USA's next war target: Iran
-
This thread will monitor moves made by USA against Iran as USA's bid for global hegemony continues.
-
The AdministrationÂ’s plan for Iran
By Seymour M. Hersh
09/30/07 "The New Yorker" -- - October 8, 2007 - - In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The President has made it clear that the United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran. The State Department is working diligently along with the international community to address our broad range of concerns.” (The White House declined to comment.)
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)
“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”
In a speech at the United Nations last week, Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was defiant. He referred to America as an “aggressor” state, and said, “How can the incompetents who cannot even manage and control themselves rule humanity and arrange its affairs? Unfortunately, they have put themselves in the position of God.” (The day before, at Columbia, he suggested that the facts of the Holocaust still needed to be determined.)...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18484.htm -
Iran got oil contracts with Russia and China for 20 to 30 years
If Iran got attacked and occupied their contracts and investment will be gone
Will Russia and China sit down and see their money turned into ashes?
-
Will Pakistan borrow his muslim brother Iran some nuclear weapons in the event of invasion?
-
summarise........
-
I think a lot of people misunderstand something about the US. Just because public opinion reflects disapproval on the policies and the government, doesn't mean that they won't carry out those policies.
Every president leaves office being less popular than when he's sworn in, hence at this point, he doesn't give a hoot about popularity anymore, and will commence attacks on Iran if its deemed necessary.
If every leader submits to what the majority of his people think, then whats the point of having a president? -
If every leader submits to what the majority of his people think, then whats the point of having a president?
That's the whole point of democracy; the people makes the decisions, not the president or government. -
Then which country is truly a democracy ?Originally posted by Slipshade:That's the whole point of democracy; the people makes the decisions, not the president or government. -
singaporeOriginally posted by kramnave:Then which country is truly a democracy ? -
Iran
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/2255/37/
For greater justice. -
well we have to see who will win the next election. The republican or the democrats.
You all notice that repub president always had a wal on their belt while democrats ony had couple of low intensity conflicts.. -
That democracy you speak of has not been practiced since ancient times in Athens.Originally posted by Slipshade:That's the whole point of democracy; the people makes the decisions, not the president or government.
The democracy we see around the world to day is representative. Means you elect a person to represent you, and you trust that he will make the best decision for you.
He doesn't have to treat the public's opinion as a mandate to act in a certain way. He has to do what is right and justify it later. Thats representative democracy. Thats the way even in the US.
How can anyone be sure what the majority "decides" is correct? Are they educated enough in the areas of specialised decisions?
If the people were left to make decisions, what happens when the people are unable to reach a consensus? Throw the whole country into a state of anarchy? And if the majority makes a decision that is detrimental to the country? Who pays the price?
While the people's opinion should not be treated as mandate, they shouldn't be ignored either. -
Osama bin Laden was kicking Bill Clinton arse repeatedly and all he did was fire some cruise missiles into the barren Afgan landscape.Originally posted by justcooler:well we have to see who will win the next election. The republican or the democrats.
You all notice that repub president always had a wal on their belt while democrats ony had couple of low intensity conflicts..
WTC attempted bombing.
Embassy bombing in Africa.
USS Cole bombing.
911 was planned in Clinton's shift, executed in Bush's shift.
G7 summit in Rome, which Clinton attended, has anti aircraft guns deployed around the venue. They knew of aircraft being used as weapons before 911.
The democrats allow the buildups.
The republicans bear the brunt. -
so where are the other muslim countries like indonesia, malaysia and turkey..never backup iran isit?
-
cannot afford another war but can cocok people for a change of regime,something the US is really good at.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Slipshade:
That's the whole point of democracy; the people makes the decisions, not the president or government.[/quo
Well, it is true that the people elect the government. However, they would have to live with that President or that Congress or Senate for however long their term/terms run. That is the result of the indirect form of democracy practiced throughout the world. The direct form of democracy which many people idealize as true democracy is just not feasible. -
where the hell is Dubbya and his bunch of idiots going to find more people? start the draft again?
-
Well, the last time they did, the whole social fabric of the country went into a tail-spin. I think George knows he has to cut and run, but he just wants to leave it to the next guy or woman. It seems like he is trying to preserve his legacy here. However, I do not believe at this juncture, history will be kind to him.
-
So you are in favour of Iran producing nuclear weaponsOriginally posted by Shotgun:I think a lot of people misunderstand something about the US. Just because public opinion reflects disapproval on the policies and the government, doesn't mean that they won't carry out those policies.
Every president leaves office being less popular than when he's sworn in, hence at this point, he doesn't give a hoot about popularity anymore, and will commence attacks on Iran if its deemed necessary.
If every leader submits to what the majority of his people think, then whats the point of having a president?
-
USA should attack Burma and not Iran
-
Iran is not Iraq. It has a well placed administrative system and a battle-hardened army. More importantly, it is far more homogeneous and is spared the kind of tribal rivalry that makes Iraq difficult to govern in the best of times. Most importantly, the nation is united against american aggression and this time round, not even the UK is likely to join the US in military action.
-
Kurds rebel attacked Turkey? Sure no insider job?
So will Turkey attack the kurds rebels by crossing the borders in Iraq and Iran?
If Turkey attacks the kurds rebels by crossing the Iraq and IRAN borders...
IT'S Turkey attacking Iran not USA but will USA support Turkey if Turkey crosses the Iranian border? -
Russian president has warned others not to touch Iran.
http://www.yahoo.com/s/135782/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_russia -
When Iran took over the US Embassy in Tehran - during the Presidency of 'Peanut Farmer' Jimmy Carter - the US should have declared war on Iran.
Unfortunately, the Bible hugging Peanut Farmer was not a strategic thinker.
Neither was Cowboy Bush Junior a strategic thinker either - who did not even understand the Arab philosophy that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
If only Cowboy Bush Junior had understood the nuances of this Arab thinking - after taking over the Presidency from Bill Clinton, he should have targetted Iran instead of Iraq, making Saddam Hussein more obedient by working with him to get rid of Iran; and at the same time change Saddam Hussein to be a better ruler instead of making Iraq today into a useless morass of pain and death - both for the Iraqis and the US.
Unfortunately, Cowboy Bush Jr. had a personal agenda to take a swipe at Saddam for insulting and taunting retired President G. Bush Senior.
The brainless and inexperience Cowboy Bush Jr. was further instigated by Cheney to take out Iraq, instead of taking a step back, and look at the entire geopolitical situation of the Middle-east - after taking out the Talibans in Afghanistan.
It would have been logical to snuff out the Ayatollahs in Iran, and Saddam would have been too eager to ally Iraq with any US effort to take on Iran.
Afghanistan will have been a quieter and safer place today if Iran had been neutralised, and Saddam will be around to control all the ethnic rivalries inside Iraq - and the US will have a tremedous leverage on Saddam and his sons to behave more humanely.
In any case, the US could still target Saddam later - after taking care of business in Iran.
Iran without the Ayatollahs and the fundamentalist radicals, will allow a large majority of educated and modern minded citizens to rise up internally against their religious oppressors, and take back the initiative to bring Iran back into a global world as they had known under the rule of the Shah of Iran. -
No.. US should attack Iran.. after guaranteeing its supply of energy to fuel its hardwares.. THEN proceed... to 'liberate' the oppressed. Next stop.. Malaysia!!Originally posted by t_a_s:USA should attack Burma and not Iran