| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| IHT: In Gulf, Cheney warns Iran of U.S. resolve |
| 2007-05-12 |
| BRUSSELS: Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 240 kilometers off Iran's coast as the backdrop Friday to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting oil routes or "gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." Little of what Cheney said in the cavernous hangar bay of the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, one of two carriers whose strike groups are now in the Gulf, was new. Each individual line had, in some form, been said before, at various points in the four-year-long nuclear standoff with Iran, and during the increasingly tense arguments over whether Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq. But Cheney stitched all of those warnings together, and the symbolism of sending the administration's most famous hawk to deliver the speech so close to Iran's coast was unmistakable. It also came just a week after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked briefly and inconclusively with Iran's foreign minister, a step toward re-engagement with Iran that some in the administration have opposed. Cheney's sharp warnings appeared to be part of a two-track administration campaign to push back at Iran, while leaving the door open to negotiations. It was almost exactly a year ago that the United States offered to negotiate with Iran as long as it first agreed to halt enriching uranium, a decision in which Cheney, participants said, was not a major player. Similarly, the speech Friday was not circulated broadly in the government before it was delivered, a senior American diplomat said. "He kind of runs by his own rules," the official said. When President George W. Bush ordered the two carriers into the Gulf late last year, senior administration officials said it was part of an effort to gain some negotiating leverage over the Iranians. At about the same time, American military personnel began capturing some Iranians in Iraq, and some of them are still held there. American officials have also been pressing European banks and companies to avoid doing business with Tehran, in an effort to make it more difficult for the country to recycle its oil profits. Oil seemed to be on Cheney's mind Friday, when he told an audience of 3,500 to 4,000 American service members on the Stennis that Iran would not be permitted to choke off oil shipments through the waters of the region. "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike," he said. "We'll keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We'll disrupt attacks on our own forces. We'll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." Some experts on Iran have questioned whether the threats that administration officials occasionally deliver to Iran aid or undercut the diplomacy with the country. "The problem with the two-track policy is that the first track - coercion, sanctions, naval deployments - can undercut the results on the second track," said Ray Takeyh, an Iran scholar at the Council of Foreign Relations and the author of "Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic." "There are some in Tehran who will look at Cheney on that carrier and say that everything Rice is offering is not real. What's real, to their mind, are the coercive policies Cheney is describing. This is a case where we are trying to get through negotiations what, so far, we couldn't get through coercion." The symbols of coercion were part of the backdrop on the Stennis: Cheney spoke in front of five F-18 Super Hornet warplanes. Cheney also repeated his arguments about the danger of early withdrawal from Iraq. The United States remains at odds with Iran over its uranium-enrichment program, which Iran says is for peaceful nuclear energy, but which America and its Western allies say is intended instead to produce atomic weapons. Administration officials have also said that weapons are being smuggled into Iraq from Iran and that insurgents may be getting training in bomb-making and bomb-placing techniques in Iran. The Iranian government denies sponsoring or encouraging terrorism. Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Graham Bowley contributed from New York. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #15 Trailing Wife, those polls are not jiving with the "etched in stone" elections last November. Don't be surprised when the other shoe drops in November 2008! A definite indication of that will come in November this year when the Republican 'Coat Tails' will take a beating for their "W" support. Another St. Valentine's Day Massacre in the works!! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-05-12 23:24 |
| #14 The American public believe that if we pull out of Iraq the bad guys will follow us home. The American public do not want their troops starved of the funds they need to win in Iraq. The American public don't think highly of President Bush, but they think even less of the members of Congress. Or at least that's what several thousand random Americans told several different polling organizations between late March and mid-April. I posted links here at the time. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-05-12 18:09 |
| #13 Cheney is ratcheting things up not only for Irants consumption. He's trying to inject steel in the spines of the other ME countries by showing our resolve. For the donks he is demonstrating that for the Bush Admin, politics gets trumped by national security. And the dangers of ditching Iraq under such circumstances. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-05-12 16:23 |
| #12 We have no resolve. Osama bin Laden was right. The American public cares more about Paris Hilton's jail sentence than it does about whether we win the war in Iraq. The American media and the Democratic Party are traitors. Bush intends to do nothing about Iran -- nothing. This war is lost. All that remains is to negotiate the terms of our surrender. Unfortunately, this surrender will be a beginning, not an end. Having beaten us once, our enemies will be eager to do it once more. It's hard to imagine our ever commiting troops overseas again no matter what the provocation, especially if the Democrats take the White House. The future looks very gloomy. I especially wouldn't want to be an Israeli right now. |
| Posted by: Infidel Bob 2007-05-12 15:40 |
| #11 Don't forget all the revenue that is funneled "home to Iran" from abroad. I hope we hang tough and have the resolve. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-12 13:40 |
| #10 They won't shut the straits and delay their oil shipments to ChiComs and Japan until the pipeline through Ubekizstan has come online. Anyone know the status ? I think it's 3-5 years away. This oil is their only revenue source other than pistacios o EU. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-12 12:41 |
| #9 If the MMs and proxies are smart [oxymoroon alert!] they would not have to lob missiles at tankers to succeed. They would keep at the job of wussifying the US. We can do it to ourselves, thankyouverymuch. We have the dems working for you. At least right now. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-05-12 12:02 |
| #8 "The problem with the two-track policy is that the first track - coercion, sanctions, naval deployments - can undercut the results on the second track," said Ray Fixed. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-05-12 08:45 |
| #7 He kind of runs by his own rules No.... He doesn't play by liberal, spineless, wishie-washie diplomat DC rules. I wish more of our leaders wouldn't play the DC game. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-05-12 08:17 |
| #6 "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike, Might want to watch out for that lame duck President though, he'll kick your ass. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2007-05-12 07:17 |
| #5 Ima remember the last Tanker War, Exocets fired and hit..... any clue on the number of sunk superTankers? Zilch. Zero. Nil. Skary for the crew but bunkers in the sand don't work against ships. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-05-12 05:33 |
| #4 If the Iranians hit tankers in the Gulf to shutdown oil traffic, Khargh Island is a perfect retaliatory target : nearly all of Iran's oil goes out there. Plus, a naval embargo of fuels going to Iran would collapse their transportation network : the great majority of fossil fuels like gasoline are IMPORTED into Iran. The last time the Iranians tried a Tanker War, they lost. It would not be any different this time; especially considering that oil is Iran's only major export - besides terrorism. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-05-12 05:22 |
| #3 inflatable "supertanker", named Potemkin. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-05-12 02:50 |
| #2 Tow an inflatable "supertanker" up and down the straits and see where they shoot from. Drop 2000# JDAMs where the missiles come from until they get the idea. Works every time. :-) [Now that's silly!] |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-05-12 02:36 |
| #1 Good luck on keeping the sea lanes open. Last I heard the Mullahs had deeply dug-in missiles facing the Strait of Hormuz. Fire a couple of those at a supertanker, and watch world oil shipping tank. The Mullahs are probably dug in deeper than those missiles and they couldn't care less about what happens to the Iranian populace. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-05-12 02:30 |