| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US-Iran relations continue to pose problems |
| 2004-09-01 |
| Iran, a country that has bedeviled the United States for decades, could prove to be the biggest foreign policy challenge facing whoever wins the presidential election. The Iraq war and a spy scandal linking the Pentagon and Israel could complicate U.S. hopes of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Both President Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry say they want to use diplomacy -- although with different approaches -- to prevent a hostile Islamic state in the volatile Middle East from arming itself with nuclear weapons. But U.S. ability to sound the international alarm on Iran has been damaged after much of its intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs proved to be wrong. And its credibility could be further hurt by suspicions that a Pentagon official passed secrets about Iran to Israel. Neither Bush nor Kerry advocates a preemptive strike on Iran. "The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. Yet Iran, by many standards, poses a greater threat than Saddam ever did. As they did with Iraq, U.S. officials suspect Iran has chemical and biological weapons. But Iran's nuclear program is much more advanced than Saddam's program was believed to be. U.S. officials say Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within a year and a nuclear weapon three years after that. Iran says its nuclear program is for making electricity, not weapons. The nuclear program was in the spotlight Tuesday as the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported the arrest of a group of spies, including several who passed the secrets abroad. Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi said members of the Mujahedeen Khalq, an armed opposition group, were behind the spying. In addition to nuclear worries, the United States has long considered Iran the world's most active state sponsor of terror. Iran has supported militant Palestinian groups, and U.S. officials say it has been a safe haven for Al-Qaida members. In 2001, Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil." Yet his administration has been divided on how to deal with it. Some, many with Pentagon ties, favor a tougher approach. Others, many in the State Department, believe accommodation with Iranian moderates is possible. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #3 No problem really, just need punch in some grids into the targeting computer. |
| Posted by: 98zulu 2004-09-01 11:23:45 AM |
| #2 Let's assume Bush wins the election. I think what he would LIKE to do is take down Iran. The question is can he? Do we have the military assets to do it (assuming we won't use nukes)? Could he justify such a war politically? Could he justify the expenditures it would require? This is a big problem, because the alternatives are pretty bleak. If we don't do something about Iran, that country will continue to be a sanctuary and a sponsor of jihad, and continue to send jihadis into Iraq to prolong the insurgency. It would also demonstrate to the world that rogue nations can get away with it, standing up to the US, bringing our interventions to nought. Even if we suppress the insurgency, there's still the problem of nukes. Iran having nukes would allow them to intimidate Iraq into submission after we leave. And the whole ME. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-09-01 7:41:28 AM |
| #1 Okay, time to set up the board. We took out the holy shits main enemy, saddam. Would it have been better to take out saddams main enemy, Iran? Both were/are freaking hostlie. I think that; We hope that Iranians will do the deed as they are sick and tired of being part of Bielzabubs daily soap opera. That if the populace can't or won't rise up, ala Iraqies, that some sort of "new age" attack, that won't killl mass amounts of Iranians, the key, must happen. Or do we play a holding action, stoping the developing of first strick weopons; for how long? What will Bush do? What would Kerry do? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-09-01 2:24:25 AM |