Posted on 06/19/2007 10:39:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
These are the "birth pangs" of a "new Middle East," said Condi Rice last summer, as Israel pounded Lebanon. Unfortunately, the new Middle East may make us all pray for the return of the old.
Hamas is today engaged in savage street-fighting with Fatah for control of Gaza. If Hamas prevails, it could convert this Palestinian enclave into a terrorist base camp between Israel and Egypt.
In northern Lebanon, Islamic jihadists are battling the army for control of a Palestinian refugee camp. Scores are dead.
On Wednesday, a seventh parliamentarian was assassinated with his son in a Beirut car bomb attack.
In Samarra, the Golden Mosque was attacked again on Wednesday, collapsing the two minarets that survived last year's bombing. Gen. David Petraeus is grim about the consequences of what he says was an al-Qaida attack to escalate the Sunni-Shia war. With Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan convulsed by ever-widening civil wars, a new danger is that the United States, tied down in two of those wars, may be about to lash out and launch a third -- on Iran.
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Joe Lieberman blurted on "Face the Nation," adding, "To me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training those people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
"If there's any hope of ... stopping their nuclear weapons development," Lieberman said, "we can't just talk to them."
Joe's call for air strikes follows the GOP debate where several presidential hopefuls did not even rule out the use of tactical atomic weapons to deal with Iran's uranium enrichment program.
These are politicians, however, and bashing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran has no political downside. More ominous are the grim words of serious U.S. diplomats and soldiers not usually given to bellicose rhetoric.
On Wednesday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN that Iran is not only arming the Taliban in Afghanistan, but Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and insurgents in Iraq.
"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this and it's a pattern of activity," said Burns. He added there was no chance the shipments were coming from rebel groups in Iran.
"It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government," said Burns.
NATO officials in Afghanistan say Iranian-made AK-47s, plastic explosives, mortars and one "explosively formed penetrator" bomb that can pierce coalition armor have been intercepted.
On Wednesday, Gen. Petraeus told USA Today's Cesar Soriano that Iran is "funding, arming, training and, even in some cases, directing the activities of extremists and militia elements in Iraq."
The flow of arms from Iran into Iraq, said Petraeus, has not diminished since the May 28 meeting between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart.
"The people they (the Iranians) are arming are very, very serious thugs," said Petraeus. The general claims that militants armed by Iran kidnapped the British contractors on May 29 and were behind the recent mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
What Iran is being publicly charged with here, by responsible U.S. officials, are acts of war -- arming insurgents and terrorists to kill U.S. soldiers and civilians.
"As many as 200 American soldiers" may have been killed by Iranians or Iranian-trained insurgents, Lieberman claimed. Petraeus and Nick Burns would not be making these charges publicly if the White House did not want them made publicly.
What is going on? The most logical explanation is that the White House is providing advance justification for air strikes on camps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that are allegedly providing training for and transferring weapons to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents. And if the United States conducts those strikes, Iranians will unite around Ahmadinejad, and Tehran will order retaliatory strikes against U.S. targets in Iraq and perhaps across the Middle East.
President Bush will then have his casus belli to take out Natanz and all the other Iranian nuclear facilities, as the Israelis and the neocons have been demanding that he do. This would mean a third Middle Eastern war for America, with a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq. Perhaps it is time to begin constructing a new wing on Walter Reed.
Which raises the question: Where is the Congress? Why is it not holding public hearings and sifting the evidence to determine if Tehran is behind these attacks on Americans and if the United States has not itself been aiding insurgents inside Iran?
Or is it all up to George W. as to whether we launch a third and wider war in the Middle East, which could result in an economic and strategic disaster for the United States?
Pat was a very strong anti-communist, but he isn’t much of an anti-Islamist.
These are politicians, however, and bashing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran has no political downside. More ominous are the grim words of serious U.S. diplomats and soldiers not usually given to bellicose rhetoric.
Oh, the horror! Defending civilization! Still, this is better than his 1990's blatant anti-semitism. He might be starting to "get it", by virtue of being forced to write several hundred words per week.
Does he get a nice monthly check in the mail from the Saudis; like James Baker, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brezinski, and Rosie O’Donnell?
Relax, Pat. It’s not going to be an occupation & nation building effort. Just a swift ass-kicking — destroy their nuke facilities, (pathetic) military, and lone oil refinery. ....and perhaps send a missle or Ahmadinejad’s way. No need to get all worked up about it.
Pat's probably most upset about the fact that Israel would be a lot safer after a successful U.S. operation, and he's probably in denial about the fact that the U.S. would be safer as well. Mullahs with nukes is a bad combo for the entire world.
With such a pathetic military, why doesn't Israel go for it? Seeing how we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pat's probably most upset about the fact that Israel would be a lot safer after a successful U.S. operation
Again, since you say this would make Israel safer, why doesn't Israel go for it? It should be a walk in the park for them. And since Israel is not helping out in Iraq, it would give them something to do.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
What is going on? The most logical explanation is that the White House is providing advance justification for air strikes on camps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that are allegedly providing training for and transferring weapons to Afghan and Iraqi insurgents. And if the United States conducts those strikes, Iranians will unite around Ahmadinejad, and Tehran will order retaliatory strikes against U.S. targets in Iraq and perhaps across the Middle East.Sigh. If only it were so. This presidency is dead; it squandered its base. A hostile congress, a hostile public, the Iraqi situation continuing to worsen--what political support can the president command now? Were he to lead, who would follow?
I have no doubts about Buchanan’s integrity. He is just badly wrong on the Middle East.
You know the answer, FRiend. Like the USA, Israel has no imperial ambition beyond its own security (note the irony with the Southern Border...), and, unlike what passes for a unilateral Superpower, Israel doesn't quite have the cash to buy off everyone who hates her. She's busy enough with diplomatic hands hog-tied to defend the West Bank and the Golan as is. When Gaza inevitably flips to Hamas' base instincts, it's Party Time, hopefully.
Pat knows what he is doing, his MSNBC paycheck demands it.
Pat believes that if Israel were gone there would be peace, and the sooner the better.
I might, but your response wasn't it.
Um... too timid? You forget Patty Poos and gang were selling Iran weapons. More like buddy buddy.
I have all sorts of doubts about Buchanan’s integrity. Integrity implies transparency of motives, but Buchanan has his own agenda and hides it behind double-talk and euphemisms. Even now, with Iranian-supplied (and very sophisticated) IEDs in our hands, Buchanan employs words like ‘allegedly’ when referring to Iranian support of the Iraq insurgency and acts as if our own somewhat feeble covert efforts to undermine the mullahs somehow justify Iranian perfidy throughout the region.
Someone already brought it up on this thread. Those of us who follow the news should follow the money. We grossly underestimate Saudi influence. Buchanan, like Baker, Carter, and others, has no doubt been bought and paid for. However, I don’t think it’s all about the money with Buchanan. His particular brand of ‘anti-Zionism’ is flatly, plainly antisemitism, that ancient malignancy, and Buchanan is fairly saturated with it. Paying Buchanan to sway public opinion against Israel would be like paying me to go fishing.
I have 1st hand knowledge of Mr. Buchanan’s beliefs in this area. He’s none-too-fond of the JOOOS! Islamists are his “strange bedfellows” nowadays. His sister is even more anti-semitic than he is!
Since a US attack on Iran would undoubtedly lead to a larger conflict, ie. war - (because what country sits back when attacked?) - doesn’t Bush have to get Congress to declare war on Iran?
That is what the Constitution says, after all. And if the Bush Administration could get evidence to attack Iraq, they should be able to do it for Iran, right?
pat buchanan should have had the article printed in the original german!!!!
he & his sister are 2 of the most anti-semetic a-holes in the US!!!!!
he does not speak for most and most definitely does not speak for me!!!
In Pat’s house, if he sees an intruder sneaking into his daughter’s room with knife in hand, Pat would give the guy the benefit of the doubt, thinking that the guy probably just wanted a lock of hair.
Then he’d roll over and go to sleep.
Of course Pat is not anti-Islamist! Pat hates the Jews and he wants Ahmedinajad and his gang of thugs to finish Hitler’s work. Buchanan wouldn’t mind Iranian nukes as long as they are pointed at Israel. Pat would help our enemies as long as Israel suffers.
for later read
“This presidency is dead; it squandered its base.”
Yep, and for what??!!!
A wasted opportunity that usually only comes once in every few generations.
If Israeli intel is convinced the threat of Iran manufacturing nukes is imminent and is that the U.S. isn't going to take care of business they will go for it. But it isn't (yet), so they haven't.
"Seeing how we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The operation in question would exclusively involve Naval and Air Force assets, and those branches aren't too busy at the moment. (Our nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are being conducted primarily by the Army and Marines).
In addition, the U.S. is in a far better position (militarily) to deal Iran a sufficiently crippling blow. We have them surrounded on three sides -- air bases in Afghanistan and Iraq to the east and west respectively, and our huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf to the south. The IAF, by contrast, would need to fly over several (hostile) nations just to get to their targets, and their naval presence in the Gulf is comparitively weak (no carriers).
And of course you're ingoring the main point: a nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to Israel, it's a threat to the entire civilized world. So it's in our interest to get the job done.
You think we'd plan a launch or a strike on Iran and keep Israel completely in the dark? I don't think so. Why not just tell Israel to go for it since we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The operation in question would exclusively involve Naval and Air Force assets, and those branches aren't too busy at the moment.
Since Israel isn't helping out in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is there world class military doing? Is Israel too busy?
The American people are spending billions on Iraq and Afghanistan, and "we're taking casualties etc. All this while Israel sits at home. I think they could handle this, no?
And of course you're ingoring the main point: a nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to Israel, it's a threat to the entire civilized world. So it's in our interest to get the job done.
No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Iran has no way to launch on the U.S. No delivery systems etc. And it's in Israel's backyard, not ours.
Besides, you think Iraq wouldn't know what would happen if they launched a nuke missile on Miami? Come on. You don't think Iraq knows we just happen to have a fleet of nuclear subs roaming the oceans? Please, lets get serious here.
Fact is, you've already said an attack on Iran would make Israel safer, and you already said the Iran military was pathetic. So since we are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing us billions every few days, causalities etc, I think Israel could step up to the plate, and take care of Iraq's "pathetic" military as you described it.
You know we are reminded all the time about Israels top gun bad ass military, their 450 plus nuclear weapons, their airforce etc, so if Iran is really is really this threat to Israel, then I think it's high time Israel step up to the plate and help themselves, and America out.
Neither do I, nor did I make that claim. I'm sure they'd be apprised of everything.
Why not just tell Israel to go for it since we are a little busy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Reading comprehension not a strong suit of yours? To repeat, an operation against the Iranian nuke facilities would exclusively involve the Air Force and Navy, two branches that aren't currently involved in the nation building efforts in those two nations.
Since Israel isn't helping out in Iraq or Afghanistan, what is there world class military doing? Is Israel too busy?
lol....looks like I'll have to repeat myself yet again. This time I'll just quote my the relevant part of my previous post word for word: "the U.S. is in a far better position (militarily) to deal Iran a sufficiently crippling blow. We have them surrounded on three sides -- air bases in Afghanistan and Iraq to the east and west respectively, and our huge naval presence in the Persian Gulf to the south. The IAF, by contrast, would need to fly over several (hostile) nations just to get to their targets, and their naval presence in the Gulf is comparatively weak (no carriers)."
No, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Iran has no way to launch on the U.S. No delivery systems etc.
You're assuming the only way nukes can be deployed are on ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or aircraft. They'd either smuggle the nuke(s) through our porous borders or send it/them on a ship (encased in a lead container) to one of our harbors.
Besides, you think Iran wouldn't know what would happen if they launched a nuke missile on Miami? Come on.
You're assuming we're dealing with rational folks here (like our Cold War enemies the Soviets), not religious fanatics. Mutually Assured destruction only work if the nations in question are run by sane people.
Fact is, you've already said an attack on Iran would make Israel safer,
I also said (about three times now) than it would make the U.S. safer, and than we're in a far better position to get the job done than is Israel.
"I also said (about three times now) that it would make the U.S. safer and that we're in a far better position to get the job done than is Israel.
I think that’s nonsense. I suspect Buchanan doesn’t like Jews, but that’s only a fraction of what you’re accusing him of.
Pat’s public statements regarding Israel suggest more than garden variety Jew-hatred. Buchanan and Ahmedinajad agree on one thing: the world would be “better” if Israel were wiped off the map. He is a hardcore anti-semite.
I think it’s fair to say that Buchanan doesn’t care much about Israel, and that he tries to be a counterweight to what he (correctly) sees as massive pro-Israel bias in the American political system. I happen to agree with that bias because I’m pro-Israel. But in the case of most Democrats, it simply results from the enormous clout of Jewish voters, activists, and donors in the Democratic party, and the tenacity and toughness of the Israel lobby. In other words, Rat politicans tend to be right on Israel, but generally for the wrong reasons. Buchanan (wrongly, in my view, but sincerely, in my view) thinks that the U.S. supports Israel excessively, against its own national interest. I think that, more than old-fashioned ethnic Catholic anti-Semitism (Pat’s brand), explains his hostility toward Israel. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to equate mild anti-Semitism with “Jew Hatred,” or hostility toward Israel with anti-Semitism, or opposition to the Israel lobby to hostility toward Israel. If we’re to be fair, we need to draw these distinctions. Life isn’t always simple.
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.