Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Bush may strike Iran near end of term'
Jerusalem Post ^ | 05-16-2007 | STEVE LINDE

Posted on 05/16/2007 8:43:26 AM PDT by bedolido

While arguing that economic sanctions against Teheran still have a chance of bearing fruit, a top strategic expert predicted on Tuesday that the Bush administration could conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities toward the end of its term in office.

"I, for one, don't exclude the possibility that the US will act," Shai Feldman, currently director of the Crown Center for Middle East studies at Brandeis University, told an editorial meeting of The Jerusalem Post. "My feeling, though, is that if it will act, it will act in the last months of the administration, mostly because I think that they are inclined to try to give the other options the fullest possible chance."


Prof. Shai Feldman speaks to the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; iran; strike; term

1 posted on 05/16/2007 8:43:29 AM PDT by bedolido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bedolido

I have heard from folks around DC(whom I suspect know about such things) that the president will not leave the White House without striking Iran to deny it use of nuclear weapons.


2 posted on 05/16/2007 8:45:40 AM PDT by RexBeach (Americans never quit. -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

OJ, NTSA...


3 posted on 05/16/2007 8:46:05 AM PDT by Philistone (Your existence as a non-believer offends the Prophet(MPBUH).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Futures on intrade suggest otherwise.
4 posted on 05/16/2007 8:46:14 AM PDT by sono (TITVS PVLLO in MMVIII - Paid for by the Aventine Collegium for Pullo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Or not.


5 posted on 05/16/2007 8:46:46 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

I’m not much of a fan of the “Strike Iran at end of term and let the next guy deal with the fallout” strategy.

Fallout is particularly apt in this context.


6 posted on 05/16/2007 8:48:07 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

The alternative, waiting until these Islamic crazies actually have nukes and can use them, is unthinkable.


7 posted on 05/16/2007 8:48:16 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Near zero modulus of authenticity.


8 posted on 05/16/2007 8:50:31 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Well, that would be a sure fire way to destroy what is left of the GOP.


9 posted on 05/16/2007 8:51:24 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

I’m guessing sometime in December, 2008, so it won’t look political?


10 posted on 05/16/2007 8:55:53 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sono

Intrade’s futures expire in 2007. That leaves off the latter 2/3rds of the remainder of Bush’s term. The article said, “towards the end of his term.”


11 posted on 05/16/2007 8:57:13 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Well, that would be a sure fire way to destroy what is left of the GOP.

That ain't much. They are so self inflicted with destroying themselves, that any act Bush does will not hurt much. How do you kill what is already dead?

12 posted on 05/16/2007 8:57:51 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (America has lost its mind and is on its last days as a free country & Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I think you’re on to something.


13 posted on 05/16/2007 8:58:05 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Point taken.


14 posted on 05/16/2007 8:58:27 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Then it’s a win all the way around from Bush’s point of view.


15 posted on 05/16/2007 8:59:26 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Anyone else notice these kinds of pronouncements are made once every six months or so?


16 posted on 05/16/2007 9:00:01 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Then Seymour Hersh can finally be right for a change. He’s the world’s greatest writer. /s


17 posted on 05/16/2007 9:04:19 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido
Iran will be left for the next president, unless Iran openly attacks US forces. Then all bets are off.
18 posted on 05/16/2007 9:12:04 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

And monkeys may fly out of my butt.


19 posted on 05/16/2007 9:13:49 AM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Unless there is a Democrat in the White House, in which case WE will apologize to Iran, and wring our hands. Iran is sending people into Iraq that are openly attacking U.S. forces right now.


20 posted on 05/16/2007 9:21:49 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

“Iran is sending people into Iraq that are openly attacking U.S. forces right now.”

And we aren’t doing a G-damn thing about it.


21 posted on 05/16/2007 9:30:49 AM PDT by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

That is similar to a scenario that I’ve pulled right out of the air. The Bush administration concentrates on the surge strategy in Iraq and merely keeps the pressure on Iran through November 2008, forgoing action against Iran in order not to harm Republican prospects with a war-weary electorate. In November the election brings what it brings and then Team Bush has ten weeks free and clear to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is plenty of time and with a Pres. Fred Thompson waiting in the wings could be done with complete coordination with the incoming administration. If there’s a ‘Rat President-elect, well what’s so bad about forcing them to face reality right out of the gate?


22 posted on 05/16/2007 9:35:39 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Badeye
Anyone else notice these kinds of pronouncements are made once every six months or so?

I learned this from the weather man:
"If you keep rain in the forecast your bound to be right sooner or later."

Regards,
GtG

23 posted on 05/16/2007 9:41:38 AM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Bush may strike Iran near end of term.... or he won’t. It’s definitely going to be one of those.

Classic non-story.


24 posted on 05/16/2007 9:43:34 AM PDT by ArmstedFragg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Every illegal alien in this country should be given a 3 year term in the Middle east cleaning out the terrorists and converting them to Christianity. Then citizenship.


25 posted on 05/16/2007 9:44:31 AM PDT by samadams2000 (Someone important make......The Call!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

Yes, and, “You don’t need a weather man to see which way the wind blows.”


26 posted on 05/16/2007 9:48:14 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They've screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, now they're here screwing up ours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: RexBeach

If so, I will support him. But unfortunately, this Prez cannot see why illegal immigration is wrong, is willing to allow more, not less Middle Eastern immigrants in including Muslims from Palestine, including Hamas rejects!. This Prez cannot apparently see that his policies have led to Pub defeat after defeat. So, if he finally decides to strike, it will at least bring back some lost respect by many in the BASE, including myself.


28 posted on 05/16/2007 9:56:37 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
In November the election brings what it brings and then Team Bush has ten weeks free and clear to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is plenty of time and with a Pres. Fred Thompson waiting in the wings could be done with complete coordination with the incoming administration. If there’s a ‘Rat President-elect, well what’s so bad about forcing them to face reality right out of the gate?

Well, let's see. Since Team Bush so magnificently prepared for the aftermath of removing Saddam from power, I suppose it makes sense to assume that dismantling Iran will be just as successful.

29 posted on 05/16/2007 10:07:57 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
And monkeys may fly out of my butt.

Where Democrats really come from.. :)

The idea the "Bush may attack Iran" kind of jumps right over the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war. We should never let congress delegate this responsibility to the executive branch EVER AGAIN, which is exactly what a vote to "authorize the use of force is", a delegation of constitutional authority. It's unconstitutional first and foremost, and, it fosters an environment where cowards can make political gain.

30 posted on 05/16/2007 10:14:08 AM PDT by IamConservative (I could never be a liar; there's too much to remember.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA
Striking as he leaves office would be cowardly.

How so?

31 posted on 05/16/2007 10:18:06 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Since Team Bush so magnificently prepared for the aftermath of removing Saddam from power, I suppose it makes sense to assume that dismantling Iran will be just as successful.

I am unimpressed by those who blankly state that the difficulties we face in Iraq are the fault of poor planning by the Bush Administration. Couple that with a snide, condescending tone and what I hear is leftist Kool-Aid talking.

32 posted on 05/16/2007 10:23:27 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: JackRyanCIA

New meaning to “cut and run”?


34 posted on 05/16/2007 10:25:11 AM PDT by freebird5850
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

Yes, the president does not seem to see what his policies and wild entitlement spending mean. To say nothing of how this White House has sat back and allowed its critics to attack it savagely without fighting back. This is especially true of the war in Iraq. He allows his policies to get shredded by the Democrats, and seldom fights back.

Hit Iran before he leaves office? Fine with me. This whole deal with the mullahs and their lust for a nuclear weapon reminds me of the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, and how it could have been stopped - by the French.

Well, hell, we ain’t the French, by the grace of God.


35 posted on 05/16/2007 10:26:37 AM PDT by RexBeach (Americans never quit. -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bedolido

Bush has said he will not allow Iranian nukes, time will tell. I wonder what Israel is planning.


36 posted on 05/16/2007 10:30:35 AM PDT by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

I agree it’s the Congress who has that power. One thing I’ve wondered- what if nukes are airborne and about to hit us. Should we gather Congress together to declare war? I think it might be a bit difficult, unless Congress has prepared for such possiblities in advance.


37 posted on 05/16/2007 10:37:09 AM PDT by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA
Because someone else has to deal with the fall out as he slinks away. If it’s a democrat president that follows, I would imagine they would do something stupid. He should hit them now.

The 'Rats are trying to lose the war and drag America down and they have the media on their side. Many Republican officeholders have lost their nerve and are looking out for themselves. Many voters are cowed and discouraged by the anti-American propaganda everywhere. The 'Rats showed in November 2006 that they know how to win elections. I think it a reasonable possibility that the President and his advisors might decide that a strike on Iran now would result in a 'Rat President-elect and increased 'Rat majorities in Congress after November 2008. It is the President's sworn duty to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Political reality and the long-term security of the Republic must be taken into account. Doing the "right thing" and letting the chips fall where they may is not the moral or honorable course if it results in forseeable harm to our country. The 'Rats are going to do stupid things regardless. If a 'Rat is elected President in '08, the choice will be 'Rat stupidity and Iranian nuke capabilities intact versus 'Rat stupidity and a weakened Iran. I prefer the latter.

38 posted on 05/16/2007 10:39:53 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: No Blue States
Bush has said he will not allow Iranian nukes, time will tell.

Will it?

"We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea." - President Bush, May 2003 Link

40 posted on 05/16/2007 10:46:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
One thing I’ve wondered- what if nukes are airborne and about to hit us.

Good question. Does the executive have the autonomously authority to defend the US against attack? Defending the US against enemies foreign and domestic is part of the oath of office, but I am not sure where the authority for immediate, autonomous action would come form.

41 posted on 05/16/2007 11:05:26 AM PDT by IamConservative (I could never be a liar; there's too much to remember.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Maybe he meant a deliverable nuke? If it isnt deliverable it cant be used as a weapon. Good point though and thanks for the link. I dont know if this promise has been broken or not, if not he probably doesnt have much time to keep it.

The 2006 North Korean nuclear test was the detonation of a nuclear device conducted on October 9, 2006 by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. North Korea announced its intention to conduct a test on October 3, six days prior.[1] The blast is estimated to have had an explosive force of less than one kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected.[2][3] United States officials suggested the device may have been a nuclear explosive that misfired.[2] An anonymous official at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing told a South Korean newspaper that the explosive output was smaller than expected.[4] Due to the secretive nature of North Korea and small yield of the test, there remains some question as to whether it was an unusually small successful test, or a partially failed "fizzle" or dud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test

42 posted on 05/16/2007 11:06:32 AM PDT by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Really - then who do you propose is responsible for this debacle? Sharpton? It came down to CENTCOM wanting a force of 300,000+ troops that would be required to seal the borders and bring order to the country vs. Rumsfeld's obsession with replicating the light-and-fast operation in Afghanistan. This is about Bush blindly trusting Rumsfeld,who wouldn't listen to his own generals on the ground (Franks, Shinseki, McKiernan, Abizaid, etc.) who warned that the aftermath would become untenable without a standard force. Now we're stuck with BEGGING Congress to please let us send an additional 25,000 troops when they would have already been there in even greater numbers if CENTCOM had its way.

In fact, the plans for administrating the country in the aftermath wasn't assigned to CENTCOM until roughly four months before the invasion. CENTCOM was told from the beginning that the State Dept. was going to draw up the plans, and then Rumsfeld took it back from State and foisted it on CENTCOM as they were immersed in finalizing all the loose ends on the war plans. So Phase IV (the occupation) wasn't even on the drawing board until Winter '02. Once we won the war, Bremer assumed power and proceeded to dismantle the only security apparatus left in the country - the Iraqi army - which, by the way, wanted nothing to do with fighting us on our way to Baghdad. This blunder, alone, put the occupation under an unimaginable burden to restore order among a group of people who have hated each other for centuries.

Once the terrorists started pouring in from Iran and Syria, it became painfully obvious that there was little we could do to stop them, since we didn't have enough troops to patrol the borders. So as Syria lifted a giant middle finger in our direction, and our troops were being told to bide their time in Fallujah, it was painfully obvious that we were in over our heads - not because it was inevitable - but because we weren't prepared in any way whatsoever to deal with the realities of throwing out a despotic government that was the only glue among avowed enemies. Whatever can be said about the dreadful, treasonous behavior of the media, they had no influence on Donald Rumsfeld, who was the architect of this short-sighted mess. We had every opportunity to do this right, and failed. The buck stops with President Bush because his loyalty to Rumsfeld blinded him from the obvious shortcomings of the war plan.

And frankly, deflecting responsibility is more typical of leftist Kool Aid drinkers than simply admitting the truth. Patriotism doesn't make excuses for weakness.

43 posted on 05/16/2007 11:57:16 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
The 'Rats are going to do stupid things regardless. If a 'Rat is elected President in '08, the choice will be 'Rat stupidity and Iranian nuke capabilities intact versus 'Rat stupidity and a weakened Iran. I prefer the latter.

I hate to break it to you, but Bush doesn't intend to act on Iran. The situation is not going to be resolved until an international crisis occurs and an actual international coalition takes it to Syria/Saudi Arabia/Iran. There's no guarantee whatsoever we can destroy all of their facilities. Given our intelligence apparatus, we could be flying blind anyhow. So if these pre-emptive strikes do not, at the same time, decapitate the government, we're just pushing the clock back a few more years since technological know-how can't be "destroyed".

Add to that, we don't have the manpower to help Iran transition to democracy, and we're looking at a pretty toothless warplan. My view of the situation is that it will require anywhere between a half-million to 1,000,000 troops to set the Middle East straight and remove these threats. For the U.S. to go it alone, it would require a military draft. Since that's political suicide, it's going to necessitate renewed commitments from NATO to provide manpower. And that's not going to happen until Iran has a nuclear weapon aimed at Rome. I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul...

44 posted on 05/16/2007 12:14:11 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
I hate to break it to you, but Bush doesn't intend to act on Iran.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and knowing the future.

45 posted on 05/16/2007 12:57:23 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson