If by "the world" you mean the West, then you're mostly right. However, "the world" is not united on Iran, it's very, very much divided and conflicted over the Iran issue. If we use the Chinese and the Russians as counterbalance to the USA and the EU, then they mostly cancel each other out. In fact, for the most part, the world is overwhelmingly insists on a diplomatic solution for the Iran issue. The only ones seeking military confrontation are the Israelis (for obvious reasons) and some -- not all -- elements in the U.S. government. I honestly do believe that there will be no war or strikes against Iran by the U.S. The ones Iran should worry about are the Israelis, and this time the U.S. won't be the one that authorized and might not even have a foreknowledge of the attack...and the attack will fail to achieve the goal of disabling Iranian nuclear capabilities, it won't be Iraq all over again.
wow blazer ben....thanks and to stupidmoniker, it's common knowledge that the us has negotiated and finazlied a deal with this terrorist organization and is working with them because they have no presence in iran even though as blazer ben has pointed they're a cult that fabricates info, but the pentagon and dept of defense loves them
mko/mek terrorist working for fox news the ncri is the political wing of the mko/mek http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/info/Jafarzadeh bio.htm http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/info/foxjafarzadeh.htm
I hope not, we don't need another instance of Ahmed Chalabi's INC group that fabricates and tailors 'intelligence' to give some of our lawmakers what they want to hear to justify their agenda. BTW, good call on that Fox 'analyst', I am shocked that FNC would use him on their network to provide 'analysis' of the Iran situation to their audience. Bad call on the part of Fox, but it isn't the first time.
will we go to war with iran?? when next week? next year? 10years? 50 years? we gotta finish this crap in iraq first and it will take a loooooooong time to clean up this mess.
new yorker article discussing us relations with the mko/mek terrorist organization: http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/News4/Mar06/NewYorker060306.htm
The knowledge is so common that the only proof you have is that one member works as a political analyst for Fox News. Where is the evidence that the US Government has any ties to MEK/MKO? Where is the evidence that the SOC is conducting joint missions with MEK in Iran? Your links provide proof of something different than the claims you are making. I could claim that Iran has nuked the US and provide you with links of their president claiming they have enriched uranium, but the links do not prove the statement, they are only tangentially connected. I can certainly believe that the US is involved with MEK, especially considering the similarities with Chelabi and the INC, but I haven't seen evidence of it. Oh, and your source is beyond biased, try to find something a little more credible. The entire purpose of the iran-interlink.org website is:
White House denies reports that U.S. employs terror groups for special ops in Iran Earlier today at the White House Press Briefing, Scott McClellan, the outgoing press secretary, denied reports that the U.S. is employing terrorist groups for special operations in Iran, RAW STORY has found. When asked if U.S. policy has been changed with respect to three different terrorist organizations that have reportedly been active recently against Iran "based on the notion that an enemy of our enemy is our friend," McClellan insisted that it hadn't. "Our policies haven't changed on those organizations," said McClellan. "They remain the same." "And you're bringing up organizations that we view as terrorist organizations," McClellan added. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/White_House_denies_reports_that_U.S._0503.html History has taught us that if they deny it, it's probably true.
with all due respect, i dont think the us govt would ever publicly admit to employing members of a bonafide terrorist organization
my apologies, i didnt see your comment at the bottom well unlike you, i'm not gonna fall back on the weak 'i'm not there in iraq at the mko's bases or i dont have a copy of the agrement in my hand' argument would you consider entering into negotiations and finalizing a deal with a proven terrorist organization during a supposed 'war on terror' enough evidence? http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html Why the US granted 'protected' status to Iranian terrorists By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor The US State Department officially considers a group of 3,800 Marxist Iranian rebels - who once killed several Americans and was supported by Saddam Hussein - "terrorists." But the same group, under American guard in an Iraqi camp, was just accorded a new status by the Pentagon: "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention. This strange twist, analysts say, underscores the divisions in Washington over US strategy in the Middle East and the war against terrorism. It's also a function of the swiftly deteriorating US-Iran dynamic, and a victory for US hawks who favor using the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization (MKO) or "People's Holy Warriors," as a tool against Iran's clerical regime. "How is it that [the MKO] get the Geneva Convention, and the people in Guantánamo Bay don't get it? It's a huge contradiction," says Ali Ansari, a British expert on Iran. "This will be interpreted in Iran as another link in the chain of the US determination to move onto Iran next" in the US war on terror. For months, Tehran has quietly signaled that it would turn over high-ranking Al Qaeda members in exchange for MKO members now in Iraq. The MKO's new status likely puts an end to any such deal. The shift also comes as momentum builds in Washington to take some action against the Islamic republic. Wednesday, it was reported that Tehran has broken United Nations inventory seals and may resume work on constructing centrifuges - the machines used for enriching uranium. Senior European diplomats - who brokered a private deal with Iran last October that included halting suspected nuclear weapons programs, in exchange for Western nuclear power expertise - are expected to secretly meet Iranian counterparts Thursday in London or Paris to see what can be salvaged of their agreement. "US-Iran relations are drifting into very dangerous waters at the moment," says Mr. Ansari. Indeed, the Pentagon decision comes amid a string of critical reports about Iran that are causing some US lawmakers to wonder whether the Bush administration's action against Iraq should have been aimed instead at Iran. But some analysts see the change as related to the US presidential election. "This whole dynamic is tied up with [US] domestic politics...and not about the MKO itself, which is not really a major threat to Iran anymore," says Mohamed Hadi Semati, a political scientist from Tehran University now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "The neocons were losing ground, and this new Iran bashing is seen by them as an opportunity to drum up the theme of terror and the possibility of a collision with Iran - therefore, you need a very decisive leader in the White House," says Mr. Semati. "At the same time, Iran is giving a lot of ammunition to [Bush administration hawks on Iran]." The Mujahideen is a cultish Marxist group that was ordered to leave Iraq last December by the US-appointed Iraqi leadership, which decried the "black history of this terrorist organization." The expulsion was never carried out. A website of the National Council of Resistance of Iran - the MKO's political wing - on Sunday quoted its exiled leader Maryam Rajavi as saying the US decision was a "triumph for the Iranian Resistance and the Iranian people." The MKO, which would like to topple the Islamic regime in Tehran, says they would establish a more democratic, secular government. The MKO is not known to have conducted any anti-US attacks, according to the US State Department, since assassinating several Americans in the 1970s. While hosted by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, MKO militants stood shoulder to shoulder with their hosts during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s - a choice that permanently damaged their standing among most Iranians. In Iraq itself, the MKO played important roles in the violent suppression of Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in 1991 and 1999 - actions that still grate with Iraq's new leadership. US forces bombed MKO camps during the Iraq invasion, then made a cease-fire deal. Last August, the US forced the MKO to close its offices in Washington. The State Department says it does not plan take the MKO off its terrorism list. But a July 21 memo from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the US deputy commander in Iraq, told the MKO the decision "sends a strong signal and is a powerful first step on the road to your final individual disposition," according to a copy quoted by The New York Times. Militants in the camp signed a statement renouncing violence and terrorism. In the memo, General Miller said he was "writing to congratulate each individual living in Camp Ashraf" of their status. Tehran, which has demanded either the prosecution of MKO members or their handover to Iran, responded angrily. "We already knew that America was not serious in fighting terrorism," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on Tuesday, adding that the US had now created a new category of "good terrorists." "The American resort to the Geneva Conventions to support the terrorist hypocrites [MKO] is naïve and unacceptable." The changing status of the MKO is little surprise to some experts. "The [terrorism] designation process is often hijacked for political purposes, and may shift with the wind," says Magnus Ranstorp, head of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland. "Your enemy's enemy is your friend," says Mr. Ranstorp. "And certainly since the Iraq conflict, the MKO has gravitated toward a more serious category, because of political expediency." That expediency appears to be part of a growing cascade of anti-Iran sentiment in the US that some say could eventually lead to military action. Among the signals: The Sept. 11 Commission report found that perhaps half of the 9/11 hijackers passed through Iran without having their passports stamped, though they may have crossed without official knowledge. Some US and Iraqi officials - facing continued bloodshed and chaos in Iraq - accuse Iran of intervening to undermine the US occupation and the new "sovereign" Iraqi leadership. Questions remain about the true intentions of Iran's nuclear power effort, which the US accuses of being a front for a weapons program. Several senior Al Qaeda members remain - in custody, according to Iranian officials - in Iran. And Europeans - once supportive of constructive engagement with Iran - have been taken aback by Iranian waffling on nuclear inspections, the rejection of thousands of candidates from elections last February, and the spectacle of British sailors arrested last month. In Washington earlier this month, Republican senators introduced the "Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2004," a $10 million measure to support pro-democracy groups and broadcasting. Tehran responded that "those who draft such plans lag behind the times, they live in their daydreams." In a recent Council on Foreign Relations report, several Iran experts have called for a limited re-engagement with Iran. They say that lack of any official contact with Iran for 25 years has harmed US interests. But British historian Ansari says, "At the moment, I would lay more blame on the Iranians, because they are in a position of strength...and should now seize the initiative and make bold and constructive suggestions." He adds, "they're not doing anything.... they are miscalculating." Meanwhile, the MKO may have its own model to follow, and use its "protected" status as a springboard. "They are trying desperately to set themselves up as Iran's equivalent of the Iraqi National Congress," says Ansari, referring to the Iraqi opposition group led by former Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi. "The Iranians will be aware that the Americans are trying to keep them as a potential INC."
Are you talking about the cease fire deal? Israel has made similar deals in the recent past with Hamas, but I don't think anyone was claiming they were working together. The ideal endgame with some terrorist organizations is to have them disarm and renounce violence. That is what we have called on Hamas to do, so there is no reason why it should surprise you that we are working toward the same goal with others. We are still holding those MKO terrorists we have caught prisoner, and are on opposite sides of a cease fire negotiation, that is hardly working together. That is like saying we worked together with the Nazis when we made a cease fire deal to end the war in Europe.
Back to the question in point. Will be go to war with Iran? I hope so. My living room and my dining room could use some new Authentic handmade Iranian rugs. Those things look amazing on brand new hardwood floor. Oh! and oil would be a bonus. Any WMD we capture along the way.. that's ok too I guess. Although I dont see how I would benefit from those. Finally, since we cant seem to use nuclear technology for power generation, those damn Iranians should not be able to either. When will we wusses decide to go nuclear for energy? I had to decline scholarship in Nuclear engineering and went to Biomedical instead, because we are so damn paranoid....
The point of conention is that they're using these people as a source of "intelligence," because the US doesnt have any eyes and ears in Iran. The MKO also have support in Congress....many congressman like Gary Ackerman and Ilean Ros-Lehtinen (sp?) for example love this cultish terrorist organization....Iran also captured some of these people recently in Iran and they confessed that they were working on behalf of the US...if all this does not amount to American support and collaboration with a terrorist organization then I dont know what does another point that further solidifies the case that the US is using these people is that fact that Iran offered to exchange al-Qaeda members it has arrested for members of the MKO in US custody....if the MKO had no value to the US then they would hand them over to the Iranians in exchange for al-Qaeda members, especially since this is a war on terrorism, but i guess the MKO are "good" terrorists
http://thebusinessonline.com/Storie...ectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE China threatens to veto sanctions against Iran CHINA has threatened to veto any proposal to impose sanctions on Iran if it does not give up its quest for nuclear power. This will split the United Nations as it meets this week to discuss how to handle the standoff. Wang Guangya, China’s ambassador to the United Nations, has said he will not accept British and American proposals to invoke Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter, a provision that makes existing declarations mandatory. But the United States has said it will proceed with sanctions regardless and is prepared to assemble its own coalition of “like-minded nations” to deny Iran arms and any materials that could help in constructing nuclear weapons. Washington and London have both said they intend to ask the United Nations Security Council next week to give its last resolution teeth. It condemned Iran’s decision to restart uranium enrichment for what it says will be a nuclear fuel plant. Sir Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador to the United Nations, said: “It seems logical at this stage that a draft resolution should be based on Chapter 7.” But this has been flatly rejected by China, which is one of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council. “We all know what Chapter 7 involves,” said Wang – referring to its capacity to yield an ultimatum. “All we want is a diplomatic solution, so therefore I believe that by involving Chapter 7, it will be more complicated.” The US State Department was undaunted and said America would seek sanctions even without United Nations approval. “What the Iranians have done is created a coalition against them,” said R Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state. “They have forced a dynamic where there will have to be some action against them, whether it is in the Security Council or outside the Security Council, by like-minded nations.” This would focus on denying arms sales to Iran, Burns added. The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared last Friday that Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium of 3.6% concentration, five times stronger than raw uranium ore. This is the threshold for civil nuclear power. A nuclear weapon requires 85% concentration, but a crude device can be made from 20% enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that Iran had 164 centrifuges at its Natanz plant in March. It is expected that it will soon treble this capacity.
Bush Setting up Attack on Iran By Marjorie Cohn Monday 08 May 2006 Now that the mission - whatever it was - has not been accomplished in Iraq, Bush is setting up a potentially bigger disaster in Iran. Last month, Seymour Hersh revealed that the US military is making preparations for an attack on Iran. Recent events confirm Hersh's report. The Bush administration is stepping up the pressure on the Security Council to pass a resolution that the US will use to justify an invasion. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, is pushing Council members to vote on a resolution next week. Hersh wrote, "There is a growing concern among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change." A former defense official who still advises the Bush administration told Hersh that the military planning is grounded in the belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." This reasoning is counter-intuitive. Iranians who become the victims of US aggression are much more likely to rally around the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran and fight to expel the foreign infidels. "Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups," Hersh learned from current and former American military and intelligence officials. One of the military proposals calls for the use of bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons against underground nuclear sites. That would mean "mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years," a former senior intelligence official informed Hersh. A Pentagon adviser said the Air Force would strike many hundreds of targets in Iran, 99 percent of which have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. It would not just be Iranians who take the hits, the Pentagon adviser told Hersh. "If we go [into Iran]," he said, "the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle." Our troops in Iraq would be at risk of retaliation from Iran and the Muslim world, according to the Washington Post. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, said Tuesday that in response to an invasion of Iran by the United States, Iran's first target would be Israel. Once again, Team Bush is whipping the media - and its consumers - into a frenzy of fear, this time against a nuclear Iran. Two weeks ago, Condoleezza Rice said that Bush administration officials "have to be concerned when there are statements from Iran that Iran would not only like to have this technology but would share it, share technology and expertise." Rice also said, "We can't let this continue." Never mind that Western nuclear scientists said last month that Iran lacks the skill, material and equipment to fulfill its immediate nuclear ambitions, the New York Times reported. Once again, a "preventive" war initiated by Bush would violate the United Nations Charter, which forbids the use of armed force against another country unless it poses an imminent threat, or when the Security Council authorizes an attack. Bush is following the same route he took on the way to regime change in Iraq. He pressured members of the Security Council for a resolution threatening Iraq. The Council passed Resolution 1441. France, Russia and China issued a joint statement specifying, "Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force." In other words, the US would have to return to the Council to secure authorization to invade Iraq. Bush was unable to secure a second resolution from the Council that would authorize an attack on Iraq. So Bush rationalized his invasion by cobbling together Resolution 1441 and two prior Council resolutions from the Gulf War. None of these, separately or collectively, provided a legal basis for Bush's war on Iraq. A draft Security Council resolution on Iran, which is supported by Britain, France and the US, was circulated on Wednesday. The next day, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "My conviction is that military action is certainly no solution." Russia and China, the other two permanent members of the Security Council, concur with de Villepin's sentiments. But, as it did in Iraq, the British government would likely support Bush if he decides to attack Iran. Last month, Britain's former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, branded the idea of a nuclear strike on Iran as "completely nuts." He said military action against Iran was "inconceivable," and warned his Cabinet colleagues that it would be illegal for Britain to support US military action against Iran. On Friday, Straw was rewarded for his candor with removal from his position as Foreign Secretary. Both the Independent and the Guardian in London wrote that Straw's "fate was sealed" after an angry call from the White House to Blair. The Independent reported that friends of Straw believe Bush was extremely upset at Straw's comment that the use of nukes against Iran was "nuts." Tony Blair has signaled his support of a US military strike, warning that ruling out military action would send a "message of weakness" to Iran. When asked a few days ago about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran, Bush stated unequivocally, "All options are on the table." The Bush administration is undoubtedly pushing the draft resolution as a step along the way to its unilateral use of armed force against Iran. The draft states that the Council would be "acting under Chapter VII" of the UN Charter. This means that it would be based on a finding of a threat to international peace and security, would be legally binding, and could be the basis for the later imposition of sanctions or the authorization of force. Yury Fedotov, the Russian ambassador in London, explained that Russia opposed the Chapter VII reference because it is reminiscent of past resolutions on Iraq and Yugoslavia that led to US-led military action which had not been authorized by the Security Council. "We have serious doubts sanctions would work," Fedotov said. "[They] could pave the way to a military action. The military option is a nonsense. It's [an] adventure that could threaten international stability in this region and beyond." Indeed, there is no basis for a finding that Iran poses a threat to international peace and security, according to John Burroughs, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. Although the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran to be in non-compliance with some requirements of the non-proliferation and disarmament regime, the IAEA has clearly said there is no evidence that Iran has diverted its declared nuclear materials to weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who is not necessarily the controlling power in Iran, has engaged in belligerent rhetoric. "This is deplorable," says Burroughs, "but it does not establish a threat to the peace. There has also been belligerent rhetoric coming from Israel and the United States." Given the stakes, it would seem logical that the Bush administration would pursue a diplomatic solution and avoid another disastrous conflagration in the Middle East. Hugh Porter reported in Asia Times that even Ahmedinajad is amenable to negotiation. The Iranians, he writes, are willing to compromise on enrichment if they can achieve security guarantees against attack. But Bush refuses to talk to Iran's leadership. Richard Armitage,deputy secretary of state in Bush's first term, warns that "diplomacy is not simply meant for our friends. It is meant for our enemies." When he inaugurated Iran into his "axis of evil," Bush defined Iran as our enemy. Sanctions, or an attack, on Iran would hurt the Iranian moderates, whom the US should view as allies. Moreover, invading Iran may well achieve precisely the opposite of what it portends to do. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace maintains it would strengthen Iran's resolve to develop nukes. It "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it." Cirincione said, "It's clear to me there's no military solution to the Iran problem." Bush's threatened aggression against Iran is no more about nuclear weapons than Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. It is propelled by an agenda of the neo-conservatives and Washington's pro-Israel lobby. The US seeks to control the entire Middle East and its valuable oil deposits by changing Iran's regime, installing a US-friendly government, and building permanent US military bases. It's deja vu with the 1953 CIA coup that removed the democratically-elected Mossadeq and installed the tyrannical Shah of Iran. After 25 years of tyranny, the Iranian people rose up and removed the Shah from power, replacing him with Ayatollah Khomeini's theocracy. The chickens came home to roost. Bolton said Saturday, "We are still working to achieve unanimity [in the Security Council] ... but we're prepared to go to a vote without it." It is time to take the military option against Iran off the table. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050806Z.shtml
I agree that Iranian proliferation is completely undesirable. But I cannot see using nukes in an attack on Iran. That's just going too far. Constructive engagement is much more likely to bear fruit on this issue. It's time for the administration to step back and consider a more flexible approach.
