This is worth a read and I believe the views of the Western powers could evolve in this direction. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran;_ylt=As6ZvMV61fti7rVWS081o_.s0NUE By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer1 hour, 2 minutes ago Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday. John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them. "Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon." The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran. Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable." Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons. Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course. "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests." He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq. He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance. Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike. Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem. "I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said. He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East. "We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon. The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
Israel will not strike Iran cuz that would bring a lot of trouble to Israel and Israel knows that. If Israel does strike then Iran is sure to strike back and Syria will join Iran and declare war on Israel and not to forget Hezbollah will re-emerge and also Hamas in West bank and Gaza will increase their attacks. US will attack Iran. everything I said above will happen either way if US attacks or Israel but its all about which has more risk and Israel right now is in no position to attack first! instead they will defend by fighting back Iran when Iran fires at Israel for US invading Iran. Also this will bring great instability in Middle East thus more and more Islamic extremist emerging from the region and home grown extremism. A Lot to take in huh? lol
not sure. iran could plead that it had no involvement via putting a bomb in the hands of a terrorist group. The U.S. would be unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on iran in response...iran knows this. Iran has stated they will wipe israel off the map. I think that has to be taken very seriously as a threat toward action.
My personal opinion is that Iran wants to build a nuclear capability as a means to extend their influence over client states -- not to drop bombs. Detonating one or more nuclear weapons outside their territory will result in their swift end -- the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany will see to that (IMO). No, the whole game is to strike fear into surrounding countries to make them subservient and to gain allies like Venezuela. They see that the U.S., Russia and China all have a substrata of client states and they want what they think is their share. Iran will continue to tweak the nose of the U.S. because they know they can. They will leave Israel alone until they feel they have enough weapons and allies simply because Israel will not play pussyfoot with them. Iranians and other Arab states respect "an eye for an eye" attitude. The United States has a much more powerful weapon in its hands -- cutting off money from every global enterprise that does business with Iran. So far a number of states have stopped pension fund investment in companies dealing with Iran. It has been hugely successful. IMO we need to squeeze Iran economically -- not militarily -- until they become rational in their approach to world citizenship.
Well it is good to see another general coming out against the foolish hoped for neocon war against Iran. The military does not want to do it, but I guess they will do so if ordered to do so by Bush.
Mutually Assured Destruction is a game ender. Once a sovereign nation has nukes, they can't use them. It is also imperative that they maintain security on their fissable materials because they are traceable to the source. This is all about a pissng match.
what is the difference? if iran attacked israel in any fashion they would be destroyed and they know it.
if you get behind all the b.s. foxnews rhetoric and actually read what he said and listen to arabic language scholars, they will tell you that he was calling for the removal of the israeli government or "occupying regime", not the country or its people. "Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to "obliterate totally",[7] and "destroy completely", such as by powerful bombs,[8] or other catastrophes.[9] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as: The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[11] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly: [T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[12]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...ism .22_speech
Bush will not be ordering a military strike against Iran. If such a mistake happens, the next president will do it.
Good to see that Abizaid is a realist. We need more people like him at the top. As to Iran, I also agree that we shouldn't stop them from enriching uranium because that's their right as part of NPT. What we are doing right now is double standard (e.g. Japan enriched enough uranium to make 100s of H-bombs). We should let them do it. But when they cross the line to actually own nuclear weapons, then we can do something, e.g. assemble a UN-mandated invasion.
Iran would never launch a missle attack for sure, but they could share the technology or even put the ingredients to build the bomb in the hands of terrorists. Would they take such a risk? well - they may share the tech. But, they have made claims that they will wipe Israel off the map, so we should go by thier word and take their threat seriously.
If you really must go all Chicken Little...it's a lot more likely that Pakistan already has radical Islamist within in it's nuclear weapons industry. House arrest for arming North Korea? That''ll scare'm straight.
Good post. I hate to do that to the average Iranian, who, in my opinion, dislike the theocracy and would like for things to "loosen up," but it's better than military action. After Bush is safely out of office, if Iran continues to prepare to build a bomb (right now, they are laying the groundwork), a series of strikes may be necessary. I wouldn't rule it out. But not with this president, and not until all other avenues have been exhausted. D&D. Impeach Bush and His Puppeteer.
So, what's the plan for Pakistan when Musharraf gets thrown out and Pakistan goes radical? People say that the radical Islamist are a small percentage of the population of Pakistan but it only takes a small percentage of radicals to control a complacent majority; like the brownshirts in Germany in 1932, since radical factions always claim the high ground of the divinity of god or jingoism or even extreme populism like Chavez. There are few examples in history where indigenous movements for moderation take control of governments. We may be seeing one in Lebanon but it has one of the cosmopolitan populations in the world. Pakistan is eyeball to eyeball with India and China...you think GWB can reduce civil rights over 9/11, think what the "there is no god but god" boys could do if they took control of the army of Pakistan. There is no practical way to be preemptive in Islamic Asia. I would bomb them with satellite dishes and laser them with wireless internet access. Freedom of thought is our only hope to stave off a new fundamentalist dark age. And frankly secular humanism is the only noncombatant philosophy or religion that has a chance to unify the parties. Christianity will always be the religion of the Crusaders, Islam the religion of suicide bombers, Judism the religon of the the occupiers. The irony would be funny if so many people weren't dying. Good luck Planet Earth!
Thanks. This is one of those rare moments when we agree, but thank goodness our disagreements are agreeable. People do not have to think alike to achieve friendship. I wish the "I'm right and everybody who disagrees is stupid" people of the world could understand this.
