Posted on 11/29/2005 4:42:25 PM PST by saganite
I was recently talking to an acquaintance of mine, an acquaintance from Saudi Arabia, who is connected with their government. When the subject of Iran came up, a look of gravity came over the man’s face. “Something must be done,” he intoned. “We are all afraid.” Now this man is no friend of President George Bush or Israel, but he expressed the desire to see Israel do something. What an irony: The enemies of Israel looking for Israel to save the world. It is a perfect illustration of Ayn Rand’s point that the world depends on its producers, while simultaneously loathing them. Doubtless, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia would condemn any attack on Iran by Israel in the strongest of terms, while secretly breathing a sigh of relief.
What this conversation illustrates, too, is just how uneasy people are in the Middle East with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The fear on my acquaintance’s face demonstrates just how seriously are taken Iran’s threats. This is no bluff.
Right now we are being dragged through what seems like an endless round of negotiations between Iran on the one side, and Europe and the U.S on the other side. China and Russia are in the middle, although generally favoring Iran. Threats are being made to refer Iran to the U.N Security Council if negotiations don’t pan out. The negotiations have dragged on for so long because Iran has repeatedly reneged on past agreements, frustrating and stymieing negotiators. The latest proposal would have Russia handle the enrichment of Uranium and ship it to Iran, thereby ensuring that it is used only for peaceful purposes. But Iran has insisted on total control of the process.
If negotiations don’t work, don’t expect much from the United Nations. They were not exactly profiles in courage when it came to Iraq, passing toothless resolution after toothless resolution.
With the serious fears being raised by even its Arab neighbors, it looks like action against Iran is inevitable. The pressure on Israel and the United States by Iran’s Arab neighbors will force the issue. And remember, the Bush administration still considers Iran part of the “Axis of Evil.”
Expect military action to be taken before 2008, Bush’s last year in office. Probably it will come in 2007, after the midterm elections are over. While Israel is the most likely candidate to attack, American forces may also be involved. Fears of a wider war erupting seem unfounded as Bush has effectively neutralized two terrorist states, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is now in the process of neutralizing another Syria. Iran will be surrounded, and cut off.
And if the U.S or Israel act against Iran, you can expect loud public condemnation, and quiet private glee.
"an Arab state is bound to go nuclear eventually
The Persian state will be nuclear before any Arab state"
I stand corrected. Should have said Muslim state.
How do you contain a nuclear tipped ballistic missile controlled by madmen?
The Saudis are deathly afraid of the mad Shi'ites of Teheran
Durable goods orders reported today were up more than expected. What was one of the key components to the strength? Orders by the US military for hardware.
Could be be getting prepared for another round?
Plus some special ops forces to stir up trouble against the mullahs, maybe take out a few, and foster a rebellion against the ultra conservative Muslim power brokers.
You are correct.
Short range nukes aimed at a free and democratic Iraq. Got your attention?
We will have to something about Iran soon. Already, the more sophisticated IEDs that are killing our troops are being supplied by Iran. Airstrikes won't begin to attrit their r&d facillities - too many, too spread out, most underground.
what do u think?
I am not saying nor do I think it wise to even "try" and win a conflict or a war or anything of the sort. (we certainly should not try and occupy the country)
All I would want is that we knock out Iran's nuclear bomb making capacity.
As for your point about the UK, Japan, and/or India not supporting us -- I think they would change rapidly if faced with the REAL possibility of a nuclear bomb making factory up and running by the Iranian government, especially a government which is likely harboring many of the top Al-qaeda leaders of today.
How do you figure? The debate on Iran hasn't even begun. We're not backed into a corner. On the contrary. You are being exactly how the MSM and dems want you to be- involved in the moment. The MSM want that because they are live and die by day to day ratings. The dems want that because they have no long range plan. Republicans think in the long term. We're not backed into any corners right now.
We don't, and bombing them isn't going to change it. I thought that was the idea for attacking in the first place?
I think they'll look at their economies suffering if Iran cuts off oil, and reach an accommodation with the regime in Tehran.
"How do you figure? The debate on Iran hasn't even begun."
I don't think the Iran will begin, because no one wants to face it.
We are backed into a corner because support for the Iraq war has fallen away to too low a level to win elections in the US. I do not believe it will go back up.
That certainly is a major consideration, but I would view any disagreement with US military action as feigned and short lived.
Firstly, where woulf Iran sell their oil? To OPEC??
Secondly, our allies might pretend they are upset, but I am certain they would be applauding and celebrating in the backrooms of London, Tokyo, and New Deli (or wherever the Indian capital)
Unfortunately the world in general is not good at acting in its own long term interests.
Call it imperialistic if you want, but the US must do it for them.
"I see a strong possibility that the Iranians will use their new atomic weapons as soon as possible."
While I share your overall pessimism about the situation, I think it's unlikely the Iranians would actually nuke the United States unless the US launched an attack on their territory. What I expect Iran to do is unleash an all-out terror war---on an even higher level than now. Their nukes will (at least theoretically) make them secure against regime change.
With all due respect, I think a nuclear Iran would be more of a security problem.
Taking on Iran depends on US support I think, which may not be forthcoming.
We really need to secure Iraq in a hurry, which is going to be a problem. I don't believe it can be done as quickly as it will need to be. Mind you, I fully support the mission in Iraq. It was something that needed to be done.
Taking on Iran depends on US support I think, which may not be forthcoming.
I suspect that the US is going to have to take on Iran militarily, which is probably a scary thought to most people. The mullahs in control there, having nukes is going to be an intolerable situation. Israel will not stand for a nuclear Iran. It's just not going to happen.
I have a feeling this is going to escalate in the future. Syria is a rogue state that is providing safe haven for terrorists. They'll have to be dealt with before taking on Iran.
I have a bad feeling. Iran is sowing the seeds of an all out war in that region, and I think that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. I think the plot they are hatching is to draw Israel into action, hoping to fracture alliances with Pakistan, et al.
Like I said the mullahs are going to have to be overthrown, even if it means a full scale invasion.
Don't be surprised to see a draft come into effect in the future at some point; while I like the idea of a volunteer army, I simply don't see any alternative to a nuclear Iran.
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.