(Jerusalem Post) US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday

No problem

 

April 6? No.

Before the end of this year? Yes.

 

Before the end of this year? No.

Never? Yes.

 

I call BS and a half.

Typical 'saber rattling' to pressure Iran into cooperating. I would be a rich man if I had a dime for every article I've come across that claims to have come across 'secret memos' or 'sources' trying to pin down a date for the beginning of the bombing campaign. And believe me, I've come across quite a few.

 

It is hard to know the truth exactly. I think that it is clear that strong elements in the Bush Admin want to waste Iran. BUSH/Cheney l might think a war would not only be good for their defense stocks, but perhaps good for the GOP's political chances.


It is also true that important members of the CIA and the military do not want this war. . Thus, I would not be surprised if the CIA and the military are leaking to try to stop the war. chances.

 

Instead of impowering the opposition gropus(students, free thinkers) the us is gonna impower the bad guys the goverment by a sustained air attack. a sustained air attack is not gonna result in a regime change. helping the people to choose there own destiny will result in a regime change. iran is no iraq and i wanna keep it that way thank you. i know the current situation in iran better then anyone on this board. bombing is not the answer. helping the younger generation who want theb religiouse fanatics gones is.

 

Unfortunately, we can't make them revolt and they don't seem inclined to do it on their own. They can be as dissatisfied with their government as they want, but until someone does something about it, it isn't going to change. While an internal revolution would be the best way to get rid of that regime, that may never happen, so something else may need to be done.

 

With Help the younger generation will get rid of the mollah's. the army will never side with the mollah's. only a rouge element of the IRGC which are bought over from syria or lebbanon might do anything. but the iranian Amy would take them out in days.

 

I agree with Blazer_Ben. If I was running Iran strategy I would recommend more communication with them and more openness regarding cultural and economic exchange. The Mullahs might want to keep their country culturally a closed hermit kingdom but that will be hard to resist once goods and culture start flowing to the Iranians. Externally imposed sanctions and saber rattling strengthens the Mullahs hand as they present themselves as defenders of the country. OTOH if the young Iranians realize there isn't much of an external threat and the Mullahs are the ones depriving them of YouTube and Ipods you will see change.

There were many mistakes made by the US and the West in general on Iran but one of the worst wasn't siezing the opportunity of having Khatami in power to further open Iran. The Axis of Evil speech dealt a hard blow to Khatami's internal credibility by making the Mullah's point that Iran had external enemies out to get it. If instead we had worked with Khatami to open up Iran I believe things would be different now with Iran.

 

I don't think this would happen as Iran has reportedly 40,000 suicide bombers signed up and ready to die for their country. The group is called the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards. That would be a scary thought for anyone participating in these proposed attacks.

 

I have been reading/hearing about the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with their government for as long as I can remember. The people are the one's who put the Ayatollah in power in the first place, and they haven't interrupted the rule of the theocrats since. It's a nice dream, but when is it gonna happen? With Iran developing nukes, I don't know that we can wait for homegrown regime change.

 

The election of Khatami was a rebuke to Theocractic rule. The election of Ahmedinajad was also a rebuke since he wasn't the main choice of the Mullahs and had campaigned on a platform of domestic economic reform, a politician who doesn't live up to campaign promises and is side tracked by foreign threats who would've thunk it.

There have been opportunities to strengthen the hand of reformers but the problem is that US policy has been less about strengthening reformers in Iran than trying to externally punish the government.

 

^ good points.

there is a good contingent in iran thats apposed to Ahmedinajad and they are just not happy that he is bringing so much pressure onto iran. i've got the feeling that the younger generations are very 'modern' and they do want major reform in their country. There is a great opportunity there.

 

Looks like this is no April joke

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070403/pl_nm/iran_usa_russia_dc

U.S. could strike Iran but not win: Russian general

Tue Apr 3, 6:17 AM ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The United States cannot inflict a military defeat on
Iran and any attack would be a huge political mistake, Russia's top general said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

"It is possible to damage Iran's military and industrial potential, but it is impossible to win," Russian news agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, head of the Russian general staff, as saying.

"The United States has a contingent in the region capable of launching a strike on Iranian territory.

"However, such possible strikes would be a huge political mistake. Shockwaves from this attack could be felt around the world."

Washington and its Western allies accuse Iran of wanting to build nuclear bombs, a charge Tehran denies. Tensions have been further aggravated by Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23.

Russia sells weapons to the Iranian military and is helping Tehran build a nuclear power station on the Gulf although work there is on hold over a payment dispute.

Russian media late last month quoted unnamed sources in Russian military intelligence as saying the United States could launch a strike on Iran as early as April 6.

RIA news agency quoted a Russian security source as saying Moscow has military intelligence reports that the U.S. has already approved a list of Iranian targets for bomb and missile strikes. The source said a land operation could follow.

U.S.
President George W. Bush has said he will pursue diplomatic means to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment plan but he has refused to rule out the use of force.

Baluyevsky said military involvement in
Iraq and
Afghanistan showed the United States would face a fiasco if it took on Iran as well.

"The Americans must think twice (about attacking Iran)," he said. "They have already got stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq."

 

Not sure why people are still talking about Ahmedinajad for any military affair. Iranian Constitution says their President has zero power over the armed forces (I wish it's the ame here... ) So his BS is just as good as you and me. Okay. Maybe his gets more attention but it is still BS nonetheless.

 

Voting is not going to get things done. They could elect Mother Teresa as president, but the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader are still in charge, and not subject to the will of the people. Sure it is nice that they elected a reformer (though I don't want to give to much credit for electing "Kill all the Jews" Ahmedinajad). To have a real change there is going to require revolution, and that hasn't happened since the people chose theocracy and I have doubts that it will ever happen. Can the world afford to sit and wait?

 

Voting can get things done. Since the Supreme leader is elected by the assembly of experts which are elected by direct public vote.

So voting is the best way to remove the supreme leader. It is incorrect to say that the supreme leader is not subject to the will of the people. The congress is directly elected by the people, and they in turn vote for the supreme leader.

 

Given the negative implications of a war and the fact that we will have a very hard time fighting on three fronts against a foe greater than ones we are fighting now combined I would say yes the world can afford to wait.

I would never absolutely rule out using the military against Iran but that seems like the worst choice out of other possibilities. Its very questionable whether Iran will develop a nuke anytime soon and even more questionable whether they can deploy it and even more questionable whether they would ever use it, crazy rhetoric aside the Mullahs want to live too. I don't think them having a nuke is a good thing but I don't think we are anywere near where they are a nuclear threat.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Assembly_of_Experts_election,_2006

Interesting that it is true that this assembly of experts are elected by direct public vote. But to be a candidate you need to be a mujathid (ie Doctor of Islam) and then pass written and oral exams.

I suppose that's another way to run parliamentary based on their cultural values.

 

Hey, it's about time to pump up the oil price !