Iranian issue is heating up like it or not

U.S. Navy sends carriers near Iran By BARBARA SURK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 34 minutes ago



The U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.

The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes landing ships carrying members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The Navy said nine U.S. warships passed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Merchant ships passing through the busy strait carry two-fifths of the world's oil exports.

Aircraft aboard the two carriers and the Bonhomme Richard were to conduct air training while the ships ran submarine, mine and other exercises.

The maneuvers came just two months after a previous exercise in March when two U.S. carrier groups carried out two days of air and sea maneuvers off the Iranian coast.

Before the arrival of the Bonhomme Richard strike group, the Navy maintained around 20,000 U.S personnel at sea in the Gulf and neighboring waters.

U.S. warships have frequently collided with merchant ships in the busy shipping lanes of the Gulf.

(This version CORRECTS the number of carriers to two, not three.)


*********************************************************

Lets see what other little nuggets....

IAEA: Iran continues to defy U.N.

Oh and this little diddy....

Iran detains fourth Iranian American

the more I watch the developments with Iran and the posturing of both sides the clearer it becomes armed conflict is on the horizon. On top of all this we have rumblings in congress about a preemptive (pun intended) bill that would limit the presidents ability to wage war against Iran.

Am I reading the signs wrong?

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

---

Nice observation Don, I think given the fact that Russia was unable to do anything about Iraq it might well be fueling increased rhetoric on thier side in anticipation of whats going to happen next.

Luckily for Russia (sarcasm implied here) they have a new MAD component and thats thier energy stores, Russia can hurt the eastern europeans who might host the missle shield.

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

---

You have yet to comply with and assimilate to the "empire" :whip:

Interesting observations Don.

I believe we'll see the climate of conflict continuing to heat up with regards to Iran. I can easily see Iran continue its course of defiance through this administration. If we are not in armed conflict with Iran directly before the election than I believe Iran will be willing to become even more defiant to test the incoming administration. At some point the new administration will have to face some tough decisions. Whether to go hawk or dove the luxury will exist of being past the election.


As far as Russia is concerned, I'm personally keeping my eye on the Doomsday Clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Maybe the engineer in me has been trained to look for patterns where there may be none. But I find these developments, as well as the continuously deteriorating situation with Russia as intrinsicly linked. I say this because whenever things 'ratchet up' with Iran, they seem to almost always 'ratchet up' with Russia.

America's greatest fear: A nuclear armed Iran.

Russia's greatest fear: An American missile shield which leaves them vulnerable and the traditional deadly balance of MAD removed.

Right now, it seems as though both of these issues are coming to a head, and I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

---

Now I'm letting your engineer brain work a bit more and come up with an explaination on why Russia would want Iran with nukes in that case, as Iran with nukes = few nukes = missile shield a functional idea for US defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Now I'm letting your engineer brain work a bit more and come up with an explaination on why Russia would want Iran with nukes in that case, as Iran with nukes = few nukes = missile shield a functional idea for US defense.

---

I think the idea is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Putin

you may be able to stop us from launching ICBM's at you, but you won't be able to stop Hizbollah leaving a suitcase in Times Square. Stop building that missile shield, or we'll see to it that's exactly what happens.

---

The best way for the Russians to get us to stop building a missile defense shield is to introduce a consequence for building it against which, it cannot defend us.

I think this is a link to Global Warming and not having enough carbon credits.

On the BBC there was talk of Iran launching a summer offensive (no I am not Iran) to stir the American troops out of Iraq. Something akin to a Tet Offensive where we won't lose the battle, but popular opinion will lose the war. Now, if there was a conflict with Iran, then I think that the bull waste will hit the oscillating blades.
If Bush plays it right (PR-wise) then he could get another check from the Congress to hit Iran.
However this is all subjective, and with the U.S. declaring war on so many targets, you get the feeling that the dreaded 'd' word might pop up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think the idea is

The best way for the Russians to get us to stop building a missile defense shield is to introduce a consequence for building it against which, it cannot defend us.

---

Meh, those Chetchenian (sp?) terrorists with "connections" with Al-Quida has been able to "just accidently" acuire a suit-case nuke bomb by bribing some underpaid guard. Getting enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb is even cheaper an much easier.

The traces would only be further dilluted.

If there's a connection it's more likely that Iran is used as a focuser for the US, to keep Russia new empire bulding under the radar is it's busy elsewere.

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

---

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. If the Syrians and the Iranians are fighting a proxy war by way of insurgents in Iraq, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were coming to some sort of agreement, the violence between the insurgent groups would be decreasing? Surely you're not agreeing with Mr. Cheney that things are wrapping up over there...

Saber rattling? Yes, I suppose it is. I think we're nervous and our current administration appears ill-suited to tackle the problem of preventing a nuclear armed Iran. When you're a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail, but I'm curious how you personally, Idaho, would attempt to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

I personally think any sort of military action in Iran would be a terrible mistake. It really would bring about WW3. There's no way China and Russia would just sit back and let us control 30% of the world's oil supply, even if we truly had the best of intentions (and as we can't even convince 50% of our population that we really do have the best of intentions, it's foolish to assume that we could convince Russia and China).

But I also think it would be a terrible mistake to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. They've all but said they'll use them the first chance they get against Israel.

I'm curious what Idaho proposes for ensuring neither of these travesties comes to pass.

@topic: Cool, we'll get another even, long drawn out war that will provide excellent material for future suspense novels, war movies, and war games! I hope the game makers stick to historical realism and focus on AI instead of graphics though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah it is sabre-rattling from the americans. They have royally plucked it in Iraq, and there is now overwhelming pressure for a Syria-Iran detente to create a mutually agreeable buffer state between them. The US govt know that the writing is on the wall, they just don't want to give up gracefully.

So pathetic really. Once again to all of you :daisy: who backed the war - told you so.

---

So you are asserting that:

1. US efforts to establish a comparatively stable, relatively secular, somewhat pro-USA/pro Western Iraq are a failure.

2. Any effort at a truly independent Iraq is unlikely.

3. It is up to Syria and Iran to work out the parameters for a "buffer" state between them.

4. The USA will be forced, by extant circumstances, to shut up and do what Iran/Syria want.

5. Our resistance to accepting the 4 previous points is the primary remaining obstacle to a comparatively peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation.



Is this an accurate re-statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is this an accurate re-statement?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm curious what Idaho proposes for ensuring neither of these travesties comes to pass.

---

I would like to know these as well, I distinctly remember him stating our basis for invading Afghanistan was to aid in the setting up of an oil pipeline for Cheney's cronies. I remember this well as after reading this drivel I did not visit the Org off-topic for a few years. The main reason being that I couldn't believe somebody as intelligent in expression at times, even if in contention with my views would attempt to make fact out of fantasy.

Quite often people draw connections between events that actually have the same route cuase but are not directly connected.

The Taliban were belligerant and therefore made difficulties with the pieline, because they were belligerant they supported Bin Laden Inc.

That doesn't mean the US faked 9/11 and invaded just to secure the pieline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

So you are asserting that:

1. US efforts to establish a comparatively stable, relatively secular, somewhat pro-USA/pro Western Iraq are a failure.

2. Any effort at a truly independent Iraq is unlikely.

3. It is up to Syria and Iran to work out the parameters for a "buffer" state between them.

4. The USA will be forced, by extant circumstances, to shut up and do what Iran/Syria want.

5. Our resistance to accepting the 4 previous points is the primary remaining obstacle to a comparatively peaceful resolution of the Iraq situation.



Is this an accurate re-statement?

---

Yeah that looks broadly in line with my opinions.

What would I do about a nuclear Iran? Nothing much. If you or I were the president of Iran we would be trying to get nukes as quick as possible. Our pro US neighbour has them (Pakistan) and two of our declared enemies have them (US and Israel). I'd be foolish not to get them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

What would I do about a nuclear Iran? Nothing much. If you or I were the president of Iran we would be trying to get nukes as quick as possible. Our pro US neighbour has them (Pakistan) and two of our declared enemies have them (US and Israel). I'd be foolish not to get them.

---

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

---

Except middle eastern countries with a decent economy ttend to get shot to bits, either by their neighbours (like Israel) or by the US/UN. I'd be worried about defending my country too.

Let's face it, if you decide to invade Iran we're going to end up with an us or them situation, the US vs Islam, it's not going to be pretty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

---

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Why does the Darth Vader song come to mind when I think of Carrier Battle Groups doing excersizes off the persian gulf?

---

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
*heavy mechanical breathing*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

---

Yeah those buggers in Tehran screaming "death to america" must be causing all sorts of internal discorse. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That doesn't mean the US faked 9/11 and invaded just to secure the pieline.

---

I don't think 11/9 was faked, but I do believe that the invasion was provoked after wrangling over the pipeline that had been going on since the mid 90s. 11/9 served as the necessary, publicly acceptable, pretext. It happened at the right time.

Only an idiot would go to war with Iran , luckily there is a bunch of sensible people in the whitehouse at the moment .
Its just a pity that the cleaning staff doesn't have much input on foriegn policy .

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

The US is the only nation on earth to have actually USED nuclear weapons on people. Not to mention we have hundreds stockpiled. Who is the bigger threat to 'world peace'?

Iran because their leadership supports Islamic sects that are violent, and cannot monitor the stockpiles of uranium and nuclear technology that they currently maintain.

We, on the other hand, know what nuclear weapons do, and are more hesitant to use them, monitor them, and have a track record of safe storage and use of nuclear technology.

I trust our safeguards and nuclear protection than a Islamic Republic that has a stated goal of destroying Israel.

If we give everyone a rifle, it's more likely someone will get shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

---

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons unless it withdraws from the NPT. Once it does that, they are free to do what they want. Until that time, they are subject to inspections and sanctions.

Can't see this happening really only a few months ago Irael was ground to a halt in the Leb by a non state organisation. Iran has a real army with plenty people prepared to fight. US is spread thin at this time an attack on Iran would be madness when two other battles are being fought right now. Not to mention an election and feeling of bring the boys home. Most likely a targetted bombing with some kind of Israeli involvement will happen eventually but it will fail and be greatly fudged in the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

---

And you are plain naive if you think that the U.S. and Israel can go merrily about doing good deeds within it's borders and around the globe without worrying about the Iranian military build-up and decades of repeated threats, rhetoric, sustained violence, financed violence, kidnappings, murder, unwavering support for terrorism not to mention that they've distinctly pledged a wiping from the earth for Israel and a decisive blow for great satan that is the U.S and the west.

Open war with Iran, is not however, the answer to the problem at this point. Rice spoke about the situation quite well yesterday in an interview, stating how Iran is indeed feeling the pressure from the international community. The only thing I fear is that when the choice has to be made will they use their heads or the sword of their religion. Everyone preached negotiations, so I hope your faith is well placed in them, a lot will be riding on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Only an idiot would go to war with Iran , luckily there is a bunch of sensible people in the whitehouse at the moment .
Its just a pity that the cleaning staff doesn't have much input on foriegn policy .

---

It's early yet, but this has a good shot at being my favorite post of the day.

Ajax

Hm, saying Iran is more of a threat, why don't we look at which country has been involved in the most military conflicts over the past 100 years, or, let's even say only aggressive military confllicts.

Iran = 1, in which they were defending, not aggressing. So who's more likley to start a war?

As for Israel, its no-where written that the US must support them, it was in fact US policy to not support them until after the brits pulled back.

Honestly, do people really think we're inching towards conflict with Iran? I'll grant you all the saber-rattling (and that is the perfect term for it) could lead to some accidental escalations.

But I mostly dismiss this as our administration not recognizing that that particular approach won't work with Iran coupled with fear (understandable, but misplaced) by those who believe our administration really is out to start a war with Iran.

Is the consensus that we really are warming up to sucker punch Iran?

So when did this change from
Us vs. Iran to the UK vs. Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Honestly, do people really think we're inching towards conflict with Iran? I'll grant you all the saber-rattling (and that is the perfect term for it) could lead to some accidental escalations.

But I mostly dismiss this as our administration not recognizing that that particular approach won't work with Iran coupled with fear (understandable, but misplaced) by those who believe our administration really is out to start a war with Iran.

Is the consensus that we really are warming up to sucker punch Iran?

---

My opinion is yes we are inching toward conflict, to me its just a matter of scope. I find it next to impossible to believe that Israel will sit back while Iran continues to develop its nuclear technology.

And in that vein I find it next to impossible to believe that the U.S. will let Israel handle the issue on its own.

If Iran continues to persue Nuclear power they will be hit militarily, by whom and to what scale? Well thats really the question isnt it? The sabre rattling is posturing for negotiations, at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Honestly, do people really think we're inching towards conflict with Iran? I'll grant you all the saber-rattling (and that is the perfect term for it) could lead to some accidental escalations.

But I mostly dismiss this as our administration not recognizing that that particular approach won't work with Iran coupled with fear (understandable, but misplaced) by those who believe our administration really is out to start a war with Iran.

Is the consensus that we really are warming up to sucker punch Iran?

---

My opinion is largely the same as Odin's. Given our current administration's fondness for invading middle eastern nations on shoddy or nonexistant pretexts... Yes, I'm very worried about it. Further, I'm guessing that the dems are in a strong position to sweep the 08 elections, and if that happens what kind of mess and stupidity are the republicans going to purposefully do right at the end to leave the dems with an even bigger mess to clean up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Further, I'm guessing that the dems are in a strong position to sweep the 08 elections, and if that happens what kind of mess and stupidity are the republicans going to purposefully do right at the end to leave the dems with an even bigger mess to clean up.

---

Surely you aren't setting up the democrats to use

Quote:

---

It's always someone else's fault

---

as an excuse for challenges that they will no doubt be running as our saviors from. Afterall

Quote:

---

this is a very large problem with Americans right now in general.

---

:beam: :medievalcheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

My opinion is yes we are inching toward conflict, to me its just a matter of scope. I find it next to impossible to believe that Israel will sit back while Iran continues to develop its nuclear technology.

And in that vein I find it next to impossible to believe that the U.S. will let Israel handle the issue on its own.

If Iran continues to persue Nuclear power they will be hit militarily, by whom and to what scale? Well thats really the question isnt it? The sabre rattling is posturing for negotiations, at this point.

---

I agree. I could see things advancing as far as targeted air strikes. But a full invasion? Not a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

---

They'd have to try it first. :laugh4:

I don't remember the US government ever levying angry charges of "becoming prosperous" or "providing economic security for their people" against Iran followed by threats of military action. If that were their primary focus, who would have a problem with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Except middle eastern countries with a decent economy ttend to get shot to bits, either by their neighbours (like Israel) or by the US/UN. I'd be worried about defending my country too.

---

Which countries? I think we can all agree that Israel's economic prosperity is only a small component of why they're always attacked. I don't remember Dubai being shot to pieces. Kuwait was invaded, but quickly freed- and what happened to Iraq afterwards? None of those countries have nuclear weapons.

No, it's the aggressive, meglomaniacal regimes that want to dominate the entire region that are the ones that need to worry about their "defense". The ones that provided for their people and join the world in the economic arena are comparatively prosperous and stable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Which countries? I think we can all agree that Israel's economic prosperity is only a small component of why they're always attacked. I don't remember Dubai being shot to pieces. Kuwait was invaded, but quickly freed- and what happened to Iraq afterwards? None of those countries have nuclear weapons.

---

I meant Israel was a frequent agressor. Lebanon was apparently not doing too bad until Israel invaded them back in the day. Iraq got double crossed by the Americans, which is probably half the reason Saddam turned into such a violent dictator afterwards. Kuwait and Dubai, hmm, do they have much besides oil going for their economy ? They're suppliers and costumers, not competitors, which is what every capitalist loves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I meant Israel was a frequent agressor. Lebanon was apparently not doing too bad until Israel invaded them back in the day. Iraq got double crossed by the Americans, which is probably half the reason Saddam turned into such a violent dictator afterwards. Kuwait and Dubai, hmm, do they have much besides oil going for their economy ? They're suppliers and costumers, not competitors, which is what every capitalist loves.

---

Dubai is investing heavily in it's economy. They could almost certainly be doing more, but they're buying up and investing in many large enterprises around the world. A recent, well-publicized example would be when their port operating behemoth, DPW, bought-out British P&O. They're also well on their way to becoming a regional IT and finance hub. They definitely seem to be guilty of long-term thinking when it comes to spending their wealth.

Quote:

---

I agree. I could see things advancing as far as targeted air strikes. But a full invasion? Not a chance.

---

And air strikes mean no shipping through the straits which means not a lot of oil which means the worlds economies take a nose dive .
Even just airstrikes are a silly idea .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And air strikes mean no shipping through the straits which means not a lot of oil which means the worlds economies take a nose dive .
Even just airstrikes are a silly idea .

---

In near total agreement.

I just walked a straight line, did the fingers to nose test....yep, I'm sober. I'll check astrology as there has to be some odd explanation for the occurrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, it's the aggressive, meglomaniacal regimes that want to dominate the entire region that are the ones that need to worry about their "defense". The ones that provided for their people and join the world in the economic arena are comparatively prosperous and stable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I meant Israel was a frequent agressor. Lebanon was apparently not doing too bad until Israel invaded them back in the day. Iraq got double crossed by the Americans, which is probably half the reason Saddam turned into such a violent dictator afterwards. Kuwait and Dubai, hmm, do they have much besides oil going for their economy ? They're suppliers and costumers, not competitors, which is what every capitalist loves.

---

Both QFT. The US is the ultimate fair-weather friend. Look at all the nonsense and BS that we've propagated throughout the middle east in the past 30-odd years. We've gone from supporting "terrorist" groups to turning on them the second we don't like what they do. As I keep saying, if it weren't for oil and the need for fossil fuels (globally, not just locally) the US wouldn't give two whits about what goes on there. This includes Israel and 'nukuler' weapons. Look at N. Korea, they always talk big and the US will occasionally rise to the bait, but for the most part they have no resources to offer (exploit?), hence the lack of concern.

/shrug

Iran is at least 8-10 years away from developing nuclear weapons according to the IAEA report, their enrichment of Uranium is just now reaching levels where they can use it for nuclear fuel. God forbid a country decides to get nuclear power...

I disagree that we are inching towards conflict with Iran.

We are already in conflict with Iran.

Iranian soldiers/agents have been fighting U.S. soldiers/agents for more than a year.

The conflict is currently very "cold war" in style if not in scope.


In what way would air-strikes by the USA close the straits of Hormuz? The USA would very likely not be targeting the shipping therein -- at least anything that was not flying an Iranian flag -- and what would Iran's incentive be to shut off their primary export?


Mind you, a full blockade of Iran (break the pipelines, stop all shipping in and out of all Southern ports) would do more damage to Iran than anything else we might practically try. We'd catch flak from the Chinese and Japanese for doing so of course.

I have my doubts that this would get Iran to initiate regime-change or move towards a more "secularized" stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I disagree that we are inching towards conflict with Iran.

We are already in conflict with Iran.

Iranian soldiers/agents have been fighting U.S. soldiers/agents for more than a year.

The conflict is currently very "cold war" in style if not in scope.


In what way would air-strikes by the USA close the straits of Hormuz? The USA would very likely not be targeting the shipping therein -- at least anything that was not flying an Iranian flag -- and what would Iran's incentive be to shut off their primary export?


Mind you, a full blockade of Iran (break the pipelines, stop all shipping in and out of all Southern ports) would do more damage to Iran than anything else we might practically try. We'd catch flak from the Chinese and Japanese for doing so of course.

I have my doubts that this would get Iran to initiate regime-change or move towards a more "secularized" stance.

---

I think given our track record with regime change, its more likely to me that any military option with Iran will be for the soul purpose of crippling thier nuclear development.

I have yet to see any evidence offered that Israel will not act historically and address this issue via an air campaign, I just cant see them sitting around waiting for the U.N. to implement sanctions that wont stop the progress.

Of course Iran has the right to nuclear technology, but still, I find it unlikely Israel will not attempt to prevent it, and the U.S. will support them. 2 Strike force groups in the area already suggests the ability to do so.

To me its not "if" but "when" and "what scale"

Its disgusting that US policymakers blindly support Israel for some isane christianofascist end-times religous belief (or more accurately for the campaign financiers). That really irks me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Its disgusting that US policymakers blindly support Israel for some isane christianofascist end-times religous belief (or more accurately for the campaign financiers). That really irks me.

---

That aspect of it irks me as well, thankfully I realize its a touch more then that involved, but dont let me derail you, I find your suppositions quite entertaining.

:balloon2:

By the way, what has Iran done to be 'aggressive'? If Iran had invaded Canada to liberate it, you can bet your arse the US would be supporting the freedom fighters in Canada.

The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement. The new government basically said ":daisy:" to the global conglomerates and British Petroleum who had been exploiting them for years. The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s. History is good for ya !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

By the way, what has Iran done to be 'aggressive'? If Iran had invaded Canada to liberate it, you can bet your arse the US would be supporting the freedom fighters in Canada.

The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement. The new government basically said ":daisy:" to the global conglomerates and British Petroleum who had been exploiting them for years. The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s. History is good for ya !

---

The analogy you make above is not accurate. If the USA started arming people of English descent in Canada, and whipping them up into a frenzy, telling them to go kill all Canadians of Scottish & Irish descent, then I think the world would have an issue with us.

If we wanted to hurt Iran, we could do better than what we're currently doing. For starters, we would an embargo against them (we currently only have self-enforced trade sanctions). In other words, we would enact trade sanctions against any country that deals with Iran, we don't do that.

I understand the sentiments of the rabidly anti-US crowd out there. I really do. The US government has a lot to answer for. However, I do not understand how people who claim to be pacifists can possibly think a nuclear armed Iran is a good idea, when they have as much as said that they will use them the very first chance they get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

By the way, what has Iran done to be 'aggressive'?

---

The "wiping israel of the map" thing comes to mind, and the taking of the U.S. embassy, but I have no doubt Zak that you'll be able to find some historical reference that lays the blame for those at the feet of the U.S. and Israel, god for bid we actually take these people literally or seriously.

Quote:

---

The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement. The new government basically said ":daisy:" to the global conglomerates and British Petroleum who had been exploiting them for years. The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s. History is good for ya !

---

Well Zak you say a lot in this, and its a rather nice condensed version of what you normally post up. Comments stated as fact

Quote:

---

The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement.

---

that the only way you can verify it is with a vague historical reference

Quote:

---

The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s.

---

mixed in is a degree of logic, which makes your posts worthy of reading. :beam:

the taking of the embassy was a direct response (blowback, if you will) of the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh who was, I might add, wildly popular, and democratically elected. He simply didn't want to turn over the oil reserves to BP. The Shah was much more compliant, yet repressive to his people. I personally know over two dozen Persians who recall the era with a dread and hatred.

If the US was overthrowing democratically elected leaders to gain corporate ownership of oilfields, why wasn't it Exxon Mobil (not British Petroluem) that wound up owning them?

because it was the Anglo-persian Oil Company (Which became BP) that owned all rights to development and all fields in Iran according to the agreement of 1909.

During the 1920's, Persian public opinion grew ever more resentful of what were seen as the excessively favourable terms of APOC's oil concession. It was believed the country was being fleeced of its rightful share of its oil wealth. In 1932, in response, Shahanshah Reza Shah terminated the APOC concession. The concession was renegotiated within a year. It now covered a reduced area and accorded the Persian government a greater share of profits. Persia was renamed Iran in 1936 and APOC became AIOC, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

After World War II, AIOC and the Iranian government initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. But in March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated. The Iranian Majlis (parliament) elected a nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister. In April, the Majlis nationalised the oil industry by unanimous vote. The British government contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed.

The British government decided that the only way to regain its control of Iranian oil (which it regarded as a vital national interest), was to remove Mossadeq from office. It aimed to replace him with a more friendly regime led by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Its problem was that it lacked the means to do so without American support. But it was clear the U.S. government would never support a coup d'état designed only to protect Britain's commercial interests. So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist "threat" by producing bogus "evidence" that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence. In early 1953, incoming U.S. President Eisenhower authorised the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government. The CIA conspiracy, involving the Shah and the Iranian military, became known by its codename, "Operation Ajax".

Again, if there's one thing I do know about the American government, especially under Johnson and Nixon, it's that it's incredibly self-motivated, even when dealing with allies. If the US was responsible for overthrowing Mossagedeh, and they did it for the lease rights to oil fields, Texaco or Exxon would hold those contracts, not BP.

uh, you doubt the CIA is responsible for overthrowing Mossagedeh? That's a fact, bud. Check out the CIA's own history on their website.

Quote:

---

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, made an apology to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2000 for the United States' role in the overthrow.[3]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

uh, you doubt the CIA is responsible for overthrowing Mossagedeh? That's a fact, bud. Check out the CIA's own history on their website.

---

Read my post again. I said if they did it, and they did it for the reason of securing lease rights to oil fields, it would be an American country holding those contracts. We don't rent the CIA out, especially not then.

And please don't call me 'bud', sport.

you don't think alot of American companies wouldn't have greatly profited? Um, Bechtel, Halliburton, MAIN... need I name more?

As a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required that the AIOC's oil monopoly should lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of any chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly "Top Secret" documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.

The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA agent, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon.

The operation centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be anti-Soviet.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup d'etat briefly faltered, and the Shah fled Iran. After a short exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through follow-up operations, which were successful. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given what some have alleged to have been a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah gracefully commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.

In 2000 the New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953." This document describes the planning and execution conducted by the American and British governments. Due to reasons relating to the safety of former CIA personnel and their families, and because of Iran's long history of terrorism, the New York Times published this critical document with the names censored. The New York Times also limited its publication to scanned image (bitmap) format, rather than machine-readable text. It was through the actions of Iranians sympathetic to the current Iranian Islamic dictatorship, not the New York Times, that this document was eventually published properly – in text form, and fully unexpurgated. The complete CIA document is now web published. The word 'blowback' appeared for the very first time in this document.

Well, first and foremost, I'm excited to say you truly learn something new every day. Zak, I tip my hat to you, and I thank you for enlightening me on this facet of Iranian-American history.

However, I think I would be remiss if I didn't comment on one or two of your more heavily editorialized statements above:

-AIOC held a monoploy on the oil fields before Eisenhower and the CIA ever got involved.

-You failed to mention that Prime Minister Mossadeq came to power (and yes, he was elected) in an election held after the murder of Prime Minister Ali Razmara, responsiblity for which the lay with the Fadayan-e Islam, a local fundamentalist terrorist group (thus putting the kibash on a theory I saw in another thread that Islamic fundamentalism came about in 1979) .

-The Shah was already the head of state prior to the CIA's involvement. Your claim that we installed the Shah is not accurate. We installed General Zahedi as the new prime minister.

-Mossadeq nationalized the oil fields (he took them from their owners without compensation).

-Mossadeq, beyond being an ardent nationalist, was also a very pro-Russia Stalinist. In those days, all you had to do was wear red and the USA would consider overthrowing you. I'm not saying what we did was right, but I think Mossadeq's friendliness with Moscow played a big role in our decision to remove him.

-We didn't grant AIOC exclusive rights when we were done. One of the outcomes of Operation Ajax was an end to the AOIC monoply. What's more, foreign lease holders also began paying royalties (something they didn't do prior to nationalization).

I applaud you and thank you for bringing up a relevant chapter, but I think you need to be a little more careful on the details.

Edit: Sorry for the dyslexia, it's the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any evidence offered that Israel will not act historically and address this issue via an air campaign,

---

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them .
Likewise their submarine launched missile capacity is very limited .
Plus of course the presence of Irans proxy armies on Israels borders and in the occupied territories would weigh heavily on any descision .

Quote:

---

In what way would air-strikes by the USA close the straits of Hormuz? The USA would very likely not be targeting the shipping therein -- at least anything that was not flying an Iranian flag --

---

well its like this , the straits are narrow , the navigable area is even narrower , much of that is Iranian territorial waters , airstrikes effectively mean a state of war, the territorial waters would be a war zone , civilian ships and ship owners don't like entering war zones for some strange reason and their insurers like it even less .
Sticking an American flag on the ships won't be a safety measure this time it will just be an invitation for attack .
Iran already had a huge stock of mines and anti-shipping missiles , and they just bought a hell of a lot more of the latest versions .

Quote:

---

what would Iran's incentive be to shut off their primary export?

---

OK apart from the little thing like ...errr...it didn't stop them last time did it . The state of war effectively closes off their exports anyway , so what exports would they have to lose once it starts .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them.

---

Israel possesses the tech and resources to reach Iran if they wanted to with an airstrike package. The real thing in my mind is overflying airspace that their semi-hostile and hostile neighbors would not allow at all further exacerbating the problem.

Quote:

---

The real thing in my mind is overflying airspace that their semi-hostile and hostile neighbors would not allow at all further exacerbating the problem.

---

Which is why they don't have the capacity .:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them .

---

Given the two carrier groups in hormuz and the direction of the current admin in washington it is likely that the U.S. would support it, thus there chances just improved.

Quote:

---

Likewise their submarine launched missile capacity is very limited .
Plus of course the presence of Irans proxy armies on Israels borders and in the occupied territories would weigh heavily on any descision .

---

As opposed to the Iranians, with the technology to equip a bomb proclaiming the destruction of Israel?

Im guessing that the lesser of two evils is to strike now rather then later, but Im not israeli, maybe they are willing to share the nuke capable platform in the middle east with Iran :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is why they don't have the capacity .:idea2:

---

Poor choice of words. Capacity and capability are one thing. Feasibility is another entirely.

Quote:

---

Given the two carrier groups in hormuz and the direction of the current admin in washington it is likely that the U.S. would support it, thus there chances just improved.

---

Great idea , a joint strike by the Israelis with the US doing the in flight refueling that they lack .
Say goodbye to all your bases and fascilities in the mid-east . The emirates have already said that any strike by the US would lead to them closing all ports and airspace to the US .
Who is not gonna do the same if it is a joint Israeli/US strike ?
In Iraq you are holding a tiger by the tail in a cage , trying to take a hold on Iran lets a whole lot of tigers into the cage , and someone just locked the door .:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Great idea , a joint strike by the Israelis with the US doing the in flight refueling that they lack .
Say goodbye to all your bases and fascilities in the mid-east .

---

or we can say goodbye later when in 5 years or so Iran has enough to develop a bomb and Israel uses thier limited nuclear missle capability.

My guess is that emirates would rather have an air strike now, then an israel backed into a corner via a potenitaly nuclear armed Iran. But wait Im sorry Israel dosent have declared nukes, so they wont use them first :no:

The emirates loose either way, so do we, the question is how much do you loose? Thats unless someone backs down, who knows 2008 isnt far away the entire political will of the US for conflict might change.

Until then, buckle up.....

we need to put the smack down on those nuts in israel, make them hand over the land that doesnt belong to them, and then negotiate peace with them and the rest of their neighbors. israel is one rogue regime we havent brought to bear. the hypocrisy is sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

we need to put the smack down on those nuts in israel, make them hand over the land that doesnt belong to them, and then negotiate peace with them and the rest of their neighbors. israel is one rogue regime we havent brought to bear. the hypocrisy is sickening.

---

Yes this might be true, but the here and now of it is you have a semi moderate in olmert who's popularity is in the crapper.

You know who the next probable PM of israel is? Netanyahu and he is a real pip.... a small part of the equation but if he does get In I suspect the Iranian issue isnt going to be a bed of roses.

oh, and i forgot to add, we should take back all that proprietary nuclear technology we gave them. i dont know whos idea that was, but it probably ranks up there with vietnam as all time good ideas from americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

oh, and i forgot to add, we should take back all that proprietary nuclear technology we gave them. i dont know whos idea that was, but it probably ranks up there with vietnam as all time good ideas from americans.

---

Now this is just to damn funny - according to most experts (FAS being one of the main sources) the technology came from France for the development of Israel nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now this is just to damn funny - according to most experts (FAS being one of the main sources) the technology came from France for the development of Israel nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

---

Welp, if that's true... Someone get our large French friend Louis in here and let's 'sit him down for a chat.' :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Welp, if that's true... Someone get our large French friend Louis in here and let's 'sit him down for a chat.' :laugh4:

---

Well I have found no evidence that states FAS provides inaccurate information. They are normally very reliable on information concerning nuclear weapons since the group is against them - founded by scientists that wanted to educate and inform people about the danger of the weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well I have found no evidence that states FAS provides inaccurate information. They are normally very reliable on information concerning nuclear weapons since the group is against them - founded by scientists that wanted to educate and inform people about the danger of the weapons.

---

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France. I don't mean for this to be taken the wrong way by our French friends, but it would 'seem' that France has multiple times in the past ignored embargos and sanctions to sell tech/equipment to UN blacklisted nations. The latest example I have is Iraq, IF one believes the 'evidence' given. Honestly I don't know what to believe anymore. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France. I don't mean for this to be taken the wrong way by our French friends, but it would 'seem' that France has multiple times in the past ignored embargos and sanctions to sell tech/equipment to UN blacklisted nations. The latest example I have is Iraq, IF one believes the 'evidence' given. Honestly I don't know what to believe anymore. :shrug:

---

True - that is why one must use multiple sources to determine what might be truth.

FAS has not steered me wrong on anything about nuclear weapons - other sources have confirmed much of what is in the FAS site about nuclear technology - so I deem them reliable for information. Now someone that has direct access to French, Israeli, or American documents might prove FAS wrong - but I am fairily sure no-one on this board has access to such information.

Guys, it's OK. If we survive December 2012, we all win! It's the primary objective. The secondary objective is to not engage in limited nuclear war in 2008. There's another secondary objective, but I'm not sure what it is.

The things that inch a world toward an end or confrontation of nations are always seen in a momentary example of something. As in, this is common, this is necessary, this is ______(place reason here). It seems reasonable, but there is a line where it becomes provocative. Bush just crossed that line.

The USA (Bushys) just went past being totally stupid, they were already listed as being stupid. Going past it is of no surprise to anyone that understood what the "Bush Initiative" meant = amagedon; or the rapture.

Confrontation seems to be their answer for diplomacy.

It seems, Bush's only response to anything is by using the military. Makes one wonder - who's doing the 1st lady (he certainly hasn't had time)? (j/k)

It is a give me, for every action there is an equal and positive reaction.

When reason is lost in the rush to use military response over reason, then the need for war is lost in the want of it. The want for war is not lost, because there is no reason.

Quote:

---

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France

---

Just like everyone keeps repeating we armed them and Saddam. We didnt arm them in the 1st war or the 2nd I believe. Even today they have a very good arms making capablity of their own producing some of the finest weapons available.

Quote:

---

In the 1950s and early 1960s, France and Israel had very close relations. France was Israel's principal arms supplier, and as instability spread in France's colonies in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from its contacts with sephardic Jews in those countries. The two nations even collaborated (along with Britain) in planning and staging the joint Suez-Sinai operation against Egypt in October 1956. The Suez Crisis, as it became known, proved to be the genesis of Israel's nuclear weapons production program.

Six weeks before the operation Israel felt the time was right to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build the 40 MW CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, a key aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben Gurion, and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission). An initial understanding to provide a research reactor appears to have been reached during September.

On the whole the Suez operation, launched on 29 October was a disaster. Although Israel's part of the operation was a stunning success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai peninsula by 4 November, the French and British invasion on 6 November was a failure. The attempt to advance along the Suez canal bogged down and then collapsed under fierce US and Soviet pressure. Both European nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet premier Bulganin issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.

On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between foreign minister Golda Meir, Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Mssrs. Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French officials were deeply chagrined by France's failure to support its ally in the operation, and the Israelis were very concerned about the Soviet threat. In this meeting the initial understanding about a research reactor may have been substantially modified, and Peres seems to have secured an agreement to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent.

After some further months of negotiation, the initial agreement for assistance took the form of an 18 MW (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with plutonium separation technology. At some point this was officially upgraded to 24 MW, but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium plant of similar capacity. How this upgrade came about remains unknown.

---

Heres your LINK

Gents, for what it's worth, there appears to be considerable disagreement within the administration over how to proceed with Iran.

I can confirm, through military and intelligence sources, part of Steve Clemons' account of Cheney's crazed bellicosity regarding Iran. In fact, having just received a second-source confirmation of the following story, I was intending to post it today:

Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in "The Tank," the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed. Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were--once again--unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.

Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B--a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News. If Clemons is right, and I'm pretty sure he is, Cheney is still pushing Plan A.