Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

  • News
  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45

Main Question or Discussion Point

From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh

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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
slugcountry
mmm i really, really, don't think so.. how will it look if the republicans invade THREE countries during their administration??

then again they've more than likely already lost re-election so they must just do it lol sad times

edit: if anyone should make a strike on iran's nuclear facilities its israel, who is directly threatened by both that nuclear program and the government of iran.
 
  • #3
67
165
Cheney is crazy enough to attack Iran. Is Bush sane enough to stop him?
 
  • #4
Futobingoro
If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
phoenixy
If it has not already been done, there needs to be a TV special on how the Iranian government works. I have read several news stories that outline important distinctions that need to be clarified:

-How much power does Ahmadinejad really have? I have read that Khamanei is the true driving force behind the government, and that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric (no matter how fiery) has no meaning without the concurrence of the Supreme Leader.

-Who is authorizing the alleged supply of weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Some articles have stated that officers in the Iranian military might have cleared shipments without the blessing of officials in Tehran.

-Does the Iranian government exercise a policy hostile to Jews? I have read that the Iranian government abhors the state of Israel, but does not harbor hostile feelings toward Jews (there is a Jew in the Iranian legislative assembly).

-What is the extent/nature of religious fundamentalism in Iran? While there are reports of women being punished for various "religious offenses," Khamenei has authorized sex changes for those who feel they are a "woman trapped in a man's body" and vice-versa.

-To what extent does Iran's population agree with the government's policy? Various articles have included questions asked of Iranians in cafes and shopping centers, and many say they will continue to purchase Western music and entertainment in spite of proclamations issued by their leaders. This suggests that Iranians aren't all lined up behind their government, and that conflict might be avoided if moderate voices are given time to come to the forefront.
hahaha

I would like a similar video system setup within the whitehouse. C-SPAN just won't cut it since congress is acting like a lame duck. I want to know if Cheney runs on energizers. Or more importantly, if there is a memory purger that can reduce any response to "I don't remember".


Intuitively, I think a strike will happen. It has come to a stage where those in power are willing to risk it all in an act of desperation. Why would one want to focus on domestic issues, when we are still able to pay for our big guns? The atmosphere had clearly shift toward a hardline approach regarding Iran. Just watch any Rep debate and see how Ron Paul being the only candidate who is serious about diplomacy. The hawks might not have the consensus to initiate action, but then again they never really need it.
 
  • #6
67
165
I seriously doubt that we could do much of anything in Iran without causing an international crisis. China is heavily involved in developing oil production in Iran.

Sinopec, China's state-owned oil giant, signed a $70 billion deal with the Iranians in November 2004 to develop the Yadavaran oil field. Sinopec will also buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years. Iran is committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years.
http://www.investmentu.com/research/crude-oil-forecast.html

China also holds about $600 billion in U.S. treasury bills and other government backed securities. China isn't about to roll over and play dead if do anything that interferes with their oil interests in the ME.

Rather than buying oil on the open market with almost daily price fluctuations, China"s nationalized oil companies have been paying cash up front for long term supply commitments.
 
  • #7
hserse
Oh, the flow of animosity and hatred shall flow for centuries to come. You will not bear the suffering, but your children, grandchildren shall suffer the consequences. Have you not learn anything from age old conflicts that you've created. For your animosity and hatred are the weapons of mass destruction.
Millions people will be displaced, millions will die. Is IRAQ not enough of a holocaust? Does the dead have to be your allies and have to your ideology before you considered a holocaust? Does the quantity have to be >1,000,000 dead within specified time frame before you considered to be a holocaust? In the eyes of the Almighty even ONE is considered a holocaust. To the Jews, Christian, Muslim-the reasons and justification you have of animosity will not modify the hypocracy in the eyes of your creator. Let the conflicts begin, for you shall kill your own brother.
 
  • #8
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,408
437
From a careful reading of Seymour Hirsch's article, it appears that the machinations are well in place to make an aerial bombardment a done deal.
It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...

Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization "gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."
This clearly shows that Hillary considers dealing with the Revolutionary Guard equivalent to dealing with the leaders of Iran... a position right out of the Bush/Cheney neocon playbook.

I'm sure lots of high resolution satellite photographs are being stockpiled even now.

It's just a question of who gets to say, 'go'.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1
Who do you believe after all the doublespeak coming out of Washington?
 
  • #10
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
we definitely don't need another war so soon......
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter :smile:
 
  • #11
48
0
FYI...............................

Ellsberg calls for actions to prevent war with Iran
By MICHAEL YODER, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Sep 28, 2007 12:58 AM EST

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/210086
He said the Senate resolution passed Wednesday declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is an invitation for Bush to declare war on Iran.
Click the link above to read the whole article, short but informative.
 
  • #12
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,408
437
we definitely don't need another war so soon......
and WHY anyway?

mind you I have already read the article (by the OP) and other news stories on the matter :smile:
If you look at a map of Iran, you will see that the US occupies territory along both the eastern (Iraq) and western (Afghanistan) border. We have them in a classic pincer movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement) and we could (if we had the will) squeeze them like a zit until they popped. That's what Iran is so freaked out about, and I can't blame them. How would the US feel if the former Soviet Union simultaneously attacked and occupied Canada and Mexico while stopping to search all of our sea traffic just outside our jurisdictional waters? If we didn't already have nuclear weapons, we would find a way to get them... and quick.

Iran is a huge source of instability in the middle east and their rising influence has their arab neighbors quite uneasy. It is very likely that the US is acting the part of the mercenary on behalf of wealthy arab states to check Iran's rising power. How many anti-american protests do you see on the streets of Jordan, Saudia Arabia, UAE and Kuwait?

Thus the 'status quo' needs a war with Iran to keep the good times rolling. I can hardly wait until the US is free of the influence of Middle East oil....
 
  • #13
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
It may be a done deal even if (when) Hillary is elected. She refused to say if the US would be out of Iraq in 5 1/2 years when she is the president. (as did all of the Democrat front-runners) There is a large air base being built only 5 miles from the Iranian border... very provocative.

The Senate just last week passed (76-22) a resolution branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The bill was sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman. Clinton voted for it. Perhaps Bush lied to her again? Barak Obama was absent. Clearly Obama wants no breadcrumbs leading to him on this matter or perhaps he was off planning his invasion of Pakistan? Edwards was likewise absent. Apparently he felt it was more important to announce that he would be receiving Federal funding for his candidicy. No loss, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan to him anyway. Clinton's approval for this was stunning in my opinion...
Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote. Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 [Broken])
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
48
0
Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 [Broken])
At least read the first few sentences of an article before you post it.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,408
437
Edwards was absent because he isn't a Senator. He chose not to run for reelection (i.e. - not to suffer a sound defeat as a liberal Senator in a conservative state) in order to concentrate on the 2008 Presidential campaign.
I guess I should have said that his wife didn't vote for it because... Clearly tongue-in-cheek.

John McCain was the other Senator (besides Obama) to miss the vote.
But is it likely that McCain will ever be president? I think that "President Obama" is a very likely thing, if not in '08 then perhaps in '12 or '16.

Lugar and Hagel were the only two Republicans to vote against it (the Democratic Senators from their state voted for it). Less than half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

Iran's parliament voted to designate the CIA and the US Army as terrorist organizations, so I guess some kind of balance has been restored. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdVphwtHPpy9Q9tjjJ_nrCbbPG3gD8RVCR2O0 [Broken])
So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,408
437
It took them how long after the CIA over threw their elected government in the 1950's to call a spade a spade?

It's all just dirst balls, hard to take much of it serious.
I think that some are just laughing it off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
So now I suppose that Iran is free exercise options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with the West and The Great Satan.
Absolutely. Iran can refuse to buy any Western materials, equipment, goods, or technology associated with nuclear programs from any Western nation and it can also refuse to sell arms to any Western nation. Doing so would at least bring Iran's foreign policy in accordance with Newton's Third Law of Physics.

The issues between Iran and the US appear to be unresolvable unless Iran gives up on a nuclear program. If they're not going to give up their nuclear program then they have little to lose by responding "Bite me!" to the US. The US will attack the Iranian Republican Guard or it won't. There's little Iran could say that would have much affect one way or the other.
 
  • #18
Art
Shame for the warmongers the IAEA won't play ball and gave Iran a glowing scorecard in their last report.

Still I'm sure the neo-cons will see this as only a small speed bump on their path to war. The character assassination of Mohamed El- Baradei has started already. He is being called such things as the 'Rogue Regulator' for daring to report facts that contravene the Bush propaganda machine.

Funny how not so long back he was being feted by the same propaganda machine as the honest, independent investigator who Iran must satisfy.

Still 'it's an ill wind that blows nobody some good' and so although the rest of the world would view an attack on Iran and it's likely consequences as an appalling disaster some people somewhere will do very nicely out of it I am sure.

DeJa Vu anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
664
3
The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?
 
  • #20
Art
The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?
Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand............
 
  • #21
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
The combination of iron age belief systems and modern weapons of mass destructions can mean the end of the world. Postulate that Iran gets a hold of nuclear weapons and makes its ideological war with Israel a mechanical war. Could a preemptive nuclear strike then be justified against Iran? No matter justification, would it be necessary to save the world from disaster?
Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.
 
  • #22
67
165
Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.

WOW, great post Turbo-1
 
  • #23
664
3
Aren't you missing the point that the IAEA says Iran doesn't have a covert nuclear weapon's program whereas Israel on the other hand............
Arguments from authority.

Iran announced on 2 September that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium. This is in defiance of the UN Security Council's demand for Iran to suspend all enrichment activity.

The Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran. The US and its allies want to impose more.

Why are the 3,000 centrifuges important? [...]

The latest estimate from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (in its 2007 annual review) says: "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm (published 3 Oct 2007)

Iran is not locked into "iron age" belief systems. There are many progressive Iranians who would love to have better relations with the West, and Islaam is not a religion of demons. Christianity in the US is plagued with its own demons, including hard-line weirdos that are just as off-the-wall as Iran's president.
I apologize if your Islamic apologetics is in the way of true understanding of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297982,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38682
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7020603.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7011938.stm

Of course Iran is not locked into iron age belief systems. It is not like they behead people in public or reject science, oppress women :rolleyes:

Your living in a world of make-belief. Your comment is using the well-know formal fallacy called 'two wrongs make a right'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

I do not claim that the US is not locked into an iron age belief system as well, because it is.

Also, Islamic theology does contain demonic forces. Have you read the Qur'an and seen its brutal message? Probably not. In any case, these demonic forces are probably though of being Israel or the US. Wonder how Islam combats demonic forces. Your major fallacy is thinking that Iran is a secular society that can be reasoned with.

Iran has not managed to enrich uranium enough to sustain the operations of commercial reactors, much less produce weapons. The lies of the Bush administration are blatant and the international community knows it. This is a replay of the "attack Iraq" drumbeat leading up to "Mission Accomplished" in which we have lost over 3800 US soldiers killed and countless wounded and psychologically disabled.
Iran has about 16 nuclear facilities. But I guess they didn't tell you that on the hate-bush-administration conference, did they? I would say that the 70000-80000 civilians means more than just a couple of thousand US soldiers.

Russia has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Israel has nuclear weapons and is a proven threat to its neighbors. Should we "take them out"?
Feel free to show how any of those two states are trapped in an iron age belief system that is entirely based on killing everyone that doesn't agree, that everything is controlled by religion, from politics to your sexual preferences. Go on.

If you want to save the world from disaster, lobby your congressmen to rein in Bush and Cheney, and forbid them to attack Iran. If you'd prefer to see Pakistan, India, China, etc all wading into a regional conflagration, and if you will profit from oil at $250/barrel, then cheerlead for an attack against Iran.
When Iran acquires nuclear weapons of mass destruction, there is only going to be one way out. If you want the world to survive, that is.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Art
Moridin I suspect the irony of your hate filled rants is wasted on you.
 
  • #25
312
0
This is madness moridin. Who brainwashed you so much? is it fox or bbc? You not gonna take arguments from somebody who comes and goes to iran on regular basis, probably so im not gonna try. However, if you are such a pro- "reason" person, I dare you to do research to try to disprove your own arguments. Just for fun (even though its serious matter and your delusions are great but), just like scientist, assume your theory is right and start reading only things that would disprove it.

And the only one who is not possible to reason with might be ppl who say that someone else cannot be reasoned with. I like this 16th century witch hunting mentality. keep it up
 

Related Threads on Will the Bush Administration attack Iran?

  • Last Post
4
Replies
92
Views
14K
Replies
63
Views
5K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
127
Views
10K
Replies
126
Views
9K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
127
Views
12K
Replies
48
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
124
Views
13K
Top