Posted on 07/31/2006 12:17:38 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
Bush White House won't cite evidence of Iran backing for Hizbullah
The Bush administration appears to be playing down the significant role played by Iran in supplying arms and other support to Hizbullah in Lebanon, apparently a result of the dominance of diplomats in the corridors of power.
Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, is said to be the leading soft-line official within the administration who favors the current policy of avoiding a major expose of Teheran's involvement in the Lebanon fighting.
Burns’ power is said to be increasing under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who, like her predecessor, has delegated much authority for policymaking to career bureaucrats.
The Pentagon policymakers are preoccupied with Iraq and are wary of any actions between Israel and Hizbullah that would require a commitment of troops or other direct U.S. military involvement.
According to intelligence officials, there is ample proof that Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps operatives are involved in regular arms shipments from several locations in Iran, including Bandar Abbas.
Condemning underlings in State is not condemning the President. He, as with all Executives, is in need of good counsel. Who can honestly say all in the Executive branch are loyal to the President?
Maybe, but you cannot deny that either the Bush Administration or the one that follows it is going to wake up one morning and realize that the decision day has arrived: Will we or will we not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? I don't know what the answer will be but I guarantee that the day will come and there is nothing that the UN or the Euroweanies will do to prevent it's arrival. It will be up to the United States of America to decide. Either we will allow it or we won't.
OTOH, a serious defeat for Hezbollah in Lebanon - one that could not in any way be viewed as a success for Nasrallah - would increase the likelihood that Iran would have second thoughts about their nuclear program. The reason: they will no longer be able to use Hezbollah to threaten Israeli cities with long range missiles fired from Southern Lebanon. They will have lost a huge deterrent to an Israeli strike on their nuclear facilities. That is why this war has to be finished and the Hezbollah threat to Israel removed completely. As long as that threat is in place Iran will feel (foolishly IMHO) that they can hold off an Israeli strike. That threat must be removed if we have any hope of turning Iran around short of a war.
That is why this war is more important than the one in Iraq. It must be won at any cost.
They're holding back the rhetoric until after the UNSC's deadline of Aug. 31. Then the UN will extend the deadline again and again and again..........
I was sort of getting the idea that she was barking at the Sharon government, and they were jumping, at least I heard some rumors (here) to that effect, back in the Roadmap phase. She may be getting a completely different attitude from Olmert and Peretz.
I most heartily agree with this idea.
I read something recently (since war with Hezbollah) about Nicholas Burns that was of concern. Can't remember where, or even what, but found this: "According to several State sources, careerists at State with ties to Burns are in regular communications with former Clinton foreign policy team members" http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10099
Do you think the ruling powers in Iran are rational?
There is no need to expose our siurces and methods which would probably be the case if we had to supply evidence.
Besides, who has denied that Iran is and has been backing hezbollah?
To a point, yes.
The Israelis effectively wiping out the Hezzies will go a long way in supporting W's pledge that Iran will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.
Yep, they are. In fact there are nightly missions to re-supply Hezbollah and take the Iranian guard dead folks back to Teheran. So they are involved. And we all know what good being soft on these guys gets us. More of the same.
I agree with your statement but I have my doubts about the sanity of Iran's ruling elites.
That's a tough question.
My answer is they are not rational in the sense that you and I might understand but I don't think they stupid and they certainly understand power and the threat of its use.
I want Iran to fear the United States and to fear Israel. I don't expect that they will ever like us and I really don't care. But if they fear that we will attack them if they continue on then they may stop. If they don't we are faced with the dilemma: war or living under the threat of a nuclear Iran. I personally would vote for war but I'm sure many would disagree.
And I don't agree that a MAD strategy can work with someone who believes that the End of Time is near and he is the one who can deliver it. MAD worked with the Russians for exactly the reason you gave - they were wicked but they were rational enough to know that a nuclear war was never going to have an outcome that was favorable to themselves. I do not believe that you can count on Iran to make that same calculation.
One thing I see Iran thinks (if they are rational at all) is they see what happened to Iraq. Now we're having bookoo problems with infiltrators/insurgents in Iraq, supplied and fed by Iran but when we do the same thing to Iran, where are those insurgents going to come from...China?? Hardly, and the Iranian crazies know that despite all their bluster and pushing of the envelope.
W has said these bastards are NOT going to have a nuclear weapon and down deep, those bastards know they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
You are right about the Iranian government, but not the people.MAD is not a price anyone but the most strict Shiites, the 12th Imam returns crowd now in power, would pay.
Iran is ripe for concerted psyops, and covert destabilization.
The government goes insane over the slightest opposition.
Me: >>Bush White House won't cite evidence of Iran backing for Hizbullah<<
ST: "Maybe the information is classified or would expose methods or sources.
Sorry, that one won't wash.
W, Foggy Bottom and/or Pentagon could simply issue a statement and then decline to be any more specific.
Its not like the world does not know that Iran is furnishing and directing the Hezzies.
First they have solid evidence that WMD's were spirited from IRAQ to Syria and refuse to rock the boat and now this.
W AND HIS BAND OF GIRLIE MEN""
I'm missing something here - how is it that you know that the information is not classified?
The mere attempt to get nukes is taking Iran over the line though IMO. Of course that depends on America acting with Reagan's smarts and TR's b#lls. My guess is that we don't have until the end of W's term to deal with Iran. But as things are moving now Iran may remove the question as to when the time will be right.
Katyushas planted by Aliens!
Yer right, we don't.
W isn't going to turn this over to the next POTUS, like Clinton did with N Korea and all the other festering problems in the world.
bingo (and North Korea, Venezuela)
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.