Will Iran be Bush's next target?

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #1
Bush: 'All options are on the table' regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations
JERUSALEM (AP) — In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm
Following Iran breaking the UN seals and publicly stating it intends to resume it's uranium enrichment program it is believed the IAEC will shortly refer the matter to the UN security council. It is unlikely that any harsh measures against Iran will be adopted by the security council as it is probable that China and possibly Russia too will veto any such action.

From Bush's remarks today it appears that unless either Iran or the US fundamentally change their current positions a military strike is inevitable. Assuming the initial attack will be an air strike against the ~350 strategic targets identified in Iran one wonders how this scenario will then play itself out?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
stoned
82
0
" Operation Iranian Freedom "
 
  • #3
The Smoking Man
47
0
Bush: 'All options are on the table' regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations
JERUSALEM (AP) — In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he has already used force to protect U.S. security.
See ... that's just it.

Where is it written that only the USA has the right to 'protect it's security' when the only country to take an active stance on invasion IS the USA?

Does the rest of the world have the right to defend itself against the USA?

And if so, if they can't afford to arm themselves with enough conventional weapons to keep them out, should they be allowed the use of nukes to achieve their goals?

China just negotiated a big oil deal with the Iranians.

If the Chinese decide to accept the US definition that oil is a "National Security Issue", would China be right in defending the sovreignty of Iran ... With Nukes?

Be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.
 
  • #4
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
It probably wouldn't be a quick series of strikes and then out. Iran could retaliate to some degree, which would create a long term problem.

In retaliation, Iran could make passing through the Strait of Hormuz a treacherous experience. That means the US would either have to continue the bombing campaign for the duration of the Iraq war, or airlift everything and everyone into and out of Iraq. Even a bombing campaign wouldn't completely eliminate the threat. The only way to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz would be for US troops to occupy the Iranian shoreline along the Persian Gulf.

Bombing Iran might also alienate the other Middle Eastern countries. If you don't have safe shipping, you at least need somewhere safe in the region to stage airlift operations into and out of Iraq.

Staging air operations out of Iraq itself would be one option, but not Southern Iraq, since the Shiites in the region might be a little miffed at the idea of the US bombing Shiite Iran.

Even in the worst case, where Iran decides to fight back and the rest of Middle East turns on the US, sustaining the war in Iraq might be doable. But you'd have to wonder why the US would intentionally make matters more difficult than they already are (Iran is obviously of this opinion, since they probably aren't intentionally trying to get bombed).
 
  • #5
The Smoking Man
47
0
BobG said:
It probably wouldn't be a quick series of strikes and then out. Iran could retaliate to some degree, which would create a long term problem.

In retaliation, Iran could make passing through the Strait of Hormuz a treacherous experience. That means the US would either have to continue the bombing campaign for the duration of the Iraq war, or airlift everything and everyone into and out of Iraq. Even a bombing campaign wouldn't completely eliminate the threat. The only way to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz would be for US troops to occupy the Iranian shoreline along the Persian Gulf.

Bombing Iran might also alienate the other Middle Eastern countries. If you don't have safe shipping, you at least need somewhere safe in the region to stage airlift operations into and out of Iraq.

Staging air operations out of Iraq itself would be one option, but not Southern Iraq, since the Shiites in the region might be a little miffed at the idea of the US bombing Shiite Iran.

Even in the worst case, where Iran decides to fight back and the rest of Middle East turns on the US, sustaining the war in Iraq might be doable. But you'd have to wonder why the US would intentionally make matters more difficult than they already are (Iran is obviously of this opinion, since they probably aren't intentionally trying to get bombed).
One problem with that scenario.

America has been tapped out.

You have no forces left.

Since there is nobody left to fight this war, the draft is the only thing left open or the use of nukes ... which option is going to take place.

Like I said, the 'big lie' is already there in the newspaper.

Three months ago, there were heavy negotiations with the Europeans trying to mitigate the damage the USA had caused in the area and regular announcements of visits from the Iraqi Foreign Minister building bridges between the US's new government and Iran.

I can no longer find references to those negotiations on the internet using the simple search of 'Iran Iraq' however take a look at what DOES pop up. :surprised
 
  • #6
stoned
82
0
do not forget the main player in the region Israel. they are never going to let Iran have nuclear power station, they have allready bombed Iraq's reactor in 1981, so what is gonna stop them now ?
 
  • #7
The Smoking Man
47
0
stoned said:
do not forget the main player in the region Israel. they are never going to let Iran have nuclear power station, they have allready bombed Iraq's reactor in 1981, so what is gonna stop them now ?
China.
:rolleyes:
 
  • #8
The Smoking Man said:
Three months ago, there were heavy negotiations with the Europeans trying to mitigate the damage the USA had caused in the area and regular announcements of visits from the Iraqi Foreign Minister building bridges between the US's new government and Iran.

I can no longer find references to those negotiations on the internet using the simple search of 'Iran Iraq' however take a look at what DOES pop up. :surprised
During those negotiations the new Iraqi gov't and Iran negotiated a mutual defence pact. This was allegedly watered down following US intervention to a commitment from Iraq that they will not allow the US to use Iraq as a launch base for attacks on Iran. http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

The danger now is, I think Bush sees himself in the role of J F Kennedy when he faced down the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis (with an attitude of it worked for us before so why not again). The difference this time is the extra imponderables such as religion, what China and Russia will do and what the rest of the middle east will do.

If Iran decides to call Bush's 'bluff' it isn't hard to imagine a scenario developing whereby the world is plunged into WW3. If this transpires it seems likely the US will be standing alone, even the rightwing Sunday Times in an opinion piece by former conservative minister Michael Portillo, is critical of US foreign policy over Iran and Blair has already distanced himself from the US with regard to Iran.

The Sunday Times - Comment
August 14, 2005

Bush should show Iran some respect
MICHAEL PORTILLO

Washington, we have a problem. The famous distress call from Apollo 13 in 1970, not to Washington but to Houston, resonated last week as Nasa brought the space shuttle safely home after a white knuckle ride. But what brought that memorable phrase back to me was not the shuttle’s epic survival, but rather the shipwreck of American foreign policy towards Iran, highlighted by new suggestions yesterday from President Bush that America might resort to force.
Nothing has gone right. Establishing democracy in Iraq was meant to strengthen the moderates in Iran and topple the corrupt autocracy of its mullahs. American sanctions against Iran were supposed to warn it off developing nuclear technologies. If those measures did not work, hints of military attack ought to have done the trick. If none of the above, perhaps bribery would succeed.

Hopes have been dashed. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president. He was the mullahs’ candidate. He campaigned on issues such as public probity and private piety. During his stint as mayor of Tehran he imposed dress codes on public servants and banned advertising that featured the face of David Beckham. He trounced the pragmatic former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the contender favoured by the West. America is unlikely to proclaim the result as a triumph for emerging democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
stoned said:
do not forget the main player in the region Israel. they are never going to let Iran have nuclear power station, they have allready bombed Iraq's reactor in 1981, so what is gonna stop them now ?
There are too many targets that would need to be taken out and they are too well defended for Israel to attack them on their own.
 
  • #10
stoned
82
0
I only hope and pray Iran does have few nukes and in retaileation they use them, like every other sovereign nation would answer to an unprovoked attack.
USA/Israel/UK and the other western puppets bastards just don't have the right to dictate other nations what they can and can't do.
And by the way, how come it is so quiet about evil N.Korea ? Oh ! right, they have no oil.
 
  • #11
stoned said:
I only hope and pray Iran does have few nukes and in retaileation they use them, like every other sovereign nation would answer to an unprovoked attack.
USA/Israel/UK and the other western puppets bastards just don't have the right to dictate other nations what they can and can't do.
And by the way, how come it is so quiet about evil N.Korea ? Oh ! right, they have no oil.
You're right they don't have the right
Under article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) nations have “an inalienable right . . . to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”.
the West appears to be in breach of the NPT article VI that requires nuclear weapons states to work for disarmament. Britain, for example, is upgrading its mass destruction systems. So what moral authority do we have?
quotes from M Portillo's article referenced above.
 
  • #12
stoned
82
0
Art said:
There are too many targets that would need to be taken out and they are too well defended for Israel to attack them on their own.

we just need pretext "terrorist bombing " here in great USA to launch attack on Iran, and bombing of Iranian facilities will go smoothly when two greatest air powers go together.
 
  • #13
stoned said:
And by the way, how come it is so quiet about evil N.Korea ? Oh ! right, they have no oil.
The North Koreans are renowned for their paronoia and it appears current activity in the south by Korean and US forces isn't helping to reassure them. I'd have thought the last thing the US would need right now is to alarm the North Koreans when they potentially possess several nuclear weapons.
North says South Korea-U.S. military exercises are preparations for attack

Canadian Press

August 13, 2005

South Korean demonstrators lie down on the street as riot police officers block their way to U.S. Embassy during a rally opposing the U.S. policy against North Korea in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday. (AP/Lee Jin-man)


SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Saturday criticized joint military exercises involving South Korea and the United States, saying the manoeuvres were a final preparation for an attack on the communist state.
http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=8e825582-15ef-408d-8a90-30ee180ba119 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
I only hope and pray Iran does have few nukes and in retaileation they use them,

I somehow suspect "retaileation" is a red herring: don't you simply wish for the annihilation of the U.S.?
 
  • #15
Smurf
369
3
Yeah, if only Iran had some nukes. Then all they'd have to do is stick them in their ICBMs, launch them (they must have 100-200 by now) at every major city and military installation in the states to comepletely annihilate them. Oh, and then easily destroy American counter-attack ICBMs with upgraded SCUD missiles bought from Russia.
 
  • #16
edward
85
166
stoned said:
we just need pretext "terrorist bombing " here in great USA to launch attack on Iran, and bombing of Iranian facilities will go smoothly when two greatest air powers go together.

But what happens after the bombings?

If we touch one single iota of Iran's oil production we shoot ourselves in the foot again, something at which the Bush administration seems to excel.
 
  • #17
There's a sizable article with plently of links at GlobalSecurity.org. Of particular interest are the reactions of Isreali leaders, who vocally support their intent to a pre-emptive strike:

The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel's Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran's nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, "Maariv" and "Yediot Aharonot" reported on 22 July 2004. Some Likud and Labor Knesset members subsequently called for a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facility. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh (Labor) said, "If the international community's helplessness in the face of the Iranian threat persists, Israel will have to weigh its steps -- and soon." Ehud Yatom (Likud) said, "The Iranian nuclear facilities must be destroyed, just as we did the Iraqi reactor. We must strive to attain the ability to damage and destroy any nuclear capability that might be directed against Israel." On 08 September 2004 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the international community has not done enough to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and warns that Israel will take its own measures to defend itself.

Also, the author present a case that some enrinchment facilites may be hidden underground and still unknown to us, as with the DPRK (a scary thought).
 
  • #18
sid_galt
502
1
Smurf said:
Yeah, if only Iran had some nukes. Then all they'd have to do is stick them in their ICBMs, launch them (they must have 100-200 by now) at every major city and military installation in the states to comepletely annihilate them. Oh, and then easily destroy American counter-attack ICBMs with upgraded SCUD missiles bought from Russia.

And then invade Canada and establish the Sharia and Islamic theocracy :biggrin:

And if they don't submit, nuke them too.
 
  • #19
Smurf
369
3
Fine by me. But I'll obviously start a revolutionary movement and declare BC it's own sovereign state with a green anarcho-socialist government.
 
  • #20
sid_galt
502
1
Smurf said:
Fine by me. But I'll obviously start a revolutionary movement and declare BC it's own sovereign state with a green anarcho-socialist government.

You won't get a chance. Remember they'll NUKE you. And without the US or some other free country, Canada won't even be able to retaliate.
 
  • #21
Smurf
369
3
FINE! I'll just have to infiltrate their military command structure and sabotage all the targets that would harm my new state. Geeze, you always have to make it difficult for me don't you!?
 
  • #22
stoned
82
0
Iranians or Persians except for long time ago never invaded other country, instead they were subjected to constant pillaging, so I'm not too worried about Iran.
 
  • #23
edward
85
166
rachmaninoff said:
There's a sizable article with plently of links at GlobalSecurity.org. Of particular interest are the reactions of Isreali leaders, who vocally support their intent to a pre-emptive strike:



Also, the author present a case that some enrinchment facilites may be hidden underground and still unknown to us, as with the DPRK (a scary
thought).


Israel will have to careful not to bomb anything with the Halliburton logo on it.

quote
"By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit
Updated: 12:24 a.m. ET March 8, 2005
It's just another Halliburton oil and gas operation. The company name is emblazoned everywhere: On trucks, equipment, large storage silos and workers' uniforms.

But this isn't Texas. It's Iran. U.S. companies aren't supposed to do business here.

Yet, in January, Halliburton won a contract to drill at a huge Iranian gas field called Pars, which an Iranian government spokesman said "served the interests" of Iran."quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7119752/

There have been sanctions against U.S. Companies doing business with Iran since 1995. Halliburton claims it's Caymen Islands subsidiary is exempt.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Iran are now countering with their own threats against the US;
Iran: Enrichment is on the table, but not conversion
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran will never again suspend conversion of uranium ore, but it is willing to pursue talks with the European Union about its uranium enrichment program, Tehran officials said Sunday.
A spokesman also notched up the rhetorical battle with Washington, declaring that Iranians have the means to defend themselves should President Bush act on his warning that military force could be a final option if Iran doesn't halt its nuclear program.
"I think Bush should know that our options are more numerous than the U.S. options," Asefi said. "If the United States makes such a big mistake, then Iran will definitely have more choices to defend itself."

He offered no specifics.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-14-iranuranium_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Bravado or do they have something unexpected to defend themselves against the US with?
 
  • #25
i think after iran heats up a little more, UN will deal with it in some way. from what iv read, its going to be 5-10 years before iran will have enough material to make a bomb and by this time bush will be out of office and i expect conservative support will drop without bush and the usa will then take a less active role. the usa has to much going on already to throw something significant at iran and while there is no short term threat, things can be postponed till later, and by that time things will change.

israel is an interesting element. maybe action from israel (or israeli soil) some 2-3 years down the road with strong backing from UN and especially strong USA support on behalf of UN?
 
  • #26
Maybe we shouldn't have sold them those 500 anti-aircraft missiles back in the 80's.
 
  • #27
The Smoking Man
47
0
rachmaninoff said:
Maybe we shouldn't have sold them those 500 anti-aircraft missiles back in the 80's.
No telling what they picked up on the Russian Black Market either.

There are something like 18 warheads missing from the former Soviet arsenal.
:biggrin:
 
  • #28
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
edward said:
But what happens after the bombings?

If we touch one single iota of Iran's oil production we shoot ourselves in the foot again, something at which the Bush administration seems to excel.
Of course it doesn't make sense...to rational people. But this is what Bush wants to do:
Art said:
If Iran decides to call Bush's 'bluff' it isn't hard to imagine a scenario developing whereby the world is plunged into WW3. If this transpires it seems likely the US will be standing alone, even the rightwing Sunday Times in an opinion piece by former conservative minister Michael Portillo, is critical of US foreign policy over Iran and Blair has already distanced himself from the US with regard to Iran.
This describes events leading up to the Rapture, which Bush and fundamentalists believe in. He doesn't care about the future (e.g., global warming). He only lusts for continued power and operates under delusions of doing God's work.

The question is, can the other powers that be--other countries in the world, Americans in the U.S. against Bush and more war--can this avert Bush and his neocon comrades?
 
Last edited:
  • #29
SOS2008 said:
Of course it doesn't make sense...to rational people. But this is what Bush wants to do:
This describes events leading up to the Rapture, which Bush and fundamentalists believe in. He doesn't care about the future (e.g., global warming). He only lusts for continued power and operates under delusions of doing God's work.

The question is, can the other powers that be--other countries in world, Americans in the U.S. against Bush and more war--can this avert Bush and his neocon comrades?
The problem is that there's really nothing we can do. If Bush has the right people in charge of the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons, and is committed to using these weapons in spite of the opinions of his own people and the rest of the world, then he can do so.

This leads to question whether Bush actually is insane or delusional enough to do something this extreme. There is a difference between a conventional invasion of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and launching nuclear weapons at a country that may have the support of known nuclear powers that could retaliate. Personally, I believe that he may be willing to do something like this, but I doubt it's his first option. And of course, I'm not certain, because I can't read Bush's mind (nor would I want to).

Another question: if Bush really doesn't care about the future, and believes that attacking Iran is God's work, then why hasn't he launched nuclear weapons already? There's obviously something about his thought processes (or lack thereof) we don't know, so it's dangerous to attempt to define his plans so exactly.
 
  • #30
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
Archon said:
The problem is that there's really nothing we can do. If Bush has the right people in charge of the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons, and is committed to using these weapons in spite of the opinions of his own people and the rest of the world, then he can do so.

This leads to question whether Bush actually is insane or delusional enough to do something this extreme. There is a difference between a conventional invasion of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, and launching nuclear weapons at a country that may have the support of known nuclear powers that could retaliate. Personally, I believe that he may be willing to do something like this, but I doubt it's his first option. And of course, I'm not certain, because I can't read Bush's mind (nor would I want to).

Another question: if Bush really doesn't care about the future, and believes that attacking Iran is God's work, then why hasn't he launched nuclear weapons already? There's obviously something about his thought processes (or lack thereof) we don't know, so it's dangerous to attempt to define his plans so exactly.
Perhaps the word irrational is too close to insane. I don't believe Bush to be insane. But does a person need to be insane to believe in a reality of their own? And he's not alone--This administration does not act without strategy, without methods to maintain a minimal level of support for operations. Iraq is a good example of opportunistic timing, throw in some propaganda, etc. and you have yourself a war without revolt.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." These are the words of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister.
 
  • #31
The Smoking Man
47
0
SOS2008 said:
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." These are the words of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister.
Damn ... and I thought it was Pengwuino
:wink:
 
  • #32
SOS2008 said:
Perhaps the word irrational is too close to insane. I don't believe Bush to be insane. But does a person need to be insane to believe in a reality of their own?
I think the difference appears when the "irrational" person is willing to risk or outright expend the lives of thousands or millions of people to achieve the goals is his own reality.

And he's not alone--This administration does not act without strategy, without methods to maintain a minimal level of support for operations. Iraq is a good example of opportunistic timing, throw in some propaganda, etc. and you have yourself a war without revolt.
This is part of the reason the American people aren't going to stop Bush from doing something like invading Iran. He doesn't have to convince everyone: just a large enough minority to say that he has support among among the general population. And there are always going to be people willing to blindly follow either Bush himself or his claims that Iran is threatening the American way of life.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." These are the words of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister.
It's scary how close the Bush Administration is to the Nazis in some ways. But it's even more scary that people actually trust, agree with, and support the Administration. I mean, we still teach students about Hitler and WWII in school: it doesn't say anything good about Bush-supporters if they can't see the parallels.
 
  • #33
The Smoking Man said:
Damn ... and I thought it was Pengwuino
:wink:
No. Goebbels calls this a propaganda strategy for convincing people to do as the leaders wish. Pengwuino calls this being American.
 
  • #34
The Smoking Man
47
0
Archon said:
No. Goebbels calls this a propaganda strategy for convincing people to do as the leaders wish. Pengwuino calls this being American.
Point taken. :blushing:
 
  • #35
The Smoking Man
47
0
Archon said:
This is part of the reason the American people aren't going to stop Bush from doing something like invading Iran. He doesn't have to convince everyone: just a large enough minority to say that he has support among among the general population. And there are always going to be people willing to blindly follow either Bush himself or his claims that Iran is threatening the American way of life.
I'm surprised he hasn't invaded San Francisco on the same basis.
 

Suggested for: Will Iran be Bush's next target?

  • Last Post
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
92
Views
15K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
61
Views
8K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Top