Rice signals move to punish Iran is near

[lovuian]

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2006/01/06/70838.html

The Bush administration signaled on Thursday that time is running out for Iran to avoid being taken before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned new anti-Israel remarks from Iran's president.

"We are moving into a period of time with Iran where I think we're going to have to, the world is going to have to make some decisions," Rice said.

Rice avoided declaring an end to negotiations between Tehran and European nations that are intended to avert punishment at the U.N. Her skepticism about progress in the talks was clear, however, and she chose unusually blunt language to lay out the probable next step.

"When it's clear that negotiations are exhausted, we have the votes" to take Iran before the Security Council for possible punishment, Rice told reporters. "There is a resolution sitting there for referral. We'll vote it."
more...

Well at least they are making it look like the UN is with them on this...

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Que the "Evil Empire" music

Maybe after this war, Smirky can land on a Death Star.

[bemildred]

2. She is starting to remind me of Dolton.

Like Barney Fife on crack.

[aquart]

3. George, you're already using air force personnel to do army duty.

You don't have the troops to attack Disneyland, let alone an armed sovereign nation.

[bluestateguy]

4. I'm sure they will decide based on when they can restart the draft

You can't do a war with Iran without a draft. You just can't.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I get a feeling that Iran is ambivalent about a U.S. attack and/or

invasion, that is, it's fine if the U.S. goes ahead and it's fine if it's posturing. In any case, it isn't going to give * what he wants: submission.

[ckramer]

6. Another shock and awe imminent ?

Can't wait to see the fireworks.

[lovuian]

7. Iran absent from nuclear meeting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4584996.stm

Iran failed to attend a meeting in Vienna to discuss its decision to resume nuclear fuel research, the UN's nuclear watchdog says.
The International Atomic Energy Agency said a meeting with Iranian delegates scheduled for Thursday never took place and no new meeting was planned.

Iran's president earlier insisted its research programme would resume.

The IAEA has warned this may affect talks with the EU aimed at defusing tensions on Iran's nuclear programme.

more...
clock is ticking... :nuke:

[Erika]

8. Is she going to shove a cell phone down the throat of the Iranian

president? We have no more troops and no more $.

Cute how the W administration is trying to gather consensus from the U.N. now. The U.N. is suddenly now relevant? When they weren't when W started his war in Iraq? These people make me sick.

[saigon68]

46. She can shove her cellphone somewhere else

She is an evil clone of the devil

Look at the hate in her face.

[HuffleClaw]

9. "the world is going to have to..."

it occurs to me that no other world leader or their minions talk like this, but it is somehow acceptable for these clowns to do so? they sure do like talking for everyone else. and they are going to war, it's only a matter of when.

[punpirate]

10. Any bets that...

... China, France and/or Russia will veto any attempt at a Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iran?

Any doubts that Bush will go right ahead with an attack (in concert with or separately from Israel)?

The Iranian bourse is set to begin in April, I think. Any bets an attack begins before then?

[Erika]

11. We don't have the troops or $ to attack Iran

and W has lost all credibility. He wants to fight another unwarranted war, let him enlist the Bush clan.

[punpirate]

14. As I've said frequently here...

... there won't be an invasion, but there very well could be an air bombardment campaign, possibly combined with a naval blockade of Iran's oil shipment ports. The Air Force and the Navy are mostly unaffected by what's happening on the ground in Iraq.

That doesn't mean that a few Sunburn missiles in retaliation couldn't sink some of our ships and thus escalate any initial bombing to something much worse--such as a nuclear attack.

There isn't going to be an invasion. But, there is going to be military action of some sort. Of that I am convinced.

Cheers.

[bemildred]

16. You never know, but

1.) Iran does have the troops for an invasion.
2.) Blocking the straits of Hormuz will have consequences that go way beyond the Middle East.
3.) We are far from being the sole possessors of nukes or the means to deliver them, and we have suitable targets all over the place, including many of those bases where all that air and naval power hangs out.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but it will require a certain suicidal obliviousness for the Bushites to carry it out.

[punpirate]

24. Yeah...

... a certain suicidal obliviousness would be required, and the Bushies possess that quality, at the very least.

On your points, yes, Iran has troops, but no air power to speak of. That's why they just completed the deal with the Russians for advanced surface-to-air missiles. They're hoping that will counter US air superiority.

I don't see Iran trying to block the Straits of Hormuz, because that hurts them. US ships would be sitting off the southern coast of Iran in the Gulf of Oman, and that's where Iran would attack them, if they felt that would be an effective retaliation. Even so, a conventional attack on Iran's strategic sites wouldn't necessarily automatically guarantee a straightforward military retaliation by Iran. They might, just as well, accelerate terrorism against the US in less obvious ways. But, one can't discount an immediate military retaliation from Iran if they are attacked, and that would be the basis for US escalation. Ahmadinejad wasn't elected as a peace candidate, and his recent statements--for the sake of stirring up nationalism in Iran--would seem to confirm that.

As for nuclear retaliation from a third party, yeah, that's the worst-case scenario, because it gets very ugly in a heartbeat. But, neither China nor Russia would chance it. In a terrible way, that's the beauty of nuclear arsenals--MAD still applies--and China is in no position to start a nuclear war. They're not bristling with ICBMs (last I read, they had eighteen in silos, and their missiles aren't fueled in readiness and the warheads are stored separately). Neither Russia nor China would chance obliteration if they entered a nuclear fray on the side of the Iranians. That's what the Bushies are counting on. But, that doesn't mean there would be no retaliation of some sort.

However, the Bushies will do something (perhaps something along the lines of Israel's attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981--the analog now would be destruction of the Iranian reactor at Bushehr and attempts to destroy Iranian sites devoted to the fuel cycle), because they think they'll be able to get away with it. They've gotten away with virtually every other thing they've done, domestically and internationally. There's been no retribution to date. That will induce them to think they're invincible.

M'self, I think the people running this country now are batshit-crazy, and the inclusion of Iran in the so-called "axis of evil" was an open threat to Iran--that's why the Iranians elected a hardliner like Ahmadinejad. There's no telling what they might do if attacked. They don't now have nuclear weapons with which to retaliate, but, they will find a way to do so.

Cheers.

[bemildred]

37. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. nt

[cliss]

19. I agree that we don't have the money or the manpower

to invade Iraq. I DO agree that we have the capability of flying over Iran and dropping a few bunker-buster bombs right on top of Teheran, maybe the Bushehr nuclear plant.

But what would be the point? Why would we bomb the country, if we were not planning to "take" it? It's like walking into a 7/11, staging a hold-up, and leaving the money in the till. It makes no sense.

Also, the downside FAR outweights what cheap thrills the Bush Mob could get from bombing Iran. Are they hoping for a surrender? A truce? Iranian President Ahmadinejad crawls out of his hole, waving a white flag? Don't believe it.

If the US decides to bomb Iran, the most likely outcome is that Iran will retaliate. And quickly. Within minutes, they will close off the Strait of Hormuz. That will leave some American tankers as sitting ducks. They will be trapped. Also, the world will be without oil. Our economy will come to a grinding h-a-l-t if they do that.

As soon as the first bomb drops, Iran will bomb Israel.

It's just too risky, and Bush knows it.

[punpirate]

25. Let's look at some strategic details...

... as I have said, the Bushies are batshit-crazy--they think they can do whatever they wish. That figures in this. As for Ahmadinejad capitulating abjectly, they might believe it--they also believed that the Iraqis would greet a US occupying force with rose petals and sweets. But, I think they would look at the previous actions of the Israelis--bombing the Osirak reactor put back Iraq's plans by at least a decade, and Iraq never rebuilt the reactor. The Bushies would think that would be a great trade-off with regard to Iran, without risking an invasion.

And, Iran can't easily bomb Israel. I think that's part of the calculation. They can't fly over Iraq or around it without being intercepted and those are the only two routes currently available. They can't fly over Turkey for the same reason. They might have, by now, a few medium-range rockets capable of reaching Israel, but they only have conventional warheads at this point, and the damage would be minimal. The much greater danger would be sinking US ships in the Gulf of Oman which would prompt an escalating response from the US.

As for money, since when have the Republicans cared one whit for military expenditures on deficit? They've been doing that since Reagan came to office. The entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been financed by credit card. What's one more?

Cheers.

[Erika]

22. I disagree. Don't kick a dog unless you wish to be bitten back

W better remember that. World opinion is not with us. W is dealing with an overrun of any of our troops in the MidEast by a multi group. He would again be an idiot for taking such action.

[punpirate]

26. You just made my point...

... Bush is an idiot.

Cheers.

[NI4NI]

13. especially China

Along with other European countries, China has oil interests just like
the Japanese who have pist off Bushco by recently signing an oil development deal with Iran that is set to begin real soon.

[xxqqqzme]

12. she really IS in2 that dominatrix

thing isn't she - bet pretzeldent loves it and giggles uncontrollably; then the whip comes down!

[lovuian]

15. Did you see that Iran is building a pipeline to India through

pakistan and America doesn't like that...

I think to control the world

we must control all the oil

and Iran has to be put in check but Bush isn't the man to do it and Sharon ill really puts a damper on the PNAC plan...

[LynnTheDem]

17. Good luck, America...

you're bloody going to need it.

[DELUSIONAL]

18. I wonder how much of the war "stuff" is being prepared for Iran

Meaning things like tank tracks etc. and other war making "stuff"?

We hear that the troop numbers in Iraq will be decreased -- but we don't hear that they will be coming home.

I hear rumblings about the military manufacturers are very busy -- in a building up their industries and producing for new contracts.

Then we hear about "tactical" nukes -- perhaps delivered by retooled Trident Subs -- target?? Could it be Iran?

When the hell are the "protectors" of Israel going to kill enough people to satisfy who ever the hell is pushing the endless wars of the Neocons? Logical grown up people realize that attacking Iran is akin to attacking a hornet's nest. The "moderates" in Iran won't turn against their current idiot leader if attacked -- they will back the jerk.

But then Iran's prez is there because bushie bad mouthed him -- as if to throw the vote in his direction.

Look what happened after Sept. 11, 2001 -- although bushie's popularity was falling pre 9-11 -- post 9-11 his popularity sored -- only 10% still believed he was is and will alway be a jerk (and worse).

The best way to unite the Iranian people behind their current jerk leaders is to attack the country -- there are going to be a hell of a lot of pissed of people -- especially if bushie orders the use of tactical Nukes.

And if anyone is stupid, idiotic, dimwitted and vile enough to use tactical weapons against a country that hasn't attacked us -- it would be the nitwit who thinks he is da prez 'cause he lives in the big white house.

[madrchsod]

20. the iranians will call our bluff

can george play texas hold`m?

[Erika]

21. No, there's no credibility. Bad poker player. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. No invasion this time, this time it will be atomic bombs.

By the time they prime the US public with a big scare story, they will get 60% approval.

[Erika]

27. No, they won't

Bushbots are only in the 30's and the rest of Americans don't believe W's credibility at all. One too many mushroom clouds and drones. Forget it.

[pinniped]

28. The wh ghouls need more fresh flesh and blood to feed on.

.

[pinniped]

33. Found it.

[antonialee839]

29. Rice should keep her big mouth shut.

These people make me truly ill.

[Hardrada]

30. The sound she doesn't hear

because she is too busy being a "diplomat" and rattling sabres is that of the guillotines trundling down the street in the general direction of the State Department.

[Karmakaze]

31. The problem with ANY kind of attack on Iran is Iraq.

The US military is having a big enough problem dealing with Sunni "terrorists" without having every Shi'ite in Iraq joining the cause. If the US attacks Iran the Iranians themselves will do nothing. They will file potests etc with the UN, but you can guarantee that Shi'tes in Iraq will kill any US and allied soldier they can.

Want to avoid civil war in Iraq? Attack Iran. It is that simple. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that,

Of couse the casualties inflicted on US troops in Iraq will explode. The death toll of US servicemen and women would be enough to make Vietnam look like a training exercise, and the whole time the Iranians could sit back and say they had nothing to do with the Iraqi Shi'ite reaction to the US attack on Iran.

Short of a full blown invasion, which would likely cause WWIII, the US can NOT possibly benefit from an attack on Iran. That is why I wouldn't be surprised if Bush actually did it. He is a straight-up idiot, and many Americans (even many right here on DU) are too. The Vietnamese showed that technological superiority means nothing, and thinking Stealth or cruise missiles win wars is as dumb as you can get. Iraq proves that. Vietnam proved it. Hell, even WWII proved it.

I have no doubt that Bush Jnr has added one loss to the US war "record" and if an attack on Iran occurs, make that two.

[Barrett808]

45. Yes, you think Iraq is a nightmare now?

Wait until the Shi'a turn out by the millions to protest and strike.

[malaise]

32. Is the move to punish her any nearer? n/t

[Briar]

34. Punish?

By what right? In whose name? Who does the US think it is?

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. Gee, that didn't take long...Meet with former Secs of State then

issue final warnings. Just remember that one of the things listed on the agenda of yesterday's "meeting" was future challenges.

Make no mistake...Bush is attempting to re-invent his image as reaching out. But what he made clear was, "You may not like what I have done or will do, but I don't give a fuck. Now, let's get together and smile for the camera!" *say squeeze!*

[SillyGoose]

36. Hypocrisy alert...

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Ahmadinejad's remarks were "hateful and disgusting."

"And this is a man who wraps himself in the cloak of a peaceful religion, Islam, and yet you hear remarks like this coming from him," McCormack, reports AP.

The same could be said about some of the psuedo-Christians running around the US spouting hate. Where's the outrage about the phony Christians who wrap themselves in the cloak of a peaceful religion and then spew hate?

[leesa]

38. Yup. Iran plans to move away from the US dollar in April, I believe

This was about the time we decided we needed to bomb Iraq too, when they announced their plan to switch from the US dollar to the Euro as the peg for their oil trade.

Do the little nuke scare dance and let the bombing begin!

[Zynx]

39. There will not be war with Iran.

Let's start with an easy one. First of all, we don't have the troops. Iran would hand a small force like we used in Iraq it's ass if it tried the same thing. There is actually loyalty in Iran to its government unlike in Iraq where true supporters of Saddam were quite few.

Second, a war with Iran would virtually shut down Persian Gulf oil. Iran could make it impossible for any tankers to sail in the gulf simply because the tankers' insurers will not insure tankers in a warzone. This would cripple global oil production and send prices through the stratosphere well above $100 or even $150 a barrel. If they can cut off Kuwaiti, Iraqi, and their own oil supplies as well as reducing Saudi shipments, prices could reach over $200 with almost ten million barrels off the market. Such a spike would cause an economic catastrophe the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. Bush will not want to cause such a catastrophe in an election year.

[allemand]

40. Iran's no-show at IAEA fuels tension in atomic row

Jan 6, 2006 — By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran's no-show for a meeting with the U.N. nuclear watchdog to explain its move to resume atomic fuel research has hardened sentiment that diplomacy may have to give way to action to rein in Tehran, diplomats say.

The "EU3" group, Britain, France and Germany, dealing with Iran's contentious nuclear program will wait to see if the Islamic republic restarts research work next week, as announced, before deciding whether to seek moves toward punitive sanctions.

But an EU3 diplomat said the "prospect of Iran backtracking looks unlikely" and undermined the rationale for talks set to resume on January 18 on a solution to a stalemate over Western suspicions Tehran is secretly trying to build atomic bombs. (...)

In the absence of Iranian comment, analysts said reasons for the no-show could run from a decision to pursue R&D work, daring the West to impose sanctions, to discord within Iran's complex power structure over whether to deal with or defy the West.

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1478652

[Earth_First]

41. China and Russia hold veto power on the UN Security Council, no?

Then what?

[allemand]

42. Then John Bolton will stand up...

Scott Ritter:

I threw in a lot of other things that had to happen, like John Bolton had to become the head of mission and that we had to transfer the debate from Vienna to the Security Council. Today, we see Bolton in place. And we're looking at the United States working very hard to get the issue of Iran's nuclear program transferred from Vienna to the United Nations. And I guarantee you when it is transferred and when the Russians veto the American effort to put sanctions on Iran, John Bolton has already written his speech. He will stand up, and he will condemn the Security Council as an ineffective body that is unwilling to stand up and deal with genuine threats to the security of the United States of America, and the United States cannot afford to stand by and let this situation exist, and if the Security Council won't deal with Iran, then we will deal with it unilaterally. That speech has been written. I know the people that helped draft that speech. And he's ready to give it when it occurs.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

[Earth_First]

47. ...and with Germany and France both being voting members of the council

I don't see why if it is in their intentions, that they continue with this chirade of caring what the United Nations Security Council has to say...

[katty]

43. same rhetoric for ramp up to Iraq invasion-we're just gonna

do it-screw all of you! american military should surround and arrest all of them NOW.

[Barrett808]

44. The Iranian Oil Bourse starts in March

That puts a date to the bombing campaign.

[Earth_First]

48. March 20, 2006

'Beware of the Ides of March'