Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Next target Tehran
The Guardian ^ | Monday January 15, 2007 | Dan Plesch

Posted on 01/14/2007 5:55:11 PM PST by maquiladora

The evidence is building up that President Bush plans to add war on Iran to his triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there is every sign, to judge by his extraordinary warmongering speech in Plymouth on Friday, that Tony Blair would be keen to join him if he were still in a position to commit British forces to the field.

"There's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue - in the country and the world - in a very acute way," said NBC TV's Tim Russert after meeting the president. This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents. These include Patriot anti-missile missiles, an aircraft carrier, and cruise-missile-firing ships.

Many military analysts see these deployments as signals of impending war with Iran. The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces, including British ships, train to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments through the straits of Hormuz.

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: geopolitics; iran; proliferation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: matt1234

I don't *think* that we'll strike inside Iran (first).

The complete encirclement of Iran points to an obvious blockade. Political dynamics would tend to make one think that we'd go: diplomacy (e.g. the EU-Iran talks), sanctions, blockade...with more severe options being held in reserve for later (if at all).

How long can Iran go without cash?

We may find out.


41 posted on 01/14/2007 8:10:45 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
"I've often inwardly thought it should have been Iran,"

"If we attack Iran, we may not need the Brits, I have a feeling we will have to Israeli's."

Now we have NATO in Afghanistan, the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, and the "enhanced" Navy in the Gulf. Israel will take care of Hizzbola and Syria if necessary. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the gulf states have enhanced defences.

Iran is completely flanked.

Someone has been making plans.

What? This just happened since GW made his speech?

yitbos

42 posted on 01/14/2007 8:10:45 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Spruce
"The current regime there will not last beyond this year."

They are a religious thugocracy with their fingers in most of the controls of a nation with oil income. That means they control the purse strings to the incomes of a large part of the population.

The religious part means they are revered by a large chunk of the population too. For citizens it is one thing to topple a government but to slice into their own pay and risk eternal damnation is another.

The only we the government there goes down is when Jimma Carter admits he made a mistake and asks them to leave. In other words they are not leaving soon.
43 posted on 01/14/2007 8:11:29 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
"Iran is completely flanked."

Not just flanked...encircled.

44 posted on 01/14/2007 8:12:20 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

Excuse me, but they need to leave us alone. Our men have died as a result of their IEDs. If that's not provcation, nothing is.


45 posted on 01/14/2007 8:12:30 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy (It's a fight to the death with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Duh!!! .......... FRegards

46 posted on 01/14/2007 8:13:12 PM PST by gonzo (I'm not confused anymore. Now I'm sure we have to completely destroy Islam, and FAST!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
"The media herd finally notices the deployment of the Patriots....and what it could signal."

It could also mean we know Israel is going to attack soon and we are protecting our positions from the Iranians assured suicidal lash out
47 posted on 01/14/2007 8:13:44 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
"We figured all this out days ago. The Reagan going back out, 21k troops, Patriots..."

Did anyone think there is another possibility? The Israeli's know with our new congress sworn in we may not be in the region in any force for too much longer.

This means they have warned us that they are going to take out the Iranian nuke facilities. We are just protecting our interests and personnel for as long as we are there.

Iran's reaction will be rabid and they will attack us in Iraq then. Stupid yes, but these people are rabid. A single carrier (group) and 20,000 troops is only prep for what may come.

Oh, and the 20k troops will not be in Iraq any time soon. The last bits of chat I saw in the press said 18 MONTHS before they are fully there.
48 posted on 01/14/2007 8:29:51 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Yes: We have all of these assets around Iran and still Ahmdinejhad is making threats ,and now he is in South America seeking a political union with Chavez and Ortega right in our back yard.

Maybe his next stop will be N. Korea. Truly George Bush named it right when he called it an Axis of evil.


49 posted on 01/14/2007 8:33:13 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (Peace through strength.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"and allied forces to Iran's North in Turkey"

That is one point that is not exactly correct. Turkey would not even allow us OVER FLIGHT rights when we went into Iraq.

The Turkey situation is in some ways worse now. Their elected government is heavily Islamic and the generals are tip-toeing around so as not to upset them.

Additionally we are preventing them from going after perceived PPK (Kurd separatist radical militants).

Now as to having all our forces there that is incorrect too. Go back and read about the "surge". The general who wrote the plan for the surge is pissed because the troops are not scheduled to be there in total until 18 months from now.

The pieces are hardly in place.
50 posted on 01/14/2007 8:40:38 PM PST by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora

Time to get the Go team, jiminy carter, to standup to those mad muslim minions. He is da man that can save us from all out nuc annilihation. He held them at bay for 444 days in 79, and can do it again.

CALLING jiminy carter. Peanut boy and Areyfat protector. Calling jiminy...


51 posted on 01/14/2007 8:46:53 PM PST by petertare (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

"Until they hit us, we need to leave them alone."

Are you still channeling Neville Chamberlain? Better give that up.


52 posted on 01/14/2007 8:50:50 PM PST by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

"I am getting this feeling that if we go to war with Iran, we are going to need a lot more troops. So, I am going to get out my boots and shine them up, my Uncle might be recalling me in the next year. I am over 55 now, but I am in excellent physical shape (rode over 28,000 miles on my bike the past 3 years), and still say active shooting my pistols and rifles. So, while I may not be able to hump in the boonies and carry the heavy ruck sack any more, I can at least free up a younger, stronger warrior from his boring guard type duties or guarding convoys and such. I am ready to wear my uniform again, if my Uncle rings me up!!"

In the Manatee Herald Tribune (Bradenton, Florida), there was an article yesterday about a 59 year old retired Colonel who has just been recalled to go to Iraq. He's packing, I guess. If you want to go, contact your Reserve Unit and talk to them.


53 posted on 01/14/2007 8:56:03 PM PST by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I've been advocating, and predicting a blockade of Iran for months now.

It's a REAL GOOD solution to this mess. If they choose to come out and fight, they're screwed. If they sit tight, they're screwed.

54 posted on 01/14/2007 8:57:50 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"encircled"

Turkmenistan, Armenia, and Turkey.

Fair enough.

yitbos

55 posted on 01/14/2007 9:03:52 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt
I am not reserves. I am retired Army. We can sign up and be put on a list, and if they have a need for your MOS, then they will call you up. As a retired military, you are always subject to recall to active duty. We all have what used to be called "hip pocket orders" meaning, we carried our orders in our wallets (our retired ID card) and were subject to recall as needed. If you did not report, you were AWOL. When recalled, of course, you would be medically checked out to see if you could handle active duty again after so many years.

During the first gulf war, I was at Fort Benning, GA. I was working my last assignment before retirement. There were lots of recently released soldiers recalled for the war effort in 1991. Many folks who had got out 1 to 2 or so years before were recalled, especially combat arms types.

56 posted on 01/14/2007 9:19:10 PM PST by RetiredArmy (Dimocrats stand for everything I hate, despise and wish to see destroyed, including dimocrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

IMHO, I suspect you may be correct.

Although I agree with our ability to attack to defend ourselves, I do observe an incredible weakness on our political front in the mainland.

If we don't have the resolve and mechanics to make the war well understood at home, we won't do very well convincing third world observers of our intent, not to mention China and other coalitions.

IMHO, within a decade the world power structures will change and a half hearted attempt might result in very stern permanent adversity directed against us amongst allies.

IMHO, our critical vulnerability is our inability to mobilize the American will to defend itself. Even if we win battles, what will that accomplish when the public lacks the will to remain responsible, accountable and legitimate?

Granted there is something to be said for results, but we are so spread out, it wouldn't take much to overrun the US in the face of calamity. History well documents past civilizations taken captive into slavery for far less than what the socialist side of America has espoused over the past two decades.


57 posted on 01/14/2007 9:21:54 PM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
This is borne out by the fact that Bush has sent forces to the Gulf that are irrelevant to fighting the Iraqi insurgents.

But how can this be? I thought the liberals were saying that the US was overstretched to the limit in Iraq, and we had exhausted all of our resources there? How could we possibly have anything left over for other purposes after that?

58 posted on 01/14/2007 9:22:48 PM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Personally, I'm not convinced that Iran is a threat to the United States.

Their missile systems are rudimentary, their nuclear processing capabilities are limited, and while the Iranian President is a big talker I seriously doubt he has the political will to attack either the US or Israel.

He knows a nuclear attack on Israel would mean an immediate and overwhelming nuclear response. Is national suicide his goal? I doubt it. He is merely playing politics to satisfy the anti-American factions of his country.

We should NOT act against Iran until they pose an imminent and significant threat to us.


59 posted on 01/14/2007 9:27:18 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe (Say "NO" to the Trans-Texas Corridor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside
Maybe Iran should have been hit before Iraq.

Ah, but now we have nice, friendly mobilization and launching points in Iraq. And Afghanistan.

60 posted on 01/14/2007 9:34:54 PM PST by Allegra (Vote Dulcie / Finbar 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson