Iran: A Bridge too Far?
 

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

10/26/04 "ICH" -- Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to “show the flag” or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: “Saber Rattling Unnerves China”, and: “Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.” But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat –– in the particular case of China, because of Peking’s newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

“Nonsense!” you are probably thinking. That’s impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?”

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve “an asymmetric advantage” over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.

The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons –– probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Hussein’s Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy’s largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also “saw” the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy’s only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy’s approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes “see” everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War –– termed “the great Scud hunt” –– and for similar reasons. Saddam Hussein’s mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy –– over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys –– that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scud’s inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud’s ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburn’s amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese –– and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bull’s eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large “X” mounted on the ship’s bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US –– weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse....rticle3288.htm >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israel’s to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.”

( http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/new...ervice_id=5051 )

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iranians’ insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia –– yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russians’ animated conversation:

“The Americans! What is the matter with them?”
“They simply cannot help themselves.”
“What idiots!”
“A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lesson…”
“Yes! For their own good.”
“It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forget…”
“Are we agreed, then, comrades?”
“Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!”

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is “one bridge too far”?

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed…

Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibal’s soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their lives…

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lake’s only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged…

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel’s defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their use…

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle7147.htm

Why Russia caved-in on Iran
 

Interesting article.

LMAO. If you brain damaged half-wits understood even the basics of international currency markets, or even possessed some simple reasoning ability, you could understand that 'this' is clearly fiction.

get some self esteem dude.

i dare you to explain why the article is fiction, ill bet you cant.

Not to you of course, you're an imbecile.

If the dollar was worthless than the U.S. would essentially be getting it's oil for free and it's price wouldn't bother anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market

Any free floating currency can be exchanged for any other at market valuations.

just as i thought

you dont know

thanks for the confirmation

get help albed

Now there's a surprise.
Name calling again.

Yakhonts
Yabloodykhonts
Yabunchakhonts
um...?

My experience is, those that don't actually understand use words and phrases like "you're an imbecile" and you brain damaged half-wits to hide their stupidity and ignorance.

Then they counter by debating the challenge of their intelligence rather than the issues.

Are they direct quotes?

hell..no

cant wait to hear the news guys trying to pronounce this one...:D
(if it ever becomes news)

my guess is they have 'willy' from the simpsons naming their missiles for them
crazy russians... :D

http://www.upi.com/InternationalInte...8-052333-1392r

War with Iran
Of Nukes and Oil



Secretary of State Condi Rice doesn't think the United States and European Union should continue talking to Iran about their potential nuke development. Diplomacy should end and the UN Security Council must now take action, she says. Rice admitted to reporters on January 23, that dialogue between Iran and the international community had come to a "dead end".

"I don't see much room for further discussion in any format," Rice huffed.

Of course, the US's true intentions for going after Tehran may have more to do with what's hidden beneath Iran's arid soil than their nuclear ambitions.

Currently the second largest untapped oil reserve in the world is in Iran. Iran has five times more oil than the US. The industry's reputable Oil and Gas Journal in 2005 estimated 125.8 billion barrels were in the country just waiting to be pumped. Iran is also the number 2 producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The majority of Iran's crude oil is located in Khuzestan, which borders Iraq and the Persian Gulf is the home to two of Iran's largest untapped oil fields -- Yadavaran and Azadegan. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that the oil boys in Washington want dibs on Iran's oil-rich land.

But there's a problem, and it could be a substantial glitch in the neo-con's agenda if Iran's nuclear dabbling is taken before the Security Council where it may well be vetoed by China and Russia. The only other alternative if the Council were to veto Iran sanctions would be to invade.

The Chinese government already has its eye on Yadavaran. The Chinese state oil company China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation has a 50 percent stake in the vast Yadavaran oil field.

Russia too has a stake in Iran's oil-rich economy. In 2003 Russia sought to diversify its oil procurement and distribution methods by shipping Russian crude to Iran, where it is was refined for domestic consumption. In return, Iran now delivers an equivalent amount of oil to Russia. As the Asia Times explained in February 2003, "This arrangement will make Russian oil available to non-European buyers at a competitive price by sharply decreasing the cost of exports currently done by oil tankers loaded at Russia's Black Sea ports..."

The threat of UN sanctions has the oil speculators and markets worried sick. Prices have been in flux over the past few weeks as Iran has threatened to pull its huge foreign exchange reserves from European banks. If the Iranian government is anything, it isn't stupid. Tehran knows the threat of yanking the country's cash from Western banks will upset the US stock exchange, which in turn will damage the Bush administration. Iran is flexing what little muscle it has left in hopes that its nuclear agenda doesn't go before the Security Council. The mullahs are just playing politics. But what's worrying Washington more than Iranian nukes may be a much different WMD.

In March 2006, Iran is slated to open the long awaited Iranian Oil Bourse (oil exchange program). Currently the petrodollar is dominated by US currency, but Iran and other OPEC countries want that to end. When the bourse opens, Iran will be trading on a euro-oil-trading system, the first step toward an alternative petrodollar. That could be bad news for the US.

"In economic terms, this represents [a great threat] because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether," writes Krassimir Petrov, an economics professor at the American University in Bulgaria in a January edition of the Energy Bulletin.

"Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans ... The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar."

The Bush boys don't want that to happen. Oil is likely not the only reasons why the US wants to destroy Tehran's military capabilities, but it does look like one of the big motivations. The United States wants the global oil trade, and in particular OPEC, to primarily benefit America.

What we are seeing may be a new form of economic globalization in the making -- one that involves the forced eradication and trading of natural resources.

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01262006.html

Money and Markets
Friday, February 10, 2006

Dear Subscriber,

News reports pouring in from Europe and the Middle East indicate that the seeds of the revolt now erupting throughout the Muslim world did not come from the streets.

They were originally planted by clerics and government officials at the highest levels.

These officials may not have anticipated the widespread upheavals that are now careening beyond their control. But their actions underscore the depth of the conflict ... and the validity of the scenario we have been so persistently warning you about:

New revolts against the established order in the Arab world. A diplomatic, economic or even military conflict with Iran. Disruptions to oil supplies, driving the price to $100 per barrel and beyond. Plus ...

Parallel surges in precious metals and other natural resources. But anyone who thinks this crisis just popped out of nowhere should take a good, hard look at recent history:

Last May, anti-American demonstrations spread throughout the Muslim world like wildfire. In Afghanistan alone, 15 people died. Everywhere, from the Western Sahara to Eastern Indonesia, the anger was evident.

Six months later, a new wave of violence erupted — this time in France, and this time raising far broader questions about the East-West conflict.

And now, just four months have gone by, and, already, a new, even more frightening tsunami of uprisings has swept across the Muslim world.

Thousands of European and American flags have been burned. Several embassies and consulates have been torched. Hundreds of people have been killed or injured.

With each of these episodes, observers identified a single event that triggered the unrest — an offensive article in Newsweek about the Koran ... the accidental deaths of two young teenagers fleeing the police in Paris ... twelve unfortunate cartoons published in a small Danish newspaper.

But by now, it is widely recognized that the true cause of the revolts lies far deeper: A cultural, political, and, most important, economic schism between:

Most of the world’s largest consumers of oil (the U.S. and Europe)

and ...

Most of the world’s largest producers of oil (the Middle East and Persian Gulf).

This is serious. It’s so serious, in fact, that earlier this year, we began writing to you about a topic that we’ve never written about before: War.

Our reasoning: Oil markets are already a pressure cooker, ready to burst. With the added heat from these worldwide tensions, the surge in oil prices — and oil conflicts — could be explosive. Indeed ...

The Bitter Battle with the Muslim World Is Not
Mostly about Religion. It’s Primarily about Oil.

Many people think that religion plays the dominant role in this conflict. Not true.

The current chain of events in the East-West conflict can be traced back to 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

That invasion had nothing to do with religion. It was almost entirely motivated by economics — for hegemony over oil reserves, control over Kuwait’s ports to the Persian Gulf, and better access to vital transportation routes to major world markets.

America’s long-term response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait — to establish a permanent military presence on the Arabian Peninsula — was also mostly for economic reasons: To help guarantee access to the peninsula’s vast oil reserves.

What about the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, Madrid and London? Weren’t they driven primarily by religious zeal? Not necessarily.

The original raison d’être of al Qaeda was to eject the U.S. military from the Arabian Peninsula ... gain control over the region’s oil reserves ... and place them under the auspices of a broad Islamic empire.

Yes, al Qaeda is a rogue, terrorist organization with a pseudo-religious mission. But its primary goal is to bring about revolutionary economic change. Whether they succeed or not, the mere threat of this revolution spreading throughout the Muslim world is creating a new, hotter cold war.

A New, Old Battleground
In the War for Oil: Iran

The control over oil and energy is also what’s behind the looming confrontation with Iran over its nuclear facilities. This is a new battleground. But it’s also an old one, with many lessons from recent history that we must not forget:

The Iranian revolution which drove oil prices up to the equivalent of $96 per barrel in today’s dollars...The Iran-Iraq war...the longest major war of the 20th century...lasting eight full years...taking an estimated one million lives... costing as much as two trillion dollars...and demonstrating the stubbornly bellicose tendencies of both countries’ leaders ..The latest Iraqi elections, in which the outstanding winner was precisely the party most directly allied to Iran, and now...Iran’s nuclear program.

Why is Iran so steadfastly committed to nuclear energy, despite all the carrots and sticks waved at Iran by the U.S. and Europe?

Simple: Iran wants to develop nuclear energy to reduce its own dependence on its decaying oil infrastructure. Iran wants a nuclear bomb to defend its oil reserves against perceived threats by oil-hungry world powers — China, the United States, Russia and others. And Iran is especially intimidated by the presence of large American and European armies in neighboring Iraq.

In recent days, Iran has ended all international inspections of its nuclear facilities. It has begun full-scale production of enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear bombs. And it has set off a chain reaction of events that could easily escalate into a new war over oil. The reasons for this impasse are both clear and fundamental:

The United States and Europe will not allow the world’s premier supporter of terrorist organizations — including Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad — to develop the world’s supreme weapon of mass destruction.

Yes, there may have been a relatively lax attitude toward nuclear proliferation in the past. But no more!

No one needs to tell the United States and Europe how to connect the dots — from Iran to terror ... from terror to al Qaeda ... and from al Qaeda to nuclear attacks on major cities of the Western world.

Nor do our leaders need any help asking the obvious questions: If terrorists had primitive nuclear devices, what would have happened in the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993? What would have happened on 9/11? What about Madrid on March 11, 2004? Or London on July 7, 2005?

This is the last straw. Clearly, with Iran, the West must draw — and already has drawn — an immutable line in the sand. There will be no compromise that results in a nuclear Iran.

The probable result: The United Nations will stop Iran from building a bomb. Iran will retaliate by stopping its oil exports to the West. And we will see a repeat of the oil-price explosion we saw during the Iranian revolution a quarter-century ago.


The rest of the article is about Gold - Which is still a great buy.

good read

got a link ?


so its not about oil ?
then its all about the oil... :)

Israel will always have something to do with it..
and will be a main reason behind why nuclear arms will get used
in the middle east..the creation of it was instumental in the last two world wars
why not the next ?


Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain's Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild

Nuclear Standoff: If U.S. Attacks, Iran Warns It Will Cut Oil Supplies
 

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday that Western accusations Iran seeks nuclear weapons are a "sheer lie," and he declared that attempts to punish Tehran would jeopardize the world's oil supply.

The implied threat was dismissed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said Iran was too dependent on oil revenues to disrupt the flow of crude. She also put Iran on notice that the incentives offered by the West to suspend its nuclear program are not open-ended, although she declined to say Tehran had a firm deadline to respond.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, made his comments in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

"If you make any mistake (punish or attack Iran), definitely shipment of energy from this region will be seriously jeopardized," Khamenei said, addressing Western nations.

Khamenei said the United States and its allies would be unable to secure oil shipments passing out of the Gulf through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to the Indian Ocean. At its narrowest point, the strait separating Iran from the Arabian peninsula is 44 miles wide.

"You will never be able to protect the energy supply in this region. You will not be able to do it," he said.

Khamenei, however, did not specify how oil supplies would be disrupted, and he insisted to the assembled throng that Iran would not be "the initiator of war."

In a television interview later Sunday, Rice sought to play down Khamenei's remarks.

"I think that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a threat of this kind," she said on "Fox News Sunday." "Obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were to be disrupted on the market."

Last week, Rice said the United States was prepared to join the European Union and Germany in negotiations with Iran only if Tehran agreed to stop enriching uranium. The Western nations fear Iran is using what it calls a peaceful civilian nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons.

Khamenei said Iran was not a threat to any country.
next

IRAN WAR 'IN 2YRS
By Bob Roberts

A WAR against Iran could be launched within the next two years, a senior adviser to George Bush warned last night.

CIA specialist on Iran Reuel Marc Gerecht said there had been a "tidal shift" of opinion towards military action, especially in Israel.

He added: "I think it has now become highly likely the Israelis will launch a strike before the end of George Bush's presidency."

An Israeli attack before the US election in November 2008 risks sparking a military explosion in the Middle East.

It is likely to be backed up by American and possibly British air support from Iraq.

Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could retaliate by sending the Republican Guard across the border with Iraq to attack British forces.

Experts warned there would be a massive surge in Iranianbacked suicide attacks.

The UN has voted unanimously to impose sanctions against Iran over its failure to halt its nuclear programme.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_head...name_page.html

or maybe sooner
 

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
Timesonline

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:

• Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment
  
• A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels
  
• A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
Continued..

:sus:
Israeli General Says Lobby Needs to Work on Democrats and Newspaper Editors So that Bush Can Attack Iran
In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran."

In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."

As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."

Based on the urgency of General Tira's extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America. By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics.

Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent.

http://today.az/news/politics/34565.html

Did the US Just Start a War with Iran?
By rumpole

Last night, Bush threatened action against Iran and Syria. According to this story by the AP, american forces have already arrested individuals and confiscated computers and documents in what Iran is calling a diplomatic mission. The US Army says otherwise.

If the Army is lying, then it's disturbing news. Diplomatic missions (and even sometimes consulates) are sovereign territory--in this case, the sovereign territory of Iran. That is an act of aggression, and it's the kind of thing that can escalate in a big hurry, unless Congress does something fairly quickly.

(Disclaimer: only permanent diplomatic missions (embassies) are foreign territory. Consulates, "temporary" diplomatic missions, may be subject to differing domestic laws, and consular employees do not have the same level of immunity as diplomats. If they're involved in funding insurgent attacks, the Iranian government is in a pickle, because the immunity only extends to those acts taken in the course of official duties. Put more simply, if Iran wants deniability, they'll have to disown the consular folks that were arrested. There's a lot more that needs to come out about this story, but in light of the constantly beating war drums in the speech last night, it's scary as hell.)

http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blo..._war_with_iran

Congress just told Condi in plain english: Bush can NOT start a war with Iran without their approval. (Condi has never read the constitution)

Bush, being the pigheaded fool that he is, will anyway.

Impeachment will soon follow.

Along with much weeping and gnashing of teeth on faux news.

PS. It will be a double impeachment with both Bush and Cheney getting tossed from office at the same time and perhaps even into prison.

No chance in hell of president Pelosi pardoning them.

In 2000 the Democrats got away with accusing Bush of doing what they were themselves attempting to do. If they try to steal the presidency a second time their legitimacy will be called into question far more often and with far more incredulity than what Bush has faced since he took office. This is why Pelosi will never allow an impeachment resolution come to a vote. They might kick Cheney out on trumped up charges, but not Bush, and especially not both at the same time.

Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.

If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.

i'm not sure certain members of a supreme court installed by the father of the stooge they appointed president (and whose ties to the familly extend even deeper) is the group that can withstand an impeachment challenge if it came to that, but believe me the 2000 baker coup is the last thing preventing the dems from proceeding with the trial.

i'll say this however, unlike clinton if bush does stand before the house the senate verdict will also be guilty - if unlike nixon he's stupid enough to hang in that far.

i mean, i know he's stupid enough, but there is this low-class strain of clever opportunism that served him until now. that's probably no longer up to the task, but in any event it's bush inc i'm referring to.

- js.

The Dems don't care about the Constitution either. They'll weigh the two years of a stolen presidency against the dozen or more years of a legitimately elected congress and they'll come to the same conclusion I have. It doesn't mean they won't make an attempt, it only means they won't allow an impeachment to succeed.

Politicians care only slightly more about their constituents' opinions than they do about the rule of law, but the Dems already know they can ride the wave of Bush's unpopularity through a decade of de facto control without impeaching the man. What's more they can maintain and even widen their influence without keeping their get-out-of-Iraq promises, if they play their cards right. Anything they can do to remind people of the Vietnam war, they're sure to do. If they're very smart they'll draw this war out as long as possible before making sweeping resolutions that make them out to be the saviors of America. That's how politicians think, and Democrats are politicians. They may share your beliefs but that doesn't mean they're really interested in serving them.

As long as the machine can make people believe Bush is the bad guy—the only bad guy—the Democrats will have carte blanche. Promise everything, achieve nothing; it doesn't matter as long as you get reelected.

no..It seems Bush is being controlled by Klingons
;)

China to US: No meddling in our Iran biz

BEIJING –China warned the United States on Thursday not to meddle in its trade relations with Iran after Washington expressed concern about a Chinese oil company’s planned investment in an Iranian gas field.

“We think this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate. Normal cooperation should not be interfered (with),” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

Asked if that meant Beijing believed the United States was interfering in its dealings with Iran, Liu said, “This is our position.”

The U.S. government expressed concern to Beijing last month about a planned investment by state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. in Iran’s Northern Pars gas field. Washington said major business dealings with Tehran were inappropriate while Iran is defying U.N. resolutions on its nuclear program.

CNOOC spokesman Liu Junshan said Thursday the company was still in talks with the Iranian side to develop the gas field and to help build liquefied natural gas facilities. He said no agreement had yet been signed, and declined to estimate the project’s value.

The Iranian Mehr news agency reported last month that the deal was worth $16 billion.

Liu’s comments came as Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Beijing. Olmert is seeking a more proactive Chinese role in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

Iran’s president has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, and Iran is widely believed to be trying to manufacture atomic bombs — a charge it denies.

In talks with Olmert Wednesday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing was firmly against nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran and wanted to see a diplomatic solution to the issue, Liu said at a press briefing.

But it is unlikely that Beijing will to bend to U.S. pressure to drop the gas deal, considering China’s growing thirst for oil and gas to fuel its economic boom.

China imported 980 million barrels of oil last year, making it the world’s third-biggest consumer of foreign oil. Its demand for natural gas is expected to rise 26 percent over the next five years.

China’s two major oil companies — China Petrochemical Corp. and China National Petroleum Corp. — are both either involved in gas projects in Iran or in talks to participate in developing gas resources.

Iran has seen the lure of its energy resources and other markets as a way to weaken the willl of U.N. Security Council members to exact harsh punishment over its nuclear program, which Tehran claims is for generating electricity.

The council, of which China is one of five permanent members, voted last month to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to abandon uranium enrichment — a process that produces the material for either nuclear reactors or bombs.

http://digglicious.blogspot.com/2007...-iran-biz.html

We don't have to interfere with China's business to cripple Iran's economy. All we have to do is make it impossible for them to transport their oil out of the Persian Gulf with a naval blockade. Iran will still have its natural gas pipelines, but without the ability to sell oil over seas the whole nation will fall into a depression and no American soldier will ever have to set foot within Iran's borders.

sounds like a slamdunkin cakewalk and we all know how those turn out...

It's a far better option than invasion. Besides, it's about time the Navy had something to do.

Is there any better way to contain Iran?

The U.S. probably will not need to do much - at least at first. Israel will probably nuke Iran.

I don't like that, but I can't really blame them under the circumstances - Iran has pledged to obliterate Israel.

Israel doesn't have much of a choice but to act if they want to survive, and I'm sure they do.

It will probably start with conventional bunker busters and low yeild nuclear bunker busters taking out hardened nuclear facilities inside Iran. The nuclear capabilities of Iran will be toast.

Might be the start of WW3. It's a very bad situation. The Muslims are going to have to face the facts that terrorism and jihad is not the answer to anything.

14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus wote "Everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - therein lies the real problem.

yes, yes there is.
leave them alone.
if they do something; then wipe em off the earth.
what is the deal with all the "pre-emptive" fear anyway?
oh yeah, i forgot, that is what your cult leaders tell you to think...
base your actions on things that MAY happen and you get to decide what MAY happen.
thank God your kind is now out of power in DC.

Other than my snarky comment about the Navy, I haven't suggested any preemptive action. You've gone the other way completely. Wipe them off the earth? There's no need for that either. I'm talking about containment, not obliteration. You think the neocons just want to invade? Well believe you me, they're looking for alternatives as well, not just because the Dems won a symbolic victory in Washington, but because it is impossible to invade Iran.

Anyway, the neocons are not my kind. I'm more of a libertarian if you remember.

oh come now Mazer.. you have supported everything the neocons have done so far :D

Appeasement and abandonment will not work, it never has and it never will. That is what the world did with Germany and Hitler in the 30’s. Winston Churchill was the only leader brave enough to stand up against Hitler before WWII began, but he was alone and the world let WWII happen. In December there was a election in Iran and the moderate conservative’s won big, which means the moderates are tired of their President provoking the West while ignoring the horrible conditions inside his own country. That's a huge slap in the face to him personally, but it proves that the people of Iran aren't buying into their leader's apocalyptic agenda. So really it is the radicals in the country who are pushing for a confrontation with the West, not the average citizens. The best thing that can happen is the Iranian people change their own destiny, which I personally think most want. The worst thing the USA and the world could do is give up on Iraq. The USA must let the Iraqi and Iranian people know they are behind them no matter the cost, to bring democracy to their countries. You cannot say, we will help you but if the tuff gets going you are on your own. If the Iranian people see that seed of democracy planted right next door why wouldn’t they rise up and fight for those same freedoms! It takes sacrifice, it took a civil war in the USA to give Blacks the same freedoms all others had. Big Change is not easy, it is often deadly, who knows how America would be if Lincoln quit his efforts when the tuff got going. I know some will say Iraq is not Americas fight, and I say you made it your fight and America will have to stick with it. If the USA leaves Iraq, Iran will become a bigger problem and War will happen, there is no doubt in my mind, as some one said, Israel will not allow Iran to become a bigger threat to them, and an attack by Israel is attack from the USA in the minds of the radicals in the Middle East.

Will history repeat itself?

so the US should never leave Iraq?
because you will not enforce democracy on them any other way

this fucker was a complete asshole... get real

because of him and Rothschild that there is such a problem there in the first place

Well it depends on what you mean by the USA should never leave. Did the USA really ever leave Japan or West Germany, (Germany today), after WWII?? 60 years later the USA does have interest in these countries. Are things there awful because of it?

And I am not forcing Democracy on anybody.

I didn't mean to infer that you were personaly..

but the west and it previous incarnation has been enforcing democracy on a large portion of the human race for the last few hundered years
usually leaving some civil war in it's wake

it's not the 1930s and Iran is not even close in comparison to Germany.
that argument not only doesn't fly, it sinks too.

Iran has done nothing to me or the USA and I do not believe they have plans to attack me or my country.

If they do attack us then we WILL make their country uninhabatible for a few thousand years.
I know this, you know it, and most important, Iran knows it.

Cheney & Bush are frothing at the mouth wanting to invade Iran for Israel but there is a big fly in the wrench and monkey in the ointment.
After their Iraq justifications proved to be ALL LIES, we the american people will not allow another illegal war. period, end of story.

they can rattle their sabers all they want but Bush & Cheney are both paper ducks now. the best they can hope for is to stall the withdrawel of troops from the lost war in Iraq until Bush leaves office.

hope you're right but the Prez seems hellbent for a constitutional confrontation.

it's not 2002 either.
the rubber stamp congress is gone.
the neocon enablers were sent to the unemployment line.
the prez can be impeached now and he is on thin ice.
even bush isn't stupid enough to chop out a circle around him in the ice.

Ya think?

Just hope for the good of the nation that you are right on this one.

I have up to this point, but I have to concede that there have not been enough troops sent to Iraq and this minimalist strategy seems to be taking a toll, not just on public opinion (which really doesn't matter during wartime) but on the ability of the Army to secure Baghdad. It's probably time for a more conventional approach.

I can still remember a time when almost every American supported the neocons and Bush's approval rating was better than 85%.

I think what you're suggesting is technically impossible. We've certainly tried to defend democracy from totalitarianism with varying effect. You see, the great thing about democracy is that the voters have the right to relinquish their rights if that's what they want to do. Not surprisingly no nation has ever done so voluntarily, so we try to keep outside forces from causing democracies to collapse. If that's what you're complaining about then I wonder how you can stand to live in a democratic nation like Australia. Are you suggesting that people do not deserve the responsibilities we offer to them by fighting off their enemies?

We can't really give democracy to people, all we can do is put them in the position to govern themselves. We hope they will do so wisely, but if they can't then it's because of their own intolerance and prejudice. You can blame the people who offered them the opportunity to be free all you want, but in the end a democratic nation has to collectively determine its own future, and the all the credit and the blame for their actions lies with them.

Whether they want to be in that position or not?

I don't like the way you live so I bust into your house, break all your stuff, and put you in a position to live the way I think you should. And leave a few of my weight lifting buddies living with you to make sure you don't revert to your old erroneous ways.
According to your way of thinking, I am with in my rights to do that and expect you to bake cakes for me in thanks.

Next target Tehran
 

All the signs are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran

Dan Plesch


The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran to his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there is every sign, to judge by his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony Blair would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit British forces to the field.

"There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way," said NBC TV's Tim Russert after meeting the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and cruise-missile-firing ships.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990498,00.html

Well then we will have to disagree, because if you really look at the situations, Iran is in somewhat the same situation Germany was in, in 1938. One difference is Hitler tried to keep is plans a secret and the only country willing to say Germany was a threat to the World was England, or I should say Churchill and a few of his party members. In Iran it is no secret, Iran is building nuclear weapons and has said they attend to wipe Israel off the map, oh and you do know they call America the Great Satan right? Yeah right, you have nothing to worry about. Why would some Muslim Extremist who considers the USA the Great Satan what to hurt Americans. Sure the bleeding hearts will say he is bluffing, but really how do you know he is bluffing, how can you take that chance? President Tom says one thing to the world like at the UN and then goes home and tells his people the opposite and threatens the world. Take a look at Iran, look at the cartoons they show their kids or their so called “Investigated Reports”, Iran broadcast one explaining how Coca-cola, the big America company invests billions of dollars into Israel so they can invade Iran and kill everyone. Of course it is absolutely ridiculous, put that is just the tip of the iceberg of what Iran is selling their citizens. Maybe it will take another 9/11 to get people to realize the scope of Iran and the Middle East, I think the next attack, WHEN it happens will be much bigger.


Who are you talking about? Who didn’t want democracy? The insurgents? The Terrorist? The Dictators? The citizens?

I think one of those four did want democracy, guess which one.

The rest of your post is non-sense.

Not even remotely close.


The truth is the same as it was with Iraq; Iran is not a threat to the USA.
The USA is NOT Israel.
If Iran nukes Israel; so what?
Israel then retaliates and the problem solves itself without costing me a dime or a trillion dollars.

If the Israeli people don't like that possible future then let them change it or avoid it or maybe even change their government which is leading them on the path to destruction.
Not my problem and I will not allow it to become my government's problem like they did with Iraq.

So you would take the stance the USA took when Germany invaded Poland and France during the World War. It is miles away so who cares. Well it didn’t take long for America to get attacked did it? America showed weakness and paid for it. Iran does not need to attack the USA directly, there are thousands of people standing in line to harm the USA, whether it be a dirty bomb, release chemicals in major cities, fly planes into buildings, or even fill a truck up with diesel fuel and fertilizer. And Iran supports and will help any and all of them any way they can.

If Iran nukes Israel there is no question the USA, Britain, and other allies will be in a full scale war with Iran and their allies and because nukes were used the cost to you and your nation will far exceed what Iraq has cost. There is no way you can believe America would allow an Extremist like President Tom nuke any country, never mind Israel and America is joined at the hip with Israel like it or not. It already is your government's problem, again like it or not, you may choose to ignore it and vote for bleeding heart liberals, it will not change this fact.

Last month there was a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting which included six of the Arab states, they met in Saudi Arabia and did a lot of talking about the threats from Iran. It is a fact that Iran is providing material for support on attacks against American troops, One of the Arab leaders reached the conclusion that Iran has already drawn up plans to take over Iraq once the USA backs out. They also determined that Iran is increasingly putting a stranglehold on Lebanon, by funding Hezbollah, and on Syria, a country that is dependent on them for support. Iran wants the take over the Middle East. Egypt released a statement saying "We don't want nuclear arms in the area but we are obligated to defend ourselves...It is irrational that we sit and watch from the sidelines when we might be attacked at any moment."

Sounds like they want nukes too, sounds like there maybe another arms race. No way the USA stands by and allows this to happen, even if it just means they put more money into weapon development to stay ahead of the game. To win in Iraq the USA and the rest of the Middle East will have to get control of Iran by what ever means necessary, be that talks or be that war. I hope talks but really has that ever worked????

If I happened to be a prisoner living under house arrest for a crime I didn't commit, like say the population of Iraq circa 2002, you would be doing the right thing.

Sinner's analysis seems pretty close to me, but if it's money you're worried about then what you should focus on is Iran's effect on the oil markets and the oil markets' effect on gas prices and the overall economic situation here at home. If we can nullify those effects by finding alternative energy sources then that's what we should do, but that solution is still a few years off and Iran's threat is imminent. It absolutely sucks, but that's the situation today and we've gotta deal with it. You may not think that military action is necessary, and you're probably right, but you can't seriously believe that no action is necessary.

Iran is not now nor ever was nor ever will be in any way comparable to 1930s Germany.
The only possible comparison between the world today and the world then would be the USA's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq.
With one notable exception: Hitler and his war cabinet knew how to invade and occupy a foreign country; Bush and his inept crew didn't and still don't.

I make the decision as to whether or not you are a prisoner in need of liberation; you get no say in it.

That's a given; having no say is what being a prisoner is all about. Why state the obvious?

You don't ask a slave whether he thinks he is a slave, you ask him whether he wants to be free.

There is one country out there in the world right now which still flies F-14 Tomcats, they bought them from the USA back in the 70’s. I am talking about Iran. The pentagon retired the American fleet and now they have a warehouse full of parts for these planes. Now I am no expert but would it not make sense to destroy all these parts? I would think so, unfortunately the pentagon disagrees and is having these parts transferred to an agency, which holds public surplus auctions, and these parts will be up for sale. I wonder, who on earth would want to buy them. Is it Joe Blow in Iowa who is building his own Tomcat to fly around the neighborhood or is it Iran with the whole Axis of Evil thing.

Feel better? I don’t.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/...surplus_stings

Iran shot down a predator drone a few days ago that had violated their airspace.
And some time this week or next will be completing the installation of 3000 centrifuges capable of producing weapons grade material.
These sites are buried so deep that even the new illegally developed bunker buster mini nukes may not be able to destroy them.
Russia just sent them 30 SAMs that are capable of shooting down stealth bombers.
China has been and continues to supply Iran with nuclear weapons and ICBM technology that they stole from the USA.

Meanwhile the Bush admin puffs out their banny rooster chests and postures and accomplishes nothing.

Sorry if you disagree but Iran has a right to defend their soverignty.
It is their home; not yours and not mine.
They decide what is best for them and how they want to live and as long as it does not effect me, I have no problem with that.

The question is: Why does the Bush admin? What is the real reasons for the saber rattling from the paper ducks?

The F14 aircraft were originally sold to Iran during the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last Shah of Iran).

The Iranian order totaled 80 F14 Tomcats and 714 AIM54 Phoenix missiles. The supply included spare engines and spare parts for about 10 years.

It is believed only about 10 of the aircraft remain operational.

There have been some very serious and embarrassing failures of security regarding diversion of military parts sold legitimately as surplus and subsequently diverted to Iranian agents.

This is a he said she said, The USA says it didn't happen and they are not missing a drone, so it is who ever you want to believe. I will believe the USA over Iran any day of the week.

Those SAMs sent have An attack radius of 12 miles, they are used for protection against an attack. I am not to concerned about those, the USA is also sending more patriot missiles to the area.

I would question that, I know in around 2003 Iran did import uranium from China, and Iran's Nuclear Program was started by the USA in the 50's under the Atoms for Peace program, the plan was to have 23 nuclear power stations across the country built together with the USA by the year 2000. Every thing changed in 1979.

Do you really need nuclear weapons to protect your sovereignty? This is where that whole We Want To Wipe A Country Off The Map statement President Tom made comes in to play. Backed by the fact Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons.

As for the F-14’s, not to concerned about them, the technology of these aircrafts Iran has are very limited, it just seems odd they would put parts up for sale when really the only people who would want them right now are the enemy.

The question of the day is not about Iran's sovereignty, it's about the threat they pose to the rest of the world. That threat has not manifest itself just yet, but in addition to the defensive weapons you've listed, they've also bought offensive weapons from Russia as Multi's story at the top of this thread explains. Their nukes will also be offensive weapons. Iran's posturing and saber rattling is much too direct to be ignored. Does Iran's sovereignty give them the right to send terrorists into Iraq, or to fire ICBM's at their neighbors? The Arab League is nervous, Israel has already been threatened, and we're just supposed to stand by and watch?

We all really hope they decide that peace is what's best for them, but our hope will not factor into their decision at all. Their leaders are at least as stubborn and hawkish as ours which means they will start a war sooner or later. And it will affect you, believe it or not; world wars tend to effect everyone.

it's more plausible that Iran's leaders are not as stupid as our leaders and are not going to start a war they cannot possibly win. why would they?

Because they think the U.S. government is being taken over by selfish cowards who won't lift a finger to help other people live in freedom.

In their minds the Iranian Revolution of 1979 continues to this day. That many of them call it the Muslim Revolution is telling: they think their Shi'a version of Islam will one day be the only version in existence and that it will spread to all corners of the world. To achieve that ambition they must first eliminate Sunni Islam by killing or subjugating all of its Arab adherents. They've wanted to do it for centuries, and the sectarian violence in Iraq is proof. For now they're content to fight their little jihad by covertly sending soldiers and materiel (read: terrorists and IED's) over their border to Iraq and Syria, and from there on to Lebanon and Israel. The point is they have already started a war they cannot possibly win, at least not the way they're fighting it now, and once they realize it their efforts will escalate.

You can call it stupid, but for them carrying out God's will is not an intellectual choice.