

One last thing. I have to admit this actually made me laugh out loud.

"The administration has also accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of neighbouring Iraq, where US forces have been bogged down in an insurgency since the 2003 invasion."

Oh the irony! I wish I had the quote, as I should like to see exactly what he said.

Anyway, that's just an amused observation and doesn't really impact the core issue here.

Do we think the Bush Administration are:

a) preparing for an invasion
b) preparting for "surgical strikes"
c) preping Israel to carry out strikes
d) trying to scare Iran into compliance

Which do you think? Or perhaps another option?

Mr Mephisto

Charlatan · 01-21-2005, 05:54 AM

e) all of the above...

They are keeping all of their options open. Cheney is just greasing the skids for whatever comes. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real reason Powell left was because he felt he couldn't support these plans...

Furry · 01-21-2005, 06:10 AM

D, and some sort of accident along the lines of "Oops, your uranium purification reactor blew up/suffered a debilitating accident. Who, us? No. It's dangerous stuff, you know. You should have been more careful."

I don't think that anyone within the administration has the political capital to spend gearing up for another full-blown war. If they do, and try to rope the us (UK) in alongside them again - forget it... I hope.

Whatever happens, it won't be obvious. Surely, surely they can't be that thick as to go in guns blazing yet again? And yet I wouldn't be surprised if the enrichment program suddenly suffers a few setbacks of a highly explosive nature.

Superbelt · 01-21-2005, 08:15 AM

I am highly interested in seeing how this would play out in an almost detached sort of way.
I want to see if Bush can convince congress go along with another war, if he could get any other countries behind him or if there would be any sort of domestic resistance to it.

It didn't happen last time when Bush/Cheney gave us "Iraq is pursuing "a fairly robust nuclear program" and has a history of sponsoring terrorism, he said. "That combination is of great concern." Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iraq over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said."

Ooh wait that is what Cheney just said yesterday.... Just replace the q's with n's in the whole thing. It's the exact same script from pre-gulf war II.

Not that I don't believe them this time, but they really did lose their credibility shirt the last time they said this.

martinguerre · 01-21-2005, 07:35 PM

there's only one thing that i can think of that scares me more than the words "Iranian Nuclear Program."

Those words are: "Failed American Intervention in Iran."

uncle_el · 01-22-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I am highly interested in seeing how this would play out in an almost detached sort of way.
I want to see if Bush can convince congress go along with another war, if he could get any other countries behind him or if there would be any sort of domestic resistance to it.

It didn't happen last time when Bush/Cheney gave us "Iraq is pursuing "a fairly robust nuclear program" and has a history of sponsoring terrorism, he said. "That combination is of great concern." Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iraq over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said."

Ooh wait that is what Cheney just said yesterday.... Just replace the q's with n's in the whole thing. It's the exact same script from pre-gulf war II.

Not that I don't believe them this time, but they really did lose their credibility shirt the last time they said this.

lol, true, true.

in a way, i feel like saying "here we go again."

flstf · 01-22-2005, 12:11 PM

I don't understand much regarding the U.S. policy in that part of the world, just what I read in the papers, etc.. But it seemed to me from the first time we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq that Iran was going to be the ultimate target.

I imagine the reason (excuse) will be because they are supplying terrorists targeting the new Iraqi government. I would guess that the action will consist of surgical strikes of their nuclear facilities to start.

filtherton · 01-22-2005, 01:59 PM

Personally, i am more worried about the possibility of a resurgence of bad "Flock of Seagulls" jokes than anything the bush administration attempts to claim as a credible threat.

I forsee a new color coded iranian threat level status system in the works.

01-21-2005, 05:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	e) all of the above... They are keeping all of their options open. Cheney is just greasing the skids for whatever comes. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the real reason Powell left was because he felt he couldn't support these plans... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-21-2005, 06:10 AM	#3 (permalink)
Furry Crazy Location: UK	D, and some sort of accident along the lines of "Oops, your uranium purification reactor blew up/suffered a debilitating accident. Who, us? No. It's dangerous stuff, you know. You should have been more careful." I don't think that anyone within the administration has the political capital to spend gearing up for another full-blown war. If they do, and try to rope the us (UK) in alongside them again - forget it... I hope. Whatever happens, it won't be obvious. Surely, surely they can't be that thick as to go in guns blazing yet again? And yet I wouldn't be surprised if the enrichment program suddenly suffers a few setbacks of a highly explosive nature. __________________ Furry is the leader of his own cult, the "Furballs of Doom". They sit about chanting "Doom, Doom, Doom". (From a random shot in the dark by SirLance)

01-21-2005, 07:35 PM	#5 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	there's only one thing that i can think of that scares me more than the words "Iranian Nuclear Program." Those words are: "Failed American Intervention in Iran." __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-21-2005, 08:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I am highly interested in seeing how this would play out in an almost detached sort of way. I want to see if Bush can convince congress go along with another war, if he could get any other countries behind him or if there would be any sort of domestic resistance to it. It didn't happen last time when Bush/Cheney gave us "Iraq is pursuing "a fairly robust nuclear program" and has a history of sponsoring terrorism, he said. "That combination is of great concern." Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iraq over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said." Ooh wait that is what Cheney just said yesterday.... Just replace the q's with n's in the whole thing. It's the exact same script from pre-gulf war II. Not that I don't believe them this time, but they really did lose their credibility shirt the last time they said this.

01-22-2005, 12:11 PM	#7 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't understand much regarding the U.S. policy in that part of the world, just what I read in the papers, etc.. But it seemed to me from the first time we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq that Iran was going to be the ultimate target. I imagine the reason (excuse) will be because they are supplying terrorists targeting the new Iraqi government. I would guess that the action will consist of surgical strikes of their nuclear facilities to start.

01-22-2005, 01:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Personally, i am more worried about the possibility of a resurgence of bad "Flock of Seagulls" jokes than anything the bush administration attempts to claim as a credible threat. I forsee a new color coded iranian threat level status system in the works.