The Iran Thread

[Amalgamax]

If you guys could just pray for these poor souls and friends of my family, it would be much appreciated.

Allah'u'Abha. Yes, I'll do that.

 

[Superman4ever]

"And here we...go!"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html

Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'
By Muhammad Cohen

NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an



air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned.

An attack on Iraq would fit the Bush administration's declared policy on Iraq. Administration officials questioned directly about military action against Iran routinely assert that "all options remain on the table".

Rockin' and a-reelin'
Senators and the Bush administration denied the resolution and terrorist declaration were preludes to an attack on Iran. However, attacking Iran rarely seems far from some American leaders' minds. Arizona senator and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain recast the classic Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann as "Bomb Iran". Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton promised "total obliteration" for Iran if it attacked Israel.

The US and Iran have a long and troubled history, even without the proposed air strike. US and British intelligence were behind attempts to unseat prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who nationalized Britain's Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, and returned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power in 1953. President Jimmy Carter's pressure on the Shah to improve his dismal human-rights record and loosen political control helped the 1979 Islamic revolution unseat the Shah.

But the new government under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini condemned the US as "the Great Satan" for its decades of support for the Shah and its reluctant admission into the US of the fallen monarch for cancer treatment. Students occupied the US Embassy in Teheran, holding 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. Eight American commandos died in a failed rescue mission in 1980. The US broke diplomatic relations with Iran during the hostage holding and has yet to restore them. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric often sounds lifted from the Khomeini era.

The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.

Sense in the senate
Details provided by the administration raised alarm bells on Capitol Hill, the source said. After receiving secret briefings on the planned air strike, Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said they would write a New York Times op-ed piece "within days", the source said last week, to express their opposition. Feinstein is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Senate offices were closed for the US Memorial Day holiday, so Feinstein and Lugar were not available for comment.

Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration's plan or their knowledge of it. However, going public on the issue, even without specifics, would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan.

The proposed air strike on Iran would have huge implications for geopolitics and for the ongoing US presidential campaign. The biggest question, of course, is how would Iran respond?

Iran's options
Iran could flex its muscles in any number of ways. It could step up support for insurgents in Iraq and for its allies throughout the Middle East. Iran aids both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Israel's Occupied Territories. It is also widely suspected of assisting Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.

Iran could also choose direct confrontation with the US in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, with which Iran shares a long, porous border. Iran has a fighting force of more than 500,000. Iran is also believed to have missiles capable of reaching US allies in the Gulf region.

Iran could also declare a complete or selective oil embargo on US allies. Iran is the second-largest oil exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and fourth-largest overall. About 70% of its oil exports go to Asia. The US has barred oil imports from Iran since 1995 and restricts US companies from investing there.

China is Iran's biggest customer for oil, and Iran buys weapons from China. Trade between the two countries hit US$20 billion last year and continues to expand. China's reaction to an attack on Iran is also a troubling unknown for the US.

Three for the money
The Islamic world could also react strongly against a US attack against a third predominantly Muslim nation. Pakistan, which also shares a border with Iran, could face additional pressure from Islamic parties to end its cooperation with the US to fight al-Qaeda and hunt for Osama bin Laden. Turkey, another key ally, could be pushed further off its secular base. American companies, diplomatic installations and other US interests could face retaliation from governments or mobs in Muslim-majority states from Indonesia to Morocco.

A US air strike on Iran would have seismic impact on the presidential race at home, but it's difficult to determine where the pieces would fall.

At first glance, a military attack against Iran would seem to favor McCain. The Arizona senator says the US is locked in battle across the globe with radical Islamic extremists, and he believes Iran is one of biggest instigators and supporters of the extremist tide. A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain.

On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

But an air strike will provoke reactions far beyond US voting booths. That would explain why two veteran senators, one Republican and one Democrat, were reportedly so horrified at the prospect.

 

[The Chairman]

As much as I don't like Iran's whack job president and do think he's an issue to be dealt with, we can't just go for another "shoot first, ask questions later" move. We need to either deal with Ahmedinijad (I probably massacred the spelling) face to face or wait until he strikes first.

 

[Bunker]

This is appalling. What I want to know is why can't they develop nuclear energy like any other advanced country in the world when we have thousands and thousands of ICBM's ready to strike anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. Bush is just a war mongering pig, 4,000 dead men and women...for what? So that we pay $4 at the pump or that our world image is will be tainted for sometime now? If you do just a little background check on his reasons for going to war in the first place, you will too be pissed off and disgusted. Let's see...Saddam had WMD's? False. Iraq was in talks with Bin Laden before 9/11? False. Iraq was a sponsor of terrosim? False.

The simple fact is that Bush is a liar, and his cronies are some the most coniving, power hungry scumbags walking this earth. The Iraq War is a crime against humanity and our economy has been driven into the ground. Worst president ever? I think so.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

Is this a real news report? If it is,then it's horrible indeed. America will be finally put in it's place. But why? I don't see the sense of this. One bad thing won't change another.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

 

[Superman4ever]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.

 

[ObakeTora]

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.

Thats why we have the Amero to look forward to in 2011.

 

[Superman4ever]

Who said that this administration needs congress, hell if the VP isn't answerable to congress, why should the president? Congress hasn't stood up to this administration, they're not going to start now. Bush has a 19% approval rate and they STILL won't do ANY thing...or anything relevant.

When Cheney made the statement that he was not answerable to congress, they should of dragged his ass in and set him straight (he keeps saying it). Or that's what a congress, "for the people..." should do.

To add to this:

McClellan states Press was to soft on Bush Admin. And Bush used propaganda to sell war.

 

[Matt]

While I agree with McClellan, he is just trying to sell books so can't be taken TOO seriously.

 

[Marx]

Yeah....this is soooo not going to happen. Congress won't allow it and the military is stretched too thin as it is.

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

 

[Arc-Light]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

 

[Marx]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

But he won't be.

 

[hippie_hunter]

That would be a really bad..........Matt your right, he needs to be Impeached ASAP.

Too late to do any good. The guy has about half a year left it office. It's completely pointless to impeach him now, it should have been done years ago when it would have made some sort of difference, now it would be nothing but a pathetic political manuvere.

 

[Marx]

Too late to do any good. The guy has about half a year left it office. It's completely pointless to impeach him now, it should have been done years ago when it would have made some sort of difference, now it would be nothing but a pathetic political manuvere.

Any attempt would be railroaded by the Republicans anyway.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Any attempt would be railroaded by the Republicans anyway.

That's besides the point. Impeachment is just so freaking pointless now and frankly it would come off as more of a political manuvere since it's a little late for that.

 

[Marx]

That's besides the point. Impeachment is just so freaking pointless now and frankly it would come off as more of a political manuvere since it's a little late for that.

I completely agree that it's pointless now. What I am saying is that any previous attempt would have been railroaded by the Republicans.

 

[Alex The Great]

*Cough* Iraq *Cough*



nice move US of A. if u fail at Iraq try again with Iran

 

[Joker]

Bush is trying to go for the hat trick. Three wars in the middle east with three seperate countries at one time.

 

[Superman4ever]

Bush is trying to go for the hat trick. Three wars in the middle east with three seperate countries at one time.

A bunny would be cooler! He'd probably screw that up, too!

 

[lazur]

I agree. Regardless of what this President wants or believes, he will not get congressional authorization for something like this.

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

 

[Soundwave]

Why in God's name would we want to go into another war right now? It makes no sense at all, but we are talking about the Bush Administration so common sense goes out the window.

 

[Raiden]

I completely agree that it's pointless now. What I am saying is that any previous attempt would have been railroaded by the Republicans.

Yeah, Bush had the GOP majority 2 years ago so he wouldn't have been impeached for any reason unless he molested a six-year-old on live television, and now it's pointless anyway since he'll be out of office, not to mention that GOP has enough people to prevent a 2/3 majority.

 

[Darthphere]

While I agree with McClellan, he is just trying to sell books so can't be taken TOO seriously.

Two words: Jose Canseco.

 

[Matt]

Because of the President's Constitutional authority as Commander In Chief of the military, he does not need approval from Congress to declare war or to take whatever other military action he deems appropriate.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, because if he goes into Iran it will be a huge mistake and I would find that act appalling, but some of you people need a refresher course on our three branches of government and what they do and do not have the authority to do.

Actually it is you who needs the refresher. The President DOES need Congressional authority to declare war. Otherwise it is only a police action and I do believe there are some limitations for how long a police action can last (Though limitations such as the law has never stopped Bush before). He also would likely need funding for such an operation as to avoid having to divert it from other funds. And who has the power of the purse, my dear Lazur? Congress. Bush can't do this alone.

Hell, I don't even see how the generals will go along with this. This seems like something that Bush is planning that in all likelihood will not happen.