Posted on 01/13/2006 8:00:58 AM PST by TheDon
Iran is threatening to block short-notice U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities if the United States and its allies push for U.N. sanctions against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I agree. Then again, I have never understood why we have anything to do with those (UN) thugs.
Bull.
Time will tell.
A silver lining...
WHAT'S TO INSPECT? WE WANT TO KNOW IF THE PLAN IS MISSILE DEVELOPMENT? THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THAT PUBLICALLY. MOREOVER,WE ALREADY KNEW THAT THE ONLY COUNTRIES THAT DEVELOP NUCLEAR ENERGY, AT GREAT COST, ARE THOSE WITH INSUFFICIENT CONVENTIONAL ENERGY.
Saddam is probably laughing his smelly arse off over this.
He knows that if he did not pay off the frogs, krauts, and russkies that iran would be NOTHING right now as the UN would have jointly cleaned his house and put the fear in all nations around him. But since the EU decided to side with him, in a sense, noone will ever take a UNSC threat seriously again and he believes that the USA and UK are too weak politically to do anything. The UK may actually be. But W is an unpredictable (to most) wildcard and Israel is the spanner in the works as it were.
Or maybe they have learned a lesson from the Iraq experience:
Inflict approximately 2,000 U.S. casualties and the American liberal news media and the Democrats will declare that the U.S. has lost the war.
And the sky is falling. Technology today is very different from August 5th, 1945.
Bingo. We have a winner. Exactly. Iran is calculating that after Iraq the U.S. is spent and neutered and they know the U.N. won't do anything.
We can not afford to wait and then wake up to the horror so unspeakable that it borders on the unreal.
I disagree with that. We do not *HAVE* to be in Iraq right now. We are choosing to nation build, something Bush promised not to do iirc.
If we had to go to war with Iran, we would forget about nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iranian neighbors by the way, and go kick their ass.
Not to mention that the new Iraqi Army would probably be pleased to help us out.
Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan before those nations can manage their own internal security has a significant downside for those nations and ours. That said, those interests can be subordinated to an attack Iran. And I think, if push comes to shove, Iran should be attacked at the expense of security in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Considerations in the equation of a US military strike against Iran are many; i.e. 2006 US election, domestic support, foreign support, Iraq, Afghanistan, the perception of US military might and capability abroad, the need for a military draft, placing the USA on more of a war time footing. Some very tough decisions are being made at this time.
Sadly, I've been of that mind for some time. I have little faith this will ultimately end in anything less than a greater catastrophe than most are imagining.
I truly hope I'm wrong.
One of the things Bush has done very well is make tough choices without equivocation. If it was presented to him as "Iraq and Afghanistan will be stable but Iran will be nuclear", which may well be the case, I have no doubts what he would do.
A nuclear Iran is unacceptable. They are a dangerous combination of spiteful and crazy.
"If the US military/domestic situation does not allow the secondary objective to be pursued, then we may pursue the course you propose. But it will only delay the accomplishment of the secondary objective, which must still be accomplished"
I have to agree with you. I was assuming the primary objective is so critical, we would jettison the secondary one to achieve it--without impacting our mission in Iraq.
I would love to see Iran return to a modern, pro-western state, only this time, a republic.
The answer to Adjminidinijad (or whatever) is "we place no great priority on inspections.....but perhaps you should".
"Either way....you will not develop a nuclear weapon...we do not have to inspect to assure that outcome. Take your pick".
I would love to see Condi state it in those terms in a UN address.
Conventional thinking says we would fight them with a conventional war....Al la Iraq.
Conventional thinking is often wrong and thinking Bush will approach conflict with Iran conventionally is probably wrong. Thinking Israel would approach an attack on Iran conventionally is, in my opinion, folly!
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.