News Will Mr. Bush Attack Iran? - Ardian's Opinion

[the number 42]

I hope you are going to edit that so I know what the r**s you're on about.

 

[BobG]

WMD ?
Links with international terrorism ?
Lack of freedom ?

I tend to agree with Russ that there is no chance of the US invading Iran while it's busy with Iraq.

That doesn't rule out a few airstrikes to eliminate any known nuclear facilities.

But, vanesch's reasons certainly have validity. Iran meets the criteria Bush used for invading Iraq a lot better than Iraq did. While we can deal with Iran to certain extent without invading them, the possibility we could invade them might have added a little extra motivation for Iran to deal with the Western world over the issue of giving terrorists free travel through their country and possibly even over Iran's nuclear programs.

As to the credibility of each reason:

WMD - I doubt they're a nuclear weapon threat, yet, but they're closer than Iraq was, both to developing nuclear weapons and to developing a way to deliver them, at least within the Middle East region.

Links with national terrorism - The typical link. The government won't directly support them, since they don't want responsibility for the actions of terrorist groups, but they are 'friendly' to them. They've been a preferred safe route for terrorists moving from one country to another and Iranians have probably privately provided some monetary and other logistic support. Pakistan was at least as supportive before they realized they would be target number two if Al-qaeda fled across the border. Libya was also as supportive. Even Saudi Arabia was at least pretty lax about terrorism. We've had some success dealing with a few countries about their policy on terrorism without invading them, although the fact that we invaded Afghanistan probably had something to do with that.

Lack of freedom - Yes, but that could apply to many countries. If you were going to liberate a country and hope a democratic government would be successful, Iran wouldn't be at the top of the list, but it would be a lot higher than Iraq. (If we were expanding this to include groups of people instead of just established nations, the Kurds would probably be the most likely to establish a successful democracy - but giving them their own country would really cause trouble).

 

[Gokul43201]

Minor nitpick :

Pakistan was at least as supportive before they realized they would be target number two if Al-qaeda fled across the border.

Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan houses (now and before) way more terrorists near its eastern border.

 

[the number 42]

If you were going to liberate a country and hope a democratic government would be successful, Iran wouldn't be at the top of the list, but it would be a lot higher than Iraq.

If you put it like that, then it would almost seem remiss not 'liberating' Iran.

(If we were expanding this to include groups of people instead of just established nations, the Kurds would probably be the most likely to establish a successful democracy - but giving them their own country would really cause trouble).

And we wouldn't want to cause trouble by liberating them, would we Let's just remind ourselves that we dissolved previous borders and created Iraq in the first place, and later armed Hussein to the teeth. So let's at least not pretend that interfering in other peoples' business is being done for altruistic reasons, such as giving people the gift of freedom.

"In 1979 the most aggressive and tyrannical of the Iraqi officials, Saddam Hussein, seized power in Iraq... Germany, Britain, France and the United States all armed Iraq - in an effort to create a bulwark against the spread of the Islamic threat [from Iran]. Help was given to develop all kinds of weapons".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_05.shtml

"[After WWI] Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. ...The mandate united the three disparate provinces under the imported Hashimite King Faisal, from the Hijaz region of Arabia. Apart from its natural geographical differences, the new Iraq was a complex mix of ethnic and religious groups. In particular the rebellious Kurds in the north had little wish to be ruled from Baghdad, while in the south the tribesmen and Shi's had a similar abhorrence of central control. In implementing their mandate, the British had certainly sown the seeds of future unrest. The Iraqis deeply resented the borders imposed on them".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml

 

[Smurf]

I think we're vastly underestimating the military power of the US when we say they're 'tied up' in Iraq, how many are actually there? 20,000? 50,000? I don't remember the last time I heard numbers, but it's mostly the marine corp isn't it, I think if Bush wanted to he could muster a force to invade Iran.

 

[the number 42]

I think if Bush wanted to he could muster a force to invade Iran.

I'm not sure of the numbers either, but I'm guessing that the 'force' you refer to would be the 1st Robot Battalion and a crack unit of reluctant kids drafted at the last minute, dragged screaming from their X Boxes.

 

[kat]

I think we're vastly underestimating the military power of the US when we say they're 'tied up' in Iraq, how many are actually there? 20,000? 50,000? I don't remember the last time I heard numbers, but it's mostly the marine corp isn't it, I think if Bush wanted to he could muster a force to invade Iran.

Wolfowitz told the panel that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq would be reduced in coming weeks from 150,000 to about 135,000, or about the same level as before reinforcements were sent in for the Jan. 30 elections

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/braden...98.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 

[the number 42]

Condoleezza Rice is in the UK on her first outing as foreign secretary. "Asked if she envisaged circumstances in which the US would attack Iran, she said: "The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time." ...But she said the Iranian people "deserved better"" [emphasis added]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4233515.stm

Better practice hard on those playstations, kids

 

[russ_watters]

Jeez, #42, you really want to see something in that quote. It just isn't there.

I know you consider Bush a liar, but one thing you cannot say is that he wasn't open about his intentions in Iraq (it was his motivation that people consider lies). Bush said he was going to attack Iraq. He was quite open about it and spent months laying the groundwork for it. But beyond that, even Clinton said he wished for a regime change in Iraq. This is something that has been in the back of Presidents' minds since 1990. The same can not be said about our attitude toward Iran.

No amount of squinting will make an intent to attack Iran appear in that quote.

Lest we conveniently forget: Clinton on Iraq, 1998

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.[emphasis added]

So quit acting like Bush pulled this stuff out of the air and acting like you have to read between the lines to see his future intentions. It simply isn't true.

Now, I said before that I think Iran's recent posturing is a bargaining tactic - and an irrational one at that. They're scared and they don't know what to do. But they're following Iraq's lead from the early 80s, when they should be following Libya's lead from last year. They aren't likely to get invaded, but there is a very real possibility of military strikes - if not from us, from Israel, a la Osiraq. Iran would do well not to mess with the Israelis.

 

[the number 42]

...there is a very real possibility of military strikes - if not from us, from Israel, a la Osiraq. Iran would do well not to mess with the Israelis.

Do you think the US would stand by and do nothing if Israel started getting its ass whupped? But that probably won't happen because Israel has nuclear weapons, something it denied for years. And this is a trend: politicians aren't know for their transparency. If Bush has been transparent about his intentions about going to war in the past it doesn't guarantee he will continue to be in the future. True, the language has toned down. This is from his inaugural speech:

"Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

Iranian reaction [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Iranian TV]
"Right now too, the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic are subjected to attacks by global tyrants, because they support the oppressed and confront the oppressors. In a real, but non-military war, they [the oppressors] are trying to take away, by any possible means, the will for progress and innovation from the talented Iranian nation and destroy its liveliness.
However, the Iranian nation is not only standing against global bullies, but also it has given the belief to the world of Islam that it is possible to confront the [world] arrogance and win."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4232607.stm#iran

I think the best reason for the US not going full tilt at Iran is that the US doesn't have the resources to pull it off at this point. But I didn't think he was foolish enough to go full tilt into Iraq, but he did with the help of Britain and a few others. However, if he goes near Iran he'll be going it alone, and I'm sure that knowledge will make his administration think twice.

And please, just because I think Bush is warmonger, it doesn't mean I think Clinton was a peacenik. In any case its obvious that the same words can have a totally different meaning coming from different people, or from the same person under different circumstances. And whether words translate into action is always a moot point unless & until action is taken. I think Bush would be mad to push his luck any further than it has gone, but I sincerely doubt the wisdom of his judgement in these matters.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you think the US would stand by and do nothing if Israel started getting its ass whupped?

That question has no meaning. Israel "getting its ass whupped"? By whom?

No, the tough part is keeping Israel on their leash, such as in 1991.

 

[kat]

Although we don't want to see Iran have nuclear capability, I really don't think that Israel has any more to worry about then anyone else. Iran would have to be totally fruity to hit Israel with a nuclear weapon now that they have second strike capabilities, and I'm sure they know it.

 

[spender]

Although we don't want to see Iran have nuclear capability,.

I would love to see Iran with nukes, it would be great for the m.east region.Israel would then be compelled to solve Palestinian situation.

 

[Gokul43201]

I would love to see Iran with nukes, it would be great for the m.east region.Israel would then be compelled to solve Palestinian situation.

Yeah, the same way "nukes" helped India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, the same way "nukes" helped India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir issue.

And Pakistan and India are downright rational compared with Iran.

 

[Smurf]

Yeah, nukes won't help anything, more weapons are just more weapons, it enables more people to be killed. You can't end violence with violence, too bad every time we learn that we forget it again 50 years later.

 

[vanesch]

Although we don't want to see Iran have nuclear capability, I really don't think that Israel has any more to worry about then anyone else. Iran would have to be totally fruity to hit Israel with a nuclear weapon now that they have second strike capabilities, and I'm sure they know it.

Wouldn't that just be great ? A madman nuking Israel, and out of the ruins of Isreal, a second strike, ruining Iran ? I'd say that's 2-0 for us

 

[spender]

I, absolutelly support Iran in their push to have nuclear weapons,same with N.Korea.Look how quiet Bush is on N.Korean situation, WHY ? because of the nukes.
If your neighboors are attacked(iraq,afghanistan)and you are demonized and called terrorist state, who with a shred of gray matter would not want to have deterent.
Actually we can all thank Bush who made enemy of almost every muslim nation.

 

[Hurkyl]

I, absolutelly support Iran in their push to have nuclear weapons,same with N.Korea.Look how quiet Bush is on N.Korean situation, WHY ? because of the nukes.

Oh, I'm glad you enlightened me. I thought China had something to do with it.

 

[spender]

Warmongering by USA is pushing other nations into new arms race. I'm sure that Japan is thinking of developing its own nuclear deterent.It is logical.

 

[Wardw]

So we go back to a MAD situation, everybody has got the nuc.

Remember, even Hari Seldon could not predict "the mule"

It only takes one madman to whom MAD does not mean a tinkers cuss.

 

[Omid]

http://www.nowaroniran.com/gallery/photos/nowar.jpg
http://peaceiran.blogspot.com/2005/02/shirin-ebadis-opposition-to-war.html


Iranians answer unity rally call
Tehran protesters brave the capital's worst winter in decades
Tens of thousands of Iranians have braved blizzards to attend rallies marking the 1979 Islamic revolution
The crowds turned out despite the city being virtually paralysed by heavy snowfalls in its worst winter for decades.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4253171.stm


We don't need Bush or any other m**********r to bring us freedom.

 

[SOS2008]

Though the military is technically supposed to be able to fight two large regional wars simultaneously, we could not fight a war in Iran right now. It just ain't going to happen.

Current efforts are to determine targets to strike from the air. This most certainly is plausible.

But like usual, it would be a short-term thought process and a repeat of mis-estimation and lack of understanding of the region. What needs to be considered is; 1) how a preemptive strike would help the current regime with anti-American sentiments, and 2) would the air strikes be the only military action necessary?

If the U.S. takes such preemptive measures, it is likely to destroy rather than enable a pro-American revolution from within. And though the U.S. may be satisfied with a quick and safe air strike, do you think the Iranians would leave it at that? Would we have global support for another war effort, especially if no nuclear weapon program exists? (Of course if these facilities are blown to pieces, who would know.)

This administration had an agenda from the start that defies reason or the best interest of American well-being. Let's hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

It seems like everyone is forgetting some of the testimony that led to Iraq being invaded in the first place (or maybe you guys just don't watch C-Span as much as I do). One of the arguments made by the experts that testified before Congress was that Iraq would be far easier to take down through military means, but also that Iraq had almost no chance of a regime change being brought about from within, whereas Iran did. Part of the reason democracy was installed by force in Iraq was to create additional pressure on Iran, which the experts believed could easily fall due to that pressure. The plan was the create a democratic bulwark that could stand as testimony to neighboring nations with its success. The US would be turning its back on the original long-term plan if it didn't wait long enough to find out whether or not Iraq could become that bulwark and could pressure Iran into change from within. No other regime changes will be instituted in the middle east by the US for quite some time at least - the soonest possibility being after Iraq has become a stable democratic military ally (assuming that happens, of course).

 

[SOS2008]

Part of the reason democracy was installed by force in Iraq was to create additional pressure on Iran, which the experts believed could easily fall due to that pressure. The plan was the create a democratic bulwark that could stand as testimony to neighboring nations with its success. The US would be turning its back on the original long-term plan...

While I agree with the differences between Iraq and Iran regarding higher probability of change from within, I disagree that this administration's agenda was to promote democracy (per the old and unsuccessful domino theory), or that there is real and meaningful foreign policy at all.

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of a foreign enemy” – James Madison

 

[vanesch]

No other regime changes will be instituted in the middle east by the US for quite some time at least - the soonest possibility being after Iraq has become a stable democratic military ally (assuming that happens, of course).

You mean, like the Islamic Republic of Iraq, directed by an Ayatollah (Sistani) ?
Where have I seen another Ayatollay leading a country ...

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[SOS2008]

You mean, like the Islamic Republic of Iraq, directed by an Ayatollah (Sistani)?

Exactly. First was the claim of Iraqs involvement in 9-11 (the invasion of Iraq still is referred to as a "war on terrorism"), then the WMD and how we must rush into extinguish the "smoking gun" before it became a "mushroom cloud," then it was to spread democracy and freedom, and now it is back to the original goal of regime change--which is that an Islamic Republic of Iraq is okay--Bush and administration have basically said this.

...as long as they are allies (to the Christian Republic of America?)

Don't underestimate this administration and it's propaganda machine. The only difference now are the members of Congress, including Republicans, who would like to be reelected. But who knows what could happen between now and 2006.

 

[vanesch]

...as long as they are allies (to the Christian Republic of America?)

We'll see

 

[SOS2008]

We'll see

Wanna go with that, or leave me in suspense?

 

[vanesch]

Wanna go with that, or leave me in suspense?

I wanted to say: it is not evident that an Iranian Ayatollah-directed Islamic Republic of Iraq is what the US imagines as the best ally against Iran
And I don't know if the sentiments of Sistani for the US are so very warm...

EDIT: In fact, Saddam did very well as an ally against Iran, until he misunderstood his boss (the US) in 1991, when he asked for permission to invade Kuwait...