| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| President Bush Gives Ultimatum(?) To Iran |
| 2007-08-10 |
| President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues. At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said. Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning. Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's nuclear program and its support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy. The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both. Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. Iran has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al-Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence. For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling. Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said. The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq." Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran. He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government. "My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor. Al-Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Media reports said al-Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region. Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive, either," he said. Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view. The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as al-Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #16 After Maliki's "brokeback" moments this week with the Mahdi's poison dwarf, maybe it's time for GWB to arrange to have some fish wrapped in newspapers delivered to Amadinowhackjob - preferably starpped to na cruise missile of JDAM. Or - turn the Iranian navy into artficial reef artifact - just to, you know, send a message to the Mullahs. It appears that we are doing pretty well at draining the cesspool that is Iraq. The Arab interlopers are rapidly being attritted away to nothing. That leaves the Persian contingent. The Persians are the biggest mole sticking its head out - begging for a "whack". The only thing left is to decide what our opening move will be. We should make ist clear that we have a 15-step plan in place, to reduce Persia to pristine, uninhabited wilderness. Play the first card - and make it something breathtaking, but targetted solely at military assets. That won't be enough. Then hit a significant government target. That won't be enough. Then take out a handful of significant economic targets. Destroy every port apparatus capable of unloading gasoline. Alongbthe way, take out Maliki with a "false flag" attack blamed in Iran. None of thsi will ever happen - but its fun to dream of it. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2007-08-10 20:37 |
| #15 Ugh! This article is just dripping with patronizing elitist MSM-speak, BDS and terminal PC-itis. drumbeat - warmonger imagery: check. ... U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. No one reliable, you see - just warmongers and administration stooges. ... if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. Not proven in a court of law, so only alleged. The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations. So they felt free to bravely violate their oaths by speaking anonymously. Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor. Unlike the knuckle-dragging cowboy in the White House. |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-08-10 17:52 |
| #14 GBUSMC: agree, but right now I am in Terminal MotorHead Mode; devoted racerboy that I am. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-08-10 17:22 |
| #13 USN Ret. To describe Bush in an Aviator's terms He's all flaps and no thrust! |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2007-08-10 17:00 |
| #12 President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues. A strongly worded protest? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-08-10 16:34 |
| #11 The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are still going to be next door to Iran is if the donks win the election and cut and run as is CW in DC. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 16:33 |
| #10 President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues. A strongly worded protest? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-08-10 16:30 |
| #9 does it surprise anyone that the governments of afghanistan and iraq see no problem? |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-08-10 16:12 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-08-10 15:53 |
| #7 GW said: "My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. George is talking tough to dinnerjacket and the mad mullahs. Hope he sticks with the line and gets tough when the time comes. There chain should have been jerked hard in 1979. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-08-10 15:52 |
| #6 Partition is the low hanging fruit. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-08-10 15:25 |
| #5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq." That means we're using ballistic missiles. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 15:20 |
| #4 I'll believe it when I see Tehran glowing. |
| Posted by: danking70 2007-08-10 15:19 |
| #3 can i buy another vowel: how about an 'i' for that 'o' in the above...... Thank you. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-08-10 14:58 |
| #2 Until i see vodeo of JDAMS, cluster bombs or FAE over Tehran, GW is 'All rev, no torque' on this issue. he's just taking ombert pussy lessons. prove me wrong, pul-lease.... |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-08-10 14:57 |
| #1 Hell, I would argue anything in Iraq is fair game. Camps, blown. Trucks with arms coming across border, blown. Incursions into Iraq, blown. They keep tugging at our tail, Refineries in Iran, blown. High value targets in Iran, killed. Minorities in Iran, armed to the fucking teeth with US weapons. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-10 14:52 |