I would be cool with some late '90s Clinton-style airstrikes, if we could verify that he had actual sites. But even then, wouldn't we risk a retaliatory attack on our troops stationed in Iraq? Also, do they have the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon from 7,000 miles? If not, then maybe this is Israel's fight.
If only there were about five nations of comparable military might, most likely forming two factions, for convienence sake we'll call them the Allies and the Axis powers. If that were to occur then we certainly wouldn't have to worry about having so many war casualties.
Thanks Tiger, good post. When that "milk factory" was bombed was the Sudan under sanctions or under violation of International Law? Was Reagan breaking international law when he bombed Libya?
Yes they do. They also have the capability to destroy the earth with their nuclear weapon several times. And Mr. Bush is ready to do just that.
Wasn't it following the embassy bombings in eastern Africa? I believe Al-Qaeda was implicated and their camps in Afghanistan were targeted; that was likely a legit action. As for the Sudan factory bombing, seems like it turned out to be faulty intelligence that indicated this factory produced some type of chemical weapons (if my memory serves me correctly) when it was a pharmaceuticals factory. Regardless, the real issue is always going to be the 'selective enforcement' that the UN at large has become associated with. If you're a major power such as the U.S. or Britain or China or Russia (or 'shielded' by a superpower as is the case with Israel), then you don't have much to worry about. It's the Iraqs and the North Koreas and the Libyas and the Cubas that have to worry, because International Law is applicable and enforceable in their case. In this existing system, the best 'deterrant' a nation-state has against aggression is to develop its own capabilities as to achieve a preponderance or balance of power vis-a-vis its enemies; the possession of nuclear weapons has certainly proven its worth in this regard, which explains why even if Iran had not initially pursued/wanted nuclear weapons, they would be crazy not to now given the threat of aggression against their nation. The very fact that Iran is currently being threatened with sanctions based on the fact that they would like to enrich uranium as is permissible under the NPT agreement they signed (which is a binding document that does give Iran the right to do just that) tells you everything you need to know about international treaties and how reliable they're. In effect, Iran is being asked (really threatened is more accurate) to give up its right to develop nuclear energy on its own terms just because the USA, Israel, and some EU states would like it to do so; there's zero legal basis for it, but that hasn't prevented the UN from joining the cause. There is a reason why there are many people/countries around the world who view the UN with the utmost suspicion, because at the end it will almost always succumb to the agenda of the more powerful states (i.e. Saddam accusing the UN weapons-inspectors of being spies for the U.S. to gather information about Iraq's military capabilities; this turned out to be true -- according to the Washington Post and the Boston Globe -- but even if it wasn't, there are a lot of states that share similar suspicion of UN operations as not being 'fair' or 'impartial')
I see. Well, as long as the Iran can deliver their nuke to the American root, i.e. Israel, then they are a problem to the U.S. or "a threat to the world". And I still don't understand why Israel are not an terrorism country with all the kindnapping and indifferential attack on inner cities. Just because they claimed that their enemies were terrorist too? I guess Darwinism wins.
The world still largely operates on the principle of "everyone for themselves"...sovereign nations can NOT afford to depend on the UN or someone else for their security. Another good option is 'regional security organizations' (what's called 'collective security') patterened in a way that resembles NATO in its earlier intended formation; this approach to security is making a slow comeback.
Several interesting points here. Bush waited three years to talk to Iran about Iraq. Recent Bush saber rattling might have been done as cover to balance the PR this story might generate: Iran is behind the Iraq insurgence; thus, Iran needs talking to. IRAN, U.S. PLAN TALKS ABOUT IRAQ While U.S. says no, some say it's a way to broach subject of nukes Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle TEHRAN, IRAN - In what appears to be a major turnaround in policy, Iran's national security chief announced Thursday that his government intends to name a team of negotiators to hold direct talks with the United States on the subject of calming civil strife in Iraq. If negotiations take place, they would mark the first direct, open contact between the two governments since shortly after Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979. The offer appears to reflect the desire of some top Iranian officials to relieve Western pressure over Tehran's nuclear program in return for help on Iraq, which appears to be sliding toward civil war. The Bush administration said it would talk with Iran — but only about Iraq, not nuclear issues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Sydney, Australia, that talks with Iranian envoys in Baghdad could be useful but would be limited to discussions on Iraqi security. "This isn't a negotiation of some kind," she said. The White House said the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, already is authorized to talk with Iran about Iraq. "But this is a very narrow mandate dealing specifically with issues relating to Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. He added that it did not include U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program. "That's a separate issue." The secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, told reporters any talks between the U.S. and Iran would be limited to Iraqi issues. Larijani, who also is Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said Khalilzad repeatedly had invited Iran for talks on Iraq. Despite the caveats, any direct dialogue between Tehran and Washington could be the beginning of negotiations between the two nations about Iran's nuclear program. Report critical of Iran A Washington analyst on Iran, Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that although talks would not go further than Iraq, their atmosphere "will spill over into every other area of contention between the nations." The Iranian bid came on the same day the Bush administration released its national security statement, revised for the first time since 2002, which declared in part that Iran may be the largest U.S. security challenge. It also accused the Iranians of sponsoring terrorism, threatening Israel and disrupting democracy in Iraq. A senior administration official, who would not speak on the record because he is not authorized to talk about Iran, said Khalilzad had asked the Iranians months ago to talk about Iraq, chiefly to warn Tehran to stop sending weapons. Earlier this week, Bush accused Tehran of producing sophisticated roadside bombs that are being used against Iraqi and American soldiers. Washington accuses Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons and is leading a campaign for U.N. Security Council action. Iran denies the allegation, but would like to avoid any penalties from the U.N. body, which is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program this month. In an effort to break an impasse about how to deal with Iran's suspect nuclear program, the five veto-wielding nations on the Security Council and Germany will meet in New York Monday, U.N. officials said. Plans for the high-level negotiations underscored the urgency that Britain, France and the United States feel about the Iran issue, and reflected just how deep the divisions are between those three and China and Russia, which want only mild action on Iran. U.S. accusations The United States accuses Iran of meddling in Iraqi politics and of sending weapons and men to support the insurgency. "To resolve Iraqi issues, and to help the establishment of an independent and free government in Iraq, we agree to (talks with the United States)," Larijani said. Analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international relations at Tehran's Imam Sadeq University, said Larijani's call was a genuine offer. "This could be the beginning of a major breakthrough, ending more than two and a half decades of estrangement between Tehran and Washington," he said. The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times contributed to this report
Incase of a US-led Invasion, iran wont stand a chance. there Military is not Sophisticated or large enough to go with the us war Juggarnaut.There Airforce Consists of F-14 Tomcats, F-4 Phantoms, MiG 29 and suki 25's and 24's.that is not gonna come close to remotely getting it done. however, they would Promptly order there proxies in Hezbollah, ALqaeda, Hammas, Islamic Jihad and there other proxies in the Far east to go on a killing spree around the world.
By everyone's admission, Iran was extremely helpful to the USA in Afghanistan...to repay them of course some genius in the Administration decided to call them an "axis of evil" state...then real trouble started in Iraq.
It was the Iranian Special forces who fought alongside american marimnes to oust the Talibane. anyhow, dont be fooled, iran manifactured and helped start the iraq war. they wanted Saddumb gone. plus at the same time they wanted to keep the US occupied in iraq.
I have been very, very intrigued with this aspect of what led us into war in Iraq. Some have alleged that the INC (Chalabi's group) had been double-agents all along on behalf of Iran to get the US bogged-down in Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and all the while 'bleeding' the US economy through continual conflict and guerilla-warfare in Iraq. If true, that would be quiet possibly the greatest intel 'coup' in history, and would show just how sophisticated and capable the Iranians are. However, I am more inclined to believe this was not entirely true, although there might be some element of truth to it all. Regardless, if one is to objectively examine this whole fiasco, on thing is for sure: Iran's geo-strategic position in the region has vastly improved due to the defeat and toppling of two extremist neighboring regimes: Saddam's and the anti-Shia Taliban. There is no question Iran has been the biggest winner in this whole thing. They've played the whole 'game' pretty nicely so far -- but I wouldn't exhale just yet if I were them, trouble could still be ahead.
I'm not voting either way at this time. To me the situation has too many variables. I personally think the Bush Admin. doesn't want war because they realize the US is too stretched and that the US couldn't sustain fighting and then occupying and trying to rebuild Iran alon with Iraq and Afghanistan. I think the US is sabre rattling but if Iran makes some very precipitous moves then the US will react. It will probably be a very limited war if it breaks out mainly with air strikes and perhaps occupation of key Iranian facilities rather than trying to take the whole country.
It Just wont happen. the Chineese have a huge amount of stake in irans Oil industry. iran is China's Cheif Oil supplier. china needs iran more then iran needs china. lets not forget the contracts with Russia, france and other europian nations. then there is the Iran via pakistan to India oil pipe-line. the US best hope of defeating the mollahs is the Iranian people. no outside force will do any good by attacking the country.
Some have alleged that the INC (Chalabi's group) had been double-agents all along on behalf of Iran to get the US bogged-down in Iraq, get rid of Saddam, and all the while 'bleeding' the US economy through continual conflict and guerilla-warfare in Iraq. Bush goes to war with or without Chalabi. All the Iranian intell had to do was sit back watch W be W.
