Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[multi]

Since your kind will most likely keep the US out of Iran's affairs for as long as possible I'm pretty sure we'll be totally unable to stop whatever is going to happen.

Seeing TG's post on the news that China can now knock out satellites makes me ask...

what about China.?.they don't invade parts of the middle east or meddle in their affairs anywhere as much as UK/US they don't have the media in all their cities controlled by parties only interested in making it a one sided issue, no. they do not really
need to worry about being hated by Muslims.

I find it interesting that the west a few hundred years ago got much of the technologies from the near and far east that helped form the technologies we use today, once apon a time the travelers from the east brought back more and more ideas philosophies and culture to the emerging western world. many things like the fact we use zero come from there, it's in the history books but it's not being taught.

so should China worry if nukes start flying over there ? they have enough interest in the area to
want to at least to not want to see things completely destroyed, but the west somehow must have the injustices it has perpetrated against the region undone. Maybe even learn one of the biggest lessons of its existence.

Reexamine the last two or three hundred years of the involvement of the west in that area, and the emigration of certain ethnic races from the region to our cities and why when the immigration to our cities reached a certain threshold about 10 or so years ago ,where it had become much more even in numbers we find our selves suddenly in a war where one of the parties becomes an unrelenting dishonest enemy who's goal is to only destroy the west by any means possible

[Sinner]

Right - this may surprise you knife but there is a world outside of America and in this World outside of America many counties are saying the same thing. Also in the World outside of America there is this organization, a rather useless one but all the same, they call themselves the United Nations, they just put sanctions against Iran because of their growing threat to peace. So let us take Bush out of the equation. Unless you are talking about the drone Iran supposedly shot down, American sources in Iraq deny it. If you would rather believe a Extremist who hates America over your know government that is your right.

So Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) - Egypt, Israel, Britain, and The UN to name a few, are all conspiring with the Bush Administration? I find this hard to believe but I will leave a quote below which may help it make a little more sense. Your hated toward your government is blinding you, only a fool can believe an Extremist like President Tom should have nuclear weapons. I hope the world is wrong and nothing happens, do want another Cold War scenario? I am all for a peaceful resolution, nothing could be better, but doing nothing is not the answer, I am not saying war is the answer, but you can not just stand on the sidelines, cross your fingers and hope everything will just be ok. We all need to realize that these problems aren’t about politics or party lines, at the end of the day, you are not Democrats or Republicans, you are Americans, and this problem applies equally to us all. It is the religious leaders, the Ayatollahs who call the shots and one thing history has taught us about Iran, They don't make threats - they make promises.

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” — Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom

[multi]

a cold war type nuclear stand off is enevitable
if not already happening..
didn't the US threaten to send Pakistan back to the stone age a little while ago ?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

so should China worry if nukes start flying over there ? they have enough interest in the area to
want to at least to not want to see things completely destroyed, but the west somehow must have the injustices it has perpetrated against the region undone. Maybe even learn one of the biggest lessons of its existence.

I have a gut feeling that the US and China made a clandestine deal where the US promised to keep Iran's nuclear program under control if China promised to keep North Korea's nuclear program under control. China has been curiously cooperative up until now, maybe they really are afraid that a nuclear Iran would disrupt their burgeoning industries. That's why I think any nuclear war or cold war involving Iran would invariably involve China too. They're not as dependent on the Middle East's oil as we are but they know they will be soon. Maybe the US is letting Iran get away with making nukes as a way of backhanding China for letting North Korea make nukes.

[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.