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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 last

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