Cause for War? (Nato/Afghanistan/Iran)

[Odin]

Any news of this in the EU ? I am curious how this has played in europe (if at all).

U.S.: NATO has intercepted Iranian arms By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
6 minutes ago



NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.

"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

Speaking separately to The Associated Press, Burns said NATO must act to stop the shipments. The Iran-Afghanistan frontier is "a very long border. But the Iranians need to know that we are there and that we're going to oppose this."

"It's a very serious question," he said, adding that Iran is in "outright violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion the Iranian government was directly involved in the transfers but stressed Washington has proof that weapons from Iran were being sent to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

"We absolutely are certain that there are Iranian-origin weapons flowing into Afghanistan to the Taliban," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

"We do not know the extent of any Iranian government involvement at this point, but given the nature of the regime and also some of its past behaviors elsehwhere — whether in the Palestinian areas or in Iraq — it certainly raises very serious questions and we are quite concerned about it," he said.

Tehran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies it is aiding the Taliban, calling the accusation part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Iran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.

Burns acknowledged that it was "curious" that Iran would aid the Taliban.

"It's quite surprising," he told CNN. "The Iranians had said that they were the mortal enemies of the Taliban in 2001 and '02."

Burns did not give details on the scope of the alleged Iranian shipments, although he appeared to indicate that they were limited. "I don't think it's made a substantial difference in the greater theater of the war," he said.

"It is not going to turn the tide against us, but it is very troublesome, it is illegal under international law ... and the Iranians need to stop it," Burns told the AP.

Burns, who was holding talks in Paris, first accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan — the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.

In Afghanistan last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of anti-government Taliban fighters, but he stopped short of blaming Tehran.

Iran's possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments alleged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.

In an AP interview Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to "an advanced Western military" in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.

"In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist.

On the Iranian nuclear issue, Burns claimed that sanctions already leveled against Tehran were being felt and reiterated the threat of more if the country refuses to suspend uranium enrichment — which the West fears could be meant for the production of nuclear weapons.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday dismissed the possibility that a third set of Security Council sanctions would harm Iran.

Burns disagreed. "I think most people would say that the Iranians are experiencing considerable economic difficulties because of the financial sanctions that have been taken outside the Council and because of Security Council sanctions," he told CNN.

While diplomatic solutions are preferable, "they will get sanctions if they choose confrontation," Burns said. "All of us want to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. That's the policy of the entire world."

U.S.: NATO has intercepted Iranian arms (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_re_eu/iran_taliban)

So if this is true, does this justify war? Is it a minimum a casus belli ?

[Petrus]

If i understand correctly what is written in this article, the intercepted weapons do not come from the iranian government.
In this case i do not think this can be a cassus belli.

[Don Corleone]

Well, Iran must be placated at all costs, so let's start working on an excuse for their behavior...

[Husar]

Just another smear campaign from the Bush government against the glorious iranian republic.
There are two possibilities:

One: The iranian government, as tricky as Sasaki in mafia games, decided to support the Taliban heathens because everybody thinks they hate them and that's the best excuse they could have. Oh and it weakens the US this way.

Two: The iranian government tends not to notice when it's weapons are being stolen and transported elsewhere(it wouldn't be the only country where military weapons "disappear") and some people just like to blame them.
The guys who steal the weapons wouldn't mind another war anyway I guess.

The problem is, I cannot decide, maybe Mr Ahmadinejad could invite me for a coffee to help me decide on the issue, but I really think both scenarios are possible. Yes, Iran is a bad country, no doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're involved in every bad deed going on around them.

We may however want to encourage them to look after their weapons better.:sweatdrop:

[HoreTore]

It would be funny if the US tried to invade Iran too now. In a very twisted way.

[BigTex]

I believe not a few people have been saying this for a very long time. Bout as good of a casus belli as you can find. Should we neccesarily act on it no, not without more support from Nato members.



Well, Iran must be placated at all costs, so let's start working on an excuse for their behavior...

I would hope, that after the british hostage crisis, and more evidence of them supporting terrorists in Iraq, that placating them of all involvment this time will be even easier.

[Don Corleone]

I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?

[Odin]

I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?

Today.

[Odin]

It would be funny if the US tried to invade Iran too now. In a very twisted way.

While your laughing it up HoreTore mind having a look at the teli, or the paper? Im curious if this has gained any press at all in EU countries.

You see, this isnt a U.S. Iran issue, if infact the data is accurate (thats a big if considering its a U.S. source, yet hasnt been disputed yet) that means Nato troops were the target, and that means europeans.

Thus my questions, I understand europeans generally dont want more conflict in the middleeast and wouldnt support war with Iran, but weapons that are targeting Nato troops have a lot of implications.

[FactionHeir]

I don't see why Iran is more to blame than the US who is openly supplying weapons and training to Iraqi terrorists/militants just because those are anti-alqaeda.

The only difference is that the matter at hand is publicized negatively while the other matter posititvely.

[Odin]

If i understand correctly what is written in this article, the intercepted weapons do not come from the iranian government.
In this case i do not think this can be a cassus belli.

Technically your right, there isnt a direct link to the iranian government, so perhaps a casus belli is to much.

However there are Iranian weapons getting into Iraq and afghanistan (according to the doves in washington) and so that might be enough. You see my purpose for posting this wasnt to advocate either way, I have my own opinion.

I am curious as to what others think, particularly europeans, its clear to me the direction we are heading with Iran, the rhetoric continues to leap frog the other side.

[Odin]

I don't see why Iran is more to blame than the US who is openly supplying weapons and training to Iraqi terrorists/militants just because those are anti-alqaeda.



Can you supply links or data to support the bolded portion of this claim?

[HoreTore]

While your laughing it up HoreTore mind having a look at the teli, or the paper? Im curious if this has gained any press at all in EU countries.

You see, this isnt a U.S. Iran issue, if infact the data is accurate (thats a big if considering its a U.S. source, yet hasnt been disputed yet) that means Nato troops were the target, and that means europeans.

Thus my questions, I understand europeans generally dont want more conflict in the middleeast and wouldnt support war with Iran, but weapons that are targeting Nato troops have a lot of implications.

Can't find anything in the papers here, sorry.

Anyway, the point of the laugh, was that our(Nato) military strength is pretty much spent. An invasion of Iran could very well turn out as a defeat, and then what are we to do?

[FactionHeir]

Can you supply links or data to support the bolded portion of this claim?

Among others this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/penhaul.iraq/index.html

There used to be a very detailed one when it was first made public but I can't seem to find that one anymore.

[edit]

This one has a few links and excerpts from a better article:
http://wizbangblue.com/2007/06/12/just-when-we-declared-victory-in-anbar.php

[Odin]

Among others this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/07/penhaul.iraq/index.html

There used to be a very detailed one when it was first made public but I can't seem to find that one anymore.

[edit]

This one has a few links and excerpts from a better article:
http://wizbangblue.com/2007/06/12/just-when-we-declared-victory-in-anbar.php

The first link is excellent, thanks !

I feel that adequately supports your claim.
Perhaps your sentiment intially was correct, spin as it is, is a powerful tool, but really whats the old axiom? "two wrongs dont make a right"?

While that might be a silly application in this case, my sense is that overall the U.S. is heading towards military confrentation with Iran, in some scope, but will that spin induce other western allies is what I am prodding at.

[Odin]

Can't find anything in the papers here, sorry.

Anyway, the point of the laugh, was that our(Nato) military strength is pretty much spent. An invasion of Iran could very well turn out as a defeat, and then what are we to do?

I dont think its going to be an invasion, I think its going to be airstrikes. It looks to me like the U.S. is attempting to provide cover for european governments to, at a minimum, not be as vocal in thier opposition as they have been in the past.

[Adrian II]

People in every country are shipping illegal weapons to countries that are inimical to their own governments and to their allies. Americans do it. Europeans do it. Should we all declare war on each other and have the best (and last) fireworks this world has ever seen? Or should reason prevail in the sense that we find other ways short of war to discourage Iran from pursuing this course?

Of course some people will always be for bombing and spec ops and invasions and stuff, and will decry any other course of action as appeasement and betrayal. Yawn. As Banquo's Ghost has stated before in various contexts, the war party is usually long on slogans and short on realism.

[Don Corleone]

I want to go on record as saying that I personally DON'T think that even if AJ was kissing each crate of rifles on its way out the door that justifies invading or bombing Iran. Were that the case, the rest of the world owes us quite a few bombings. My question is one of legitimate inquiry. Iran is taking provocative actions in several areas. What could they do that would convince you (any Orgah that cares to answer) that more than rhetoric is required? Is there anything? And what sorts of responses would which behavior require?

[ajaxfetish]

I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?
At the point that we have sufficiently resolved our current military engagements so as not to be so thinly spread and/or at the point when the American populace has sufficient anger built up toward Iran to support conflict (or other 'firm action') long enough to accomplish something, and at the point that my government has regained my trust in the integrity of their casus belli intel.

Ajax

edit: that's of course independent of whatever Iran would do to provoke the action on our part. Those are just my bare minimums from our end to make action even practical. I'm not sure what I would require Iran to do to justify action against them, but considering their relatively advanced condition and power for the area, and my desire for them to sort out their issues internally, I would expect a significant provocation on their part as well.

[Blodrast]

At the point where they go beyond mere saber-rattling, which a lot of nations do.
If some of them are entitled, they should all be entitled to do such saber-rattling.

Don, I realize you're looking for a more specific answer, and I'm sorry that I don't think I can give you one - because that would require me to anticipate what else they could do.
I would say a just, moral, cause for war, would be in place if they did something openly (e.g., regular army goes into Iraq, or their government openly sponsors/encourages the violence in Iraq (by more than just a speech, mind you)). I don't know.
I would also be wary of rash, impulsive "let's bomb them!" approaches - I'd much rather go with economic sanctions first, and, if those don't work, only use war as the very ultimate "solution".

ajaxfetish, so, for you, the only reason you wouldn't go to war now is because it's not practical for the US to do so ?! In other words, war is fine, and you don't really need a reason, as long as you can. We're doing it 'cause we can, and we're bigger and stronger, that line of thought ?
I must have misunderstood your post, because usually you're not taking any extreme stances, and you seem (to me) a very much middle-of-the-road kind of guy (i.e., moderate).

[HoreTore]

I dont think its going to be an invasion, I think its going to be airstrikes. It looks to me like the U.S. is attempting to provide cover for european governments to, at a minimum, not be as vocal in thier opposition as they have been in the past.

If the US starts bombing Iran, I'll bet they're going to invade Iraq. And that's basically the same thing, isn't it?

[Whacker]

Meh, without rehashing the same thing over and over about my disagreement with what the US has been doing worldwide the past few years,I still think Iran is playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship.

Military action? No, a few crates of rifles isn't good enough. The fact that they are working on nukes still bothers me greatly though. I don't like the fact that they are getting closer to having them, much less that N. Korea has already demonstrated nuclear capability. (My understanding is that) The difference between Iran and DPRK is that the DPRK really is all talk, and other than the few "knocking on the door and running" acts like shooting off some half-baked test ICBM that fails halfway in flight, they don't and can't really do anything. Iran not only talks big but seems to be itching for a fight, kinda like that one scrappy little kid in the schoolyard who you kept staring down but you knew he was working up the head of steam to haul off and punch you in the face.

My vote is serious, serious sanctions. They've already pretty much flipped the bird at the nuclear inspections people and gone ahead with their program, which is a major foul. Now we apparently have strong evidence that they are supplying terrorists in some shape or form. Talk is one thing, and a reasonable person/nation should ignore talk for what it is... hot air. Actions on the other hand always speak louder than words. Sounds like someone needs a timeout. If the timeout doesn't work, then you can move on to considering a spanking.

[Slyspy]

Meh, without rehashing the same thing over and over about my disagreement with what the US has been doing worldwide the past few years,I still think Iran is playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship.

Military action? No, a few crates of rifles isn't good enough. The fact that they are working on nukes still bothers me greatly though. I don't like the fact that they are getting closer to having them, much less that N. Korea has already demonstrated nuclear capability. (My understanding is that) The difference between Iran and DPRK is that the DPRK really is all talk, and other than the few "knocking on the door and running" acts like shooting off some half-baked test ICBM that fails halfway in flight, they don't and can't really do anything. Iran not only talks big but seems to be itching for a fight, kinda like that one scrappy little kid in the schoolyard who you kept staring down but you knew he was working up the head of steam to haul off and punch you in the face.

My vote is serious, serious sanctions. They've already pretty much flipped the bird at the nuclear inspections people and gone ahead with their program, which is a major foul. Now we apparently have strong evidence that they are supplying terrorists in some shape or form. Talk is one thing, and a reasonable person/nation should ignore talk for what it is... hot air. Actions on the other hand always speak louder than words. Sounds like someone needs a timeout. If the timeout doesn't work, then you can move on to considering a spanking.

Sanctions achieve nothing. Hell, if we can't even keep Iranian weapons from crossing the border into Afghanistan what hope have we when it comes to isolating Iran?

[HoreTore]

I say we sanction Iran by banning them from exporting oil!

the fact that the oil price will skyrocket and norway(and by extension, me) will profit vastly has nothing to do with the previous statement, of course

[Incongruous]

I think, or I hope, that we all know that the opening up of diologue with Iran is the first step to peace in the Middle-East. If the US could treat Iran like a regional power, a nation which needs to be consulted on the regions developments, then I can see Iran withdrawing help from these nut jobs in Iraq.
The same goes for Syria.

[Spetulhu]

Why is it so strange to find Iranian-made weapons in shipments to Afghanistan or Iraq? Both countries are a mess, guns sell and someone's paying. More profit for Iranian arms dealers, less for those with production facilities farther from the scene. Perhaps that's the real problem?

[CountArach]

I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?
Never... or at least not for a VERY long time.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that it would be useful for posters to reflect on the fact that Iran is not a country that enjoys a single and easily traceable line of political accountability.

There are many powerful factions, both intra and extra governmental, and these all pursue their own agendas with little to no influence from the nominal government. It is also a vast country with regions where the writ of Tehran (such as it is) is paid little heed.

This is problematic when negotiating with the central government, as even when willing they may find it impossible to deliver. It is even more problematic when threatening military force, as several factions may be of the "martyr" persuasion and even happier for them, located in a part of the country unlikely to be affected - life the Afghan border.

This may inform interpretations of what the arms smuggling may mean.

[Petrus]

Technically your right, there isnt a direct link to the iranian government, so perhaps a casus belli is to much.

However there are Iranian weapons getting into Iraq and afghanistan (according to the doves in washington) and so that might be enough. You see my purpose for posting this wasnt to advocate either way, I have my own opinion.

I am curious as to what others think, particularly europeans, its clear to me the direction we are heading with Iran, the rhetoric continues to leap frog the other side.

It is possible your government is trying to put up excuses to justify the invasion of Iran in the same manner it did for Irak.

It is also possible some european governments will follow on this path.

But in my opinion the only thing that could make european governments choose this option is the supposed threat of the supposed Iranian atomic bomb.

Any other reason will be seen as a fake excuse, whether it is real or not.

This weapon smuggling story might be an attempt to increase diplomatic pressure against Iran, however.

[Tribesman]

I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?
Thats an easy one Don .
It would be when the action would be feasably possible , would achieve its aims and its consequences would be acceptable .
So at the moment and for a long time to come none of those can be fulfilled .

[Zaknafien]

there is absolutely no reason for the west to go to war with Iran, its all huff and bluff to distract people from the catastrophe in Iraq and the failings of the shrub admin at home.

1. Iran is not a threat to the US or any western country
2. they are at best 10 years away from any fissile nuclear material according to the IAEA.
3. weapons smuggling happens everywhere-- you can find tons of american made weapons in mexico and canada, for instance.
4. even if the iranian govt was supplying weapons, who can blame them? if iran invaded canada, you can bet your behind the US would do more than supply weapons to the insurgents.

[Odin]

If the US starts bombing Iran, I'll bet they're going to invade Iraq. And that's basically the same thing, isn't it?

Well no, but again Im not mainstream HoreTore I would be happy to see Iran invade Iraq, as long as U.S. troops and our allies are out of there at the time.

[Odin]

It is possible your government is trying to put up excuses to justify the invasion of Iran in the same manner it did for Irak.

It is also possible some european governments will follow on this path.

But in my opinion the only thing that could make european governments choose this option is the supposed threat of the supposed Iranian atomic bomb.

Any other reason will be seen as a fake excuse, whether it is real or not.

This weapon smuggling story might be an attempt to increase diplomatic pressure against Iran, however.

I suspect you are correct, but I always look at the audience, and locale of where these proclomations are made. This one was made via NATO, now while that on its surface might not say much, its telling to me because the Bush boys expend a lot of energy attempting to sway people to there way of thinking.

Iraq is a perfect example, it seemed to me that the invasion was going to happen either way given the build up in Kuwait, but there was powell at the UN attempting to sell it.

This is part of what irks me about Bush, if your going to go in anyway why expend the resources to sway others? Maybe this is all for sanctions, i dont know but militarily the U.S. is poised to conduct airstrikes.

Centcom and the joint chiefs are now run by admirals I believe, and there are 2 carrier strike forces in hormuz, and the drum beat has been steady, just like with Iraq.

[Odin]

there is absolutely no reason for the west to go to war with Iran, its all huff and bluff to distract people from the catastrophe in Iraq and the failings of the shrub admin at home.

Fair point Zak, Bush and the boys love to try and change the subject whenever possible.


1. Iran is not a threat to the US or any western country
Well if this story is true then your wrong.


2. they are at best 10 years away from any fissile nuclear material according to the IAEA.

Well if the IAEA said it, it must be true right? So should we wait for 8 years or 3 ?


3. weapons smuggling happens everywhere-- you can find tons of american made weapons in mexico and canada, for instance.

Yes, but they arent aimed at NATO soldiers.


4. even if the iranian govt was supplying weapons, who can blame them?

I dont, it seems rather common sense that they would arm the enemy of thier enemy, a no brainer tactic.

[Tribesman]

I suspect you are correct, but I always look at the audience, and locale of where these proclomations are made. This one was made via NATO, now while that on its surface might not say much, its telling to me because the Bush boys expend a lot of energy attempting to sway people to there way of thinking.

Do you think it is telling that Gates backs away from Burns claims ?
Would that be for the US , NATO or world audience ?
It is similar to claims made about Iran in Iraq .......yep definately , lots of evidence , absolute proof , clear complicity at highest levels .....errrr...well actually when we said that we didn't really mean it as such ... :oops: .....ummmmm.... please believe us , don't let our lack of credibility influence you ...we really mean it and really do believe what we say and want you to believe it too...even when we instantly turn around and say we meant something different , we don't realy mean something different because we are right in the first place ...well sorta kinda in a roundaboutish way .

[Odin]

Do you think it is telling that Gates backs away from Burns claims ?
Would that be for the US , NATO or world audience ?
It is similar to claims made about Iran in Iraq .......yep definately , lots of evidence , absolute proof , clear complicity at highest levels .....errrr...well actually when we said that we didn't really mean it as such ... :oops: .....ummmmm.... please believe us , don't let our lack of credibility influence you ...we really mean it and really do believe what we say and want you to believe it too...even when we instantly turn around and say we meant something different , we don't realy mean something different because we are right in the first place ...well sorta kinda in a roundaboutish way .

I am always confused by the Bush's admins quest to somehow play into international norms of accepted foriegn policy by attempted sales pitches like this.

Its clear they dont care much anyway (at least IMHO) so get on with it already. However domestically I guess they need to appear as if they are still playing the game, remember its not like Mr Bush has a whole lot of cred here either, I think hes at 30% approval rating.

[Petrus]

I suspect you are correct, but I always look at the audience, and locale of where these proclomations are made. This one was made via NATO, now while that on its surface might not say much, its telling to me because the Bush boys expend a lot of energy attempting to sway people to there way of thinking.

Iraq is a perfect example, it seemed to me that the invasion was going to happen either way given the build up in Kuwait, but there was powell at the UN attempting to sell it.


This was probably also the reasoning of the political leaders that followed the US administration : they will do it anyway so will shall do the same. A very short-term analyse motivated by ideology and an estimated local political benefit. The total failure and the impossibility to manage the situation in Irak will maybe make the European political leaders think twice before engaging themselves in another adventure but this is not sure.



This is part of what irks me about Bush, if your going to go in anyway why expend the resources to sway others? Maybe this is all for sanctions, i dont know but militarily the U.S. is poised to conduct airstrikes.

Centcom and the joint chiefs are now run by admirals I believe, and there are 2 carrier strike forces in hormuz, and the drum beat has been steady, just like with Iraq.


The situation is very different from Irak I think.
Iran is a bigger and most populated country than Irak.
Iran is not in ruin and has not been subject to an embargo during 10 years.
Iran has developed at least a few military technologies – such as shore to sea missiles – and the whole northern shore of the Persian gulf - which is very narrow - is Iranian.

This means that a military fleet in the gulf is very vulnerable to attacks so it is difficult to see the presence of those strike forces as something else than a diplomatic/political pressure attempt.

If things go bad, the US forces in Irak could also find themselves in a difficult situation as their only logistic line passes through the Persian gulf.
One thing to note is that this line expands through southern Irak, a shiite populated area that is relatively calm when compared to the sunni zones.
How would this population react if the US army goes to Iran, straight through its territory and what impact can this have upon the conduct of an invasion?

Given the situation in Irak and knowing that it is the best that can be reached in Iran, I think any responsible political leader shall not engage in what can only lead to a long term disaster.

The economic impact of an invasion would also be catastrophic both in the short and in the long term.

The absence of relationship between Iran and the US since the Iranian revolution reduces greatly the possibilities to influence Iran, the posture towards Iran, from which only evil can come also puts strong limits to the US attitude toward this country.

This is not exactly the subject of this thread but all those elements make me think this is only a political/diplomatic pressure.

Now, the present US administration has already shown that it was able to take catastrophic decisions and to confuse ideological phantasmagoria with reality so nothing is impossible.

Concerning your remark about Powell and the UN : this was a fiasco and I think the current US administration will probably not make another attempt unless it has ironclad elements, something it will probably never have.

[HoreTore]

Well no, but again Im not mainstream HoreTore I would be happy to see Iran invade Iraq, as long as U.S. troops and our allies are out of there at the time.

Well, I'm talking about invading Iraq while the US troops are still there, as in attacking the US troops there... Basically the same thing, but better for Iran, of course, as they don't have to fight at home.

But anyway, I fully support an invasion of Iran, as I support anything that makes the oil price higher. And I'm completely impartial, of course.

[Zaknafien]

Iran would kick our asses right now, quite frankly.

[macsen rufus]

"There's irrefutable evidence ....." Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from ...... "


I'm with Tribesy on this one; when I read that excerpt all I could hear was "WMD" all over again. A bit fat "yah yah yah". Maybe there is evidence, maybe there ain't, but the US govt/intell community have cried "Wolf" too many times (as has Blair etc, it's not a national criticism I'm making) to be believed.

And also


"It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

doesn't really compute, as I think the entire British naval hostage situation proved. The IRG are a law unto themselves, (who, by the way, I would believe capable of shipping arms to "their enemy's enemy"). That doesn't give any credence, though, to claims that the Tehran regime is somehow deliberately doing this. BG's notes on the fragmentary nature of Iranian govt were spot on, IMHO.

And of course if we roll the clock back what? 15-20 years? who would it have been shipping arms in to the Taleban & Mujaheddin for use against a foreign military force intent on supporting its own preferred style of government in Afghanistan?

So for now, casus belli not proven. But, hey, when did proof really decide anything?

[Odin]

The situation is very different from Irak I think.
Iran is a bigger and most populated country than Irak.
Iran is not in ruin and has not been subject to an embargo during 10 years.
Iran has developed at least a few military technologies – such as shore to sea missiles – and the whole northern shore of the Persian gulf - which is very narrow - is Iranian.

Yes this is true, however I think the flip side is the intention of forces is different as well. I dont think thier is any intent to invade Iran like Iraq, I think air strikes on facilities is more the course of action that is likely.


This means that a military fleet in the gulf is very vulnerable to attacks so it is difficult to see the presence of those strike forces as something else than a diplomatic/political pressure attempt.

well yes this is true, but conversely iran is as vulnerable and now we are talking about acceptable losses, which you may very well be correct thats its purely political.


If things go bad, the US forces in Irak could also find themselves in a difficult situation as their only logistic line passes through the Persian gulf.
One thing to note is that this line expands through southern Irak, a shiite populated area that is relatively calm when compared to the sunni zones.
How would this population react if the US army goes to Iran, straight through its territory and what impact can this have upon the conduct of an invasion?

Again my theories are based on air strikes only not invasion, but point taken.


Given the situation in Irak and knowing that it is the best that can be reached in Iran, I think any responsible political leader shall not engage in what can only lead to a long term disaster.

Responsible and bush dont go well together, as far as it can only lead to long term disaster, well thats subjective as well.

[Kommodus]

This is absolutely NOT a cause for war, for the following reasons:

1. I see no reason to be completely convinced by the intel. We were told there was "no doubt" Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, a claim that proved utterly false and deliberately misleading. I'm in no condition to simply trust what my government says at this point, and neither is anyone else.

2. Even if the claim is accurate, a few weapons shipments (heck, even substantial weapons shipments) aren't enough to justify a costly war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives (mostly civilian) and cause terrible damage to Iran's infrastructure. We may disagree with Iran's policies, but that doesn't justify the harm that would befall its people (and ours) in a war.

3. The US simply cannot launch another war. Our current commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan are already sapping our military and economic capabilities. Our soldiers are exhausted, casualties are mounting (with growing losses to families at home), and huge amounts of money are being spent on questionable causes that I would much rather see going to domestic initiatives. Iran, being stronger than both Iraq and Afghanistan, would be an insane target.


I'm curious at what point you all would agree that firm action, not just 'words', should be directed at Iran?

When Iran has both built and deployed a nuclear weapon offensively. And yes, I am being serious.

The American empire has, for decades, been launching aggressive wars in pursuit of self-interested goals. We cannot afford to do so any longer. I would not support another war unless the following conditions were met:

1. The enemy had already carried out a substantial, irrefutable attack, leaving no question of who was the aggressive party.

2. Our cause was irrefutably just, and agreed to by our allies.

3. We could convincingly expect success, meaning that the situation would be genuinely improved by fighting the war.

I think our government has had far too easy a time embroiling our nation in armed conflict, and of all the world, we (the American people) are the most oblivious. Given the cost, it should be hard to launch a war - done only after every other possibility is truly exhausted.

:bow:

[KukriKhan]

Arms smuggling is a border-control problem, yes?

Build a fence.

[Tribesman]

I'm with Tribesy on this one; when I read that excerpt all I could hear was "WMD" all over again. A bit fat "yah yah yah". Maybe there is evidence, maybe there ain't, but the US govt/intell community have cried "Wolf" too many times (as has Blair etc, it's not a national criticism I'm making) to be believed.


Well the thing is Macsen , Gates very quickly amended what Burns had claimed , so if Burns said the wrong thing did Gates say the right things , or is someone else going to stand up in a while and amend what Gates said ..and of course if they do is it going to get as much coverage asBuns big headline grabbing ......eeerrrr....well rubbish really .
The [rob;em is too many people have a tendancy to pick upn te initial statements in these situations , and neglect that the initial claims are either modified or completely withdrawn . How many times here do we see people repeating claims as true long after they have been shown to be not .

[Odin]

Well the thing is Macsen , Gates very quickly amended what Burns had claimed , so if Burns said the wrong thing did Gates say the right things , or is someone else going to stand up in a while and amend what Gates said ..and of course if they do is it going to get as much coverage asBuns big headline grabbing ......eeerrrr....well rubbish really .
The [rob;em is too many people have a tendancy to pick upn te initial statements in these situations , and neglect that the initial claims are either modified or completely withdrawn . How many times here do we see people repeating claims as true long after they have been shown to be not .

Yes but what about the "why", I dont dispute your assertions at all, its very easy to harp on something that is presented as an absolute, and later amended.

That point conceded, why is this happening? Why are U.S. officials making these statements then they are being retracted? Thats really what Im getting at, I want to know if this is more attempted backdoor pressure by the U.S. on Nato nations on Iran.

How is this being reported there? Is it being reported there? What is the mood on Iran? Is it over shadowed by mistrust of the Bush admin?

I get your point Tribe, here here.... now how about the business of intent?

Why do you think they are playing this shell game?

[ajaxfetish]

ajaxfetish, so, for you, the only reason you wouldn't go to war now is because it's not practical for the US to do so ?! In other words, war is fine, and you don't really need a reason, as long as you can. We're doing it 'cause we can, and we're bigger and stronger, that line of thought ?
I must have misunderstood your post, because usually you're not taking any extreme stances, and you seem (to me) a very much middle-of-the-road kind of guy (i.e., moderate).
Sorry, Blodrast, I realized I left my original post very incomplete and open to misunderstanding, and you must have got in before my edit. The point I was going for was that whatever Iran does at this point, we're in no position to invade them anyway. I would of course not support invasion without good reason, but as Tribesman and Macsen Rufus have both noted, it's hard to trust reasons that come from my current government administration, plus our national resources and will to fight are not in order to support a war as big as one with Iran would surely prove.


The American empire has, for decades, been launching aggressive wars in pursuit of self-interested goals. We cannot afford to do so any longer. I would not support another war unless the following conditions were met:

1. The enemy had already carried out a substantial, irrefutable attack, leaving no question of who was the aggressive party.
This I fully agree with, and I think it ties into the national will to continue a war to its conclusion. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the nation went into war-mode in a big way, with ordinary citizens making great sacrifices to support the war effort and unflagging effort until the war was over. After the destruction of the WTC I'm still fully in support of the war in Afghanistan, for as long as it may last (I may take issue with how it is conducted, but I think it must be nonetheless). Iraq I have no such sense of support for. Vietnam did not arouse the same long-term national support. Any war where we must fabricate aggression on the part of our opponent (hmm, somewhat reminiscent of the Nazi attempt to make Poland look like an aggressor in 1939), is I think guaranteed to lose popular support before long. We will only succeed in our wars if we have a very compelling threat to ourselves to defend against. As you suggest, an Iranian nuclear strike would be just the kind of thing that I think would energize the American populace enough to see a war with Iran through to its conclusion. Weapons shipments of dubious origin are nowhere close.

Ajax

[Odin]

Some polls of intrest (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm)

I havent looked through them all, but the few I have seen seem to suggest that at a minimum U.S. residents are begining to view Iran as a threat. While not a majority its still heading in that direction consistantly.

A similar trend happened with Iraq.

[Tribesman]

Wow thats a lot of questions Odin .
Lets do a couple .
why is this happening?
Its the usual bullexcrement , but with slightly varying flavours .
Things are not going well , in fact they are going exactly as the US predicted they would go unless they stuck with the plans , but they for some strange reason didn't go with the plans .
As things are not going well there is the neccesity of misdirection to blame someone else for the mess . Iran is a good place to blame .

Why are U.S. officials making these statements then they are being retracted?
Ah , the information age . good old rolling newscoverage and the need for something to be said because ....well .....because you gotta say something right .
Gone are the days when you could make a statement , then make some clarifications before a newsagency prints it , now its on the net and rapidly round the world without the clarifications , and sloppy journalism often doesn't follow up with the clarifications , after all it is old news isn't it .
The retractions are being made due to several reasons , largely the credibilty of US claims after recent fiascos , which is of course easiy dented with the easy accessibilty of information nowadays and the seeming willingness to make firm assertions on the flimsiest of evidence (look how quickly Powells "evidence" at the UN was ripped apart) .
So to put it simply they are saying things , strong things need to be said , but they are not thinking it through which means instead of strong statement they give weak and foolish ones (weak as in they don't stand up) .

I want to know if this is more attempted backdoor pressure by the U.S. on Nato nations on Iran.

Could be , but everyone knows (well nearly everyone) military acton against Iran is a pipe dream , a pipe straight into the slurry tank .
Pressure is beingput on NATO , it doesn't really look good when you have members saying variously that the war is already lost or that the war in the south is already lost (Karzais statements on the taliban and his problems with his northern "allies" don't help either with the outlook) .

How is this being reported there?
As news .

Is it being reported there?
Yep

What is the mood on Iran?
Well most people would probably be of the view "when will the idiots learn to stop the sabre rattling bullshit and seriously think" .
Though of course there are some who look favourably on the mess out there as they are making loads of money out of it .

Why do you think they are playing this shell game?
Because they are stuck in a rut , they are impotent but must maintain a fascade of potency , they are clueless but must pretend they know what they are playing at .
Its sad really , it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic with the potential of getting much much worse .

Blimey look at that....Its sad really , it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic ...well bugger me that seems to be a familiar statement .
If I am not mistaken I have repeated MacNamaras words about carrying on with the tripe about Tonkin and going to war on a lie instead of saying:oops: what we said isn't actually true .

[Odin]

Wow thats a lot of questions Odin .
Lets do a couple .
why is this happening?
Its the usual bullexcrement , but with slightly varying flavours .
Things are not going well , in fact they are going exactly as the US predicted they would go unless they stuck with the plans , but they for some strange reason didn't go with the plans .
As things are not going well there is the neccesity of misdirection to blame someone else for the mess . Iran is a good place to blame .

Why are U.S. officials making these statements then they are being retracted?
Ah , the information age . good old rolling newscoverage and the need for something to be said because ....well .....because you gotta say something right .
Gone are the days when you could make a statement , then make some clarifications before a newsagency prints it , now its on the net and rapidly round the world without the clarifications , and sloppy journalism often doesn't follow up with the clarifications , after all it is old news isn't it .
The retractions are being made due to several reasons , largely the credibilty of US claims after recent fiascos , which is of course easiy dented with the easy accessibilty of information nowadays and the seeming willingness to make firm assertions on the flimsiest of evidence (look how quickly Powells "evidence" at the UN was ripped apart) .
So to put it simply they are saying things , strong things need to be said , but they are not thinking it through which means instead of strong statement they give weak and foolish ones (weak as in they don't stand up) .

I want to know if this is more attempted backdoor pressure by the U.S. on Nato nations on Iran.

Could be , but everyone knows (well nearly everyone) military acton against Iran is a pipe dream , a pipe straight into the slurry tank .
Pressure is beingput on NATO , it doesn't really look good when you have members saying variously that the war is already lost or that the war in the south is already lost (Karzais statements on the taliban and his problems with his northern "allies" don't help either with the outlook) .

How is this being reported there?
As news .

Is it being reported there?
Yep

What is the mood on Iran?
Well most people would probably be of the view "when will the idiots learn to stop the sabre rattling bullshit and seriously think" .
Though of course there are some who look favourably on the mess out there as they are making loads of money out of it .

Why do you think they are playing this shell game?
Because they are stuck in a rut , they are impotent but must maintain a fascade of potency , they are clueless but must pretend they know what they are playing at .
Its sad really , it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic with the potential of getting much much worse .

Blimey look at that....Its sad really , it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic ...well bugger me that seems to be a familiar statement .
If I am not mistaken I have repeated MacNamaras words about carrying on with the tripe about Tonkin and going to war on a lie instead of saying:oops: what we said isn't actually true .

thanks for the replies, my main focus is to get a gauge of why this is playing out in NATO terms, and how it is playing in Europe. Thus my questions, I cant fathom why the bushies want to impress NATO members personally, unless there is an issue on severity of sanctions?

I just find it baffling for Bush to be unilateral on iraq and now seem to be playing the game on Iran.

Unlike most in the U.S. I do believe he intends to strike Iran before his term is up, most of the same behaviours exhibited during the Iraq build up is occuring right now with Iran (including the sales pitch to European allies, which I think this is a part of). The scope of the operation will be different (airstrikes) but anyway thats my instinct, we'll see if Im wrong.

Cheers.

[Tribesman]

I just find it baffling for Bush to be unilateral on iraq and now seem to be playing the game on Iran.

Well thats a bit obvious , going alone on Iraq turned out to be disaster . America is tied down at the moment , its allies are either tied down too or are unwilling for more commitment .
Two things to consider .
1Iraq attacked Iran with initially 10 full divisions operating from a secure start point with a massive superiority in armour and airplanes , yet couldn't win against a new and fractured government . They had support throughout the region and lots of places round the world . Does America or any coilition it could cobble together have all that ?
2When Iran threatened to invade Afghanistan they deployed over 200,000 troops , how many did the Western allies gather for their invasion

[Don Corleone]

I think it would be an unfathomable disaster for the USA to unilaterally launch airstrikes at Iran. The thousands of Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone the NATO troops in Afghanistan, would take it in the shorts. Thousands of our men would die, due to inconceivable arrogance and stupidity. If ever the US public would rise up and lynch a sitting president, it would be Bush after he started that disaster.

There's only 3 options here: 1) continue to wait for another country to take the lead on Iran or 2) act unilaterally and watch our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan get slaughtered. Option 3) is the only way we could touch Iran and not go down in flames, that would be a full scale invasion that would set them back on their heels. I actually think that's more likely than just simple airstrikes, and I really hope it's not very likely either.

[Blodrast]

@ ajaxfetish: Thank you for the clarification - that makes more sense than what I thought I gathered from your initial post. It also is much closer to the line of thought I'd expected you to follow (reasonable, well-thought, all that good stuff). :bow: