Posted on 02/08/2005 7:24:22 PM PST by freedom44
Top News Story
Iran warned the United States Tuesday that its nuclear sites cannot be destroyed by air or missile strikes, as Britain entered the fray by declaring that Tehran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
Top national security official Hassan Rowhani said on state television that a military strike would only push Iran's nuclear activities underground, and told Washington that the stand-off should be settled by dialogue.
"Our nuclear centers cannot be destroyed. Our nuclear technology comes from our scientists (and) we can transfer our nuclear workshops under mountains and carry out enrichment where no bomb or missile can be effective," said the cleric, adding he did not consider an attack as a "serious threat."
Rowhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, insisted that Iran was "not looking for increased tensions with any country, even with the Americans."
Our nuclear centers cannot be destroyed.
Just wait till I send my kids over there.
Jack
RE: "Tehran warns facilities indestructible"
Let's find out.
Hootinany Hillary?
Fatima Hillary...
I can see how a burka would be nice...
Cver ops team to steal all spark plug wires thus disabling their delivery systems?
"Cvert" = "Covert"
We can fight a proxy war. We've done it before in Nicaragua and Afghanistan.
Who wold be our proxies?
Indestructible?
So was the titanic.
The Kurds come to mind.
Possibly, but they are busy frying other fish right now, what with the Turks uncomfortable with the Kurds (now that Saddam has stopped killing them).
What tribes exist in Iran? Any that would be helpful?
LOL! And the Titanic was unsinkable. Have the Iranians not heard of our new bomb called, "Ice Berg" ????
Bush Seeks Regime Change in Iran, But How?
By Christophe de Roquefeuil, Agence France-Presse
Feb. 9, 2005
WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush has been actively behind “regime change” for Iran, but the route to that end has yet to be defined and the perils are great, US experts said.
Bush and his top aides have turned up the volume in their verbal attacks on the Islamic republic, calling it an “outpost of tyranny” and one of the principal backers of international terror, on its way to developing a nuclear weapon.
It was three years ago that Bush plotted Iran on an “axis of evil,” alongside North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
US officials shy away from pronouncing “regime change,” a controversial phrase on the international scene, but their intentions are clear, analysts said.
“I have no doubt the president and his closest advisers believe that the way both to solve the nuclear problem but also to deal with terrorism and improve the lives of the Iranian people is regime change,” said George Perkovich, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank.
“The question is how this regime change happens, and that’s the issue.
“It’s very important to distinguish between the idea of regime change and the means. And on the means I think there is a division in the administration, but that [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice made very clear that the means that they will pursue would be noncoercive and more political.”
Bush clearly encouraged opponents to the regime last week, during his annual State of the Union address before Congress: “To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.”
Bush also said Iran “remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror—pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.”
Administration “hawks” have been promoting the idea that the regime is teetering and easy to topple.
“I think it’s much easier than in most of the other cases, because we know from the public opinion polls conducted by the mullahs themselves that more than 70 percent of people hate this regime and want it changed, they want to be free,” said Michael Ledeen, of the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank.
How to get there is the subject of much Washington speculation.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not ruled out the use of force, not only to potentially destroy Iran’s nuclear sites, but also to weaken the regime.
But they have also said they would give a chance for mediation by Britain, France and Germany to wean Iran away from its nuclear ambitions, while being skeptical about chances for a diplomatic success.
A group of legislators has introduced in the US House of Representatives a draft bill, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would provide further political and financial support for so-called prodemocracy elements, especially opposition television and radio.
The Committee on the Present Danger, a group of Washington heavyweights, including former Republican secretary of state George Shultz and former Democratic presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman, have released a document saying, “We recommend a peaceful but forceful strategy to engage the Iranian people to remove the threat and establish a strong relationship, which is in both nations’ and the region’s interests.”
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/feb/09/yehey/opinion/20050209opi7.html
I don't know anything about their tribal relations, but there are certainly anti-Iranian Kurdish factions and anti-Syrian Kurdish factions etc.
No no no, It's in the Titanic.
I have a "relative" involved in US weaponry. He claims we know very little about the might of our current arms. He adds, "We can kill them 100 different ways."
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997 and to the European Union’s terrorist list in 2002 because its attacks have often killed civilians. Despite MEK’s violent tactics, the group’s strong stand against Iran—part of President Bush’s “axis of evil”—and pro-democratic image have won it support among some U.S. and European lawmakers.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say Iran's nuke sites are invulnerable to conventional weapons or clandestine attacks. What are our options? With Russia rearing its head again in the Middle East, does the President still have any military options he can risk without the conflict becoming global.
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.
