Iran uncovers CIA affiliated ring in Iran, Arrests thirty.
My former opinion stated that we should mix it up with these guys based on principle of interest concerning state sponsored terrorism… It is no doubt suspected that Iran is a supporter of any group of terrorists that hate the US. Sorry, at this present time I have nothing but insight as an officer to support this. The SEAL in me fears for the retribution that will most certainly come to those captured. One response to my former post asked for cited material. I have none to offer and I have redone my poll to a more subtle and appropriate format versus the yes or no question I asked the first time. I have been in the private intelligence business foe fifteen years and my guts tell me we should move in on them faster than we have previously done. Leon Panetta in June of 2010 I believe it was stated that Iran could possibly have nukes by 2012 and we know from recent CIA and DOD reports that Tehran has medium class range missiles at their disposal. Correct me if i am incorrect. I seem to just remember hearing that on FOX NEWS. The citation from Panetta comes from Globalsecurity.org.
In the earlier, locked thread, you claimed that “IRAN” (Which stands for Inspect and Repair As Necessary, according to a witty PM I received :D) sponsors Al Qaeda. I asked for a cite.
I don’t doubt you’re right that Iran may abuse those captured. Could you specify in what way you’d like the US to “mix it up” with Iran?
As someone said in the locked thread, a sovereign state is perfectly within its rights to arrest spies. While the loss of human assets is regrettable, it’s not casus belli to invade or attack Iran.
Indeed something needs to be done and faster than operationally already approved. I would like to come to a direct standoff with Iran. It’s time to talk between us.
Which do you want: A dialogue between the U.S. and Iran, or a standoff?
Diplomacy is good. Jumping into war… not so much. Remember that nearly a decade ago Congress gave the President the ability to launch a war against Iraq – as a last resort. Instead, the President used the ‘last resort’ option first, and we’re still there expending lives and treasure. Certainly a military confrontation over the arrest of alleged U.S. assets is premature. Imagine if we had launched missiles against the USSR ever time one of our assets was arrested there.
So, rather than details about how we’d achieve our ends, we get the entire discussion centered on vague exhortations to get tougher on them. Which isn’t much of a plan.
We should not “mix it up” with Iran. So they sponsor terrorism, big deal. Lots of states do that, such as Saudi Arabia, but we’re still buddies with them.
Would “mixing it up” with Iran solve more problems or create more? Until it’s the former, we must play the diplomacy game
For that matter, we sponsor terrorism in Iran, we support groups there our own State Department has labeled terrorists. But apparently terrorism is OK if we support it.
Can somebody translate the OP for me? I think it boils down to “suspected CIA assets arrested in Iran, and oh they might have nukes”, but I have have missed something.
‘I am a former SEAL and an officer. I’ve spent over 15 years in “private intelligence”. Iran claims to have arrested 30 CIA assets. Based on my experience and intimate knowledge, we should enact severe retribution. Also, Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Therefore we must attack before they can be deployed.’
