Iran Under Pressure

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The U.S. is increasing the naval build up around Iran with fresh accusations of Iranian involvement in militant Shia groups within Iraq.
It seems like the U.S. isn't buying Iran's argument that the nuclear research plants within the country are for peaceful purposes.
My guess is that if Obama gets into office on the Democrat behalf, then Israel will probably target the facilities by itself and the U.S. will have to choose how to take things from there.
If Hilary gets in, I figure the U.S. will attack the facilities with no involvement from Israel.
Whichever way it is, unless Iran ceases its activity, I doubt military conflict can be avoided and it will be quite a nasty showdown.
There will definitely be no invasion of Iran but it does seem as if air strikes are looming.

Here is what's weird: The Brits are now moving out of Basra pretty sharpish and there's talk of a rift. The U.K. wanted to heed the recent report of the Iraq Study Group but Bush has chosen to put that advice on hold.
The question is, why are the Brits moving out of Basra? Could it be Blair is already well aware there is a plan to carry out air strikes against Iran and this plan possibly proved too much for Blair to sell to the elctorate over here?
You don't have to a rocket scientist to deduct that something seems to be going on.
Recently it was announced there is indeed a plan to strike Iran that seems to go way beyond simply targeting the suspect nuclear facilities. The said plan includes strikes against Iran's entire military capacity. The U.S. possibly fears that unless it stops Iran going nuclear, there could be an even more catastrophic conflict this time involving Israel.
By the same token it looks as if Iran won't cease its plans for uranium enrichment.

It may be that the force reduction has something to do with Prince Harry's insistence on going to Iraq. It's possible, but we can't know for sure. U.K. heeding the Iraq Group report? Not likely. I'll bet that if going gets tough the Brits will be back in there in no time.

The fact remains that the war is over and it was won decisively, but dealing with the criminal element has been difficult. Yes, terrorists are not soldiers fighting for Iraq, they're criminals from the region doing their best to disrupt the building of Iraqi democracy. The best job they've done so far is to create an illusion of mayhem with great help from the western media. Their (the terrorists') war is not a conventional one, it is a media war. Their goal is not to kill people, but to create images for gullible westerners to eat up. They're succeeding quite handily with the help of their media patsies in the US and elsewhere. The moment we stop paying attention to them, they're powerless.

Sorry for going off on a tangent. :)

Jeebus! Turn off the Faux News Network sometime and read a newspaper.

The fact remains that the war is over and it was won decisively, but dealing with the criminal element has been difficult.
The war does not end after the first battle and some delusional president flys onto an aircraft carrier and announces mission accomplished. It ends when it ends. And the U.S. has been steadily losing for nearly four years. These neocons sounds like the same sorry lot who cannot bring themselves to admit the U.S. lost Vietnam.

Yes, terrorists are not soldiers fighting for Iraq, they're criminals from the region doing their best to disrupt the building of Iraqi democracy.
Sorry, but I think even Cheney is no longer trying to blame the insurgency on "terrorists". You need to get a fresh set of talking points. The number of outsiders involved in the insurgency has remained steady at an insignificant percentage of the total. Capture rates for outsiders is running about 2%.

The best job they've done so far is to create an illusion of mayhem with great help from the western media. Their (the terrorists') war is not a conventional one, it is a media war. Their goal is not to kill people, but to create images for gullible westerners to eat up.
By the Iraqi government's own estimates, the war has killed more than 150,000 Iraqis. Why don't you try telling their relatives that its an illusion of mayhem. The Iraqi society has disintigrated. Saddam killed 300K people in security actions over a a few decades. Bush is going to accomplish the same in one sixth the time.

They're succeeding quite handily with the help of their media patsies in the US and elsewhere.
Yeah, it's the damned media and their stooges. It's not like reality has anything to do with it.

The moment we stop paying attention to them, they're powerless.
Hardly. The "terrorists" are terrorists because they have very real issues that have not been able to be resolved by any other means. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the problems go away.

The question is, why are the Brits moving out of Basra? Could it be Blair is already well aware there is a plan to carry out air strikes against Iran and this plan possibly proved too much for Blair to sell to the elctorate over here?
You don't have to a rocket scientist to deduct that something seems to be going on.

It's hard to figure out what is going on with a potential U.S. attack on Iran. I think Bush planned on doing it and would really like to before he leaves office, but the Iraq debacle has made things very difficult.

I expect that in the next few months, maybe even next month, we'll see the U.S. Congress pass a Boland Amendment-like law that will forbid an attack on Iran without congressional approval. Congress leaders are already saying that Bush currently does not have authority.

Administration and pentagon officials have repeatedly denied plans to attack Iran, but some of the military ones have been less than believable. I think Republicans are terrified that Bush will sweep the U.S. into a maelstrom and the U.S. voters will take it out on them during the next election. There does not seem to be much support for attacking Iran.

Then there is the question of what bombing would accomplish. Iran has not ratified the additional protocol of the NPT, so information about manufacturing facilities is sketchy. The knowledge is what is important. That is why the the Western powers are so adamant about Iran stopping their centrifuge work. They don't want Iran to work out the bugs and issues, change their designs, whatever is needed to make a smoothly operating cascade. It might already be too late. Any day Iran could announce it will start installing 3000 centrifuges, which would indicate that it has mastered the technology necessary for industiral scale enrichment.

If Iran responded to an attack by using the Shia in Iraq to fight a proxy war against the U.S. then the U.S. casualties would skyrocket. Right now U.S. casualties are almost completely caused by the Sunni. There are three times as many Shia as Sunni, so potentially the american losses could quadruple. And that is only considering the Shia use the same weapons as the Sunni. If the Iranians were to give surface to air missiles, anti tank weapons, and large numbers of professionally manufactured shaped IEDs, the losses should be even greater. Politically the U.S. cannot deal with four to five hundred troop deaths a month.

Here is what's weird: The Brits are now moving out of Basra pretty sharpish and there's talk of a rift. The U.K. wanted to heed the recent report of the Iraq Study Group but Bush has chosen to put that advice on hold.
The question is, why are the Brits moving out of Basra? Could it be Blair is already well aware there is a plan to carry out air strikes against Iran and this plan possibly proved too much for Blair to sell to the elctorate over here?
You don't have to a rocket scientist to deduct that something seems to be going on.
Recently it was announced there is indeed a plan to strike Iran that seems to go way beyond simply targeting the suspect nuclear facilities. The said plan includes strikes against Iran's entire military capacity. The U.S. possibly fears that unless it stops Iran going nuclear, there could be an even more catastrophic conflict this time involving Israel.
By the same token it looks as if Iran won't cease its plans for uranium enrichment.


You're partly correct.

Britain isn't the only country pulling it's troops out of Iraq - Denmark, Italy and a number of other countries are removing their troops from Iraq in March.
And make sure to note the words of your hero, Vladimir Putin, at the recent conference in Germany.

You need to look at what happened in Iraq from an Iranian viewpoint, in order to understand what is happening in Iran now.

A series of lies and fabricated evidence was put forward to suggest that Iraq
was behind 9/11, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin and that Iraq had WMD, could fire a WMD within 45 mins etc.
Based on those lies, Iraq was invaded by the USA - USA being Iran's greatest enemy.

The USA has been in a pitched battle in Iraq since March 2003 - almost four years to the day.
Naturally, Iran is going to be nervous because it's greatest enemy is in the country next to it (Iraq).
Naturally, Iran will want defend itself and is entitled to defend itself from attack.
So it's entirely reasonable for Iran to seek whatever means is possible in order to defend itself.

If your country's greatest enemy was in a neighbouring country - wouldn't you want your goverment to do whatever is necessary to defend your country?

It's hard to figure out what is going on with a potential U.S. attack on Iran. I think Bush planned on doing it and would really like to before he leaves office, but the Iraq debacle has made things very difficult.

I expect that in the next few months, maybe even next month, we'll see the U.S. Congress pass a Boland Amendment-like law that will forbid an attack on Iran without congressional approval. Congress leaders are already saying that Bush currently does not have authority.

Administration and pentagon officials have repeatedly denied plans to attack Iran, but some of the military ones have been less than believable. I think Republicans are terrified that Bush will sweep the U.S. into a maelstrom and the U.S. voters will take it out on them during the next election. There does not seem to be much support for attacking Iran.

Then there is the question of what bombing would accomplish. Iran has not ratified the additional protocol of the NPT, so information about manufacturing facilities is sketchy. The knowledge is what is important. That is why the the Western powers are so adamant about Iran stopping their centrifuge work. They don't want Iran to work out the bugs and issues, change their designs, whatever is needed to make a smoothly operating cascade. It might already be too late. Any day Iran could announce it will start installing 3000 centrifuges, which would indicate that it has mastered the technology necessary for industiral scale enrichment.

If Iran responded to an attack by using the Shia in Iraq to fight a proxy war against the U.S. then the U.S. casualties would skyrocket. Right now U.S. casualties are almost completely caused by the Sunni. There are three times as many Shia as Sunni, so potentially the american losses could quadruple. And that is only considering the Shia use the same weapons as the Sunni. If the Iranians were to give surface to air missiles, anti tank weapons, and large numbers of professionally manufactured shaped IEDs, the losses should be even greater. Politically the U.S. cannot deal with four to five hundred troop deaths a month.


Agreed.
If there was an attack on Iran - you can be sure that the Shia in Iraq would
be radicalised.
As it stands, the majority of the Iraqi Shia have not become involved in the ongoing carnage in Iraq.
If the Iraqi Shia did become involved, then casualty levels would be far greater in Iraq.

And judging by the way the presidential candidates are talking, they know Iraq is practically the central issue for the 2008 election.
I don't see the US wanting to compound their existing problems - they're in enough strife as it is in Iraq.

BD - could Bush do a solo run and declare war without the approval of Congress??

I see the Iranian perspective quite clearly. Had Bush had total success in Iraq, Iran certainly would have been next on the hit list. Or so it seemed.
There has been a series of knock on effects after Iraq. The war clearly led to a more reactionary regime in Iran. This probably wouldn't have happened without the Iraq war but it's too late to turn back the clock.
What people fail to realise is a heck of a lot can happen outside the political process in the U.S. and the Obama movement. All Bush is looking for is one major incident and one bad move by Iran to retaliate via air power. Bush knows if he can seemingly indicate some direct aggressive move by Iran against U.S. forces, his poll ratings will soar again if he hits out at Iran.
My feeling is this is too much of a powder keg waiting to kick off. Just one small incident and we could see a big escalation.
Iran's options, of course, could include flooding troops into Iraq if its nuclear facilities and airports are bombed by U.S. forces.
I also think Blair is aware it's going to happen sometime soon.

You're partly correct.

Britain isn't the only country pulling it's troops out of Iraq - Denmark, Italy and a number of other countries are removing their troops from Iraq in March.
And make sure to note the words of your hero, Vladimir Putin, at the recent conference in Germany.

You need to look at what happened in Iraq from an Iranian viewpoint, in order to understand what is happening in Iran now.

A series of lies and fabricated evidence was put forward to suggest that Iraq
was behind 9/11, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Ladin and that Iraq had WMD, could fire a WMD within 45 mins etc.
Based on those lies, Iraq was invaded by the USA - USA being Iran's greatest enemy.

The USA has been in a pitched battle in Iraq since March 2003 - almost four years to the day.
Naturally, Iran is going to be nervous because it's greatest enemy is in the country next to it (Iraq).
Naturally, Iran will want defend itself and is entitled to defend itself from attack.
So it's entirely reasonable for Iran to seek whatever means is possible in order to defend itself.

If your country's greatest enemy was in a neighbouring country - wouldn't you want your goverment to do whatever is necessary to defend your country?

"BD - could Bush do a solo run and declare war without the approval of Congress??"

Look at the history of wars. So many times some incident beats the politicians or factions to the punch. Take Cuba. Shooting down an American plane over the island almost triggered WW3 but fortunately Kennedy and Krushchev were able to cool things down and negotiate.
Today we have less rational individuals in power. Both Bush and the Iranian leader both see God as very much on their particular side.
Ask yourself what the American public will do if they truly believe Iran has launched some kind of attack? I think Bush could recover his ratings if such a situation developed and maybe Bush knows it too.
Also the military tends to go over politicians heads anyway.
We can only hope Iran disarms and Bush simply leaves Iraq to sort out its own affairs.

Agreed.
If there was an attack on Iran - you can be sure that the Shia in Iraq would
be radicalised.
As it stands, the majority of the Iraqi Shia have not become involved in the ongoing carnage in Iraq.
If the Iraqi Shia did become involved, then casualty levels would be far greater in Iraq.

And judging by the way the presidential candidates are talking, they know Iraq is practically the central issue for the 2008 election.
I don't see the US wanting to compound their existing problems - they're in enough strife as it is in Iraq.

BD - could Bush do a solo run and declare war without the approval of Congress??

I see the Iranian perspective quite clearly. Had Bush had total success in Iraq, Iran certainly would have been next on the hit list. Or so it seemed.
There has been a series of knock on effects after Iraq. The war clearly led to a more reactionary regime in Iran. This probably wouldn't have happened without the Iraq war but it's too late to turn back the clock.
What people fail to realise is a heck of a lot can happen outside the political process in the U.S. and the Obama movement. All Bush is looking for is one major incident and one bad move by Iran to retaliate via air power. Bush knows if he can seemingly indicate some direct aggressive move by Iran against U.S. forces, his poll ratings will soar again if he hits out at Iran.
.

Bush is a lame duck president.
His Iraq strategy has failed, militarily and politically.
Militarily, he can't get out of Iraq, even if he wanted to get out of Iraq, he can't.

Politically, his Iraq strategy cost his party the midterm elections in the USA.
I would argue that his Iraq strategy is also a failure in economic terms - for the USA.
Look at it's spiralling federal deficit for example.
So Bush is now a lame duck.

The worry for the Republicans is that they will lose the 2008 election.
By drawing the US in to another unwinnable conflict, Bush would destroy whatever chance the Republican candidates might have in the 08 election.
It would make the Republican party unelectable.

I do agree with you that the situation in the Middle East is a lot more dangerous now than it was pre-March 2003.
But then again, those who opposed the runup to the war said that the situation would become more, not less, dangerous, if the Iraq invasion went ahead.

Jeebus! Turn off the Faux News Network sometime and read a newspaper.


The war does not end after the first battle and some delusional president flys onto an aircraft carrier and announces mission accomplished. It ends when it ends. And the U.S. has been steadily losing for nearly four years. These neocons sounds like the same sorry lot who cannot bring themselves to admit the U.S. lost Vietnam.


Sorry, but I think even Cheney is no longer trying to blame the insurgency on "terrorists". You need to get a fresh set of talking points. The number of outsiders involved in the insurgency has remained steady at an insignificant percentage of the total. Capture rates for outsiders is running about 2%.


By the Iraqi government's own estimates, the war has killed more than 150,000 Iraqis. Why don't you try telling their relatives that its an illusion of mayhem. The Iraqi society has disintigrated. Saddam killed 300K people in security actions over a a few decades. Bush is going to accomplish the same in one sixth the time.


Yeah, it's the damned media and their stooges. It's not like reality has anything to do with it.


Hardly. The "terrorists" are terrorists because they have very real issues that have not been able to be resolved by any other means. Sticking your head in the sand does not make the problems go away.So you're taking the side of terrorists now? They're the one's killing Iraqis, even BBC & CNN admit as much. What "newspaper" are you reading?

The Iraq war was to dethrone Saddam Hussain because of allegations that he may have weapons of mass destruction. Are you disputing that it happenned? Wouldn't leaving Iraq now be equivalent to sticking one's head in the sand in hopes that the problem goes away?

Talking points? Dude, you define what "talking points" is: Neocons? Faux News Network? :rolleyes:

"BD - could Bush do a solo run and declare war without the approval of Congress??"


I'll await BD's input as to whether or not Bush can declare war without congressional approval.



Today we have less rational individuals in power. Both Bush and the Iranian leader both see God as very much on their particular side.


I would suggest that the current situation is not as serious as you suggest.
Compared to the era of the USA/USSR having weapons pointed at each other, this current time is not as dangerous in my opinion.



"
Ask yourself what the American public will do if they truly believe Iran has launched some kind of attack?

You're falling in to the 2002/2003 trap - in the runup to Iraq.
Who is going to believe Bush if he said that Iran had WMD?
His record on telling the truth about who poses a threat, isn't very good is it?




We can only hope Iran disarms and Bush simply leaves Iraq to sort out its own affairs.

We don't know if Iran has any arms to disarm.
You're falling in to the trap again.
You're assuming that Iran has WMD.
On what basis do you make that assumption?

And Bush can't leave Iraq.
The country is in turmoil - he can't leave it even if he wanted to, he can't.

So you're taking the side of terrorists now?

BD, never stated that he was taking the side of the "terrorists".



The Iraq war was to dethrone Saddam Hussain because of allegations that he may have weapons of mass destruction. Are you disputing that it happenned? Wouldn't leaving Iraq now be equivalent to sticking one's head in the sand in hopes that the problem goes away?

Talking points? Dude, you define what "talking points" is: Neocons? Faux News Network? :rolleyes:

Bush can't leave Iraq - even if he wanted to.

BD - could Bush do a solo run and declare war without the approval of Congress??
That's why I mentioned the Boland Amendment. That was a law passed that forbade support of the Nicaraguan contras. The Reagan administration did an end run around the law by selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the contras. Various people were prosecuted and there was talk of impeaching Reagan but they ran into a plausible denial problem. Recently there have been rumblings of passing a similar law to prevent an attack on Iran without additional congressional approval. This could take the form of restricting the expenditure of funds for planning an other functions that would be necessary for an attack.

As it stands right now, Bush could wake up tomorrow and order the military to bomb Iran. This is an issue that has never been resolved in the American system. There is a law called the War Powers Act, which is supposed to force the president to consult with Congress before military action; but no president has ever conceeded that it is valid and no Congress has ever pushed the issue by threatening consequences.

I would argue that his Iraq strategy is also a failure in economic terms - for the USA.
Look at it's spiralling federal deficit for example.
That is a good point. It is also the most ironic thing about the rise of the neocons. They have pushed the idea that America is an empire and we should unabashedly use the power, but they were not able to put their ideas into practice until that power was waning. And their irresponsible use of it has decreased America's power further, undermining the very basis of their philosophy.

It's impossible to say what the probability is, but there is a very real possibility of the dollar collapsing. It is a good thing the Chinese are more interested in continued industrial development than return on or safety of their investments.

Clinton and Bush have presided over an immense scale robbery of the middle class. It's like Willie Sutten explaining why he robbed banks. "That's where the money is." Right on the heels of a fraud fueled stock bubble that bled the people's 401K plans dry, a housing bubble inflates to steal the prols' last asset, their housing equity. You would almost think it was planned in a back room.

Even if the people cannot keep their financial houses in order, you would hope the government could so it can help out or at least mitigate the pain. Bush has destroyed any hope of that. Not only is 8+ billion dollars a month being spent, there are veterans' costs that will continue to be paid out for decades. The total cost will be staggering.

For the direct costs we could fund the construction of 50 cookie cutter nuclear power plants per year. Two years would then double the number of plants in the U.S. and up the U.S. the portion of electricty generated by nuclear means to 40% of the total. For a fraction of what we will end up spending for the Iraq war we could dramaticly reduce the strategic importance of the Middle East.

I think we all know Iran is chasing a nuclear bomb whereas we all knew Iraq never had those WMD.
You could argue Iran has every reason to try and get an atomic bomb, given the fact they feel threatened and I suppose that would be logical.
The fact remains, though, what happens if the U.S. chooses not to intervene at all (a possibility)?
That will almost certainly mean Israel going it alone. Rightly or wrongly the Israelis feel the risk of a nuclear Iran is too great to appease.
The U.S. has a tricky situation on its hands.

I'll await BD's input as to whether or not Bush can declare war without congressional approval.




I would suggest that the current situation is not as serious as you suggest.
Compared to the era of the USA/USSR having weapons pointed at each other, this current time is not as dangerous in my opinion.





You're falling in to the 2002/2003 trap - in the runup to Iraq.
Who is going to believe Bush if he said that Iran had WMD?
His record on telling the truth about who poses a threat, isn't very good is it?





We don't know if Iran has any arms to disarm.
You're falling in to the trap again.
You're assuming that Iran has WMD.
On what basis do you make that assumption?

And Bush can't leave Iraq.
The country is in turmoil - he can't leave it even if he wanted to, he can't.

I think we all know Iran is chasing a nuclear bomb whereas we all knew Iraq never had those WMD.


What?
"we all know Iran is chasing a nuclear bomb"

On what basis do we all know that Iran is chasing a nuclea bomb?
Todays newspapers report - as was the case in Iraq in 2002/2003 - that there is no evidence that Iran is developing military WMD.

And "we all knew Iraq never had those WMD"
If we all knew that Iraq had no WMD - then why the hell did your country and the USA invade Iraq?
And why, if "we all knew..." are people prepared to accept the same rethoric
being used in the case of Iran.



That will almost certainly mean Israel going it alone. Rightly or wrongly the Israelis feel the risk of a nuclear Iran is too great to appease.
The U.S. has a tricky situation on its hands.

Israel isn't allowed to move unless it gets the say so from it's paymasters in the USA.
The USA control the Israeli access to heavy weapony and access to Israeli airspace.
If Israel does decide that it wants to act unilaterally - it can't, unless the Americans give them the nod.
The Israeli's are like your country - they have to ask permission to act.

That's why DeGaulle was very wise in making certain that French defence system remained independent.

the thread title should really be "us attack plans for iran under scrutiny".

and yes, a relevent discussion of this matter cannot exclude israel and the us support for israel.
oil and the us objective of controlling the 2nd and 3rd largest as supplies as well. this can only be perpetrated by denying a region its' autonomy, and looking for a rationale that people will buy (as in pay for dearly) that will attempt to justifty these means.



What?
"we all know Iran is chasing a nuclear bomb"

On what basis do we all know that Iran is chasing a nuclea bomb?
Todays newspapers report - as was the case in Iraq in 2002/2003 - that there is no evidence that Iran is developing military WMD.

And "we all knew Iraq never had those WMD"
If we all knew that Iraq had no WMD - then why the hell did your country and the USA invade Iraq?
And why, if "we all knew..." are people prepared to accept the same rethoric
being used in the case of Iran.




Israel isn't allowed to move unless it gets the say so from it's paymasters in the USA.
The USA control the Israeli access to heavy weapony and access to Israeli airspace.
If Israel does decide that it wants to act unilaterally - it can't, unless the Americans give them the nod.
The Israeli's are like your country - they have to ask permission to act.

That's why DeGaulle was very wise in making certain that French defence system remained independent.

That's why I mentioned the Boland Amendment. That was a law passed that forbade support of the Nicaraguan contras. The Reagan administration did an end run around the law by selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the contras. Various people were prosecuted and there was talk of impeaching Reagan but they ran into a plausible denial problem. Recently there have been rumblings of passing a similar law to prevent an attack on Iran without additional congressional approval. This could take the form of restricting the expenditure of funds for planning an other functions that would be necessary for an attack.

As it stands right now, Bush could wake up tomorrow and order the military to bomb Iran. This is an issue that has never been resolved in the American system. There is a law called the War Powers Act, which is supposed to force the president to consult with Congress before military action; but no president has ever conceeded that it is valid and no Congress has ever pushed the issue by threatening consequences.


Thanks BD

The Republicans are sitting back and know as long as HClinton keeps going as she is, then the Dems have no one. America will never elect OBama.... The Republicans are laughing over that one......

And HClinton is self destructing.......... If she was even remotely electable...... who else do they have????? I thought Edwards was a choice, but his present numbers do not reflect that.

Bush is far from a lame duck President...... The dems are fighting among themselves...... They lost their resolution last week........ The Republicans , even though they are in the minority, had enough votes to kick it out.......

The Dems are self destructing before our eyes......... There is small group of Dems destroying what is left of the party....... Clinton,Kennedy Kerry, Dean ........ These Dems do not have the support of the Democratic voters across the nation........

If the Dems could not win in 2004 when it was handed to them, it sure won't win with a woman nor a black canidate in 2008.......

Obama is going to cost the Dems the election...... He would never be considered. But he is pulling much needed money away from Hilary...Money that is needed.... The hollywood jet set may not be a factor when it comes to the primaries, but it is a large donor to the war chests...... and Obama has split that......