Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[multi]

yeh..interesting take
can't say i disagree too much with any of that..
i must be missing something

[albed]

Once N.Korea gets threatening enough, Japan will grow balls again and become a serious military power in the region. That's China's main incentive to rein in N.Korea.

[multi]

News at 11: NKorea says nuke talks with US reached 'agreement'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070119...weaponsustalks

[multi]

U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against
Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.


"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in
Iraq, which could be confined to that country.

President George W. Bush has stressed he is seeking a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

But he has not taken the military option off the table and his recent rhetoric, plus tougher financial sanctions and actions against Iranian involvement in Iraq, has revived talk in Washington about a possible U.S. attack on Iran.

The Bush administration and many of its Gulf allies have expressed growing concern about Iran's rising influence in the region and the prospect of it acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued "Iran's ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible" if one understands the Islamic republic's many vulnerabilities.

Tehran's leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on "superpower" status, but the country is "very weak ... (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation," said Katzman of the
Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

The economy is mismanaged and "quite primitive," exporting almost nothing except oil, he said.

Also, Iran's oil production capacity is fast declining and in terms of conventional military power, "Iran is a virtual non-entity," Katzman added.

The administration, therefore, should not go out of its way to accommodate Iran because the country is in no position to hurt the United States, and at some point "it might be useful to call that bluff," he said.

But Katzman cautioned against early confrontation with Iran and said if there is a "grand bargain" that meets both countries' interests, that should be pursued.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iran_usa_experts_dc

[Mazer]

Some interesting political intrigue surrounding that story, multi. Nice find.

It appears that part of the administration's diplomatic strategy is leaking fake military plans to members of the press who in turn will confirm to Iranian skeptics that Bush's sideways threat of military action is serious. Of course this is a ploy to make Iran more eager to talk to the US when it finally opens diplomatic channels. It's also a manipulation of the American press, but as long as they believe they're actually discrediting the president they're all to eager to help.

[multi]

it seems the latest I heard out of Iran is the Ayatolla has ordered the president to 'stay out of all matters nuclear'

haven't looked for any source for this yet.. but it sounds like things could be happing there that might become more diplomatic and with some possible outcome like the NK talks on the same subject

it could need a false flag attack of some sort to unleash the dogs of war
because i get the feeling that there are some very interested parties that want very much for a nuclear confontaion to happen with Iran

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

it sounds like things could be happing there that might become more diplomatic and with some possible outcome like the NK talks on the same subject

There are no coincidences, only the illusion of them, or so I've heard. I don't believe that a diplomatic solution to both nuclear threats will come swiftly or easily, but this is a good sign that a diplomatic solution is possible.

it could need a false flag attack of some sort to unleash the dogs of war
because i get the feeling that there are some very interested parties that want very much for a nuclear confontaion to happen with Iran

Not surprisingly the people who invested millions in R&D in bunker buster missiles want to see their investment mature. I hope to see them disappointed. On this occasion the Democrats may actually make the world safer, for once.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by multi

it could need a false flag attack of some sort to unleash the dogs of war because i get the feeling that there are some very interested parties that want very much for a nuclear confontaion to happen with Iran

well, let's see, there's Bush, Cheney, a handful of neocons, Sinner, and maybe a couple of others who are interested in a confrontation with Iran....but since it's gonna be about 10 years before Iran is even able to make all the ingredients, they have a long wait before the confrontation is gonna be nuclear.

perhaps we'll be able to put some grown-ups in the White House in the interim.