U.S. In Afghanistan Firing On Pakistan (1 Viewer)

[rob021275]

Well that is part of the problem. Most of the people in Bush's ear are too Israel-centric in their world view.

As a result they have taken our eyes off the ball in terms of America's core best interests.

Bin Laden is still running free and in Pakistan you have exisiting nukes within fathomable reach of Taleban sympathizers. If there is any place that some rouge will get its hands on nukes, Pakistan has to be close to the top of the list RIGHT NOW.

But our policy is try to maneuver into a war with Iran???

Iran borders Pakistan. When the war spreads to yet another Muslim country it can not be predicted how this will effect internal politics in Pakistan. The law of unintended consequences might lead to a chain of events that results in Mushareffs assasination, delivering the nukes to the Taleban.

These things have a way of spiraling out of control and we have arrogant SOBs running the show right now who refuse to consider that they are not masters of every detail.

Clearly they are not.

I don't think anybody WANTS to go to war with Iran.

But they are clearly not helping the situation with the rhetoric and the dissmissal of the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors.

People can hate Bush, but he's not the one calling for other nations to be wiped off the map. That's the nut (using that apt term since I will not attempt to butcher the spelling of his name) parading around as the "democratically" elected president of Iran.

 

[blackadder]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251450,00.html

Superb.

That combined with Israel's nuclear triad makes the claims of Iran's grave threat from an as yet non-existent bomb seem a little hysterical.

 

[blackadder]

This whole house of cards we call "relative" Middle East peace (and I use that term very lightly considering what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, and the usual Israeli/Palestinian eye-for-an-eye mentality) is built on the premise that, given their historical dominance over their vastly more populated enemies, no one wants to engage Israel alone. But if Iran somehow gets the means to deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel (which isn't that ridiculous at the rate we're headed -- everybody remember the Scuds Saddam fired into Israel during the first Gulf War?), then all hell will break loose.

Iran needs to be stopped, and I hope we do it rather than Israel. The Muslim world will think twice against taking on the U.S. rather than their scriptural and historical (and decidedly smaller, closer, and less populated) enemy.

But the Sunni Arabs are enemies of Iran. It is debatable that they would want to see Iran in a position to challenge Israel.

Whether Iran gets the bomb or not, it has no capability to project force much further than its borders. You will recall that Saddam's numerically inferior forces kept Iran at bay for 8 years. And back in Desert Storm you got a good taste of the overall qulaity of that fighting force. That should give some indication of Iran's capabilities in an all out conventional conflict.

The whole thing sounds too much like the grave threat that was painted by the Soviet Union, which althought with a lot of manpower was rotten from the inside out. Only the nukes gained them respect and that is probably the main thing Iran is looking for respect and the desire to not end up like Iraq.

 

[Sandman]

Only the nukes gained them respect and that is probably the main thing Iran is looking for respect and the desire to not end up like Iraq.

Well, then they need to convert to Christianity....heh.

Seriously, if they want to avoid Iraq's fate, then they should let the UN in and inspect and drop their nuke program. It's not like we go around picking fights with countries just because they don't have nukes.

 

[rob021275]

But the Sunni Arabs are enemies of Iran. It is debatable that they would want to see Iran in a position to challenge Israel.

Whether Iran gets the bomb or not, it has no capability to project force much further than its borders. You will recall that Saddam's numerically inferior forces kept Iran at bay for 8 years.

The whole thing sounds too much like the grave threat that was painted by the Soviet Union, which althought with a lot of manpower was rotten from the inside out. Only the nukes gained them respect and that is probably the main thing Iran is looking for respect and the desire to not end up like Iraq.

No doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites don't like each other. But I'm guessing that they would put aside their differences to fight Israel, then they would turn on each other if the accomplished their goal of victory. Meanwhile, the whole world gets involved because of alliances and, more likely, the world's oil reserves.

As for Iran's ability to deliver a nuclear payload, I can't comment exactly. But if North Korea has the missle technology to reach the Alleutians (albeit erratically and inefficently), I'm guessing that Iran wouldn't have that hard of a time finding the technology/weapondry on the black market to reach a shorter distance.

And I have no doubt that Iran is irrational enough to try it (launching at Israel) if the leadership is painted into a corner in order to galvanize support in the Muslim world for fighting "the great Satan" or "the Zionist regime." But I don't see how the world can give them a free pass based on a blackmail mentality.

 

[blackadder]

I don't think anybody WANTS to go to war with Iran.

But they are clearly not helping the situation with the rhetoric and the dissmissal of the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors.

People can hate Bush, but he's not the one calling for other nations to be wiped off the map. That's the nut (using that apt term since I will not attempt to butcher the spelling of his name) parading around as the "democratically" elected president of Iran.

Ex-Bush Iran Offical: US Seeks pretext for conflict with Iran

David Edwards
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Published: Monday February 12, 2007[/FONT][/FONT]

A former top Bush administration official for Persian Gulf affairs has said in an interview this morning on CNN that the US may be trying to spark a conflict with Iran.

Hillary Mann is the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. She warned in the interview that the recent flare up between Iran and the US over the former's alleged assistance to Shi'a militias results from a US desire to provoke conflict with the Iranians.

"They're trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," Mann said.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Frm._Bush_NSC_Dir._says_US_0212.html


As for the "wipe off the map" quote, I think that is a MEMRI supplied translation, which will naturally take the most bellicose interpretation.

What he actually said, according to other Farsi speakers, is more accurately phrased in English as "Israel will disappear or be wiped away from history" kinda like the Soviet Union.

He didn't say anything of an intent to attack Israel.

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"

Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[4]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-2>[5]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[6]</SUP>, an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing<SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[7]</SUP>.





Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[8]</SUP>​

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."<SUP class=reference id=_ref-Bronner-words_0>[9]</SUP>




The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[10]</SUP>​

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-7>[11]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-8>[12]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-9>[13]</SUP>

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."<SUP class=reference id=_ref-Bronner-words_1>[9]</SUP>

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". <SUP class=reference id=_ref-10>[14]</SUP>



A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[15]</SUP>​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel


Nevertheless the "wipe off the map" thing is repeated to great propaganda effect, just like the fabricated German "atrocities" in Belgium in WW I. This is not accidental. This is probably why the Iranian President is in hot water even with the mullahs. He is engaging his mouth before the brain is in gear.

He ought to know that anything he says, no matter how ambiguous, is going to be given the most sinister spin and repeated ad nausem by the US media.

 

[blackadder]

No doubt that the Sunnis and the Shiites don't like each other. But I'm guessing that they would put aside their differences to fight Israel, then they would turn on each other if the accomplished their goal of victory. Meanwhile, the whole world gets involved because of alliances and, more likely, the world's oil reserves.

As for Iran's ability to deliver a nuclear payload, I can't comment exactly. But if North Korea has the missle technology to reach the Alleutians (albeit erratically and inefficently), I'm guessing that Iran wouldn't have that hard of a time finding the technology/weapondry on the black market to reach a shorter distance.

And I have no doubt that Iran is irrational enough to try it (launching at Israel) if the leadership is painted into a corner in order to galvanize support in the Muslim world for fighting "the great Satan" or "the Zionist regime." But I don't see how the world can give them a free pass based on a blackmail mentality.

I don't think so.

Doing that incinerates their Shia bretheren in Lebanon as well one of the holiest sites of Islam and guarantees Iran's destruction through retailation that can not be stopped. Before the Iranian missile would touch Tel Aviv, Israeli submarine launched cruise missiles would be on their way to Teheran from the Indian Ocean.

Then there would be no hope of ever finding the "Hidden Imam."

 

[rob021275]

No doubt semantics play a role in all of this. There's no doubt in mind that there are some in the Bush Administration that would love for a war of words to ratchet this thing into a full-blown military conflict. Some (myself included, unfortunately) see it as inevitable anyway unless something dramatic happens.

But, to me and many others, the thing that damns the Iranian leadership is the historical connotations and the religious animosity between peoples in that part of the world.

 

[blackadder]

Well, then they need to convert to Christianity....heh.

Seriously, if they want to avoid Iraq's fate, then they should let the UN in and inspect and drop their nuke program. It's not like we go around picking fights with countries just because they don't have nukes.

Part of the reason they have now locked down inspections is because the UN inspection teams in Iraq were thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA. The UN inspections in Iraq were used to gather targeting intelligence for the Shock and Awe strikes in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,208440,00.html

So, logically, the Iranians might be reticent at this point to allow the inspections unless they can send escorts along, and I'm not sure they are allowed to do that. It's like handing over accurate targeting data while 2 American aircraft carriers are sitting off your coast. They wouldn't do it. Whatever you believe of them, they are not stupid.

Weapons program or no, I think they would be wary of the inspectors in the current environment, lacking any broader understanding with our government. It is not necessarily a smoking gun for a weapons program but they are definitely in a pickle: allow the inspectors and risk that the US gets valuable targeting intelligence that can lead to destruction of their nuclear sites or deny the inspectors and the intelligence but be accused of hiding a weapons program.

This is how the game is played.

 

[rob021275]

I don't think so.

Doing that incinerates their Shia bretheren in Lebanon as well one of the holiest sites of Islam and guarantees Iran's destruction through retailation that can not be stopped. Before the Iranian missile would touch Tel Aviv, Israeli submarine launched cruise missiles would be on their way to Teheran from the Indian Ocean.

Then there would be no hope of ever finding the "Hidden Imam."

I don't necessarily think that the here and now and this world matters to some of these people. We're trying to think about this rationally (as we in the West do -- prolonging you and your allies' life span and welfare). Many of their lives are so pitiful that death is not so bad. Of course, the leaders that incited the war would be in bunkers while their people suffered and died on the outside.

I would also tend to think that Hezbollah and all of those in Iran that support them would "sacrifice" themselves/or would "be sacrificed" in the same way that a suicide bomber does just to further the clash of cultures. Again, the leaders that incited the war would be in bunkers while their people suffered and died on the outside. The theocratical regimes of the Middle East are perfect examples of the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do."

And I do believe that Israel would win eventually because of the U.S.'s military backing. As for the "hidden Iman", I don't think that the Muslim world wants to instigate Armageddon. Not because of a lack of religious belief on their part, because the "end" would not be at all how they pictured it.

 

[Sandman]

Part of the reason they have now locked down inspections is because the UN inspection teams in Iraq were thoroughly infiltrated by the CIA. The UN inspections in Iraq were used to gather targeting intelligence for the Shock and Awe strikes in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,208440,00.html

So, logically, the Iranians might be reticent at this point to allow the inspections unless they can send escorts along, and I'm not sure they are allowed to do that. It's like handing over accurate targeting data with 2 American aircraft carriers sitting off your coast. They wouldn't do it. Whatever you believe of them, they are not stupid.

Weapons program or no, I think they would be wary of the inspectors in the current environment, lacking any broader understanding with our government. It is not necessarily a smoking gun for a weapons program but they are definitely in a pickle: allow the inspectors and risk that the US gets valuable targeting intelligence that can lead to destruction of their nuclear sites or deny the inspectors and the intelligence but be accused of hiding a weapons program.

This is how the game is played.

Okay, so we spied. It is done all the time. Everyone does it. Does this give them a free pass on inspections? No. It isn't as if the UN is pro-US now anyway. I'm sure that if the Iranians asked that the inspections be done without US people or equipment, the UN would agree to those terms--as would the US. This would prevent an invasion of Iran by the US (no way in heck are we going to "go it alone" anytime soon in Iran) while at the same time satisfying the UN that the weapons program isn't going forward and doing it in a way that limits the US ability to use the inspections as a way to spy on Iran (as if we aren't doing it anyway).

 

[blackadder]

Okay, so we spied. It is done all the time. Everyone does it. Does this give them a free pass on inspections? No. It isn't as if the UN is pro-US now anyway. I'm sure that if the Iranians asked that the inspections be done without US people or equipment, the UN would agree to those terms--as would the US. This would prevent an invasion of Iran by the US (no way in heck are we going to "go it alone" anytime soon in Iran) while at the same time satisfying the UN that the weapons program isn't going forward.

No, no free ride. I'm not privy to the behind the scenes jockeying on the makeup of the inspection teams.

But I am pretty sure that Iran will balk at, or demand extra scrutiny of, Americans on the team. And I'm pretty sure that in order to consider the inspections valid the Bush administration would demand some participation by "reliable" Americans (or allies).

Remember, when the UN inspectors found nothing in Iraq, the U.S. dismissed the results and denigrated the UN.

And given Iran's mistrust of the U.S. record of using the UN inpsection teams for espionage and the United States' general mistrust of any UN body without sufficient U.S. representation, you see how this can quickly reach a stalemate.

All the while the propaganda in the media will be that Iran is definitely hiding a nuclear weapons program, rather than some analysis of the underlying complexities of the inspections of facilities that are targeted by two aircraft carrier battle groups floating within striking distance.

Those inspectors could be debriefed by the U.S. after the visit and if the the right questions are asked, they can determine how the air defenses are laid out around the complexes. Very valuable information.

 

[Sandman]

But I am pretty sure that Iran will balk at, or demand extra scrutiny of, Americans on the team. And I'm pretty sure that in order to consider the inspections valid the Bush administration would demand some participation by "reliable" Americans.

I disagree. We have taken lumps in the internationally because of Iraq and not finding WMDs. We do not have the political capital at this point to demand Americans on any inspection. Pre-Iraq we may have been able to pull that off. Post-Iraq? I don't think so. If we tried to demand that, it would look like we are the ones being the fly in the ointment. No way the UN would back any action against Iran if the reason they didn't allow inspections was because we demanded U.S. involvement in the inspections. We are in no position to go it alone at this time.

 

[blackadder]

I disagree. We have taken lumps in the internationally because of Iraq and not finding WMDs. We do not have the political capital at this point to demand Americans on any inspection. Pre-Iraq we may have been able to pull that off. Post-Iraq? I don't think so. If we tried to demand that, it would look like we are the ones being the fly in the ointment. No way the UN would back any action against Iran if the reason they didn't allow inspections was because we demanded U.S. involvement in the inspections. We are in no position to go it alone at this time.

Maybe.

But if inspections resume and the UN is satisfied that they combed the country and find nothing, you will still get the usual suspects, like the Weekly Standard crew, that discount the results.

It won't matter. They will still demand that Iran prove a negative, which can't be done. The Bill Kristols and Benjamin Netanyahus will still clamor for air strikes that go well beyond suspected nuclear sites.

While Iran may be dragging feet elsewhere, all cooperation has not ended. The UN did install cameras at Natanz:

Iran: UN Surveillance cameras installed at Nuclear Plant

By VOA News
10 February 2007

Iran says the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has installed surveillance cameras at a nuclear facility in Natanz.

Iran's Nuclear Agency announced Saturday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can now fully supervise activities at the plant.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-10-voa16.cfm

 

[Sandman]

Maybe.

But if inspections resume and the UN is satisfied that they combed the country and find nothing, you will still get the usual suspects, like the Weekly Standard crew, that discount the results.

It won't matter. They will still demand that Iran prove a negative, which can't be done. The Bill Kristols and Benjamin Netanyahus will still clamor for strikes.

While they may be dragging feet elsewhere, the UN did install cameras at Natanz:

<table style="direction: ltr;" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-10-voa16.cfm

</td></tr></tbody></table>But what the Kristols and Netanyahus have to say won't affect the U.S.'s inability to go to war with Iran at that point. Neither have much, if any, influence on the UN. Iran is in the driver's seat right now. If they don't want a U.S. led invasion, let in the inspectors on Iran's terms (no U.S. involvement). They can even manipulate the inspections a little, and there isn't a whole lot we can say. We just don't have the clout right now to argue a UN inspection without U.S. involvement is somehow flawed.