09-03-07, 02:43 AM #1
Will Bush bomb Iran?In a nondescript room, two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran.
The United States, no longer prepared to tolerate the risk that Iranian nuclear weapons will be used against Israel, or passed to terrorists, has already launched a bombing campaign to destroy known Iranian nuclear sites, air bases and air defence sites. Iran has retaliated by cutting off oil to America and its allies, blockading the Straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck, and sanctioned an uprising by Shia militias in southern Iraq that has shut down 60 per cent of Iraq's oil exports.
The job of the officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, who have gathered in an office just off Massachusetts Avenue, behind the rail terminus, Union Station, is to prevent a spike in oil prices that will pitch the world's economy into a catastrophic spin.....
It's long been said that Bush would not leave office without "resolving" the Iranian Nuclear problem. Many have theorized that Bush was bent on war with Iraq because of Saddamn's attempt on his father's life and because he felt the continuation of the Hussain regime was a black mark on his father's record.
Well, a similiar motivation may be at work with respect to Iran:
British and American military officials believe that Mr Bush's ideal scenario is to bring about regime change in Iran, whose mullahs humiliated the US government during the hostage crisis, 28 years ago. "Unless you live here, it is difficult to understand how much the hostage crisis - is burnt into the psyche of Washington," said a Western diplomat in Washington. "They were made to look weak and the people who did it are still in power."
There are credible reports that the US has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran over the past 18 months, using special forces to gather intelligence about military targets - nuclear infrastructure and air bases, and Revolutionary Guard command centres from which Iran could coordinate attacks in Iraq.
By using military special forces, rather than the CIA, the administration does not have to sign a Presidential Finding, required for covert intelligence activity, or report to oversight committees in Congress.
They have even lined up some allies:
The Pentagon has made contact with a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, which has been conducting cross-border operations in Iran, and with Azeri and Baluchi tribesmen in northern and south-eastern Iran, who oppose the theocratic regime.
In the meantime, administration officials are studying the lessons of the recent war game, which was set up to devise a way of weathering an economic storm created by war with Iran. Computer modelling found that if Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, it would nearly double the world price of oil, knock $161 billion off American GDP in a single quarter, cost one million jobs and slash disposable income by $260 billion a quarter.
The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves - good for 60 days - using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America's 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict.
The Heritage report concludes: "The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade."
So I'd say it's a matter of waiting for an appropriate casus belli, or definite proof of Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions (not likely, I'd guess).
09-03-07, 02:48 AM #2
Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?
In fact, even now, after the mess they have made of Iraq over imaginary WMDs, it is the US that wants to bomb Iran for possible nuclear weapons 10 years later.
Should the US be boycotted by the world for its insanity?
09-03-07, 03:12 AM #3
09-03-07, 03:15 AM #4
09-03-07, 03:18 AM #5
09-03-07, 03:19 AM #6
Shouldn't the USA bomb Israel instead? They have nukes.
09-03-07, 03:22 AM #7
What makes American and British economy so wonderful that Iraqis and Iranis should have to pay for it with their blood?
Why don't they develop an independent economy, using their superior know how and technology, instead of constantly turning the people of the Middle East and Africa into corpses?
Would you accept a system where your country's resources led to mass deaths and suffering in your own country while minting money for another country elsewhere?
09-03-07, 03:40 AM #8
I don't think Bush will bomb Iran. I have nothing to support my opinion.
09-03-07, 03:43 AM #9
unfortunately it appears that the imbercile bush will bomb Iran
he is going for a two pronged approach on the propaganda front:
1) Keep going on about the nuclear weapons which are always 3-10 years away friom being devleoped (regardless of whjeterh the iranians are actually devloping them or nto)
2) keep going on about Iranaian weapns and "interference in Iraq"
One thing i do know is that he is not going to invade iran to make the world a safer place.
take it e
09-03-07, 03:58 AM #10
I think Iran is a important country for pumping and transporting oil, Bush might get a sed back from India and China who would not want to see their supply's get in danger hell even putin is not agreeing with the US, I don't think it will ever get to a war but the US are proberly going to turn up the heath a little bid more and pray that Iran will make a snap so they can exploit it to yustify a war
09-03-07, 04:32 AM #11
but I fear it will be misfounded.
Once the numbskull gets a nugget of thought into his tiny brain
nothing will deter him.
Have you ever tried to drag a dog away from sniffing a lamp-post?
If he does get his way
it will be a war that makes Iraq look benign.
I still prefer your opinion.
Last edited by Captain Kremmen; 09-03-07 at 08:49 AM.
09-03-07, 05:30 AM #12
Yup, USA will bomb, possibly nuke Iran. USA needs chaos in the world, it's the only way it can survive through impending crisis with minimum loses. Survive to impose neocolonial world #2 on the rest. Starving potential competitors of the energy sources is a good way to bring chaos, death and decline of the potential competitors. Neocolonial World #1 is crumbling, colonial rent is about to dry up, global leech can't exist without colonial rent, it needs chaos and decline to reign in survivors.
09-03-07, 08:21 AM #13
09-03-07, 09:07 AM #14
09-03-07, 09:09 AM #15
09-03-07, 09:13 AM #16
Not that US policy on Iran makes any sense:
It is not at all clear why a defeat of the Sunni-dominated insurgency in Iraq would be bad for Shiite Iran. Indeed, one could make a better case that further weakening the Sunnis would actually strengthen Tehran's hand. The big loser would more likely be Saudi Arabia, which has provided funding and military hardware for various Sunni factions in Iraq.
Iran's principal avenue of influence in Iraq is the forces backing the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom Washington strongly supported when the Iraqi parliament chose him. These forces include the militias affiliated with the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Tehran's ties with those factions are far stronger than they are with the more notorious Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
The brutal truth is that it was almost certain from the day U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein that Iran would be the main beneficiary of that action. Saddam had been the nemesis of the clerical regime in Tehran for nearly a quarter century. The two countries had waged an extremely bloody war throughout the 1980s, and Iraq's Sunni political elite remained Iran's mortal adversary. Iraq under Sunni rule was the principal strategic counterweight to an assertive Iran.
The United States did Tehran a huge favor by removing that political elite and paving the way for the Shiite-Kurdish alliance that now dominates Iraq's political affairs. Having taken that step, it does little good now for President Bush to whine about Tehran's expanded influence. It was predictable, and predicted by critics of the war, that Iraqi Shiites would embark on a close working relationship with their co-religionists across the border. That was a danger that administration officials should have considered far more seriously than they did before launching the invasion of Iraq.
The other problem Iran poses -- its pursuit of a nuclear capability -- is also not likely to be affected by the outcome of the insurgency in Iraq. Iran's nuclear program long predates the onset of the current struggle to its west. Indeed, Iran's nuclear ambitions date back the late 1960s, when the Shah, Washington's close ally, was in power.
Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons is an extremely thorny issue, and there are no easy solutions. But one thing is clear: A defeat of the insurgency in Iraq will not have a meaningful impact on it.
09-03-07, 09:14 AM #17
The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.
I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.
the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .
09-03-07, 09:19 AM #18
President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.
It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction," not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S. reverses in Iraq and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation, eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities.
Also, no Democrat in power will think or do any different.
09-03-07, 09:21 AM #19
Putin has been waiting on it too, since 1998
President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone. "We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks. "But this does not depend solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the market," he said. "Putin's putting a big card on the table," said Youssef Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group in Dubai and a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body of leading world thinkers thought to help set the United States' foreign policy agenda. "In the context of what is happening worldwide, this statement is very important," he said.
Putin's words come in the wake of a protracted drive by the EU to attract more countries' trade and currency reserves into euros, in a bid to chip away at U.S. hegemony over the global economy and money supply. A move by Russia, as the world's second largest oil exporter, to trade oil in euros, could provoke a chain reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves. That would be a huge boon to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the United States. Dollar-based global oil trade now gives the United States carte blanche to print dollars without sparking inflation -- to fund huge expenses on wars, military build-ups, and consumer spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge trade deficits.
And Iran would have implemented it last year, if not for the battleships in the gulf
Last edited by S.A.M.; 09-03-07 at 09:28 AM.
09-03-07, 09:22 AM #20
By madanthonywayne in forum World EventsLast Post: 02-20-07, 07:56 PMReplies: 167
By MattMarr in forum World EventsLast Post: 09-18-06, 05:00 PMReplies: 4
By Solve et Coagula in forum PoliticsLast Post: 04-22-06, 05:11 PMReplies: 25
By vincent in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-27-06, 09:50 AMReplies: 10
By Kiwi123 in forum World EventsLast Post: 11-08-05, 09:54 PMReplies: 26