Log in

View Full Version : It's not WHAT he says...


Ali
01-21-2005, 07:56 AM
it's the WAY he says it! In direct threat on Inauguration Day, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Bush’s administration is determined to confront Iran directly in it its second term.

In a radio interview broadcast on MSNBC, Cheney said that Iran was on the top of the Bush’s list of world trouble spots, expressing concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to destroy Iran’s alleged nuclear programme.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," the vice president said.

Israel would leave the world worrying "about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward," he added.

Cheney’s tough language that day was apparently part of Bush’s administration's efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program; it claims is being used as a covert to produce atomic bomb.

Recently, Washington has been issuing increasingly staunch warnings to the Islamic Republic, thinking that those threats, among which was to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions, would shake Iran and force it to suspend its nuclear programme.

According to analysts, this is the first time a senior official in the U.S. government amplifies the threat by suggesting that the United States could be unable to prevent military attack by its close alley, Israel.

The startling reference to an Israeli attack was "the kind of strong language that will get their attention in Tehran," a diplomat in Washington said on condition of anonymity.

"There's a rhetorical escalation here: They've ratcheted up the threat level by bringing Israel in," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department official during the Clinton administration. "They're using the fact of the inauguration, and the uncertainty people have about where they're going in the next term, to say, 'Look, we're not going to let up on Iran.' "

Last week, Bush said he wouldn’t rule out military action against Iran. "I will never take any option off the table," he said.

During her Senate confirmation hearings this week, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice labeled Iran as one of six "outposts of tyranny" that would require U.S. attention.

Cheney said that Washington believes Tehran has a "fairly robust, new nuclear program."

The EU big three; Germany, France and Britain have been negotiating with Iran over the past few months, in an attempt to persuade it suspend its nuclear program, an approach U.S. officials doubt its success.

"At some point, if the Iranians don't live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the United Nations Security Council and seek the imposition of international sanctions," Cheney said.

Also during the Inauguration Day interview, Cheney admitted he overestimated the pace of Iraq's recovery from the U.S.-led occupation.

Cheney also said he didn’t anticipate how long it would take the Iraqis to be able to run their country.

During the recent weeks, circulating reports suggested that U.S. officials are considering taking a military action against Iran, but Cheney raised the stakes by suggesting that Israel might take the first step.

Asked whether the U.S. could ask Israel to initiate a military strike on Iran, Cheney answered:

"One of the concerns that people have is that Israel might do it without being asked," Cheney said. "If, in fact the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability — given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel — the Israelis might well decide to act first."

Israel also claims that Iran is preparing for producing an atomic bomb in two to three years. And Israeli officials said they might launch military strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities, as a way to set the Iranian program back.

"Iran poses a clear threat to international peace and security," an Israeli diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, while actively developing weapons of mass destruction and nuclear programs. The world should unite and pressure Iran from these destructive activities." cunt (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/pics/6628.jpg)
"The EU big three; Germany, France and Britain have been negotiating with Iran over the past few months, in an attempt to persuade it suspend its nuclear program, an approach U.S. officials doubt its success.

"At some point, if the Iranians don't live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the United Nations Security Council and seek the imposition of international sanctions," Cheney said." Is it just me and my Deja Vu, or are we in for another messy war?

Ali
01-21-2005, 08:23 AM
actually it will be MUCH messier

Iraq was relatively soft from the previous war, sanctions, and Clinton's deterence policy ( engaging missle/radar stations )

Iran's military is in much better shape and most likely has much better weapons and determination. This will make Iraq look like Disneyland.
Ah-ha! But this time Isreal will do the fighting. Maybe this is why they're pulling out of Palestine? Preparing to the Big One in Iran!

100% ILL
01-21-2005, 08:23 AM
Here is some information I found on Iranian Military strength etc...

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/exec/mikeexec.htm

IRANIAN MILITARY POWER Capabilities and Intentions

Executive Summary

In 1989, following a costly eight-year war with Iraq, Iran initiated a major military build-up intended to rebuild, expand, and modernize its ravaged armed forces and thereby transform itself into a regional military power. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, its naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, its efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process, and its support for radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East raise disturbing questions about Tehran's intentions and the long-term implications of its efforts to bolster its military capabilities.

Iran's economic woes, however -- which have been exacerbated by U.S. sanctions -- have forced it to pare back its military procurement plans. Iran's economy is in a crisis spurred by declining oil revenues (due to low oil prices), rapid population growth, the lingering costs of its war with Iraq, government mismanagement of the economy, and a rapidly growing foreign debt (more than $35 billion) that has impaired its access to international credit markets. These economic problems have forced Iran to reduce defense spending, cut procurement by half, cancel arms contracts, defer or stretch out procurement of key items, and prioritize the allocation of scarce financial resources among the various branches of its armed forces. Lacking the funds to sustain a major, across-the-board military build-up, Iran has had to content itself with selectively enhancing its military capabilities.

A major confrontation with the United States could be devastating for Iran, however, resulting in the destruction of its military and civilian infrastructure, and leaving it without the ability to defend itself by conventional means. Moreover, hard experience over the past decade has shown Iran that it has neither the funds to replace significant combat losses nor a reliable supplier capable of doing so. An open provocation by Iran could also invite the imposition of stiff sanctions like those imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. Having observed at close range the devastating impact these sanctions have had on Iraq, the mullahs are unlikely to follow Saddam Hussein's example. Thus, for the foreseeable future, Iran will try to avoid a confrontation with the United States.

Ali
01-21-2005, 08:33 AM
Here's something else

The Iran-Contra Affair (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair issued in November 1987, the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan. The report shows that Israel's involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America's behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.

Before the Israelis would participate, says the report, they demanded "a clear, express and binding consent by the U.S. Government." McFarlane told the Congressional committee he first received President Reagan's approval in July 1985. In August, Reagan again orally authorized the first sale of weapons to Iran, over the objections of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz. Because of that deal, Rev. Benjamin Weir, held captive in Lebanon for 16 months, was released.

When a shipment of HAWK missiles was proposed in November of that year, Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin again demanded specific U.S. approval. According to McFarlane, the President agreed.

By December 1985, the President had decided future sales to the Iranians would come directly from U.S. supplies.

According to the committees' report, NSC aide Lt. Col. Oliver North first used money from the Iran operation to fund the Nicaraguan resistance in November 1985. He later testified, however, that the diversion of funds to the Contras was proposed to him by Ghorbanifar during a meeting in January 1986.

Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader Adnan Khashoggi said in an interview on ABCªTV on December 11, 1986, that he advanced $1 million to help finance the first arms shipment in the Iran-Contra arms scandal and put up $4 million for the second shipment. According to the President's special review board chaired by former Sen. John Tower, a foreign official (reportedly Saudi King Fahd) donated $1 million to $2 million monthly from July 1984 to April 1985 for covert financing for the Contras. Saudi Arabia denied aiding the Nicaraguan rebels, but the New York Times reported the contribution may have been part of a 1981 secret agreement between Riyadh and Washington "to aid antiªcommunist resistance groups around the sophisticated American AWACS radar planes, according to United States officials and others familiar with the deal."

The Joint House-Senate Committee praised the Israeli government for providing detailed chronologies of events based on relevant documents and interviews with key participants in the operation. Its report also corroborated the conclusion of the Tower Commission: "U.S. decision makers made their own decisions and must bear responsibility for the consequences." Hypocrites (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Iran_Arms_Trade.asp)

Back to Normal
U.S. Punishes 14 for Iran Arms Trade
Wade Boese

The United States has sanctioned 14 entities from seven different countries for allegedly providing Iran with exports that could be used to develop unconventional weapons and the means to deliver them. The move came amid ongoing worldwide uncertainty about Iran’s nuclear intentions and ballistic missile advances.

On Sept. 29, the Department of State announced penalties on seven Chinese companies; two individuals from India; and one company each from Belarus, North Korea, Russia, Spain, and Ukraine for running afoul of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. That law authorizes the president to penalize any foreign entity that transfers items to Iran that could aid its pursuit of dangerous weapons. A State Department official told Arms Control Today Oct. 12 that the offending transactions occurred more than a year ago.

However, the official said some of the entities, namely those sanctioned multiple times by Washington, might still have an ongoing relationship with Iran. The North Korean and Belarusian companies and four of the Chinese companies had already been hit with sanctions under the same law in April.

All the recently sanctioned entities will be barred from U.S. government contracts and aid, as well as all U.S. arms and dual-use exports, for two years.

Although U.S. proliferation sanctions are largely symbolic because the entities rarely do business with the U.S. government, Bush administration officials argue sanctions are valuable because they help stigmatize companies and individuals, applying indirect pressure to foreign governments to rein them in.

The Bush administration has leveled sanctions for proliferation transactions 98 times over four years, exceeding 70 imposed by the Clinton administration in its eight years. More than half of the sanctions imposed by the Bush administration explicity concerned transactions with Iran.

Nonetheless, foreign governments and companies continue to pursue ties, including in the nuclear sector, with Tehran, which also appears to be forging ahead with its ballistic missile program.

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said Oct. 5 that Iran now had a missile capable of traveling 2,000 kilometers, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). U.S. intelligence previously estimated the range of Iran’s most advanced, flight-proven missile, the Shahab-3, at roughly 1,300 kilometers.

Rafsanjani’s claim, repeated by other Iranian officials, followed August and September missile tests, about which Tehran admits providing deliberately vague information, including whether the August test was on the ground or in flight. (See ACT, September 2004.) The only information available about the September test are Iranian media reports that quote Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani as saying the test involved a “strategic missile.” Iran announced Oct. 20 that it had conducted another Shahab-3 test.

Purported photos of the August test showed a missile shaped differently than that in previous pictures of Iran’s Shahab-3. Rather than having a conical tip, the missile’s re-entry vehicle was shaped more like a baby-bottle’s top. This new configuration has spurred speculation by Uzi Rubin, a former top Israeli missile defense official, that Iran has received foreign help, possibly from Russia, in upgrading the Shahab-3 to have greater range and accuracy.

U.S. officials refused to discuss Iran’s latest missile tests or apparent new re-entry vehicle design, except to reiterate Washington’s long-standing concerns about Iran’s missile programs.

During a two-day visit to Russia, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker warned Oct. 6, “It is obvious to us that Iran’s intention is to deploy nuclear weapons on these missiles.” He added, “Fortunately for us, the United States is more than 2,000 kilometers from Iran, but obviously Iran intends to deploy longer-range missiles over time.”

Iranian officials, who assert Iran’s missiles are only for defensive purposes, have repeatedly denied working on a more powerful Shahab-4 ballistic missile. Instead, they claim Iran is pursuing space launch capabilities and in 2005 will attempt to lift a small satellite into space for the first time. Iran has plenty of money to buy plenty of weapons from anybody they want.

No Proof (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112804C.shtml)

Whois
01-21-2005, 11:02 AM
actually it will be MUCH messier

Iraq was relatively soft from the previous war, sanctions, and Clinton's deterence policy ( engaging missle/radar stations )

Iran's military is in much better shape and most likely has much better weapons and determination. This will make Iraq look like Disneyland.

Plus they have all those cool suicide battalions...they'll make the kamikaze look like a bunch of pussies.

*BOOM*
:eek: