oh, now THIS is going to be fun!
Popcorn, anyone?
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran and Diplomacy |
| 2005-08-22 |
| For two years now, the Bush Administration has willingly taken a back seat to European diplomacy to induce Iran to abandon its nuclear-weapons program. In the last few weeks, the world has been able to see what this non-cowboy strategy has achieved: • Iran's new president has called for "a wave of Islamic revolution." Only a few years ago, this new world statesman was running gangs of street thugs who harassed anti-government demonstrators. His political rise was engineered by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, who barred 1,000 reformist candidates from the recent parliamentary elections. • Last week, Iranian police opened fire on a peaceful demonstration of Iranian Kurds in the city of Mahabad, reportedly killing four of the protestors [sic] . Meanwhile, dissident journalist Akbar Ganji is on his 75th day of a prison hunger strike, and prosecutors are now threatening his family. • On the nuclear issue, Tehran has resumed an early-stage uranium enrichment process at its nuclear site in Isfahan. And it has denounced as "unacceptable" a European offer to provide security and economic favors in exchange for Iran dropping parts of its nuclear program that have bomb-making uses. Memri, which translates Middle East broadcasts from their native languages, recently captured Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Hosein Musavian, on Iranian TV: "Thanks to the negotiations with Europe, we gained another year, in which we completed" Isfahan. Iran suspended enrichment "in Isfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. . . . Today we are in a position of power. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period we have managed to convert 36 tons of yellowcake into gas and store it." • Then there is Iranian assistance for terrorists in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has publicly accused Iran of "allowing" weapons to move across its Western border, and U.S. troops have captured explosives shaped for destructive terror use with Iranian pedigrees. Time magazine, no friend of the U.S. effort in Iraq, recently published a report, "Inside Iran's Secret War for Iraq." This is all especially notable because advocates of courting the mullahs often warn that a harder line against Tehran could invite Iranian meddling in Iraq. But that meddling is a reality under current Iran policy, and it is killing American soldiers. The Iranians themselves are now admitting that all of this is no happenstance but is a calculated effort to exploit what the mullahs perceive to be American weakness and Europe's lack of will. An internal Iranian government document recently obtained by an opposition group says that "The talks process ended the suffocating economic pressures that our country was being subjected to in the months prior to the October 2003 agreement. . . . With the Americans deeply stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, the Europeans know that they will have to ultimately accommodate our just demands." And why shouldn't the mullahs believe this, given Europe's reaction to President Bush's routine recent comments that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions? German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, facing an uphill election campaign, seized on the remark as an opportunity to repudiate even the possibility of using force. "We have seen it doesn't work," he declared, in a reference to Iraq. (Saddam Hussein might argue from his holding cell that it does.) No one can plausibly claim that this Iranian hardline has been inspired by U.S. saber-rattling. Since including Iran in the original "axis of evil" in 2002, Mr. Bush has softened his rhetoric on Iran to a near-whisper. The Administration agreed to European mediation efforts in October 2003, and agreed again in 2004 after Iran cheated on its initial commitments by secretly enriching uranium. Then the U.S. agreed again to another try earlier this year, this time offering World Trade Organization membership. Tehran's response has been evident the last few weeks. Perhaps it's time to try a different strategy. We aren't referring here to economic sanctions via the U.N. Security Council. China and Russia aren't likely to agree to sanctions, and even if they did (after many months of haggling) Iran may think it can ride them out in a world of $60 oil. Leaving aside--but not ruling out--the option of military intervention, the Iranian regime is vulnerable to diplomatic pressure from without and even more so to democratic pressure from below. Yet the Bush Administration has given comparatively little support to Iranian pro-democracy groups, and it has made no effort to organize bans on Iranian participation in prestigious international forums or at sporting and cultural events. Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy suggests, for starters, barring the Iranian national soccer team from the World Cup. Perhaps even this is too militant for the likes of Chancellor Schröder. But it would be the beginning of a serious Iran policy. Handwringing 101. Chock-full of presumptions, I find the assumption that what they can see is all there is to see is reminiscent of The Blind Men and The Elephant... We shall all see, when the sands run out. If Bush blinks, and holds back the Israelis - assuming they would listen, the world will pay a dear price, I'm afraid. One thing is certain now, today: The US has received precisely zero help with this global threat. Israel, the only other nation with the stones to act has been, I'm certain, asked by the US to remain in the background. The actions of the EU3 have been pathetic and contemptible - I do not care what anyone else might say. In the end, there are only the Persians themselves, the US, and Israel. At least one must act to stop this madness. The ineffectiveness of the CIA, hamstringing us in so many ways, contributes here and is a (the?) major part of the devastating legacy of PCism, Moonbattery, and Camelot II. I don't know whether to assign the role of Ephialtes to Clinton, Elbaradei, Puttyputz or the EU3 leadership. Perhaps they all deserve the part - and that place in history. We shall see. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #46 tw - lol! I did not intend to post any comments, today. I just posted a few articles I found interesting. The in-line comment was, I thought, pretty obvious. The Thermopylae parallel suggested itself to me without efffort - and I believe it applies, so far. I have no idea where FR came from or what his itch was. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-23 00:02 |
| #45 CA - what else is there in a vacuum of hard data? And what, pray tell, are you doing ,if not speculating? Lol. Give me a break. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 23:59 |
| #44 Com, I thought you fell on the sword. What makes you think they won't. Feel free to speculate, there's a lot of that of late. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 23:26 |
| #43 Oh, dear. *weakly leans back in chair, wiping tears of laughter from the corners of eyes* This has got to be a first, .com -- congratulations! Nobody has ever thought of you as State Dept. material before, let alone careerist. Although I imagine such could consider invective a foreign language to be studied, not unlike Russian or Farsi. As for Mr. Retired, congratulations to you, too. I see you plan to make use of your newfound freedom. However, it is generally not considered good manners to enter your host's home roaring semi-coherent obscenities... at least if you wish to be invited back. Please re-think your approach, as this is Fred's private playground, at which we are all guests. If you have thoughtful and informed commentary on the posted article, or any of the posts, we would be pleased to learn what you may have to teach, as we do from one another. But I think you will need to give us your bona fides, so that we can judge your contributions accordingly. (I, to give an obvious example, wouldn't dream of commenting on matters military except in the most general sense, although I might have very strong opinions on debutante activities, even though in my family we gave up such sillinesses several generations ago.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-22 22:46 |
| #42 What in the world makes you guys think the World Cup folks, run by Germany this time IIRC, will do anything of the sort? Lol. Not a chance. Period. They'll put on knee-pads - and not for playing |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 22:35 |
| #41 Smile when you refer to me as The Great Satan (and keep it between the two of us, heh). In fact, the Iranian regime requires some degree of legitimacy for internal consumption and external gamesmenship. Removing them from the World Cup (huge in global stage), is but one "for starters" (don't forget, "for starters")step of a constant build up apace of their steps towards nuclear weaponry-- when the real games begin (hint: it won't be soccer) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 22:04 |
| #40 You believe the mullahs would think twice about Islamic world domination if a soccer season is at stake? Think again, tool of The Great Satan. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-22 21:03 |
| #39 Com, your soccer team is herewith banned from the World Cup. Finally Retired, you will not be able to speak in NYC before the UN general assembly. God |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 20:30 |
| #38 Darrell: Operative words "for starters" I am no diplomat, but making a stand and being consistent is essential. Why in the hell would be oppose the theocracy's nuclear efforts and brutalization of Iranians and turn a blind eye towards letting their newly elected president speak at the UN? Why would we not oppose their national soccer team from playing in the World Cup? Do you realize how important the World Cup is to Iran? Again, this is "for starters" and it would not be a joke in Iranland |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 20:27 |
| #37 This article is a joke. You can tell by the way it ends with a funny punchline: "...barring the Iranian national soccer team from the World Cup... would be the beginning of a serious Iran policy." |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-22 20:17 |
| #36 Any non-Persian support for a genuine Iranian "revolution" will be taken as meddling by the evil amis and joos. It has to be the real deal. The best course is verbal support and making sure that "clean Persian hands" make the kind of money to support a popular uprising. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0� Doom 2005-08-22 20:05 |
| #35 I crossed posts with you, lotp. But I mean every fucking word of it. Ban me, if you think you must. You've flown off the handle over much less. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 19:51 |
| #34 While not as diplomatic as Finally Retired, after reading and re-reading the piece, I don't concur with com and D. I see a pretty clear strategy from Bush for Iran. It's called timing. Bush is hoping that the EU-3 will come to the conclusion that they have been fucked over and over again by the Iranian regime. Whether or not this possibility is realistic, Bush has to play it out for domestic purposes too. As the the US, Bush wants to get Dummycrats to the point of screaming that we aren't doing enough about Iran. You are already beginning to hear Dummycrats saying we picked the wrong country, and this will only ratchet up further as the EU-3 initiative has been a proven failure and Iran gets closer to full cycle capability. In the interim, I agree with the WSJ Editorial Board (this was an editorial) that we should at minimum be supporting the anti-regime elements in Iran. This is very consistent with where Michael Ledeen (NR/AEI). As for debating the merits of particular WSJ figures, take your debate elsewhere. Perhaps on Page 4. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 19:48 |
| #33 What part of 'stop' do you guys not understand? |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-08-22 19:47 |
| #32 Sigh. Wotta fuckwit. My points were clear enough for intelligent folks. You are just too stupid and full of yourself to notice. That is what's most apparent in your asinine posts. You have no plan, no salient points, nothing but spew - brainless pointless invective. Your posts make no sense. None. Your attacks make no sense. None. You're simply a hole, where a person should be. You deserve nothing. You merit nothing. You are nothing. *pffft* You've resorted to ad hominem from the first - totally unwarranted. You haven't addressed a single point in those links I offered - just lame tripe about wanting to understand, I'm a State weenie, idiotic crap about bliblical stuff, blah³, all perfectly irrelevant bullshit. Wotta load. You made a stupid claim that I had "An option I have seen you deny here previously, War with Iran.". Prove it, asshole. I'll wager you're either just blowing out your ass (a Sphincter of Allan specimen) or you are another idiot who believes that, because you want it to be so, Magik happens and another 2 or 3 hundred thousand boots will Magikally materialize - just for you. You've substantiated nothing - just that you're inept and reduced to foolish half-witted blather. You think you're tough and war-like, it seems. You're not tough - you're a joke. I've killed people, gutted them from crotch to sternum, that I respect more than you. They were men. You're something less - I wouldn't wipe my blade on your pathetic carcass. You remind me of my ex-wife, only I doubt you can shine a knob like she could - you merely blow. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 19:40 |
| #31 I think you must have taken your brains that fell out for that dog feces Finally Retired. Take up a new hobby, reading comprehension doesn't appear to be something you are good at. Trolling at Rantburg won't last. FOAD HAND |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0� Doom 2005-08-22 19:26 |
| #30 Okay, this thread has officially exceeded this moderator's obscenity threshhold. Plus, it's boring. Finally Retired, you were IMO off base with your original comment to .com. If you're going to come out swinging that way it is not too much to ask that you do a quick search through the archives first. That way the whole comment thread here doesn't get hijacked by the feces fest that was pretty much triggered by you. I disagree with .com on a whole slew of issues and he is not always sweetness and light himself. It's just the case that your poke came first. Can we please get this thread back on topic and leave the playground stuff outside? |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-08-22 19:23 |
| #29 Finally Fired - nice mouth. You blow your dog with that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-22 19:19 |
| #28 If I weren't so busy picking dogshit up out of the yard, I'd have responded to your idiotic rantings sooner .com. Dogshit nonetheless. I give you too much credit.com, you aren't an old State Dep. hack, you are a complete fucking idiot. Or else you'd know what the fuck I'm referring to when I point to the father of Athenian democracy, you fucknut. However, let me digress in my criticism to say yes, Thermopylae is an excellent reference, and not the one I thought you were making with Ephialtes.Wrong Ephialtes, my misinterpretation. However, that being said, go fuck yourself while the real warriors fight in the shade, that reference better for you asswipe? You're soooooo fucking bright for bringing in a historical reference. Everyone clap for .com today. hoorah, you fucking tool. If I were attacking your comments, you'd have known it. I was trying to ascertain what your posting was advocating. I thought war with Iran, you obviously had sucking your own cock more in mind. And as for limpwristed, I won't insult the limpwristed by casting your stupid ass amongst them. Although I'm sure your Dixie Chicks album would give you away to a true conservative. I hope you and your fucking debutante groupies weren't too upset by someone other than their god and master generating conversation on something you claim to be so knowledgeable on, a war with Iran. Your prophetic postings? You want to act like every other half ass analyst wannabe in the fucking rational world hasn't been advocating atacking Iran,since well before 2003. Dumbass. Quit fucking recycling half ass theorems your roomate wrote for your poly sci classes at Utah State Community College and see the reality that we aint gonna let Israel do shit, period. That would be diplomatically worse than the US itself attacking Iran directly. Israel is our bulldog, and we hold the chain. Not the other way around. If Israel attacks it will be as second fiddle- at best-to our forces. So take a break from advocating your recycled biblical apocalyptyic bullshit psuedo prophecies and shut the fuck up for a change. Otherwise, make your points more clearly, bitch. Retired |
| Posted by: Finally Retired 2005-08-22 18:54 |
| #27 That was cruel. LOL! I could see in me little minds eye the trajectory of the response, LOL! sorry. Maybe things will work out. I remain positive. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-22 18:52 |
| #26 You all applaud abu Troll Slicer, all I saw was a squished Bunny. Maker me weep. Reminds LOl ummm.. remnd LOL LOL hhhaaaaaaaaaa reminds me of frogger. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-08-22 18:49 |
| #25 Mrs D - Oh, okay, that fool. I was with the crowd that thought he was a dick for not taking his so-called "host" on. Indeed, he is not cut from the same cloth as the others, Taranto, et al, that we've come to trust - almost unique in the MSM for me. SPo'D - Amen. I wouldn't mind helping them with arms, planning, and even SF to take out hardpoints and protect their oil infrastructure during the real revolution. But without a functioning humint element in the CIA, that's not very likely. Perhaps, and this is very possible, the Israelis or others have penetrated Iran sufficiently to make up, somewhat, for the CIA's emasculation at the hands of Tenet and others. It would be soooo sweet... |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:57 |
| #24 A free and truly democratic Iran, hell yea. I might even be inclined to trust them with reactors. The Mad Mullahs no way, not ever. The choice of how Iran is dealt with is up the the people of Iran. At some point in the undetermined future I have a feeling the people of Iraq will regret not taking to the streets and stringing up the "revolutionaries" if they don't act soon. A genuine revolt that is fully internal so no one can represent that some foreign hand was behind it. Finally Retired don't act like an asshat. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0� Doom 2005-08-22 17:45 |
| #23 Bret Stephens was the guy who stuck up for Eason Jordan in the WEF flap and also the guy who had dinner with the anti-American German ambassador but wouldn't argue with the guy becasue he didn't want to break up the wives' friendship but then wrote an article about it. There was one other thing but I can't recall it now. Anyway, he's a growing power on the editorial page but seems to have a little too much of that Eastern elitist inside the beltway attitude for what I want to see when I'm drinking my first coffee. Robert Barkley was right when he said the WSJ was the only editorial page that sold a newspaper along with it as opposed to vice versa. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-22 17:45 |
| #22 Mrs D - I don't know who the Stephens character you mention is, and the article doesn't identify who wrote it, but since they published it, well, that must mean that the Chief Editor signed off on it - and that really sucks. Sounded like Arnaud de Borchgrave at UPI / Wash Times to me, and that means bland, half-baked, nuanced shit, IMHO. Not something I would have associated with WSJ/OJ. Sigh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:37 |
| #21 .com, agree about the WSJ. Don't feel like doing Iran again. It's only been a week and this is the end of August. What are the chances this editorial was written by Bret Stephens? I'll bet so and that he'll ruin the page. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-22 17:32 |
| #20 Lol, LotR, sure! Just post, at some length - a few solid paragraphs will do the trick, on any topic and some comprehension-challenged turd will pop up. They float, y'know. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:24 |
| #19 Damn, .com. If I would stop being lazy and post more do you think I would attract my very own nimrods to play with too? LOL |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-22 17:19 |
| #18 Lol, TC. Vegetable? Okaaaay, if you say so, heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:16 |
| #17 "democratic revolution in Iran" Lh - Absolutely the desired option, I couldn't agree more - and I, too, hold out some small hope. If we had a CIA worthy of the name... Sigh. For the Persians to swing the Mullahs from the lampposts, themselves, would be even sweeter than blowing them to tiny bits with Holy TLAMs. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:16 |
| #16 By all means buttered, it goes better with a good Pilsner and counts as a both a vegetable and dairy serving in the food pyramid. |
| Posted by: TomC 2005-08-22 17:13 |
| #15 yup, i gotta back that up. Dot com, with whom im often in strong disagreement, is one for hitting the mullahs hard. Myself, I have no idea how easy a hit would be to pull off. Doesnt mean I think it CANT be pulled off, i just dont think the relevant info is in the public domain. and for alot of reasons I think a democratic revolution in Iran would be more desirable. And no, I dont think that it hasnt happened yet means it wont happen. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-08-22 17:11 |
| #14 TomC - Buttered or plain? --- Bring it on, FR. I was too nice. Let's have another round, asshole. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:07 |
| #13 Any of that popcorn left? |
| Posted by: TomC 2005-08-22 17:03 |
| #12 Sigh, Several typos. Guess I got excited. Oh, and I forgot, you senile asstard, fuck off. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 17:02 |
| #11 Lol. Spartan empire illusions? WTF? Are you senile? What are you rambling on, about, anyway? And ramble you do - that's an almost worthless post. A collection of half-assed pseudo-thought - and pointedly unkind. You obviously completely misread my comment - and you blather BS out your ass like a fool. Re-reading it, I can NOT see where the fuck you got your notions. If you re-read it, very very slowly, I'm skewering the editorial assholes who are wringing their hands (a new low for WSJ/OJ, IMHO) and the traitorous dithering of our erstwhile allies - and laying a turd on Russia's doorstep (for their assisting the Mad Mullahs). All of those I named are playing the part of Ephialtes. Are you sure you know who he was - your comments indicate you don't really know dick about the real meaning of Thermopylae. Will Bush be Leonidas? At the moment, he is - and he's planning, looking for his Thermopylae chokepoint battleground - Xerxes is till far away, by most estimates. The analogy fits the current situation all too well -- I am advocating a very different ending must be decided upon. There are three parties who can act to change the outcome of Mullahs acquiring nukes. At least one must act. How could I be clearer - and how the fuck could you have missed it? Blinded by your own brain farts? What FrankG said in #5 is spot-on: I want the MM's and the entire Mad Mullah structure DEAD. Take a reading comprehension course - or STFU when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've been advocating a strike against Iran since, at least, Oct, 2003 (comment #2). I began talking it about in those terms in April, 2003 (comment #8 - I posted as 'PD' back then) - that's awhile back, wouldn't you agree? Loooong before most folks. Sheesh, wotta pisser to have some nitwit come along more than 2 YEARS later and call me a limp-wrist, lol. I summarized what I though the options were in July, 2004 (comment #7) and again in Jan, 2005 comment #29). Go ahead, read those links. You need the education. Then, when you realize what a jerk you were to post an attack, assuming you're even remotely honest with yourself, hie thee back into retirement. Oh, and kiss my hairy ass for attacking without a scintilla of understanding or even an effort to do so before spewing. HAND / FOAD. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-22 16:58 |
| #10 You smell of State Department employ with this revolution talk, let me guess after the Army and Laos, Dusseldorf, a closet office with a view of the Potomac, Jakarta, then Doha and maybe Sana'a, Muscat or Tunis, then Dhahran by way of some private consulting for an energy or defense contractor? oh, now THIS is going to be fun! Popcorn, anyone? |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-08-22 16:42 |
| #9 BTW numbnutz - "the nukes WE gave them"? Prove it. Britain and France enabled the Israeli nukes. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-22 16:32 |
| #8 Be careful what you ask for, FR. You don't know .com, but you will soon. You just painted a target on your chest. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-08-22 16:04 |
| #7 :-) thanks |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-22 16:04 |
| #6 I'm sorry, Do you speak for .com? He didn't mention that in his posting. So,until he does If I want any clarification on his postings or career from you I'll ask YOU, until then, don't assume I give a shit what you have to say. Retired |
| Posted by: Finally Retired 2005-08-22 15:56 |
| #5 hey Retarded, you must not stay up with RB or you'd know .com/PD's history. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-22 15:16 |
| #4 Illusions of a Spartan empire .com? Let's not fool ourselves into that one, the annual "our Town" presentation in Mansfield Ohio during the cold war was the closest we've come to the platonic state, and that was a boy scouts/DOD war propoganda PR illusion. Or is this new Ephialtes you speak of ushering in the OWG? Smells of moonbat conspiracy theory, you been reading too much Kos? Regardless, do you really think the Persians are going to do dick to put down this govt of theirs? Sadly, the current Iranian powers represent their best and brightest, mostly because they kill all who oppose them and indoctrinate all others. Otherwise the smart ones moved to America or Europe. The infrastructure for an Iranian revolt is not there or we'd have already moved on it. Rather the Iranian infrastrucutre for a new shiia Iraq is well in place. As is the destruction of the Sunni minority, good riddance? Maybe not, they've been a solid balancing force against the Persians since the British propped up Faisal almost a century ago. We're playing pinball with the deaf dumb and blind kid when we play pinball in Iran. So fuck playing pinball, that dream is dead, so let's move on. Maybe we could generate some regional revolts but any serious plans for revolution? kaput. And what, we take the leash off the Israeli bulldog? Yeah, we're gonna do that and incur the PR wrath of the civilized world, cause make no mistakes they'll use the nukes we gave em if we let the leash go. And then we and the Israelis will be responsible for unleashing the first nukes since 1942. Doubtful, much more likely we're going to see a new nuclear powered bunch of Mad Mullahs in Iran. Leave it up to the Europeans to fuck up a situation royally, or at least to do what we expected them to do. Pacify. So what option is left? An option I have seen you deny here previously, War with Iran. What eventuality of yours am I missing? Jesus coming down and smiting them? Because all I see is a new nuclear armed enemy and a recipe for disaster. Indeed I advocate that we unchain Mars on the Iranians and let slip the dogs of war, but I dine alone with my opinion very often. Noone seems to have the stomach for a real war anymore, if you would be able to call rolling over Syria and Iran a real war. You smell of State Department employ with this revolution talk, let me guess after the Army and Laos, Dusseldorf, a closet office with a view of the Potomac, Jakarta, then Doha and maybe Sana'a, Muscat or Tunis, then Dhahran by way of some private consulting for an energy or defense contractor? What say you .com? Retired |
| Posted by: Finally Retired 2005-08-22 14:11 |
| #3 Iran, russia, china, and NKor have us over a barrel right now because of Iraq. But they arent thinking about the future, we'll be done in Iraq eventually and Sauron's eye will turn to these assholes. Then, they will want to negotiate, talk compromise, and make deals. With the exception of China, I think. China will either tear itself apart like russia 1991 or we will have to do a major cold-war type build up to protect ourselves from them, the others will fade away when we free up from Iraq. Just one guys prediction, but I don't think Iran, Nkor or russia have the ability or money in the latter two's cases to cause us much trouble in the long run. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-22 11:24 |
| #2 Iran is a big problem and the US knows it. But what can they do? Right now the large Iranian contingent in Iraq is mainly quiet regarding Coalition forces (concentrating on enforcing Sharia among the Iraqis and 'hustling' votes), but if the US were to bomb Isfahan (for example) I expect there would be major attacks on US logistics lines across the south. The US does not have a large enough force to maintain current operations in the center AND effectively defend its supply lines against Iran. Even if Europe wanted to help (ha!) they don't have the ability to field a militarily significant force. Whatever gets done about Iran in the near term is going to have to be covert and have at least some 'deniability'. 'Vandalism' against electricity network, rail or pipeline 'accidents', perhaps even a 'Three Mile Island' event? |
| Posted by: glenmore 2005-08-22 08:00 |
| #1 Granted, some handwrining. Fact is, the EU-3 angle is a surrogate for going to the UN because the UNSC and IAEA are disinclined to do anything constructive. Funding the anti-regime elements sounds same as Michael Ledeen. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-22 07:46 |