How President Bush is going to pull a fast one over Iran is mind-boggling. With huge amount of US resources being tied down in Iraq, a war of attrition for both sides, with no end in sight.

Does Bush and his neo-Con team believe that two wrongs will make one right? Wishful thinking!

After the Iraqi fiasco, how many allies will again give unquestioned support for USA intervention. US can no longer count on unwavering backing by European and Middle Eastern allies. Stiff opposition can be expected from Russia and China than before. Bush cannot expect to continue getting away with letting all hell break lose.

Can the USA conduct simultaneous limited wars? In strategic theory, perhaps that is technically possible. It will bleed the US economy further, that's for sure.

Many scholars have advised that making constructive contacts with Iran would be advantageous for US foreign policy goals. However, the neo-Cons prefer to bulldoze their way into Iraq instead of talking terms, and create lies to deceive the American people and the world instead of solving contentious problems based on facts. There are many tricks in the bag to orchestrate the invasion. However, the US sincerity will be called into question if the Central Intelligence Agency continues supporting internal dissent to undermine the Iranian government as it had done with the Saddam regime in the past.

The US can ill afford to open another war front. This time, the condemnations would be worse and US will be isolated. It is therefore crucial that the US government tries to restrain and work out a viable solution to the stalemate. It must accept the reality that the Iranians who are the first civilisations on earth and intelligent people, will eventually have nuclear weapons. The irony for the US to realise is the futility of its threats and chastise of Iran. On the contrary, a sense of insecurity will only prompt and encourage Iran to be more vigilant and determined to defend itself.

Iran on the other hand, is playing smart, low key and cooperative so as not to provoke the US or Israel from having good reasons to launch a pre-emptive strike. This time, US is facing a more formidable adversary Iran, compared to the Iraq "walkover". Neither side is going to gain in a confrontation. It is a lose-lose situation.

*****

For the sake of world peace and in the interest of the Americans, we do hope that Bush's exit may happen sooner than the operational plan for attack can take effect. Surely, the neo-Cons are finding all ways and means to prove Iran is a threat, developing its nuclear capability and all out to harm the world.

Has the world become safer from terrorists? No, in fact, growing number of Iraqi groups are aligned closer to Iranians. US reputation as policeman of the world has suffered a severe beating. It has lost credibility. Are there economic gains from tapping Iraq's oil resources? No, oil supplies are disrupted by instability and attacks. Will Bush learn from past mistakes? Probably not.

*****

I also found an earlier thread related to this issue. Things haven't changed much since - the will to start a fight. Again we witness snapshots of deja vu ala pre-Iraq invasion, of finding fairy tales to justify the invasion.

http://oneworldtalk.freeforums.org/avoid-military-action-against-iran-t378.html

Pardon me, GooBai, I'm not sure what you meant by the military is actually in charge of the US economy? The Commander-in-Chief may want to ride roughshod over institutions and people but there are various centres contributing to economic policies. The Federal Reserve is influential and must be commended for some of the rescue measures for the subprime crisis, even though it may be a little late. The President may not be listening to good advice but he is still accountable nevertheless. Any moves into Iran must not be fixated by pure pursuit of oil without taking into consideration other damaging effects it will have on the US leadership and people. Deluded as he might be, I'm sure Bush realises that no one will get away unharmed.

Quote:

It isn't mind-boggling if u know who is ACTUALLY in charge of the US of A 's economy and as a result, its military...It doesn't matter if the general economy goes to recession because the common people will suffer , not THEM.

Wynston:

Quote:

Pardon me, GooBai, I'm not sure what you meant by the military is actually in charge of the US economy? The Commander-in-Chief may want to ride roughshod over institutions and people but there are various centres contributing to economic policies. The Federal Reserve is influential and must be commended for some of the rescue measures for the subprime crisis, even though it may be a little late. The President may not be listening to good advice but he is still accountable nevertheless. Any moves into Iran must not be fixated by pure pursuit of oil without taking into consideration other damaging effects it will have on the US leadership and people. Deluded as he might be, I'm sure Bush realises that no one will get away unharmed

.

wat i meant is that Bush's oil buddies and the Fed actually drives foreign policy...Bush may be the Commander-in-Chief, but he is not the Chairman who directs !

GooBai, apparently does not understand the set up of the US administration. There are 3 levels of administration: legislative, judiciary and the executive. The President of US cannot on his own declare war on any country. He could only do so if US were to be attacked as in the case of Pearl Harbour in Dec 7th, 1941. He needs to seek Congressional approval, and how he does it depends on how convincing the case maybe. In the case of Iraq, he has been able to deceive everybody. The current atmosphere of caution has prevailed in the case of Iran and a deja vu will unlikely to happen. Reporters and the opposition Democrats are now more aware and unlikely to be called unpatriotic if they were to question the reasons for war even if the classified information provided by the executive branch of the government was very convincing.

Sure, in Washington, DC, there are lobbies from all groups including the oil and arms industries that could persuade a trend in US foreign policy. Debates and hearings of any policies are carried out in the Congress before they become official. I hope GooBai has not made out that US is a banana republic.

By the way, it would be better if you (GooBai) do not quote the whole article written by another handle. Just quote the part that is relevant so that I can follow your point or focus of discussion. Thank you.

Thank you smalltok for enlightening us with the workings of the US administration, but do you honestly think that anyone can stop those war-mongers? Even the democrats are supporting the invasion of Iran.

GooBai:

Quote:

Even the democrats are supporting the invasion of Iran.

There is no invasion of Iran that I know of. A pending invasion? Unlikely, for most politicians are cautious of information from CIA, or the executive branch (i.e. from GW Bush) suggesting anything that Iran has nuclear arsenal. US army is quite spread thin and budgetary constraints will prevent another major "invasion" and or "occupation". If military were to be used, it would be limited to air strikes in conjunction with the Israeli Air Force. The situation in the Middle East will be uglier forever.

The mood of US politicians have been influenced very much by the trauma of 9/11 but as more revelation comes about from people intimately involved with politicians or decision makers (like former White House press secretary, McClellan), the mood and decision making will be approached from a different angle. Americans have enough of 8 years of deceit!

Hilary Clinton is a known conservative on foreign policy. Her views may not be representative of the prevailing Democrat platform and supporters' views ... ie if she becomes wins the race. Goobai, do you consider Clinton as a likely Democrat nominee?

From the same source Goobai cited : Obama's draft speech chided McCain ... "stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure. Here are the results of the policies that John McCain has supported, and would continue."
From the comments by readers so far, it would appear that most of them disagree with McCain's warmongering posture.

Can US unilateralism in the global arena be sustainable economically or militarily? It's a bottomless pit of more deficits, debts and cost of human lives, among other negative impact. US may outsource some of its surgical air strikes to Israel but it would be careful not to be sucked into another Vietnam/Iraq quicksand.

Surely Americans who are proud of their democratic traditions and practices realize by now that outside of American soil, the Bush Administration has given Americans a bad name, violating the provisions in its own constitution, human rights, UN charter and Geneva convention, etc. It is unlikely that future leaders of America will be given the mandate to pursue a lawless rampage in other countries. Time for Americans to dump its destructive interference policy.

Russia is not willing to sit idly while the USA goes about building alliances in the former states of the Soviet Union. So does China. The moment Russia gets its act together, Turkey and Turkmenistan, will have to temper their relationship with US. Turkey has long being an ally of US and being a member of NATO, may still hold on to its love for US, unless of course, the Muslim fundamentalists get more political power and remove the secularism imposed by the Ataturk's doctrine of removing Islam from the Government. The Turkish Armed Forces are supposedly the beholders of this belief of the doctrine brought about by the first Turkish republican president and father of modern Turkey. The cold war is over, but the US is still playing the game when it suits it in Turkey. But reality in Turkey of the plight of Muslims in fighting US hegemony will decide that Iran will not become another US target.

As mentioned elsewhere, US currently cannot afford another war in Iran. The only surrogate it can summon to do the job will be Israel. If this happens, the mess in the Middle East will get worse and WWIII is very likely. We hope sanity prevails before this holocaust.

The deluded neo-Cons cling on to the misguided thinking that they could take punitive measures against Iran without requiring to sacrifice lives and money. Can a surgical offensive be won that easily?

How the Fed can be accorded the name of "the most efficient money-making machine in the world" troubles me. The Fed is trying to fight fire, not fuel inferno. With inflation soaring and recession lurking around, I'm not sure if you would call this "without a single dent to the US economy"?

The warmongers may try to manoevre their ways to achieve certain ends but not without serious consequences they have to bear and live with. Conditions have also changed for the Administration and Congress to be more accountable as people are questioning. The upcoming Presidential elections would put domestic issues high on the agenda and any foreign policy moves would be closely scrutinised.

Quote:

Russia and China at best could only influence to a certain extent but could not stop any campaign launched by those war mongers sitting in the Pentagon.

The reality is that USA has not kept up with the changing world configuration. US is no longer the only superpower despite its illusion in the superiority of democratic ideology, capitalism and military power. Russia, China and middle powers can indeed influence policies. US does not have the sole power or prerogative to do what it wants freely. If the US can't secure the full backing of its European allies, do you really believe that Bush could have its way when time is not on his side.

Tribal fueds in the small northwestern Asian states date back centuries ago. Certainly, no one should be surprised if the CIA should poke its nose around especially when the evolving Pakistani political scene is no longer as malleable.

Beware Goobai could be one of the propagandists and apologists of war mongers in the White House, Pentagon, CIA and (Fed?)...

GooBai:

Quote:

HaHaHa....smalltok also mentioned that i could [be] a Russian agent, if this goes on,eventually i would become James Bond, the world's most famous double agent! Bring on the Martini, Shaken not stirred!

Well James........ what's your next assignment?

After Iraq, the world has become sceptical of any smoking gun proof. These evidence could be the figment of Bush's imagination made belief trickery. The USA is inclined on punishing Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and maintain it's preeminent position. This time round, Israel is going to bear the burden in terms of human lives, firepower and finances. Unfortunately, Israel lacks the capability to completely destroy Iran's nuclear potential in it's ill conceived offensive. Israel also could ill afford to fight wars on many fronts. A political issue requires a political solution, not military. I'm not optimistic that the peace deal leaders are going around to sell can materialize if they think of fighting at the back of their minds.

Yes, it's an explosive that is amalgamated with an expensive prize to be passed around between allies. He'll scratch your back and you scratch his but we don't know when it's going to explode -- Ka ... boom ... !!!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/talk-heats-up-on-iran-after-claim-of-raids/2008/06/30/1214677946330.html

Talk heats up on Iran after claim of raids
Anne Davies in Washington
July 1, 2008

The US is running a covert operation into Iran funded by $US400 million ($416 million) siphoned from other programs with authorisation from Democratic congressional leaders, according to a report in The New Yorker.

The US Congress agreed to the request from the President, George Bush, late last year to fund a large escalation of secret raids against Iran, the foreign affairs reporter Seymour Hersh wrote.

"United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with presidential authorisation, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of 'high-value targets' in the President's war on terror, who may be captured or killed," Hersh wrote.

The report, which did not name any sources, was flatly denied yesterday by the American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Mr Crocker told CNN: "US forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else."

But the report will be pored over by analysts trying to gauge whether Mr Bush will order an air strike against Iran before he leaves office. Pointing towards a strike are reports of increased training exercises by the Israeli Air Force and the attack two months ago on a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria by the Israelis.

There are factions within the US Administration, notably within the Pentagon and the State Department, which oppose military action arguing that it would help galvanise support for Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The recent success of the US State Department in reaching agreement with North Korea will also bolster the case for diplomacy over military action.

The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is the strongest advocate of a military strike but he has pared back his rhetoric recently amid doubts that a targeted air strike would be effective.

Iran's threat to disrupt tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz is also a strong argument against action, with oil heading to $US150 a barrel. About 40 per cent of the world's oil passes through the strait.

Speaking on CNN on Sunday, Hersh compared the present operation to that portrayed in the film Charlie Wilson's War, which was based on the true story of America's clandestine involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet Union's invasion.

Hersh said the operations were described in a presidential finding signed by Mr Bush. It had been agreed to by congressional leaders and the heads of the intelligence committees of Congress, although they were now concerned that the operations had gone beyond those authorised. The finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the Government through regime change and involved working with opposition groups and passing money.