Page 4 of 92 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1371
  1. #46
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    816

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    What can the US/EU do about Iran anyway? It's a very different world now to the one where UN sanctions were put on Iraq (IMO). A distinct lack of extra oil to go around for everyone in the world (oh look, Iran has lots of oil! ) and China, India and other Asian countries have now developed to the point where they can supply Iran with the essentials to run their country technology-wise in exchange for this oil - cutting the US/EU out of the loop entirely. The question is whether the US/EU can persuade or bully these countries into sanctioning Iran too - and I don't think they'll be able to.
    Last edited by h_a_; 01-12-2006 at 05:24 PM.

  2. #47
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Another update

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/12/D8F3CFSG7.html

    I dont know the correct or reasonable things to do either.
    Its pretty obvious they have no real or serious intention of being "told" by anyone not to persue the present course. I suppose we need to let the UN actions run the course...unless Israel decides on limited air strikes.
    They seem to want to appear not trustworthy...cause they sure are working on that reputation. And I dont buy for one minute the silly reasoning they just want nuke electricity.

  3. #48
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...2_2006_ann.jpg

    Here is a decent summary I ran into this morning:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0601130837.asp

    So we all agree on the extent of the crisis, but not on the solutions, which can be summarized by four general options.

    First is the ostrich strategy — see and hear no evil, if extending occasional peace feelers out to more reasonable mullahs. Hope that “moderates” in the Iranian government exercise a restraining influence on Mr. Ahmadinejad. Sigh that nuclear Iran may well become like Pakistan — dangerous and unpredictable, but still perhaps “manageable.” Talk as if George Bush and the Iranians both need to take a time out.

    I doubt that many serious planners any longer entertain this passive fantasy, especially after the latest rantings of Ahmadinejad. Pakistan, after all, has some secular leaders, is checked by nuclear India, and has a recent past of cooperation with the United States. Most importantly, it is more than ever a lesson in past laxity, as the United States and Europe were proven criminally derelict in giving Dr. Khan and his nuclear-mart a pass — which may well come back to haunt us all yet.

    Alternatively, we could step up further global condemnation. The West could press the U.N. more aggressively — repeatedly calling for more resolutions, and, ultimately, for sanctions, boycotts, and embargos, energizes our allies to cut all ties to Iran, and provides far more money to dissident groups inside Iran to rid the country of the Khomeinists. Ensuring that democracy works in Iraq would be subversive to the mullahs across the border. Some sort of peaceful regime change is the solution preferred by most — and, of course, can be pursued in a manner contemporaneous with, not exclusionary to, other strategies.

    It is a long-term therapy and therefore suffers the obvious defect that Iran might become nuclear in the meantime. Then the regime’s resulting braggadocio might well deflate the dissident opposition, as the mullahs boast that they alone have restored Iranian national prestige with an Achaemenid bomb.

    A third, and often unmentionable, course is to allow the most likely intended target of nuclear Iran, Israel, to take matters into its own hands. We know this scenario from the 1981 destruction of Saddam’s French-built Osirak nuclear reactor: the world immediately deplores such “unilateral” and “preemptory” recklessness, and then sighs relief that Israel, not it, put the bell on the fanged cat.

    But 2006 is not 1981. We are in war with Islamic radicalism, at the moment largely near the Iranian border in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy. Thousands of Americans are in range of Iranian artillery and short-term missile salvoes, and, in theory, we could face in Iraq a conventional enemy at the front and a fifth column at the rear.

    And Iran poses far greater risks than in the past for Israeli pilots flying in over the heart of the Muslim world, with 200-300 possible nuclear sites that are burrowed into mountains, bunkers and suburbs. Such a mission would require greater flight distances, messy refueling, careful intelligence, and the need to put Israeli forces on alert for an Iranian counterstrike or a terrorist move from Lebanon. Former Israeli friends like Turkey are now not so cordial, and the violation of Islamic airspace might in the short-term draw an ugly response, despite the eventual relief in Arab capitals at the elimination of the Iranian nuclear arsenal.

    If the Israeli raids did not take out the entire structure, or if there were already plutonium present in undisclosed bunkers, then the Iranians might shift from their sickening rhetoric and provide terrorists in Syria and Lebanon with dirty bombs or nuclear devices to “avenge” the attack as part of a “defensive” war of “striking back” at “Israeli aggression”. Europeans might even shrug at any such hit, concluding that Israel had it coming by attacking first.

    The fourth scenario is as increasingly dreaded as it is apparently inevitable — a U.S. air strike. Most hope that it can be delayed, since its one virtue — the elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat — must ipso facto outweigh the multifaceted disadvantages.

    The Shiite allies in Iraq might go ballistic and start up a second front as in 2004. Muslim countries, the primary beneficiaries of a disarmed Iran, would still protest loudly that some of their territories, if only for purposes of intelligence and post-operative surveillance, were used in the strike. After Iraq, a hit on Iran would confirm to the Middle East Street a disturbing picture of American preemptory wars against Islamic nations.

    Experts warn that we are not talking about a Clintonian one-day cruise-missile hit, or even something akin to General Zinni’s 1998 extended Operation Desert Fox campaign. Rather, the challenges call for something far more sustained and comprehensive — perhaps a week or two of bombing at every imaginable facility, many of them hidden in suburbs or populated areas. Commando raids might need to augment air sorties, especially for mountain redoubts deep in solid rock.

    The political heat would mount hourly, as Russia, China, and Europe all would express shock and condemnation, and whine that their careful diplomatic dialogue had once again been ruined by the American outlaws. Soon the focus of the U.N. would not be on Iranian nuclear proliferation, or the role of Europe, Pakistan, China, and Russia in lending nuclear expertise to the theocracy, but instead on the mad bomber-cowboy George Bush. We remember that in 1981 the world did not blame the reckless and greedy French for their construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein, but the sober Israelis for taking it out...
    Last edited by jimzinsocal; 01-14-2006 at 01:33 PM.

  4. #49
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    984

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Quote Originally Posted by jimzinsocal
    http://www.isis-online.org/images/ir...2_2006_ann.jpg

    We remember that in 1981 the world did not blame the reckless and greedy French for their construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam Hussein, but the sober Israelis for taking it out...
    Some may also remember the construction of a research reactor in Tehran donated to Iran by the USA before the Shah was deposed.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...ehran-tnrc.htm
    Last edited by AndyR; 01-14-2006 at 04:52 PM.
    AndyR (UK)
    Abit AV8 3rd Eye, 3200+ Venice, 420w PSU, Radeon 9550 128, 1Gb PC3200 DDR, IBM 40 Gb, Maxtor 80 Gb, 160Gb SATA
    Abit NF7 v2.0, Sempron 2800 @ 2200, ALX-800 HSF, 1Gb PC3200 DDR, 360w PSU, 160 GB Maxtor IDE HDD,



  5. #50
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    816

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    ^^The National Review - say what you will but they never miss a good opportunity to have a dig at the French.

    The poor writer is very confused as to why those ingrate Shias in Iraq may be unhappy with US or Israeli bombing raids on Iran.

    "The resulting furor over a “Zionist” strike on Shia Iran might galvanize Iraqi Shiites to break with us, rather than bring them relief that the Jewish state had eliminated a nearby nuclear threat and had humiliated an age-old rival nation and bitter former enemy.

    Those mad Shiites! I mean for Freedom and Democracy's sake don't they know what's good for them! They should be dancing in the streets cheering while Israeli jets bomb their "enemies" in Iran! You know, their co-religionists over the border who they were forced into fighing a stupid war of agression against as unwilling conscripts in Saddams' armies.

    Ah well, just chalk it up as another example of the irrationality of the oriental mind I suppose.

    I get the impression he believes a US war with Iran is inevitable. Bad days ahead if he is right.
    Last edited by h_a_; 01-14-2006 at 07:47 PM.

  6. #51
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

  7. #52
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Now Iran is getting all "chatty"...they want to talk. I like the Condi Rice reply

    "there isnt much to talk about"

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...011803737.html

  8. #53
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    7,744

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Even France has lost patience with them.

    h_a_ was right on with the Russia/China remarks. While it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, it gets rather old. Talk about chain jerkers! Iran is just gonna play games until Russia/China get tough, which will most likely never happen.

    The deal Putin is pushing? Red flag to me. Don't really know much about it though.
    Tyan S5397 2x X5450 16GB - SuperMicro H8DCI 2x 275 8GB - Iwill DK8X 2x Opteron 250 2GB


    Take a Kid FISHING!

  9. #54
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    816

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    About the French - given all these problems with Iran, I wonder what country this bit of nuclear sabre rattling was aimed at?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4627862.stm

  10. #55
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious


  11. #56
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    7,744

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Quote Originally Posted by h_a_
    About the French - given all these problems with Iran, I wonder what country this bit of nuclear sabre rattling was aimed at?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4627862.stm
    Yeah, where the hell did that come from?
    Tyan S5397 2x X5450 16GB - SuperMicro H8DCI 2x 275 8GB - Iwill DK8X 2x Opteron 250 2GB


    Take a Kid FISHING!

  12. #57
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    816

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Quote Originally Posted by smoked trout
    Yeah, where the hell did that come from?
    God knows?? Anyway, looking at jimzinsocal's post about Iran taking its' assets out of Europe, I'd say that may be the end for Iran's plan to start pricing their oil in Euro later in the year. Dollar/Euro - they are all Satans'/Shaitans' currency units!
    Last edited by h_a_; 01-20-2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason: crap grammar

  13. #58
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    The Iran Charade, Part II

    By Charles Krauthammer

    Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A17

    "It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."

    -- German Chancellor


    Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program.

    With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too.

    Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

    Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse.

    Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo.

    First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States.

    Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.

    The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels.

    The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis.

    Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program.

    The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade.

    Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.

  14. #59
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    816

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.
    That all sounds very nice, all the right buttons pushed about how weak and contemptible Europe is - but the article doesn't go into details on how all the pitfalls of the various ways of dealing with Iran cease to be a problem when the US rather than "post-historic" ()Europe is involved. So, is the general consensus in the US media that it is time for war in the Middle East yet again - this time with no tag-along "coalition of the willing"? (well, maybe Israel will help).

    Edit: Thanks for posting these articles anyway jimzinsocal. Where was that one from?

    Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs.
    The Chinese probably make these anyway (maybe Japanese/European companies operating in China?). I sure they can throw a few Iran's way if they really need them.
    Last edited by h_a_; 01-21-2006 at 05:49 PM.

  15. #60
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: Iran Its Getting Serious

    ^^Washington Post I believe. If you go to Drudge Report and select Krauthammer from list...youll get there.
    Yeah...I dont buy all the points made...if one article seems to say something alittle differently...Ill grab it just to look at.

    Now here is whats really irritating....the UN just put the push on hold for a month.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •