US not ready to rock the boat (Iran)

[DoYouEverWonder]

Oct 23, 2004

In the past few weeks, Washington has altered its tone on the issue of Iran's nuclear development program. The present policy, instituted with the inauguration of the George W Bush administration, began with tough treatment of Iran, labeling the country a "rogue state" and a potential subject for "regime change". Yet, due to the drain on US resources brought by the unexpected instability in Iraq, the Bush administration has been forced to moderate its tone on the Islamic republic.

The change in the administration's tone was evident by recent statements from Bush administration officials that the US would consider offering incentives to Iran to convince it to abandon its desire to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle and to comply with United Nations demands. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained the change in policy, commenting, "We are going to hear from the Europeans on the work they have been doing on how to get the Iranians to comply." That being said, however, Boucher did not retreat from the official Bush administration line of exercising Article 41 of the UN Charter, which would refer the Iranian nuclear question to the UN Security Council for the possibility of placing international economic sanctions on Iran. Boucher repeated that Washington's goal is to "move this matter to the Security Council".

<snip>

The Bush administration's consideration of offering incentives to Iran derives from the lack of viable military options in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities; the decision also reflects Washington's recognition that it may not be able to successfully push the UN to institute international economic sanctions on the Persian country.

Lack of viable military options Washington's lack of military options arises out of the US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The perpetuating instability in these countries, and primarily in Iraq, has overburdened the US military. The overextension of the military constrains America's ability to effectively threaten Iran with martial force since it is clear to all observers that it would be undesirable to the US military to open up another front of conflict, considering it is sustaining daily attacks in Iraq with no end to the clashes in sight, in addition to the tenuous situation prevailing in Afghanistan.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ23Ak04.html


So now Bush is thinking of offering Iran incentives? Can you say flip-flop?

However, of even greater concern is the admission that the overextension of the military constrains America's ability to respond to other threats. Is this how George Bush makes America safer?

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Talk loud and carry a custom golf club"

-- the modern Republican motto
(formerly "Talk softly and carry a big stick")

[Skidmore]

2. The only boat * & crew don't want to rock is the

American election right now. They'll be happy to start a tsunami after the election is over.

[jmcgowanjm]

9. $55.45 now

And everyone knows what I'm talkin' about.

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000595.php

And I can still buy a gallon for $1.88.

Impossible. But for collusion. And eating some serious
losses.

Washington: Regardless of what happens on 2 November in
the U.S. election, one group or another of "the Warlords
of America" will be in power in Washington. And the years
now immediately ahead, regardless if the President is
named Kerry or Bush, are quickly shaping up as likely to be
the most dangerous in modern
history.

Brzezinski-"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to a
more brutal age of ancient empires," he writes, "the three
grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy are to
prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among
the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to
keep the barbarians from coming together."

THE WARLORDS OF AMERICA
by John Pilger – The New Statesman August 2004

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2393

Precision-strike democracy
Pepe Escobar
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ22Ak04.html

[Mikimouse]

3. Hmmmmm, let's see...

Iraq- disarmed and completely vulnerable
Iran- very well armed, well populated military, large civlian population. Shall we tell them to bring it on Mr.*?

[MrPrax]

4. I hope this is the case...

But the 'concilitory' tone might be more of 'positioning'...BushCo wants to look like it has offered a peaceful solution and Iran refused.

This article takes a decidedly different take on the machinations...

A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent'
White House insider report "October Surprise" imminent

By Wayne Madsen

According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.
etc...
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

[kysrsoze]

6. Precisely. I'm sure they're waiting for the election results too.

[wysiwyg]

5. Iran has the goods on the Bush family

I think Iran has the goods on the Bush family what with the spare parts for the original 52 hostages and all.

...Then there's the whole thing about Chalabi being an Iranian spy and selling info to the Iranians while giving bogus intel to the US supporting an invasion of Iraq.

[seasat]

8. You're right about that.

I hadn't really considered that point but with Shrub being soft on Iran and the whole Iran/Contra/Hostage scenario, it makes a lot of sense. Iran recently came out and said they preferred Shrub to Kerry. There's also Cheney's Halliburton dealings with Iran. Plus y'all know how much Shrub likes theocracies. That is an excellent point.

[bemildred]

7. Dang! Maybe this would work with N. Korea too ...

:puke:

[tanyev]

10. Maybe Bush is just grateful

that Iran endorsed him for president.