Exactly, it’s the sort of content that trips my instinct for guff.
Let’s bear in mind this threat was explicitly stated as retaliation for ‘harm and pain’ imposed on Iran in the event of sanctions or military strikes and not just a belligerent outburst.
curiously, only the united states is allowed to strike back when injured–everyone else is obliged to suck it up…We re still pissing and moaning about the fallen 3000, who we have “avenged” by a multiple of 30 or 40 per head.
(our dead are more sacred than your dead…)
Or threaten people. I just love this - the USA and its yapping UK lapdog start their familiar, ‘evil foreigners are going to kill us all’ unless we ACT NOW NOW NOW double-act but let the intended victim stand up for themselves and it’s ‘SEE, SEE - we told you they were evil!’
I don’t believe one single word or allegation dripping from these people’s lips. Fool me once …
The “harm and pain” comment is a direct response to Dick Cheney’s remarks last weekend:
It is hard for me to get excited about threats from Iran, when they are merely a response to threats from our vice-president. Remarks like these should come as no surprise. Sabre-rattling, nothing more.
For the advocates of bombing, does America have reliable intelligence on Irani nuclear facilities? Or will it be something akin to the intelligence failure of Iraq? IIRC, current information on the Irani nuclear programme came from Irani dissidents, but is that information complete? Is it accurate, given said dissidents enmosity to the regime? Is someone pulling off an Ahmed Chalabi or a Hussein Kamel? Not that I don’t think that the Iranis are after nuclear weapons, but how much actionable intelligence is out there? I don’t expect an intelligene briefing, but I do not want to find out that all along, all that George Bush really wanted was to save the great Iranian people…
And what about the risk of radiation contamination to civilians, in Iran and in the region, if the bombing actually occurs?
What threat does military action against Iran pose for troops in Iraq, given Iran’s influence over Iraq’s Shi’is?
If the US bombs Iran, will the Irani regime survive, and pull off another Saddam, whereby a WMD programme continues despite sanctions? Will the bombing have a long term effect, or will it encourage the ayatollahs to go after weapons capability as fast as they can?
What about sanctions? And what about the oil? In short, what are the US’s options? And what are the consequences of these options?
Exactly true. Here is a personal opinion. If the US and/or the UN really wants Iran to give in, there are better ways than to bluster and threaten. Give them some positive incentive, be it trade, aid, whatever they themselves see as being useful (OK, call it a bribe). In addition, give them a way to back down, without appearing to cave in (let them safe face).
Make agreement and compliance attractive to them.
Direct and belligerant confrontation will only make this situation more explosive. To seriously oversimplify, you don’t achieve peace by saying “Do it my way or I’ll kill you”. Maybe Iran really wants to have nukes and fight us? Maybe they don’t? Why force the issue, if there is no reason? Push someone into a corner and he will fight - even if that was never his intention.
Somehow, I can’t picture Blair saying words to that effect to Bush.
More’s the pity.
Cite?
Here’s a list of all facilities known or suspected by the IAEA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran’s_nuclear_programme#Other_facilities
Cite?
This whole clusterfuck is totally nuts. What meager shreds of credibility we retained are loaded straight into the wood chipper. We’ve got to be kidding, and I have the dreadful feeling we’re not.
Does anybody with the good sense that God gave a goose seriously imagine we can take on a further military adventure in Iran? Or that we have even the slightest hope of gathering a solid alliance to support such? If not, then all of this belligerent posturing does naught but solidify the Iranian mullahs popularity, by offering them the opportunity to paint thier opposition as unpatriotic, even godless (sound familiar?)
How is Achmed Six Pack going to interpret this? Israel has the Bomb, Israel is Jewish, our response? Nod, nod, wink, wink, say no more. Hindu India builds the Bomb, we do a crisp 180 degree turn and pat them on the head for it. Of course, Muslim Pakistan built one, even held an international nuclear Amway sale. Our response: tsk! (Of course, it can’t be ignored that Pakistan stands in the very front rank of military dictatorships in terms of its commitment to democracy…) But if Musharaff were dumped tomorrow and replaced by the governance the Pakistan people would most likely prefer, that would be a whole different kettle of piranha, would it not? Oh my, yes.
So we indulge ourselves in impotent belligerance, strengthen the hand of the enemys of freedom and tolerance, and further acceptance of the notion that we are at war with Islam. On the upside, The Leader gets to talk tough.
Vast oceans of duh.
Could all of this bellicose rhetoric be the last dying gasp of the mullahs? i’ve heard that the young people of iran are fed up with theocracy, like their videogames, western clothes, MTV, etc. They know that Iran is going backwards under the Mullahs, so this rhetroic is largely posturung. Also, some reports state that IRAN has a LONG road to go before being able to enrich uranium-many of their centrifuges are wrecked, and they don’t have the spare parts to repair them.
So i kinds doubt that Iran wants any kind of war.
Keep track, 'luce. Our belligerent posturing was last week. (See post #45.) Now it’s the Iranians who are taking their turn at it. And next week . . . well, you know how it goes.
The MEK has been registered by the State Department as a terrorist organization for the past 10 years, but now neo-conservative factions of the Bush administration are lobbying hard to remove it from the list. Should the MEK end up benefiting from US pro-democracy largesse, it would send a clear message to people inside Iran that Washington funds groups that engage in terrorist activity. Some reports quote unidentified US officials as saying that the MEK would not receive any of the new funds.
“Most of the groups which will be suckling from this new taxpayer teat include designated terrorist organizations such as the MEK and ancien regime agonists, all with their own agendas which are not limited to outreach to Iranians, as these groups have little if any traction or credibility in Iran today,” said Donald Weadon, an international lawyer specializing in Iran.
That article doesn’t say MEK has received any U.S. funding yet.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran:
The U.S. government fund Marxist-Islamists?! How far would they dare to take the “enemy of my enemy” principle?!
I"m not aware of any official US funding; however, the PotUSA’s defense policy advisor, Richard Perle, has helped them raise funds here in the US, (in DC even), while the Treasury Dept looks the other way.
fwiw, the MeK (currently) deny that they ever were Islamist or Marxist. They have their own special version of history (and prob’ly reality too).
as a rule of thumb, anytime you see the words “holy warriors” (mujahedeen) prominently displayed in a groups nomenclature, you are crossing the threshold into the funny farm.