Yes Iran is governed by a bunch of extremists. What does that have to do with the intelligence of the American administration, or the probability that attacking Iran might start a larger war.

We are at the end-times mode.

I agree that they're not stupid. However, they are out of touch with reality, blinded by ideology, and convinced of their invincibility.



It solves the problem of Bush's declining popularity by allowing him to adopt the "avenging cowboy" pose that seems to endear him to so many. The neocons also believe that it will bring regime change in Iran and bring Iran under some degree of US control. I agree with you that it will not solve any real geopolitical problems.



They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Also, I don't think that they care so much about uranium, although that is the concern that they present to the public, who don't know the difference between one kind of enrichment and another.

However, they do care a great deal about petroleum.

Russia to Start Nuclear Fuel Supplies to Iran in 2005


Things are definitely going to get tense if the US do decide to carry out attacks, I wonder if they feel that it will be worth it... Either way I think they are more worried about the € oil bourse than the nuclear reactors, so perhaps forcing a regime change through other means is more likely? They are already cooperating with the MEK, (Mujahedeen-e Khalq, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group. Unlike the rest of the world, the US are apparently allowed to cooperate with terrorists... ), but I don't know if they are capable to start any kind of uprising within the country. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who knows more about that.

A war is just not gonna happen, at least not this year, and I also think not the next one. The US just doesn't have the ressources. And we would have seen a lot more "diplomatic" build-up and preparation by now.

Just found this article in WorldNetDaily, a conservative news site. I'm not sure what their credibility is, so take it with a grain of salt:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=44107

I keep hearing the rumours that this attack would happen in June, but I haven't really seen any build-up by the administration to gain the public's support for this. I think if it does happen, it will be a swift attack that will take us all by surprise.

I found this particularly disturbing:


And this:

Worldnetdaily is a paleo-conservative news site. They don't like Bush or the left.

Nevertheless, they are hateful conservatives.

Exactly how are they hateful? Do you have a credible proof to back up exactly how they are hateful specifically?

IRAN USES HIZBULLAH TO QUELL UNREST



Iran persues its nuclear rights



The divide is wide at UN nonproliferation talks

" Iran says to resume enrichment-related work in days
09 May 2005 18:44:03 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds U.S. State Department comment)

By Paul Hughes

TEHRAN, May 9 (Reuters) - Iran said on Monday it would resume uranium enrichment-related activities within days, a move the United States and the European Union have warned would see its nuclear case escalated to the U.N. Security Council.

"We will lift the first stage of our suspension, which is that of our UCF (Uranium Conversion Facility) project in Isfahan, in the next few days," Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, told a university conference, the official IRNA news agency reported. "

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HUG959221.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

" AFX News Limited
US warns Iran of 'consequences' if it pursues uranium enrichment
05.09.2005, 09:18 PM

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The United States warned Iran that a resumption of its suspended nuclear fuel activities would have 'consequences' for the Islamic Republic, which it suspects of working toward an atomic bomb.

But acting State Department spokesman Tom Casey did not specify what steps the US and its European allies might take if Iran broke an agreement struck last year during negotiations on its nuclear program. "

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/20 ... 12112.html

(Note: Is it pure coincidence that this all happens while there is also trouble with North Korea? Quite good timing for that coincidence...)

I used to think Scott Ritter was off-base when he predicted a U.S. strike against Iran in June 2005 back in February. Then, the Russians and Iran finally signed their deal for the Russians to ship uranium to Iran (March 2005) and now, Iran announces it is going to begin enriching its uranium, it gives Ritter more credibility. Plus, Seymore Hersch also wrote an extensive article predicting a military strike on Iran for the summer of 2005. Don't think that bc we are in debt and at war in Iraq that the administration views that as an impediment. Keep in mind that this is the New American Century, and the PNAC "white papers" coined Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the three leading threats to America in this, the New American Century. My risk assessment is very high, and that includes some type of action against both Iran and North Korea. If America is going to strike, it will do it before the next presidential election, while the Neocons still control the white house, and while America is still the dominant military force (it will not wait for China, Russia or any combination to be able to threaten American military preeminence).

Notice that America signed a deal today with Pakistan selling her missiles. America is using Pakistan as a balance to India of the BRIC alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China).

Well we all can only guess so far, but my guess is strongly against an attack on Iran, let alone North Korea. North Korea won't happen, as I said in the other thread. Iran might, but certainly not this year.

Why? Did you read the report about last nights "big offensive / raid" against the Iraqi resistance at the Iraqi-Syrian border? With only a 1000 troops? Sure, the Iraqi resistance might have had not even half that number of troops, but considering the US record of attacking only with overwhelming superiority this small number of troops seems odd. And they also mentioned that sailors where under those troops - now I frankly don't know if there are any ships along the Iraqi-Syrian border, but my guess is rather that they where "abused" to do the "grunts" work. We have many other reports of simple untrained maintenance staff doing infantry-work. What I wanna say is: The US just doesn't have the troops and there are no signs of really big redeployments from other areas of the world. And surely, if they want to attack Iran, I think it's clear that they have to do it right. Any half-hearted attack might bring desaster in form of brutal retaliation (oil, iraqi shiites, missiles).
You just can't hide a big buildup before a big attack, we would have heard it by now.
Regarding Hersh and Ritter I just think they where used by controlled Pentagon leaks to transport the hollow threats to the Iranians. We have a saying: Dogs that bark don't bite.

That "record" ended when we invaded Iraq. Most of the military generals requested three times as many troops to launch the Iraq invasion in order to get it done "the right way", but Rumsfeld cut the number down drastically, and the whole operation became botched because of it.

Don't expect any military engagement spearheaded by the PNAC to make any sense on actual strategic or tactical grounds.

I disagree that troops are need for either Iran or North Korea. Reading the PNAC papers, and reading the conservative papers put out in February of this year, the goal is simply to eliminate the economic, political and military influence of Iran and North Korea, that is far different than trying to occupy. The conservative/neocon think tanks believe, and probably correctly so, that airstrikes can eliminate 85% of the military capability of Iran. Missiles can completely wipe out their economic infrastructure. They can be bombed back into the stone age. The US is actively pursuing Nuclear bunker busters, may already have them, and would certainly use them if they do have them. We're not trying to occupy anything. Its playing a big game, we are only eliminating them as a threat.

Militarily, there are two ways to "secure" an objective. You can secure an object "by fire" or "by force." Secuing "by fire" means you do not occupy, you simply eliminate an offensive response from the terrain. Securing by force is physical occupation. Both North Korea and Iran can be secured "by fire."

Are the Neocons threatened by world calamity? You would have to be kidding to think so. It only increases their power in Washington, invoking dormant provisions of the Patriot Act, rationing, martial law, a draft if need be. War is not in our best interest, but it is in big brothers. Remember, to big brother, "peace is war."

For what its worth, a German General in WWII wrote that "war is chaos, and the American army practices chaos on a daily basis." Don't expect anything rational coming from the U.S. end. Think in terms of power plays and the limited time they have to make these power plays.