Posted on 06/04/2007 2:53:06 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Strains grow over strategy to rein in Iran
By Daniel Dombeyin London andStephen Fidler in Singapore
Published: June 4 2007 03:00 | Last updated: June 4 2007 03:00
The international strategy to deal with Iran's nuclear programme is coming under increasing strain, diplomats and officials acknowledge.
Consensus is fraying among the big powers that have fashioned the current policy of imposing limited United Nations sanctions to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment - which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material - while offering the prospect of better relations if it complies.
The Bush administration is caught between internal critics who want a tougher stance on Iran and those, notably Germany, who would like greater flexibility over beginning negotiations with Tehran.
On Friday Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, sought to counter reports that US vice-president Dick Cheney's staff believe the current policy has little chance of success and that Washington should give more consideration to military action.
"The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is," she said. "That policy is supported by all of the members of his cabinet and by the vice-president . . . "
The controversy over Mr Cheney's views has also been stoked by comments by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, who spoke last week of "new crazies who want to say 'let us go and bomb Iran'. "
Mr ElBaradei has also recently angered Washington by arguing that the UN's call for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment has been "superseded" by the progress of Tehran's nuclear programme. The US recently led a delegation of French, British and Japanese envoys to upbraid Mr ElBaradei for that statement, but failed to secure the participation of Germany, which sympathises with his call for greater flexibility.
Heightening US frustration are the limited results of the international strategy while Iran pushes ahead with its programme, which Tehran insists is peaceful.
On Saturday, Robert Gates, US secretary of defence, cited US intelligence estimates that Iran could have a nuclear weapon from 2010/11 to 2014/15. "There are those who believe that that could happen much sooner, in late 2008 or 2009," he added.
The latest Security Council deadline to Iran expired more than a week ago, yet the chief result of a meeting last Thursday between Ali Larijani, Iran's top security official, and Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was an agreement to meet again in about two weeks.
Iran said yesterday it was willing to increase transparency about its past nuclear activities but only if the Security Council stopped handling the matter.
Additional reporting Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Ping!
Typical muslim argument. Before, Iran was just breaking the agreement a little bit. But now that they are going full tilt, we have to leave them alone. Before was 'too early.' Now is 'too late.'
Kind of like a guy trying to break into your house. If you shoot him when he touches to doorknob, it's too early. If you shoot him while he's carrying your TV down the front steps, it's too late. So why didn't Mr. ElBaradei scream a while ago, "Shoot him now!"
This guy has no business being in charge.
While the IAEA made some progress on monitoring the enrichment facilities, ElBaradei's report also expressed its concerns about Iran refusing to provide the UN nuclear watchdog with design information on its heavy water plant at Arak.
ElBaradei's report criticised Iran's continued refusal to allow the IAEA inspectors to visit a heavy water reactor now under construction at the central city of Arak and linked facilities, after it unilaterally curtailed an agreement with the agency earlier this year.
Military action in Iran not in anyones interest, says Gates
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843874/posts
Gates: Diplomacy With Iran Is ‘Working’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819662/posts
Commander’s veto sank Gulf buildup (Admiral Fallon opposes military move against Iran?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834992/posts
Top US War Boss: We Can’t Ignore Iran [No other way but “arrangement” with Iran.]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1840806/posts
(Adm. Fallon)
Rice: U.S. Not Preparing for War Vs Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843876/posts
The whole thing is a Dog and Pony show. Iran will have their weapon if they dont have it already and everyone will be shocked and then say Oh well we did our best .
This is all a farce
I used to wholeheartedly support and admire Bush and his administration - I thought he had the potential to be one of our greatest Presidents - but, it’s like someone, somewhere, threw a switch & they turned into different people! Cheney, I’ve not heard much from to say about him - I still admire this guy & wish HE were our President now, instead of Bush. Condoleeza, I had such high hopes for....
Has some advisor that was running the whole show gone? Or were they just faking us out until they could get re-elected for a second term? Did they not believe these things they told us? Has something changed that they are not telling us about? I just feel so left out of the process, I feel like I’m in the dark here - this is horrible!
It’s like they’ve been replaced with pod people.
Mohammad El Baradei is nothing more than an Iranian/anti-US enabler (his wife is Iranian). He’s still in Hans Blix’s and Kofi Anan’s corner in opposing the US anyway he can. Remember the “shocking” report El Baradei released just before the 04” election blaming the US military 100% (George Bush) for not securing an Iraqi military weapons depot during the initial push by coalition forces? That “report” had one sole purpose, to sting Bush and bolster Kerry, nothing more. El Baradei, the US knows your motives, biases and intentions, and as to your friends in Tehran, well, their days are numbered.
The coming war with Iran will be an Air and Naval war not a ground war. I expect to start it with a surprise attack on the Iranian terrorist regime nuclear facilities and some other military infrastructures. This 1st phase will take 5 to 7 days of intensive bombing. If Iranian terrorist regime responds with attacking oil tankers, or attacking oil facilities in the Gulf region, or attacking our Navy ships in the Gulf, or our bases in Iraq and other places sin the Gulf, then the Air and Naval war will expend dramatically and our Air Force and Navy will go into destroying the major military infrastructure of the terrorists mullahs, their command and control centers, and very possibly a lot of their refinery infrastrastrcures but not their oil production facilities.
“The latest Security Council deadline to Iran expired more than a week ago, yet the chief result of a meeting last Thursday between Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security official, and Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, was an agreement to meet again in about two weeks.”
Typical UN. “We agree to meet again in two weeks to meet again at some time in the future”.
Firstly, my thanks and admiration for your great work on the Iranian government and military documents! You've done a very valuable service to the country. Too bad you can't be cloned....we need to translate them all!
I'd be interested in what you think a timeline is for events regarding Iran. The Bush administrations general line that "we can't tie the Iranian government to arms shipments into Iran and Afghanistan" is, to my mind delusional. So long as that mindset persists, I can't see how Bush comes to a decision to attack. I think it is fear at being blindsided by "bad intel" again....but at some point he's got to act or all bets are off.
Bush waiting until Iran is "minutes" from a nuclear weapon increases the danger of a wider conflagration - and increases the chance that the anti-war Democrats will do something effective to hobble his efforts to hit Iran. And, his window of opportunity is shrinking fast...he has only 18 months left - and I doubt he would strike in the last year of his tenure for fear of being accused of doing it for political reasons.
We know Iran is causing American military deaths! I can see no excuse for waiting much longer.
This article isn’t worth the bandwidth its written on.
for those playing along at home, Rice and Cheney both work for the President.
But only one of the two gained 60 million popular votes. The other was appointed.
No way.
In the time it takes the first TLAM to hit its target from the time it left the tube, crude per barrel will go up at $40, and the price for a gallon of unleaded will go up to $4.75.
Meet the new “3rd rail of American Politics”. (Actually its not quite new — just ask Nixon and Carter what Gas lines and a seemingly out of control upward spiral in gas prices did for their Presidencies.)
“Kind of like a guy trying to break into your house. If you shoot him when he touches to doorknob, it’s too early. If you shoot him while he’s carrying your TV down the front steps, it’s too late. So why didn’t Mr. ElBaradei scream a while ago, “Shoot him now!”
This guy has no business being in charge.”
A) He is muslim and is the WORST person for the job with the Iranians. Not just because he may be biased but that he would be viewed as a traitor to Islam by Iran. It is easier to maipulate him to their viewpoint and the Iranians are very good at this.
B) His wife is Iranian. Hmmmmm....
“Has some advisor that was running the whole show gone? Or were they just faking us out until they could get re-elected for a second term? Did they not believe these things they told us? Has something changed that they are not telling us about? I just feel so left out of the process, I feel like I’m in the dark here - this is horrible!
It’s like they’ve been replaced with pod people.”
When Bush listened to Rumsfield it went good regarding national attack plans. When he turned to Rumsfield on managing the post-invasion, it went bad. Rumsfield is limited in his expertise which is the Cold War era and ground invasions, not occupations. Rumsfield & Cheney gave poor advice about Vietnam to their superiors. Now Bush is listening to two people on his cabinet that are BOTH incompetent in this area about Iran and no Rumsfield to boot on an invasion strategy to overthrow the mullahs.
Bush doesn’t have an evil scheme, he models himself after Reagan who had an all star cabinet and the balls to back it up with actions EVERY time, Reagan was ‘compassionate’ ONLY when the enemy had completely surrendered... I hope I helped...
On Friday Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, sought to counter reports that US vice-president Dick Cheney’s staff believe the current policy has little chance of success and that Washington should give more consideration to military action.
“The president of the United States has made very clear what our policy is,” she said. “That policy is supported by all of the members of his cabinet and by the vice-president . . . “
Sounds like the normal “good cop” / “bad cop” routine. Our official policy is “behavior change”, not “regime change” in Iran (unless one will require another). Press (especially British - Reuters, FT etc.) periodically will do essentially the same “news” pieces supposedly highlighting the rift between the Cheney “hawks” and Condi “doves” or “chickens”, and people on FR will pick it up to slam Condi. The usual routine...
Check it out yourself with these links :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=condi
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=rice
I believe this assessment to be faulty, but somewhat popular on FR and, certainly, in the media.
In order to make this post relatively short, yet provide the maximum supporting facts and information that I and some other FReepers have made on this subject, instead of repeating them in this post, I will provide links to the threads where they are shown. Not surprisingly, I participated in most of these threads. The threads are reasonably short to peruse, yet there is a lot of great factual material and excellent thoughtful analysis beyond the usual gratuitous statements by usual posters regarding the "usual suspects". BTW, if you remember, according to al-media, Condi at various times apparently was at odds and/or not on speaking terms with Rumsfeld, Gates or Cheney. All, like many other stories, proved to be bunk, simply a way for media to soil Condi's or Rumsfeld's or Cheney's reputation with Republican base.
First, Rumsfeld wasn't the one to "manage" the post-invasion, his choice for that was Lt. General Jay Garner who didn't last a month and had quite different plan from Paul Bremer (a State Dept "career professional" under then-Secretary Powell and his deputy Armitage) who micromanaged the CPA and overwrote several military decisions during occupation period, before elections and transfer of control to Iraqi government. Most of the "mistakes" were made then. BTW, the decision to "disband" Saddam's Army and consequent de-Baathification was not one of them - it correctly followed WWII example, and there was nothing left to "disband".
What Bremer Got Wrong in Iraq - particularly posts #1, #2, #21
Rumsfeld and Condi are both good students of history and Cold War and understand exactly what we need now, and that's why Rumsfeld was trying to restructure the military, make it leaner and rely more on Marines and Special Operations Forces on the ground along with high-tech Air Force and Navy while deemphasizing our already-thin "boots on the ground" Army forces (due to strains of funding and nature of conflict issues). In light of frail and failing 20th Century alliances like NATO or SEATO, Rummy and Condi and Cheney developed and successfully executed a concept of 21st Century - Coalitions of the Willing (COW) - that is far more flexible and sustainable.
The Italian Job - #7 - end
How to Win in Iraq-and How to Lose - particularly #2, #3, #4, #7, #9, #14, #18, #24 Fallback strategy for Iraq: train locals, draw down forces -
GOP Lawmakers: Loyalty to Bush May Hurt - particularly #29, #33, #39, #41
Re Gates: he is no Rumsfeld but he could be easily confirmed and he is smooth enough for the Hill, and professional enough that he would not be likely to do much damage by freelancing without clearing it with JCOS and President.
Re Rice:
Rice: U.S. Not Preparing for War Vs Iran - particularly #19, #41
Perle: Bush Failed by his Own People - particularly #16, #20, #25, #26
How Rice Uses History Lessons -
Rice helped unfreeze N Korean funds (Condi=Maddie) - particularly #8, #11, #18, #25, #28
Rice says missiles no threat to Russia - particularly #10
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.