Countdown to War in Iran

[mburbank]

In todays news, Outgoing Patsy Colin Powell says the Iranians are hell bent on making nuclear weapons, shaking up serious attempts on the part of the EU to make some progress on the matter, something we've been unable to do.

An Iranian exile group says they have proof Iran is making WMD and could tell us where, it's a slam dunk case.

The terrifying things is this is way more likely to be true than it was in the case of Iraq, but our credability is, shall we say, somewhat weaker than it once was on this front.

Iran can look at the map and realize strategically a US use of force against them would be beyond foolhardy, but then they already know our president is not only beyond foolhardy, he's so insulated no one will show him a map and point out we're currently in no position to invade Iraq unless our current plan is simply to turn the mid east into one very large anarchy zone.

He'd be an idiot, right? But he's already stated he won't allow Iran to get nukes, AND that they are determined to get them. And it's not as if we could tolerate Iran having nukes, since they DO in fact have a history of actively supplying major terror networks. Kind of makes you wish we'd saved our credibility and army for Iran instead of waging a pointless vendetta in Iraq, but it's too late for that.

Brinksmanship, baby. Any guesses as to how this will all play out? I was kind of hoping for a day or two their we might let the EU at least try to sort things out since we don't have the money, people, credability or skill to do it. Not that I think the EU could do much better just that they have snowballs cahnce in hell which is statistically better than our chances right now.

[Dole]

Iran do at least seem slightly more willing to negotiate at the moment.
Surely more war in that area would be as bad an idea for the US as it would Iran? Could it realistically occur or be planned before Iraq is a hell of a lot more stable?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Hands up, who didn't see this one coming?

[Perndog]

Hands up, who posted about this over a week ago?

[Dole]

We have talked about this lots of times.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Should Iran be allowed to have nukes?

[mburbank]

No.

I answered your question directly.

Here's a few questions for you. Let's see if you hve the sppine and stomach to try answering them like I just answered yours.

1.) Who says they are trying to acquire nukes?

2.) The last time Our administration said a middle eastern country had WMD, was it true?

3.) As bad as Iran acquiring nukes is, what can the US do about it tht wouldn't be disasterous?

4.) If we try to do something about it on the grounds that whatever we do won't be as bad as Iran having nukes and exhaust our money and strecth our troops even thinner, what will we do when North Korea sees this and moves full steam ahead on it's nuclear program, which is already further ahead than Irans?

Any thoughts on any of this? This is the kind of ugly mess that requires some serious genius. But that's the mess we're in. It just seems ironic that the leader who's going to have to get us out of this mess is the Same guy who chose the LEAST THREATENING member of the 'Axis of Evil' to get bogged down in.

Hey, Nalds, cheer up!

[AChimp]

The reason is simple. Iranians are browner than Koreans.

[Baalzamon]

and iraqis are browner than iranians!

it all makes sense now!

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Bush won't stop until all of the oil in the region is under his control.... ....can't wait.

[mburbank]

IF that's true, and I'm not certain it is, since I think he's driven as much by his rather eccentric belief in God, his meglomaniacal faith in himself and his unhealthy relationship with his fther as much by anything so pragmatic as a desire to control oil, he will NEVER stop warring in the middle east.

Shit, we can't even control Iraqs oil, how the hell do we propose to control any more middle eastern oil?

I mean, maybe at one point we thought we could, that may have been a motivation for some of the administration hard line Iraq hawks, but isn't it pretty clear at this point we can't do it?

[Perndog]

The US doesn't have to attack Iran or worry about the logistics or implications of such an attack.

They just have to wait til Israel makes its strike (now probably pushed forward with the death of Arafat) and then stroll in to mop up.

Right now, the Middle East may as well already be a "very large anarchy zone," from the viewpoint of total US control (which is the only goal I can imagine the Bush administration has in mind). With Iraq as a pre-established staging area for US troops, a blatant display of power such as a large bombing strike against Iran's nuclear sites will only improve the US's foothold. And bonus political points because Israel does (or at least starts) the dirty work.

That's how I expect it to play out. What say you, Max?

By the way, I think you all place entirely too much emphasis on the motivations of Bush. I bet if Kerry were in office, we'd see the same war games playing out, just maybe on a different timetable. Ever watch the West Wing and see how many people the President has to please, how little room he has to make really independent decisions about anything significant? Multiply that a few times and you've got my mental picture of the White House.

[Perndog]

Oh, and the US can and probably will gain control over there. Once we experience another terrorist attack or two, the hardline war hawks will get their way, and US soldiers will get bounties on every bloody turban they turn in until the entire region is a new US territory. It's just a matter of how much force the invaders are willing to use. God knows they've got more than enough to spare.

[Sethomas]

I don't like nukes. But if one country is going to have them, I see no justification for the idea that any shithole country can't. But yeah. If Iraq or Iran had WMD, Israel would hold them in check so fast that it wouldn't matter at all.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Shit, we can't even control Iraqs oil, how the hell do we propose to control any more middle eastern oil?

dont forget, Max, that both Cheney and Bush are oil men...Bush's entire family has oil stains in their shorts...you can't tell me that those Texas maniacs aren't chomping at the bit to get their greedy, conservative hands on Irans oil fields. Bush's religious "zeal" aside, I think his primary motivation is money...black, gooey money in big barrels.

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

Should Iran be allowed to have nukes?

Which country should be allowed to have nukes?

[Perndog]

Whichever one will use those nukes to keep me safe.

Obviously,

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

No.

I answered your question directly.

Here's a few questions for you. Let's see if you hve the sppine and stomach to try answering them like I just answered yours.

Not gonna happen.

Hi Ronnie!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I don't like nukes. But if one country is going to have them, I see no justification for the idea that any shithole country can't. But yeah. If Iraq or Iran had WMD, Israel would hold them in check so fast that it wouldn't matter at all.

However, it would only take one bomb to pretty much level the heart of Israel.

A Knesset member was on Wold Blitzer's show today, and he made it sound like Israel was slowly but surely preparing to deal with Iran.

[Preechr]

Well, since Ronnie's not gonna dew it...

Originally Posted by mburbank

1.) Who says they are trying to acquire nukes?

Well, without Colin Pole around the Administration will be lacking the last guy at their disposal with any sort of credibility. Well, I guess he played that card already, didn't he? Is anyone the Bushies go out and get to speak for them going to get ANY benefit of the doubt? If Michael Moore, Bill Clinton and Babs all got up in from the DC press corps pleeeeading for us to believe George W Bush when he says Iran has become a threat that must be dealt with through immediate force, who would buy it? Honestly?

Even the most flag-waving, wrestling-believing-in, deep-fried NASCAR dad would be a bit skeptical...

We live in a world where credibility is no longer required, buddy. Sorry...

Originally Posted by mburbank

2.) The last time Our administration said a middle eastern country had WMD, was it true?

Yes. Stockpiles? Undetermined at the moment. I'm not under any pressure to say Yes or No on the matter, so I have the option to wait until we know for sure before claiming indisputable fact. Too many things hint at more than just the willingness we know of now.

I still want to know what went into Syria and where that VX caught coming out of Syria originated. Enough VX to kill 100K Jordanians qualifies as WMD to me. Would we have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam had we had concrete proof of the existence of that sort of destructive ability? I dunno... I think the discussion we'd have had in that case would have been altogether different.

Maybe we spent to much time worrying about the proof of WMD and too little time hashing out appropriate reactions to their existence. When I say WE, I mean all of us, both for and against. Maybe some of us really did go to war based on the WMD existence question alone. Some were Ok with the possibility plus Saddam's unwillingness to offer proof to the contrary. Others said stuff like, "I don't see any difference between Iraq having WsMD and the USA or the UK having them," which is generally accepted to be a ridiculous load of disingenous shite.

I think the majority of the skeptics felt the preponderance of evidence offered by Mr. Pole marginalized their arguments against moving forward, so they stepped aside. I'm not sure their continued insistance on objection would have affected anything though, as it seems all that was needed was for Team Bush© to feel the point was proven beyond reasonable doubt once the Legislative Branch deferred it's responsibility...

I think Bush went to war to stop possiblities. When everyone didn't immediately jump on his war-wagon, he asked why. Someone... probably Colin Pole, informed our beloved little Bubba d'Arc that there were some questions as to the proof they had. Enter Capt. Slam-Dunk.

"Well, you heard the man, Colin! *spits tobacco* He said Slam-Dunk! *adjusts ten gallon hat* If they need proof the WMD threat exists, go get em all the proof we have!" *swaggers*

That would be a direct order to find proof of WMD existence, NOT prove that they exist. That's an important distinction. I'm pretty sure something nearly exactly like this happened. Call it tunnel-vision or groupthink, but the simple fact is that those that objected to the war in Iraq had a higher standard of proof over a broader range of questions than did the Bushies. After the milk was spilt, the doves held the administration to THEIR standards, not the hawk standard. Now, it's easy for Bush to think that those that object to his war long for Saddam's return.

Think Cowboy. I think it was as simple as Dubya was Mad Max to Saddam's MasterBlaster.

Originally Posted by mburbank

3.) As bad as Iran acquiring nukes is, what can the US do about it tht wouldn't be disasterous?

While our credibility among our peers is effectively nil at the moment, I think our threats carry weight among the various ne'er-do-wells of the world. We're well positioned to threaten Iraq effectively now that we have troops on most of her border miles. Look at it objectively: First, Bush proved he'd not flinch at the idea of bringing it without France. Then, he did the dirty work in Iraq pretty much without help anyway. Not to demean the dead of other countries, but take the soldiers of the UK and the US off the list of allies in Iraq and you'd have a hard time causing a traffic jam, much less a regime change... As swimmingly as things went to have our government calling this a blinding success, I think we could have done this without the very capable assistance of our friends from the Kingdom with equivalent results.

Long story short, in answer to your question, what we HAVE done might just prove to be enough. We showed "Them Moolahs" that they can no longer operate under the cover of the same rules they enjoyed previously.

"Lissen, Pardner...*swagger, swagger, point* If ya'll figger we uns is a-scairt to open up some cans a whup ass, *P'Ching!* Then ya'll got sum more figgerin ta dew! *Hitches Giddy Up* Hell, we ain't answerin to NOBODY!"

...and they ain't neither...

Team Bush© has proven that it will act in the face of ANY sort of objections to accomplish it's goals once set. If Dubya starts another countdown to a smack-down on another country, who wants to bet he doesn't get what he wants? Whatever it is?

You need to be listening when John Kerry (during a contentious campaign even) says he'd give the President the authority to do the same thing AGAIN (in the FUTURE!!!) That means that when Dubya asks to get more authority to attack yet another country he will most definitely get it. Will we act if France says no? Yep. What if everybody in the world hates us? Umm... They already do.

In short: What's stopping us?

Originally Posted by mburbank

4.) If we try to do something about it on the grounds that whatever we do won't be as bad as Iran having nukes and exhaust our money and strecth our troops even thinner, what will we do when North Korea sees this and moves full steam ahead on it's nuclear program, which is already further ahead than Irans?

Again, we've proven that we will do whatever necessary to accomplish whatever goals we set. There's a reason Dubya prefers a multi-lateral (read Asian) solution to Kim Jong Il. Despite his objections, the first day of a Kerry (who?) administration ol' JFK would've been informed that his little plan to open uni-lateral talks with Korea was writing checks our military capability couldn't cash. Can you say "Draft" Mr. President? Yeah... "Nevermind." Good answer.

The timeline is set: Iraqi elections in January. Posturing in Iran's general direction will commence shortly... Well, since we're all talking about Iran in much the same way we were discussing Iraq's future just a minute ago, I'd say that ball's a-rollin already. Given the angst you and most of the rest of us have with regard to having even any semblance of say-so about who gets bombed the hell out of next, won't you be just a little relieved if the answer to the Iranian threat is as simple as a few 1,000 pound bombs dropped in the sand?

Who cares if we do it or Israel does? Problem? *BOOM* Problem solved. No muss, no fuss... Unlike Iraq, Iran has a more or less accepted revolutionary faction that could cause an internal re-alignment if the regime were to be immasculated by such off-handed treatment. The administration has yet to directly confront the Iranian issue. I'm betting that when we do, it will be a Clinton-esque things-go-boom-at-midnight type thing.

A side-question: How many actual Iranian people do you think are currently living near wherever this Iranian WMD facility is located?

The real question is this: What's Iran gonna do when their nuclear ambitions are reduced to so much toxic dust? Attack our troops in Iraq? They're already doing that, and it's not working. Increase their committment to the insurgency? That would look a lot more like traditional open war, which would be our home field. Attack our homeland? That would be just dumb as Hell. Maybe they'll wait for the negative reaction from the world. That MIGHT work this time... not...

And it's not exactly like all the rest of the Arab nations are openly defying the West with their boldly stated plans to develop nukes. Will the other regional despots back Iran with anything more substantial than indignation, or will they say "What did you expect to happen, guys?"

Back to your question, I think Korea is stalling to see what happens with Iran, and that Kim will lose some of his chutzpah once we establish a clear pattern of countering threats with actual and effective ass-kicking, 2X4 to the face style. China will say, "See? We to you so, Kim! Now stop being so foo-rish!"

Originally Posted by mburbank

It just seems ironic that the leader who's going to have to get us out of this mess is the Same guy who chose the LEAST THREATENING member of the 'Axis of Evil' to get bogged down in.

He picked the easiest fight first. Starting with Korea and encountering major diplomatic issues that would have dragged out for years, and then moving on into an even bigger quagmire with an emboldened Iran (which we'd have been looking at in about 2006, probably) would most likely have had us talking to nuclear Mullahs rather than potentially nuclear Mullahs. And what of Saddam, the least of our worries? Are we really supposed to believe that he would have eventually complied with his surrender terms? Would sanctions and inspections have EVER started to work?

I think we did it in the most responsible order. Iraq WAS the easiest threat to answer, and doing so despite how incredibly difficult the easy task was has proven that our words have weight when we talk to the next two guys on the pre-declared list of targets.

[davinxtk]

What you said makes perfectly logical sense in text, Preechr. The trouble is, Iran and North Korea are not paragraphs, proposals, or research papers. They're countries with arrogant patriots and loyalists, just like the US. They're not going to belly up any faster than we are.

I honestly agree with most of what you said, but you're either
A) Overestimating the influence of the United States simply because you see its power from the inside-out.
or
B) Failing to account for pride and expecting other countries to be defended by the same sort of business-oriented collateral damage analysts that have been running up our defense budgets.


I have no faith at all that this will be done right. Toss me a 'cynical bastard' t-shirt, but I have yet to see just a single example of something being done well in that corner of the world.

[Ant10708]

What about Saudia Arabia oh wait

Pakistan.... No


Iraq's looking.....good.....guess not.


Your right.

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Iran "readies uranium for nuke enrichment"

[imported_I, fuzzbot.]

Well, that didn't work.

Iran "readies uranium for nuke enrichment"
Sat 20 November, 2004 04:36

By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is preparing large amounts of uranium for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons, days before its promise to freeze all such activities takes effect, Western diplomats say.

"The Iranians are producing UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) like hell," a non-U.S. diplomat on the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told Reuters on Friday. "The machines are running."

Iran denied the information, which was confirmed by multiple diplomatic sources in Vienna.

"This is a sheer lie. I strongly reject it. In contrary, Iran is preparing itself to suspend production of UF6," Iran's top IAEA delegate Hossein Mousavian told Reuters in Tehran.

The apparent hasty production of large amounts of enriched uranium is bound to deepen suspicions over Iran, which Washington says is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

UF6 is the form of uranium that is fed into gas centrifuges, which purify uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants or weapons, by spinning at supersonic speeds.

Iran had promised the European Union after talks with Britain, France and Germany that it would freeze enrichment and all related activities as of Nov 22.

"The Iranians have produced some UF6 gas," said a Western diplomat close to the IAEA. "The EU three are apparently not too fazed by this."

IAEA chief Mohamed Elbaradei said on Monday in a report on his two-year investigation of Iran's nuclear programme that Tehran had not diverted any of its declared nuclear materials to a weapons programme.

But he did not rule out the possibility that other secret atomic activities existed.

Another diplomat described it as shocking news and said the IAEA's 35-member board of governors would have to seriously consider whether to report Tehran to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

"It is a grave matter that will have serious repercussions when we begin our (IAEA board) meeting on Thursday," a diplomat from another board state said.

Iran announced in September that it would process 37 tonnes of raw "yellowcake" uranium at its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan. Iran began processing several tonnes of yellowcake, but only produced uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), a precursor to UF6.

"It was only very recently they began making UF6," said one diplomat.

The 37 tonnes of yellowcake could produce sufficient UF6 for up to five weapons, if enriched to a point where it was of weapons-grade purity, experts say.

On Sunday, Tehran promised France, Britain and Germany it would freeze its enrichment programme in a bid to ease concerns that its nuclear plans are aimed at producing atomic weapons -- a charge it denies -- and to escape a referral to the U.N. Security Council when the IAEA meets on November 25.

Diplomats said they had expected Iran to freeze the programme as of last Sunday, the day the deal was reached. But technically Iran had the right to continue conversion work until Monday, diplomats said.

A Bush administration official said the allegations added to concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions.

"The reports today further illustrate why we are concerned about Iran complying with its commitments," said a senior U.S. official.

Britain said the main focus was that the IAEA verifies Iran is implementing the agreement by suspending enrichment.

"The key to this agreement is the implementation and part of that is the Iranian pledge allowing the IAEA to verify that they have implemented the suspension," a British Foreign Office spokesman said.

Iran's U.N. ambassador was not available for comment.

Iran's Foreign Ministry on Friday also rejected claims by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that Tehran had been working on ways to deliver an atomic warhead on a missile.

[conus]

Bush won't stop until all of the oil in the region is under his control.... ....can't wait.

I don't know. Would he even feel a need for that? Didn't even Bin Laden once say that if he were calling the shots he would supply the U.S. with all the oil it wanted at a fair market price? I never thought that it was so much about oil specifically, as it was about a more general control over the stability of the region.

I mean, I'm not trying to defend the son-of-a-bitch, but I never thought stealing oil was his motivation. I wonder how serious he is regarding these fundamentalist beliefs.