President of Prominent Conservative Think-Tank Urges Military Strike on Iran
President of Prominent Conservative Think-Tank Urges Military Strike on Iran
Herbert London, the president of the conservative Hudson Institute, has published a commentary urging the Bush administration to use “an American military strike to knock out Iran’s uranium processing capacity”:
Any way you cut it, military force seems like the most likely stratagem for success. Will Bush do it? He cannot afford not to do it. His legacy cannot be a nuclear Iran prepared to destabilize all of the Middle East and possibly Europe. This is yet another test of American will.
Unfortunately for people like London, who are always thinking up new ways for U.S. soldiers to be sent into harm’s way, there is wide agreement among U.S. military analysts and Iran experts that no good military options exist for Iran:
Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Sam Gardiner, a simulations expert from the U.S. Army’s National War College, after leading a “war game” on Iran:
After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work. [Atlantic Monthly, 12/04]
IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei:
I don’t believe there is a military solution to the issue. I think that a military solution would be completely counterproductive. [AFP, 12/9/05]
Council on Foreign Relations Iran specialist Ray Takeyh:
It appears that a clever mixture of incentives and penalties can accomplish more in counterproliferation than can warnings and coercion. The Bush administration must accept that its doctrine of military pre-emption and its threats of Security Council referrals have a limited use in altering Iran’s path. [Baltimore Sun, 12/29/05]
Former Bush State Department policy director Richard Haass:
So far, the Bush administration has shown it would like to resolve its problems with North Korea and Iran the same way it did with Iraq: through regime change. It is easy to see why. But the strategy is unlikely to work, at least not quickly enough. [Foreign Affairs, 8/05]
To no one’s surprise, London was also a cheerleader for the Iraq war: “If a constitutional architecture can be constructed in Iraq, can Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, be far behind?”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
110 Responses to “President of Prominent Conservative Think-Tank Urges Military Strike on Iran”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“If a constitutional architecture can be constructed in Iraq, can Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, be far behind?â€
What? I think all the constitutional architecture has been blown up and demolished before they had the ribbon-cutting ceremony. THe man is of his rocker to want to bring to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia what has been brought to Iraq. That would be one helluva legacy.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmWell, why the heck not?!?
We've already got our military assets in Iraq, and that's just a hop away from invading Iran. It's not like we need to have a concrete reason for war, we can just pull one out of our butts and do it!
Just because we've stretched our military to the breaking point doesn't mean we can' unilaterally invade yet another country!
Hey, why don't we just declare war on everyone, and work our way around the globe until our military ends up back on our shores again? That's ONE way of "bringing the troops back home!"
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm#2 LOL
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:42 pmOne does not need to be a semiotician to see the signs everywhere. This is getting “curiouser and curiouserâ€. Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal…
Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.
It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Meanwhile, on CNN, the Wolfman is apoplectic reporting news of a letter sent to Hillary Clinton from Zim Integrated Shipping Services offering strong (an understatement) support (a near apotheosis of DP World) for the Dubai Ports World deal, with another letter to be delivered to Chuck Schumer. This stinks of Rovian subterfuge, circumlocution, and no-holes-barred geopolitical arm twisting. Evidently, this is about a strategic positioning to attack Iran. Cats and dogs sleeping together? W/T/F?
Now this news:
LONDON, England (AP) -- Britain's High Court has approved the takeover of British shipping icon Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. by state-owned Dubai Ports World, despite a last-minute objection by a U.S. company.
One would have to be blind not to see the chess pieces being moved to topple Iran. This is so surreal – an actual dystopian world being born right before our eyes – that even commenting on these events seems an exercise in futility.
For those who are dubious of the geopolitical maneuvering, take a look at this:
State Department creates new Iran office amid growing concern over regime
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department is setting up a new office to deal specifically with foreign policy changes posed by Iran and to promote a democratic transition in the country, several State Department officials told CNN Thursday.
Traditionally Iran has been dealt with as part of a larger grouping of Gulf countries, but the officials said the new Office of Iran Affairs reflects a growing concern over actions by the Iranian regime and the need to devote significantly more personnel and resources to Iran policy.
"Certainly this signals the fact that we believe that Iran and Iranian behavior is one of the greatest foreign policy priorities we will be dealing with over the next decade," one State Department official told CNN.
Let’s “connect the dots†ourselves here, before we really are living in A Brave New World – after Hillary is elected, with the help of the Bush cabal, and she reveals her neocon conversion.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:42 pmOK, top brass, YOU go and do it, I'll stay here and drink coffee.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 pmKeep the football away from the Monkey.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:45 pmBush's Legacy
vs.
The Life of American Soliders
Why do republicans hate the troops...I mean one man's "memory" is worth all of this pain and havoc? His legacy is already fvcked from the day he stole the office on the back of the "liberal" SCOTUS and since then it has been going downhill...no matter how much he "sticks to his guns" the intial ideas are still WRONG!!!
WTF
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmBush should no longer decide anything, from what to wear in the morning to what countries we fight!
http://thismodernworld.com/2729
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhat in the world have we become?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pmOmmzems -- can you post the link to that CNN piece? I cant find it... Thanks
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:49 pmcut to the bottom line 'ommzms', are you saying the Clintons want war with Iran, and want our ports to be unsafe??????
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:50 pmDr London appears to be yet another chickenhawk by his resume. Anyone know if he has any direct experience of death in uniform? Has he ever been in the bush deep undercover with a shotgun and a covey of quail?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmHis legacy cannot be a nuclear Iran prepared to destabilize all of the Middle East and possibly Europe.
Now that man should be writing for The Daily Show. I think his legacy is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, and as far as "destabiliz(ing) all of the Middle East," hey Herb, you watch the news much? And, no, Faux doesn't count...
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pmArmy War College? Aren't they the ones who said that it was unlikely that Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds?
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm8- that cartoon is, unfortuantely, a little too close to reality.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm14)
I thought it was proven that no one knows who gased the kurds?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 pmIt's only a matter of time before Iran gets nuked.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.oc
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 pmThere is no military option. We have 130,000 targets for the Iranian special ops right next door to Iran and so long as we have presence in Iraq, we have nothing but diplomacy and threats but no meaningful sanctions. We can't invade--Iran is too big for us to attack, give that our entire land military establishment is tasked with pacifying Iraq. Bombing might set the Iranian program back but wouldn't stop it and our Iraq garrison is as much the Iranians' hostage as the US constabulary in Germany was the Red Army's hostage in 1947-49. In each case, the risks of bombing far outweigh the rewards. Checkmate. We'll have to hope that the Iranians sober up when they go nuclear. Bush and Rumsfeld clearly don't understand the implications of a 10 division Army, which is only good for British 19th Century punitive column warfare against unorganized foes. Had they added 8 divisions they might have had some options but as it stands they have none, unless the Iranians will bargain, unlikely.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm"MR. LONDON...YOUR ENLISTMENT PAPERS ARE READY." Fat-Ass!!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm16- At the time, the US government claimed it was the Iranians. Must be like that game of telephone. Poppy said it was the Iranians, but by the time it reached Junior it was the Iraqis. Go figure.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 pmEver wonder what the christian taliban had in mind for foreign policy? Well, take a close look. This is exactly what we have now!
It sucks. Big time sucks. As they go around brow beating Islam for it's radical stance! The frigg'n bastards!!!
...In just a few years, conservative Christian churches and organizations have broadened their political activism from a near-exclusive domestic focus to an emphasis on foreign issues...
AP report
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:09 pmAND HERE IS THE BATTLE PLANS FOR IRANoil
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/02/battle_plans_fo_1.html
AND HERES THE TRUE STORY OF THEIR NUCEAL ACTIVITIES
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/2/2006&Cat=2&Num=6
Now there is no need for this to happen America is like on the other side of the planet and if it had a decent foreign policy ...everybody might like America and also would have no enemies
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pmHad they added 8 divisions
That's a lot of troops, and now, even moreso. And Rummy would have nothing but derision for that type of suggestion.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:10 pmI dont give a shit if Iran even has nuclear weapons ......either we all ban them or we all have them ....SIMPLE
America has them to Bully the world basically
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 pm#8 - http://thismodernworld.com/2729
Wow. Was this an easy call for progressives? Or what?
If it was so obvious to us, why wasn't it to the ReichWingNuts? Do they have "an agenda" or something? :(
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 pmOperation Repeat Performance...
What is the purpose of the State Department's new Iran desk?...
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 pmalso Iran has a very mountainous country 70 million people mostly under 35 years of age who mostly hate america only because of their foreign policy , they also have an army and also many weapons...Bush will nuclear strike them if it has to be...
Pathetic solution because you cant be bothereed to speak to somebody ..IDIOTS
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 pmMr. London may find support for this stroke of genius from the most unlikeliest of sources - Al Qaeda. What is that Bin Laden wanted? Oh yes, convince all Muslims that this is a Holy war (Modern Crusades) and hurt America the only way it can be hurt - by bankrupting it.
Mr. London, you go, girl.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm.
An attack on Iran will result in a the most disastrous of responses by Iran and their many surrogates in Iraq.
This is sheer lunacy and the US will damaged beyond all salvaging.
Moqtada Al Sadr in Iraq has recently met with the Iranians and has vowed support if the Iranians are attacked. Syria and Iran have a mutual assistance pact and the US has 130,000 troops stuck in the middle of the whole mess.
These think tank monsters are fast and easy with the lives of young American troops.
Next stop, apocalypse.
-GSD
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:17 pmI think if America attacks IRAN then we should start shooting all American citezens all over the world , That are out of America , would be fair game i recon
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:17 pm18)
If the republicans would quit acting like they own this country and try getting the will of ALL the people behind them like in WWII then anything could be done... including taking Iran... But do these people in the white house know the first thing about team work? Nope. Democrats are the enemy...The republicans think they can take over the whole world all by themselves because they think just like the Iranian mullahs do ..."god" will bail thier asses out ...they got faith in it.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:18 pmLet us send Mr. London and his kids and if he has grandchildren them too. What an idiot.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:18 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/02/thursday/index.html
(scroll down)
This revealing essay illustrates how the cabalistic powers operate beneath the scrutiny of the expendable citizenry. The impending and inevitable attack against Iran is being manipulated in the same way. The This Modern World link says it much more succinctly and effectively than I.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:18 pmIt's the politics of punishing the victim (the Mideast).
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 pmThere ain't enough man power to sustain this war policy.
Perhaps Israel could drop one of their nukes and leave us out of it. It's time they pulled their weight.
Take a look at who is a member of this "think tank". You can see clear conflicts of interest.
Excom member Linden S. Blue is currently vice chairman and former senior vice president of San Diego-based General Atomics, one of the top defense firms, whose Predator drone (unmanned aerial vehicle) is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Walter P. Stern chairs Hudson’s 25-member board of trustees, which has strong ties to the corporate world, including defense industries. Current members include Jeffrey Bergner, Conrad Black, and Richard Perle. Emeritus members include Donald Kagan, Emmanuel Kampouris, and Dan Quayle. Allan Tessler and Joseph Giglio are vice chairmen of the board. Executive committee members include Linden S. Blue, Marie-Josée Kravis, Robert H. McKinney, and Wallace O. Sellers.
I bet they wants a war in Iran. Bigger and better profits.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 pm22)
One thing really bothers me about the Iranian oil bourse is that if the NeoCons dont go in there and kill a bunch of Iranians and steal their oil what will happen to America?
I am not saying that it was right to setup the scam that is underwriting the US dollar with oil.. and I am not saying it is right to steal another countries resources or to murder them while you are at it. I am not saying it is right for America to be turned from an enlightened example of a free people into a war mongering Rome...
But if the bourse goes through doesnt that mean that my kids and your kids can kiss their futures good bye? Where is America going to get the money to pay off this huge dept that we have? How can people like myself that are just starting to get their own businesses up and running continue if no one has the money to buy my products? Who is going to hire me as a computer programmer if people are mainly worried about how to feed themselves?
Is there anyway to save America financially WITHOUT becoming a tyrant nation?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 pmHey guys, this is WORFEUS.
I apparently have been CENSORDED and BANNED for NO REASON.
I am done being censored by Blogs where I dedicate my time, talents and energy to help the Blog, only to be banned without so much as a SINGLE WARNING.
To all my good friends here, SPUDGEBOY, UnBELIEVABLE, RYAN NEAT, GREGOR SAMSA, TERRY TURTLE, CLIF, CITIZEN, DEMWARRIOR, and the rest, nice blogging with you, and look for me at lydiacornell.com which is a free and OPEN blog, that does NOT CENSOR, and does not BAN without warning.
Nice Blogging with you folks. I'll miss you.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:30 pmW.
It's not about port security; Hillary has already acted out her scene of outrage. The letter will provide her with an epiphany and a way to support the deal. It is all about the strategic goegraphical position of the UAE, its quid pro quo use of its ports and airfields, our quid pro quo protection of their oil, etc., etc.
Yes. The Clintons/Bushs want war with Iran.
Is that the bottom line you're looking for?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:31 pmsadly, perhaps there is no way to save America from bankruptcy. The further down the road we go in using up the resources which fuel the Corporate Tryanny Machine, the sooner they will run out.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:39 pmThere will be isolated pockets of humanity which survive.
The conflict will continue with the "have-nots" eking out an agrarian and hunter-gatherer subsistence in a blighted landscape, avoiding the fortified enclaves of the "haves" crouched in fear upon their stockpile of gas, ammo, and canned food.
Or at least I hope we have the sense to avoid their bunkers.
#37 yes there is an answer shoe some respect to the world and we will show it back by helping america with much kindness
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 pmMr. Gibson,
It is a little late to be asking these questions, don't you think?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:40 pmIf you would condone the murder of several hundred thousand innocent people to keep your job, then you've got a bit more soul searching to do before you pose your hypotheticals to the rest of us.
#37 yes america has a secret animosity to steal wealth thats why you dont protest bush
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:41 pmThe main problem is Bush is digger a deeper and deeper hole ........eventually you will never get out of the hole .......But that is exctly what bush is doing ......bye bye planet
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:44 pmHERE IS THE SORRY EXCUSE FOR BANNING A LOYAL AND DEDICATED BLOGGER THAT JUDD SENT TO ME THIS MORNING. JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE, BUT DOING THIS WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A WARNING, IS ANYTHING BUT PROGRESSIVE.
READ FOR YOURSELF.
You were flooding the threads with posts and preventing anyone else from having a discussion. There was a thread last night with 80 posts and about 35 were from you.
If you are willing to moderate your posting, we'd be happy to have you post again. Thanks, Judd
Like I said, look for me at http://www.lydiacornell.com and watch what you say or do in here, because this is NOT the open blog it claims to be.
See you guys around
WORFEUS
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:45 pmGreat Idea Herb! NOT!
BBC
August 18, 2005
China-Russia war games under way
Washington Post
November 17, 2004
Iran's New Alliance With China Could Cost U.S. Leverage
BBC
February 27, 2005
Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed
India Daily
February 3, 2005
Russia and China announce strategic partnership in a bid to counter expanding Western military and fiscal influences
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
U.A.E . IS Currently helping Iran get nuclear supplies
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
42)
I wasnt looking to be lectured... I am not saying I am willing to do anything... I am asking what is the alternative? If a republican says, "So you really do want the destruction of America!" ...what is my reply? What is the alternative? Is there some way we can start a new New Deal that allows us to make money some other way?
Try again...your first answer was defensive.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm43)
WTF are talking about? I protest Bush every single day on this very site...
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:49 pmwith what resources?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:49 pmWorfeus,
Yeah, I don't understand how Judd lets MightyTranny, MizzWrong and the rest of these morons post their ridiculous hate speech and continual stream of lies and 'we hate kennedy boring nonsense', and then Judd bans people who simply respond to their tripe.
It's why I post very little anymore. Judd's continued mismanagement of the blog is a big disappointment to me. I gave him a second chance when he unbanned me, and supposedly banned MizzWrong. Yet MizzWrong kept posting, and I had several postings censored and removed.
Judd, I've said it before, I'll say it again. You're a great researcher - but you're a crappy blogmaster.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:49 pmWORFEUS
That was a pretty lame excuse... then again you could have taken it up with him personally before burning bridges and posting publicly on here... or maybe you did and he still told you to get lost?
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmLewis "Scooter" Libby was(?) a former member of PNAC and it war reported not too long time ago that he would start working with the Hudson institute. I knew directly that I had to put it in the watch list along with PNAC and AEI. They dominate US foreign policy!
Read AEI talking points about Iran bombing/invasion:
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8204
Iran may have been in war with USA for three decades but they don't mention who started it. Harsch the reality is (Yoda talk :));
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
I'm not especially anti-war, but I think people are being misled once again.
Bombing Iran might become a gigantic mistake, it could very well lead to a new world war.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:55 pmI don't know if you will get this but No Gerald, that email is what he sent me, no apology for doing it without a warning.
No one was posting in the thread I was in except me and a few others. We were posting pics back and forth, and just having a little fun.
They did NOT warn me. They just went in and CENSORED my posts like they were BURNING BOOKS. I hate seeing my posts deleted without so much as a note advising me.
And then they banned me. It looks like he took the ban off but I don't care, I am just responding to friends in here that I have made over the last 6 months, but I am done posting here. I won't be censored in such a RUDE way to a Blog I have dedicated my time, talents and energy to.
It was a slap in the face.
Fool me once...shame on you
Fool me twice.....er.....
Can't git fooled agin.....
http://www.lydiacornell.com is where I'll be.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 pmIt's unbelievable. We are considering the murder of millions of Iranis for doing something that is their legal right to do under the NPT. Un-f**ucking-believable. And all because it is suspected of trying to make nuclear weapons.
How the mighty have fallen. "Being suspected of...." is the worst crime that our enemies can commit. Being suspected of terrorism will get our enemies incarcerated for an indefinite period of time, without legal counsel with torture is thrown for good measure. Actual act of terrorism will allow you legal counsel, painless death upon conviction where even the needle giving you the lethal injection will be sterilized and inserted painlessly.
I think it's time we stared calling our next victims by their correct name: Iranis. Nothing worse than being killed and remembered under the wrong name. The suffix -i denotes "of". Resident of Iraq, Iraqi. Resident of Hindustan, Hindustani. Resident of Pakistan, Pakistani. Resident of Afghanistan should be obvious from the name of the country itself which translates as "the place of Afghanis". Resident of Iran, Irani. That is the least we can do.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 pmThis is the very reason why all countries have interests in Iran:
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/GL21Ad01.html
"On signing the deal, Iran's Petroleum Minister announced that Tehran would like to see China replace Japan as Iran's largest oil importer. As well, Iran has what are estimated to be the world's second largest reserves of natural gas after Russia. Iran is a place of enormous strategic importance to China, to Japan, to Russia, to the European Union, and for all these reasons, to Washington as well. "
Those who control the region in the future can be the leaders of the world. This is why 3000 sacrified lives in the New Pearl harbor means nothing to the ruling elite. They have strong interests in keeping United States of American the dominant force in the 21st century as well.
This is why they formed a think tank called "The Project for the New American Century".
"Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes, “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard
Interesting and very dangerous times.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:03 pmommzms is a troll,
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 pmIf this oil bourse thing is true then Iran is screwed...maybe the rest of the world also if Russia and China have a plan up their sleave... But Iran for sure is screwed... We all know here in America how serious the neocons are about money. They would murder all Americans to keep their wealth... Killing Iranians in order to keep their American dollar backed billions will mean nothing to them.
I dont like religious nuts and Iran is run by them. But I dont like Pat Robertson either and I am not willing to get a gun and shoot him for self gain... there must be another way to save America from finacial ruin besides becoming another Ghangis Khan...
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 pm#56 and #52, best of luck in your cybertravels, Worf and Ryan. I'm being spammed out at least once a day now but then I've always been a linker. It sure looks arbitrary to me. Great research, strange practices indeed.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pmthere is be nice to the world and you will be rewarded with niceness
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:19 pm#61 Gerald, some schools of thought have it that Saddam's decision to price the oil-for-food in Euros sank any chance he had at avoiding invasion.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 pmThanks Terry Turtle.
It turns out my IP is still blocked. The only way I got this in was using a different network.
It was nice blogging with you too. See you around Terry.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmThank you, W.;I've never been called a troll before. Since my comments provide support for the article to which they are attached, wouldn't that make me the antithesis of a troll?
Anyways, thanks for the sobriquet - or is it bestowed upon any signature that you don't recognize?
Feel free to email if you'd care to carry on an extended argument; I don't want to waste other readers' time with this type of palaver.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:27 pmwisedup,
I would argue that ommzms has a good point and is not a troll. You do realize that Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of the Carlyle group right? Why do you think that Bill and George H. W. Bush are such great friends now. Hillary IS Republican lite.
ommzms,
"apoplectic" "antithesis" "sobriquet" "palaver" You better stop that or the trolls are gonna think you are speaking Arabic and will have you wiretapped.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:36 pmHitler was defeated because he was trying to fight a war on two fronts. I guess Bush is trying to do him one better. Axis of Evil...3 fronts!
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:09 pmConservative think-tank my butt. It's the NEOCON THINK TANK using a conservative name. These guys are now where near conservative.
Impeach.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:14 pm69)
The righties wish they were in charge during WWII when America faught and won a two front war.
But they should have went with someone a LITTLE bit more intelligent than the neocons...
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 pmGonna miss you Worfeus. You never fail to entertain and enlighten me. Sorry that things worked out the way they did. I may start a Blogger Revolution around here. First Ryan...now you. But, the ignorant, racist offenders get to stay. Something is not right about that.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:17 pmTY Str8UpNoChaser, gonna miss U 2.
Please come visit me from time to time at http://www.lydiacornell.com, where I blog regularly.
We are small, but we get some pretty good debates going, and we've got some pretty good trolls too.
Drop in and see me. We could use a solid and intelligent liberal like yourself.
Chow for now.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pmWORFEUS
Another lunatic has escaped the asylum.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:05 pmDr. Strangelove, paging Dr. Strangelove.
23) David, 8 divisions is right and Rummie is a fool. He's an airpower fanatic, and, to boot, an old man in a hurry. You're right that we can't afford the needed divisions. This is overstretch pure and simple, as featured in Kennedy's book on great powers. Britain didn't have enough of a fleet to meet all its needs in 1941 either. Only land forces can get at the Iranian nuclear complex--it's widely scattered and largely buried. The Khuzistan option as featured in post 22 has the same problem--not enough troops. We have bitten off more than we can chew
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pmThe Hudson Institute? Is that those damned Neo-cons again-- the same guys who duped us into Iraq, the same guys who think it's okay to betray their country, it's founding principles, and their fellow citizens-- lying to them, smearing the most determinedly-honest ones, threatening them, presenting them with falsified evidence, sending them to die for their hidden agenda-- all in a quest for personal gain?
Screw them!
I mean, what have these guys ever cherished but their own butts? Most of them raised as spoiled elitist scions, of course they can't understand the pain and injustice their arrogance has brought the world already, thus their thirst for yet more blood. No, that's for their victims-- and there are 100s of thousands of them now -- to suffer through. Alone. Hopefully quietly.
Noble these Neos ain't. What is there even of basic decency in a bunch of thugs, well born or not, who lap up the spoils of a war they created from wholecloth, playing 'commoners' as pawns to be fed into the meatgrinder and extruded for elitist profit?
Face it folks, where there is aristocracy there is NO democracy. The two are polar opposites. Get rid of the aristocratic weasels, like these Neo-con meglomaniacs, charge them for their crimes, and democracy might get somewhere.
Until then it's all smoke, mirrors, and of course blood. Lots of blood.
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:10 pmYeah, I don’t understand how Judd lets MightyTranny, MizzWrong and the rest of these morons post their ridiculous hate speech and continual stream of lies and ‘we hate kennedy boring nonsense’, and then Judd bans people who simply respond to their tripe.
It’s why I post very little anymore. Judd’s continued mismanagement of the blog is a big disappointment to me. I gave him a second chance when he unbanned me, and supposedly banned MizzWrong. Yet MizzWrong kept posting, and I had several postings censored and removed.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 2, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
A lot of regular posters have been missing the last couple of days. Seems to be a mass banning. Including IRI.
It's not a community if your cyber friends keep getting kicked off the island.
Ryan, things went south when you left. Not my idea of a community. Not even close.
Worfeus, I left you a message on Lydis's blog.
Banning you is like banning teddy bears... crazy.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 pmI had several postings censored and removed.
Comment by Ryan Neat — March 2, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
I remember the one when your posts kept getting deleted by wwallace's remained and neither of us could figure out why, since you really didn't say anything offensive. I don't get it, but I think I will probably head over to Daily Kos, but on a limited basis. Look for me over there.
I like you guys and it sucks without you around. A lot of the recent posters seem to be conspiracy theorists or extremists (from both the left and the right). Not as much fun as it used to be. Sigh...
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:15 pmThe only posts of mine that Judd has removed to date have been at my request. Am I doing something wrong? Perhaps if I request an unnatural act by the moderators of this forum, I will have a post purged.
March 2nd, 2006 at 7:46 pmBut then, some of the posters on this forum are given a wider latitude than some of our liberal colleagues. ma is an example of an extreme case. Perhaps Judd lets it persist as a bad example.
#81, well it could be 'terms of use' versus 'first amendment', I suppose, but then it may also be a case of banning more of the posters aligned with the politics of the CAP to be sure of being seen to be 'fair and balanced'. Then again, MA, Adolf and all the trolls may be TP staffers and we are just rats in a maze. Which color pill did you take Walt?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:03 pmWORFEUS
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 pmI understand your anger and your hurt -- I am so sorry that you won't post here any more -- I miss you already.
I will check out your other site, but I really hope that you will return here and post again.
Face it folks, where there is aristocracy there is NO democracy. The two are polar opposites. Get rid of the aristocratic weasels, like these Neo-con meglomaniacs, charge them for their crimes, and democracy might get somewhere.
Until then it’s all smoke, mirrors, and of course blood. Lots of blood.
Comment by G.I. — March 2, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
perhaps this is why people are bailing. The Soros financing?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 pmI have had some posts deleted, but then I know they will be. Judd wants to keep everything here serious, so he will let a few things go, but when it gets out of hand, he will start deleting. He also doesn't like 9/11 theories. If anybody feels like having a 9/11 free for all, let me know and I will set up a blog.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pmI have had some posts deleted, but then I know they will be. Judd wants to keep everything here serious, so he will let a few things go, but when it gets out of hand, he will start deleting. He also doesn’t like 9/11 theories. If anybody feels like having a 9/11 free for all, let me know and I will set up a blog.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 2, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
I thought it was about terms of use and not 'preferences of the moderator'.
I don't much care for the 9/11 theories either. It's just that I care for censorship a whole lot less - especially when we get to know one another and get attached to people. I don't know if we're friends in a traditional sense, but certainly in a communal sense. And I hate to watch my friends get booted at will like that.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:35 pmperhaps this is why people are bailing. The Soros financing?
Comment by mr ho — March 2, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
I don't know much about that... care to educate me?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:37 pmI'll miss Ryan's incisiveness, unbelievable's reasoning and worfeus's humour too. I've also noticed the absence of more extreme far-right posting recently so maybe TP is cracking down on the trolls and trying to raise standards?
ryan/unbelievable/worfeus, all blogs vary in quality as time goes by; TP did/has banned IRI, different people of differing qualities come and go, humour does detract from a serious debate. Please don't give up on TP.
Judd, I enjoy your topics and serious debate - a recommendation - how about creating a permalink for rhetoric and humourous posts too - keep them separate? Some humourous posts can be quite insightful.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:46 pm"Will Bush do it?"
Does the rightwing Pope sh*t in the woods?
"Unfortunately for people like London, who are always thinking up new ways for U.S. soldiers to be sent into harm’s way, there is wide agreement among U.S. military analysts and Iran experts that no good military options exist for Iran"
Oh, la-de-dah. When they fire the submarine nuke at Tehran, I'll remember your optimistic FANTASY.
The intent is to bomb Iran into capitulation. Tell me why that won't work. Because some military analysts recognize it as CRAZINESS? When has that stopped these bastards?
When the policy is GENOCIDE BY WHATEVER MEANS, even real mistakes are gravy.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:04 pm"I thought it was proven that no one knows who gased the kurds?" --Gerald Gibson
INCORRECT. It is CLEAR that Hussein was guilty.
The lone dissenting voice was by a war college plant with no science background, whose point was based on the bluish discoloration of the victims, which he said had to mean cyanide, which he said pointed to Iran.
The fact is that Hussein used chemical agents that breakdown into cyanide, as any scientist, like the several experts who piped up at the time, would know. But, Mission Accomplished. As with the LIE about Thomas Jefferson having sex with his slave, the people don't do the research, so they Buy the Lie.
Did you know that the US has EIGHTEEN TONS of Hussein's government documents from the Kurdish areas? We have shoot-to-kill orders, and lists of depopulated villages, and a whole lot more.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:13 pm"...after Hillary is elected, with the help of the Bush cabal, and she reveals her neocon conversion." --ommzms
Your Hillary conspiracy is MOOT to the FACT that we don't have legal elections any more, and won't -- unless YOU help fight to get them back.
Elections are the state's business. And the states still stand, though they may fall if another several elections goes by without a MASSIVE protest of every paperless election in the country (which is currently something like 28 states).
NOW IS THE TIME when you can save your own life by fighting WITHIN YOUR OWN STATE to get fair and legal elections, and to REMOVE FROM POWER all election officials, including governors, who don't uphold our rights.
In CA, join us in RECALLING ARNIE: http://www.savecalnow.com
And registered CA voter can collect signatures -- it is very easy.
Arnie's Recall will be on the June ballot when we get enough signatures. Pitch in!
Also in CA, mark your November ballot for our next SecState, Debra Bowen (currently a State Senator). She knows about the vote-fraud, and she's on our side.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:19 pm"And registered CA voter can collect signatures"
Make that ANY registered CA voter.
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:21 pm"Perhaps this is why people are bailing. The Soros financing?"
So, mr ho, you're saying Soros is an aristocratic scion? Hopefully you're not just introducing Soros to the conversation as a way of changing topics, as that'd just demonstrate fundamental dishonesty on your part.
But back to your Soros-as-elitist claim. I don't know his history that well, but I believe he's a self-made rich guy, having pulled himself up from modest beginnings. That's not the same as being an elitist scion. Not even close.
The 'rich' amongst us, in my opinion, as long as they've played by the rules and aren't using their wealth to undermine the basic rights of the rest of us, are a good thing in our society. They epitomize the American dream, that we can all make it. They motivate the aspiring, you might say.
The aristocracy, on the other hand, the elite class, are all about democracy denied, or at least circumvented. Locked up fortunes and assets are passed down from one generation to another, hindering the possibilities for upward mobility by other, more talented individuals.
And of course, their routine use of nepotism, cronyism, sweetheart deals, and tax evasion all fly in the face of democratic principles. They reveal their distain for democracy when they pull strings to make sure some commoner's kid, not theirs, is the one sent to war to die; when they wiggle out of being prosecuted for some crime they've committed with a phone call to friends in high places; when they screw over smarter but less connected kids, bribing their own mediocre scion into his place.
Sound familiar? I'm talking about the types of guys running our country right now.
Anyway, seems pretty clear that elitists are no friends of democracy. Indeed, why would they want democracy-- they were born into an even better deal. All they have to do is feign a love for democracy, and then let their connections and lack of conscience dictate the rest.
Disgusting.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:19 pmIsn't this a little like a drug addict who believes that their life will be great and that they'll quit using if and only if they can finally score a hit of the really good stuff? Of course, they always die in the end. Zoe's dead, after all?
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:46 pm#92 Give that man a cigar.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:47 pmOh I agree unbelievable. I hate seeing any of the good guys go, while we have people like Antagonist, who's name yells troll. I-RIGHT-I still posts his racist, homophobic drivel and wwallace posts under different names every other day.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 am"Unfortunately for people like London, who are always thinking up new ways for U.S. soldiers to be sent into harm’s way..."
I checked his personal website's resume (links are in the article), and guess what? He's a card-carrying member of a very popular GOP club these days. You know the name. Rhymes with "sicken" and "cock." It's on the tip of your tongue...you've almost got it...oooh, so close...
That's right! LIL' HERBIE IS A CHICKENHAWK! Military service for the 101st Fighting Keyboardists? Get real -- to the 101st, uniforms are for suckers!!!
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:06 amAnd just which friggin' army is London referring to? Ours?!!! Despite their noble efforts as individual soldiers and fighting groups, and with no disrespect to them at all, they're barely hangin' on in Iraq. Now the neocons want to spread both the fight and their inept stategies between TWO Middle Eastern fronts? At the same time? Sure, just as soon as the Bush twins slide into their newly-issued camo greens.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 amActually TAC the good Mr London is trying to consolidate the two wars we have going into one by combining the Iraqi and Afghanistan battlefields into one large battlefield and including Iran as well. Since he has never been in the service nor probably will ever be he does it from an academic think tank perspective. Thus he sees no down side because to him after the Iran scenario opens he's got that much more to write about. The moral implications just do not occur since philosophy is not in his particular school of endeavour. Everything else to him is just academic, and thus mute.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 amBTW sarcasm off
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:33 amBush most likely will attack Iran as soon as the end of March, this year, so yes it's crazy to do it, but has that ever stopped Dubya before? NOPE, George is a certified nut, so he will bomb Iran and set off nuclear WWIII in the process! I knew 2006 is going to be a bad year for U.S.!
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 amIt doesn't matter what is written here - on these little postings. On any of the leftist, liberal, truthseeking, truthspeaking blogs. It doesn't matter whether democrat or repuke. fluff. irrelevancies. Bush is irrelevant. Don't waste you breath on him. All of the forces currently in control are moving towards attempting to achieve global hegemony. It wouldn't matter if Iran gave away all of its nuke-stuff tomorrow (it can't be allowed to control the oil). Of course Hillary and Bill have become good little hegemonists. Doubters? Where have YOU been? You've ignoring the news? Further, a question: IS War coming? You bet. Nothing you, we or anybody can do to stop it. One can fantasize the ability to * do whatever you might imagine would be appropriate to do * to all of the neocons and corporatists. Had you been able, what would you have done in 1935 to all of the Nazis, to the bankers like Prescott, the suppliers of war materials, the german and world-wide corporatists who supported build up to yet another war? What would you really like to do to all of the predators, the sharks, the bastards who really are running and moving towards global war? The ones who have known of Peak Oil coming for decades. The ones who have known of the population problem, the coming starvation and the 'useless eaters' for decades. The ones who expect and have planned for the 4-5 billion person die off. And who expect to survive and control the remainders. But also, paradoxically, The ones, in their arrogance and ignorance, who have ignored the global climatic changes coming... for decades. The ones who laugh as the peons play at being relevant and important while writing on the their 'blogs' and web sites. (just like me). .... If it all were not so sad for the good aspects of the human race and the little children, it would just be laughable. So kiss your butts goodbye.
March 3rd, 2006 at 5:46 amdr rdw
Funny I was looking around the Hudson Institute website, on the page find an expert and under the the title military and defense, Lewis Libby(scooter to us), funny the Hudson Institute would hire someone under investigation for pergury, isn't it?
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:01 amFunny I was looking around the Hudson Institute website, on the page find an expert and under the the title National Security, Lewis Libby(scooter to us), funny the Hudson Institute would hire someone under investigation for pergury, isn’t it?
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:02 amFunny I was looking around the Hudson Institute website, on the page find an expert and under the the title International Security, Lewis Libby(scooter to us), funny the Hudson Institute would hire someone under investigation for pergury, isn’t it?
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:03 amSeems Mr. Libby has found a new home, but I wonder what their hiring standards are if they hire somebody who had to resign from their old government job for perjury? Makes you wonder just how reputible this firm can be.
March 3rd, 2006 at 6:06 amThe Bushies won't strike Iran until it's time to "wag the dog"(October surprise) just in time for the fall elections.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:01 amRemember, the Rapture Nuts run the White House. Ugh, war good. War lead to armageddon. War lead to apocalypse. Ugh. Jesus return and clean up mess. Ugh.
Anyway, my two contributions for the Rapture Nuts' Battle Plan for war with Iran. Ugh.
1) Small tactical "neutron bombs" could be used to take out the Iranian Republican Guard units protecting the Khuzestan oil facilities. Delivered by stealth fighters at night, the Iranians would never know what hit them. And the oil facilities would be left relatively intact. I know, I know, another war crime to go with the rest. But what would stop them? And besides, Rumsfeld likes all those military "labor-saving" gadgets. And small tactical "neutron bombs" could be used to repel any attempt by the Iranians to retake Khuzestan province.
2) To secure the oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz in case of war with Iran, the Bush administration needs a "beachhead" on the Iranian side of the strait. For this, they need a "staging area" on the opposite side of the strait, but close to it...kind of like D-Day. Thus, the vital, strategic importance of the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Of course, the UAE and Oman would want something in return from the Bush administration...let's say, a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and/or a "port deal." So, Fall 2004, Bush administration starts ball rolling for FTAs with both countries. The UAE FTA is still pending (but they still got a "port deal" apparently), while Omani FTA signed by Bush on Jan. 19, 2006. BTW, two days before the Omani FTA signing, the secret review board approved the UAE port deal. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
All the signs point to Bush starting another war, but this time with Iran. And it will probably be in a month or so...maybe even weeks. And it will spiral out of control, just like in Iraq. Furthermore, I figure that within a short time (weeks? several months?) after Bush starts the war in Iran, a Hezbollah terrorist attack will occur within the United States...and possibly England. Also, suicide bombings will dramatically increase inside Iraq, especially targetting coalition forces. Israel, of course, will be targetted as well.
It will be a bloody mess that "no one could have possibly foreseen." And by mid-year, both Bush and Blair will be forced to resign. Both U.S. and British citizens will have finally decided that enough is enough. But the damage will have already been done.
And Jesus won't return. Hey, he wasn't crazy, unlike many of the ones who claim they are followers of his today, especially the ones who support the Bush administration...through hell or high water. Ugh.
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:42 amNo need to suspend legal nuclear work: Larijani
MOSCOW (Agencies) – On Wednesday, Iranian nuclear negotiators, headed by Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, were in a hotel in central Moscow for a third round of talks on Moscow's proposal to carry out uranium enrichment for the Islamic Republic on Russian soil. Larijani held talks with Igor Ivanov, the secretary of Russia's Security Council.
Tehran stuck to its line, saying that even if a deal is struck with the Russians it will not bow to the key demand from its critics -- to drop all efforts to enrich uranium at home.
Iran has already resumed small-scale enrichment at the Natanz facility under the strict supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
On arrival at Moscow's airport, Larijani said Tehran sees no need to stop work on enrichment.
"A moratorium is necessary when there is something dangerous. But all our activities are transparent," Larijani said as quoted by the Associated Press.
Larijani also said Tehran agrees to all inspections by the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog agency, if they are conducted in line with international law. "We are not making any extraordinary demands, (but) we insist on those rights that are Iran's due in the IAEA framework," he said, speaking through a Russian translator.
"We agree to IAEA inspections and those international inspections that are lawful."
There is less than a week until a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors which will discuss its latest report on Iran's nuclear program.
According to Reuters, oil prices rose on Wednesday, partly on traders' concerns the nuclear row could affect Iranian crude supplies.
The previous two rounds involved less senior officials and the higher footing raised hopes Iran was taking the Russian proposal seriously.
"We are optimistic we can agree with our Iranian partners… we think we can come to an agreement that a joint venture on the soil of the Russian Federation will be able to meet Iran's needs fully," Russian President Vladimir Putin told a news conference during a visit to Hungary.
Moscow, Washington and the EU 3 have said Iran returning to a moratorium on enrichment is a non-negotiable precondition of any deal.
Larijani told reporters that a moratorium is unnecessary since “all our activity is transparent and directed towards peaceful nuclear power".
U.S. President George W. Bush, on a visit to Iran's neighbor Afghanistan, said he backed Russia's efforts to find a compromise deal with Tehran.
"And so we've joined with Russia as part of a diplomatic effort to solve this problem," Bush said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said there was still room for compromise.
"We are in a position to cooperate, reach a comprehensive compromise with all the parties… We are flexible," he told reporters in Tokyo.
Iran nuclear compromise possible: Lavrov
Russia's foreign minister told Russia Today television Wednesday that a compromise on Iran's nuclear program was possible.
"I am convinced that a compromise that complies with the non-proliferation regime is possible," Lavrov said in an interview with the 24-hour English-language channel.
"Iran should reimpose its moratorium (on nuclear research) and accept Russia's proposal to open a joint venture to enrich uranium on Russian territory," Lavrov said.
"We should do everything it takes to resume the efforts of UN inspectors in Iran," Lavrov said.
"We will also try to explain that Iran's current nuclear fuel needs could be covered by the joint venture," Lavrov said.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:02 amMy personal guess is that the attack on Iran is scheduled for August or September. These two months seem to be the time when W tries to really screw things up. Even the Iraqi invasion was predicated by growing forces in Kuwait starting in that timeframe in 2002.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 amIf America can have these terrible weapons then Iran can do ----Its all or none ---- my view is None we were doing good reducing the weapons of America and russia under the gorbechov plans ....why the sudden reprise from America ...all you need is to change your foreign policy once again.....most things in the world can be acheived by America changing its foreign policy ...MOST THINGS
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:20 pmI hope the attack does not interfere with the wrold cup finals if it does then expext one mighty pissed off world
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 pmDefusing The Iran Crisis
Michael T. Klare
March 03, 2006
Michael T. Klare is the defense correspondent of The Nation and a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. His latest book is Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum. This piece first appeared in The Nation.
Reports that Iran and Russia have reached an agreement on a plan for the joint enrichment of Iran's uranium in Russia have eased fears of a major international confrontation over Iran's nuclear plans. But this danger has by no means been eliminated. Without a permanent resolution of the dispute agreeable to both the United States and Iran, the prospect of an armed clash will grow increasingly severe. Such a clash might not entail full-scale war, but it could trigger an uncontrollable explosion of sectarian and religious strife throughout the Middle East. Preventing such a clash is among the most pressing tasks facing the international community today.
At heart this dispute revolves around Iranian efforts to enrich natural uranium (i.e., increase its content of fissionable U-235) in its own facilities—either for use as a fuel in civilian power plants, as claimed by Tehran, or as the core of nuclear bombs, as claimed by Washington. Enrichment activities of this sort aren't prohibited by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1968, but would constitute a breach if the highly enriched uranium was used for military purposes.
The problem for international regulators is that the enrichment technology used to make civilian reactor fuel—in this case, uranium gas centrifuges—can also be used to make highly enriched uranium, and it's not possible to determine the objective of such an operation until it's well under way. Accordingly, those who fear that Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons seek to prevent any enrichment from taking place there; the Iranians, for their part, insist that they have every right under the NPT to conduct such activities for peaceful uses and that interference with that right would constitute an intolerable assault on their sovereignty.
Under pressure from Britain, France and Germany, Iran agreed in 2004 to suspend enrichment activities at its pilot plant in Natanz while negotiating a permanent solution to the dispute. However, when the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted on February 4 to communicate its suspicions concerning Iran's nuclear objectives to the United Nations Security Council—a step that could lead to economic sanctions against Iran—Tehran announced that it would terminate its voluntary freeze on enrichment. Since then, Iran has resumed small-scale enrichment at Natanz, thereby upping the ante.
If the plan for a joint Iranian-Russian enrichment enterprise proceeds, and Iran ceases activities at Natanz, the ground will be cleared for a peaceful resolution of the dispute. However, if the Russian plan fails or if the Iranians continue operations, the risk of a crisis will grow. Should the Security Council vote to impose sanctions, Tehran might decide to withdraw from the NPT altogether (as some officials have threatened) and commence an even more ambitious enrichment effort. And should UN sanctions fail to prevent this, pressure from right-wing hawks in Washington for a military solution could prove irresistible in light of George W. Bush's pledge to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran.
A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran would be illegal and imprudent. It would boost domestic support for the hard-line regime of President Ahmadinejad and invite harsh Iranian reprisals, such as a violent escalation of sectarian strife in Iraq (where Iran enjoys strong support among Shiite clerics) and attacks on Persian Gulf oil facilities. It is essential, then, to find a compromise.
Fortunately, a solution—the permanent, verifiable cessation of all military-related nuclear activities in Iran under terms acceptable to Tehran—is entirely conceivable. Presumably, such a solution would entail some form of continued Iranian enrichment research (whether in Russia or under tightly controlled conditions in Natanz) along with a U.S. nonaggression pledge and trade concessions. This, in turn, could set the stage for a much-needed overhaul of the NPT and for talks leading to a nuclear-free Middle East and eventually the elimination of all nuclear munitions.
Standing in the way of such a solution are powerful political and emotional impulses on both sides. This is not just a dispute over interpreting the NPT (which could be resolved through technical and legal means); it is also a microcosm of the larger clash between the West and the Islamic world. Suspicion of and hostility toward Muslim countries appears to be growing in Washington—note the reaction in Congress to the idea of a Dubai-based company managing some U.S. ports—and there is scant political will for a resolution of the crisis that might leave Tehran with a sense of vindication. Likewise, any U.S.-dictated solution would be viewed in Iran as a humiliating defeat at the hands of "the Great Satan" and would enjoy little support. Finding a way to defuse the emotional and ideological fervor on both sides of the divide is, therefore, essential for resolving the crisis peacefully.
On the U.S. side, this means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn't mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that's in everyone's best interest. It requires shunning all talk of "regime change" and any inclination to use force. Washington has already adopted such a stance toward North Korea; it must now approach Iran in the same manner. At the same time, Iran's leaders have to hear from their friends in the international community, including Russia and China, that they must cease anti-Israel and anti-Jewish comments that justly provoke international outrage.
A peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran is still possible—but only if leaders and citizen groups around the world work much harder to eliminate the obstacles to intelligent compromise.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:53 pmScience fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, in his 1984 book, “The Wild Shore,†imagined a United States which had been destroyed by the other countries of the world working in concert, as a defensive measure against U.S. dominance, arrogance and disproportionate consumption of the world’s resources. The country is kept in an unreconstructed state with Canada controlling the northern border, Mexico the south, Japan the west, and Russia the east. With satellite surveillance and advanced weapons systems, these countries destroy any attempts by Americans to rebuild infrastructure which might enable them to regain any power in the world.
Couldn’t happen, you think? Then consider the situation with Iran. Following the invasion of Iraq by the U.S., the Bush Administration has threatened that Iran might be next, yet it is questionable if China and Russia would allow such an invasion, or if they might instead choose to go to war to protect their access to Arab oil. They also have a “way of life†to protect and, particularly in the case of China, a rapidly growing need for more and more oil. Should China and Russia decide to protect Iran from invasion, nuclear war might occur, particularly if the U.S., following its latest stated policy of using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation in a preemptive strike, attacks Iran. This could then lead to retaliatory attacks by Iran against the oil fields and shipping terminals of Saudi Arabia – possibly with nuclear weapons. World War III would have begun.
Another scenario is that, if attacked, the OPEC nations might destroy their oil fields and seed them with radioactive materials to keep the West from controlling the oil. This possibility is described in the book “Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi-U.S. Connection†by Gerald Posner. He claims that the oil facilities in Saudi Arabia are already mined with nuclear material that will retard rebuilding if activated.
March 4th, 2006 at 4:45 pminteresting scenereo -especially if they left wants to take away all our guns
March 15th, 2006 at 1:15 amBy the way tobey- just so we know who we are talking with. Which direction would your bullets be flying? (in regards to your #30 post)
March 15th, 2006 at 1:49 am[...] Institute — a proponent of war against Iran — is home to former Cheney chief of staff Scooter [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm