Group Says Iran Is 'Not a Crisis' Former generals and officials seek to prevent an attack on suspected nuclear sites and to overhaul policies toward Tehran and Baghdad By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ug16,1,3111561.story?coll=la-headlines-nation 08/16/06 "Los Angeles Times " -- -- WASHINGTON — Seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks at home, 21 former generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's "hard line" has actually undermined U.S. security. The letter comes as President Bush has made a series of appearances and statements, including a visit Tuesday to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., seeking to promote the administration's record on security issues in advance of November's midterm congressional elections. The rhetoric has increased since last week's Democratic primary in Connecticut, in which antiwar political newcomer Ned Lamont defeated three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman to become the party's Senate candidate — a victory that senior administration officials are describing as a sign that Democrats are embracing their party's extreme left. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country. Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue. "It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them." He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region. But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program. He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments. "This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said. Organizers of the letter said the White House's recent efforts to belittle Democrats for seeking a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq may lead the signers to include criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. The letter is expected to call for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq.
Good read. Military option against iran is a no-no. never should be resorted to. the Iranian people dont need the US airforce bringing them freedom and liberation....
We need the military in Iran to lead the revolution, if we destroyed them we would be setting that country back and give the wackos a better foothold. DD
As much as I think Bush's advisers are idiots, they aren't stupid enough to order a hit on Iran. It's good to see public pressure in the right direction (and common sense here on the forum). I think it's getting to the point that the Republican party will abandon Bush if he's too belligerent on Iran.
the only justification for a miltary airstrike on Iran would be if nuclear weapons were in late stages of development. We know we can't trust the administration on this one.... And we know the public won't be fooled twice. There will be no war.
Yes. Iran's Regular Army, AirForce, Navy are not loyal to he mollah's the Army and the Airforce more so. most of the top generals in iran's airforce are american traied pilot aces. they harbour no resentment towards the west. i can assure you first hand, they despise the mollah's for exampel in 1981, just after the Revolution, when it became khomenie was a bruital dictator by executing many of iran's best Special forces who were loyal to the Imperial regime, the airforced organiased a coupe to kill khomenie. the plan was 4 F-4 Phantoms escorted by a attack helecopters would takeout khomenies residence. but at the 12 th hour, somehow the mollah's got a hold of this news. hence it was foiled and most of the brave pilots who were concerned about the well being of iran were executed. in 1990 the Airforce tried another daring coupe along with the help of the regular army. same result.
DD, use your head first. You were for the Iraq War. I remember when you were quite philosophical about it and said that if it took 30 to 40 years to win it would be ok. Now you are against it.
Iran is "not a crisis" that would like to wipe Israel off the map...O yeah, they aim for nuclear ambitions...O yeah, they are directly tied to the terrorist Hezbollah wing....
Yes, I agreed with taking out Saddam etc, and think that the ramifications of it will not be known for many years. However, I would rather have taken him out by assasination rather than militarily, I don't think we can win that fight, the Middle East has always been tribal, and it is not different today. They hate each other more than they hate the west, and nothing we do can change that. Any support I had was for taking out Saddam, and I too underestimated the deep seated hatred between the Sunnis and the Shi-ites. DD
Iran, "Not a crisis" drags foot,...reason? Iran Perfects the Art of Foot-Dragging By Herb Keinon The Jerusalem Post | August 23, 2006 Few people in the Western world expected that Iran would give a categorical yes or no answer Tuesday to the Western incentives dangled before Teheran to suspend their uranium enrichment. And, as a result, few were disappointed. Indeed, Iran's offer of a "new formula" and willingness to enter "serious negotiations" to resolve the dispute fits well into the pattern of Iranian foot-dragging the world has become so accustomed to on this issue over the years. This tactic can be summed up like this: tease the West by professing a willingness to "engage," leave them with a glimmer of hope that this engagement is actually making some progress, and in the meantime keep plodding ahead with the research and development needed to build the Jihad Bomb. UN Security Council Resolution 1696 - which was passed, by the way, on July 31 while the war in Lebanon still raged - calls for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment by August 31 or else face economic and diplomatic sanctions. Teheran did not say Tuesday either way whether it would suspend its enrichment program. Rather it presented yet another option, buying more time. Never mind that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Monday that his country's nuclear program would continue. The Iranians have, once again, tempted the West with the option of more negotiations. This very temptation has worked wonders for the Iranians. Holding out the possibility of negotiations effectively neutralizes the Europeans, who love the idea of dialogue and engagement and hope that it will lead to solving the problem peacefully and reasonably, and it also makes it difficult for Russia and China to go along with sanctions in the United Nations Security Council, because they will argue that the diplomatic channel was not exhausted. Just look at what has happened over the last year. Iran has been enriching uranium for months, but - with the exception of the passage of Security Council Resolution 1696 - have paid no price for it. This tactic also drives a wedge between the US and Europe. The US wants sanctions, and the sooner the better. "There must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council, and we will work with people in the Security Council to achieve that objective," US President George W. Bush said Monday. But while the Europeans, perhaps because they have a lot more economically at stake than the US in Iran, have said they would support sanctions, they don't really seem to want them and may jump at an opportunity to avoid them. There are reports reaching Jerusalem of renewed contacts between the Iranians and the Europeans in recent weeks, and Israel was aghast at comments made recently by French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy's that Iran could play a stabilizing role in the region. Another major question, and a new component to the whole Iranian nuclear issue, is whether the war in Lebanon has emboldened the Iranians. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that some of Washington's closes allies believe the effort to curb Iran was made more difficult by the fighting against Hizbullah. "The Iranians are extremely confident following the outcome of the Israel conflict," the paper quoted a senior European official as saying. "Their Syria-Iran-Hizbullah axis has gone from minority player to lionized hero of the Arab street." The concern is that a super-confident Iran may now be more willing to spit in the face of the international community. But despite all the victorious Hizbullah and Iranian rhetoric, it is not clear whether the Iranians actually believe it themselves. Whatever is said about the war, Hizbullah - which was Iran's "aircraft carrier," it's way of projecting power -- has suffered a mighty blow, and, at least for the time being, has had its wings clipped Sources in Jerusalem say that the Iranians are carefully watching to see how the international community implements UN Security Council resolution 1701 on Lebanon, to gage whether or not it would have the gumption to implement an anti-Iranian resolution as well. These sources say that it is not yet clear whether the war has emboldened Iran, and painted two possible scenarios. The first is that numerous countries in the world, seeing exactly how Iran projects its power in world, may shy away from confronting Teheran over the nuclear issue for fear that if they do take on Iran, this type of projection - the Hizbullah model - may pay a visit to their own neighborhood. And the second scenario is that the world does indeed realize how Iran projects its power, and now understands that this type of power projection would be many times worse were Iran to be backed up by the Bomb http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24017
It is not war, it is politics....he wants to stay in power so he has to ramp up the propaganda in time for the November elections. DD
