Author: markwu

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-4-15 16:30:58 |Display all floors

Reply #21 markwu's post

Look at this:


Iran's President Says Israel Will Be Annihilated
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, AP

TEHRAN, Iran (April 15) - The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in his address to the conference, accused the United States of plotting to bring the Mideast region under Israeli control.

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

Khamenei accused the Bush administration of plotting against his and other Mideast countries.

"The chain of plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon - aimed at governing the Middle East through the control of the Zionist regime - will not succeed," he said.

He also indicated that Iran will support the cash-strapped, Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories, but he did not mention financial aid.

"The great Islamic nation cannot ... be indifferent and remain silent on the injustice done to you," Khamenei said, referring to Muslim states. "The Islamic nation is required to assit you in any way it can."

Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2006-4-16 07:41:58 |Display all floors

reply #22

U.S. strike on Iran could make Iraq look like a warm-up bout

Fallout around the world would be grim
But will cost of inaction be too high?
Apr. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—On the ground, more terror.

Poison-laced missiles raining down on U.S. troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, the downing of a U.S. passenger airliner, suicide bombers in major cities, perhaps unleashing their deadly payload in a shopping mall food court. It could be 9/11 all over again. Or worse.

On the political front, more anti-Americanism.

Renewed venom aimed at Washington from European capitals, greater distrust from China and Russia, outright hatred in the Arab and Muslim world. Oil prices spiralling out of control, a global recession at hand.

In Iran, a galvanizing of a splintered nation. An end to hopes for political reform, a rally-around-the-leader phenomenon common among the victimized, an ability to rebuild a nuclear program in two to four years.

These are the potential costs of a U.S. military strike in Iran.

"It would be Iran's Pearl Harbor and it will be the beginning of a war, not the end of a war. It will set back American strategic interests for a generation," says Joseph Cirincione, the director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The war will take place at a time and location of Iran's choosing. It will make Iraq look like a preliminary bout."

But the cost of inaction could be even higher: a defiant nation with an apparently unstable leadership steeped in hatred for Americans in the heart of the Middle East with nuclear capabilities.

With Tehran ignoring both threats and cajoling from the international community and declaring itself — prematurely — part of the world's "nuclear club" this week, talk of the Washington stick moved to the forefront, while the carrot, now discredited, was pushed off centre stage.

While the week began with the White House trying to tamp down speculation about military strikes in Iran, reported by The Washington Post and by journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, it was becoming clear the Bush administration was growing impatient with a diplomatic effort that is not working with Tehran.

It may have also welcomed talk of potential military strikes, even if it would be extremely reluctant to use them, simply to remind some recalcitrant United Nations members such as China and Russia that diplomacy does have an end date.

The bluntest assessment of diplomatic success came from Karl Rove, U.S. President George W. Bush's political adviser and deputy chief of staff, who told a Houston audience Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "not a rational human being."

"We are engaged in a diplomatic process with our European partners and the United Nations to keep (Iran) from developing such a weapon," Rove said. "It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history."

Ahmadinejad announced this week that Iran had taken its nuclear enrichment program to new levels. Before he did so, he dismissed any influence of the United Nations, according to state media. "They know they cannot do a damned thing," he said.

The Iranian government has stated it will construct 3,000 centrifuges at a facility in Natanz and would eventually expand that to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium into fuel rich enough to produce atom bombs. Estimates of their capability date range from 2010 to 2020.

Bush has been clear he wants to stop Tehran from acquiring even the knowledge needed to build nuclear weapons, and last month he vowed U.S. military might could be used to protect staunch allies such as Israel.

But, earlier this week, Bush called reports of potential military strikes on Iran "wild speculation." British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said the stories were "completely nuts."

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld weighed in, saying he wouldn't address things from "fantasy land," but then added: "The last thing I'm going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or don't refresh a plan, and why. It just isn't useful."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sternly called for action at the UN, but didn't say what it could be, leaving her spokesman sputtering about "re-underlining" the call for Iran to suspend its enrichment program and vowing this time the Security Council will do more than just release a statement.

"This is not a question of Iran's right to civil nuclear power," Rice said. "This is a question that the world does not believe that Iran should have the capability and the technology that could lead to a nuclear weapon.

"When the Security Council reconvenes, it will be time for action."

The timing of military strikes is now being openly debated in Washington.

Cirincione says he believes there will be secret strikes announced by Bush after they happen. But first, he says, Bush should be expected to go to the U.S. Congress for authorization before mid-term elections in November, while Republicans still control the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Approval before the elections, the strike after the elections, because the almost certain spike in U.S. gas prices following such action will blunt any rally-round-the-flag effect at election time, he says. John Pike, a military analyst at globalsecurity.org, predicts strikes in the summer of 2007, safely away from the presidential election the next year. He argues, as many do, that Bush already has congressional approval and needs not go back to lawmakers. "It will be a surprise," he says. "There's nothing like dropping bombs on evil-doers to give Republicans some political updraft."

Pike argues that, despite all the breast-beating in Congress about misuse of a resolution that got the country into war in Iraq and all the sound and fury about clandestine surveillance in this country, nothing has been done to strip Bush of any power when it comes to war. "He will be looking at atomic ayatollahs. There will be some real downsides (to military action) and there will be efforts to redouble diplomatic moves, but in Tehran, the U.S. is equated with Satan.

"What kind of diplomatic solution do they believe they can get from Satan?"

Other analysts have been blunt in their assessment of the cost to the United States.

"The most dangerous delusion is that a conflict would be either small or quick," says Richard Haass, the president of the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations.

Haass, who until July 2003 was a principal adviser to former secretary of state Colin Powell, says destroying Iran's nuclear capacity would require numerous cruise missiles and aircraft.

"Iran would be sure to retaliate, using terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and attacking U.S. and British forces and interests in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said in a written analysis this week. "This would require the U.S. to respond militarily against a larger set of targets inside Iran. What would begin as a limited strike would not remain limited for long."

Haass also warned that such a strike would likely push oil prices above $100 (U.S.) per barrel, setting off an economic chain reaction that could lead to global recession. He predicts a certain increase in anti-Americanism in Europe, further rage against the U.S. in the Arab and Muslim world, and a questioning of U.S. ties in Russia and China.

Ken Pollack of the more liberal Brookings Institution argues for sanctions restricting investment in Tehran.

"The world community should force Iranians to have an internal debate — do they want their nuclear program more than a healthy economy?" he told a recent forum.

But Pollack adds a sobering point. If the administration truly believes it cannot live in a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons, the military option may be the only way to prevent that.

But it would be seen as an unprovoked attack on a country that has attacked no one. It would be likened to Osama bin Laden's attack on the U.S., Pollack said, reminding his audience how the United States responded to that.

http://tinyurl.com/mzxnt

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-4-17 23:12:26 |Display all floors

#22

thanks wchao37 and daggers.

pls. note this report (2.3MB, pdf) titled Crude Design by neweconomics.org - how Iraqi oil is being ripped off:

http://tinyurl.com/z32hq

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-4-19 12:20:30 |Display all floors

The Persian government got to be smart..

If Amerikan Regime decide to attack Persia....
Look for the tell tale sign....

do not spend too much time in preparation, if the signs of invasion is not imminent..
The Amerikan Regime used rhetorics, psychological warfare on the Russian Federation...making the Russians spend wildly until.....they are worn out....

the Persians must be smarter.....
Use Intelligence......
Build up key technologies....anti aircraft carrier weapons to cripple those nasty floating man-of-war.....including having 10-20 nuclear bombs...
having enough nukes but not threatening to the Russians, India, Saudi, Turkey or the European Union....this include no threats of building ICBM, or long range missiles......
cheaper armed forces..a million man army is enough....but build a low cost 2-3 million man militia...to keep part employment of huge numbers of unemployed in Persia....
build up morale in Persia...bring back the old style BAZAARs and FOOD QUARTERS......tea and coffee drinking....and employment to the part time militia members...
build high speed patrol boats with anti ship missiles to destroy Amerikan forces shipping...so that the cost is high for the Amerikan navy.....
buy 200-300 top of the line fighters and interceptors from the Russian Federation, in order to be able to attack front line air strips....
keep the Amerikan forces busy in IRAQ so that, Amerikan Regime will need to implement DRAFT and increase BUDGET.......
remember, Persia fights on home ground advantage while the Amerikan Regime forces has long long logistic lines.....

send COVERT teams into Amerika....in order to have first hand knowledge of impending strikes on PERSIAN soil.....

and improve the domestic economy, now that the oil money is coming in.....
don't waste time in over spending on military....
it is not needed until Amerikan forces really attacks...
form join venture with Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwan companies to produce the basic goods in Iran..example, cloths, tv, radio, vcd, computer, fridge, oven, cooker, steel etc. etc. etc....
allow marketing and trading company to flourish...

that will safeguard Persian sovereignity.....

and protect the oil supply route to China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan.....
and maintain peace in our world today!!!!

Green Dragon
Prince of Peace

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 1

Post time 2006-4-22 14:02:51 |Display all floors

my personnal ideas on the current situation

At first place ,thanks for the good job listed by markwu , you have done a good job . I am sure you are certain to make a lot of hard work for this topic . However , I was unable to have finnished reading the article .

in fact ,seveal years ago , the force of USA want to attack the Iran , and at that time , the civial rights movement and anti-war movement have been on the rise . So ,the government had not made the decision , However , these politicians adopt another way , that is to help the Iraq to attack the Iran , during the iraq-to -iran war . And then , the sadam is  a good friend to the Amercian . the period donnot last a long time until the bay-war . so , the cause not to have a war donnot lie in that the usa prefer to peace , but lie in some worries in the situation in the middle-east .NOw , the Usa government have almost perfect performance in the war to the iraq , the next target is iran , there is no doubt on it . BUt ,I think , the war would not to be large , at least duing the time BUsh takes office . may be , the usa will adopt many ways with limited force action , to force the iran to surrender and to give up the nuclear -weapon plan , that is a wise policy.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2006-4-22 20:26:17 |Display all floors

#26

thank you glorisoldier; your views are important.

Bush has a number of options, from light to heavy, that can be taken from recent history:

1. like Cuba - sanction and cordon
2. like North Korea - reach stability through much help from China and others;
3. like past Libya - bomb selected target but no invasion
    3-1 like past Baghdad - Tel Aviv bombs Baghdad nuclear plant
4. like Afghan - incursions and proxy alliance.
5. like Iraq - invade and force new government

However he is going to make a big mistake with all 5 options because.......all options
are based on assessment that Iran does not have the bomb. His 'mistake' about WMD
with Iraq may come back and haunt him in Iran.

I wish for world peace and everyone to live and prosper.

[ Last edited by markwu at 2006-4-22 08:27 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2006-4-22 20:47:58 |Display all floors

this is certainly a NAPPIE

Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.