Cheney says Iran tops US trouble spot list

Reuters ^ | Thu Jan 20, 2005 07:05 PM ET | Adam Entous

[AgThorn]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney says that Iran is at the top of the administration's list of world trouble spots and expressed concern that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate any nuclear threat from Tehran.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC on Thursday, the day that George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president.

Cheney, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, said the administration would continue to try to use diplomacy to address what he said were serious concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons program and ties to terrorism.

The administration has also accused Iran of interfering in the affairs of neighbouring Iraq, where U.S. forces have been bogged down in a ferocious insurgency since the 2003 invasion.

If Iran resists demands to rein in its nuclear program, Cheney said the next step would be to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council and seek international sanctions "to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations."

Cheney described Iran's nuclear program as "fairly robust." Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make weapons.

Cheney, who was a leading advocate for the Iraq invasion, said one concern was that Israel might act against the Iranians "without being asked."

ISRAELIS COULD ACT

"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said.

Israel set a precedent for such action in 1981 when it sent warplanes to destroy Iraq's French-built Osiraq reactor, seen as the key to President Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," Cheney said.

Like Cheney, Bush has stressed the importance of diplomacy in dealing with Iran, but said this week, "I will never take any option off the table."

The Bush administration imposed economic penalties this month against Chinese companies it accused of helping Tehran improve its longer-range ballistic missiles.

After being sworn in on Thursday Bush admonished what he called "the rulers of outlaw regimes" and said, "We will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary."

The New Yorker magazine reported this week that the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.

The White House and Pentagon have disputed the report.

[AgThorn]

do it, Israel , do it!!! ;-)

[Coop]

What a joke, to write an article on trouble with Iran and make no mention of the Al Qaeda leaders its harboring within its borders.

[Gerfang]

It is in the interest of the Iranians to have nuclear weapons, surrounded as they are by competing nuclear states. Pakistan, Russian, India, and the United States threaten their interests and have a large stick to demand their compliance. Atomic weapons are a geopolitical rather than ideological necessity and any Iranian government will continue to seek them. Any sensible ruler of Iran would desire to protect their people.

This said the ideological aspects of the current regime heighten the already substantial concerns of their neighbors. Israel would be foolish to allow any state which publicly demands their extermination to develop the means to do so. The United States sees a nuclear armed Iran as a threat to its oil supply in addition to the possibility of nuclear terrorism. This said I would say that Iran will eventually table its program if they can garner substantial benefits. Of course they will clandestinely continue the program, but real progress will pretty much cease under the watchful eye of US reconnaissance.

Perhaps they could follow the North Korean strategy. North Korea developed its nuclear program without interference because they had 100,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. With such a credible conventional threat, the United States dared not attack them, lest they turn the capital of South Korea into a “Sea of Fire”. Iran might develop its missile program to the point where it can effectively close the Straights of Hormuz for an extended period of time. Would the US attack them knowing Iran could effectively put the world economy into a tailspin?

[bayourod]

I got the distinct "feeling" today that President Bush was speaking directly to the Iranian students when he talked about American standing beside people overthrowing their despotic government.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Question is, is Iran close to implementing a "MAD" strategy with respect to Israel?

[HardStarboard]

>>>I got the distinct "feeling" today that President Bush was speaking directly to the Iranian students when he talked about American standing beside people overthrowing their despotic government. <<<

Yep! You take what Bush said at the inauguration, what Cheney is reported as saying, and what I am convinced was a "strategic leak" to Seymor Hersh, you have got to conclude that the Iranian pot may start to boil soon.

I don't think Bush can afford to keep letting Iran fund the Iraq insurgency with men, money and material. Plus they are harboring al Qaeda.

[FDNYRHEROES]

I got the distinct "feeling" today that President Bush was speaking directly to the Iranian students when he talked about American standing beside people overthrowing their despotic government.

Ditto.

[Skywarner]

"I got the distinct "feeling" today that President Bush was speaking directly to the Iranian students when he talked about American standing beside people overthrowing their despotic government."

You and me both. The President's words regarding freedom seemed to be directly aimed towards rallying the Iranian students, especially when he said that America would answer their call (or something to that effect).

Between this, and Cheney's comments, and the leak last week about SpecOp forces operating in Iran, it seems to me that the writing is on the proverbial wall. The clock is ticking.

[Gerfang]

It the mullahs were thrown out onto their keisters tomorrow, at the very first cabinet meeting of the new government the head of state would turn to the defense minister and say “So how’s our nuclear program doing?”

Pretty much every segment of Iranian society supports the development of atomic weapons.

[planekT]

In an interview with Bill O'Reily, when asked if he (G.W. Bush) would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Bush said, "No".

I generally take the President at his word, since he tends to keep it more often then not. The comments by Cheney about a premptive strike by Israel are certainly in line with their history (taking out Saddams nuclear plant).

Between Bush and Israel, I'm not too concerned about Iran gaining nuclear weapons. That should never be allowed to happen.

[parisa]

You wrong that every segment of Iranian society supports the development of atomic weapons. Iranians know that atomic weapons is to protect the rule of the mullahs. Also they are getting more and more concerned about Israeli and American bombing of the sites which they very well know the criminal mullahs have installed around high population areas and cherished, nationally heritage sites. And last but not least, the Iranians know that the mullahs have drained the country's Treasury coffers not only to pay off their terrorist proxies around the world, as well as foreign supporters and protectors, but also on these atomic weapons which will ultimately be destroyed anyway.

[EGPWS]

In an interview with Bill O'Reily, when asked if he (G.W. Bush) would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Bush said, "No".

Gosh, a peace loving regime again has to face the concerns of consequences of the domineering attitude of the USA.

Sorry for the sarcasm however I have just watched the Reagan, GHWB, and am presently watching Der Schlickmiester giving an inaugural address.

The differences in the speeches are blatantly conflicting.

[Loyal Buckeye]

Early in his speech yesterday, Pres. Bush looked in the camera and made a statement. It was clear to me that he was talking directly to the Iranians.

[Gerfang]

From what I’ve read, the Iranian nuclear program enjoys widespread support among the population including those who oppose the current administration. This makes sense because the program is in Iran’s national interest. No one wants to be unarmed in Dodge City. The neo-con belief that military intervention will empower the opposition and topple the regime may be inaccurate. It is possible that an attack will rally the people and strengthen the regime.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike the current regime and you have a good point about their mullah’s inability to provide economic growth. I agree that Iran would be much better off as a true participatory democracy. But you are naïve to believe that the Iranians are willing to subordinate their national interests to please their neighbors. This popular support severely limits the ability of foreign nations to influence policy through either diplomatic or military means. In the end, the United States and Israel may have to accept a nuclear-armed Iran, just as they accept a nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.