View Full Version : Al-Sadr In Iran...Precision Strike?
Why did we let that evil, brooding bastard live long enough to get into Iran where they say he is now? Then again, does it even matter? Between the smuggled Iranian rockets now killing our men inside the green zone, their strong but negative influence over the majority Shiite population, their relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and now harboring Al-Sadr, should we make a statement?
Would one limited, but effective strike have to be a catalyst to all out war with Iran? Personally, I don't think they would have the guts. I'm not sure that they would even retaliate to one strike. And if we can do so with no U.S. casualties, I am ready to find out. It's not like they are just going away. This will just get worse over time until something is done.
I'd be very curious to hear other opinions.
The reason Al-Sadr is still alive is because we allowed the Iraqis to play pretend-government back in 2004. He was holed up in the Ali mosque in Najaf. No one wanted to shoot up the mosque and piss of Muslims, or enter it to piss off Muslims, or kill Al-Sadr and make a martyr of him. When they brokered that deal and let him walk out of there, I thought "There's no way they're that stupid. They'll probably give him a few months and quietly assassinate him once he's out of the limelight." Obviously, I was wrong as Al-Sadr grew from rogue firebrand to Shiite political frontman. Doh!
Personally, I think there is some clever guy behind the scenes calling all the shots for Al-Sadr. He seems mildly retarded to me and incapable of getting as far as he's come - but maybe I'm underestimating him.
As to the strike on Iran, I doubt we would do it. It would be more effective to nab some of their agents and mail some of their components to Tehran - Soviet style. Send the type of message that doesn't make the news. This is even less likely than dropping some bombs, however.
Sadr is around due to the catch 22 of nation building - if we do every thing for the iraqis, they'll never learn to do it themselves. BUT, when you let them do it themselves, they screw it up.
Personally, I think there is some clever guy behind the scenes calling all the shots for Al-Sadr. He seems mildly retarded to me and incapable of getting as far as he's come - but maybe I'm underestimating him.
I believe he came into power as a result of his father, who filled a similar role, being killed by Saddam. How he sustains it is anyone's guess, but by all means I would agree that he appears as though he has a less than adequate brain.
I just think the time has come to send a message to Iran that we are no longer to be ****ed with.
Rmplstlskn
04-07-08, 13:57
I believe he came into power as a result of his father, who filled a similar role, being killed by Saddam.
From what I remember, yes, that is what put his blip on the map, but it was US, under pressure from the Iraqi gov't and our foolish appeasement of muslim "sensitivities" regarding their mosques/shrines (aka safe houses used to launch attacks and store weapons) and US letting him go years ago that catapulted him to such national power...
Now he is a major player, and we allowed it to happen... (sound familiar????)
Rmpl
While I do think that a(or several) strike is needed for Iran, at this time I think it is pointless. Reason being, we are about to get another Pres and none of the possible three that we have, will follow through in the apropriate way. The Dems already want out of Iraq so they will do nothing but weasel out of anything else, and I just have no confidence in McLame.
Iraq Ninja
04-07-08, 17:09
First of all, there has been some major ass kicking going on the past week near Sadr City. Lets just say that the bad guys can run, but they can't hide. They are very short on Iranian trained rocket crews right now.
Killing Sadr won't do much. But other things are going on behind the scenes. There is a reason why a 7.62x39 upper for a M4 may be of use over here...
Here is some Iranian steel that ended up behind my hooch. T wall stopped it for me:
http://a275.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/5/l_69c2c85e23cce28d411880e7cda24cb2.jpg
First of all, there has been some major ass kicking going on the past week near Sadr City. Lets just say that the bad guys can run, but they can't hide. They are very short on Iranian trained rocket crews right now.
Killing Sadr won't do much. But other things are going on behind the scenes. There is a reason why a 7.62x39 upper for a M4 may be of use over here...
Here is some Iranian steel that ended up behind my hooch. T wall stopped it for me:
Very happy to hear about the ass kicking they are getting, even happier to see that those pieces of shrapnel missed you. :cool:
Thank-you for the valuable first-hand assessment. Stay safe.
I would be more apt to call it a strategic, 4th generation warfare retreat and not an ass kicking. Iran needs Sadr and his men to cut off the US supply lines in Basra when/if the US attacks Iran. If we are that foolish to attack I fear our troops will need all the prayers they can get.
I do think that it would be very difficult to cut our supply lines with Saddr's men.
OldNavyGuy
04-08-08, 08:19
First of all, there has been some major ass kicking going on the past week near Sadr City. Lets just say that the bad guys can run, but they can't hide. They are very short on Iranian trained rocket crews right now.
Killing Sadr won't do much. But other things are going on behind the scenes. There is a reason why a 7.62x39 upper for a M4 may be of use over here...
Here is some Iranian steel that ended up behind my hooch. T wall stopped it for me:
http://a275.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/5/l_69c2c85e23cce28d411880e7cda24cb2.jpg
take care over there man, that steel looks as though it do some serious damage to your body, i pray to GOD every day you patriots are safe.
Would they have the guts?
We're talking about a country that fought Sadaam for 8 years with over a million casualties, throwing 14 year old boys into the breach, facing chemical weapons.
Yes, I think they have the guts to retaliate.
Killing Sadr now will ignite a firestorm and make him a martyr.
The Iranian issue -- we unfortunatekly sooner or later we will be at war with them. I would rather be during my generation than my childrens...
IMO: Killing Sadr would be a mistake because it's obvious he has political aspirations. Thus it may be possible to manipulated him or at the very least keep him on a leash. I get the feeling he is a just a want-to-be politician playing insurgent leader / cleric to get the political power he desperately wants. He is also the only one holding the Maadi Army together. If he were gone it would fragment into many uncontrollable parts that would be outside of the political process. Since it's very possible the the Iraqi government does not have the stones to forceably disarm & disband his militia I have the feeling the only way to get rid of them is going to be some brokered deal with power sharing with his militia going away as part of the deal.
How many insurgent conflicts have been won on military might alone?
After the Iraqi government gets real control over the country, things calm down, the militias are gone, just have him die "accidentally" by slipping on the sidewalk or something. No martyr, no drama.
Killing Sadr now will ignite a firestorm and make him a martyr.
So be it then. The reality is that he should have been martyred a long time ago. Keeping him alive with no strategic value whatsoever except to keep the peace which he constantly undermines anyway is flat out stupid, IMHO. I would say the situation with him now implies weakness on our part and has become something of an embarrassment. Let the "firestorm" come, it will flush out many of the enemy that now play good guy one day and bad guy the next there.
I don't say that because I am safe here at home. I deeply care about every single life and limb lost there. But, this is a war, is it not? He is an enemy combatant killing our troops and he needs to die.
Better the devil you know...
Sadr has kept the JAM bottled up since he is not leading this -- his ceasfire has been instrumental in allowing secuirty to make the progress it has, however Maliki on his own went after the JAM in BASRA - It was not a US Mil intiative.
MAS wants to be the leader of Iraq -- he knows he needs to do it not from the barrel of a gun, he also has big shoes to fill.
I'm more for paving Iran - since 99% iof stuff shot at us or blowing us up is persian manufactured...
Would they have the guts?
We're talking about a country that fought Sadaam for 8 years with over a million casualties, throwing 14 year old boys into the breach, facing chemical weapons.
Yes, I think they have the guts to retaliate.
This is an excellent point, no doubt. But is it necessarily relevant here? With today's military capability, the U.S. could inflict far more damage all over Iran with cruise missiles and air-strikes alone then Saddam ever could. And we could quickly destroy those nuclear facilities of theirs that they hold so dear. The fact is they have a lot to lose, and they could lose it fast.
As KevinB stated, this is going to go down eventually. Even the Democrats will be forced one day to relent to this fact. Should we not do this on our terms rather than wait for some terrible event like most would rather do? Again, I am not necessarily saying start another war, just saying that some limited strikes would make the statement that many feel needs to be made. If they retaliate, we start by destroying their nuclear facilities and air force and see where things go from there.
I know this is an extremely complicated situation, but I just have to wonder how far Iran will be allowed to go. As far as Al-Sadr, yes there would likely be a backlash if he dies. But would we not be better off in the long run?
Part of the issue with Iran is that a large percentage of the population is under 30 and these are actively engaged in going to underground rock concerts. Ahmad-ee-jad is engaging in the classic trick of trying to incite animosity to deflect attention away from Iran's own economic and cultural problems.
It's sad, but one of our most effective weapons in our cultural war is our own materialistic, peurile, teeny-bopper culture. Evidently, repressed young people still want to be cool. You can't put the Beatle/internet etc genie back in the bottle.
I don't think this will, or should, effect the short term tactical decisions we make in Iraq - but I think there is a long range game to be played here. The generation kept under the heel of the secret/religious police are going to grow up one day. I think a coup d'etat or a social revolution would get longer lasting and maintainable goals than a bombing campaign.
I don't think war with Iran is imminent. Ahmadijad, like Hitler is simply playing to his base - the fundamentalist mullahs. While closing the border off or doing some sort of covert interdiction is in order, I think hitting a bunch of stuff in iran would play into his hands.
Submariner
04-08-08, 13:18
Part of the issue with Iran is that a large percentage of the population is under 30 and these are actively engaged in going to underground rock concerts. Ahmad-ee-jad is engaging in the classic trick of trying to incite animosity to deflect attention away from Iran's own economic and cultural problems.
..
It's sad, but one of our most effective weapons in our cultural war is our own materialistic, peurile, teeny-bopper culture. Evidently, repressed young people still want to be cool. You can't put the Beatle/internet etc genie back in the bottle..
Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll helped bring down the Soviet Union, why not the evil Persians, too?
Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll helped bring down the Soviet Union, why not the evil Persians, too?
We defeated the Soviet Union by not compromising and by running their economy into the ground. While we accelerated the process by confronting them and preparing for war, we were exploiting a system that already had some critical flaws.
While different on a number of levels, I think the same applies for Iran. You identify the cracks in the society and make an effort to enlarge them. Encourage and covertly fund dissent, etc. We have an oppurtunity to play against type and set the stage for future success OR play the role Amadijad has scripted for us to a "tee". Rattle our sabres, engage in lofty rhetoric and lob a few bombs.
Amadijad knows we are not going to embark on another large scale war w/ Afghanistan heating up and Iraq unstable. That said, I think war would be good for the iranian govt - what they would lose in infrastructure they would gain in unified support against the US. Dissatisfaction about our policies would go from being a religious and social issue to a being a concrete issue for John Q. Iranian when we kill some relatives with collateral damage.
What many forget is that Amadijad does a lot of this international sapper rattling merely to benefit is own internal political situation. It would be hard for the clerics to keep chanting “America is Evil” to keep their population in line if they were getting along with the West/America. It also helps them to distract their population from Iran’s economic woes. Oddly enough the vast majority of their population would prefer closer ties to the West and an end to the constant BS. Too bad the freak Clerics run the country.
I long for the day when the west can give up on our dependence for Middle Eastern / foreign oil. In a hundred years these morons will be back in the stone ages with a national GNP equal to Somalia. They are nothing without oil and have done nothing to build a true economy. I hope I live long enough to see it.
In my earlier posts, when I stated that we should strike Iran, it had nothing to do with Sadr. My point was closer to what KevinB stated in that, we are going to be at war with Iran and better my lifetime than my children. That said, one thing that no one has mentioned is the Russian support of Iran. That is something that we will need to also deal with. In fact there are many fronts on which we are either already, or will be, at odds with Russia on i.e. Iran (obviously), Kosovo, and even the oil in the north pole just to mention a few. While I realize that Russia is not as powerful as it once was, they still have nukes.
I long for the day when the west can give up on our dependence for Middle Eastern / foreign oil. In a hundred years these morons will be back in the stone ages with a national GNP equal to Somalia. They are nothing without oil and have done nothing to build a true economy. I hope I live long enough to see it.
+1. I could not agree more:D
While different on a number of levels, I think the same applies for Iran. You identify the cracks in the society and make an effort to enlarge them. Encourage and covertly fund dissent, etc. We have an oppurtunity to play against type and set the stage for future success OR play the role Amadijad has scripted for us to a "tee". Rattle our sabres, engage in lofty rhetoric and lob a few bombs.
This is also an excellent point. In fact, I have heard that the general population of Iran may have a higher regard for the U.S. than those in Iraq we are trying to help.
Problem is, they are not the ones calling the shots now or likely anytime soon. How long can/should we wait?
This is also an excellent point. In fact, I have heard that the general population of Iran may have a higher regard for the U.S. than those in Iraq we are trying to help.
Problem is, they are not the ones calling the shots now or likely anytime soon. How long can/should we wait?
Interesting question. How long did it take us and the Brits to put the Shaw in power?
Interesting question. How long did it take us and the Brits to put the Shaw in power?
Ah, "Operation Ajax", one of the root causes of our current problems in the Middle East. I'm sure they don't need any more of that kind of 'help' anytime soon, we are still dealing with that mess as it is.
Ah, "Operation Ajax", one of the root causes of our current problems in the Middle East. I'm sure they don't need any more of that kind of 'help' anytime soon, we are still dealing with that mess as it is.
No arguments here
Two Iranian presidents ago, they had a guy who was amazingly reform minded and open to the West. I don't remember his name but the mullahs shut him down.
As to the Shah, I think his way of doing business and our more or less open support of him against Soviet backed pretenders to the throne is what gave the islamic revolution a lot of its anti-American flavor. You had all the classic elements: an installed puppet, a brutal secret police and a pissy and disgruntled population.
Instead of shutting Iran off, maybe we should go the other direction and form more economic bonds w/ iran, push Russia (and France) out and take the wind out of Amadijad's rhetoric. There are some immediate problems with this idea (arms sales and oil exports come to mind) but one of the best weapons against Islamic fervor is money.
IIRC, Turkey got Islamified and refused to let us use their territory for OIF. Rumsfeld canked a huge aid package and guess what? Islam suddenly became less important. We could increase our standing w/ the people and prostitute the the credibility of the mullahs in the eyes of the truly nutty extremists when they sell out.
Instead of shutting Iran off, maybe we should go the other direction and form more economic bonds w/ iran, push Russia (and France) out and take the wind out of Amadijad's rhetoric. There are some immediate problems with this idea (arms sales and oil exports come to mind) but one of the best weapons against Islamic fervor is money.
IIRC, Turkey got Islamified and refused to let us use their territory for OIF. Rumsfeld canked a huge aid package and guess what? Islam suddenly became less important. We could increase our standing w/ the people and prostitute the the credibility of the mullahs in the eyes of the truly nutty extremists when they sell out.
Another interesting point, but I have a hard time grasping the concept of bribing our enemies to be our friends. I know we have likely done it countless times before, and maybe with Iran's population being somewhat pro-west the idea could pan out in the end.
But, their leaders are terrorists with American blood on their hands. Not just from the past, but from today as well. The only way to hold power in Iran now is to be a hard liner. And, what about the nuclear weapons they will likely have in a few years? Can we really afford to play that chess game in this particular circumstance?
I know we are working with Sunni's in Anbar (that killed Americans) together against AQ, and it is effective. But even if AQ is eradicated in Iraq, what of our relations with the militant Sunni's then? I won't pre-judge because I know I can say for sure, but I am very sure our troops there keep their eyes open at all times when close to them.
What a mess. :mad:
I do not think they would retaliate. The Iranian president loves his job to much. He doesnt want to risk losing his job and posibly ending up in hell.
(and France).
What level is France actually involved with them?
Another interesting point, but I have a hard time grasping the concept of bribing our enemies to be our friends. I know we have likely done it countless times before, and maybe with Iran's population being somewhat pro-west the idea could pan out in the end.
I was thinking more along the lines of trying to build some economic based alliances, vice raw cash or, like North Korea, food (having to eat grass must suck). Increasing trade would build more of a relationship than simple cash payouts. Some mutually beneficial business dealings would be good, essentially paying protection money would be bad, very bad.
But, their leaders are terrorists with American blood on their hands. Not just from the past, but from today as well. The only way to hold power in Iran now is to be a hard liner. And, what about the nuclear weapons they will likely have in a few years? Can we really afford to play that chess game in this particular circumstance?
I think there is the long game and the short game. I think our Middle East policies are jacked and need a complete overhaul. This will not happen overnight, if it ever happens at all. Even if the political and social winds shifted, I don't think it would be a good idea for us to make drastic changes, but realign ourselves subtly and incrementally over time.
That said, just because I think we are off the beam doesn't mean we should just stand around and get killed. I think we should soften our policies in one direction and go pedal to the metal in another direction (as in covert or limited war). Give islamo-states a choice between prosperity and viability or violent conflict that we will actually take into the endzone.
All we're doing now is talking crap, especially w/ the elections coming up. The candidates are playing to their hardliners, just like Amadijad.
Bulldog1967
04-10-08, 08:48
Although the mastermind of the 1983 Beruit Marine Barracks bombing is now dead, Iran and it's puppet Hezbollah have yet to atone for it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/MarineBarracksBeirut_23October1983.jpg
Before Al Qaeda, Hezzbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization.
Between that and Iran's active participation in killing our troops in Iraq, I have no interest in taking the "soft approach". :mad:
And as to the nuke thing, I think it's just a matter of time. I don't think Iran would sell stuff to terrorists, as a national policy decision. What would happen would be a sect of Islamic nuts, w/i the military or nuclear industry selling to their islamic brethren - people who wouldn't give a rats that their entire country is going to get cooked.
A number of Arab countries have, in the past vetted extreme elements from their police and military (for practical, not moral reasons), but with nukes there is simply no margin for error.
Iran has a partially friendly populace and a leader at least capable of rational thought. North Korea is run by a delusional nut ball and has a population of brainwashed drones - and a nuclear program and no compunction about selling technology to bad people. But we give them the eskimo pie and basically trade food and resources for good behavior. Maybe we should swap strategies and see what happens.
Between that and Iran's active participation in killing our troops in Iraq, I have no interest in taking the "soft approach". :mad:
It's appropriate for us to retaliate against people who attack us. That's why I think we should step up the violence and military action on a "solution-oriented" level - like closing the ratlines that allow iranian ordinance to get into Iraq, maybe attacking some cross border infrastructure. The short game.
The long game is to address the issues that are at the root of the conflict - stick to our guns where it is in keeping with our values and national character and jettison policies that are not in keeping with our ideals.
Until we do this, Islam-related war and terrorism will go on forever. We will be just another player in their retarded, prehistoric endless blood feud. This might be cool with 3rd world desert sad-sacks. I think we, the American people have better things to do with our time.
What level is France actually involved with them?
IIRC, France and Russia were both engaging in trade and general good relations with Iran while Condoleeza Rice were trying to isolate them and lower the boom on their nuke program. This was in 2005-6(?).
I googled Iran France and evidently Sarkozy is more hardline and closer to the American position than his sissy predecessor. While Iran is a big issue in and of itself, it is sort of a football in US-USSR, er I mean Russian relations. Russia's support is a way of flipping us the bird and of course a way to make money.
It's appropriate for us to retaliate against people who attack us. That's why I think we should step up the violence and military action on a "solution-oriented" level - like closing the ratlines that allow iranian ordinance to get into Iraq, maybe attacking some cross border infrastructure. The short game.
The long game is to address the issues that are at the root of the conflict - stick to our guns where it is in keeping with our values and national character and jettison policies that are not in keeping with our ideals.
Until we do this, Islam-related war and terrorism will go on forever. We will be just another player in their retarded, prehistoric endless blood feud. This might be cool with 3rd world desert sad-sacks. I think we, the American people have better things to do with our time.
While I largely agree with what you have said, I think part of the problem is that we have been too soft in our approach up to this point. I truly agreed wit your statement of "That said, just because I think we are off the beam doesn't mean we should just stand around and get killed. I think we should soften our policies in one direction and go pedal to the metal in another direction (as in covert or limited war). Give islamo-states a choice between prosperity and viability or violent conflict that we will actually take into the endzone.". My problem with the rest of your statement is, that from what I can tell from historical examples the middle east doesn't respect or even fully understand the soft approach. As an example we tried the Iran contra, and the Soviets simply cut them into pieces, and with seemingly better results. Something else, while you might understand what you are trying to do and how to accomplish it, the next person to follow you may (read probably) not fully understand your method. However if you take a slightly harder approach it can usually be easier to figure out with less room for misunderstanding.
Side note, I think that Russia has already sold Iran a nuke or two and they are saving it.
This story released yesterday is extremely interesting and seemingly indiciatve that what I said in my initial post (except for Al-Sadr) also weighs very heavily on the minds of those who can do something about it...
______________________________________________________________
Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing
Monday, April 14, 2008 9:37 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.
“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.
“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.
Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.
Tensions in the region have been rising.
While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.
“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said.
He predicted that in a future war, “hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel,” but added that Iran “is definitely aware of our strength.”
In addition to long-range missiles Iran has been developing to strike Israel, Israel’s military strategists see the Iranians using terror groups they back like Hamas operating from Palestine and Hezbollah from Lebanon to launch attacks.
Iran has supplied Hezbollah with an arsenal that now contains “tens of thousands of missiles,” according to the Washington Post.
IIsrael’s recent war exercises, including preparations for chemical and biological weapons attacks, drew a sharp response from Syria which held its own military drills. The Syrian government accused Israel of preparing for a war which Damascus predicted would be begin anytime between May 1 and the end of June.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently told foreign journalists that Israel needs to confront the threat posed by Iran. Privately he has been telling associates his number one priority is have the Israeli military strike Iran if the U.S. is unwilling.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed that Israel is concerned that North Korea has transferred technology and nuclear materials to Iran to aid Tehran’s secret nuclear weapons program.
Iran remains intransigent to international pressure that it offer full transparency relating to its nuclear program. On Sunday the head of Iran’s nuclear program “abruptly canceled a meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, dealing a blow to the U.N. monitor's efforts to investigate allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms, an agency official said,” according to an AP report.
“But a senior diplomat had told the AP that IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] head Mohamed ElBaradei likely planned to use the meeting with Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's nuclear program, to renew a request for more information on allegations Tehran had tried to make atomic arms.”
A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”:
According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.
The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran’s Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed.
The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush’s strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic.
Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush’s Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon’s departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran.
According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any “radioactive hazards” that may result from an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.”
The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq’s stability. He told senators : “Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way.” Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad.
MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus’ remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran.
President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are “two of the greatest threats to America.”
He said Iran “can live in peace with its neighbors,” or “continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people … If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”
He later told ABC News that if Iran continues to help militants in Iraq, “then we’ll deal with them.”
Members of Congress are said to have been briefed by the administration about the rising Iran threat.
Iran did little to cool tensions when it announced that it had begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.
Centrifuges can enrich uranium to a low level to produce nuclear fuel or a high level for use in weapons.
The announcement of the new centrifuges by President Ahmadinejad came on April 8, Iran’s National Day of Nuclear Technology, which marked the second anniversary of Iran’s first enrichment of uranium.
Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement was widely seen as a show of defiance to international demands to halt a nuclear program that the U.S. and its allies insist is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
I don't think this is very likely. We don't have the balls to do it. Israel does have the balls, but I don't think they would actively amp up their regional conflicts with all the stuff they've got going at home (the two are far from mutually exclusive, but I think you know what I mean).
Either way, I think it's a bad idea. Again, using the commies as an example - we didn't defeat Russia militarily, we sped up the dissolution of a bad idea. Same deal with Iran. We could annihilate Iran but we have done nothing to discredit the ideology that created a modern Islamic state - if anything we would be dumping fuel on an already very hot fire, create thousands of martyrs and create far more bad guys than we would actually kill.
Communism is dead, as a global movement of any significance. While there is no way we would get that lucky with Islam I think the principle of attacking ideas and perceptions is how you defeat a movement. Violence certainly is a tool in the tool box, but if all we have on the table is threats and coercion we're in a bad way.
Look at Israel. You can have aggressive and innovative operations all you want, but all the Muslims have to do is not quit and continue to push out ragged pissed off little Muslims - things they are very good at.
Fortunately, the US has some flexibility in how we go about dealing with the issue. The Israelis dove into the deep end of the pool a long time ago and there list of viable strategies is pretty short.
Side note, I think that Russia has already sold Iran a nuke or two and they are saving it.
Agreed. The mob probably has some fissionable material hidden in a warehouse or a restaraunt somewhere. I remember reading how one of their guys got nailed selling a diesel/electric submarine to the Medellin cartel. (The Russian mob, that is)
Agreed. The mob probably has some fissionable material hidden in a warehouse or a restaraunt somewhere.
I hope you mean the Russian mafia. The NJ/NY/Philly "mafia" would have no part of such things my friend.
Seems like Al-Sadr is even pissing off the Iranians...
______________________________________________________________
Iran’s Web Site Warns About Newsmax
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:07 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Iran’s pro-government Web site Asr Iran on Wednesday featured a detailed report about Kenneth R. Timmerman’s Newsmax article disclosing that Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada Sadr had been placed under house arrest in Iran.
Timmerman’s story, posted on Newsmax Tuesday, began: “The Iranian regime has been putting the squeeze on radical Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada Sadr over the past week, temporarily placing him under house arrest and freezing his bank accounts, sources in Tehran told Newsmax.”
Asr Iran knows Newsmax well and pointed out to its readers: “Newsmax is well known for its anti-Iran aspects.”
Sources within Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, which has trained, equipped, and funded Sadr’s Mahdi army since 2003, told Timmerman they now have concerns that Sadr may have gone too far.
“They fear that Sadr’s support for the uprising in Basra, which was successfully put down by the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with U.S. support, could push the United States to attack Iran,” Timmerman wrote.
Timmerman referred to a Newsmax lead story posted on Monday divulging that President Bush has upped the ante against Iran in recent weeks, giving rise to speculation that the U.S. is close to making a final decision on whether to launch military strikes against Iran.
Timmerman also disclosed that Iranian security forces on Tuesday had placed 25 members of the Mahdi army under house arrest in the Iranian border city of Ahwaz, and that the Tehran regime closed five bank accounts that were being used by Sadr largely to cover expenses of Mahdi army fighters training in Iran.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
However improbable this smells like some sort of US-Iran drug deal. I can't think of any good reason for them to put a leash on Sadr. Maybe they have found a better Shiite front man/puppet and they are phasing Sadr out. If some new Shiite power man/opposition leader becomes prominent in the next few months it will be an interesting development.
While the whole Soviet-US cold war analogy is well argued and such, their is a fundamental difference between the two.
The Soviet-US Cold War was a difference of Politics.
The War on Terror is more of a religious one and as such it his highly unlikely the same strategy will work.
I honestly do not think this war will be won with the bullet, but rather a CD of a Western music artist.
While the whole Soviet-US cold war analogy is well argued and such, their is a fundamental difference between the two.
The Soviet-US Cold War was a difference of Politics.
The War on Terror is more of a religious one and as such it his highly unlikely the same strategy will work.
I honestly do not think this war will be won with the bullet, but rather a CD of a Western music artist.
Yes, big difference between this and the Soviet scenario. Potentially much worse due to the lengths the radicals (the one's who call the shots) will go. They want to die if they can take us with them, the rotten misguided bastards. The Russian's had more basic common sense and cared if their children saw tomorrow.
Initally the statement about the Western artist's CD rang a very sound tone. Yes, the properly planted seed can flourish there, as some have been already doing so. But, then the liberal, "everything will be ok" aspect of the analysis comes through very clear as well.
If we had lot's of time and nuclear weapons were not a factor, I suppose. I do not believe we have this luxury here and now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.