Cheney Pushes For Military Action Against Iran Before End Of Term

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Text

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War with Iran has been looming for the last few years. There have been countless discussions, several possible scenarios, and all seem to end badly for the US. Although impeachment is unlikely, it may be the only way we can keep these crooks from launching yet another pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation that poses no threat to our country.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

The US can't afford a war against Iraq which has faced sanctions for years. Iran has more money and a *massive* military. I actually think the US would lose very badly to them to the point that they would be ruined as a nation.
 

daveshel

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,452
1
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
The military must have some warehouses it needs to clear out. Everything must go!
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

The US can't afford a war against Iraq which has faced sanctions for years. Iran has more money and a *massive* military. I actually think the US would lose very badly to them to the point that they would be ruined as a nation.

Iran's military isn't a threat. I doubt we'd take significant losses. I think a lot of people really underplay the vast strike capabilities we now have, even without considering the airforce.

Just look at the SSGNs, 154 Tomahawks in one sub, as much as a whole carrier group had. They can be switched out pretty quickly since they are in modular tubes. Our subs face almost no threat from their navy, so within an hour we could launch over 300 missiles into Iran, striking their air bases, fixed AA locations, navy locations, barracks, C&C centers.

Surge F-15/16/18/22 into the arena to claim air superiority, take out the remainder of AA belts in progressive strikes using F-117 and B-2 or WW's. Then you JSOW the army formations with B-52/2/B-1 bombers.

Really, before they even got close to our army formations their force capability would be decimated. Our army would just have to hold them as their support and logistics get hammered. Even with portable AA, or man-equipped, arty and more cruise missiles with sub munitions will hammer them.

I think people really confuse our inability to win a limited urban/jungle war, to an all-out destruction of a fighting force. Our armed forces excel at being able to utterly crush enemy armies.

It wouldn't even be fair for them. We found out a decade later that the Soviet forces, even despite their massive size, wouldn't have stood a chance against our forces. The Iranian military is a fraction of the size and is barely more advanced.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
If Bush moves on Iran, I think a violent revolution is due. The leadership in this country is either A. useless or B. dangerous. They all need to go.

http://www.kickthemallout.com/

I don't think it would call for full revolution...just a few dozen well placed shots with a high powered rifle. Once you remove all the PNAC'ers and rabid neocons the rest will fall into place quickly.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, the US has been a world aggressor since a couple years after becoming its own nation. We have always been an interfering imperialist wanna-be.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

The US can't afford a war against Iraq which has faced sanctions for years. Iran has more money and a *massive* military. I actually think the US would lose very badly to them to the point that they would be ruined as a nation.

Iran's military isn't a threat. I doubt we'd take significant losses. I think a lot of people really underplay the vast strike capabilities we now have, even without considering the airforce.

Just look at the SSGNs, 154 Tomahawks in one sub, as much as a whole carrier group had. They can be switched out pretty quickly since they are in modular tubes. Our subs face almost no threat from their navy, so within an hour we could launch over 300 missiles into Iran, striking their air bases, fixed AA locations, navy locations, barracks, C&C centers.

Surge F-15/16/18/22 into the arena to claim air superiority, take out the remainder of AA belts in progressive strikes using F-117 and B-2 or WW's. Then you JSOW the army formations with B-52/2/B-1 bombers.

Really, before they even got close to our army formations their force capability would be decimated. Our army would just have to hold them as their support and logistics get hammered. Even with portable AA, or man-equipped, arty and more cruise missiles with sub munitions will hammer them.

I think people really confuse our inability to win a limited urban/jungle war, to an all-out destruction of a fighting force. Our armed forces excel at being able to utterly crush enemy armies.

It wouldn't even be fair for them. We found out a decade later that the Soviet forces, even despite their massive size, wouldn't have stood a chance against our forces. The Iranian military is a fraction of the size and is barely more advanced.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The Islamic Republic of Iran has two kinds of armed forces: the regular forces Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), totalling about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totalling around 900,000 trained troops.[94]

Iran also has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized[95] This is the largest number of troop mobilization in the world.

Iran's military capabilities are kept largely secret. Since 1992, it has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, guided missiles, submarines, and fighter planes.[96] In recent years, official announcements have highlighted the development of weapons such as Fajr-3 (MIRV) missile, Hoot, Kowsar, Zelzal, Fateh-110, Shahab-3, and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The Fajr-3 (MIRV) is currently Iran's most advanced ballistic missile. It is a domestically-developed and produced liquid fuel missile with an unknown range. The IRIS solid-fuelled missile is a program which is supposed to be Iran's first missile to bring satellites into orbit. In 2005, Iran's military spending represented 3.3% of the GDP or $91 per capita, the lowest figure of the Persian Gulf nations.[97] Iran's military doctrine is to defend its territorial integrity only.
I've bolded what I feel refutes your point about their miliary. As powerful as the US military is, I just can't see them wiping out a militia of 11 million people. The boldness at the bottom is why I feel the states should leave them alone.

I don't see why Iran couldn't sink the US aircraft carriers that are there.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, the US has been a world aggressor since a couple years after becoming its own nation. We have always been an interfering imperialist wanna-be.
Um, ok, who did the US attack from say 1820 to 1940? What kinds of 'imperialism' did they engage in?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.

Eisenhower was responsible for the start of the CIA as an agent of covert action, beginning with the overthrow of democracy in Iran. He also supported France's colonization of Viet Nam, opposing democracy there as well because Ho Chi Minh would win the election, and the phony country 'South Vietnam' giving us an excuse to 'protect' them, i.e., to attack the Vietnamese who wanted the occupation ended.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

Ding ding ding...and ANOTHER new low hit on P&N!! Seriously though, I doubt this one can be topped (bottomed). Bravo /golf clap...

Why don't you just start assassinating neocons like you said a few posts ago?

You are one seriously mentally unstable person.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

Ding ding ding...and ANOTHER new low hit on P&N!! Seriously though, I doubt this one can be topped (bottomed). Bravo /golf clap...

Why don't you just start assassinating neocons like you said a few posts ago?

You are one seriously mentally unstable person.

You are one person who has no concept of holding your own country morally accountable for wrong.

If you ever want to understand why so many otherwise 'good' Germans could let Hitler do what he did, you need look no further than people like that.

That's another weakness in democracy - the weakness that the people who get to vote don't need to give any weight to justice for others.

And so it's always a battle between the moral people who fight for justice, and the immoral people who support wrong actions out of selfish interest.

It's nothing new - the native Americans and slaves can vouch for that.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

The US can't afford a war against Iraq which has faced sanctions for years. Iran has more money and a *massive* military. I actually think the US would lose very badly to them to the point that they would be ruined as a nation.

Iran's military isn't a threat. I doubt we'd take significant losses. I think a lot of people really underplay the vast strike capabilities we now have, even without considering the airforce.

Just look at the SSGNs, 154 Tomahawks in one sub, as much as a whole carrier group had. They can be switched out pretty quickly since they are in modular tubes. Our subs face almost no threat from their navy, so within an hour we could launch over 300 missiles into Iran, striking their air bases, fixed AA locations, navy locations, barracks, C&C centers.

Surge F-15/16/18/22 into the arena to claim air superiority, take out the remainder of AA belts in progressive strikes using F-117 and B-2 or WW's. Then you JSOW the army formations with B-52/2/B-1 bombers.

Really, before they even got close to our army formations their force capability would be decimated. Our army would just have to hold them as their support and logistics get hammered. Even with portable AA, or man-equipped, arty and more cruise missiles with sub munitions will hammer them.

I think people really confuse our inability to win a limited urban/jungle war, to an all-out destruction of a fighting force. Our armed forces excel at being able to utterly crush enemy armies.

It wouldn't even be fair for them. We found out a decade later that the Soviet forces, even despite their massive size, wouldn't have stood a chance against our forces. The Iranian military is a fraction of the size and is barely more advanced.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
The Islamic Republic of Iran has two kinds of armed forces: the regular forces Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), totalling about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totalling around 900,000 trained troops.[94]

Iran also has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized[95] This is the largest number of troop mobilization in the world.

Iran's military capabilities are kept largely secret. Since 1992, it has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, guided missiles, submarines, and fighter planes.[96] In recent years, official announcements have highlighted the development of weapons such as Fajr-3 (MIRV) missile, Hoot, Kowsar, Zelzal, Fateh-110, Shahab-3, and a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The Fajr-3 (MIRV) is currently Iran's most advanced ballistic missile. It is a domestically-developed and produced liquid fuel missile with an unknown range. The IRIS solid-fuelled missile is a program which is supposed to be Iran's first missile to bring satellites into orbit. In 2005, Iran's military spending represented 3.3% of the GDP or $91 per capita, the lowest figure of the Persian Gulf nations.[97] Iran's military doctrine is to defend its territorial integrity only.
I've bolded what I feel refutes your point about their miliary. As powerful as the US military is, I just can't see them wiping out a militia of 11 million people. The boldness at the bottom is why I feel the states should leave them alone.

I don't see why Iran couldn't sink the US aircraft carriers that are there.


Im sorry, but for the last 1000 years sheer numbers of men does not translate into military victory. Im sure the quality and training of those "11 million" is complete crap, not to mention their outdated weaponry. A smaller US force would have no problem beating a massive army of ill-equipped and ill-trained militia. It would be like Mike Tyson fighting 20 five year olds...
 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, the US has been a world aggressor since a couple years after becoming its own nation. We have always been an interfering imperialist wanna-be.
Um, ok, who did the US attack from say 1820 to 1940? What kinds of 'imperialism' did they engage in?

Spanish American and Philippine American wars come to mind.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,158
6
81
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

You would applaud my death? :(
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

Ding ding ding...and ANOTHER new low hit on P&N!! Seriously though, I doubt this one can be topped (bottomed). Bravo /golf clap...

Why don't you just start assassinating neocons like you said a few posts ago?

You are one seriously mentally unstable person.

You are one person who has no concept of holding your own country morally accountable for wrong.

If you ever want to understand why so many otherwise 'good' Germans could let Hitler do what he did, you need look no further than people like that.

That's another weakness in democracy - the weakness that the people who get to vote don't need to give any weight to justice for others.

And so it's always a battle between the moral people who fight for justice, and the immoral people who support wrong actions out of selfish interest.

It's nothing new - the native Americans and slaves can vouch for that.

And you are gonna defend him? I was wrong, P&N went lower!

Which way are you going to go, assassin or just plain old "death to Americans" cheerleader?
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I never understand how the US has survived this long as a nation...you guys have been blowing up the world since Eisenhower became president in the 1960's.

Eisenhower was president from 1952 to 1960.
I was pretty close for a Canuck. ;)

I suppose what I meant was that in the 60's the US started its agressive foreign policy. Eisenhower was actually pretty reasonable and helped win WW2 (which the US got dragged into anyway). It's more Vietnam-onward that I'm referring to.

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, the US has been a world aggressor since a couple years after becoming its own nation. We have always been an interfering imperialist wanna-be.
Um, ok, who did the US attack from say 1820 to 1940? What kinds of 'imperialism' did they engage in?

First understand that we're talking about forceful occupation, economic imperialism, diplomacy by force, projection of force abroad, and numerous other nuanced forms of imperialism.

Native American genocide, manifest destiny, Hawaii, Cuba, Japan, Mexico, 700+ military bases off of our shores, Korea, Iran, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Shanghai...need I continue? I can if you'd like since I just spent 4 years getting my degree in American Imperialism...ooops, I mean history and political science.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

You would applaud my death? :(

If you voluntarily participate in an unlawful action (war), then yes. You have the power to not be a part of it. We all had the power to prevent it, and we still do. But we're too complacent and short-sighted, and egocentric to learn from the past and do now what should be done. There's a time for nationalism, and a time to say no. Had the unjust aggressors of the past been stopped cold by the actions of their people then how many innocents would now be alive? Had the Germans refused to cede power to the Nazis what could have been prevented? No, when an administration of any nation rises to unchecked power and aggression the only outcome is death. They must be stopped, no matter the cost.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'll tell you this: if we attack Iran I'm on their side. I will loudly applaud every casualty they inflict upon us. If they sink our ships I'll throw a party. If they bring the world together against us I'll weep with joy. This administration MUST be stopped cold, and if it takes the deaths of a million Americans to wake us up to that fact and keep idiots like this out of power then so be it.

What a moronic statement.