Bush Imposes Harsh New Sanctions on Iran

[MACDRIVE]

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3098891.ece)


US hits Iran with toughest penalties since 1979 siege

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 26 October 2007

The Bush administration has moved a step closer to military conflict with Iran, imposing punitive measures on its Revolutionary Guard Corps and calling the al-Quds unit of the guards a terrorist organisation.

Vladimir Putin immediately called the new US sanctions the work of a " madman with a razor blade in his hand". The Russian President said: "Why worsen the situation by threatening sanctions and bring it to a dead end?"

The Guards' chief, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said: "Today, enemy has concentrated sharp point of its attacks on the Guards. As always, the corps is ready to defend the ideals of the revolution more than ever before."

The sanctions are the toughest measures against Tehran since the siege of the US embassy 1979 under the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The US has never before in its history taken such measures against the armed forces of an independent government.

US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, announced the new measures, saying they were meant "to confront the threatening behaviour of the Iranians".

The US was forced to act alone, however, with Britain only offering rhetorical support for unilateral action outside the United Nations Security Council. A plan to have gradually tightening UN sanctions is foundering following opposition from Russia and China.

The European Union remains deeply divided on the way forward with Germany opposed to more sanctions at this stage. It has a huge economic stake in Iran with which it had exports worth $5.7bn (£2.8bn) last year.

There was sharp criticism in the US as well. The foreign affairs commentator Anthony Cordesman said: "The Bush Administration has already done immense damage to US credibility throughout the region and much of the world. The administration ... is viewed as threatening to drag the Gulf into another war – this time with Iran, as failing to consult and explain, and as indifferent to the views of its friends and allies."

The Bush administration is making its strongest bid yet to brand Iran as a rogue regime already on a war footing, and causing trouble in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan as well as the Palestinian territories with a military-controlled bureaucracy that is spreading terrorism and acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

But critics say it is once again distorting the facts as it prepares US and international public opinion for military strikes on Iran, either by US forces or by Israel.

Washington justified the new sanctions by accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of the devastating campaign of roadside bombs by Shia militias against its troops in Iraq. Attempts to declare the entire Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian defence forces, a foreign terrorist organisation were shelved following European opposition. But the administration accuses the Corps of being at the heart of Iran's drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Ms Rice said that while Washington was still open to a diplomatic solution, "unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

The sanctions may represent a final attempt by the administration to stop Iran's drive to develop nuclear power and the ability to create weapons and reflect the growing frustration at the failure of the UN Security Council to control Iran.

The sweeping new US sanctions affect Iranian banks, companies, officials and government agencies which the White House says are either part of the country's push to acquire weapons of mass destruction or supporting acts of terrorism abroad. The sanctions specifically targeted Revolutionary Guards Corps finances and eight affiliated companies. They also named five Revolutionary Guards officials as well as the Quds Force. Washington says that this elite unit of the Guards backs the Taliban and is trying illegally to acquire weapons of mass destruction and missile technology. The US also struck at Iran's Defence Ministry and two additional state-run banks.

One of these, Bank Melli, has branches all over the world including Britain. The US says it is a supporter of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq and across the Middle East. The US hopes to cripple Iranian trade by isolating the banks from the world financial system.



Is this the beginning of the end?

[Much Ado]

Is this the beginning of the end?

Or, indeed, the end of the beginning. It's showtime, and it's too late to do anything about it now, short of getting that President out before he has a chance to go 'double or quits'.

[solvs]

We don't have the resources and he doesn't have the political capital to deal with Iran if we wanted to. And we don't. We have war fatigue from the last couple of failures, still in progress.

[MACDRIVE]

solvs,

All the resources he needs is just the NAVY and the USAF; and those two branches have hardly broken a sweat during this war. As far as political capital, he doesn't need any to launch a strike; he just needs to remain President. ;)

[Swarmlord]

The article doesn't state what the sanctions are. We stop importing pistashios or something draconion like that?

[obeygiant]

I heard Sec. Rice say that any US company is forbidden to do business with Iran. I guess they'll have to get their iPods second hand.

[Swarmlord]

I heard Sec. Rice say that any US company is forbidden to do business with Iran. I guess they'll have to get their iPods second hand.

I think listening to music and dancing are illegal there anyway.

[Thanatoast]

We don't have the resources and he doesn't have the political capital to deal with Iran if we wanted to. And we don't. We have war fatigue from the last couple of failures, still in progress.

Doesn't need political capital. Doesn't even need monetary capital. All he needs are generals and admirals who follow orders.

I'm currently reading "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks, and the first section of the book is the devoted to the misgivings the Army had going into Iraq half-assed the way we did. Low morale and no faith in the battle plan (in which orders were distributed by PowerPoint slide, and non-specific as to action or goal).

I'm not fond of coups, but a simple "no" from the military would suffice, I think. Lame-ducking George in such a definitive way would induce massive change in our political system. Whether good (not following bad leadership) or bad (ripping the military from civilian control) would have to play out.

[leekohler]

Something has to be done. He has got to be stopped. This is obviously a ploy for Bush to find a way to stay in power. I don't think there can be any denying it at this point. He'll try to declare some state of emergency crap, trust me.

[Swarmlord]

Something has to be done. He has got to be stopped. This is obviously a ploy for Bush to find a way to stay in power. I don't think there can be any denying it at this point. He'll try to declare some state of emergency crap, trust me.

Do you really think that Bush wants to remain President past his term? Nonsense.

It wouldn't surprise me that a joint attack against nuclear targets in Iran could take place before the next president is sworn in though. Could put a twist on the election in the sense that people will have to decide which side could hit the ground running so to speak.

[leekohler]

Do you really think that Bush wants to remain President past his term? Nonsense.

It wouldn't surprise me that a joint attack against nuclear targets in Iran could take place before the next president is sworn in though. Could put a twist on the election in the sense that people will have to decide which side could hit the ground running so to speak.

Considering the way he's behaving, yes I do. Actually, I think it's Cheney who wants to stay.

[Swarmlord]

Considering the way he's behaving, yes I do. Actually, I think it's Cheney who wants to stay.

What makes you think that about Cheney? He never ran for the office in the first place and could have run in 2008 and eliminated the current field a long time ago. With his health problems and personal wealth, I just can't see it.

According to some, people like him run the country anyway from behind the scenes without holding the office. Why take the heat by remaining in office?

[leekohler]

What makes you think that about Cheney? He never ran for the office in the first place and could have run in 2008 and eliminated the current field a long time ago. With his health problems and personal wealth, I just can't see it.

According to some, people like him run the country anyway from behind the scenes without holding the office. Why take the heat by remaining in office?

Why spend all that money running for office, when you can manufacture a crisis to keep you there? Much cheaper, and there's no need to bother with that silly, democratic process stuff. That way, you can keep enriching your friends on the backs of military families and the middle class.

[shinji]

Something has to be done. He has got to be stopped. This is obviously a ploy for Bush to find a way to stay in power. I don't think there can be any denying it at this point. He'll try to declare some state of emergency crap, trust me.

It don't think this is "obviously" a ploy for Bush to stay in power at all, nor do I think the American public would be ok with that. I think it is what it is...harsher sanctions that the next president will have to deal with.

[leekohler]

It don't think this is "obviously" a ploy for Bush to stay in power at all, nor do I think the American public would be ok with that. I think it is what it is...harsher sanctions that the next president will have to deal with.

I hope you're right. But so far, everything I've said before about Bush has been right on the money.

[Thanatoast]

It's a last-ditch effort by the neocons to prove their "bomb them until they love us" strategy in the Middle East. They've got the idea in their heads that if they can displace the Iranian leadership the the people will rise up and democratize, just like in Iraq...

[SMM]

solvs,

All the resources he needs is just the NAVY and the USAF; and those two branches have hardly broken a sweat during this war. As far as political capital, he doesn't need any to launch a strike; he just needs to remain President. ;)

MACDRIVE,

I do not think that a straight bombing campaign is what their agenda is. If it were, I think they would have launched it by now. Israel has sought a pro-Israel State in the mid-East for decades. Ailes, Lieberman, Krystol, Rove and the rest of the U.S. pro-Israel lobby tried to persuade Cheney to invade Iran, instead of Iraq. When I first read this, it made me wonder whether there was anything more to the invasion than a land-grab and regime change? As more time passes, it does not look like anything else.

It absolutely makes me nauseous to think, we have a religious lobby, sending our young people to a foreign land, to die for their cause. We do not have any voice in their policies, so why should we be asked to support them?

[mactastic]

Unilateral sanctions are a joke.

And of course laws didn't stop corporations from dealing with Iran previously. And donating lavishly to the GOP at the same time IIRC.

[dogtanian]

Any action the US takes (I think the UK is stepping out on this one finally) is going to be awful for the lives of the Iranians.

How does the Bush administration decide on who to attack next? From the sounds of it they just roll a dice. I think they have to be invading or enacting a military coup d'état of some sort just to feel like their doing something.

How about concentrating on some of the issues on your own soil first?

[pseudobrit]

The Bush administration has moved a step closer to military conflict with Iran,

I'm getting that 2002 feeling all over again. This can't be real, can it?

[Iscariot]

The pistachios are but the first victims in our harsh new sanctions.

We have constructed a machine.

A giant space vacuum, if you will — and I advise that you do — whose seemingly benign purpose would be seemingly benign, were it not monstrously sinister. We will begin by sucking away their leisure minutes, each moment rubbed away with the tactile sensation of sandpaper, eroding the infrastructure of their volleyball leagues and intramural activities. Soon the wading pools and urban parks will be empty, collapsing under the stark terror of their sheer loneliness and abandon. Like a vortex from which no lights escapes, the skies will cloud over with manifest despair, the kind of utter sadness that wilts flowers and crushes the backs of rainbows, their majestic spines sundered by the weight of a million heavy hearts. The dark conclusion of leisure fallout will drive the people from their homes, faces wrought and thick with the weight of unbalanced labour economics, into the streets in a massive uprising against relatively itself, in a terrifying act of rebellion so powerful it will reassemble split atoms and reduce any nuclear technology to mere coal power. Also, steam power.

I only pray that it will be enough.

[IJ Reilly]

These unilateral sanctions are obviously a bad idea if only because they will be ineffective. I don't take them as a prelude to war. I take them as the flailing about of an administration that has run out of options.

This article does a disservice to readers by referring to the Revolutionary Guard as "the armed forces of an independent government." The Guard is not a conventional military force by any accepted definition of the term. They are responsible to no civilian authority within Iran and also own a private military-industrial complex. They also are responsible for instigating violence in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories and are driving the Iranian nuclear program. Just because the Bush administration is larded up with pig-headed fools does not make any of the forgoing untrue or a non-issue.

[miloblithe]

What makes you think that about Cheney? He never ran for the office in the first place and could have run in 2008 and eliminated the current field a long time ago. With his health problems and personal wealth, I just can't see it.

According to some, people like him run the country anyway from behind the scenes without holding the office. Why take the heat by remaining in office?

Nonsense. Cheney is unelectable, even in a rigged system. He's remarkably unpopular and you know it. There is no way that he could win the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency.

Your second point, however, is spot on.

[MacNut]

You second point, however, is spot on.So does it really matter who we elect then, if they are just puppets.

[Swarmlord]

So does it really matter who we elect then, if they are just puppets.

There you go. Liberals are going to be unhappy for the most part no matter who's president, so if a conservative is president at least half the country has a chance at being happy. Meanwhile the people that really run the country will continue to do so behind the scenes. Brilliant!

[obeygiant]

There you go. Liberals are going to be unhappy for the most part no matter who's president, so if a conservative is president at least half the country has a chance at being happy. Meanwhile the people that really run the country will continue to do so behind the scenes. Brilliant!

Wow! Hammer hits nail on head. It almost brought a tear to my eye. *snif*

[miloblithe]

There you go. Liberals are going to be unhappy for the most part no matter who's president, so if a conservative is president at least half the country has a chance at being happy. Meanwhile the people that really run the country will continue to do so behind the scenes. Brilliant!

More nonsense. Are you saying that all conservatives vote for Republican candicates because they like them and are truly happy with them or will you admit a significant percentage just considered them the lesser evil.

Same with "liberals."

[MacNut]

If there is a shadow government like everyone claims then why does it matter who we elect if they are just a face.

[miloblithe]

Who's claiming there's a shadow government?

[solvs]

Who's claiming there's a shadow government?
It's a strawman argument in response to the strawman argument someone else made.

I don't think there's a shadow gov necessarily, but most of our Presidents lately do seem to be puppet/figure heads for those who support them. And yeah, I will complain if a Dem becomes Pres and still pulls this crap. Everyone should. Maybe if they stopped sucking, I'd stop complaining. Though no one is going to be perfect, so I'm sure we'll complain no matter what. Again though, a true patriot would, because we want what's best for our country, and if you see our leadership doing something that you think isn't right, shouldn't you speak out against it? Not doing so would be the irresponsible thing.

Plus, at the moment, less than a quarter of this country is happy right now, and anyone paying attention couldn't blame them.

[Swarmlord]

More nonsense. Are you saying that all conservatives vote for Republican candicates because they like them and are truly happy with them or will you admit a significant percentage just considered them the lesser evil.

Same with "liberals."

Remember the term silent majority? I would say even with a level of disatisfaction we have with Republican candidates we still are a content lot. Certainly there's something to what you've pointed out about them being a lesser evil.

[IJ Reilly]

So much for discussing the actual thread topic.

[mactastic]

There you go. Liberals are going to be unhappy for the most part no matter who's president, so if a conservative is president at least half the country has a chance at being happy. Meanwhile the people that really run the country will continue to do so behind the scenes. Brilliant!

Remind me again about how ecstatic Republicans were under the Clenis? The bumper stickers saying "Had Enough? Vote Republican" put the lie to your statement.

Those of the party out of power are less happy. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle they reside on.

Not sure why some people find it so necessary to pretend they are better than some "others".

[miloblithe]

Certainly there's something to what you've pointed out about them being a lesser evil.

You really have to resort to twisting the meaning of what I said to score points with yourself?

[Swarmlord]

You really have to resort to twisting the meaning of what I said to score points with yourself?

Can't even stomach a compliment I see.

[Swarmlord]

Remind me again about how ecstatic Republicans were under the Clenis? The bumper stickers saying "Had Enough? Vote Republican" put the lie to your statement.

Those of the party out of power are less happy. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle they reside on.

Not sure why some people find it so necessary to pretend they are better than some "others".

I noticed how thrilled the people of Louisiana were with their governor. I guess they had enough of that Blanco goodness.

[mactastic]

I noticed how thrilled the people of Louisiana were with their governor. I guess they had enough of that Blanco goodness.
Which has what exactly to do with your point? (Remember, you asserted something relating to happiness associated with presidents.) Or are you just off on another of your patented distractions when you get called on an indefensible statement?

[Swarmlord]

Which has what exactly to do with your point? (Remember, you asserted something relating to happiness associated with presidents.) Or are you just off on another of your patented distractions when you get called on an indefensible statement?

Remind me again who "president" Clenis was again or was that another of your patented distractions? Or did you horribly butcher Clinton's name?

My point was that despite the general dislike of Bush - certainly in Louisiana - their dislike of the governor of their own party was greater. Sorry that distracted you.

[mactastic]

Remind me again who "president" Clenis was again or was that another of your patented distractions? Or did you horribly butcher Clinton's name?

My point was that despite the general dislike of Bush - certainly in Louisiana - their dislike of the governor of their own party was greater. Sorry that distracted you.

So you're saying that conservatives were happy that William Jefferson Clinton (sorry if that distracted you) was their president?

'Cause I sure remember a whole lot of unhinged conservative screeds from those days. Talk about a terminally unhappy bunch...

[Swarmlord]

So you're saying that conservatives were happy that William Jefferson Clinton (sorry if that distracted you) was their president?

'Cause I sure remember a whole lot of unhinged conservative screeds from those days. Talk about a terminally unhappy bunch...

Yeah, I definitely remember all the public forums where conservatives heckled the president or tried to shout him down. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

So much for discussing the actual thread topic.

Yep.

These threads always fall into the same gravity well.


I think you're right about the sanctions, the administration doesn't have much leverage, and since they "must do something" sanctions is the only way to go.

EDIT: After reading more articles, especially from the various international papers, I've become even more convinced that this is just political flailing. The IPI pipeline is going to continue according to Pakistan and the Russians appear to enjoy playing both sides.

[hulugu]

Yeah, I definitely remember all the public forums where conservatives heckled the president or tried to shout him down. :rolleyes:

This is an irrelevant argument at best.

[solvs]

I noticed how thrilled the people of Louisiana were with their governor. I guess they had enough of that Blanco goodness.
Uh, you know she's stepping down voluntarily after accepting responsibility or her mistakes right?

Or are you just off on another of your patented distractions when you get called on an indefensible statement?
It's almost cliche now isn't it.

My point was that despite the general dislike of Bush - certainly in Louisiana - their dislike of the governor of their own party was greater.
But according to recent polls, if you actually read them, people still trust the Dems overall than the GOP, especially Bush, despite their disdain and impatience with Congress overall and it's lack of progress.

This is an irrelevant argument at best.
What else is new for one who has no argument.

But yeah, on topic, this Iran thing is just more chest puffing from a lame duck who isn't getting his way.

[IJ Reilly]

Yep.

These threads always fall into the same gravity well.


I think you're right about the sanctions, the administration doesn't have much leverage, and since they "must do something" sanctions is the only way to go.

EDIT: After reading more articles, especially from the various international papers, I've become even more convinced that this is just political flailing. The IPI pipeline is going to continue according to Pakistan and the Russians appear to enjoy playing both sides.

I think the two extremes in this debate get to talking right past each other, and in the course of doing so, miss most of the salient issues.

[solvs]

I think the two extremes in this debate get to talking right past each other, and in the course of doing so, miss most of the salient issues.
That Iran very well could be a threat, whether reactive or not, but we can't do anything about it if we wanted to, so we make the same vague threats they do?

[Swarmlord]

<snip> but we can't do anything about it if we wanted to,<snip>

Watch and see. The newest bunker buster bombs have been tested and will be fitted to the B-2 bombers. Those ain't going to be used to crop dust poppy fields in Afganistan. I'd advise Abdimjob to look to the skies, but I don't think he'll be able to see what's coming anyway.

[IJ Reilly]

That Iran very well could be a threat, whether reactive or not, but we can't do anything about it if we wanted to, so we make the same vague threats they do?

I'm not endorsing the administration's desperate measures. Far from it. I'm simply pointing out that we seem to be surrounded by immoderate and unrealistic views on both sides of the argument. More can be done about Iran, but it's going to take time, patience and cooperation.

[hulugu]

Watch and see. The newest bunker buster bombs have been tested and will be fitted to the B-2 bombers. Those ain't going to be used to crop dust poppy fields in Afganistan. I'd advise Abdimjob to look to the skies, but I don't think he'll be able to see what's coming anyway.

This assumes several things:

1. We know where to drop the bombs where the damage will be significant enough to halt the Iranian's progress on their supposed nuclear program.

2. The bombs will penetrate the facility enough to actually damage it. Please note, the GBU-28 can penetrate about 20 feet of concrete, however there have been tests that show deeper tunnels of earth with concrete reinforcement can defeat the GBU.

3. The Iranians don't have more than one facility. Or, aren't ready to move their equipment before the B-2 is over the oceans.

4. That Iranian air-defense doesn't get lucky and actually pick off one of these birds en route. Remember the F-117 we lost over Kosovo?


Of course, the consequences of such an attack are relatively unknown, but we can assume that the Iranians may respond by sending more IRG troops into Iraq or by redoubling their efforts on getting an actual bomb.

[solvs]

Watch and see. The newest bunker buster bombs have been tested and will be fitted to the B-2 bombers. Those ain't going to be used to crop dust poppy fields in Afganistan. I'd advise Abdimjob to look to the skies, but I don't think he'll be able to see what's coming anyway.
I'm sure that will go over well with everyone. No, I see absolutely no negative consequences with doing that whatsoever. I'm sure this country's citizens and all of our allies with think this is a wonderful idea, and our enemies won't do anything about it. And I'm sure those who survive will greet us as liberators. :rolleyes: Seriously!?!

Unlike the Afghanis, who as I posted in another thread, are not so happy we keep killing the innocent among them, especially when we wind up missing our targets anyway.

I'm not endorsing the administration's desperate measures. Far from it. I'm simply pointing out that we seem to be surrounded by immoderate and unrealistic views on both sides of the argument. More can be done about Iran, but it's going to take time, patience and cooperation.
Something the current administrations aren't exactly known for, which is why we're so worried.

[IJ Reilly]

Something the current administrations aren't exactly known for, which is why we're so worried.

I know, and I share that concern, but I think as a practical matter, the Bush administration has tied its own hands on Iran. For all of their tough talk, I don't believe there's much they can actually do.

[mactastic]

I know, and I share that concern, but I think as a practical matter, the Bush administration has tied its own hands on Iran. For all of their tough talk, I don't believe there's much they can actually do.
You mean nothing effective they can actually do? Because they can surely order bombing strikes. And as we see in this forum, there are those who fervently believe that flexing a little American military muscle will make everything right in Iran.

[solvs]

Meanwhile,

Experts: No firm evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/21067.html)

So... this really is just like Iraq then?

[IJ Reilly]

Meanwhile,

Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/21067.html)

So... this really is just like Iraq then?

Why did you leave a word out of the headline?

The interesting stuff starts here:

Nevertheless, there are many reasons to be skeptical of Iran's claims that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including the country's vast petroleum reserves, its dealings with a Pakistani dealer in black-market nuclear technology and the fact that it concealed its uranium-enrichment program from a U.N. watchdog agency for 18 years.

"Many aspects of Iran's past nuclear program and behavior make more sense if this program was set up for military rather than civilian purposes," Pierre Goldschmidt, a former U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency deputy director general, said in a speech Oct. 30 at Harvard University.

[solvs]

Why did you leave a word out of the headline?
I copied and pasted from the link. Must have been updated since then. Apologies, I'll edit my post.

No, I still don't trust them. Just don't think the threat exists (yet), and don't want to make things worse. I'd at least like more evidence than we had last time, which we now know not to be so true. Maybe we can at least wait until we have a more competent gov. In both countries.

Not holding my breath for either though of course.

[IJ Reilly]

I copied and pasted from the link. Must have been updated since then. Apologies, I'll edit my post.

No, I still don't trust them. Just don't think the threat exists (yet), and don't want to make things worse. I'd at least like more evidence than we had last time, which we now know not to be so true. Maybe we can at least wait until we have a more competent gov. In both countries.

Not holding my breath for either though of course.

The question is, who do you not trust? Setting aside the inflammatory remarks of Bushco, the concerns and suspicions are being expressed by nuclear proliferation experts.

The choices really should not be between kookie Bush-Cheney World War III rhetoric and peek-through-my-fingers and pretend it's not really happening.

[solvs]

The question is, who do you not trust?
I don't trust either side. Which creates a bit of a pickle. What do we do next? If anything? No one really seems to know. Which is kinda why I'm so mad, because this is such a big mess, and I hate that our leadership helped to make it so much worse.

What I gathered from the link I posted is that no one is really sure what's going on, which is where I think the administration should at least try to start.

[mactastic]

I don't trust either side. Which creates a bit of a pickle. What do we do next? If anything? No one really seems to know. Which is kinda why I'm so mad, because this is such a big mess, and I hate that our leadership helped to make it so much worse.

What I gathered from the link I posted is that no one is really sure what's going on, which is where I think the administration should at least try to start.
Right, at this point we're in a position where we simply have to wait for one or both of the leaders employing childish rhetoric to leave office and hope that their replacement(s) are better equipped to handle international diplomacy.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't trust either side. Which creates a bit of a pickle. What do we do next? If anything? No one really seems to know. Which is kinda why I'm so mad, because this is such a big mess, and I hate that our leadership helped to make it so much worse.

What I gathered from the link I posted is that no one is really sure what's going on, which is where I think the administration should at least try to start.

The key problem is Iran's unwillingness to accept the facilities inspections which are required for them to comply with the NPT. Iran's rhetoric is fundamentally deceptive. They claim they are only acting within their national rights to develop nuclear power -- but the fact is, the NPT protects that right. The cost of exercising this right under the NPT is international scrutiny to prevent proliferation of weapons. The Iranian government's position on oversight raises obvious concerns right on its face. We aren't really sure what is going on because the Iranian government doesn't want us to know. We can't honestly say that we haven't learning anything useful abut Iran's intentions from their deliberate and willful opacity.

[hulugu]

The key problem is Iran's unwillingness to accept the facilities inspections which are required for them to comply with the NPT. Iran's rhetoric is fundamentally deceptive. They claim they are only acting within their national rights to develop nuclear power -- but the fact is, the NPT protects that right. The cost of exercising this right under the NPT is international scrutiny to prevent proliferation of weapons. The Iranian government's position on oversight raises obvious concerns right on its face. We aren't really sure what is going on because the Iranian government doesn't want us to know. We can't honestly say that we haven't learning anything useful abut Iran's intentions from their deliberate and willful opacity.

I don't have any doubt that the Iranians are working towards a military nuclear program, however I have some doubts that the Iranians will build such a weapon and immediately hand it over to the nearest jihadists or launch it at Israel.

[obeygiant]

I don't have any doubt that the Iranians are working towards a military nuclear program, however I have some doubts that the Iranians will build such a weapon and immediately hand it over to the nearest jihadists or launch it at Israel.

They don't have to hand it over to anyone. They have their own Revolutionary Guard.

[mactastic]

They don't have to hand it over to anyone. They have their own Revolutionary Guard.
Are you saying the Revolutionary Guard will proliferate, or will launch a nuke at Israel against the wishes of the government?

[IJ Reilly]

I don't have any doubt that the Iranians are working towards a military nuclear program, however I have some doubts that the Iranians will build such a weapon and immediately hand it over to the nearest jihadists or launch it at Israel.

I don't think this is the most immediate concern either, but the basic philosophy behind the NPT is that world stability is better served if fewer rather than more countries join the nuclear club. Nuclear technology and materials leakage is also a real issue (see: Pakistan and North Korea).

[mactastic]

The key problem is Iran's unwillingness to accept the facilities inspections which are required for them to comply with the NPT. Iran's rhetoric is fundamentally deceptive. They claim they are only acting within their national rights to develop nuclear power -- but the fact is, the NPT protects that right. The cost of exercising this right under the NPT is international scrutiny to prevent proliferation of weapons.
While I support bringing the Iranian regime into compliance with the NPT, it would help in convincing them if we were in compliance with the NPT ourselves. Arguably we are not following through on "negotiating in good faith" regarding the disarmament portion of the NPT.

Like torture, this is yet another "moral high ground" issue that other countries see and use to paint us as hypocrites, demanding others conform to agreements we are unwilling to adhere to ourselves.

[Swarmlord]

Are you saying the Revolutionary Guard will proliferate, or will launch a nuke at Israel against the wishes of the government?

What makes you think it's against the wishes of the government?

[mactastic]

What makes you think it's against the wishes of the government?
Follow the thread and you won't have such facile questions...

Obeygiant did not seem to be questioning the premise Hulugu put forth that the Iranian government would not proliferate nor immediately launch at Israel. Thus I asked him if he thought that the Revolutionary Guard would be acting against the wishes of the Iranian government since Obeygiant indicated that he thought the Revolutionary Guard would proliferate and/or launch an attack on Israel.

Nowhere did I put forth an opinion of my own stating that I thought the Revolutionary Guard would or would not act on it's own.

Nice try.

[obeygiant]

Obeygiant indicated that he thought the Revolutionary Guard would proliferate and/or launch an attack on Israel.

Nowhere did I put forth an opinion of my own stating that I thought the Revolutionary Guard would or would not act on it's own.


Actually I meant that if Iran had a bomb they wouldn't have to hand it over to Jihadists. It would certainly change the dynamic of the region. Iran's senior leadership has indicated in the past (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html) its dislike of Israel. So it would be prudent to prevent the Iranians from constructing a bomb.

We've had this discussion before and I believe your answer to Ahmedinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map was that he "didn't mean what he said." Our friend Skunk said that the Iranians actually like Jews but hate the State of Israel. To me they are one in the same but who knows, I'm some looney "right-winger". :)

[KingYaba]

4. That Iranian air-defense doesn't get lucky and actually pick off one of these birds en route. Remember the F-117 we lost over Kosovo?

So what is holding us back from putting (or using) conventional warheads on ICBMs?

[hulugu]

They don't have to hand it over to anyone. They have their own Revolutionary Guard.

Actually I meant that if Iran had a bomb they wouldn't have to hand it over to Jihadists. It would certainly change the dynamic of the region. Iran's senior leadership has indicated in the past its dislike of Israel. So it would be prudent to prevent the Iranians from constructing a bomb.

The Iranians definitely want to have the "Big Stick," but no one outside of Tehran knows exactly what their plans are, however I think it's far more likely that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon because they see the influence it will give them in the region. However, the Iranians (hopefully) understand that will the potential of such an arsenal gives them power, the actual use of a weapon against Israel or the United States will be mean a complete loss of power; the Iranian state would not survive a retaliation nor its sudden pariah status on the world stage.

I don't think this is the most immediate concern either, but the basic philosophy behind the NPT is that world stability is better served if fewer rather than more countries join the nuclear club. Nuclear technology and materials leakage is also a real issue (see: Pakistan and North Korea).

I heartily agree, which is why I'm less than thrilled about our recent deal with India regarding the same subject and our relative silence about AQ Khan, why that guy isn't enjoying a tropical hotel courtesy of US intelligence says more about the policy of realpolitik than saving the world for Democracy.

So what is holding us back from putting (or using) conventional warheads on ICBMs?

Accuracy. The best ICBM systems were never as accurate as a GPS guided munition. And, to hit and destroy an underground facility you need to be extraordinarily accurate to have any hope of success.

Plus, this would require re-tooling of the MERV system, new software for guidance, deployment, etc. Furthermore, we would need to give plenty of warning to the Russians, who may hand that information to the Iranians negating the entire project.

[solvs]

To me they are one in the same

They most certainly are not.

[obeygiant]

They most certainly are not.

Really? Please explain why those who call for the destruction of Israel don't actually mean jews.
It seems like there would be some collateral jewish person damage if the state of Israel was destroyed.

[solvs]

Really? Please explain why those who call for the destruction of Israel don't actually mean jews.
It seems like there would be some collateral jewish person damage if the state of Israel was destroyed.
I meant that Jews don't have to equal Israel, and vice versa. There are some Jews, many in my own family BTW, who disagree with the way Israel does things. Those who criticize Israel are noting criticizing all Jews, nor does Israel speak for all of us. You seem to think these countries and leaders who criticize, and yes, even threaten, Israel are attacking Jews. Also ignoring that some of these countries have many Jews among them. Some even in their gov. Does that mean then when we threaten Arab countries we hate Arabs? Same line of reasoning.

I won't go as far as skunk did, nor say he wasn't threatening Israel, but it was as much rhetoric as our poor leadership does when threatening the same types of things against them. If they are a threat, it would be nice to have clear reasoning, with proof, and a clear plan on how to deal with it. All I see is more rhetoric. Then more rhetoric back from them in response.

Truth is, neither of us can actually do anything anytime soon, and we all know it.

[IJ Reilly]

Much of the Iranian government's bellicose rhetoric is designed for domestic consumption, but Iran does supply and support Hamas and Hezbollah, so they are doing far more than just talking the talk.

[mactastic]

Actually I meant that if Iran had a bomb they wouldn't have to hand it over to Jihadists. It would certainly change the dynamic of the region. Iran's senior leadership has indicated in the past (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html) its dislike of Israel. So it would be prudent to prevent the Iranians from constructing a bomb.
It would be prudent to bring the Iranian government's nuclear program under the auspices of the UN. All this tough talk from both sides has reduced the chances of that happening. And both sides gain from their domestic political supporters from the rhetoric of fear.

And of course, many of those supporters buy into it, hook line and sinker.

We've had this discussion before and I believe your answer to Ahmedinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map was that he "didn't mean what he said." Our friend Skunk said that the Iranians actually like Jews but hate the State of Israel. To me they are one in the same but who knows, I'm some looney "right-winger". :)
My answer was to your assertion that Ahmedinijad said he would wipe Israel off the map. He did not say that. The fact that he allowed that impression to remain does not change the fact that he did not utter the words you say he did.

And I've never used that answer to excuse or avoid a responsibility to engage with Iran and find out what they are up to and what their intentions are towards us. I'm pretty sure, at least with the current leadership, that they aren't good. Valerie Plame could give you the details. If she was still working, that is.

[Genghis Khan]

Just a point about israel (which for some reason has been brought to dominance in this thread)...the reason why it causes so much trouble in the middle east is because it was place their by an external power...the 'israelis' didn't fight for their country, so the palestinians et al feel they have been robbed


anyway, back to iran...i'd love to see Bush invade Iran...because unlike Iraq, it actually has a military and weapons of mass destruction

if iran really has a nuclear program, what do you think Ahmedinijad will do when the US bombs/invades iran.........

[IJ Reilly]

Just a point about israel (which for some reason has been brought to dominance in this thread)...the reason why it causes so much trouble in the middle east is because it was place their by an external power...the 'israelis' didn't fight for their country, so the palestinians et al feel they have been robbed

Where do people get these ideas? Essentially, none of this is correct.

[Iscariot]

Just a point about israel (which for some reason has been brought to dominance in this thread)...the reason why it causes so much trouble in the middle east is because it was place their by an external power...the 'israelis' didn't fight for their country, so the palestinians et al feel they have been robbed

While technically correct in that the state of Israel was indeed "legitimatized" under British mandate, the idea of Israel being "created" or otherwise placed there by an external power ignores over three thousand years of regional history.

[skunk]

I won't go as far as skunk didHang on one cotton-picking minute: I haven't even posted in this thread. :confused:

[IJ Reilly]

While technically correct in that the state of Israel was indeed "legitimatized" under British mandate, the idea of Israel being "created" or otherwise placed there by an external power ignores over three thousand years of regional history.

And this isn't really correct. Even assuming the British had the power to "legitimize" the state of Israel, in fact they did not. In reality the British government attempted to restrict Jewish immigration into Palestine after World War II, going so far as to imprison Jewish immigrants on Cyprus and to reject the UN partition order that created the state of Israel. When Israel did declare its independence it was only after the British withdrew, and in accordance with the UN resolution.

Hang on one cotton-picking minute: I haven't even posted in this thread. :confused:

We know how you think.

[skunk]

We know how you think.I knew that dentist was up to no good. My fillings are transmitting again. :mad:

[Iscariot]

And this isn't really correct. Even assuming the British had the power to "legitimize" the state of Israel, in fact they did not. In reality the British government attempted to restrict Jewish immigration into Palestine after World War II, going so far as to imprison Jewish immigrants on Cyprus and to reject the UN partition order that created the state of Israel. When Israel did declare its independence it was only after the British withdrew, and in accordance with the UN resolution.

Hence, quotes around "legitimize", and "create". If you really want to get into it, the UN partition and resolution 181 didn't really "legitimize" Israel, either.

[solvs]

Hang on one cotton-picking minute: I haven't even posted in this thread. :confused:

Sorry. Damned hearsay. This is what I get for trusting something og said.

[obeygiant]

Sorry. Damned hearsay. This is what I get for trusting something og said.

Just a minute solvs, I was quoting something skunk mentioned months ago. Keep up will ya!

[solvs]

Just a minute solvs, I was quoting something skunk mentioned months ago. Keep up will ya!

I wasn't paying attention. I thought you were referring to another thread I hadn't read yet. Mea culpa either way.

I still don't trust any of them.

[IJ Reilly]

Hence, quotes around "legitimize", and "create". If you really want to get into it, the UN partition and resolution 181 didn't really "legitimize" Israel, either.

Not sure what you mean by "didn't really legitimize Israel." What did the UN resolution do, then? The UN ordered the partition, which Britain resisted and the Arab countries rejected. In fact this was the "two state solution" which we are still struggling to achieve today.