Some in the intelligence community think that Iran may be a silent superpower. Not in the sense that the United States or China is, or even what Russian was, but in the sense of its control on world energy supplies. The underlying concern is this along with Iran becoming a nuclear state. There is no doubt that Iran is on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Monitoring and inspections have not worked, and sanctions have only slowed down the country economically. There is enough revenue from under the table oil deals to fund any black market nuclear technology that Tehran may need. So what can be done? Military action against Iran is out of the question. A counter attack would be the final nail in the US economic coffin, and Washington knows this. An attack on Iran would likely result in a barrage of Silkworms targeting oil tankers and other vessels that would easily shut down the Strait of Hormuz, shutting off a vital supply of Gulf oil. It is estimated that 40% of the global oil supply would be cut off. Can you imagine gasoline tripling, quadrupling, or worse? Other fallout would be a likely attack on Israeli infrastructure, a possible global arms race stemming from the US flaunting NPT (use of tactical nuclear weapons would be necessary against hardened Iranian targets), destroyed relationship with Russia and China who hold large contracts with Iran, an increase in global terrorism attacks by al Qaeda supported groups, as well as a likely new campaign by Hezbollah against US interests. So what can be done? Do we allow Iran to become a nuclear state? We know the Mullah’s would love to expand their empire, and there is no doubt that Iraq is first on their list. Can we afford to keep Iran as an enemy and allow them to become an aggressor in the region? Personally, I think the only recourse the US has is to open up diplomatic talks with Tehran. Find out what they want. Whether it is their own security, economic trade, etc... There must be something that the regime desires. Surely their nuclear ambition has something to do with having US military occupied Iraq to the west, and Afghanistan to the East. It would be in the best interest to both improve diplomatic relations.
I would also like to add that I give the Bush administration a little credit by negotiating an agreement with Ayatollah Khamenei regarding military action by the US during the remaining months of Bush's second term. It is proof that there is room for negotiation, and that both sides can benefit by opening up diplomatic talks.
Iran is a concern because of the reasons I stated in my first post. And I do agree, Pakistan is a pressure cooker, and needs to be dealt with. However, that is another issue, and one we can definitely discuss in a different thread.
It's irrelevant at this point what Bush's personal quests are or are not. The USA is in Iraq. Iran is providing material support for those trying to kill soldiers and Marines. Iran is a real concern, for those who care about the safety of coalition troops. Pakistan is a concern as well, for the same reasons in the Afghanistan theater.
You people have left out the catalyst of this silly putty. Israel. NOBODY pushes for war with Iran harder than they do. And they ride the back of the US government like a mahoot on an elephant. x
Absolutely. Iran is a global issue and those who fail to recognize this, do so at their own peril. In response to your well reasoned OP, the USA needs to do all it can to prevent further advancements in the Iranian weapons development. Continued and increased covert operations at his point are imperative and immediate. This increase from our intelligence allies would be necessary as well. Direct intelligence of weapons development and processes is required as well as asset development in all areas, not just in the nuclear development. On the public arena, increased diplomacy with allies for effective sanctions until inspections, compliance, and verifications can be effected are imperative. No one can drop the ball in this arena. On the direct diplomatic front, and now that we have a start in direct diplomacy for the first time since 1979, we continue to develop and expand that. It is an excellent opportunity for casual diplomacy with the Iranian leadership in efforts to get at least one precondition such that we can do an all-out presidential level meeting. Carrots of easing of sanctipons, grants for education, etc. are availble for each positive step. This is the primary step in that direction of high-level diplomacy and cannot be compromised. Our intelligence will still continue so we will know what is happening leading up to this, so I do not see any downside in loss of intelligence if we continue with the insistence of preconditions. And, of course, keep developing plans B and C in case the above fails. Sometimes targeted strikes are necessary to keep the momentum to a minimum. If Iran ever has a nuke, many of these options are no longer feasible; and we and other NPT signatory states will be greatly limited in diplomacy after that point. Limited options are not desirable. Also, Israel will unleash itself if Iran gets a weapon and that is very much a concern for the world.
maybe america should attack every country that whacki designates a problem?? shame he won't be fighting in the war on iran.
I see the comprehension problem has reached the far left and the dilusional. Why don't you re-read the first post jackass.
whacki from previous encounters with you i have learnt one thing - you never change. therefore all posts regarding politics are judged with the same eye. oh i'm sure you are all for dialogue (for now) but we all know that given your ideology it won't be long before you call for all out war on iran given your line on iraq.
So in other words, if I DON'T say something that you don't agree with, you lie and say that I did. Times must be tough for hypocrites and liars. My line on Iraq? I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I believe that it is the responsiblity of the US to establish security before it completely withdraws its troops. I was in favor of removing Taliban rule and al Qaeda sanctuary from Afghanistan. I am in favor of a diplomatic solution and against military action in Iran. So what is my "ideology"?
