`Chatter' hints of strike on Iran's nuclear sites

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld...s/opinion/10121646.htm
Counterterror specialists look for ``chatter'' in Islamic extremist circles preceding an attack. There is a lot of chatter going on today in Washington -- only this time, it is about an American attack on Iran.

In seminars and hallways, there is eager anticipation of an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Sure, the talk goes, we may not get all those buried nuclear labs. But a few waves of cruise missiles and bombers will set Iran's program back several years, enough time to pursue regime change in Tehran.

The Iran buzz is loud enough to have prompted an unusual statement by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Thursday that any attack on Iran would be ``inconceivable.'' In a message meant for Washington and for countrymen nervous about joining yet another war, Straw added: ``I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop.''

Package of concessions

Straw spoke as negotiators from Britain, France and Germany were about to meet in Paris with the Iranians. The Europeans are offering a package of concessions, from trade to nuclear power plants, to get Iran to agree to an indefinite suspension of its program to enrich uranium.

The ability to enrich uranium is not in itself proof of a nuclear weapons program but it would put Iran only months away from being able to build a bomb. Iranian leaders, while denying any interest in nuclear weapons, portray the enrichment program as a matter of national security.

``The centers of global power, who wish to monopolize the entire world, are opposed to any development which helps a nation to achieve national independence, self-reliance and national strength,'' Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said at Friday prayers in Tehran.

Despite the tough talk, however, Iran's negotiators have hinted they may be ready for suspension of their program, though not indefinitely.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was eagerly awaiting the outcome of those talks -- still ongoing at press time. He is currently drafting a status report on Iran's nuclear program, to be issued Nov. 12, ahead of an IAEA meeting Nov. 25. The report will confirm that Iran has been experimenting with all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle but that there is still no concrete evidence of a link to a weapons program.

Bush administration hard-liners are dismissive of ElBaradei and of the European-led talks. They expect the talks to fail -- while refusing repeated entreaties from ElBaradei and the Europeans to directly engage the Iranians. They aim to head to the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran.

But the case against Iran is far from clear and unlikely to gain full support, including from Russia and China. If the sanctions bid fails however, those Bush officials will argue that the United Nations has once again wilted in the face of a proliferation threat, a la Iraq.

ElBaradei continues to trust President Bush's assurances, given to him personally, that the United States sees only a diplomatic solution to this problem.

But he did not hesitate, in an address delivered Thursday to Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, to draw sharp lines with the Bush administration.

Lessons of Iraq

ElBaradei pointedly laid out the lessons of Iraq. ``The first point to be made is that the inspections were working,'' he said. That is confirmed, he argued, by the report issued by the administration's Iraq Survey Group, confirming the IAEA's conclusion before the war began that the Iraqi nuclear program was shut down.

``The second point to be made is that we need to exercise maximum restraint before resorting to military force,'' he continued. ``The Iraq experience should tell us that unless extreme conditions exist to justify pre-emptive action against a suspected weapons-of-mass-destruction program, diplomacy in all its forms, including maximum pressure, coupled with credible verification, should be the primary avenue of choice.''

The next few weeks will probably determine what the avenue of choice will be with Iran. We hope every diplomatic option will be fully explored. But if Iran fails to reach a deal with the IAEA and the Europeans, the chatter favoring a military solution will rise to a din.

Why do I have the feeling Bush is reliving his cheerleader days? This time, however, he's chanting PNAC! PNAC! PNAC!
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Well at least bush manged to unitie Iran and Iraq together after a 10 year long war I think that is really shows that bush can be a uniter.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I have this strange feeling that Iran will retaliate on any pre-emptive American strike on its nuclear facilities by invading Iraq.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Well at least bush manged to unitie Iran and Iraq together after a 10 year long war I think that is really shows that bush can be a uniter.

Hahahaha. :laugh: :thumbsup:
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
YAHOOO!!!

I love all you can eat Buffet :)

I seriously doubt we would ever do something like this.

But with GOD as our President then who knows :shocked:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
El Baradei is right. We should keep asking them nicely not to make nukes, let them build them, watch the crazy mullahs nuke Israel, then we can retaliate, and nuclear war can escalate around the globe. It's just so much better that way. We can stand around the glowing worldscape and at least die of radiation poinsoning knowing in our hearts we tried everything we could.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
El Baradei is right. We should keep asking them nicely not to make nukes, let them build them, watch the crazy mullahs nuke Israel, then we can retaliate, and nuclear war can escalate around the globe. It's just so much better that way. We can stand around the glowing worldscape and at least die of radiation poinsoning knowing in our hearts we tried everything we could.
Wait, it makes it sound like you think El Baradei isn't right...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
El Baradei is right. We should keep asking them nicely not to make nukes, let them build them, watch the crazy mullahs nuke Israel, then we can retaliate, and nuclear war can escalate around the globe. It's just so much better that way. We can stand around the glowing worldscape and at least die of radiation poinsoning knowing in our hearts we tried everything we could.
Wait, it makes it sound like you think El Baradei isn't right...

Whatever gave you that idea?
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,572
3
71
Great.... you know what. I'm exhausted about worrying about future wars or who wants to kill who. If the USA can manage to take down several countries in the next four years without getting me killed, fine with me. Pardon my selfish nature, because there's nothing I can do about what will happen.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I have this strange feeling that Iran will retaliate on any pre-emptive American strike on its nuclear facilities by invading Iraq.

yeah, i think you may be right. what a clusterfvck that would be...

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Great.... you know what. I'm exhausted about worrying about future wars or who wants to kill who. If the USA can manage to take down several countries in the next four years without getting me killed, fine with me. Pardon my selfish nature, because there's nothing I can do about what will happen.

Just make sure you do not have children of draft age and make sure you do not get any emotional ties to anyone in the Armed Forces.

Make sure you do not want to travel overseas to countries that will hate the US more than they already do.

Also ask your president why he let North Korea grow so strong
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
Why do I have the feeling Bush is reliving his cheerleader days? This time, however, he's chanting PNAC! PNAC! PNAC!

For what it's worth, I believe we will see an Israeli strike against Iran long before any US strike. We've recently Ok the sale of weapons the Israeli's would need (see here).

Bill
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
Also ask your president why he let North Korea grow so strong
You might want to ask Clinton that question instead. It would make far more sense.

4 years to deal with it and what has been done?
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: bsobel
Why do I have the feeling Bush is reliving his cheerleader days? This time, however, he's chanting PNAC! PNAC! PNAC!

For what it's worth, I believe we will see an Israeli strike against Iran long before any US strike. We've recently Ok the sale of weapons the Israeli's would need (see here).

Bill


Yep, I think that's very likely.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Would Egypt strike Israel if Israel murdered 1000s of Iranians in the strike?

I do not think Egypt is as weak as they were during the 6 day war
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I have this strange feeling that Iran will retaliate on any pre-emptive American strike on its nuclear facilities by invading Iraq.

They won't invade they will just fund the resistance groups.
 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
Also ask your president why he let North Korea grow so strong
You might want to ask Clinton that question instead. It would make far more sense.

Who cares who is to blame for letting N. Korea grow strong? I mean seriously, is it really any of our business who grows strong? The arrogance of this country to think we can dictate the rest of the world what kinds of weapons they can or cannot have is crazy. What do you think Clinton could have done? I guess he could have invaded or attacked their weapons sites, but what happens if we did not get them all? Do you think N. Korea would use the last weapon? I have no idea, but that is a possibility. As long as the US has nukes the rest of the world (especially countries like N. Korea) will want or feel they need them to balance the power. The only reason why the US and Russia did not go to nuclear war during the cold war was the simple fact of mutual destruction of everything. So we are left with two options, give everyone a nuclear weapon so the balance is equal, or start to get rid of them.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: dahunan
Also ask your president why he let North Korea grow so strong
You might want to ask Clinton that question instead. It would make far more sense.

4 years to deal with it and what has been done?
What can be done in four years? By UN standards we still have a good eight years more of doing nothing. At that point we can shake a big stick and still do nothing, if we want to continue down the path of diplomacy. Isn't that what diplomacy is all about?
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: dahunan
Would Egypt strike Israel if Israel murdered 1000s of Iranians in the strike?

I do not think Egypt is as weak as they were during the 6 day war
If Israel utilized a night strike, which would be the most likely occurance, the number of casualties wouldn't be that high. Most of the casualties would also involve people actually working on the nuclear weapons program, which generally won't be considered the same thing as random civillians. I actually think the number of Iranians killed would likely be under 100 at least an far as non-military casualties go.

While Egypt may have benefited military from US aid as part of the peace deal with Israel, they are probably even more outclassed than they were during the Six Day War if they resorted to an attack on Israel by themselves. I can go into into details if necessary, but Israel simply has spectacularly lethal and large quantities of major weapons systems.

If Egypt attacked Israel, they would lose over a Billion dollars of military aid that they currently receive annually from the US due to the peace treaty Egypt signed with Israel. While Egpyt would publicly condemn such an attack, they would probably be privately relieved that a potential hostile power in Iran has had their nuclear program badly damaged. Realisticly Egypt won't do a thing.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,572
3
71
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Great.... you know what. I'm exhausted about worrying about future wars or who wants to kill who. If the USA can manage to take down several countries in the next four years without getting me killed, fine with me. Pardon my selfish nature, because there's nothing I can do about what will happen.

Just make sure you do not have children of draft age and make sure you do not get any emotional ties to anyone in the Armed Forces.

Make sure you do not want to travel overseas to countries that will hate the US more than they already do.

Also ask your president why he let North Korea grow so strong

Eh... it's more of a personal observation. I can complain about the horrors or the injustice of specific wars but until something goes horribly wrong, no one will listen. So why should I keep complaining if the only way to prevent future wars is to have a current one go wrong.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,429
484
126
The US wouldnt do a strike like that unless we move most of our carriers, our B52 fleet and our subs into the region...that way if Iran tried anything it would be scorched earth time for their soldiers....

WWIII - in progress