Full Version: Hersh claims war with Iran imminent
Seymour Hersh has a shocking article in the New Yorker titled The Iran Plans. In summary the article claims that while publicly putting on a face of considering options like diplomacy and sanctions to solve "the Iran problem" the White House has already resolved to use military force, and possibly even nuclear weapons.
Hersh has a good track record of being right, here are some of the highlights from the article.
There is also this:
The entire article is well worth your time and I'd encourage everyone to read it before starting this debate.
Questions for debate:
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
Hersh has a good track record of being right, here are some of the highlights from the article.
QUOTE
There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”
There is also this:
QUOTE
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”
The entire article is well worth your time and I'd encourage everyone to read it before starting this debate.
Questions for debate:
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
This was confirmed for me by a Marine in Iraq on another forum. He says the US has Iran totally mapped out by intelligence operatives. He thinks the Iranian leader will ultimately back off but he is gung ho for the opportunity to go in.
Well the PNAC objective was principally Iran so perhaps those folks are still in the saddle. That would of course include regime change.
QUOTE
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.
This was confirmed for me by a Marine in Iraq on another forum. He says the US has Iran totally mapped out by intelligence operatives. He thinks the Iranian leader will ultimately back off but he is gung ho for the opportunity to go in.
Well the PNAC objective was principally Iran so perhaps those folks are still in the saddle. That would of course include regime change.
I don't see anything new here. If anyone can discern a noteworthy difference between this article by Hersh, and the one he wrote a little over a year ago, please share.
Regarding Dingo's Marine friend, this article doesn't say much of anything I haven't read in Defense links online. And I can tell you that no military member with a top secret security clearance is going to blab on the internet. Loose talk is indicative of not knowing much. Nothing surprising about increased clandestine activities inside Iran, under the circumstances, really is there? We have plans for a "possible major attack" in a LOT of places. You can bet they do for us, too.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
NO, I don't. Of course (like Hersh) I'm not privy to such information as to prove it. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. I can list a line of reasons why it would be a bad idea. I don't see how this article differs from the other. Were we "marching to war" then as well? Are we closer now? Why? More time has gone by and we're really really going to do it now?
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
Well...back then we had an actual series of UN Resolutions dating over the course of 12 years promising "severe consequences" if not obeyed. And we already occupied the majority of Iraq's airspace, as we had for over a decade. That's for starters.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
No. Totally unprepared. No it wouldn't be wise.
Regarding Dingo's Marine friend, this article doesn't say much of anything I haven't read in Defense links online. And I can tell you that no military member with a top secret security clearance is going to blab on the internet. Loose talk is indicative of not knowing much. Nothing surprising about increased clandestine activities inside Iran, under the circumstances, really is there? We have plans for a "possible major attack" in a LOT of places. You can bet they do for us, too.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
NO, I don't. Of course (like Hersh) I'm not privy to such information as to prove it. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. I can list a line of reasons why it would be a bad idea. I don't see how this article differs from the other. Were we "marching to war" then as well? Are we closer now? Why? More time has gone by and we're really really going to do it now?
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
Well...back then we had an actual series of UN Resolutions dating over the course of 12 years promising "severe consequences" if not obeyed. And we already occupied the majority of Iraq's airspace, as we had for over a decade. That's for starters.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
No. Totally unprepared. No it wouldn't be wise.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
Hersh's article points out that some people think that the White House is dead set on regime change. Others in the article point out that there are other options on the table. However, it should not shock anyone that the US has a fully developed plan of attack against Iran. I'm sure it has one for other hot spot nations (North Korea, etc.) as well.
It certainly does a good job illustrating the seriousness of Iran's quest for the bomb and the fact that it isn't just the US (and Bush) who have grave concerns.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
I think if we keep in mind how the build up to Iraq went down, there are still several month of negotiations, UN posturing, and making the case with the American public.
Bush's popularity domestically and influence internationally are at an all time high, so he is unlikely to convince the skeptical. It will depend on how others view the Iranian nuclear program. From the article, it appears that there are some pretty serious concerns in Europe and (not surprisingly) Israel. Bush will need support to push this one through. Of course, the article also alludes to the fact that Iran wants this confrontation. If Iran really wants this, there is going to be little anyone can do to avoid the conflict.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
I don't think there is a discussion of ground troops. It will, as the article points out, make our forces in Iraq that much more vulnerable to local militias and Iranian forces alike. Those risks must be factored into any decision to hit Iran.
Of course, this whole article might be a ruse to demonstrate to Iranian officials how real the threat of war is against them. If they believe we will go in, potentially with nukes (the nuke issue was an odd point of focus in the article, I thought), Iran may back down--also alluded to in the article. Perhaps the proxy war is being waged in the pages of the New Yorker this month to gauge Iran's reaction.
Hersh's article points out that some people think that the White House is dead set on regime change. Others in the article point out that there are other options on the table. However, it should not shock anyone that the US has a fully developed plan of attack against Iran. I'm sure it has one for other hot spot nations (North Korea, etc.) as well.
It certainly does a good job illustrating the seriousness of Iran's quest for the bomb and the fact that it isn't just the US (and Bush) who have grave concerns.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
I think if we keep in mind how the build up to Iraq went down, there are still several month of negotiations, UN posturing, and making the case with the American public.
Bush's popularity domestically and influence internationally are at an all time high, so he is unlikely to convince the skeptical. It will depend on how others view the Iranian nuclear program. From the article, it appears that there are some pretty serious concerns in Europe and (not surprisingly) Israel. Bush will need support to push this one through. Of course, the article also alludes to the fact that Iran wants this confrontation. If Iran really wants this, there is going to be little anyone can do to avoid the conflict.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
I don't think there is a discussion of ground troops. It will, as the article points out, make our forces in Iraq that much more vulnerable to local militias and Iranian forces alike. Those risks must be factored into any decision to hit Iran.
Of course, this whole article might be a ruse to demonstrate to Iranian officials how real the threat of war is against them. If they believe we will go in, potentially with nukes (the nuke issue was an odd point of focus in the article, I thought), Iran may back down--also alluded to in the article. Perhaps the proxy war is being waged in the pages of the New Yorker this month to gauge Iran's reaction.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 8 2006, 07:29 PM)
Bush's popularity domestically and influence internationally are at an all time high, so he is unlikely to convince the skeptical.
Huh? It seems to me that Bush's popularity is at an all time low.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
If you have evidenced to support this statement please present it.
silly me, and I thought we were already at war with Iran.
The US news doesn't focus much on the goings on inside Iran itself, but there are many recent reports of rioting, civil unrest and anti-government protests and violent confrontations, or what we would call "civil war" in Iraq.
I think the Iranian govt is becoming desperate, and have even begun to crackdown publicly on 10 yr old girls.
Iranian officials have also made demands for the US to withdraw from the region.
I think the issue that is overlooked in this debate is that to the Iranian government we are already engaged in conflict , and I find it curious that it is insisted that we view this subject as solely American-centric...why?
Why is the question not asked of Iran, and the Iranian govt? They have advertised that they can bomb Israel and that they in fact feel Israel should be "wiped of the map" Is the Iranian govt interested in diplomacy?
Do you not think that someone in the American govt. has been asked to consider the reality of this possibility and how we should react?
Ever hear the saying...hope for the best, but plan for the worse.
The US news doesn't focus much on the goings on inside Iran itself, but there are many recent reports of rioting, civil unrest and anti-government protests and violent confrontations, or what we would call "civil war" in Iraq.
I think the Iranian govt is becoming desperate, and have even begun to crackdown publicly on 10 yr old girls.
Iranian officials have also made demands for the US to withdraw from the region.
I think the issue that is overlooked in this debate is that to the Iranian government we are already engaged in conflict , and I find it curious that it is insisted that we view this subject as solely American-centric...why?
Why is the question not asked of Iran, and the Iranian govt? They have advertised that they can bomb Israel and that they in fact feel Israel should be "wiped of the map" Is the Iranian govt interested in diplomacy?
Do you not think that someone in the American govt. has been asked to consider the reality of this possibility and how we should react?
Ever hear the saying...hope for the best, but plan for the worse.
QUOTE(BoF @ Apr 8 2006, 09:28 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 8 2006, 07:29 PM)
Bush's popularity domestically and influence internationally are at an all time high, so he is unlikely to convince the skeptical.
Huh? It seems to me that Bush's popularity is at an all time low.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
If you have evidenced to support this statement please present it.
Yeah, that one kind of surprised me, too.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
I think Bush would like to take on Iran, but that it is unrealistic with conditions as dangerous and deplorable as they are currently in Iraq. So, I don't think that Mr. Bush is going to start another war while we're still chewing on this one, but then what do I really know?
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
Actually, the rationale for going to war with Iran seems much more steady and plausible than the reasons Mr. Bush used for invading Iraq. Iran is very actively pursuing nuclear technology with capabilities of harming allies of the United States, the difference being that these guys have their cards on the table while Saddam Hussein held his cards close to the vest.
(Edit: Everybody seems to forget that although they were not fighting in a war at the time of the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran and Iraq weren't buddies. I believe it was for that reason that Saddam Hussein could not afford to say, Look guys, we've got nothing--we got rid of it--Come and we'll throw open all of our doors for you to see. It might have been construed by Iran as an invitation to attack Iraq.)
QUOTE
I think the issue that is overlooked in this debate is that to the Iranian government we are already engaged in conflict , and I find it curious that it is insisted that we view this subject as solely American-centric...why?
You make a couple of good points here, bucket. 
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
No and no. We've bitten off about as much as we can chew for now, unless we want to risk our children's children's inheritance, not to mention their lives. I certainly hope we don't choose to attack Iran as the next trip on our Global War on Terror travelogue.
Just because Iran wants to fight the United States doesn't mean we need to humor them.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 8 2006, 09:19 PM)
Silly me, and I thought we were already at war with Iran.
Really? Did I miss a congressional declaration of war or were you referring to the very adaptable joint resolution for whatever ails Bush called the Authorization for Use of Military Force?
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 8 2006, 09:19 PM)
I think the issue that is overlooked in this debate is that to the Iranian government we are already engaged in conflict, and I find it curious that it is insisted that we view this subject as solely American-centric... why?
Well, we “view this subject as solely American-centric” because we’re discussing U.S. foreign policy. Given the amount of good millions of protestors worldwide accomplished three years ago I don’t see anything chicken little about sounding the alarm now. Neither do the Joint Chiefs according to Hersh, if they resign in protest soon.
A game of chicken between the U.S. and Iran is expected. I don’t believe Hersh’s assertions are that off. He’s covering the president who projects mystic nonsense like looking into Putin’s eye and sensing his soul to lay public concern about his competency to rest.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 8 2006, 09:19 PM)
Do you not think that someone in the American govt. has been asked to consider the reality of this possibility and how we should react? Ever hear the saying... hope for the best, but plan for the worse.
The problem isn’t that military action is an option. The problem is the owner of the finger on the trigger who compares the GWoT to WWII without a Marshall Plan.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 8 2006, 09:19 PM)
Why is the question not asked of Iran, and the Iranian govt? They have advertised that they can bomb Israel and that they in fact feel Israel should be "wiped of the map." Is the Iranian govt interested in diplomacy?
Oh, I would say Iran can be coerced into finding diplomatic means to end this game. Otherwise, why even chide us for being American-centric?
QUOTE(Slate)
At the Council on Foreign Relations seminar, Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and author of The Persian Puzzle, an excellent history of U.S.-Iranian relations, argued that a ban on capital investment in Iran would be useful. Iran's leaders seem genuinely fearful of economic sanctions (they came to the negotiating table last year only when Britain, France, and Germany seemed on the verge of imposing them); sanctions on investment are doubly threatening because they don't starve children (and therefore rally Western opposition to them on humanitarian grounds) and because Iran's economy is heavily dependent on foreign investment.
- A Game of Chicken
- A Game of Chicken
Why don't I hear more about responsible chess moves like this one? Quick, someone blame the media.
As far as Israel goes, and parts of Europe for that matter, Ahmadinejad may have his Mahdaviat wet dream if we fail to take out a single site. That’s the whole point of taking out the sites, isn’t it? Iran poses a threat to Israel today or in the very near future. About to blow up Israel demands expediency. Unless of course the administration is again exaggerating a hostile foreign country’s nuclear capabilities and delivery system.
It is true that Hersh published a similar article about a year ago that suggested the administration was preparing to attack Iran. Intervening events have only made it clear that they have continued to prepare the diplomatic ground for such an attack. (See the series of articles by Gordon Prather and others posted on Antiwar.com. This one for example). Hersh has a decades long list of contacts within the power elite and his articles should be taken as expressing the serious concerns of many of these contacts within the military and elsewhere.
It says volumes about the state of our republic that such drastic action could be considered by an unpopular administration without the full involvement of the Congress and a public debate. To contemplate the use of nuclear weapons to stop proliferation is akin to jumping off a cliff to cure acrophobia. To take such a step without a serious attempt to negotiate face to face with Iran and make serious concessions on sanctions and security guarantees is criminal in the extreme and would forever blacken the name of the United States.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
Yes, I believe it to be true. From the time of the "Axis of Evil" speech the Bushites have sought regime change in Iran despite occasionally relying on them for help in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US first opposed any negotiations with Iran on the subject and then agreed to allow the E3 to proceed without authorizing them to make any concessions to lower US economic sanctions nor offering security guarantees. The hard line taken by the US probably even helped elect Ahmadinejad by undercutting any positive progress by the reform government. In addition, US press spoken have continually distorted the lack of evidence of a covert weapons program.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
In many ways its comparable. Efforts have been made to again scare the public into supporting an absurd intervention. So far, they face a sceptical public. If we get near an attack, I suspect there will be a ratcheting up of the rhetoric and some kind of trumped up incident to fire up the masses. The situations are also comparable given that the real object (as the article implies) is the control of the oil regions for the administrations corporate masters.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
Of course it is not wise! It is insane! Yes, we can inflict massive damage on Iran with air power (even without nuclear weapons) but we will face nightmarish economic and terrorist consequences. Our isolated army in Iraq would be vulnerable. Not only would the Islamic World erupt but such an event might be the final straw for Russia, China, and even some European countries and result in a power re-alinement to the detriment of the US.
It says volumes about the state of our republic that such drastic action could be considered by an unpopular administration without the full involvement of the Congress and a public debate. To contemplate the use of nuclear weapons to stop proliferation is akin to jumping off a cliff to cure acrophobia. To take such a step without a serious attempt to negotiate face to face with Iran and make serious concessions on sanctions and security guarantees is criminal in the extreme and would forever blacken the name of the United States.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
Yes, I believe it to be true. From the time of the "Axis of Evil" speech the Bushites have sought regime change in Iran despite occasionally relying on them for help in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US first opposed any negotiations with Iran on the subject and then agreed to allow the E3 to proceed without authorizing them to make any concessions to lower US economic sanctions nor offering security guarantees. The hard line taken by the US probably even helped elect Ahmadinejad by undercutting any positive progress by the reform government. In addition, US press spoken have continually distorted the lack of evidence of a covert weapons program.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
In many ways its comparable. Efforts have been made to again scare the public into supporting an absurd intervention. So far, they face a sceptical public. If we get near an attack, I suspect there will be a ratcheting up of the rhetoric and some kind of trumped up incident to fire up the masses. The situations are also comparable given that the real object (as the article implies) is the control of the oil regions for the administrations corporate masters.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
Of course it is not wise! It is insane! Yes, we can inflict massive damage on Iran with air power (even without nuclear weapons) but we will face nightmarish economic and terrorist consequences. Our isolated army in Iraq would be vulnerable. Not only would the Islamic World erupt but such an event might be the final straw for Russia, China, and even some European countries and result in a power re-alinement to the detriment of the US.
QUOTE(Lesly)
Really? Did I miss a congressional declaration of war or were you referring to the very adaptable joint resolution for whatever ails Bush called the Authorization for Use of Military Force?
Did you also miss the fact that the Cold War is referred to as a "war" ? Maybe you're not viewing the conflict in the broad, varied and complex reality that it is. It is not just a conflict of arms, I had thought that was pretty well evident by now.
QUOTE(Lesly)
Well, we “view this subject as solely American-centric” because we’re discussing U.S. foreign policy. Given the amount of good millions of protestors worldwide accomplished three years ago I don’t see anything chicken little about sounding the alarm now. Neither do the Joint Chiefs according to Hersh, if they resign in protest soon.
But US policy, especially in regards to the ME is hardly singular and independent is it? For example, Iran's nuclear safeguards are not US policy they are in fact UN policy. Also Iran's more likely targets of such nuclear weaponry are unlikely only American.
Do you for some reason believe the US will be alone in her demands for Iran to forgo her nuclear ambitions? The rumors are in fact that it is not just the US who is preparing.
And haven't you heard their latest boast? Think Tanker Wars with long range missiles...was Iran interested in diplomacy then? And since then what has changed for Iran's FP?
QUOTE(Lesly)
Oh, I would say Iran can be coerced into finding diplomatic means to end this game. Otherwise, why even chide us for being American-centric?
Such as ?
QUOTE(Lesly)
Why don't I hear more about responsible chess moves like this one? Quick, someone blame the media.
The above "responsible" response you seem so impressed by is the current American FP with Iran and has been for many years now. Also I was curious exactly how you would convince China to go along with such a "responsible" tactic? Responsibility isn't currently the theme of Chinese investment in oil rich nations.
Here's a new article which suggests that things are heating up:
Link
Diplomatic toughness, or a real military plan? Opinions vary.
Link
QUOTE
The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.
No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.
No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.
Diplomatic toughness, or a real military plan? Opinions vary.
QUOTE
"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official.
Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official.
The really surprising thing for me regarding Iran is that people tend to beleive the crap coming from our intelligence services.
This is the same intelligence agencies that were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG about Iraq, but now bigger and slower, are expecting us to beleive anything they say.
Not voting Bush out was a disaster of biblical proportions. He has the same foreign policy skills of Stalin or Lenin, holds himself above the law, and seems intent on destroying this country.
The only saving grace for me, is I voted for the other guy and am too old to get drafted. So I hope the people that voted for Bush get their number called in a draft and fight this next war. As has been said, war plans get thrown out the minute the war starts, so anybody planning on a war with only airplanes and missles is deluding themselves.
This makes me so mad, it's unbelievable. This is clearly the definition of insanity and nobody is crying foul.
This is the same intelligence agencies that were ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG about Iraq, but now bigger and slower, are expecting us to beleive anything they say.
Not voting Bush out was a disaster of biblical proportions. He has the same foreign policy skills of Stalin or Lenin, holds himself above the law, and seems intent on destroying this country.
The only saving grace for me, is I voted for the other guy and am too old to get drafted. So I hope the people that voted for Bush get their number called in a draft and fight this next war. As has been said, war plans get thrown out the minute the war starts, so anybody planning on a war with only airplanes and missles is deluding themselves.
This makes me so mad, it's unbelievable. This is clearly the definition of insanity and nobody is crying foul.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 8 2006, 10:19 PM)
Do you for some reason believe the US will be alone in her demands for Iran to forgo her nuclear ambitions? The rumors are in fact that it is not just the US who is preparing.
Bucket, last time I checked this was America's Debate not World Debate or Euopean Debate. Of course most of the topics here are going to be American centric in nature. I could care less if other countries are racheting up the war machine as well - none of us can do anything about that but we can discuss and do things about American policy. At the very least we can all vote and speak that way.
If you feel that the international perspective is so sorely missing from this debate then why don't you start your own topic with questions focused on it instead. If people are interested in talking about it they'll join you.
QUOTE(Amlord)
I think if we keep in mind how the build up to Iraq went down, there are still several month of negotiations, UN posturing, and making the case with the American public.
Diplomatic "negotiations" - check that is ongoing right now. There have been numerous stories wherein the US has tried to convince other nations like Russia to use their influence to talk Iran down.
UN posturing - check once again ongoing. I'm sure you've seen talk of referring this matter to the security counsel, etc? If you haven't a quick browse of Google News will get you up to speed, here is one link discussing sanctions.
Making the case to the public - check it has already happened and is ongoing, the public just isn't buying it this time. This has already happened Amlord, you might care to go back and re-read the last state of the union address, you'll find the tone similar to the infamous SOTU about Iraq. I'd also find it hard to believe that the information coming from media sources and the administration is lost on you. The administration is making this out to be an immediate crisis when the truth is that agencies like the IAEA believe it will take years for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and they are still debating whether options like dilomacy and sanctions will work.
So uh, how is it different again? Time to wake up and take a look around.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Apr 9 2006, 05:13 PM)
Diplomatic "negotiations" - check
UN posturing - check
Making the case to the public - check
So uh, how is it different again? Time to wake up and take a look around.
Well there are some pretty huge differences. Three to be exact.
1- Regardless of how strong or weak the case for the invasion of Iraq was, the reason most people, including most democrats were initiually behind the war is because of 9/11. Regardless of wheither or not there was any connection, the US had been attacked and the case that Iraq might be a threat was tied into the whole issue of bruised national security.
This time, the Iran would not be happening right after 9/11, but instead right after Iraq, when even most republicans now oppose the president in his handling of the conflict. The case will be a LOT harder to make.
2- Iraq in 2004 was a paper tiger. Actuall, it was a paper kitten. Its military was a joke, and had not recovered from the LAST time the US beat it down. Iraq as a military posed no threat, and while some doomsayers (who turned out to 100% right) were speaking of the dangers of occupation, nobody even the most pessimistic was worried about the Iraqi military.
Iran on the other hand has a substantial high tech military, which while it could never hope to beat the US, it can hope to cause some significant american casualties.
3- Capacity. The US cannot currently meet its operational commitments in Iraq. Bush jr cannot be so stupid to think that if he launches air strikes, the situation begins and ends there, and the US does not have the available ground forces to wage war in Iran.
Aside
Let me tell you what about this situation worries me, and its not at all the same thing that worries the rest of you. When the USSR fell, so did most of the red army technology machine. But Russia has still been producing top of the line scientists and top of the line military equipment, they just cannot afford to mass produce tem and distribute it to their military. In a very few select fields, Russia still has technical technological capacity BETTER than the US, it is just not deployable for lack of money.
One of those very fiew fields is still submarine technology. The Kursk you may recall sank (according to the current theory) while they were testing a brand new torpedo. It was later confirmed that Russia has developed and deployed the 'Squall', a super-high speed torpedo that moves inside a self generated plume of air bibbles, moving at near jet speeds. The technology is called 'supercavitation'. This torpedo makes all current anti-torpedo defences useless. ALL of them. The US at the time was desprate t get their hands on one, as they did not have the technology to produce such a weapon. They have at best a semi-functional prototype called the 'barracuda'
This is old news, 3+ years old if you read Jane's defence. Now Iran tests the 'Hoot' meaning whale, a high speed supercavitating torpedo. There is NO WAY Iran could have developed this domestically, meaning they got the designs from Russia. This single weapon is the largest threat to US and NATO forces. It cannot be stopped once fired and has a much longer range than conventional torpedoes.
What the hell is Russia doing? They always sold their technolgy abroad, but they made sure never to sell their latest top of the line stuff, keeping that for themselves. If Russia has sold this to Iran, dos anyone doubt China has it? Not to mention other top-of-the-line technologies coming out of Russian labs, which technologically equal, and occasionally exceed what the US has in its arsenal.
It sounds like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel, but its true...
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
I could support my position with as much evidence as Hersh has in his article........nada. The truth is, neither we at
nor Hersh has evidence of what the administration may or may not be planning. I believe the article to be overhyped and generally unsourced. He is correct in that we are refining war plans against Iran. Plans that have been on the shelf at least since 1979. Thats what the Office of Special Plans and the J3 Plans Office do, continually. Reassessing the scenarios against Iran while engaging them on the diplomatic front is not only usual, it is prudent.
I believe that a nuclear armed Iran, with the context of their history since 1979, is just about the greatest threat to democracy and the western world at this time. I believe that radical islamists (mad mullahs) have constructed an eternal war psyche against the west. And while I don't believe it will lead into a shooting war between the US and Iran, I think the international community must and eventually will confront the mullahs. If anyone is realistically 'marching towards war' it is Iran.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
We always retain the ability to deliver munitions from airborne and naval platforms, we are currently not even close to being prepared to open a front against Iran using conventional ground forces.
I could support my position with as much evidence as Hersh has in his article........nada. The truth is, neither we at
nor Hersh has evidence of what the administration may or may not be planning. I believe the article to be overhyped and generally unsourced. He is correct in that we are refining war plans against Iran. Plans that have been on the shelf at least since 1979. Thats what the Office of Special Plans and the J3 Plans Office do, continually. Reassessing the scenarios against Iran while engaging them on the diplomatic front is not only usual, it is prudent. I believe that a nuclear armed Iran, with the context of their history since 1979, is just about the greatest threat to democracy and the western world at this time. I believe that radical islamists (mad mullahs) have constructed an eternal war psyche against the west. And while I don't believe it will lead into a shooting war between the US and Iran, I think the international community must and eventually will confront the mullahs. If anyone is realistically 'marching towards war' it is Iran.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
We always retain the ability to deliver munitions from airborne and naval platforms, we are currently not even close to being prepared to open a front against Iran using conventional ground forces.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Of course most of the topics here are going to be American centric in nature. I could care less if other countries are racheting up the war machine as well - none of us can do anything about that but we can discuss and do things about American policy. At the very least we can all vote and speak that way.
Is this the typical Dem. view on Iran and nuclear proliferation...how it will effect the vote?
Vermillion to address your aside point, I think it is just best for me to offer this up for reading.
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
QUOTE
(Dontreadonme)I could support my position with as much evidence as Hersh has in his article........nada. The truth is, neither we at nor Hersh has evidence of what the administration may or may not be planning. I believe the article to be overhyped and generally unsourced.
Hersh has and outstanding journalistic reputation extending from My Lai in 1969 to Abu Ghraib in 2004. All of his recent articles have been written for theNew Yorker, a magazine with an outstanding record for editorial fact checking. While Hersh's statements may not be attributed, it is almost a certainty that everyone of them is backed up by 2 or more sources.
While I realize that to some, Hersh's words are like the messiah preaching to the huddled masses..........as far as facts go, the article remains in the realm of opinion and speculation. Hersh didn't 'break' the story on Abu Ghraib, the facts had been out there for four months, and he has been making these claims about Iran for over a year now.
His use of the term 'American combat troops' entering Iran.......if he had sources who confirmed information such as this, he would have identified them as Army Special Forces, etc. A reporter of his reputation and connection with the military would not IMO, use such a generic civilian term. He would already be breaching operational security, so it would make sense that he would be a bit more specific to bolster his claim.
On the whole, Hersh's article is based on anonymous sources, so take it for what it’s worth.
His use of the term 'American combat troops' entering Iran.......if he had sources who confirmed information such as this, he would have identified them as Army Special Forces, etc. A reporter of his reputation and connection with the military would not IMO, use such a generic civilian term. He would already be breaching operational security, so it would make sense that he would be a bit more specific to bolster his claim.
On the whole, Hersh's article is based on anonymous sources, so take it for what it’s worth.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 9 2006, 10:35 PM)
Vermillion to address your aside point, I think it is just best for me to offer this up for reading.
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
Excellent article, I know Dr. Lieber in passing, but it does not give the whole picture. Fir example, one thing it does not mention is that currently the most technologically advanced ICBM on the planet is the Rusian Topol-M, already built with variable speed and trajectory to make it undefeatable by any current missile system. It is far better than anything the US has at the moment.
Now of course, Rusia has very few of these. The perennial problem of Russia, they develop the technology and then do not have the finances to exploit or mass-develop it. However, with Russian finances improving, plans to replace many of the archaic missiles with the new Topol-M could completely revitalise the Russian rocket forces. There is currently in the budget funds for the construction of 230 of these missiles, as of two years ago (most recent budget we have access to).
All Russia needs is 5 years of increasing economic growth to spend the money eliminating its vast ancient cold-war arsenal of 30-year outdated missiles. Upkeep on these almost useless weapons is absorbing a huge percentage of the Rusian strategic forces budget. Once that happens, Russia can start to rebuild its military along the designs of its world-leading prototypes, and that will be a scary sight indeed.
The MiG-35, also designated MiG-29OVT is the only aircraft in the world other than the F-22 Raptor to incorporporate independent vectored thrust, and lets not forget that the Russians always had better airframes than the Americans, so this is likely no different... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
The Ka-50 'Hokum', the most advanced attack helicopter on the planet (and a beautiful looking helicopter), helicopters being another place the old Soviets has a technological lead... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
The T-95 Tank, protitype tested in 2001, is the only tank on the planet that could challenge the supremacy of the recent upgrade Abrams, and would certainly be thesecond best tank in the world (The US tank designs were always slightly better, though far more expensive)... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
Russia has the etchnolgy, they just do not have the money. And if they start selling the technology to nations who have not only the money but the will to use, like Iran, or China... then the US might find itself having a problem...
QUOTE
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
1. It is my belief that any engagement the administration enters is where can they attack an opponent which cannot fight back. I see Venezuela in a far more susceptible position than Iran. The american public has no appetite for casualties. Iran is capable of mounting resistance. I think this is posturing.
2. The escalation will see much more military planning, and rely on alot more air and sea power to achieve objectives. I have a feeling the weapons inspectors will take on a different role in Iran. Specifically what I really can't say at this point.
3. I am not the right person to ask in assessing the true limits of the american military. I found the article infuriating and difficult to read because Hersh's subjects began each statement with the supposition that as soon as a bomb was in play it would be use. I find this mode of thinking paranoid and unrealistic. This is a case where the people are believing their own propaganda. Hersh goes further and cites one official that is frustrated with El Baradei's performance. I doubt evidence will be brought to the table because this is more about regime change and personal preference than anything else. If the bombs start to drop, won't the discussion of evidence be a moot point?
Moreoever, if Hersh's sources are even a little bit truthful, the presentation of evidence to substantiate the admin's claims is barely on their to do list. It just isn't a priority. That is what I find disturbing.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 9 2006, 03:35 PM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Of course most of the topics here are going to be American centric in nature. I could care less if other countries are racheting up the war machine as well - none of us can do anything about that but we can discuss and do things about American policy. At the very least we can all vote and speak that way.
Is this the typical Dem. view on Iran and nuclear proliferation...how it will effect the vote?
Bucket, what about my statement indicated that this was in any way a representation of the democratic party - checks statement - nope not there. Furthermore, if you'll notice the tag next to my name says independent and I have been since after the 2004 election and will continue to be so until a party comes along that has a spine. Please address the questions for debate instead of worrying about whether or not I represent the Democratic party, it is completely irrelevant.
But all that aside, this is America's Debate which would indicate you are going to get American perspectives on issues. I'll say again, if for some reason you disagree with the presentation of this issue and want to approach it in another way then please do so and stop taking this off topic.
QUOTE(DTOM)
On the whole, Hersh's article is based on anonymous sources, so take it for what it’s worth.
He also has a good track record of being right, for what that's worth. I also don't think that one can cast doubt on an article simply because the source(s) is(are) anonymous. Some of the biggest stories in our history have been broken anonymously.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Apr 9 2006, 02:14 PM)
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 9 2006, 10:35 PM)
Vermillion to address your aside point, I think it is just best for me to offer this up for reading.
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
Excellent article, I know Dr. Lieber in passing, but it does not give the whole picture. Fir example, one thing it does not mention is that currently the most technologically advanced ICBM on the planet is the Rusian Topol-M, already built with variable speed and trajectory to make it undefeatable by any current missile system. It is far better than anything the US has at the moment.
Now of course, Rusia has very few of these. The perennial problem of Russia, they develop the technology and then do not have the finances to exploit or mass-develop it. However, with Russian finances improving, plans to replace many of the archaic missiles with the new Topol-M could completely revitalise the Russian rocket forces. There is currently in the budget funds for the construction of 230 of these missiles, as of two years ago (most recent budget we have access to).
All Russia needs is 5 years of increasing economic growth to spend the money eliminating its vast ancient cold-war arsenal of 30-year outdated missiles. Upkeep on these almost useless weapons is absorbing a huge percentage of the Rusian strategic forces budget. Once that happens, Russia can start to rebuild its military along the designs of its world-leading prototypes, and that will be a scary sight indeed.
The MiG-35, also designated MiG-29OVT is the only aircraft in the world other than the F-22 Raptor to incorporporate independent vectored thrust, and lets not forget that the Russians always had better airframes than the Americans, so this is likely no different... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
The Ka-50 'Hokum', the most advanced attack helicopter on the planet (and a beautiful looking helicopter), helicopters being another place the old Soviets has a technological lead... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
The T-95 Tank, protitype tested in 2001, is the only tank on the planet that could challenge the supremacy of the recent upgrade Abrams, and would certainly be thesecond best tank in the world (The US tank designs were always slightly better, though far more expensive)... again, no money for mass production of the prototype.
Russia has the etchnolgy, they just do not have the money. And if they start selling the technology to nations who have not only the money but the will to use, like Iran, or China... then the US might find itself having a problem...
Just a point to enter and clarify here my good man- Russia also simply does not have the manpower- thier birth rate is going to halve the nations population by 2050 if they don't turn it around, and, right now, they are having real problems having enough men just to secure thier own borders- there simply aren't enough men to man the weapons if they could mass produce them! Many poeple think that Russian women are looking west for a better life- when, most of them simply don't have enough men to go around!
http://english.pravda.ru/society/2002/06/19/30663.html
I watched Putin on RTV1 just a few weeks ago deputizing villagers to watch thier borders.
And they are much more fearful of thier own giant and breeding quickly islamic population, though, much of the time, not of the same extremism of the ME islamics, to make too huge of mistakes here.
I do know that much of Russian technology makes it out of Russia by theft and fraud rather than official goverment sanction!
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Apr 10 2006, 11:22 AM)
Just a point to enter and clarify here my good man- Russia also simply does not have the manpower- thier birth rate is going to halve the nations population by 2050 if they don't turn it around, and, right now, they are having real problems having enough men just to secure thier own borders-
This is getting a bit off topic, but none the less:
Russia has 142 million people, with a net population growth rate of -0.37%, and is a nation (surprisingly) of net immigration not emmigration (mostly from other former republics.) Ignoring immigration, with a population growth rate of -.37%, some basic maths shows that in the next 60 years they will lose less than 18% of their population, not 50%. That would still put them more populous than any nation in Europe, over double most of them. Furthermore, it also ignores that the negative growth rate has been slowing over the last few years as the economy improves. And odds are it will be positive again within at most 5 years.
From the CIA world factbook:
QUOTE
Russia ended 2005 with its seventh straight year of growth, averaging 6.4% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble are important drivers of this economic rebound, since 2000 investment and consumer-driven demand have played a noticeably increasing role. Real fixed capital investments have averaged gains greater than 10% over the last five years, and real personal incomes have realized average increases over 12%. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis, with its foreign debt declining from 90% of GDP to around 31%. Strong oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from only $12 billion to some $180 billion at yearend 2005. These achievements, along with a renewed government effort to advance structural reforms, have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects.
Its just a bit curious to watch the trend as it progresses. For the curious, through massive cost cutting and wise use of surplus income, Russia has reduced its public debt from 90% of GDP to 15% of GDP. At the same time, the United States due to its startlingly spendthrift ways, has increased its own public debt to 67% of GDP.
The future of economic growth in these two countries will be very interesting...
Your future of Russia is far more pessimistic than the facts allow.
What does this have to do with Iran?
Russia's economy is rebuilding. The massive growth in price of oil has done wonders for them, even as it did the Soviet economy in the early 1970s. This money has been well spent on infrastructure and buisness development. The nation is becoming more and more authoritarian, and worse, opinion polls tend to (by a narrow majority) support this trend. Russia has the 12th largest GDP (PPP) in the world, a VAST improvement on just a few years ago, and a growth rate that humbles most other nations.
Russia is starting, just starting to play on the international scene again. Unfortunatly, it seems to be doing so in much the same manner as it did 16 years ago, gaining friends through economic trade regardless of the civil value or morality of the nations in question. China and Russia just signed a truly massive economic deal recently, and top quality Russian weapons are turning up in very unpopular places.
As I said, if the Skvall has turned up in Iran, one wonders what other toys will start turning up in places the US would rather not see...
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
Something is going on. Heard a news report this morning about the Bush administration's plan to nuke Iran.
Holy cow!
Barbara Walters commented that this is very scary stuff. You betcha, especially since we're down wind of the ME. We get sand blown in from the Sahara, which means fallout, which means a longer death than at ground zero, but it'll get us eventually. Zowie, eh?
Well, I did a google on bomb Iran, and lo & behold, this news has been going on for a while. Try it, you'll like it.
So, is it an annual drag-out-this-story-again time? Or could the Bush administration really use nukes on Iran? Maybe this is like Colbert's bear phobia. I don't know, but it sure got a rise out of me this morning. Grrrrawww!
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
I don't think public opinion will get behind this one, but then I also don't think that makes a difference. I just hope the nukes are held back, unless there's some magical way of not destroying the Earth to save it.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
We're not prepared to send in ground troops, but we have plenty of bombs. Seems that the strategy is to foment regime change through some kind of bombing campaign, but that's only what I heard this morning.
Except bombing a place just makes those who survive more resolved. Thought we learned that one in WW II, but oh well, our regime doesn't read papers or books and lives in some other dimension where effects do not follow causes.
So wisdom doesn't count.
Something is going on. Heard a news report this morning about the Bush administration's plan to nuke Iran.
Holy cow!
Barbara Walters commented that this is very scary stuff. You betcha, especially since we're down wind of the ME. We get sand blown in from the Sahara, which means fallout, which means a longer death than at ground zero, but it'll get us eventually. Zowie, eh?
Well, I did a google on bomb Iran, and lo & behold, this news has been going on for a while. Try it, you'll like it.
So, is it an annual drag-out-this-story-again time? Or could the Bush administration really use nukes on Iran? Maybe this is like Colbert's bear phobia. I don't know, but it sure got a rise out of me this morning. Grrrrawww!
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
I don't think public opinion will get behind this one, but then I also don't think that makes a difference. I just hope the nukes are held back, unless there's some magical way of not destroying the Earth to save it.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
We're not prepared to send in ground troops, but we have plenty of bombs. Seems that the strategy is to foment regime change through some kind of bombing campaign, but that's only what I heard this morning.
Except bombing a place just makes those who survive more resolved. Thought we learned that one in WW II, but oh well, our regime doesn't read papers or books and lives in some other dimension where effects do not follow causes.
So wisdom doesn't count.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
"Please support with your reasoning" would be more sensible. Who can have evidence? When I heard this report, I assumed that it was a White House leak intended to scare the Iranians. Now that I learn that it's Hersh who's reporting it, I am a little less sure.
Whatever the truth of this report, any significant threat of U.S. attack can only accelerate Iran's nuclear developent and harden its resolve. Considering that the U.S. just demonstrated the invincibility of its conventional forces in neighboring Iraq; that as a matter of doctrine the U.S. claims the right to launch unilateral attacks on foreign states for its own good reasons; and this latest threat; I can very well understand why the Iranian leadership would want to acquire nuclear weapons.
So if this is a White House ploy, it is perfectly crafted to produce counterproductive results. Indeed, if the Administration had set out in the year 2000 altogether with the intention of encouraging Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, they could hardly have conducted themselves any better since then to promote that goal.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
As observed by many others, unlike the invasion of Iraq, this is preceded by essentially no international conversations. But I am not altogether sure that that implies that it's less likely. I would not entirely dismiss the possibility that the White House, in spite of everything that has happened in Iraq to prove the contrary, still believes that sufficient military power can effect "regime change" here and there in the Middle East.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
"We" would seem to assume either our membership in some sort of Team America (USA! USA! [waves flag] Support Our Troops! USA!), or our having any voice in our government's decision on this point; both are equally ridiculous. National consensus has seldom preceded U.S. use of military power. Certainly it did not in the invasion of Iraq, when fully one-third of the people were strongly opposed. What, are "we" the White House aides or Pentagon planners who could presume to affect such a decision? But to answer the intent of the question, the United States is not sufficiently prepared for protracted military conflict in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. Is the U.S. government nevertheless prepared to launch an ill-considered and ultimately self-destructive air strike anywhere in the world? I have, very sadly, no doubt that it is.
"Please support with your reasoning" would be more sensible. Who can have evidence? When I heard this report, I assumed that it was a White House leak intended to scare the Iranians. Now that I learn that it's Hersh who's reporting it, I am a little less sure.
Whatever the truth of this report, any significant threat of U.S. attack can only accelerate Iran's nuclear developent and harden its resolve. Considering that the U.S. just demonstrated the invincibility of its conventional forces in neighboring Iraq; that as a matter of doctrine the U.S. claims the right to launch unilateral attacks on foreign states for its own good reasons; and this latest threat; I can very well understand why the Iranian leadership would want to acquire nuclear weapons.
So if this is a White House ploy, it is perfectly crafted to produce counterproductive results. Indeed, if the Administration had set out in the year 2000 altogether with the intention of encouraging Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, they could hardly have conducted themselves any better since then to promote that goal.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
As observed by many others, unlike the invasion of Iraq, this is preceded by essentially no international conversations. But I am not altogether sure that that implies that it's less likely. I would not entirely dismiss the possibility that the White House, in spite of everything that has happened in Iraq to prove the contrary, still believes that sufficient military power can effect "regime change" here and there in the Middle East.
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
"We" would seem to assume either our membership in some sort of Team America (USA! USA! [waves flag] Support Our Troops! USA!), or our having any voice in our government's decision on this point; both are equally ridiculous. National consensus has seldom preceded U.S. use of military power. Certainly it did not in the invasion of Iraq, when fully one-third of the people were strongly opposed. What, are "we" the White House aides or Pentagon planners who could presume to affect such a decision? But to answer the intent of the question, the United States is not sufficiently prepared for protracted military conflict in Iraq, let alone anywhere else. Is the U.S. government nevertheless prepared to launch an ill-considered and ultimately self-destructive air strike anywhere in the world? I have, very sadly, no doubt that it is.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
But all that aside, this is America's Debate which would indicate you are going to get American perspectives on issues. I'll say again, if for some reason you disagree with the presentation of this issue and want to approach it in another way then please do so and stop taking this off topic.
Actually no you are not saying that again, the first time you actually told me I should start my own topic.
I thought I was contributing to the debate, is this personal or as a Committee Member to you have some kind of authority to correct me here?
Sorry I care to view nuclear proliferation in international terms and not domestic or national. I don’t consider this a weakness of mine or in any means against the board rules.
I just thought the fact that the three Western nuclear powers have all in one degree or another admitted that a nuclear attack was a possibility in dealing with current threats was significant. I also found the questioning from the Egyptian President on the world stage about Shia influence in the region significant to the crisis at hand. I found the fact that Iran was participating in war exercises last week in the Gulf region significant, along with the approaching international conference on the “holocaust myth” that Iran will be hosting.
How are any of these events and actions that have occurred outside the US, or what we can consider to be the backdrop of this conflict, not relevant or considered off topic? Obviously it isn’t and I have been actively, purposefully and relevantly contributing to the debate. So please stop telling me I haven’t.
Vermillion
I posted that article not so much in rebuttal to your point, but more or less in consideration of. It is an interesting side question to consider when discussing this subject..is America actively pursuing nuclear primacy?
I also read that article made quite the impression on the Russian gov and that some in Russia consider this article and it’s finding the actual American position.
QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 10 2006, 11:29 AM)
Actually no you are not saying that again, the first time you actually told me I should start my own topic.
Uh huh, Cube Jockey - post 13:
QUOTE
If you feel that the international perspective is so sorely missing from this debate then why don't you start your own topic with questions focused on it instead. If people are interested in talking about it they'll join you.
Then again in post 21:
QUOTE
I'll say again, if for some reason you disagree with the presentation of this issue and want to approach it in another way then please do so and stop taking this off topic.
If you don't believe me then go re-read the topic yourself, it isn't that long.
The questions for debate were specific and they don't deal with the international view point. They were:
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
I don't see how even with the most liberal interpretation you can say that I formed the questions for debate here calling for an international perspective.
In your first post here you said:
QUOTE(bucket)
I think the issue that is overlooked in this debate is that to the Iranian government we are already engaged in conflict , and I find it curious that it is insisted that we view this subject as solely American-centric...why?
Why is the question not asked of Iran, and the Iranian govt? They have advertised that they can bomb Israel and that they in fact feel Israel should be "wiped of the map" Is the Iranian govt interested in diplomacy?
Why is the question not asked of Iran, and the Iranian govt? They have advertised that they can bomb Israel and that they in fact feel Israel should be "wiped of the map" Is the Iranian govt interested in diplomacy?
I'll repeat for a third time, those sound like good questions for a debate with a different focus. If you want to pursue them you know where the new topic button is. You are of course welcome to whatever opinions you have on the subject but the way you've presented those opinions so far is off topic.
QUOTE(Bucket)
I thought I was contributing to the debate, is this personal or as a Committee Member to you have some kind of authority to correct me here?
You have access to the same documents I do and as an older member you know that the only "official" communications come with a red box outlining them. So there's your answer.
QUOTE(Bucket)
How are any of these events and actions that have occurred outside the US, or what we can consider to be the backdrop of this conflict, not relevant or considered off topic?
Which question does that answer exactly 1, 2 or 3?
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
Yes, I can believe it. I would find it difficult to support my belief with hard evidence. However, I do base my belief on the premise that past behavior is a damn good predictor of future conduct.
In the course of researching this further, I learned a new oxymoron: coercive diplomacy. How priceless is that? In two words, it sums up how this administration’s lack of perception works. The Bush administration thinks that, by floating about rumors of military action they can dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear program. Oh, suuuure, that’s going to work…about as well as poking a hornet’s nest with a stick.
Of course, dear leader himself is pooh-poohing the whole idea as “wild speculation” (source, any of a hundred links on Google). Uh huh, and we’ll be greeted in Iraq with candy and flowers.
Yes, I can believe it. I would find it difficult to support my belief with hard evidence. However, I do base my belief on the premise that past behavior is a damn good predictor of future conduct.
In the course of researching this further, I learned a new oxymoron: coercive diplomacy. How priceless is that? In two words, it sums up how this administration’s lack of perception works. The Bush administration thinks that, by floating about rumors of military action they can dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear program. Oh, suuuure, that’s going to work…about as well as poking a hornet’s nest with a stick.
QUOTE
Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making US troops in Iraq targets for retaliation. CSM
Of course, dear leader himself is pooh-poohing the whole idea as “wild speculation” (source, any of a hundred links on Google). Uh huh, and we’ll be greeted in Iraq with candy and flowers.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I don't see how even with the most liberal interpretation you can say that I formed the questions for debate here calling for an international perspective.
I am not taking the debate off topic, I happen to feel that international conditions, events and posturing help more than any other to shape our Govt's FP regarding Iran. You asked us what we thought about this, and to support our opinions...
sooooo being that I feel it is international conditions that are intensifying this conflict I must then site these international events and conditions to support my argument. That is not going off topic, it is disagreeing with the direction or reason you believe this conflict has intensified.
Disagreeing with the thread starter is hardly "off topic" but with your lack of evidence or argument to dispute me with it is of little surprise that you have once again resorted to such tactics. Sometimes I feel personally offended by the means in which you "dispute" me but as you pointed out earlier I am an older member and have seen you implement this means of debate to others many times before.
I think this sort of attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you or has a differing world view , which is to ask them to go way or shuddup, is extremely unfriendly to forming or inviting a collection of opposing and varied political arguments regarding the topic.
But perhaps that is the intent.
Let's try to re-focus on the questions for debate here, which are:
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
For the record, international perspective are certainly welcome as long as they remain focused on the Questions for Debate.
1. In the article Hersh posits that the White House is marching towards war with Iran for the purpose of regime change despite diplomatic posturing. Do you believe that to be true? Please support your position with evidence.
2. How does this escalation compare with the history leading to the Iraq war, and how is it different?
3. Given our commitment in Iraq, and the White House's refusal to withdraw are we militarily prepared for a conflict with Iran? Is it wise?
For the record, international perspective are certainly welcome as long as they remain focused on the Questions for Debate.
Adding more to the international perspective...
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said yesterday that "We have to be prepared just in case they fail,” he said, referring to diplomatic efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to renounce sensitive atomic activities, currently centred on the UN Security Council.
“We have to begin thinking about that possibility,” he said, referring to the possibility of eventual sanctions. Asked specifically about a visa ban, he said that such a move “is a classical type of measure that is taken.”
The EU official dismissed a report that US President George W. Bush is mulling military options to knock out Iran’s nuclear program."
-source
Seems like diplomacy still has a long way to go in dealing with Iran, we haven't even begun to deploy or "diplomatic" tools.
The EU chief also had this to say in regards to Hersh's article:
"I have read the article ... I think it has nothing to do with reality,"
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said yesterday that "We have to be prepared just in case they fail,” he said, referring to diplomatic efforts to persuade the Islamic republic to renounce sensitive atomic activities, currently centred on the UN Security Council.
“We have to begin thinking about that possibility,” he said, referring to the possibility of eventual sanctions. Asked specifically about a visa ban, he said that such a move “is a classical type of measure that is taken.”
The EU official dismissed a report that US President George W. Bush is mulling military options to knock out Iran’s nuclear program."
-source
Seems like diplomacy still has a long way to go in dealing with Iran, we haven't even begun to deploy or "diplomatic" tools.
The EU chief also had this to say in regards to Hersh's article:
"I have read the article ... I think it has nothing to do with reality,"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.