What will the US do with Iran?

[TOM4CWB]

ASRG,

Well... since you asked...

Iran: Oil field is ours, not Iraq's

Tehran denies Iraqi claim to borderline oil field, says troops are 'on Iranian soil, as defined by known international borders'

Dudi Cohen Published: 12.19.09, 20:37 / Israel News

"Iran confirmed Saturday that its forces had taken over East Maysan oil field, located on the Iran-Iraq border. The move caused a 2.4% spike in oil prices....

"The East Maysan oil field (Photo: Reuters)

...Iraq's Deputy Interior Minister Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji said the move was the latest in a series of Iranian incursions over the past few days, which focused on the Fauqa oil field, some 186 miles south of Bagdad.

The invasion followed an agreement between the Iraqi Oil Ministry and several of the world's leading oil energy companies, to operate seven oil fields.

Iraq slammed the incursion as a violation of its sovereignty and demanded Iran withdraws its troops immediately. This is the first major incident between Iran and Iraq since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff stressed Saturday that the matter must be resolved independently between the two parties.

Meanwhile, Iran accused "foreign elements" of trying to instigate a dispute between the two countries. National Security Committee chairman Ala Al-Din Boroujerdi vehemently denied "claims that Iran has taken over an Iraqi oil filed."

The matter, he told Iranian news agency IRNA "was being examined through diplomatic channels," adding that "the foreign press is to blame for this propaganda."

Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Al Boulani said that "Iraq will not give up its oil deposits, no matter the circumstances."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3822172,00.html

If you police the world... getting a Public Relations 'Black eye' will be on of the costs!

[cpallett]

Not that it may matter too much to anybody on this thread, but both the US invasion of Afghanistan and the US invasion of Iraq violated at least three international treaties as well as the Rule of Law.

I understand the cowboy maxim of "shoot first and ask questions later" as well as "kill 'em all and let God sort them out", but to those who respect the Rule of Law it might be prudent to note that Afhanistan borders Iran to the east while Iraq borders Iran to the west.

Hmmm. Might make me a trifle tetchy to note that the country with the most atomic weapons in the world and the undoubted ability to deliver them on target had illegally invaded the countries on either side of me and was now turning up both the rhetoric and the economic sanctions threat yet again.

It might well seem reasonable from that perspective to take the position that the only thing that will prevent your country from becoming the smoking ruins that are Afghanistan and Iraq was the threat that you would take as many down with you as possible. Try threatening my family some time and see how I respond.

As for the oil fields around Basra, that bone of contention goes back just under a hundred years. You may recall a little nine year stalemate war that Iraq and Iran fought with the US backing So Damn Insane. Bet the Iranians haven't forgotten.

Bet they also haven't forgotten the CIA sponsored overthrow of the only democratically elected government in the 5,000 year history of Persia back in 1952-3. The Shah fled to Paris and a former university professor named Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister. A moderate centrist with an impeccable lifelong record of public service.

When asked whether he would renew the US military leases Prime Minister Mossadegh not unreasonably responded that as Iran was now a democracy the matter would have to be debated and determine by Parliament. Wrong answer.

The CIA engineered a coup, the Shah returned and stepped aside in favour of his son, SAVAK was launched against all protesters, and totalitarianism was back. Bet the Iranians haven't forgotten that either.

My beloved brother, and others, have taught me over the years that if you want to have any hope of understanding the actions of others you need to be able to see things from their point of view. What would you do?

[Burbert]

To date, the only nation on earth that has
ever used nukes is Amerikie! Shouldn't we
be more afeered of a country that has a
record of using the weepons?

[TOM4CWB]

cpallett;

Israel has much more at risk than the US... Iran has made this clear.

"U.S., Israel Discuss Triggers for Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure
Dec 28, 2011 4:45 AM EST

The Obama administration is trying to assure Israel privately that it would strike Iran militarily if Tehran’s nuclear program crosses certain “red lines”—while attempting to dissuade the Israelis from acting unilaterally. Eli Lake reports exclusively.

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opined earlier this month that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could “consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret,” the Israelis went ballistic behind the scenes. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, lodged a formal diplomatic protest known as a demarche. And the White House was thrust into action, reassuring the Israelis that the administration had its own “red lines” that would trigger military action against Iran, and that there is no need for Jerusalem to act unilaterally.

Panetta’s seemingly innocent remarks on Dec. 2 triggered the latest drama in the tinder-box relationship that the Obama administration is trying to navigate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. With Republicans lining up to court Jewish donors and voters in America in 2012, Obama faces a tricky election-year task of ensuring Iran doesn’t acquire a nuclear bomb on his watch while keeping the Israelis from launching a preemptive strike that could inflame an already teetering Middle East.

The stakes are immensely high, and the distrust that Israelis feel toward the president remains a complicating factor. Those sentiments were laid bare in a speech Netanyahu’s minister of strategic affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave on Christmas Eve in Jerusalem, in which he used Panetta’s remarks to cast doubt on the U.S.’s willingness to launch its own military strike.
Ya’alon told the Anglo-Likud, an organization within Netanyahu’s Likud party that caters to native English speakers, that the Western strategy to stop Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons must include four elements, with the last resort being a military strike.

“The fourth element of this combined strategy is the credible military strike,” Ya’alon said, according to a recording of the speech provided to The Daily Beast. “There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West, saying, ‘this is not a real option,’ saying, ‘the price of military action is too high.’”

The lack of trust between the Israeli and American leaders on Iran has been a sub-rosa tension in the relationship since 2009. Three U.S. military officials confirm to The Daily Beast that analysts attached to the Office of the Secretary of Defense are often revising estimates trying to predict what events in Iran would trigger Prime Minister Netanyahu to authorize a military attack on the country’s nuclear infrastructure. Despite repeated requests going back to 2009, Netanyahu’s government has not agreed to ask the United States for permission or give significant advanced warning of any pending strike.

The sensitive work of trying to get both allies on the same page intensified this month. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited Washington last week to go over Iran issues; and the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman, and a special arms control adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn, were in Israel last week to discuss Iran as well. Panetta for his own part has revised his tone on the question of Iran’s nuclear program, telling CBS News last week that the United States was prepared to use force against Iran to stop the country from building a nuclear weapon.

The new diplomacy has prompted new conversations between the United States and Israel over what the triggers—called “red lines” in diplomatic parlance—would be to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Matthew Kroenig, who served as special adviser on Iran to the Office of the Secretary of Defense between July 2010 and July 2011, offered some of the possible “red lines” for a military strike in a recent Foreign Affairs article he wrote. He argued that the U.S should attack Iran’s facilities if Iran expels international nuclear weapons inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its main uranium-enrichment facility in Qom.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Kroenig also noted that Iran announced in 2009 that it was set to construct 10 new uranium enrichment sites. “I doubt they are building ten new sites, but I would be surprised if Iran was not racing to build some secret enrichment facilities,” Kroenig said. “Progress on new facilities would be a major factor in our assessment of Iran’s nuclear program and shape all aspects of our policy towards this including the decision to use force.”

Until recently, current and former Obama administration officials would barely broach the topic in public, only hinting vaguely that all options are on the table to stop Iran’s program. Part of the reason for this was that Obama came into office committed to pursuing negotiations with Iran. When the diplomatic approach petered out, the White House began building international and economic pressure on Iran, often in close coordination with Israel.

All the while, secret sabotage initiatives like a computer worm known as Stuxnet that infected the Siemens-made logic boards at the Natanz centrifuge facility in Iran, continued apace. New U.S. estimates say that Stuxnet delayed Iran’s nuclear enrichment work by at most a year, despite earlier estimates that suggested the damage was more extensive.

Last week in a CBS interview, Panetta said Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon is a “red line.” White House advisers have more recently broached the subject more specifically in private conversations with outside experts on the subject.

“There is no credible military action when we hear leaders from the West saying, ‘this is not a real option.’”

Patrick Clawson, the director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said, “If Iran were found to be sneaking out or breaking out then the president’s advisers are firmly persuaded he would authorize the use of military force to stop it.” But Clawson added, “The response they frequently get from the foreign policy experts is considerable skepticism that this is correct, not that these people are lying to us, but rather when the occasion comes we just don’t know how the president will react.”

Henry Sokolski, the executive director the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said “You don’t propose and go about doing an oil embargo unless you are serious about taking the next step, and the next step for the administration is clearly some form of military action, and people who have left the administration like Dennis Ross have made it clear that this is precisely what’s on this administration’s mind.”

Ross did not respond to emails and phone calls requesting comment.

Ironically, Panetta often is the official the Obama administration uses to engage Israel. “Panetta has been straightforward with the Israelis and they seem to appreciate that,” one senior administration official said. “The Israelis view Panetta as an honest broker.” In some ways that is why his remarks stung Netanyahu’s government so much.

Complicating matters, the Dec. 2 remarks also came at the same time a high-level delegation of Israeli diplomats, military officers and intelligence officials were in Washington for an annual meeting called the strategic dialogue. At the meeting, the Israeli side offered a new presentation on Iran’s nuclear program suggesting that Iran’s efforts to build secret reactors for producing nuclear fuel were further along than the United States has publicly said. Some of the intelligence was based on soil samples collected near the suspected sites.

Part of the issue now between the United States and Israel are disagreements over such intelligence. The Israelis and the U.S. both believe that Iran suspended its work on weaponization, or the research and testing on how to fit an atomic explosion inside a warhead, in 2003 shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The Israelis, however, say the Iranians started that work again in 2005, according to Israeli officials and Ya’alon, who said this in his speech on Christmas Eve. The 2007 and 2011 U.S. national intelligence estimates for Iran say this weaponization work remains suspended.

The Israelis also say a recent document uncovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that shows detailed plans for constructing a “neutron initiator,” or a pellet that sits at the middle of the nuclear core and is crushed by high explosives in a nuclear explosion, is evidence that Iran is continuing its weaponization work. The latest IAEA report released in November said members states had shared intelligence alleging that Iran had conducted explosive tests associated with nuclear weapons research.

A senior administration official told The Daily Beast, “Both Americans and Israelis agree that some research and design work is probably continuing in the event the Iranians decide to move ahead with weaponization.”

The intelligence disagreement is significant in part because one of the factors in drawing up red lines on Iran’s program is how much progress Iran has made in constructing secret enrichment facilities outside of Natanz, where IAEA inspectors still monitor the centrifuge cascades. In 2009, the Obama administration exposed such a facility carved into a mountain outside of the Shiite holy city of Qom. The IAEA has chastised the Iranians for not fully disclosing their work on the Qom site until the United States forced the regime’s hand."

[cpallett]

"Israel has much more at risk than the US... Iran has made this clear."

Absolutely. Iran does not have the military capability of causing any significant harm to the US. Israel is within reach of Iranian missiles.

I am confident that Iranian officials are aware that the main, if not only, thing that prevents the US from acting unilaterally against Iran is the potential threat to Israel. While I certainly do not condone it, one could reasonably argue that threatening Israel is the only way for Iran to assure their own safety.

Several of my friends rejoiced when Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, believing that Saddam was a threat to Israeli security. I said then, as now, that they were gravely mistaken. Removing Iraq as a buffer and then finally removing US troops from Iraq has predictably resulted in significantly less security for Israel.

It is no secret that Israel has atomic weapons and the means to deliver them. It is difficult to believe that none of the warheads misplaced by the Soviets during the breakup of the USSR did not wind up in Iranian hands.

So, the mutually assured destruction scenario has now shifted to the Middle East. Frankly, that scares the beejesus out of me. We are forced to trust those same folks that have brought you decades of diplomatic fiascos (US government) to not set off this particular powder keg. The potentially cataclysmic results of a diplomatic and/or military misstep do not bear thinking about.

[TOM4CWB]

Cpallet,

Mutually assured destruction???

"It is difficult to believe that none of the warheads misplaced by the Soviets during the breakup of the USSR did not wind up in Iranian hands.

So, the mutually assured destruction scenario has now shifted to the Middle East."

What world do you think we live in?

Iran has pledged to blow Israel off the map/earth... as the solution for PEACE.

Israel on the other hand... seeks to survive this vendetta against them.

Iran has pledged to destroy them. Iran believes Heaven welcomes this war and the millions who would die become Martyrs for the Iranian cause.

"Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis


By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev responded by noting the ties between Ahmadinejad's regime and Hezbollah. .."

"
'US deploys troops in Israel for Iran war'


Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:0PM GMT

USS Kitty Hawk -- a 1,000 feet supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board

The US military is preparing a massive military campaign against Iran, sending thousands of American troops, warships and weaponry to Israel.


An unnamed source said the military deployment of US anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel will occur in January and later this spring, Global Research reported.

Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc said it is not just an "exercise," but a "deployment," The Jerusalem Post said.

Washington and Tel Aviv have planned to hold what they call the largest-ever joint military exercise this spring.

The US commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.”

The US General also visited one of Israel's three Iron Dome anti-missile outposts. The Israeli Air Force has announced plans to deploy a fourth Iron Dome system in coming months.

While US troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to United States European Command (EUCOM) in Germany.

This is while the US is reportedly bringing its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems to Israel.

The White House has resumed its anti-Iran war rhetoric after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report in November, in which Tehran was accused of conducting activities related to developing nuclear weapons. Iran strongly dismissed the allegations.

US analyst Robert Parry said the documentary evidence showed that IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was installed with the support of the US and that he privately indicated to US and Israeli officials that he would help advance their goals regarding Iran.

In December, Iran's Navy launched massive 10-day military drills in the strategic Strait of Hormuz to show that the country is ready to defend itself against any attack.

"We wanted to send this message to certain powers that Iran is always prepared to defend itself against foreign aggression," Iran's Navy Deputy Commander Admiral Amir Rastegari told Press TV.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama on Saturday signed into law fresh economic sanctions, targeting Iran's Central Bank and financial sector.

Anti-Iran measures provoked by the US and Israel are aimed to deny Iran's right of having peaceful nuclear program.

Tehran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, has repeatedly stated that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes.

AGB/HGH/IS"

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/219346.html

Guess what, "Iran's right of having peaceful nuclear program" is double speak for....

NO MORE ISRAEL.!!!

[cpallett]

"Iran has pledged to blow Israel off the map/earth... as the solution for PEACE."

Bullshit.

See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Now while it is true that Ahmadinejad can in no way be characterised as a friend to Israel, it is beyond credibility to assert that he has a national suicidal complex. Or to put it bluntly, that is a concept that is too stupid for words.

This man is, after all, an engineering PhD and, if you trouble to take the time to read the text of his speeches to the UN and that elegant and sarcastic letter to Bush, you will see that the lad is rather bright. His rhetoric has always been directed against the Israeli government rather than against the people of Israel. A familiar concept to those who object to various actions of the US government while maintaining close ties to friends south of the 49th parallel.

It is no crime to object to a country's form and manner of government. I have Israeli friends who object to the current regime in Israel, but that is another story.

As for the issue of whether Iran already has limited nuclear capability, I would respectfully refer you to the musings of the US State Department and others on the subject. If you limit your research to the press you risk winding up with a simplistic, skewed and biased view of things.

[freewheat]

Cpallet, surely you jest! the iranian leader is a hyper muslim and hates jews. You are dreaming to think he objects only to the "regime" in Israel. He wants the jews dead, it is his mandate according to that dude from mecca, mohammed or some such. and it is mandated in the koran to kill every infidel until there are no non muslims. Sure he may be sort of bright, but he also believs in his religion of peace. He believes in hastening the coming of the madhi or whatever these guys call their messiah. he believes he is the man to hasten this messiah who has been hanging out in a well for a thousand years or some such. And how do you hasten the coming of this in the well messiah? you provoke hell on earth, as the only way for this dude to return and stabilize the world, is after the outbreak of a massive holy war.

Amadinijad believed he is mandated to promote this. What better way than to attack Israel?

Me thinks you should take this a little more seriously. While perhaps clever, this dude is also insane to believe in what he believes in. The good news is Israel will win. the muslim will lose. Ha!

[cottonpicken]

So at some point in the future when china is a super
power and it say descides to bomb western canada
back to the stone age because of our aggressive
nature towards quebec and your children's children
are killed-

Do you then say to yourself in heaven "maybe the
there should be a rule of law?"

Or should we all grow the **** up now?

If iran launched a preemptive strike on israel i'd be
the the first one on a boat over.

[ASRG]

When you throw the rule of law into the garbage can you start down a pretty slippery slope that won't end well.