Posted on 09/17/2007 4:28:52 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.
Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."
Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.
Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it in my mind to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
He suggested that many in Iran perhaps even some in the Tehran government are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.
He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.
Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.
Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.
"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.
The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
(This version SUBS 9th graf, Iran says ..., to CORRECT word to 'program,' sted 'problem'))
It’s not that Iran will attack with nukes. I don’t think they will either.
It’s that they’ll be free to run proxy wars without fear of retaliation. Neighboring states won’t dare hit them back for fear of being nuked, even as they’re deluged with Hezbollah rockets or after having their leaders assassinated. Yes, we can manage that, but It’ll be expensive.
Would the General have said the same thing about a nuclear Iraq under Saddam?
They want jobs as media pundits or as politicians.
Maybe the good general is being prudent, maybe even correct.
But if he’s wrong...I suspect he’ll be known as “The New Neville” when
the history books are written.
Assuming we survive an onslaught of nukes handed out by Iran to all their
middle-man agents and books can still be made amidst the rubble.
Wikipedia on the general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abizaid
It will allow Iran to move conventional military forces with impunity using tactical nukes as a deterrent to both our resolve to become involved anywhere nearby and also our ability to do so if we were so inclined.
Any large massing of troops or force would be subject to tactical nuclear fire, as would our Naval forces.
The Gordian knot was never fully solved in Europe, but we countered that force with sizable tactical or theatre nuclear weapons of our own.
To counter Iran, we would have to move a lot of nuclear weapons to hard bases, along with building and deploying many more cruise missile assets.
Are (hillary!) and a democrat controlled congress going to undertake a large nuclear buildup and theatre deployment?
When Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly in October of 2005, he ended his speech with a prayer imploring God to hasten the return of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches. In the Islamic faith, the Mahdi is the ultimate savior of mankind. His appearance will usher in an era of Islamic justice and bring about the conversion of the heathen amidst flame and fire. The Mahdi will establish Islam as the global religion and will reign for seven years before bringing about the end of the world. In a speech last November, Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying: "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.
Thats true if you have a choice then naturally I wouldn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The thing is the costs to stopping Iran from achieving nuclear weapons could be very large. For example if the warfare with them led ultimately to us needing to occupy them.
And that has to be weighed against the damage they could do and the likelihood of them taking those actions.
BINGO!
Mayhap you are correct. However, when your political leader has spent his entire life buried in the very bowels of islamic fundamentalism, when his entire life is dedicated to the glory of his allah and the rewards he hopes to reap therein, I dont know?
Pile on top of that his total hatred of Israel I believe he would nuke Israel if given a chance and the rest of his country (and the world) could just suck hind teat, as it were.
Just my opinion after listening to his rhetoric over the years. I believe that he is just as fanatic in his beliefs as the suicide bombers he encourages and sanctions and would not hesitate to sacrifice all for the glory of his moon god.
Let’s see...32 years since the end of the Vietnam Era and counting. I’ll have lots of beer (and consequently, urine) ready, when the time comes. ...hope that I can still dance then.
no wonder progress was slow while he was in Iraq
Except for those hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents (most likely Ameriacns or Israelis) incinerated by their handiwork, of course.
Abizaid is a member of the fifth column. No exaggeration.
Holy moly. Is this guy lookin’ for a job in a possible Clinton administration?
THIS is the 4-star fool.
I heard that a few months ago, the sentence for some Iranian criminals was to be thrown off a cliff.
That depends on the definition of the word "regime".
Maybe, perhaps we are already living with a nuclear armed Iran.
Do we really know?
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.