Is Iran Next? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 01-09-2006, 08:38 PM

There has been continuing pressure by the Bush administration to place sanctions on Iran due to their insistance on furthering their nuclear ambitions. Whether it be for domestic energy or military use can't easily be determined. Bush and his Sec State Rice have made it clear that "all options are on the table" in shutting down Iran's nuclear interests. Does it appear to you that the Bush admin is giving serious thought to a military intervention in Iran?

Link

Quote:

Outcry as Iran Resumes Its Nuclear Project
By Simon Freeman
The Times UK

Monday 09 January 2006

Tehran moved a step closer to economic and diplomatic sanctions today as Iranian scientists returned to their labs to resume forbidden research into nuclear power.

The provocative move follows the collapse yesterday of talks with Russia aimed at seeking a compromise over Iran's suspended nuclear enrichment programme, a key phase in both civilian fuel production and in the generation of weapons-grade uranium.

French, German and British diplomats have given warning that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is intent on scuppering the resumption of negotiations to resolve the crisis.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel prize-winning boss of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority), said that the decision to remove UN seals and resume research in the face of international criticism was "regrettable".

Hamid Reza Asefi, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, today told a news conference: "We will remove the seals and we have announced that we are ready to start research from tomorrow."

Western observers are convinced that Iran uses its civilian atomic energy project as cover for a nuclear weapons programme. The belligerent Mr Ahmadinejad - who last week publicly willed the early death of Ariel Sharon - enjoys some support at home for defending what he describes as Iran's right to produce its own domestic power.

Iran resumed production of uranium gas in August. Three months later it announced plans to enrich the gas at a pilot plant in Natanz. Today's move ends a two-year suspension of enrichment activity, the most sensitive step in the fuel cycle.

[/b]Today's announcement has pushed Iran another step toward being referred to the UN's Security Council, where despite enjoying tacit support from Russia and China, it is likely to face sanctions.[/b]

Moscow, which has close energy trading links with Tehran, offered a compromise that would allow Iran to carry out enrichment on Russian soil. Talks - described as "detailed, candid and professional" - broke down yesterday although they are to resume next month.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, hinted that Washington was losing patience with European attempts to cajole Mr Ahmadinejad into line.

"If negotiations have been exhausted, we have the votes, there is a resolution sitting there on the Security Council, we'll vote it," she said.

Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian Foreign Minister, whose country has just taken over the European Union presidency, said today that Iran was "a very worrying situation indeed". She said today's decision was: "the wrong step in the wrong direction and a cause of very serious concern".
# A military passenger jet crashed in north-west Iran on Monday, killing the commander of the ground forces of the Revolutionary Guards and other senior officers.

The Falcon was making an emergency landing in bad weather in Oroumieh, a mountainous region 560 miles (900km) northwest of Tehran, when its landing gear apparently jammed at 9.30 am (0600 GMT) .

It is the second such crash in less than a month. The death of an ally and friend is likely to further provoke the President, who has blamed previous military air crashes on a US trade embargo which prevents Iran from buying parts for its decrepit US-built aircraft.

General Ahmad Kazemi, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war who was appointed commander of the Guards' ground forces by President Ahmadinejad in August, and eight officers died as well as the two crew.

The official Islamic Republic News Agency later identified another of those killed as Brigadier General Ghasem Soleimani, the commander of the Jerusalem Force, an anti-terrorism unit based in border areas.

The following article speculates on what the outcome of an Iranian invasion by the US might cost us, if our government were foolish enough to pursue it. It causes me great alarm that the neocons in power might actually think this is plausible.

Link

Quote:

Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 January 2006

The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.

"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."

An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.

1. Blowback in Iraq

The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.

Should the United States undertake military action against Iran, the ramifications in Iraq would be immediate and extreme.

In the first eight days of January, eighteen US troops have been killed in Iraq, compounded by another twelve deaths from a Black Hawk helicopter crash on Saturday. Much of the violence aimed at American forces is coming from disgruntled Sunni factions that have their own militias, believe the last elections were a sham, and hold little political power in the government.

If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos.

2. Iran's Armaments

Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.

According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."

A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."

"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"

It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.

Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.

Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.

3. The Syrian Connection

In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.

Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.

Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.

4. China and the US Economy

While the ominous possibilities of heightened Iraqi chaos, missiles in the Gulf, and Syrian involvement loom large if the US attacks Iran, all pale in comparison to the involvement of China in any US/Iran engagement.

China's economy is exploding, hampered only by their great thirst for petroleum and natural gas to fuel their industry. In the last several months, China has inked deals with Iran for $70 billion dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas. China will purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over the next 30 years, will develop the massive Yadavaran oil field in Iran, and will receive 150,000 barrels of oil per day from that field. China is seeking the construction of a pipeline from Iran to the Caspian Sea, where it would link with another planned pipeline running from Kazakhstan to China.

Any US attack on Iran could be perceived by China as a direct threat to its economic health. Further, any fighting in the Persian Gulf would imperil the tankers running China's liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Should China decide to retaliate against the US to defend its oil and natural gas deal with Iran, the US would be faced with a significant threat. This threat exists not merely on a military level, though China could force a confrontation in the Pacific by way of Taiwan. More significantly, China holds a large portion of the American economy in the palm of its hand.

Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."

"The hardest blow on Americans," concluded Roberts, "will fall when China does revalue its currency. When China's currency ceases to be undervalued, American shoppers in Wal-Mart, where 70 percent of the goods on the shelves are made in China, will think they are in Neiman Marcus. Price increases will cause a dramatic reduction in American real incomes. If this coincides with rising interest rates and a setback in the housing market, American consumers will experience the hardest times since the Great Depression."

In short, China has the American economy by the throat. Should they decide to squeeze, we will all feel it. China's strong hand in this even extends to the diplomatic realm; China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and could veto any actions against Iran proposed by the United States.

5. American Preparedness

American citizens have for decades taken it as a given that our military can overwhelm and overcome any foe on the battlefield. The rapid victory during the first Gulf War cemented this perception. The last three years of the Iraq occupation, however, have sapped this confidence. Worse, the occupation has done great damage to the strength of the American military, justifying the decrease in confidence. Thanks to repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting is at an all-time low. Soldiers with vital training and know-how are refusing to re-enlist. Across the board, the American military is stretched to the breaking point.

Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe.

If Iran and Syria - with their significant armaments, missile technologies and suspected chemical weapons capabilities - decide to engage with the relatively undersized US force in Iraq, our troops there will be fish in a barrel. Iran's position over the Gulf would make resupply by ship and air support from carriers a dangerous affair. In the worst-case scenario, the newly-minted American order of battle requiring the use of nuclear weapons to rescue a surrounded and imperiled force could come into play, hurling the entire planet into military and diplomatic bedlam.

Conclusion: Is Any of This Possible?

The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously.

Iran is suspected by many nations of working towards the development of nuclear weapons, but even this justification has been tossed into a cocked hat. Recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin bluntly stated that Iran is not developing its nuclear capability for any reasons beyond peaceful energy creation, and pledged to continue assisting Iran in this endeavor. Therefore, any attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities will bring Russia into the mess. Iran also stands accused of aiding terrorism across the globe. The dangers implicit in any attack upon that nation, however, seem to significantly offset whatever gains could be made in the so-called "War on Terror."

Unfortunately, all the dangers in the world are no match for the self-assurance of a bubble-encased zealot. What manner of maniac would undertake such a dangerous course? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

George W. Bush and his administration have consistently undertaken incredibly dangerous courses of action in order to garner political power on the home front. Recall the multiple terror threats lobbed out by the administration whenever damaging political news appeared in the media. More significantly, recall Iraq. Karl Rove, Bush's most senior advisor, notoriously told Republicans on the ballot during the 2002 midterms to "run on the war." The invasion of Iraq provided marvelous political cover for the GOP not only during those midterms, but during the 2004 Presidential election.

What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.

Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.

They did it once already in Iraq.

Ustwo · 01-09-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

The following article speculates on what the outcome of an Iranian invasion by the US might cost us, if our government were foolish enough to pursue it. It causes me great alarm that the neocons in power might actually think this is plausible.

Oh no the liberals at truthout are predicting military outcomes again.

Quote:

In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.

Haha we could only be so lucky. That would leave only NK in the Axis.

Really Elphaba truthout clogs your mind. Why do you insist on using one of the most biased sorces of information you can find in order to start debate? You use an opinion piece at that, they don't even have to pretend to be objective.

This one was pretty funny though...

Quote:

Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."

He does know that #1, the GDP of the US is over 11 trillion, and two, China and Japan hate each other?

cybersharp · 01-10-2006, 12:11 AM

Curious read, no Iran will not be next.

Seaver · 01-10-2006, 12:57 AM

Bush Re-elected.
Economy is up.
Elections are generally considered a major success.
Iraqi Security Forces control 2 major Iraqi cities and are taking over more.

Yet reading TruthOut one would think we should be building bomb shelters in our backyards and our military are dying in higher casualty rate than Okinowa.

dksuddeth · 01-10-2006, 02:43 AM

the current regime in Iran is too dangerous to have BB guns, let alone nuclear weapons. If Iran isn't brought in to line, we'll be seeing another communist rise in Russia, with a nuclear Iran at the head in the ME.

highthief · 01-10-2006, 04:52 AM

"Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies."

SCUD and state-of-the-art don't go together in any sentence.

Anyway, no Iran won't be next - the US has neither the resources nor political will to wage 3 wars at once, especially not one that would be the last straw for the Muslim world.

Charlatan · 01-10-2006, 05:34 AM

The Bush Admin already used up their trump cards when they built their "case for Iraq". They will not attack Iran.

Lame duck presidents do not go to war.

dksuddeth · 01-10-2006, 06:09 AM

but they will lob bombs in to the country.

Charlatan · 01-10-2006, 06:42 AM

Yes they will.

pan6467 · 01-10-2006, 06:57 AM

Wasn't it Johnson who said we weren't going into Cambodia and a few weeks later we were in?

I look for our troops to get close to the Iran border shots fired a casualty, or 2 and we'll have the excuse to go to war.

DanV · 01-10-2006, 07:05 AM

highthief, not having the money or military resources to wage 3 wars doesn't mean they will not. It only means they don't have what they need.
On the other hand, it's been roumoured that Bush (or whoever is playing the cards) will go after Iran and Syria for quite a while now, and nothing has proven that right.
All we can do is wait and see ...

Cheers,
Dan

Guinevere · 01-10-2006, 07:18 AM

God Forbid. I lived there in the 70s. Damn beautiful people and culture. Friends who've travel there recently say the theocracy does not speak for the MAJORITY of the people. They lived oppressed lives and are forced to march in support of a government they abhor. So before anyone considers lobbing bombs as an option, they should realize the collateral damage inflicted on the innocent--which are the majority.

Charlatan · 01-10-2006, 07:46 AM

Inerestingly, that description of Iran sounds a lot like the way many in the world view the USA... with specific reference to Administration versus the populace.

highthief · 01-10-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanV

highthief, not having the money or military resources to wage 3 wars doesn't mean they will not. It only means they don't have what they need.
On the other hand, it's been roumoured that Bush (or whoever is playing the cards) will go after Iran and Syria for quite a while now, and nothing has proven that right.
All we can do is wait and see ...

Cheers,
Dan

I think launching a third war - while technically "winnable" in the military sense, would be a disaster for the US. There would be no way Syria and others would not be drawn in, which would draw Israel in as well. There is no stomach for further war in the US - unless the US were to be attacked directly.

Charlatan · 01-10-2006, 08:43 AM

Consent for war can be manufactured.

cyrnel · 01-10-2006, 08:58 AM

The news I'm reading mostly consists of talks between Iran, Russia, the EU, Australia, and the UN. A small minority is Bush chiming in on things. (Not that he isn't considering jumping in if the others don't handle it.)

It'll come down to Russia and how much Mr. Nutball Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners want/need to save face and give up their "right to refine." History shows he can make mint by screwing with Western powers, so he's in a great negotiating position.

alpha phi · 01-10-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Anyway, no Iran won't be next - the US has neither the resources nor political will to wage 3 wars at once, especially not one that would be the last straw for the Muslim world.

Ah but Iraq is on one side of Iran
Afghanistan is on the other....
So it wouldn't be three wars.
It would be combining two wars into one.
Syria is the only glitch in the plan at the moment.
....or are they?

.....that new seat at the UN?
That new seat that everyone was ticked off about...
As far as resources....how big is our debt now?
what's a few more trillion dollars?
More Political will is manufactured each day, than automobiles.

ratbastid · 01-10-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Consent for war can be manufactured.

I'm not convinced. The administration doesn't have anything LIKE the political capital it had when it bulldozed the nation on Iraq. A significant chunk of those who blindly followed before now want to see the evidence with their own eyes.

I really don't think they have the wherewithal to pull that old wool over our eyes again. That doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilant about it, it just means there are now ENOUGH people being vigilant.

highthief · 01-10-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm not convinced. The administration doesn't have anything LIKE the political capital it had when it bulldozed the nation on Iraq. A significant chunk of those who blindly followed before now want to see the evidence with their own eyes.

I really don't think they have the wherewithal to pull that old wool over our eyes again. That doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilant about it, it just means there are now ENOUGH people being vigilant.

exactamundo!

Willravel · 01-10-2006, 11:17 AM

I suspect that Iran should be afraid of the current administration ruling over the US (e.i. Bushites). While I doubt an invasion a la Iraq as of 2003 is in order (espically considering how it is going as of 2006), I don't doubt that bombings a la Iraq all throughout the 90s might be. We have shown that we are not afraid to rain death on a country for over a decade from planes that the Iranians have no chance against.

Charlatan · 01-10-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm not convinced. The administration doesn't have anything LIKE the political capital it had when it bulldozed the nation on Iraq. A significant chunk of those who blindly followed before now want to see the evidence with their own eyes.

I really don't think they have the wherewithal to pull that old wool over our eyes again. That doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilant about it, it just means there are now ENOUGH people being vigilant.

I don't disagree. That was the point I was sort of making in my first post saying that all the Trump cards had been used up.

That said, nothing surprises me anymore.

Besides, I don't think Iran is on the agenda. They are not the weak paper tiger that was Iraq. Additionally, Iran doesn't have nearly the untapped oil resources that Iraq does.

alpha phi · 01-10-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I suspect that Iran should be afraid of the current administration ruling over the US (e.i. Bushites). While I doubt an invasion a la Iraq as of 2003 is in order (espically considering how it is going as of 2006), I don't doubt that bombings a la Iraq all throughout the 90s might be. We have shown that we are not afraid to rain death on a country for over a decade from planes that the Iranians have no chance against.

I think this is the most likely scenario for the forseesble future.
It would take a major event to warrent a major invasion

kutulu · 01-10-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Ah but Iraq is on one side of Iran
Afghanistan is on the other....
So it wouldn't be three wars.
It would be combining two wars into one.

Brilliant!! I can just see the Bushbots saying that!

alpha phi · 01-10-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Besides, I don't think Iran is on the agenda. They are not the weak paper tiger that was Iraq. Additionally, Iran doesn't have nearly the untapped oil resources that Iraq does.

source for quotes
The energy information adminstration uses the same Oil and Gas Journal numbers.
oil
natural gas

Quote:

According to the most recent tally by Oil and Gas Journal, Iran
houses the second-largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, an
estimated 125.8 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 260
billion barrels, possesses more; Iraq, the third in line, has an estimated 115
billion barrels. With this much oil -- about one-tenth of the world's estimated
total supply -- Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy
equation, no matter what else occurs.

Quote:

it is not just oil that Iran possesses in great abundance, but also
natural gas. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Iran has an estimated 940
trillion cubic feet of gas, or approximately 16% of total world reserves. (Only
Russia, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet, has a larger supply.)

Iran is on the agenda....however as you say
"they are not the weak paper tiger that was Iraq"
which is why the US will behave towards Iran as we did
towards Iraq throughout the 90's

Elphaba · 01-10-2006, 08:37 PM

Ustwo:

Quote:

Really Elphaba truthout clogs your mind. Why do you insist on using one of the most biased sorces of information you can find in order to start debate? You use an opinion piece at that, they don't even have to pretend to be objective.

Ustwo, I am sure you only hope to improve my choice of reading material, but you really do not need to trouble yourself on my behalf. Really.

I choose material that I find interesting and pass it along, if I think others might be interested. I have found that opinion pieces, particularly speculative ones, are a good starting point for discussion. I am pleased that many others have joined in this particular discussion, all of which have made very valid points.

Ahh, there it is. The backbutton!

Elphaba · 01-10-2006, 09:01 PM

I think what is missing in this speculative article is the choice Israel might make, given the Iranian President has declared that Israel should be removed from the map. I have a concern about which direction the Israeli government will take under their next leadership. They struck Iraq's nuclear facility in the past and don't see them hesitant to do the same to Iran.

MoonDog · 01-10-2006, 10:57 PM

THAT should be your real concern. If Israel reacts with military force to Iran's nuclear efforts, then will the US be dragged into the quagmire to keep it from puffing away into the desert wind when the missiles hit?

I really can't see the US doing a solo on Iran. It has been said already: they are not all that weak, like Iraq or Afghanistan; they have allies - STRONG allies (Russia, China) interested in the economic benefits of their relationship; the US is stretched thin with two military efforts; the US political capital to wage another such effort is practically non-existent.

Nope, I really can't see it. Even if the US hoped that a quick invasion would spark a popular revolt and overturn the mullahs, I would think that they would have some lessons learned from both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would HOPE they do, at least!

Seaver · 01-10-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Besides, I don't think Iran is on the agenda. They are not the weak paper tiger that was Iraq.

Militarily they are. They have very little new weaponry, their army is notoriously bad shots (shooting full auto with the gun over their head... or firing full auto in a bayonet charge).

However socially... well... they're shi'ia. In their religion there is SO much emphasis on self-sacrifice they are worse than the Japanese in WWII. During the Iran/Iraq war they litterally let 12 year old kids lead their army into battle in order to clear minefields.

Now politically... they are once again the paper tiger. Although recent hard lines by the West have helped out the theologists, the VAST majority want freedom, and love the US. There is litterally no middle aged people in the country. There are 25ish year olds, and then it goes straight up to the 60s. Everyone else effectively died during the 10 year war with Iran. The old will die soon, along with them the hard line anti-west, and the freedom loving young kids will inherit. One only needs to see pictures from Tehran, where under the Skull American flags are people spraypainting metallica.

The reason the hard liners are pushing so hard is because they see they're at an end. And as the saying goes "one needs to fear most the lion who's at the end of his days".

cybersharp · 01-10-2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We have shown that we are not afraid to rain death on a country for over a decade from planes that the Iranians have no chance against.

Iran has much stronger ties with its surrounding countrys however. Bombing Iran with planes for a decade would have significantly more of a reaction as in consequences that bombing Iraq did.

Iran is a politicol suicide/wildcard. Iran's ecomical benifactors step in on a war between Iran and the U.S = political disaster where the U.S lose's.

As Pan said, it is possable for a war to be provoked.. But at this point there is no will of the people for the war. Bush's administration along with himself would be metaphorically pressed up against a wall with no retreat if they did this. Expecaily because I dont believe the American populace is going to support anouther war so soon, expecaily if Bush's reason for the war is that Iran attacked U.S troops when U.S troops tried to invade along the Iran boarder without Irans authorization.

This would be a dangerous move at this point in time, and because the protection of the American people, whom elected Bush in the first would be jeprodized (in a greater amount even than before) because of a dicision made by Bush plausably in this case. There would be even more dire consequences for Bush himself.

highthief · 01-11-2006, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Nope, I really can't see it. Even if the US hoped that a quick invasion would spark a popular revolt and overturn the mullahs, I would think that they would have some lessons learned from both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Or from the last time the US interfered with who was running Iran.

WillyPete · 01-11-2006, 05:30 AM

Funny that no-one has mentioned the rumoured Iranian oil bourse.

In 2000, Saddam decided that all Iraqi oil (25% of the world's stock) would trade in Euro ONLY.
Cue Invasions 1 and 2. As soon as the US gained control of the Ministry of Oil and the oilfields, they changed the currency for trading oil back to the dollar at a loss of about 17% to the Iraqis due to Euro/Dollar differences.

In 2004, Iran announced that it would be attempting to create a trading bourse similiar to NYMEX, LPE or IPE (All American owned). It would also trade only in Euros.
Soon after, we heard about the axis of evil and nuclear research over there.

Iranian oil bourse ambitions are more dangerous to the US than a nuclear weapon.

They don't have a delivery system for nukes, don't have the infrastructure to build weapons capable of reaching the US for years.

The biggest risk is Israel, does the US really want to be in the area arguing if Iran or Syria detonate one in Israel? A simple standoff nuclear attack would be simpler, more effective and probably agreed with by European states were Iran to do something so stupid.
England would probably have one or two Tridents standing by just for the hell of it and test our own systems in a live fire exercise.

A Euro/oil trading system though would seriously rock the US petrodollar value.

You don't have any reserves over there of value anymore. You import more than you need and keep raising the national dept because of it, but you need to to keep the petrodollar high.

Example:
If japan wants to buy oil, at the moment they need to do it in Dollars.
Therefore they need to get dollars by selling goods cheap to America. (Cars, Electronics)
The US then prints up some dollars and gives them to the Japanese who buy oil on the markets (giving a cut to the US companies that own the exchanges).
The oil gets shipped to Japan, never touching US soil.
Then, countries like Saudi Arabia, bank that money back in the US federal Reserve.

Money for nothing. Do you think that the US military machine can withstand it's financial backer (US Govt) going bankrupt should it's primary income fall do to oil going through the hands of the Euro?

Whether or not Iran can actually pull it off is another matter as, due to sanctions, they are limited in what they can export/import. However, as the US has shown, all it needs to do is facilitate the meeting between buyer and seller.

Charlatan · 01-11-2006, 06:16 AM

WillyPete... I didn't know about Iran's push to trade in Euros. That would definately piss off the US.

It is today's equivalent of Mossadegh's nationalizing Iranian oil back in the 50s.

The only difference here is that what Seaver says is true. The youth of Iran are coming. Change is in the air. This gives the moderates in the West something to point to and say... Just have patience.

That and the fact that a lot of treasure has already been spent on Iraq.

Elphaba · 01-11-2006, 03:58 PM

My fears realized. Israel will takes things into their own hands, unless Iran will step back.

Link

Quote:

Israelis Plan Pre-emptive Strike on Iran
By Ian Bruce
The Herald UK

Tuesday 10 January 2006

Israel is updating plans for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities which could be launched as soon as the end of March, according to military and intelligence sources.

The news comes as Germany yesterday warned Tehran's regime that it would face "consequences" if it removes UN seals from portions of its atomic program and resumes enrichment of fuel which could be diverted for military use in breach of international agreements.

The Israeli raids would be carried out by long-range F-15E bombers and cruise missiles against a dozen key sites and are designed to set Tehran's weapons program back by up to two years.

Pilots at the Israeli air force's elite 69 squadron have been briefed on the plan and have conducted rehearsals for their missions.

The prime targets would be the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, 150 miles south of Tehran, a heavy-water production site at Arak, 120 miles south-west of the capital, and a site near Isfahan in central Iran which makes the uranium hexafluoride gas vital to the arms manufacturing process.

Sources say one, possibly two airfields in Kurdish northern Iraq have been earmarked as launch-points to reduce flying time over Iran.

The Iranians have meanwhile dispersed production facilities across hundreds of miles of remote countryside to make a single, knockout blow more difficult.

They have also ringed the sites, some of them deep underground, with missile batteries and radar-controlled anti-aircraft guns.

Part of the reason for an acceleration of Israel's contingency strike plans is that Russia agreed last month to sell Tehran £700m-worth of advanced SA-15 Gauntlet mobile missile systems.

Some are believed to be destined for defense of Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant on the Gulf coast, which Russian engineers are helping to build.

Although Western military strategists think an attack on Tehran's scattered sites would be fraught with difficulties and could not be carried out without loss to the attacking forces, few doubt Israel's commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear firepower.

An Israeli source said: "We believe Iran will have useable nuclear weapons by 2007 unless something is done to prevent it. If Tehran is allowed to start enrichment of uranium, it will be too late.

"Underground facilities have to be supplied with air, water and fuel from the surface. They also have entrances which are vulnerable to conventional attack. Close down the infrastructure and you close down the facility."

Elphaba · 01-11-2006, 04:18 PM

Within the same link given above, is this article:

Quote:

Iran Thumbs Its Nose at the World
By Serge Truffaut
Le Devoir

Wednesday 11 January 2006

Iran has broken the seals at its nuclear research centers. The desired objective? To provoke, or rather, to force, the international community to live with the issue. The Teheran government having crossed the point of no return, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should refer the case to the Security Council.

If the legal framework that covers nuclear matters is respected by the relevant authorities, they will have no choice but to submit the Iranian case to the Security Council to impose economic sanctions. But there, as the sum of divergent political interests far outstrips the related legal conclusions, it is rather unlikely that that will happen. Let's start from the beginning.

Among the five permanent members of the Security Council, three would normally be inclined to apply sanctions that, at first, would have a purely economic character. You will have guessed: they are France, Great Britain, and the United States. In the case of the first two, you will remember that along with Germany, they formed a troika charged the last two years with negotiating Iran's abandonment of its military nuclear ambitions in exchange for commercial opportunities and a certain support in international politics. Given the results, it's time for the players involved to agree that the work accomplished has proven to be a failure and to use the recourse available to them, i.e., the UN.

Within that institution, Great Britain, France, and the United States will face a significant obstacle: the vetoes that China and especially Russia will brandish, the first because Iran is gorging it with oil, the second because Iran is a very important commercial partner. Russia supplies it with nuclear assistance, to the point of building a power plant, and has, moreover, endowed Iran with long-range missiles. As recently as December, Moscow agreed to sell almost thirty of these, capable of covering a distance that worries Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Moscow's leniency with regard to Teheran has one and only one explanation. For the masters of the Kremlin, Iran, as part of its sphere of influence, can be an ally in the geopolitical games that agitate the region.

In that regard, certain facts must be emphasized. On account of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the American Army has based itself not only in those countries, but also in certain republics of central Asia once directed by Moscow. Since this American intrusion in a region long dominated by the Russians, the latter are more than a little irritated.

Hence, to return to the subject that occupies us today, the proposition President Putin formulated last year consisted of disconnecting the stages of nuclear production. More specifically, he proposed to help Iranian scientists with a certain number of functions in Iranian territory, while leaving responsibility to the Russians on Russian territory for more critical activities. Teheran said no to Putin, but left the door open to an eventual change of the "no" into a "yes, but."

If I have understood the meanders of Russo-Iranian relations correctly, this change took place in only the last few days. At the same moment the seals were being broken, a meeting between Russian and Iranian representatives was scheduled for next month. Now, we can contemplate the following: the members of the troika will find themselves back in the closet of fiascos, the United States will grumble, the Russians will rub their hands, and - above all - Iran will buy the so-precious time in which to pursue its ultimate objective: the bomb. The bomb in the hands of fascists and, moreover, of unstable fascists, at that ...

Willravel · 01-11-2006, 05:07 PM

The intel on Irans nuclear capabilities is HIGHLY SUSPECT, as suspect in fact as the information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101453_pf.html
All I can say is we're doing this again, can someone PLEASE stop us? Can we stop bombings and death BEFORE it comes to light that Iran wasn't a danger to anyone, instead of after?

Elphaba · 01-11-2006, 05:42 PM

I wish I knew how, Will. I believe the EU members made a genuine effort to diffuse this situation. It is illogical for Iran to go down this road, given what little we know. It's what we don't know that is driving this confrontation IMO.

Elphaba · 01-12-2006, 04:55 PM

Iran's "illogical" push to resume nuclear research might be quite logical given Bush's foreign policy examples.

Another TruthOut Link

Quote:

The Bush Who Cried Wolf
By Robert Dreyfuss
TomPaine.com

Thursday 12 January 2006

The deteriorating international crisis over Iran is a direct result of the Bush's administration's ham-handed and mendacious Iraq policy.

Under normal circumstances - that is, under any previous US administration - the battle over Iran's pugnacious effort in pursuit of nuclear technology would be amenable to a diplomatic solution. But, by insisting on a national security strategy of pre-emptive war, by illegally and unilaterally invading Iraq on false pretenses, and by hinting that the White House would tolerate an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear plants, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have made a successful diplomatic resolution of the Iran crisis nearly impossible.

Speaking yesterday at the Council for National Policy, Larry Wilkerson - the former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell who caused a stir last fall when he accused Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of operating a "cabal" - said that it is likely that Pentagon officials are polishing contingency plans for a strike against Iran. Iran, said Wilkerson, is the "principal winner" from the war in Iraq. As a result of the power of the Shiite religious forces in Iraq, he said, the Iranians "own the south" of Iraq. Wilkerson insisted that the United States ought to "talk to the people who really matter in Iran" - i.e., to the ayatollahs. But he said that US policy has failed so utterly that the door to negotiations with Iran is virtually closed. "When you close the door to diplomacy, you have no other option but to rely on military power," he said. "I hope to hell we don't have to use it."

Without diplomatic tools, the looming showdown with Iran is potentially even more dangerous than the Iraq war. Iran is a far larger and more complex country, with the capability of retaliating against a US/Israeli attack by fomenting civil war in Iraq, by creating regional chaos in the Gulf, and by mobilizing its significant international terrorist capability against Western targets.

As it did in the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration - along with Israel - is content to exaggerate the threat from Iran. The ayatollahs appear to be at least five years or more away from a serious nuclear capacity, according to US intelligence reports. Iran's recent decision to restart one part of its nuclear research is indeed a serious threat to diplomatic talks aimed at resolving the matter peacefully. But the issue is nowhere near an end-game stage. There is plenty of time, years in fact, for a back-and-forth effort to secure Iran's compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

By crying wolf over Iraq, through claiming that Saddam Hussein's regime had an active nuclear arms program, the United States lacks credibility when it now asserts that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And by its illegal, unilateral invasion of Iraq, without allowing the UN and the IAEA to proceed with inspections there, the United States has made other countries extremely wary of taking Iran to the UN Security Council, out of fear that it might give the United States or Israel a pretext to attack Iran unilaterally.

But the international community's justified fear that the United States is controlled by a war party seeking to attack Iran makes other states' diplomacy even harder. Normally, the five UN Security Council powers would take up the matter with some urgency, adopt a resolution demanding Iran compliance, and threaten political and economic sanctions against Iran for non-compliance. But Moscow, Beijing and Paris remember what happened in Iraq. That matter was taken to the UNSC, a resolution passed - and then Washington declared unilaterally that Iraq had violated it, and went to war. So the world's capitals may be forgiven for being reluctant to drag Iran into the UNSC in 2006.

The fact that John Bolton, the belligerent, war-mongering neoconservative who serves as US ambassador to the UN, takes over as president of the Security Council in February doesn't help.

Bolton, Cheney and their allies are pushing for a showdown in the UNSC, even though it is highly unlikely that either Russia or China would support anti-Iran sanctions. India, the Arab League and other countries would strongly oppose such measures. And even Western Europe, furious over Iran for its latest effrontery, doesn't view sanctions on Iran as a happy outcome. Their resistance to anti-Iran measures comes despite a string of outrageous provocations from Iranian President Ahmadinejad, from demanding that Israel be "wiped off the map" to pooh-poohing the Holocaust to haughtily restarting Iran's nuclear research.

It is impossible to deny that Iran is a dangerous, out-of-control regime - yes, a "rogue" regime. But, had the Bush administration maintained a consistent policy of seeking a dialogue with Iran, had the neocons refrained from demanding regime change and military action, had President Bush not referred to Iran as part of a mythical "axis of evil," and had the United States not immensely strengthened Iran's position by handing it Iraq on a silver platter, diplomacy would stand a better chance. A package deal, giving Iran political acceptance and economic incentives, combined with a regulated nuclear technology regime, in exchange for Iran's backing down from its hard-line stance, could likely have been reached over time. It may still, but it seems highly unlikely now.

So we are left with persistent reports that both the United States and Israel are planning to strike Iran, and soon. Not only would such an attack result in a vastly wider conflict in Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, but it would also probably push oil prices well over $100 a barrel, making $5-a-gallon gas a reality. Perhaps, because the international community wants to avoid such a catastrophe, and because the United States is exerting enormous pressure on Russia, China and other world powers, first the IAEA and then the UNSC might vote to sanction Iran. If so, Iran will certainly not back down. And as a result, the United States will have the pretext it seeks to go to war once again.

Some Democrats - and even a fair number of moderate and libertarian Republicans - expect the November 2006 elections to take place against the backdrop of a failed occupation of Iraq. Instead, those same elections might take place in the midst of yet another crisis manufactured by the Bush administration.

Elphaba · 01-12-2006, 10:38 PM

The Russian government has made a small compromise.

The same Truthout Link from above

Quote:

Russia Won't Block US on Iran
By Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post

Thursday 12 January 2006

Commitment is cited by officials pressing for IAEA vote.

The Bush administration, working intensely to galvanize international pressure on Iran, has secured a guarantee from Russia that it will not block US efforts to take Tehran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, American and European officials said yesterday.

The commitment, made in a Tuesday night phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, will likely help the United States and its European allies win support from key countries weighing a tougher line in response to Iran's resumption of sensitive nuclear work.

Vice President Cheney and British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested yesterday that Iran now faces the possibility of UN economic sanctions if it does not halt nuclear enrichment research it began Tuesday.

According to three senior diplomats who were briefed on the call, Lavrov told Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against US efforts to move the issue from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Security Council. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed to reporters that Rice had spoken with Lavrov and other foreign ministers but did not divulge details.

Russia's pledge was good only for when a vote takes place inside the IAEA. US officials said they remain uncertain as to how Moscow, a traditional ally of Iran's, would react if the issue gets to the Security Council, where Moscow is one of five countries with veto power.

Still, Bush administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity saw the Russian decision as a victory and said they would spend the next several weeks lobbying China for a similar commitment. "We spent much of our time working on the Russians, but we're now moving the focus to China," said one administration official who would only discuss the backroom diplomacy on the condition of anonymity.

The White House is hoping the IAEA board will refer Iran's case to the Security Council before President Bush delivers the State of the Union address at the end of the month, according to two senior administration officials.

Four years ago, in his annual address, Bush referred to Iran as a one of three "axis of evil" countries, along with Iraq and North Korea. But his administration has been criticized by friends and opponents for failing to come up with a strategy to curb Iran's nuclear program.

The White House has been pushing for more than two years to bring Iran's case before the Security Council, but only now - as a result of Iran's recent actions - has it found a chance to win enough international support to do so. The timing is ideal, US officials said. John R. Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, takes over the presidency of the Security Council for one month beginning on Feb. 1, giving Washington the opportunity to place Iran at the top of the council agenda.

In an interview yesterday with Fox News Radio, Cheney said "the number one item on the agenda" at the Security Council would be a "resolution that could be enforced by sanctions." He cautioned that the process, still in flux, was "speculative at this point" but added, "that will be the next step once the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency meets and concludes that the diplomatic track they've been on isn't going to work."

In London, Blair told parliament that sanctions are a serious option. "We don't rule out any measures at all," Blair said. "It is important Iran recognizes how seriously the international community treats it."

The foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany, who are now closely allied with Washington's position on Iran, are expected to call today for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board to vote on sending Iran's case to New York.

They are assured of winning a majority of the votes from the board's 35 members. But diplomats from all three countries, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the meeting may not take place in time for Bush's speech, saying they may need several more weeks to lobby China and other influential board members, such as India. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns will travel to India next week to press for its support.

"We expect the meeting will most likely take place around the beginning of February," one European official said.

Robert Einhorn, who was assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation until 2001, said it would be best to press Russian and China for more than abstentions. "What we need to do now is get the Russians and Chinese to tell the Iranians they won't be in a position to help them out in the [Security] Council if they go forward with this work," he said. "If the Russians and Chinese told them that, it would have quite an impact in Tehran."

Iran says its program is designed solely to generate electricity, but the Bush administration is convinced Tehran is using it as a pathway to a nuclear bomb. So far, the IAEA has not found proof of a weapons program, but Iran's cooperation with inspectors has been shaky, and many questions remain unanswered.

I am not keen about the Bush administration pushing for sanctions immediately, simply to make a nice sound bite to the upcoming State of the Union address. Haven't we done the "axis of evil" speech before?

pan6467 · 01-12-2006, 11:17 PM

What happens if we go to war with Iran and once inside we find no WMD or nuclear warhead factories..... only reactor sites?

Where will we stand in the international community then? What will our "word" be worth?

And for those who take the Neo-Con stance "who cares what the world thinks of us?" I say, you are hypocrits and idiots because you believe the trade deficits we run up and the investment in our money these countries, such as China, are ok. But what they think of us doesn't matter?

That's like a District Attorney saying I owe the Mafia big money, but fuck them I'll just keep trying to convict their friends and they won't do anything.

Yeah, right, till Frankie comes calling with some cement shoes.

Yeah right as we see China and others dump the dollar for the Euro, sell our debt for pennies on the dollar and/or decide to collect.

Then what? We go to war with the BILLION man army?

We decide to nuke them and in turn destroy and kill everyone?

The madness has to stop, we are no longer in control. As long as other countries own our debt, they own what we do and we either work to pay it off or we sit smile and listen to what they say.

The GOP wants so desperately to make this a global economy, allowed businesses to leave without any fights and allowed the trade deficit and national debt to balloon to deadly heights and yet they want to say "fuck what they think of us?"....... Damn, must be nice to live in that fantasy world where the US is still #1.

I'm not a US hater, I hate what the greed in corporations, our government and the rich have done to this country. I believe we owe our country more, we owe it to our kids and grandkids to have the chances our parents and grandparents and some of us older posters had. With the way things are now..... we not only have taken those chances for advancement away, but we are leaving them with serious debts that WILL have to be paid by them. And that is unforgiveable.

loganmule · 01-12-2006, 11:23 PM

Elphaba And MoonDog correctly point out that Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. Before the current Iranian leadership came into power, I held out hope that there might be a diplomatic solution, but with Iran now bluntly saying that Israel needs to get out, it is hardly surprising that the timeline for a pre-emptive strike has been moved up to a few months (I had heard that Israel previously had a one year timeline). The United Nations won't move quickly or decisively enough to be a factor, whether or not there is a veto issue. Israel will hit Iran...the interesting and scary part is trying to figure out the consequenses of that.

01-10-2006, 12:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	Curious read, no Iran will not be next. __________________ 0PtIcAl

01-10-2006, 02:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the current regime in Iran is too dangerous to have BB guns, let alone nuclear weapons. If Iran isn't brought in to line, we'll be seeing another communist rise in Russia, with a nuclear Iran at the head in the ME. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-10-2006, 04:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	"Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies." SCUD and state-of-the-art don't go together in any sentence. Anyway, no Iran won't be next - the US has neither the resources nor political will to wage 3 wars at once, especially not one that would be the last straw for the Muslim world. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-10-2006, 05:34 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The Bush Admin already used up their trump cards when they built their "case for Iraq". They will not attack Iran. Lame duck presidents do not go to war. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-10-2006, 06:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	but they will lob bombs in to the country. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-10-2006, 12:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Bush Re-elected. Economy is up. Elections are generally considered a major success. Iraqi Security Forces control 2 major Iraqi cities and are taking over more. Yet reading TruthOut one would think we should be building bomb shelters in our backyards and our military are dying in higher casualty rate than Okinowa.

01-10-2006, 06:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Yes they will. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-10-2006, 06:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Wasn't it Johnson who said we weren't going into Cambodia and a few weeks later we were in? I look for our troops to get close to the Iran border shots fired a casualty, or 2 and we'll have the excuse to go to war. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-10-2006, 07:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
DanV Upright	highthief, not having the money or military resources to wage 3 wars doesn't mean they will not. It only means they don't have what they need. On the other hand, it's been roumoured that Bush (or whoever is playing the cards) will go after Iran and Syria for quite a while now, and nothing has proven that right. All we can do is wait and see ... Cheers, Dan __________________ True friends stab from the front. -- Oscar Wilde.

01-10-2006, 07:18 AM	#12 (permalink)
Guinevere Upright Location: in a lovely place	God Forbid. I lived there in the 70s. Damn beautiful people and culture. Friends who've travel there recently say the theocracy does not speak for the MAJORITY of the people. They lived oppressed lives and are forced to march in support of a government they abhor. So before anyone considers lobbing bombs as an option, they should realize the collateral damage inflicted on the innocent--which are the majority.

01-10-2006, 07:46 AM	#13 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Inerestingly, that description of Iran sounds a lot like the way many in the world view the USA... with specific reference to Administration versus the populace. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-10-2006, 08:43 AM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Consent for war can be manufactured. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-10-2006, 08:58 AM	#16 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	The news I'm reading mostly consists of talks between Iran, Russia, the EU, Australia, and the UN. A small minority is Bush chiming in on things. (Not that he isn't considering jumping in if the others don't handle it.) It'll come down to Russia and how much Mr. Nutball Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners want/need to save face and give up their "right to refine." History shows he can make mint by screwing with Western powers, so he's in a great negotiating position. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

01-10-2006, 11:17 AM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I suspect that Iran should be afraid of the current administration ruling over the US (e.i. Bushites). While I doubt an invasion a la Iraq as of 2003 is in order (espically considering how it is going as of 2006), I don't doubt that bombings a la Iraq all throughout the 90s might be. We have shown that we are not afraid to rain death on a country for over a decade from planes that the Iranians have no chance against. Last edited by Willravel; 01-10-2006 at 11:38 AM.. Reason: clairity, thanks for the heads up, alpha

01-10-2006, 09:01 PM	#26 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I think what is missing in this speculative article is the choice Israel might make, given the Iranian President has declared that Israel should be removed from the map. I have a concern about which direction the Israeli government will take under their next leadership. They struck Iraq's nuclear facility in the past and don't see them hesitant to do the same to Iran.

01-10-2006, 10:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	THAT should be your real concern. If Israel reacts with military force to Iran's nuclear efforts, then will the US be dragged into the quagmire to keep it from puffing away into the desert wind when the missiles hit? I really can't see the US doing a solo on Iran. It has been said already: they are not all that weak, like Iraq or Afghanistan; they have allies - STRONG allies (Russia, China) interested in the economic benefits of their relationship; the US is stretched thin with two military efforts; the US political capital to wage another such effort is practically non-existent. Nope, I really can't see it. Even if the US hoped that a quick invasion would spark a popular revolt and overturn the mullahs, I would think that they would have some lessons learned from both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would HOPE they do, at least!

01-11-2006, 05:30 AM	#31 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Funny that no-one has mentioned the rumoured Iranian oil bourse. In 2000, Saddam decided that all Iraqi oil (25% of the world's stock) would trade in Euro ONLY. Cue Invasions 1 and 2. As soon as the US gained control of the Ministry of Oil and the oilfields, they changed the currency for trading oil back to the dollar at a loss of about 17% to the Iraqis due to Euro/Dollar differences. In 2004, Iran announced that it would be attempting to create a trading bourse similiar to NYMEX, LPE or IPE (All American owned). It would also trade only in Euros. Soon after, we heard about the axis of evil and nuclear research over there. Iranian oil bourse ambitions are more dangerous to the US than a nuclear weapon. They don't have a delivery system for nukes, don't have the infrastructure to build weapons capable of reaching the US for years. The biggest risk is Israel, does the US really want to be in the area arguing if Iran or Syria detonate one in Israel? A simple standoff nuclear attack would be simpler, more effective and probably agreed with by European states were Iran to do something so stupid. England would probably have one or two Tridents standing by just for the hell of it and test our own systems in a live fire exercise. A Euro/oil trading system though would seriously rock the US petrodollar value. You don't have any reserves over there of value anymore. You import more than you need and keep raising the national dept because of it, but you need to to keep the petrodollar high. Example: If japan wants to buy oil, at the moment they need to do it in Dollars. Therefore they need to get dollars by selling goods cheap to America. (Cars, Electronics) The US then prints up some dollars and gives them to the Japanese who buy oil on the markets (giving a cut to the US companies that own the exchanges). The oil gets shipped to Japan, never touching US soil. Then, countries like Saudi Arabia, bank that money back in the US federal Reserve. Money for nothing. Do you think that the US military machine can withstand it's financial backer (US Govt) going bankrupt should it's primary income fall do to oil going through the hands of the Euro? Whether or not Iran can actually pull it off is another matter as, due to sanctions, they are limited in what they can export/import. However, as the US has shown, all it needs to do is facilitate the meeting between buyer and seller.

01-11-2006, 06:16 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	WillyPete... I didn't know about Iran's push to trade in Euros. That would definately piss off the US. It is today's equivalent of Mossadegh's nationalizing Iranian oil back in the 50s. The only difference here is that what Seaver says is true. The youth of Iran are coming. Change is in the air. This gives the moderates in the West something to point to and say... Just have patience. That and the fact that a lot of treasure has already been spent on Iraq. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-11-2006, 05:07 PM	#35 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The intel on Irans nuclear capabilities is HIGHLY SUSPECT, as suspect in fact as the information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082201447.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101453_pf.html All I can say is we're doing this again, can someone PLEASE stop us? Can we stop bombings and death BEFORE it comes to light that Iran wasn't a danger to anyone, instead of after?

01-11-2006, 05:42 PM	#36 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I wish I knew how, Will. I believe the EU members made a genuine effort to diffuse this situation. It is illogical for Iran to go down this road, given what little we know. It's what we don't know that is driving this confrontation IMO.

01-12-2006, 11:17 PM	#39 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What happens if we go to war with Iran and once inside we find no WMD or nuclear warhead factories..... only reactor sites? Where will we stand in the international community then? What will our "word" be worth? And for those who take the Neo-Con stance "who cares what the world thinks of us?" I say, you are hypocrits and idiots because you believe the trade deficits we run up and the investment in our money these countries, such as China, are ok. But what they think of us doesn't matter? That's like a District Attorney saying I owe the Mafia big money, but fuck them I'll just keep trying to convict their friends and they won't do anything. Yeah, right, till Frankie comes calling with some cement shoes. Yeah right as we see China and others dump the dollar for the Euro, sell our debt for pennies on the dollar and/or decide to collect. Then what? We go to war with the BILLION man army? We decide to nuke them and in turn destroy and kill everyone? The madness has to stop, we are no longer in control. As long as other countries own our debt, they own what we do and we either work to pay it off or we sit smile and listen to what they say. The GOP wants so desperately to make this a global economy, allowed businesses to leave without any fights and allowed the trade deficit and national debt to balloon to deadly heights and yet they want to say "fuck what they think of us?"....... Damn, must be nice to live in that fantasy world where the US is still #1. I'm not a US hater, I hate what the greed in corporations, our government and the rich have done to this country. I believe we owe our country more, we owe it to our kids and grandkids to have the chances our parents and grandparents and some of us older posters had. With the way things are now..... we not only have taken those chances for advancement away, but we are leaving them with serious debts that WILL have to be paid by them. And that is unforgiveable. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 01-12-2006 at 11:27 PM..

01-12-2006, 11:23 PM	#40 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	Elphaba And MoonDog correctly point out that Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. Before the current Iranian leadership came into power, I held out hope that there might be a diplomatic solution, but with Iran now bluntly saying that Israel needs to get out, it is hardly surprising that the timeline for a pre-emptive strike has been moved up to a few months (I had heard that Israel previously had a one year timeline). The United Nations won't move quickly or decisively enough to be a factor, whether or not there is a veto issue. Israel will hit Iran...the interesting and scary part is trying to figure out the consequenses of that.