IRAN-Deja vu all over again?

by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Sarah Palin Endorses the 'Bomb Iran' Plan

    Sarah Palin entered the fray yesterday. In a high-profile interview yesterday with Chris Wallace, she spontaneously brought up the topic of Obama’s winning a second term by bombing Iran:

    WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

    PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played—and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day - say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but - that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today I do not think Obama would be re-elected. But three years from now, things could change if — on the national security front . . .

    WALLACE: But you’re not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card?

    PALIN: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change. If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would, perhaps, shift their thinking a little bit and decide, “Well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he’s—than he is today,” and there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years.

    (Go to about the 3-minute mark on this video.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRhptO6FqI

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI5NzBmYThkM2M5MDI4NThiMDQwNGU1NmRkMzMxMDE=

  • llbh
    llbh

    Thanks LWT I saw that earlier today, I think I may well be proved wrong- hope not. That being the case, the Iranian regime is absolutely stupid and I completely misjudged them. This is worrying indeed.

    I was going to post the article from The Independent which says the same thing

    I still think that Iranian regime will fail, and this is a huge mistake on their part.

    Next what to do? Harsh sanctions, then wait and see, it takes time to develop weapons.

    Oh and BTW Happy Guy in case you had not noticed, if you are in The US, as LWT is, I am at least 5 hours different to you, and I was in bed when he posted this.

    I am not ashamed to admit when I am wrong, as seems to be the case here.

    David

    Davis

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Robert Wright, writing in the NY Times. . .

    Listen to the Iranian People

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/thursday-promises-to-be-anothe/?hp

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Bombs Away

    The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. . . .

    Some analysts argue that we shouldn’t worry about proliferation in Iran because nuclear deterrence will work, much like it worked during the Cold War. But from Washington’s point of view, this is precisely the problem; it is more often than not the United States that will be deterred. Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open.

    China and Russia, on the other hand, lack the ability to project power in the region. China has recently been recognized as an economic superpower, but its military is still relatively weak. Indeed, military analysts doubt that China could successfully invade Taiwan, a small island roughly 100 miles off China’s coast. Major military operations in the Middle East, therefore, will be out of the question for decades to come. Similarly, Russia lacks a meaningful ability to project power in the region. The Soviet Union was a global superpower, but its military might collapsed along with the Iron Curtain. Russia’s clumsy invasion of Georgia in the summer of 2008 only served to reveal the limits of its military power. In fact, the state of Moscow’s conventional military has sunk so low that Russia’s most recent national security strategy relies heavily on nuclearforces simply to achieve basic defense goals.

    An Iranian bomb, then, won’t disadvantage China or Russia. In fact, it might even help them. Neither country has hidden its desire to hem in America’s unilateral ability to project power, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly mean a more constrained U.S. military in the Middle East. Indeed, at times during the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing and Moscow aided Tehran with important aspects of its nuclear program. While we don’t have detailed information on the motives behind the assistance, we do know that governments don’t export sensitive nuclear technologies for economic reasons alone. Rather, as I show in my forthcoming book, they generally do so in an attempt to hinder their enemies. For example, France helped Israel acquire the bomb in the late 1950s and early 1960s in order to balance against Nasser’s Egypt, and China provided nuclear aid to Pakistan in the 1980s to impose strategic costs on its longtime rival India.It is likely that China and Russia’s nuclear assistance to Iran waspartly intended as a counterweight to American power in the Middle East. Although these countries no longer actively aid Iran’s nuclear program, they may still secretly welcome its development.

    If any country fails to understand the strategic consequences of a nuclear Iran, then, it is not Russia or China, but the United States. Disproportionately threatened by proliferation, American officials will struggle to convince others to join their fight against the spread of nuclear weapons. They must prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or, if they cannot do that, they must stop Tehran’s nuclear program themselves.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/bombs-away

  • leavingwt
  • HappyGuy
    HappyGuy

    Sanctions do not now and have never worked to deter a ruthless totalitarian regime. Even if they did work the current US administration lacks the resolve to use the only sanction that might have a chance and that is the total blockade of the refineries that Iran depends upon for its gasoline. This could easily be accomplished and the Iranian economy would collapse. But, of course Mr. Hugalot Obama is not going to propose any such sanction.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Clinton: 'Iran is Moving Toward a Military Dictatorship'

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday Iran is sliding into a military dictatorship, a new assessment suggesting a rockier road ahead for U.S.-led efforts to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    As the first high-level Obama administration official to make such an accusation, Clinton was reflecting an ever-dimming outlook for persuading Iran to negotiate limits on its nuclear program, which it has insisted is intended only for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and others – including the two Gulf countries Clinton visited Sunday and Monday – believe Iran is headed for a nuclear bomb capability.

    Clinton also was revealing the logic of the administration's plan to target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a new round of international sanctions intended to compel Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions before it increases the likelihood of a military clash.

    . . .

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/clinton-iran-military-dictatorship_n_462375.html

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Ahmadinejad not taking Clinton comments "seriously"

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed on Tuesday U.S. accusations that Iran was moving toward a military dictatorship, saying the U.S. military budget was 80 times larger than that of the Islamic Republic.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the United States believed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were driving the country towards military dictatorship and should be targeted in any new U.N. sanctions.

    "We don't take her comments seriously," Ahmadinejad told a televised news conference, adding that the entire Iranian population of more than 70 million were protecting Iran's independence and its Islamic revolution.

    He said the United States had some 300,000 troops stationed in the Middle East and was involved in wars in the region.

    "These comments she (Clinton) is making are not wise," Ahmadinejad added.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSDAH64738820100216?type=hotStocksNews

    Clinton Warns of Mideast Nuclear Arms Race

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met Tuesday with female college students in Jiddah, winning a more cordial reception than did the last senior U.S. official to visit.

    Clinton's addressed what she called a growing threat that Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon and trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, listing a number of recent actions by Tehran that she said violated the nation's obligation not to pursue nuclear weapons.

    . . .

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021600872.html?hpid=topnews

  • llbh
    llbh

    And where was Clinton touring? The Mmiddle East, which has more than its fair share of military backed Oligarchies/dictatorships. And which Middle Eastern nation has nuclear capability, and has not disguised its willingness to use it - Israel?

    America has real influence and could use it, Obama has failed so to do in any meaningful way.

    When talking about whether sanctions can work look at Libya and South Africa as examples where they had a real impact in transforming the way these regimes dealt with the outside world. Sanctions were instrumental in transforming these regimes internally too. Iran even now does not produce enough petrol, so yes they can work- given time. Time may also strengthen the opposition.

    David

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    When talking about whether sanctions can work look at Libya and South Africa as examples where they had a real impact in transforming the way these regimes dealt with the outside world. Sanctions were instrumental in transforming these regimes internally too. Iran even now does not produce enough petrol, so yes they can work- given time. Time may also strengthen the opposition.

    Real sanctions an a naval blockade of all imported gasoline would strangle them, right?

    Regarding Libya, I was thinking that they reacted to the Iraqi invasion. Is that too simplistic?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit