Iran is in the midst of solidifying their position as the regional power in the Persian Gulf. They have as a goal controlling all shipping in and out of that area by controlling the Straits of Hormuz and controlling Iraq upon our withdrawal. They are working apace at developing nuclear weapons and could have them within a year or decade depending on the source you believe. They are a theocracy with a population that is itching to gain more freedom from the Ayatollah-led government but facing severe crackdowns by that regime at any show of liberty and liberalism.
How can we deal with a regime that came to power and as part of their first official act was to kidnap and hold for 444-days Americans as hostages?
The rhetoric is starting to ratchet up as the US has said they will place the Iranian Republican Guards on a list of terror groups and has directly named Iran as a supplier of bombs and weapons to Shia insurgents in Iraq who are targeting US forces. It's getting to be a stickier situation:
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they would not bow to pressure and threatened to "punch" the United States, in their first response to Washington's plan to list them as a terrorist organization, newspapers reported Saturday.
Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington's ire towards the group because of their recent successes against the United States.
"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future," he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan.
That is a direct threat aimed at the U.S. and more importantly, it is an admission by the Iranians that they have indeed been quite active in hurting U.S. troops. In other words, they are provoking us and know that we can't react because of the political climate in the U.S.
What will the next US President do when faced with the growing menace of an emboldened Iran?
John Edwards has said he would talk with Iran, a move that will do nothing more than embolden them further if the talking involves in any way US concessions on nukes. But hey, it bolsters his liberal street cred. Senator Barack Obama is on record as saying he would use surgical missile strikes. Hillary has said she'd use everything from sanctions to including Russia and China in containing the threat.
On the GOP-side, Giuliani has said the use of tactical nukes is not off the table while Fred Thompson has called for sanctions, a blockade and what surely has got to freak out the anti-war left "regime change." Romney has called for divestment but is a bit murky on what other actions he'd take.
Whatever the course of action, Iran will have to be dealt with whether it's this year or three years from now. They want to displace the Saudis as the top power and they'll go to war to do it.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. One must remember these oil producing nations will not be needed someday. When that someday comes, they will blow the doo-doo out of everyone and take over, if they can. They are not going back to cooking with camel dung and living in tents on the desert. What nationl product will they have? They have had big big funds for years and years and have not invented even a new can opener. Just like Africa and other similar nations if they can mine it or dig it or grow it they are dead. No industrial possibilities. Kill and war. That is what you can look for, Kill and war. They will not be satisfied until they can nuke us.
Put some nukes in space and aim them and let them know its peace or bye bye warmongers.
Who was that fellow that kept rattling swords until we put a rocket in his bedroom, killing his son. Of course we feel bad that he caused us to take such action but you don't hear from him now. Sometimes we can be so strong and then we can be such pusses a month later. Hard to figure us. If you got it, flaunt it.
Don Jones
MyManFred.com
Don Jones at 10:27PM on Aug 18th 2007
2. Iran has WMDs.
vegastracon at 10:18PM on Aug 18th 2007
3. It's clear and unfortunate that the crux of your piece is based on an American ideologue view-- that of America being right because we say we are right. As far as learning something on the topic-- other than a line of thinking that leads directly to war-- perhaps an article titled 'What does Iran do about America?' could have taught us something on the subject.
Your mention of the Iranian commander's comments being a direct threat to the US is accurate, but misses the bigger point. It's a simple response to the US's direct threat of putting the Rep Guard on the terror list, i.e. the first stages of dismantling the financial institutions of Iran. Without the US's initial threat, there'd be no escalation of possible war. War is where people die, if you don't recall. Many of them being innocent women and children.
As far as your slighting John Edwards, a poll by CBS in March of 07 showed 54% of Americans favoring diplomacy, with only 18% favoring military action.
Reality Check at 10:49PM on Aug 18th 2007
4. Your skills in journalism are akin to bush's skills at intellectual conversation - lacking and embarassing.
Rewrite this crap and perhaps it would be worth the headache to read.
This essay is terrible at 10:51PM on Aug 18th 2007
5. Counterpunch, but harder.
Steve Bonomo at 12:16AM on Aug 19th 2007
6. Iran has a hatred for America that will never be quenched. They pray in mass daily for the death of all Americans. This has been a daily prayer for 3 decades plus. They serve an evil master, and evil goals will not abate in their agendas. They have one purpose in life and that is to oppose Gods people. This has been true since the time of Ishmael and shall not cease to be a fact until they are dealt with in the finale of the age. In the interim we must meet them with whatever it takes to keep them from enacting their goals of destruction. The wave of news they hear from media about the pulse of the masses here only causes them to be more determined to continue their hopeless path.We need to dig in and unite against these and YES that still encludes Iraq.
Larry at 1:19AM on Aug 19th 2007
7.
In early 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the facilities of the AIOC, a British company, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which had controlled the extraction, production and marketing of Iranian oil. Mohammed Mossadeq, the main architect of Iran’s nationalization policy, was elected prime minister. Mossadeq was ridiculed in the West as a hypochondriac but in his own country, Mossadeq was revered as a charismatic figure whose defiant opposition to British domination captured the imagination of the Iranian public.
Britain responded harshly to the nationalization of the AIOC’s facilities and imposed an embargo on Iranian oil in an attempt to wreck Iran’s economy. It advocated a military takeover of the AIOC’s oil refinery in Abadan, on the southern coast of Iran. The Truman administration opposed military intervention, fearing that it might provoke a Soviet invasion in Iran.
Meanwhile, Britain’s boycott devastated Iran’s economy which in turn, caused Mossadeq to lose popularity, compelling him to govern in an increasingly authoritarian manner.
Eisenhower took a harsher view of Mossadeq than Truman and in the summer of 1953, the CIA sent Kermit Roosevelt to Iran to recruit officers in the Iranian military to stage a coup against Mossadeq.
Roosevelt hired local gangs to stage anti-government demonstrations in the streets of Tehran. With the city in chaos, the pro-U.S. Iranian army officers seized control of the government, replacing Mossadeq with a pro-shah prime minister.
A consortium of foreign oil companies was allowed to control and market Iran’s oil, with the AIOC surrendering a large share of the operation to American oil companies. Iran became a major recipient of U.S. economic aid. The shah himself was now deeply beholden to the U.S.
At the time, U.S. officials thought they had won a splendid victory, but once the shah was reinstalled in power, he governed much more repressively than before. Ordinary Iranians came to see him as a puppet of Washington; the ultimate consequences of these perceptions were later to become clear in the Iranian revolution of the late 1970.
I recount this history (The Great Courses - The United States and the Middle East: 1914 to 9/11 - Univ. of Chicago) to point out how the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democracy. I believe President Clinton apologized to Iran for this tragic blunder.
The similarities of the situation in Israel in the early 60s and the present situation in Iran is stunning! The concern that Iran’s civilian nuclear power program would be converted to a weapons program is identical to the situation in Israel in the early 60s which I have recounted as follows:
In the early 60s, before President Kennedy was tragically assassinated, he was attempting to influence Israeli behavior regarding two principal issues. President Kennedy wanted to prevent Israel from converting its civilian nuclear power program into a weapons program and he wanted Israel to permit the repatriation of Palestinian refugees, something Israel had refused to do since 1948, on the grounds that this would threaten the Jewish character of Israel. Not only had the Arab states called for Israel’s repatriation of Palestinians, but in late 1948, the UN General Assembly had passed Resolution 194 calling on Israel to repatriate all Palestinian refugees who wished to return to their homes in present-day Israel.
To induce the Israelis to make concessions in these areas, Kennedy agreed to sell them advanced antiaircraft guns, Hawk missiles. Kennedy did not establish a formal quid-pro-quo between the arms sale on the one hand and the refugee and nuclear issues on the other. Unfortunately for Kennedy, this lack of formal linkage permitted Israel to pocket the inducement without making significant concessions on the refugee and nuclear issues.
On the nuclear question, Israel appeared to be cooperating with Kennedy, assuring him that the Dimona nuclear reactor was purely for civilian purposes. By evading and thwarting U.S. attempts to conduct meaningful inspections, Israel continued to develop a nuclear weapons capability.
The similarity between America’s attempt to inspect Dimona in the early 60s and the current attempt to inspect Iran’s civilian nuclear power is overwhelming. Both Israel and Iran used religious holidays as excuses to thwart inspection. Both set very rigid ground rules for inspection. Both used numerous ways to delay, etc.
Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 during which time he was growing very frustrated with Israel. I believe it was reported that Jews took out a full page ad in a Dallas, Texas, newspaper, denouncing President Kennedy the day he was assassinated. Jack Ruby, whose real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald on November 24, 1963, asserting that, killing Oswald would show the world that “Jews have guts.”
President Johnson was no more successful than Kennedy had been at keeping Israel from developing the bomb. Although the Israeli government insisted that it had no intention of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, the U.S. intelligence community learned otherwise. Israel’s standard statement on the question, “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”! It is believed that Israel acquired its first usable nuclear bomb sometime in early 1968.
Iran took Americans as hostages in 1979 to retaliate for the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953.
Senator Lieberman repeats his call for a U.S. attack on the camps in Iran. Lieberman has introduced an amendment which stated, "The murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States."
Of course Israel was not punished for the intolerable act of hostility against the United States in 1967. Israel attack the USS LIBERTY in 1967, killing 34 sailors and wounding l71. (ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY -- by James M. Ennes, Jr.). Meeting a survivor of the terrorist attack on the Liberty some time ago was a profound experience. As he recounted that horrible event and the valor of Captain William L. McGonagle and the crew in saving the LIBERTY, he wiped tears from his eyes several times. He said he could remember it as clearly as if it had happened “yesterday” and America must also remember! Let the U.S. honor the survivors of the USS Liberty by punishing Israel for this heinous war crime!
M. Delphia Block
M. Delphia Block at 6:40AM on Sep 13th 2007
8. "Iran has WMDs." (Me)
I could've sworn that would work again. I'd better try something else.
Iran is a direct threat to our national security.
(That should do the trick.)
vegastracon at 3:29AM on Aug 19th 2007
9.
How do we deal with Iran ? Excellent question - it's one that should have been discussed in great detail by the Bush administration before they decided to go into Iraq. Through most of the 80s our government supported Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq and justified their actions by saying they countered the potential threat from Iran. Apparently someone forgot all about this in the great rush to take care of the "imminent threat" that was posed by Iraq. Iran now has a nice new ally to help them in their quest for world power in neighboring Iraq - and they received this gift courtesy of U.S. foreign policy. There's no going back either - all the tough talk in the world won't change reality. Anyone who doubts this should check out the details of Iraqi Prime Minister Malikis trip to Iran last week. The pictures taken there tell you all you need to know. We are supporting and funding a government in Iraq that has no intention of turning its back on their fellow Islamic Republic neighbor Iran - plain and simple. Just wondering how long it will take our leaders to figure this out.
max at 8:34AM on Aug 19th 2007
10. did anyone bother to ask this question to the white house? i guess we will now take over the iraq/iran war for the iraqi military...cause their is NO iraqi military. who is going to pay for all of this? and how is this going to make sure no terrorist gets into America? oh wait...the terrorist are majority saudi's....didn't bush just sign a $20 billion deal to sell them arms? wait...so the saudi's must have the WMD's in their backyard instead of iraq. wait...sadaam moved the WMD's to pakistan instead. no...the pakistan sold the WMD's to iran instead. we know there was no WMD's, but still...it was a hoax that was believeable due to all the weapons that was given to sadam to fight against iran. but now, iran will get a new friend...who will both hate America. great job. and then bush goes and sells more weapons to middle east countries so they can turn around and use it on us. does it make sense. but then "king george" must be as looney as the kings of ol' england.
iamchavira at 2:28PM on Aug 19th 2007
11. For more information on America's first military conflict with Iran in the Persian Gulf, see my book, Inside the Danger Zone, published this spring by Naval Institute Press. The website is http://www.insidethedangerzone.com/. It is the inside story of the little known 1987-1988 quasi-war with Iran. The untold "first chapter" to the U.S. military involvement in the Persian Gulf.
Harold at 9:50PM on Aug 19th 2007
12. As an ex-Iranian , I suggest to treat Iran with her own term. WE American should hire Kurds in the North of Iraq, and train them to bomb gas stations all over Iran. Then , we should not sell them refine oil. Most people in Iran are tired of this regime, they want to see changes. This regime strictly believes in Ghoran which is , the world must become Shiite in religion, like Hitler, only one way.
aberookhim at 2:06AM on Aug 20th 2007
13. GOOD JOB #10.I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. WE MUST GET RID OF THIS SO CALLED'KING COBRA GEORGE' AND HIS SHORTGUN CHENEY OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE THEN AMERICA IS GOING TO BE ONE LIKE BEFORE. I AM PRETTY SURE OF THAT.THESE PEOPLES SPLIT THE COUNTRY AND BLAMING ON THE DEMS. FOR THAT AND THESE DEMS. HAVE NO GUTS TO REACT.
gt at 2:26PM on Aug 20th 2007