Well it's about time. Just hope pussy Bush has the balls to carry it out. If not Isreal will and they can only do it with nukes. This is the only stratagy that will work. Total annihilation of their military capabilities and their nuclear infrastructure. Add to that the destruction of their only refinery and the stage is set for a western revolution that will undo little jimmy's damage that allowed these pigs to come to power in the first place...........

Link

Honestly. I still believe that we'll be attacking Iran before the end of 2008. And it's going to be ######ing awful for American interests. This war plan will, I'm sure, crush the Iranian military. Just like our 2003 war plan absolutely crushed the Iraqi military. And then what? America's blitz attack won't be able to take out the Iranian leadership in such a first strike, just as they failed to do so in Iraq in 2003 with Saddam or in 2001 with the Taliban and al Qaeda. What we'll be faced with is a radical Iranian President (who has to face re-election in 2009) with an enormous upswell of popular support, thanks to American aggression. The Iranian people will rally around their extremist government. Just like the Sunnis did when Iraq was bombed. Just like the Vietnamese did when they were bombed. Just like the Japanese and the Germans. If you go in and crush the Iranian military.. you will lose the Iranian people.

Right now Iran isn't even interested in attacking us. Iran and al Qaeda are enemies. But Iran, unlike al Qaeda, actually has the resources at this point (in wealth and manpower) to launch truly devastating terrorist attacks against American resources. They don't do it. They only use a sliver of their power against Israel.

Iran has just elected the great reformist (and former Iranian President) Rafsanjani to lead the Council of Experts. This is a clear move to reconcile with America. War now would be a disaster for us. An unmitigated disaster. However bad Iraq was for our relationship with Muslims, Iran would be worse by far.

The president of Iran is not calling the shots. I have no faith in his power nor his ability. As soon as his cleric leaders, where the real problem lies, have had enough of him that will be it.

The Iranian people though, that is where I have a lot of faith. They are by far the most liberal (literal term not meant in the US political sense), classically educated, free thinking people, by a big space, anywhere in the region. This is where I think the hope lies.

Big fear... The president may do something really outragous to keep the favor of the real, behind the scene, leaders of the country.

The cleric leaders are not that much of a problem. They're slightly anti-American, but they're not militant. the President, Ahmadinejad, is the most vociferous supporter of militant Islamic groups. Fortunately, he has no real power without the rest of the Iranian Constitutional structure. This is thanks to Iran's strong Democratic institutions. Strange as it may sound, Iran is the most well-established democracy in the entire Islamic world. Give it time, and it will lead the way to a moderate future. There's no reason to push Iran. They're not a threat to our interests.


The Iranian liberals are in a very similar mentality as American and European liberalism. It's all about rule of law, personal economic and political freedom, and cooperation and co-existence with foreign cultures. Liberalism is liberalism. Moving away from the ethnocentric ideals of the past. The people of Iran want to be a part of the global culture. The conservatives of Iran want war with Israel and America, they want their culture to spread around the world. The conservatives in America want war with Iran, they want our culture to spread around the world. The conservatives on both sides would lead to ruin for both sides. Liberals in Iran are not necessarilly "classically" educated, many of them are educated in Madrasas, in the typical Islamic education, yet still see the future of the Iranian Islamic Republic in joining the global political/economic community. Liberals in America embrace their Iranian counterparts. We're all struggling against an entrenched, ethnocentric conservative movement in each of our countries that prefers to enforce a stringent, traditionalist value system, rather than engage with people who differ in opinion.

I have faith in Iran. It looks to me a lot like an Islamic version of 18th century England. I think they're well on their way to a democratic and liberal future. Iran is already the most representative Islamic nation in the world (at this point mostly because of the homogenous population of the country). We talk about making Democracy thrive in Iraq as a symbol to the rest of the Middle East. Iran is the example. We may not like all of their policies, but we're not entitled to a benevolent foreign policy from every democracy in the world. Iran is the only free nation in the Islamic World. Iran is the example for the future of Islamic democracy. All Islamic democracies may differ from our opinions, but we can at least work with these governments if we engage, rather than shutting down communications.


The true leaders of Iran are much more like the leaders of Saudi Arabia. They have been discouraged with the behavior of Iran's President ever since he took office. Unlike the leaders of Saudi Arabia, however, the leaders of Iran are directly accountable to the Iranian people through various councils. And as we've discussed.. the people are opposed to war.

War with Iran is a fatal mistake. I expect it will happen about Spring-Summer of 2008.

Who are you trying to fool here? The Islamic Republic of Iran may appear to be a state but it's not. It is a representative of a Shia apocalyptic non-state group kept in power by their religious enforcers, with Ahmadinejad as their main leader/spokesman who is fully backed by the Shia clerics.

"strong Democratic institutions" "Iran is the only free nation in the Islamic World." "Iran is the example for the future of Islamic democracy."
Really? Where are these alleged examples of yours? Name some. You mean, as a start, their mandatory dress codes? The oppression of women? And this is aside from all the problems they are causing in Iraq.

Julian, I think you need to relook up the definition of 'democratic institution' because you have it wrong.

However, you are correct. War with Iran would be wrong. But regime change would be correct. And, unlike Iraq, if we do it right this time by learning from the mistakes we made in Iraq, we'd have the full support of the Iranian people.

Believe it or not, Iran has a respectable constitution. Regardless of what Glenn Beck might have told you about the "evil Iranians." Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for his conservative political party, which is shrinking in popularity. The Supreme Leader regularly clashes with Ahmadinejad on politics, and Ahmadinejad has had endless trials in competing with a hostile Parliament. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not Adolf Hitler -- He's George W. Bush. He's completely impotent in that government.

As for the Iranian government, they have two popularly elected legislative bodies. One of which (in fact, the most important of all Iranian councils) just elected a liberal reformist as it's chairman. This council, lead by this liberal reformist, will choose the next supreme leader of Iran. All laws in Iran must come from the elected Parliament.

Beyond that, the President of Iran is popularly elected. The last Iranian election had 1000 people register to run for the office, including several women.

The legality of government actions is overseen by a council of judicial experts appointed by the Supreme Leader.

The system is essentially a Constitutional Monarchy. You have a King. You have a Parliament. You have a Supreme Court.

They don't allow the people to directly choose the next Supreme Leader, but no Monarchy in history has allowed that. The United States doesn't even really allow it if you look at it from a strictly legal perspective. The system is actually more democratic than Imperial England. The people actually get to choose the council that chooses the next Supreme Leader. That's almost as good as voting for electors to vote for a Presidential candidate, ne?


I'm afraid you're confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia. Even so. "Freedom of dress" has nothing to do with Democracy or peaceful coexistence with other nations. You can refer to the above.


Haha.. I'm not the one citing "dress codes" as a counter-example. "Democratic Institutions" refers simply to the concept of a nation ruled by a semi-permanent Constitution, with an administration chosen through popular elections. Iran fulfills these requirements. No other Muslim nation does. Unless you count India.. which has an enormous Muslim population.. but is really more of an... Indian nation.


Regime change would just prove the Iranian Conservatives right. WHY would you want to do that? Do you understand how our actions influence the world? George Bush is right about one thing in Iraq -- we can't just allow ourselves to be chased out -- for the same reason that we can't invade Iran -- IMAGE. If we run from Iraq during a period of chaos, the message is "We were chased out by the Mujahideen." When Israel pulled out of Palestinian territories WITHOUT consulting with the elected Palestinian government, the message to the Palestinian people was "Hamas chased Israel away, the elected Palestinian government is impotent." If (when) America attacks Iran, the message in Iran will be "Ahmadinejad was right," but even worse, the message in Saudi Arabia will be "Osama was right."

This thinking is so ridiculous. We never learn. "We learned from Vietnam. So we'll get it right this time." "Well. We learned from Iraq. So THIS time we're sure to get it right." No. NO. Not at all. You can't choose the government for the people. Governments are not just a piece of paper. You can't just smash the old government, write up a new constitution and say "Now we do things this way!" A national government is the logical institutional extension of a society's leadership structures, evolving over time to better reflect the values of that society. We can't artificially create that. We simply can't. It's like the biosphere. We simply are not that wise. We're not Gods.

What's Vietnam have to do with anything? Let's see, we removed Saddam and our SoD had his head up his a$$ not listening to anybody about what would happen. The insurgency wasn't even recognized and dealt with until Feb 14 of this year under Petraeus, Nagl, and all the other COIN experts. (it's only September and look at all the progress already). So, yes, we've learned..hopefully not too late, but we're fighting the war in Iraq now as it should have been...and gaining the Iraqi population's support like COIN is supposed to do.
WE didn't make Iraq's constitution, they did. If you think otherwise, then I have to ask how many other urban legends you believe.

Glen Beck is an idiot. It's Ahmadinejad's OWN words I'm using. What do you think the Qud forces are? Just a special branch of the Revolutionary Gaurds? Again, in Ahmadinejad's OWN words, these are his end times Islamic caliphate fighters. The Bush Admin is screwing up big time declaring the whole Revolutionary Guards terrorists. NOT good foreign policy IMO. However, he should declare the Quds as terrorists seeing that's exactly what they are: they train the fighters in Iraq who are killing American troops and/or blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians, and they and Hezbollah are one and the same.

The Iranian president is not impotent. He is backed by the clerics...completely. If you think otherwise, you are a fool. THEY are the ones who placed him there. THEY are the ones who gave the Iranians the presidential candidates then they had their mock elections knowing full well Ahmadinejad would win. Yeah, some democracy that is.

The people of Iran are fed up with Ahmadinejad and his regime. (as the recent election of Rafsanjani has shown) The people of Iran are ready for a change and ready for REAL democracy. I believe your prediction of war is way off the mark (maybe because you have no idea what you are talking about). But I do believe there will be an uprising. With the Revolutionary Guards as powerful as they are, that will be difficult for them to do alone. That's where we and other Middle East nations come in. Iran isn't making just the U.S. or Israel nervous, they are of great concern to everyone in that area, including Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't count on Dubya doing anything with Iran, unless something drastic happens between them and us. Bush is still too low in the polls. If the Iranian thing doesn't go down right , the Gop will let the dogs get him; I'm pretty sure on this.

Nationbuilding. In South Vietnam we created a government. We struggled for 9 years to preserve that government, and then we decided to abolish that government and replace it with another one. And then South Vietnam went from one leader to another, under U.S. direction, for the next 12 years until North Vietnam came in and ended the North-South split.

The Vietnamese government failed. It was completely incapable of governing a Vietnamese nation. The same way the Maliki government is looking like a regime incapable of governing an Iraqi nation. America's installation of these artificial regimes has all the inefficiencies of an imperial regime, but none of the strengths.


None of that matters. I mean, it's great and all. But we defeated the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong in every major encounter. But it didn't make the government in South Vietnam any more viable, and it did nothing to deal with the underlying hostilities. The fundamental flaw in our adventure is not military. It's political. And we have done nothing to solve that problem. And honestly there's very little that we can do. This is not an Iraqi government.


I believe that we put a bunch of Iraqi intellectuals in a room and told them to come back with a constitution providing for the creation of a democratic state. This government is completely artificial because it is based on nothing but paper. This is the problem. You could put a bunch of American intellectuals in a room and tell them to fix our (America's) government and chances are their plan would be a failure too. A government is a reflection of its constituency. It can only be successful through the collective will of the population.


Ahmadinejads words mean nothing to me. The Quds is Iranian Special Forces. Regardless of what Ahmadinejad says. Ahmadinejad is not even commander of Iran's armed forces. Ahmadinejad is a conservative firebrand who is sustained by the idea of conflict or danger. Also, show me the text of that dialogue and I'll show you how meaningless the words are.


The Bush administration is doing basically the same thing that Ahmadinejad is doing in the previous paragraph. It's ruling-party bullshit. It's a stupid move in practical terms, but if he wants a fight, or if he wants to continue the feeling of conflict or danger, then it's a brilliant idea to declare Iran's armed forces as a terrorist organization. And yes, this is what Quds does. They train Shiite militants. Also, Hezbollah is not the same as Quds.. although Quds has financed and supported Hezbollah.


No. Completely wrong. Are you kidding? Ahmadinejad was a huge underdog to win the election. It was a shocking upset when he defeated Rafsanjani in the runoff election. Rafsanjani had been President in the past and had broad political support as a liberal reformist. Ahmadinejad only BARELY made it into the runoff election.
Rafsanjani got 21% of the general vote.
Ahmadinejad got 19% of the general vote.
Karroubi got 17% of the general vote.
Ahmadinejad rallied in the runoff to defeat Rafsanjani with a unified conservative movement. Rafsanjani's supporters did not show up to vote in large numbers, many people attribute this to the fact that a major factor in Rafsanjani's base was reconciliation with the west, but the U.S. had just declared Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil." Rafsanjani's support was demoralized.

On top of that, Ahmadinejad was much more centrist during the runoff campaign, and was able to win a lot of people who saw a Rafsanjani administration as a return to the policies of reconciliation of the 90s (which apparently failed to have any effect on their relationship with the West). It was an election between a moderate and a right-winger who tried to look like a moderate. And the Iranian people had already seen Rafsanjani's moderate policies fail to create normal relations with America.

In the Iranian general election, the Moderate and Liberal candidates got 16 million votes. Conservative candidates only got 11 million votes. The runoff was 10 million for Rafsanjani and 17 million for Ahmadinejad. That means Rafsanjani probably got the support of some Moeen supporters and some Mehralizadeh supporters, and maybe even a couple Karroubi supporters, but most of the moderates went to Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad will never win that kind of popular support again unless Iran truly believes they're going to be attacked by America.

It's politics. We lost because the only people that we hurt with our anti-Iranian dialogue were the liberals and the moderates. Bush talks so much about "we have to watch our words" but he can't (or won't) seem to practice this policy as it relates to Iran.


Believe me, the Supreme Leader is not happy with Ahmadinejad. The Guardian Council is not happy with Ahmadinejad. The Parliament is not happy with Ahmadinejad. Like I said in my previous post, Ahmadinejad is Iran's George Bush. Even the conservatives in the Republican party are not happy with George Bush.

Iran will have its next Presidential election in 2009. And HOPEFULLY America won't do anything stupid to hurt moderates before that election. Interference with Iranian politics only helps the Iranian conservatives. There will NOT be a revolution against the Islamic Republic. The people dislike the current President, but the Iranian people take great pride in their PErsian Islamic Democracy. They are on the right path.

Of course Saudi Arabia is afraid of Iran. Saudi Arabia supports the Sunnis. Iran supports the Shia.

Iran is a threat only because they hold the key to Iraq's future. The question is whether we should antagonize them.. or embrace them. Which would get better results for Iraq? Which would get better results for the Middle East? Which would get better results for the war on terrorism?

You both have good things to say. They appear to be without serious fault whichever view you take. It seems that your views are not that much different.

One fatal flaw, IMHO, is you are both working from the assumption that a governing body can be expected to be benevolent. I believe the reason the USA has endured and excelled for as long as it has, is because our founding fathers assumed a government could not, left to its own will, be depended on to be benevolent. Hence the much debated Bill of Rights. No constitution will suffice without that basic premise. Once again IMO. For this reason I can't have much faith in any leadership around the world that is left to its own without these uncontestable consequences.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the government should spill every bean they have in their bag. That would be a certain Achilles heel. There must be state secrets that may stay that way for many years, decades even. This is the nature of national security... as it exists up to this point in human cultural and sociological evolution.

Did the red phones at the copulating NY Times and MoveOn.Jihad ring today, it seems we are hearing a familar echo in enablement from Iran's Supreme limpbody?

Iranian supreme leader slams Bush!


The supreme leader of Iran has launched a scathing attack on United States President George W Bush.

Speaking at Friday prayers, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, (right out of the MoveOn.Jihad play book eh?) he was sure President Bush would be tried in an international court for what had happened in Iraq.

It was a particularly tough message, accusing the US of invading Iraq partly to undermine Iran's Islamic system.

It follows Mr Bush's speech to the US on Thursday in which he criticised Iran's ambitions in the Middle East.

(Again oddly echoing top Doom-o-crats verbatum) Ayatollah Khamenei said the US had been defeated in its plan for the Middle East, and he went on to talk of the complete defeat of the United States in its plan to weaken Iran.

(Not to be out done by the MoveOn.Jihadist, this cousin of Jihad and Theocratic terror monger competes in full agreement by treaty with them I think.)

The Spupreme Leader said he was convinced President Bush would be tried in an international court for what he had done in Iraq - and even likened him to Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

See moonbat's your comrades in common ideology have been listening, apparantly to your every word.

Anyone here sure this was not in a NY Times OP-Ed under American Jihad, doing for Jihad, what Jihad can not do for itself?

"Americans will have to answer for why they don't end occupation of Iraq and why waves of terrorism and insurgency have overwhelmed the country," he said.

These strong comments suggest that the Supreme Leader is giving his full backing to President Ahmadinejad in the confrontation with the West over Iran's nuclear programme.

President Ahmadinejad has said several times that he believes the dispute over the nuclear plan is now over; this is a very similar message from Iran's Supreme Leader.

I hear the Nukes a spinning, do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6995000.stm

Prepare for war against Iran: France

In fresh opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions, France has warned that it must prepare for the possibility of a war against Tehran.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, while calling for the preparations for a war, said that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran from getting atom bombs.

''The worst, sir, is war. And how do you prepare yourself for a war. We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the Chiefs of Staff's prerogative, but that is not about to happen tomorrow.

We prepare ourselves by saying we won't accept that this bomb is built understanding their use of nuclear enrichment. Nothing has been done. No resolutions have been taken. But we propose that some more efficient sanctions are put in place,'' said Kouchner.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy had earlier said that a diplomatic push by the world powers was the only alternative to ''an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran''.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/international.aspx


( "Isreali") Ground forces were operating in Syria'

http://www.google.com/search?q=ground+forc...1B2GGGL_enUS177

N Korean ship 'linked to Israel's strike on Syria

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/wsyria117.xml

US confirms Israeli air strike on Syria

A US official has confirmed that Israeli warplanes carried out an air strike "deep inside" Syria, escalating tensions between the two countries.

The target of the strike last Thursday remained unclear but Israeli media reported that a shipment of Iranian arms crossing Syria for use by the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon was attacked.

Syria first reported the incident on the day, saying its air defences had engaged five Israeli planes, but did not say what their target was. Israel remained uncharacteristically silent, pointedly refusing to deny that its warplanes were involved in an operation. The closest it came to acknowledging the affair happened was when it made an undertaking to Turkey to investigate how an Israeli long-range fuel tank was dropped on Turkish territory near the Syrian border.

Another theory gaining ground yesterday was that Israel was deliberately attacking the Russian-made Pantsyr air defence system recently bought by Damascus. The sale includes provision for the Pantsyr system to be shipped on to Iran and it is possible the Israeli attack was co-ordinated with America to probe the effectiveness of the system. It is believed that Iran would use the Pantsyr system to defend its nuclear facilities.

Syria has sought to keep the incident in the public arena, saying yesterday that it had complained formally to the United Nations, accusing Israel of unjustified aggression.

Syria and Israel have fought major wars on three occasions, in 1948, 1967 and 1973, as well as numerous other skirmishes. The two nations remain formally at war although an uneasy calm has largely held for the past three decades. Meanwhile, Israel was contemplating a retaliatory strike on Gaza last night after a Palestinian qassam rocket injured 69 of its soldiers, five seriously, at the Zikim army base. Many of the Israelis were hit by shrapnel as they slept under canvas.

While the rocket was fired by members of the Islamic Jihad party, Israel said it would hold Hamas accountable because the group is the main authority in the Gaza strip since it drove out its Fatah rivals in June.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, convened an emergency meeting yesterday with military and security commanders to discuss a response to the attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wisrael112.xml

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...C-mostviewedbox

Move troops to Iran border, Brown told

By Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman

General David Petraeus will press Gordon Brown to increase the number of British troops patrolling the Iraqi border with Iran when he meets the Prime Minister this week.

The US commander in Iraq wants Britain to move a significant proportion of the 5,000 troops garrisoned at Basra airport to cut off the smuggling of Iranian weapons to Shia militias.

But British commanders fear that the move carries a serious risk of embroiling the UK in a war with Iran at a time when they want to withdraw from Iraq.

A former US under-secretary of defence who is now a Pentagon adviser told The Sunday Telegraph that Gen Petraeus would use the meeting to brief Mr Brown on how Iran is stepping up the supply of weapons and the training of insurgents.

"He will argue that action must be taken soon to stop or at least reduce these activities, and that Britain should be a part of this action," the official said. "He will talk about the possibility of increasing security along the Iraqi border with Iran.

"While he will not make the request, he will present the argument that some British forces now being withdrawn from Basra should be transferred to the border security mission."

Last week, at the Americans' request, 350 British troops from 1 Mechanised Brigade began patrolling the border east of Basra and the Shatt al-Arab waterway.

But The Daily Telegraph has revealed that in November about 2,500 of the Basra contingent could be moved out of harm's way across the border into Kuwait, from where they will escort convoys and train Iraqi troops. The move will put Britain further at odds with US commanders.

An adviser to President George W Bush said Britain should think about sending far more troops to the Iranian border instead.

"There are 5,000 troops there," he said. "We want them to stay in Iraq but we also want them to do something useful."

Dan Goure, a Pentagon consultant, said: "Petraeus will be looking for what the British can do to shore up the Iranian border. We are putting a new base there and it's logical we would seek help from our allies."

The move, in the words of an adviser to Mr Brown, leaves the Prime Minister "spinning like a top between the Americans and Richard Dannatt", the head of the Army, who secured a promise from Tony Blair's government that it would not have to fight on two fronts, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gen Petraeus will also call on Britain to keep SAS special forces engaged in Iraq and to maintain control of the headquarters unit overseeing southern Iraq. He will ask for a long notice period if, as expected, the bulk of British troops are ordered home early next year.

For their part, the Americans hope Iranian meddling will force British troops to stay in Basra longer.

But a defence insider who has discussed the issue with officials at the highest levels in the Ministry of Defence said: "They are worried that if they do more on the Iranian border there will be nasty incidents for us at the fag end of a campaign and that we could get sucked into a long-lasting conflict with Iran."

A government official acknowledged: "Gen Petraeus is the commander of coalition forces. If he makes a request, then as long as we have troops there it will be hard to ignore."

Gen Petraeus's trip is designed to damp down angry exchanges over the future of Britain's Iraq deployment.
The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the US commander in Baghdad, Gen Ray Odierno, is furious at British plans for withdrawal and believes that the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, misled him on the reason for the recent pullback from Basra.

An adviser to Gen Petraeus said: "Odierno said: 'If there's one thing I hate more than being lied to by an American politician, it's being lied to by foreigners'. Browne had to come back to him and admit that it wasn't because the job was done but because the Army can't do both [Iraq and Afghanistan]."

Gen Petraeus will hold a press conference on Tuesday to address British concerns and, in his meetings with Mr Brown and defence chiefs, he will "give assurances that the fighting in Afghanistan is not being neglected as the result of developments in Iraq".

In return, Gen Dannatt is expected to discuss leaving some troops in the Basra headquarters. A US senator who has discussed the issue with Gen Petraeus said: "As far as he is concerned, they are staying."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...16/wiran316.xml