Sen. Harry Reid: U.S. Has No Military Option in Iran

Newsmax.com ^ | Friday, April 21, 2006 4:51 p.m. EDT | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[edpc]

The Bush administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Sen. Harry Reid.

Reid, D-Nev., said the administration should be taking the lead, but instead is relying on Germany, France and Great Britain to convince Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.

"It is hard to comprehend," Reid said. "We should be involved at trying to arrive at a diplomatic solution. ... Not just these three countries."

Reid said the Middle East is a "powder keg" because of U.S. failures in Iraq, the rise of fundamentalism and the recent election of Hamas in Palestine.

"Our not being involved diplomatically in trying to solve the situation in Iran shows the Bush failure in foreign policy there and elsewhere."

And he said the U.S. has no military option in Iran.

"We don't have the resources to do it" because of the ongoing war in Iraq," he said.

[DoughtyOne]

Ha ha ha, have a good evening.

[nuconvert]

Jeeez he's an idiot

[SeaBiscuit]

"This is a time in history where the ilk of the Democrat party cannot be allowed to hold a majority in any branch of Gov't."

Mega agree.. they shouldn't be allowed to direct traffic.

[Tiberius109]

Beat me to it ..What a moronic statement.Does ANYONE with balls ever question these idiots , call them out on their absurd statements , or is it a case where the Dems say ANYTHING they want without contridiction or question ?

[Smartass]

Senator Harry Reid filibustering

[potlatch]

There you go! I have one that 'moves'!! I read that they don't really do that.

[devolve]

 
LA RAZA

[KarinG1]

I'd have to differ with Mr. Reid. Our military is capable of leaving no part of Iran recognizable, and doing it within a few days. That seems a viable military option, and one we certainly would have had had trouble achieving while we were spending our 'peace dividend'. Speaking of which, I haven't gotten my check yet.

[RightWhale]

We don't have the resources to do it

Depends on the scenario. There are many scenarios; some would be very expensive while others would disappear in the general budgetary background noise.

[carl in alaska]

Reid is full of s*** when he says the U.S. has no military option in Iran because of the war in Iraq. That's just a flat-out false statement if you ask me. Iran's military is strong enough that the casualties from an invasion would be unacceptable in any event. So our military option is to take out their nuclear facilities with airstrikes. We have more than enough air power available in that region to conduct airstrikes on Iran if necessary, and I would bet that Reid knows this. He's just taking another cheap political shot at the President and undermining our negotiations with Iran. (BTW Harry, we are negotiating with Iran in a very real sense. There's a lot of communication between the US and Iran behind the scenes, but we're just not giving them the big propaganda venue that you foolishly want to give them through direct talks.)

Reid's statement that we have no military option is obviously false and is merely a cheap, low-class, unpatriotic political attack on our President at a critical time when we need strong congressional support in our ongoing negotiations with Iran.

[stockstrader]

How in the heck did a nut-case, liberal like Reid ever get elected in a RED STATE like Nevada? GEEEEEZ

[carl in alaska]

Maybe Harry is like a chameleon who changes color eight months before each election.

[Job03]

We have not had diplomatic relations with the terrorist state Iran since Jimmy Carter's presidency. Why should we reestablish a higher level of diplomacy with a government that is clearly insane and which relies on the inaction of an international hodgepodge of defeatist states (and Congressional so-called leaders)? Too many questions with not enough answers - the bottom line is that the US cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and if this can't be prevented diplomatically then other options must be considered.

[potlatch]

 
THANKS

[jveritas]

I Love you Senator Reid, you made my day with your great comment.

Yours forever

Ahmadinejad

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

PS: Ayatollah Khamenii and many other Mullahs send you their regards.

[Desron13]

"The Bush administration is relying too heavily on other countries in the international effort to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, according to Sen. Harry Reid."

The hypocrisy is both profuse and profound here! I hardly know where to begin so I wont. Simply... What an ASS!

[pepsionice]

At the beginning of the Gulf War...there were options on the table...and obviously today...we can say that all things considered...we have entered a fairly deep mess. From this...we aren't exiting the mess anytime soon.

So in some ways...Reid has a slight point. Whatever options people think exist for the Iran situation...pick the worst case scenario for the US (a year into the Iran "conflict")...and think about having a second "mess" on your hands.

If we played by Weinberger's rules...we'd fight to win...decisively. And then exit by that point. Its not the job of our troops to play "police guard". We haven't exited, nor do we have such a plan in the near future. Reid may be wrong...but so far...Bush and Rumsfeld haven't exactly proven our strategy to be a winner.

[PhilDragoo]

[Beckwith]

When we went into Iraq, Reid criticized Bush for taking "unilateral action."

Now Bush is trying to build political support in Europe, Reid criticizes that.

You just can't please these bustards whatever you do.

[edpc]

Whatever options people think exist for the Iran situation...pick the worst case scenario for the US (a year into the Iran "conflict")...and think about having a second "mess" on your hands.

The problem is, congress and the public are always fighting the last war. The "experts" were predicting a tough battle vs a "seasoned" army (from Iraq's conflict with Iran), with coalition casualties in the tens of thousands back in 1991. It didn't happen. During this last go around, the conventional wisdom was a long grind in urban warfare, Stalingrad type battles. Wrong again. Pick a scenario for what may happen with Iran. With the exception of our victory, I doubt it transpires that way.