Ending Iran's defiance

The fact that Iran stands today able to challenge or even defy the United States in every sphere of American influence in the Middle East attests to the dismal failure of the Bush administration’s policy toward it during the last six years. Feeling emboldened and unrestrained, Tehran may, however, miscalculate the consequences of its own actions, which could precipitate a catastrophic regional war. The Bush administration has less than a year to rein in Iran’s reckless behavior if it hopes to prevent such an ominous outcome and achieve, at least, a modicum of regional stability.

By all assessments, Iran has reaped the greatest benefits from the Iraq war. The war’s consequences and the American preoccupation with it have provided Iran with an historic opportunity to establish Shiite dominance in the region while aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program to deter any challenge to its strategy. Tehran is fully cognizant that the successful pursuit of its regional hegemony has now become intertwined with the clout that a nuclear program bestows. Therefore, it is most unlikely that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions at this juncture, unless it concludes that the price will be too high to bear. That is, whereas before the Iraq war Washington could deal with Iran’s nuclear program by itself, now the Bush administration must also disabuse Iran of the belief that it can achieve its regional objectives with impunity.

Thus, while the administration attempts to stem the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq to prevent it from engulfing other states in the region, Washington must also take a clear stand in Lebanon. Under no circumstances should Iranian-backed Hizbullah be allowed to topple the secular Lebanese government. If this were to occur, it would trigger not only a devastating civil war in Lebanon but a wider Sunni-Shiite bloody conflict. The Arab Sunni states, and especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are terrified of this possible outcome. For them Lebanon may well provide the litmus test of the administration’s resolve to inhibit Tehran’s adventurism but they must be prepared to directly support US efforts.

In this regard, the Bush administration must wean Syria from Iran. This move is of paramount importance because not only could Syria end its political and logistical support for Hizbullah, but it could return Syria, which is predominantly Sunni, to the Arab-Sunni fold. Mr. Bush must realize that Damascus’s strategic interests are not compatible with Tehran’s and that the Assad regime knows only too well its future political stability and economic prosperity depends on peace with Israel and normal relations with the United States.

President Assad may talk tough and embrace militancy as a policy tool, yet he is the same president who called, more than once, for unconditional resumption of peace negotiations with Israel and was rebuffed. The stakes for the United States and its allies in the region are too high to preclude testing Syria’s real intentions, which can be ascertained only through direct talks. It is high time for the Administration to reassess its policy toward Syria and begin by abandoning its schemes of regime change in Damascus. Syria simply matters; the Administration must end its efforts to marginalize a country that can play such a pivotal role in changing the political dynamics for the better throughout the region.

Although ideally direct negotiation between the United States and Iran should be the first resort to resolve the nuclear issue, as long as Tehran does not feel seriously threatened it seems unlikely that the clergy will at this stage end the nuclear program. In possession of nuclear weapons Iran will intimidate the larger Sunni Arab states in the region, bully smaller states into submission, threaten Israel’s very existence, use oil as a political weapon to blackmail the West, and instigate regional proliferation of nuclear weapons’ programs. In short, if unchecked, Iran could plunge the Middle East into a deliberate or inadvertent nuclear conflagration.

If we take the Administration at its word that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran and considering these regional implications, Washington is left with no choice but to warn Iran of the severe consequences of not halting its nuclear program. Such a warning, however, cannot be ambiguous or open ended; rather, it should include a reasonable timeline (a few months) to allow the representatives of the EU - France, Germany, and England, perhaps with the support of Russia and China, to make a last-ditch effort. In order to prevent Iran from miscalculating the consequences of its own actions, the Administration should back this warning with credible punitive measures that leave Iran in no doubt whatsoever of the consequences for defying the international community.

As it is, there is growing concerns inside Iran both about socioeconomic conditions and President Ahmedinejad’s foreign policy provocations. American pressure at this time will not be taken lightly by Iran, which dreads major US punitive measures.

By sending two aircraft carriers to the region and undertaking other military and naval preparations, the Administration seems to be moving in the right direction. What is needed now is a clearly articulated warning that sets the stage for what is to come. Unlike the situation in Iraq before the invasion, Iran’s actions speak for themselves: Teheran openly pursues a nuclear program, nakedly supports terrorism, and poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. The American public and Congress are supportive of the President’s moves, a fact that will not be lost on Tehran.

Thanks, I have added that predictive photo to my Iranian collage.

If Tehran Only Knew, what will happen if there is no regime change in Iran.:

"In America, we lie for tactical reasons, stating over and over that military action against Iran is unlikely. However in Iran, out of ignorance, they reiterate that American military action against their country is impossible because the US is "unable" to do so!

We say and hope our analysis is wrong. A possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is in the final stages. Unless a political miracle occurs that revives the halted dialog between Iran and the international community, Iran and its neighboring countries should not be surprised by a scenario that includes American military action. "

Just maybe, President Bush is purposely allowing the media and the left to spout their garbage in order to create the illusion that we are completely incapable of taking any action against Iran. It would come as a complete surprise if we did take action.

Iranian Map: Before we unleash the real hell on earth shown below for the Iranian Whackjobs:

Then, we show the suicidal Islamofascist serial killers in charge of Iran, what real nuclear weapons will do.

Hey, what was that loud noise and bright flash?

Iranian Map: After the above!

Over the past month, the U.S. Navy has given orders to the U.S.S. John Stennis carrier battle group, based in Bremerton, WA, to steam toward the Persian Gulf, where it will join the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Navy sources say the Pentagon is getting ready to announce the dispatch of a third carrier battle group – the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan – from San Diego. That will make three carrier battle groups in the region starting at around the end of January.

Oh, and along with them is the amphibious assault group led by the U.S.S. Boxer, which can land several thousand U.S. Marines to seize and destroy strategic sites near the coast at a moment’s notice. (Busheir? Bandar Abbas? Jask? The three Persian Gulf islands Iran seized from the UAE in the 1990s and has since fortified to harass Gulf shipping? Your pick).

Other recent US Naval and Marine Corp additions to handle/control/kill the Iranian Serial Killers:

Bataan Transits Suez Canal, Enters U.S. 5th Fleet Story Number: NNS070130-14 Release Date: 1/30/2007 7:00:00 PM

By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class (SW) Joanne De Vera, Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/ Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Public Affairs

USS BATAAN, At Sea (NNS) -- The multipurpose amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5) and the Sailors and Marines of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) successfully transited the Suez Canal on Jan. 30 and entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations.

While in the region, the Bataan Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) will conduct maritime security operations (MSO).

MSO help set the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment, as well as complement the counter-terrorism and security efforts of regional nations. These operations deny international terrorists use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel, weapons or other material.

U.S. 5th Fleet’s area of operations encompasses 2.5 million square miles of water and includes the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean.

“We’ll continue our role as the surface warfare commander and the air defense commander for the Bataan Expeditionary Strike Group,” said Cmdr. Jon Carriglitto, Bataan’s operations officer. “Together with the MEU, we bring the ability to insert a quick, capable amphibious force where it’s needed.”

While in theater, approximately 6,000 U.S. Sailors and Marines assigned to the ESG and the 26th MEU provide the combatant commander a versatile sea-based force that can be tailored to a variety of missions. The Bataan ESG has the capabilities to support MSO, combat operations and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.

“Bataan ESG’s presence in the U.S. 5th Fleet will require the crew to conduct what it does best: well deck and flight deck operations,” said Carriglitto. “We’ll be conducting varsity-level operations, but much of it falls right in line with our ongoing training, so I know we’re ready to meet those challenges.”

Bataan, commanded by Capt. David Hulse, left its homeport of Norfolk on Jan. 4 for a regularly-scheduled deployment as the flagship of the Bataan ESG. The ESG is comprised of the Bataan Strike Group, commanded by Commodore Donna Looney, commander, Bataan Strike Group/Amphibious Squadron 2, and the 26th MEU based out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., commanded by Col. Gregg Sturdevant.

In addition to Bataan, the strike group consists of USS Shreveport (LPD 12), USS Oak Hill (LSD 51), USS Vella Gulf (CG 72), USS Nitze (DDG 94), USS Underwood (FFG 36), and USS Scranton (SSN 756).

For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusnc/.

"Due to rapidly developing events in Somalia, U.S. Central Command has tasked USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to join USS Bunker Hill, USS Ramage, USS Anzio and USS Ashland to support ongoing maritime security operations off the coast of Somalia," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, a spokesman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain.

More Iranian related news:

01.31.07

Pentagon official tells LA Times aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants may include more forceful patrols by fighter planes along Iran-Iraq border to counter smuggling of bomb supplies from Islamic Republic; ‘For every improvised explosive device that goes off in Iraq, a bomb should go off in Iran,’ retired Air Force lieutenant general says.

ynet.news.com

IRAN CLOCK IS TICKING

Thursday, February 01, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

LINKED NEWS ANALYSIS

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

-Consortiumnews.com

8 posted on 02/01/2007 4:24:51 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is Never Free)

A Quote from: The Dogs of War - Lessons of the 20th Century. By Victor Davis Hanson, (author most recently of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power):

“"I would not wish to fight the United States - either militarily, politically, or culturally. For every threat, our history teaches us that Americans offer not just a rejoinder, but the specter of a devastating answer of a magnitude almost inconceivable to those now chanting and threatening in the streets of the Middle East.

Do they have any idea of what sort of dangerous people we really are? Do they understand the history of the names of those ships now off their coasts, like the USS Peleliu or Enterprise, or the pedigree of the 82nd or 101st Airborne?"

Click The Pic To Donate

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.