War With Iran

[tabs]

Pat, You always express such rightious indigination about the illegality of it all. Well Patsy it absolutely does no good to be so tangential. get off your high horse and talk about what is REAL and not some pie in the sky fantasy land you always keep trying to live in.

[tabs]

Drauz...What makes U think the Persians and Arabs are reasonable and will act it their own best Oil interest. Don't U think that the Saudis, Jordians would see it would be in their best interest to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. To advert Iranian hegemony in the Region. That U might say thrumps their oil interest.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by dd74
Pat - touching back on what Tabs said about power hating vacuums - I think he's onto something. Look at China and their growing pains. For example, 10,000,000 cars will be needed by the Chinese in the next twenty years. If I were the Chinese, it would behoove my well being if the U.S. were to lose Iraq and the rest of the M.E., so I could move on in there and take what I need. I realize what you're saying with the 93% that you cite - I imagine you include Venezuela in that percentage, which is at this moment Socialist. But while we pull away from foreign interests, is it really safe to have the Chinese in bed with the Iranians and possibly Iraqis? Who is to say that sort of union won't one day threaten the soverignty of the U.S.?

We do so much business with the Chinese that any kind of open conflict between the two nations would destroy or at least severly damage both economies, as well as the world economy.

IMO China is a massively over-inflated threat.

Besides, we would kick the living snot out of them in the most likely military scenarios. They know this.

[tabs]

China vs the USA...give me a break today.

If the USA did as Patsy suggests and becomes non-interventionist and disbanded 90% of our military then according to the Shadow Minister of Defense in the UK "Global Security would collapse." and right along with it the World economy. The United States is the Global economy, it is becoming one large economy. In the place of the US would be a number of nations each vieing for their share of power in the world, a period of intense instability and war would ensue. There is absolutely no way this is going to happen, it would be tantamount for all you Boyz to give up your lifestyle and head off to Montana and live like Teddy Kozinsky did, while allowing the Mexicans to take over your house, car and bank accounts.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by tabs
China vs the USA...give me a break today.

If the USA did as Patsy suggests and becomes non-interventionist and disbanded 90% of our military then according to the Shadow Minister of Defense in the UK "Global Security would collapse." and right along with it the World economy. The United States is the Global economy, it is becoming one large economy. In the place of the US would be a number of nations each vieing for their share of power in the world, a period of intense instability and war would ensue. There is absolutely no way this is going to happen, it would be tantamount for all you Boyz to give up your lifestyle and head off to Montana and live like Teddy Kozinsky did, while allowing the Mexicans to take over your house, car and bank accounts.

I think we know what government would say about losing 90% of it's muscle, of course it would warn everyone about the dire consequences of it. Imagine not being able to enforce government edicts on anyone, the terror! Imagine having to actually compete for sales and purchases with others, the anguish.

Boo-hoo.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by m21sniper
We do so much business with the Chinese that any kind of open conflict between the two nations would destroy or at least severly damage both economies, as well as the world economy.

IMO China is a massively over-inflated threat.

Besides, we would kick the living snot out of them in the most likely military scenarios. They know this.

You are correct, China is only a threat via trade. Other than right next door, China has no history or culture of international conquest of any kind. Their last emperor wasn't Chinese.

[tabs]

Pray tell what is going to prevent another Nation from using its "muscle" to support its corporate interests. Augustus Caesar was always fond of saying, " Well in another 5 years things will be alittle better, I'll hand over power to the Senate and Rome will become a Repblic again." However he was shrewd enough to realize that the only way he was going to leave being Emperor was feet first.

[livi]

Perhaps CIA is currently tapping in to Pelican when certain terms and country names are flagged at there servers.

They might pick up some good advice..

[tabs]

They don't listen to good advice, all they listen to is dogma.

[livi]

Maybe we need Mr. Stallone to get back into his Rambo suit..

That would show them.

[drauz]

"What makes U think the Persians and Arabs are reasonable and will act it their own best Oil interest. ..."

They are quite "reasonable" when the issue is their selfish national security interest. Oil is not trumpable in their world, even though it isn't their sole value. Their elites are Western educated and trained, they appreciate the predicament they are in. Only a superpower can get away with deluding itself - and not for long. For our client Arab states (throw in Egypt & the Emirates), sure, they'd prefer Iran to be quiescent - they would also be thrilled to see the US acting like a Great Power ought (walk softly w/ big stick), perhaps work the Palestinian Issue via a diplomatic track (what a concept!). Their biggest concern is chain-reaction conflict triggered by US behavior (or lack thereof). Their systems are highly sensitive to instability. In an ironic way, the domino theory may have found a home.

As to Iranian hegemony, their power is more potential than actual, their leadership is flailing (visiting Daniel Ortega - now THAT's an impressive move) and lacks broad domestic support - the reign of mullahs may be coming to an end - our threats may serve more to prop them up than anything. Meanwhile, their nuclear neighbors; China, India, Pakistan & Russia, if properly worked, are our natural allies in countering bad behavior, but we prefer a unilateral blowhard strategy.

Btw, the CIA is not particularly dogmatic - unless you consider careerism a dogma. Yes, recent political appointees have been ideological (consider the Appointer), and yes, they became a moribund Cold War-centric bureaucracy, but change is always tough. Also, there is a tremendous amount of high quality scholarship & analysis in the Intel community. The problem is having reliable, non-dogmatic Leadership that can listen and won't punish the messenger. We ain't got that.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by drauz
"What makes U think the Persians and Arabs are reasonable and will act it their own best Oil interest. ..."

They are quite "reasonable" ...yadda, yadda, yadda

Me thinks you are too reasonable for this board. You need to tone down the logic and informed statements and just make knee jerk emotional reactions.

[fastpat]

Well, well, it was only a matter of time for this to take place. One of the new replacement Generals, more compliant with Bush II, has issued a statement that plays well with the Bush II desire to attack Iran. Naturally, the absurdity of Bush accusing another country of meddling in the mideast is apparently lost on many people.

Here it comes, boys and girls, ready or not.

General says U.S. has proof Iran arming Iraqi militias
By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with a variety of powerful weapons including Katyusha rockets, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday.

"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY.

His comments came as the Bush administration has been taking an increasingly tough stance against what it alleges is Iranian meddling in sectarian violence in Iraq. Last week, the White House confirmed that the president had authorized U.S. troops to take action against Iranian agents in Iraq who present threats.

On Tuesday, President Bush vowed to crack down on those who supply Iraqi insurgents with arms, though he denied any plans to invade Iran.

"We'll deal with it by finding their supply chains and their agents and … arresting them. … In other words, we're going to protect our troops," Bush told ABC News.

Odierno did not provide further details on how weapons were linked to Iran. The Iranian government has denied providing weapons to Iraqi militias. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-30-iraq-iran_x.htm?csp=34

[tabs]

I think this is funny...Congress is going to pass a Resolution saying they opose the war in Iraq and GW is flipping them off by going ahead and starting a war with Iran, saying "I may not be around to finish it, but I'm gona start it."

So the next Prez will start off in her new job with a war in Iraq, Iran and Afganistan.

[fastpat]

Pat Buchanan has it squarely analyzed. Of particular interest is the non-lobby Israeli Lobby's propaganda campaing framed by "Bibi" Netanyahu.

Hysteria at Herzliya
by Patrick J. Buchanan

When Congress finally decides on just the right language for its "non-binding resolution" deploring Bush's leadership in this war, it might consider a resolution to keep us out of the next one.

For America is on a collision course with an Iran of 70 million, and the folks who stampeded us into Iraq are firing pistols in the air again.

At the annual Herzliya Conference, U.S. presidential aspirants, neoconservatives, and Israeli hawks were all invoking the Holocaust and warning of the annihilation of the Jews.

Israel's "Bibi" Netanyahu, who compares Iran's Ahmadinejad to Hitler, said: "The world that didn't stop the Holocaust last time can stop it this time. … Who will lead the effort against genocide if not us? The world will not stand up on behalf of the Jews if the Jews do not stand up on behalf of the world."

Said former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz: "Iran is the heart of the problem in the Middle East. It is the most urgent threat facing the world, and needs to be dealt with before it's too late." After meeting with the Department of State's Nicholas Burns, Mofaz called 2007 "a year of decision."

Richard Perle assured the conference that Bush will attack Iran rather than see it acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings:

"[C]itizens who do not wake up every morning and think about possible catastrophic civilian casualties are deluding themselves.

"Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. … I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. … Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.

"If we knew that tomorrow morning we would lose Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem, what would we do to stop it? If we knew that we would tomorrow lose Boston, San Francisco, or Atlanta, what would we do?"

Mitt Romney agreed. Ahmadinejad's Iran is more dangerous than Khrushchev's Soviet Union, which put missiles in Cuba. For the Soviets "were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime [Iran] that celebrates martyrdom."

Ehud Olmert, mired in scandal, his popularity in the tank after the Lebanon fiasco, was as hawkish as Bibi: "The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to let itself face the threat of annihilation once again. … We will stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them."

Came then U.S. peace candidate John Edwards. Keeping Iran from nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation. … To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. … Let me reiterate – all options."

Wrote the Financial Times' Philip Stephens of Herzliya, "I gave up counting the times I heard the words 'existential threat' to describe Iran's nuclear program capability."

A few weeks back, according to UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave, Netanyahu declared that Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the United States – the goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the [U.S.] government, the Congress, and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

Israel's war is to be sold as America's war.

The project is underway. According to Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor of the Guardian, Israeli media are reporting that the assignment to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran has been given to Meir Dagan, head of Mossad.

Listening to the war talk, Gen. Wesley Clark exploded to Arianna Huffington: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office-seekers."

The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe was ordered out of ranks and dressed down by Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. But Matt Yglesias of The American Prospect, himself Jewish, says Clark spoke truth: "[I]t's true that major Jewish organizations are pushing this country into war with Iran."

Yet is the hysteria at Herzliya justified? Consider:

Not once since its 1979 revolution has Iran started a war. In any war with America, or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, Iran would not be annihilating anyone. Iran would be risking annihilation.

Not only has Iran no nukes, the Guardian reported yesterday, "Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium … are in chaos." That centrifuge facility at Natanz is "archaic, prone to breakdown, and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production."

There is no need for war. Yet, Israelis, neocons, and their agents of influence are trying to whip us into one. Senators who are seeking absolution for having voted to take us into Iraq ought to be confronted and asked just what they are doing to keep us out of a war in Iran.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10429

[fastpat]

Israeli national security expert on the Iranian threat.

Israeli Internal Assessments of Iran Belie Threat Rhetoric
by Gareth Porter

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared last week at the Herzliya conference that Israel could not risk another "existential threat" such as the Holocaust, he was repeating what has become the dominant theme in Israel's campaign against Iran – that it cannot tolerate an Iran with the technology that could be used to make nuclear weapons, because Iran is fanatically committed to the physical destruction of Israel.

The internal assessment by the Israeli national security apparatus of the Iranian threat, however, is more realistic than the government's public rhetoric would indicate.

Since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in August 2005, Israel has effectively exploited his image as someone who is particularly fanatical about destroying Israel to develop the theme of Iran's threat of a "second Holocaust" by using nuclear weapons.

But such alarmist statements do not accurately reflect the strategic thinking of the Israeli national security officials. In fact, Israelis began in the early 1990s to use the argument that Iran is irrational about Israel and could not be deterred from a nuclear attack if it ever acquired nuclear weapons, according to an account by independent analyst Trita Parsi on Iranian-Israeli strategic relations to be published in March. Meanwhile, the internal Israeli view of Iran, Parsi told IPS in an interview, "is completely different."

Parsi, who interviewed many Israeli national security officials for his book, says, "The Israelis know that Iran is a rational regime, and they have acted on that presumption." His primary evidence of such an Israeli assessment is that the Israelis purchased Dolphin submarines from Germany in 1999 and 2004 that have been reported to be capable of carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

It is generally recognized that the only purpose of such cruise-missile equipped submarines would be to deter an enemy from a surprise attack by having a reliable second-strike capability.

Despite the fact that Israel has long been known to possess at least 100 nuclear weapons, Israeli officials refuse to discuss their own nuclear capability and how it relates to deterring Iran.

Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona, a former Pentagon official who visited Israel last November, recalls that Israeli officials uniformly told his group of eight U.S. military analysts they believed Iran was "perfectly willing to launch a first strike against Israel," if it obtained nuclear weapons.

But when they were asked about their own nuclear capabilities in general, and the potentially nuclear-armed submarine fleet in particular, Francona says, the Israelis would not comment.

In fact, Israeli strategic specialists do discuss how to deter Iran among themselves. An article in the online journal of a hard-line think-tank, the Ariel Center for Policy Research, in August 2004 revealed that "one of the options that has been considered should Iran publicly declare itself to have nuclear weapons is for Israel to put an end to what is called its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' or 'opacity.'"

The author, Shalom Freedman, said that in light of Israel's accumulation of "over 100 nuclear weapons" and its range of delivery systems for them, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons within a few years, the "tremendous disproportion between the strength of Israel and an emergent nuclear Iran should serve as a deterrent."

Even after Ahmadinejad's election in mid-2005, a prominent Israeli academic and military expert has insisted that Israel can still deter a nuclear Iran. In two essays published in September and October 2005, Dr. Ephraim Kam, deputy head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and a former analyst for the Israeli Defense Forces, wrote that Iran had to assume that any nuclear attack on Israel would result in very serious U.S. retaliation.

Therefore, even though he regarded a nuclear Iran as likely to be more aggressive, Kam concluded it is "doubtful whether Iran would actually exercise a nuclear bomb against Israel – or any other country – despite its basic rejection of Israel's existence."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10435

[Jim Richards]

I would like to see the administration work the Iran issue the same way they're finally headed with N. Korea. Saber rattling will only inflame the situation. All options should be held in reserve, but diplomacy and economic pressure should be allowed to run their course.

I do not think we should let ourselves be goaded into another war as protector or as proxy for another state.

I also would like to see a serious effort on our country's part to reduce our economic interests in the Middle East.

I would also like to win the Powerball.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
I would like to see the administration work the Iran issue the same way they're finally headed with N. Korea. Saber rattling will only inflame the situation. All options should be held in reserve, but diplomacy and economic pressure should be allowed to run their course.

I do not think we should let ourselves be goaded into another war as protector or as proxy for another state.

I also would like to see a serious effort on our country's part to reduce our economic interests in the Middle East.

I would also like to win the Powerball.

China is the stopper for the Bush II regime's actions in that sector. Russia should act in a much more aggressive manner in stopping US government aggression against Iran, but so far have only acted much less supportive than China. That may change, though.

[Jim Richards]

I still would like to win the Powerball.