posted
Has anyone else looked at the sudden change of White House Chief of Staff and his early announcements and wondered what is about to happen? It was just a couple of weeks ago that Bush was refuting claims that his staff was tired and worn out wasn't it?
When I saw that on the news this morning, the story that followed dealt with Iran's nuclear buildup and heightened rhetoric. Anyone think that the Dubya Administration might be clearing out some staffers who are cautioning against going to war in Iran?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: Has anyone else looked at the sudden change of White House Chief of Staff and his early announcements and wondered what is about to happen? It was just a couple of weeks ago that Bush was refuting claims that his staff was tired and worn out wasn't it?
When I saw that on the news this morning, the story that followed dealt with Iran's nuclear buildup and heightened rhetoric. Anyone think that the Dubya Administration might be clearing out some staffers who are cautioning against going to war in Iran?
Anyone stupid enough to think that Bush would be able to get us to invade Iran after the fiasco still going in Iraq needs to check themselves into a mental institution. Quickly.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran would have to do a lot more than some threatening talk in order to get us into a war. Getting into another conflict right now seems incredibly implausable in pretty much any case I can think of short of a direct attack on us or an ally.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Iraq war was going well, I would be concerned. Since it's not, I think there's no way Bush would start something with Iran. There's not enough support.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. Does he really need that much support? I mean, he doesn't need to hold a referendum, or win an election; if I understand correctly, he just needs to get it through Congress, right? And that's still a Republican majority. And, y'know, it's even possible that a war with Iran could actually be voted on its merits, and if so, you could possibly make a case for it. It's not really fair, but sod fairness; we do not want Iran having nukes. And they are a much more credible threat to do so than Iraq was.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, many people inside and outside of Congress, are not likely to believe Bush even if he tells nothing but the truth. He has already either lied or been completely incompetent (depending on your view) about one country's weapons programs/aims....
That's the problem with crying wolf.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Although it might be tough for him to draw their(Iran's) relation to the 9/11 attacks, he has the power to use military force on them. Without congress' approval. Just say that it is putting US foreign policy at risk (Their president has said many... poor things about Israel.), potential threat to US security, and that it would be fighting terrorism.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A war against Iran would hardly be a 'police action', though. Surely for such a major commitment, he'd want a formal declaration of war by the Congress?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A formal declaration of war hasn't happened since WWII. Unless we add a new ammendment, I have my doubts that it will ever happen again.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to say it, but I wouldn't put it past the Administration right now. As a lame duck president, he can start it and drop it in whoever's lap that follows him.
But I do believe he might "retire" a few of the warhorses that were a bit gunshy before plunging in. The old "unified front" deal is a big one for Dubya.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we have the manpower to mount an invasion of Iran, given the ongoing Iraq occupation, which already has us drawing on the National Guard.
But that (while steadfastly denying they're considering it) the Bush administration refuses to take the nuclear option off the table is disturbing.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we have the manpower? Sure we do. We pull troops from Europe, Korea and everywhere else they are stationed at the moment that isn't Iraq.
But will it happen? No way. Maybe, just maybe he might consider airstrikes, but that's stupid. Iran would almost immediately go to OPEC for retribution against the US, and likely they'd get a large measure of what they want. US gas prices skyrocket. Republicans will get slammed with so much backlash that a Republican majority in Congress after 2008 will look like a magic fantasyland.
Republicans will NOT support this action. Many of them are already wavering on support for the IRAQ War that they were such big fans of a few years ago. He's a lame duck. Anything he does along the road of a military attack on Iran only hurts the Republicans in the next election, and hurts anyone connected to him. He can kiss his domestic agenda goodbye.
I don't know specifically how the law works on this one, can Congress specifically vote for a military action to NOT be undertaken? They aren't going to support the President, and quite frankly I think they would deny him funding for it, which either forces him to pull it from domestic programs, pull it from Iraq funding, or forces Bush to pull whatever military forces he has in play.
Iran is political suicide for anyone who touches it. Let the Europeans handle it. They're always complaining we're doing too much anyway, I'm more than happy to take a backseat to them on this one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're certainly not invading. A lesser military action that significantly damages their infrastructure, but unlikely, as absent the complete takeover of their country, Iran will have a nuclear weapon at some point, and we'd rather prefer they didn't use it on us. Opportunity attacks to harass their progress are absolutely certain.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not convinced Europe can actually handle the Iranians, if we're talking about a real invasion to actually put people on the ground and search for nukes. Our armies are structured for small interventions and for defense against the armoured thrust of the Red Army towards Paris; not for projection of power against large nation-states capable of facing us in formal, set-piece battle.
There are troops for large-scale warfare, but no real mechanism for transporting and supplying them, since it was expected that they would be needed in Germany; and there are troops for interventions, but they're intended for small-scale colonial and insurrection warfare, not regime change. Right now, I don't know if we can do it without American support. Ask again in ten years, or twenty, when the EU has its own federal troops.
It's worth remembering that Persia was never a colony, even when Britain owned Arabia and India (including modern Pakistan) and they had a border with the Russians to the north. Now, partly that was balance-of-power issues with neither Britain nor Russia willing to see the other gain Persia; but also, Iran is just a damn difficult place to invade. Like China and Japan, Persia was one of the few non-European powers large enough to defend its interests. I suspect it's still true.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be willing to let the Navy give the Europeans a lift.
Much as I disagree with the Iraq War, have since the beginning and still do, had the Europeans made an effort to help (minus the British and the paltry offering from other nations), the problem might have been pacified by now. Of course, it would have been pacified anyway if America had gone in with the troop levels necessary from the get go, but Europe certainly could have helped. We went into Iraq in Gulf War I with an international force of half a million people, and even subtracting the Arab League forces from that force, it's still a lot more than we have there now.
Hm. I find it interesting to hear a European, citizen of a continent of people who publicly scorn America and tell us to sit down and shut up a lot of the time, say 'America should handle it.' Either we are the world's police, or we aren't, you can't have it both ways just to suit your own self interests.
Let Europe handle it. It's their turn. I'll support whatever action they want to take to deal with Iran, and will support America's helping them, but though we probably do have the resources to fix this problem in a military sense, the American people aren't going to accept another costly war, especially a much MORE costly one than the one we're still mired in.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either we are the world's police, or we aren't, you can't have it both ways just to suit your own self interests.
Why not? It's not as though you're very bright, never having had to deal with nations far stronger than yourself. You are so easy to manipulate, it's laughable.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Rove has been moved off of the front burners. I think that may be to free him up to work on 2008's election for the Republicans, though.
McClellan's resignation could mean he wasn't looking forward to being the spokesman for something. Or he just wants to work on his golf game...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's bound to be so much going on behind the scenes that most of us don't know about. I don't mean nefarious shenanigans, but, you know, the daily stuff -- ill family members, weird jealousies, whatnot. People are people, even if they are in positions of authority. Who knows what really drove the resignation?
Just thought it interesting. McClellan has seemed a bit more worked up than usual lately in his press conferences.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not? It's not as though you're very bright, never having had to deal with nations far stronger than yourself. You are so easy to manipulate, it's laughable.
The European nations, when they had nations equally powerful as themselves to deal with, that we wanted help from and didn't get, started wars and acted stupid all the time Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:McClellan has seemed a bit more worked up than usual lately in his press conferences.
It's a tough job defending Bush's failed policies. It's tougher still when you have to explain away all the lies you told to defend those policies in the last several years.
quote:Bush rocked by resignations White House press secretary Scott McClellan and senior advisor Karl Rove have announced their resignation from the Bush administration.
"I have given it my all, sir," Mr McClellan told George W Bush outside the White House before a group of reporters.
This article appears to have the details of Rove's position change wrong. Another source says what Sopwith said, that he's merely back-burnered to work on politics. I hope that he doesn't encourage the same sorts of dirty tricks he's famous for, but I think that even with Rove's help Republicans are going to have a hard time winning races in November. (Unless the Democrats essentially give it to them by refusing to stand up for the issues that matter to so many Americans.)
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This source claims that Bolten is driving all the changes. There's also a nice comment from Dean and some Republican strategist (though they don't give the strategist's name, which is a bit cheesy, I think).
McClellan got upset before when he was told that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the info leak in 2003, told that to reporters who believed him, and then found out that the Bush administration orchestrated the leak, which vastly decreased his credibility. Surprisingly, he didn't quit then.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Anyone stupid enough to think that Bush would be able to get us to invade Iran after the fiasco still going in Iraq needs to check themselves into a mental institution. Quickly.
That is a pretty rude thing to say. Iran admits it has enriched uranium and it wants to wipe Israel off the map. There is a believable case to be made for striking Iran's nuclear facilities, which would ensure we end up over there--even if you can't fathom the possibility.
However, I think the most likely scenario is that we give Israel consent behind closed doors to strike the nuclear facilities. If Iran responds with an official war, we could easily get sucked in to support our ally. I just can't see Israel letting them continue to enrich uranium when the rhetoric from Iran is to call for Israel's sudden destruction.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that just striking at the nuclear facilities isn't particularly effective, except as a delaying tactic. This is especially true because Iran has distributed and reinforced their facilities against attack. The appraisals I have seen in foreign policy journals say Israel is unlikely to be capable of disrupting most of the program with conventional weaponry; the general view is that it would be difficult even for the US.
Some disruption will almost certainly be on the table, but any overly large display of force enhances the possibility that Iran will use the bomb(s) it will almost certainly eventually create, even with disruption.
As for invading, there is no plausible scenario. Iran's military forces would be able to put up vastly greater resistance than Iraq's, and we would need to relax our already stretched security commitments around the world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing they are occupying is a base, and no we don't. I'm all for pulling out the majority of those military forces. Leave the airforce base, you never know when we might need it for something later, and it's nice to have a hub in that part of the world, not to mention the military hospitals there.
quote:Why not? It's not as though you're very bright, never having had to deal with nations far stronger than yourself. You are so easy to manipulate, it's laughable.
Which is why you get your way with us so often? Heh. Europe is such a non-factor these days, pretending to actually BE important, that your whiney cries for others to do something or not do something are what's laughable.
As for Iran, the last time they got nuclear power close to running, Israel swatted them down without anyone's help. I don't see any indication that they won't do the same thing again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
that was iraq under FAR different circumstances.
IP: Logged |
posted
Good luck destroying their centrifuges. They have multiple locations, heavily defended by anti-air and often partially underground, not to mention the technical capability to just plain make more. They might be able to delay Iran a year or two, but that's hardly worth aggravating the situation with the large strikes that would be required to do so.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either we are the world's police, or we aren't, you can't have it both ways just to suit your own self interests.
Why not? It's not as though you're very bright, never having had to deal with nations far stronger than yourself. You are so easy to manipulate, it's laughable.
It IS a bit true....
We let him in, didn't we? Not that I blame his country for getting rid of him. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you're misunderstanding. The point is that attacking with substantial force only to effect a small delay is more likely to cause Iran to eventually use a nuclear weapon against Israel.
Any delay gained is more than offset by the additional risk, and no real delay is gained because Iran will not strike when they only have one bomb. Then they have nothing with which to threaten countries coming looking for retribution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Israel's point would be for them to get ZERO nukes. By the time they have enough nukes to feel comfortable making a strike, it's already too late.
Don't forget thet Israel has nukes as well, and I'm sure they have bunker buster bombs that we've either given or sold them. You don't think they could cause enough structural damage to either eliminate or severely hamper Iran's program?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Israel could use nukes. They'd need to, many of the facilities are placed such that even our largest conventional weapons have little hope of success. And of course, several of the facilities are in civilian areas.
And even given the use of nuclear weapons, its unlikely they could stop the program permanently unless they got lucky and hit most of the nuclear scientists, who are the only nonreplacable resource in the entire thing.
But the use of nuclear weapons on another state would put Israel into a world of hurt. Almost every state would cut off aid and trade (including the US, we'd be legally (and morally, IMO) required to), devastating their economy; the terrorist attacks against them would make the current climate seem like a nice day at the beach; they'd likely be forced to give Iran huge sums of money in reparations and aid to deal with the civilian death toll; they might be forced to significantly redraw their borders in concessions to a Palestinian state (and yes, I do mean forced. When you use nuclear weapons in war under the current legal regimes the mere existence of your state becomes at the pleasure of the major powers); and they'd definitely be forcibly dearmed of nuclear weapons and much of the capability to make more.
Israel isn't going to use nuclear weapons unless there's an imminent threat.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing i want to say is that if any country used WMD's on another country every country in the world would be against that country. No matter what country even the U.S. I think the Iranian President is crazy but i dont believe hes crazy enough to do something as stupid as fire a WMD at Israel. I mean look at North Korea they would like to blow South Korea to dust but they dont because they know what the effects to them will be
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wait, and hope, to see starLisa's reply to fugu's post.
I don't think there'd be much of a civilian death toll though. Those facilities aren't near cities. And I'd like to see anyone forcibly make Israel do anything. If you back them into a corner, even after they just nuked the crap out of someone, I don't think they'll meekly accept world decisions on the future of their nation. They'll fight back, and thanks to the US, they have one of the most highly trained and well armed armies in the world to do so with conventionally.
Not that I think it would come to all that. But I AM curious to see what Israel will start doing in the coming months (years) as this situation escalates. They are the one most threatened by a nuclear Iran, not the West. Yet at the moment most of the clamor is from the EU and America.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the most important facilities are in a city of over two million people, Isfahan. Other facilities are in places with "only" a few tens of thousands of people in close proximity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, some of the sanctions they might resist. However, to resist those sanctions would mean no end in sight for the no-aid and no-trade restrictions, crippling the Israeli economy, and in the slightly longer run their military.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I correct in thinking that Israel hasn't foresworn assination as a political tool? If so (and probably even if it has), I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mossad had plans in place to kill key Iranian engineers and scientists.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's definitely a possibility. The main risk is, if they don't get enough of them, they've again increased the chance an eventual nuclear weapon will be used against them. I suspect Iran has a strong training program in place, and has hundreds of fairly qualified nuclear engineers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't surprise me either. Both Israel's attempt at assasination, and that Iran probably has dozens if not hundred of nuclear scientists waiting in the wings with the knowledge to duplicate whatever the scientists who were killed were working on.
I'm not saying Israel taking any sort of unilateral action, be it an airstrike, nuclear weapon or assasination is a good idea. On the contrary, I think it will only lead to massive hardship for them in the end. However, Israel doesn't leave it's safety in the hands of others, and when it feels others are not doing enough it takes matters into its own hands. If they feel sufficiently threatened, they won't wait for the US or the EU to act, they'll go it alone. It's part of the Israeli siege mentality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect Israel will take a longer-term view, waiting out the occupation of Iraq then quietly pushing to effect regime change in Iran, likely eventually involving a large air campaign by the US, economic instruments, and the protection of opposition groups.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Withdrawing troops from the U.S.' international bases isn't something that can be done quickly, quietly, or without significant resentment both from the nations that house those bases and the soldiers themselves. An invasion based on those forces, even if authorized, would likely be catastrophic and largely unsuccessful.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Iran was going to use a WMD on Israel my guess is they would use it once U.S troops in Iraq and Afganistan were sent home. Israel can hold its own because they are so far ahead of all the middle east countries technologically.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't count out Saudi Arabia. They have an American armed and trained army AND air force.
They still aren't as good as the Israelis or the Americans, but it wouldn't be the type of pushover slaughter the last time Israeli tanks met Arab tanks on a battle field. Neither side is playing with Russian toys from the cold war.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
