Iran target of US Gulf military moves, Gates says

[zimv20]

guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990962,00.html)


Increased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."

His remarks followed tough comments on Iran at the weekend from other senior US officials. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq", while the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq".

Such remarks, following the prospect of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran as raised by George Bush in his televised address last week, have fuelled speculation that the US is softening up the American public for possible action against Tehran.

The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is a repudiation of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.

(more)

i agree with the assessment that we're seeing a marketing campaign in the US for support for an attack on iran. what will be very interesting is the possibility of an ensuing constitutional crisis when congress asserts its checks and balances on the executive branch.

[MACDRIVE]

Once Bush starts the war with Iran, congress is going to have to provide funds or be portrayed as putting the U.S. military at great risk. And besides, the American people voted Bush in, it's their own fault.

[Queso]

And so The War On Terror continues down the path of self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm starting to hope the Iranians hurry up and get the bomb. It's the only way to stop this madness. :rolleyes:

[Dont Hurt Me]

This is a good way to get WW3 started in my view, China & Russia arent just going to watch on the sidelines. Fighting a war on the otherside of the planet we could very well have our military surrounded by the likes of China Russia Iran and anyone else who doesnt like us.

[MACDRIVE]

This is a good way to get WW3 started in my view, China & Russia arent just going to watch on the sidelines. Fighting a war on the otherside of the planet we could very well have our military surrounded by the likes of China Russia Iran and anyone else who doesnt like us.

Ahh yes...now you're getting the picture. I wish I could get everyone else to start thinking the same way. ;) :)

[skunk]

This is a good way to get WW3 started in my view, China & Russia arent just going to watch on the sidelines. Fighting a war on the otherside of the planet we could very well have our military surrounded by the likes of China Russia Iran and anyone else who doesnt like us.Oh, stop being such a wuss! Bring it on, I say. I feel a Monty Python sketch coming on.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Ahh yes...now you're getting the picture. I wish I could get everyone else to start thinking the same way. ;) :)I dont follow you, but I am serious about our military sitting in a situation they cant win which would mean its time for nukes, then we use them, then someone else then the next guy and presto we create a Nuclear winter for our planet all because of Oil. Man hasnt changed only his clubs have.

[BoyBach]

Finally the US 'Exit Strategy' is revealed. They're simply going to move all of the troops across the border and invade Iran.

Bush: "We're no longer in Iraq. Mission Accomplished."


(By the way, I hope I'm wrong)

[takao]

"very negative behavior" lol

[skunk]

These guys are actually playing very, very dangerous games here.

[lord patton]

This is a good way to get WW3 started in my view, China & Russia arent just going to watch on the sidelines. Fighting a war on the otherside of the planet we could very well have our military surrounded by the likes of China Russia Iran and anyone else who doesnt like us.

It's more likely that China, seeing the USS Stennis carrier group move from Pacific to Central command, uses this opportunity to move on Taiwan.

To be certain, everyone will use US weakness to their advantage. I doubt, however, they have any interest in direct confrontation. We're weakening ourselves without their help, why get involved. It's not like China and Russia actually care about Iran (except as buyers of weapons and sellers of oil).

[brad.c]

These guys are actually playing very, very dangerous games here.

Coincidentally, I noticed that Google Video has the BBC documentary/feature Threads avaiable for download. Except in that scenario, it was Russia who invaded iran. Luckily Russia was never that stupid in real life.

[Queso]

We're weakening ourselves without their help, why get involved. It's not like China and Russia actually care about Iran (except as buyers of weapons and sellers of oil).
Yep. Your national debt now stands at around two-thirds of GDP. Compare that to the UK or France, where it's roughly one-third. Excessive government spending is like binge drinking. You may have fun whilst it's happening, but it leads to one nasty hangover in the morning.

[pseudobrit]

Once Bush starts the war with Iran, congress is going to have to provide funds or be portrayed as putting the U.S. military at great risk. And besides, the American people voted Bush in, it's their own fault.

And what about the American people who voted the Democrats in control of Congress to throw a wet blanket on Bush's war orgy?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Coincidentally, I noticed that Google Video has the BBC documentary/feature Threads avaiable for download. Except in that scenario, it was Russia who invaded iran. Luckily Russia was never that stupid in real life.
Russia could be in Iran or Iraq before we could do anything, we are on the otherside of the planet and they are next door.

[skunk]

And what about the American people who voted the Democrats in control of Congress to throw a wet blanket on Bush's war orgy?Too bloody late.

[MACDRIVE]

I dont follow you,

I applaud you for thinking in terms of probable scenarios rather than just focussing on the past and present media reports. :)


(By the way, I hope I'm wrong)

We know what you mean; no need to explain. :(

It's not like China and Russia actually care about Iran (except as buyers of weapons and sellers of oil).


You hit the nail on the head with that one. China is going to have to decide on which they value more: Iran's oil or the American's insatible appetite for cheap goods.

As far as Russia goes, I don't know what they need us for. I don't think we do any trade with them. They might be more appt to attack us than China is. :confused:

[Queso]

You hit the nail on the head with that one. China is going to have to decide on which they value more: Iran's oil or the American's insatible appetite for cheap goods.
Or put it another way, America is going to have to decide on which they value more : Chinese money to fund the US national debt, or Bush's insatible appetite for cheap glory.

As far as Russia goes, I don't know what they need us for. I don't think we do any trade with them. They might be more appt to attack us than China is. :confused:
Russian trade is mostly with the EU. But don't panic, they couldn't really give a toss about the US as long as the US doesn't try treading on Russian toes.

I'm not surpised you have such a paranoia about the other major nations on the planet. Your President has spent his term doing his best to isolate the USA and lose it friends. Try not to lose too much sleep about it though. If it kicks off, we'll all be dead before we realise it.

[skunk]

Try not to lose too much sleep about it though. If it kicks off, we'll all be dead before we realise it.Hey, I was counting on a four minute warning. You mean we don't even get that any more?

[Queso]

Hey, I was counting on a four minute warning. You mean we don't even get that any more?
45 minutes apparently :D

[skunk]

45 minutes apparently :DOh good. Just enough time to take up smoking again.

[BoyBach]

45 minutes apparently :D


That's from Iraq.

Iran would be more 50 minutes. :D

[skunk]

That's from Iraq.

Iran would be more 50 minutes. :DStrictly speaking, the 45 minutes was the time needed to unscrew the nose-cone, pour a bag of anthrax powder in and screw it back onto the shellcase, wasn't it? How did anyone believe that crap?

[Queso]

Strictly speaking, the 45 minutes was the time needed to pour a bag of anthrax powder into a warhead and screw it back onto the missile, wasn't it? How did anyone believe that crap?
Well, it's not like they could rely on Royal Mail, was it?

[skunk]

Well, it's not like they could rely on Royal Mail, was it?They could have used Fedex.

[BoyBach]

US flexes muscles towards Iran
By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent


The arrest of five Iranian officials, seized by US troops in a raid on an office in Irbil in northern Iraq, could signal a new more assertive US policy towards Tehran.

Indeed, while President George Bush's speech last week was focused largely on Iraq and the need for a new security plan in Baghdad, one of its notable aspects was its uncompromising tone towards Iran.

Rhetorically, Mr Bush had the Iranian government firmly in his sights. Now there are indications that Washington's tougher words are being matched by a range of practical steps to bring further pressure on Tehran.

Just a few weeks ago, when the bipartisan Iraq Study Group published its report in Washington, one of its central recommendations was that the Bush administration should engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran.

Tehran, so the argument goes, through its close alliance with key Shia factions both inside and outside the Iraqi government, has an important finger in the Iraqi pie.

What could be more logical then than to try to win Tehran over - to seek a deal, hoping, at least, to curtail or constrain Iran's influence?

Pressure on all fronts

President Bush shares this analysis of Iran's role but not the recommended answer of engagement.

Indeed his comments mark a toughening of the US position - a clear sign that Washington now intends to confront Iran's growing influence in Iraq.

"Iran," said the president, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops... We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The Iranian liaison office in Irbil raided by US forces
US forces raided the Iranian liaison office in Irbil

Within hours of the president's speech, US forces raided an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq and detained five staff members.

This undoubtedly signals a ratcheting up of pressure on the Iranians, pressure which is already being applied on a number of other fronts.

Limited economic sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme have been backed by the UN Security Council in New York.

The United States is pressing its closest allies to apply additional sanctions of their own and is leading the way, by - last week, for example - black-listing Iran's fifth-largest bank, alleging that it is involved in financing Iran's missile programmes.

Overt military pressure is also being applied. An additional US aircraft carrier and its accompanying strike group has been deployed to the region.

The message is clear. Both on the nuclear front and in Iraq, Mr Bush seems intent on rolling back Iran's growing influence.

Nuclear strike?

Another straw in the wind is the lively public debate in Israel on the desirability or otherwise of a potential strike on Iran's nuclear sites - perhaps even using tactical nuclear weapons.

Serious strategic analysts question if Israel really has the means to mount the kind of long-range, week-long air campaign that might be needed to significantly damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

But the discussion, orchestrated by more hawkish voices, serves a purpose - again it is an effort to step up the pressure on Tehran.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
There are rumours about the health of Iran's supreme leader

So can the new US strategy succeed?

There are those who strongly back the toughening US stand against Iranian influence in Iraq.

One leading Sunni politician, Iraq's Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi, says that Iran has "a deep and exceptional influence" in his country's affairs, something he wants to see much reduced.

But, of course, that is not how many Shia politicians see it, and the detention of the Iranian officials is straining ties between Washington and the Iraqi government at a very inconvenient moment.

Future unclear

So much, then, for Iraq, where the tougher US stand towards Iran looks like creating as many problems as it seeks to resolve.

What about the broader impact on Tehran's regional ambitions?

It is not clear yet how successful the new US approach will be. Bilateral economic sanctions by America's friends could potentially concentrate minds in Tehran, though it is far from clear how many countries are willing to go down this path.

The fluctuating rumours of ill-health surrounding Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could also complicate the picture - prompting either a step back from confrontation or more abrasive rhetoric.

Washington's intentions, too, are far from clear. Is Mr Bush seeking to encourage greater pragmatism on the part of the Iranians? Or is this simply the prelude to a more comprehensive attack?

Whether or not the Bush speech represents a new strategy towards Iraq is still a matter of debate. But it decidedly signalled a more muscular US approach towards Iran.

- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6264761.stm)

The 'hawks of war' are circling?