"Fox News" is reporting that Bush Admin believe the diplomatic approach with Iran has failed

[sabra]

Cross post from LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2986818

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan

WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.


...

Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

...

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."

[JaneQPublic]

1. That explains his talk of cutting troops in Iraq by 30,000...

...He'll need them as a "starter set" for his planned war with Iran.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

10. Ugh

"...He'll need them as a "starter set" for his planned war with Iran."

Oh, gosh, I hope you're wrong.

[Mythsaje]

2. Their idea of diplomacy with regards to Iran is fatally flawed...

It's "we don't want you to build nuclear weapons."

"We don't intend to build any nuclear weapons. We just want a power plant."

"You're lying."

"Why do you think we're lying?"

"Because if WE were YOU, WE would be lying."

"We just want a power plant."

"We don't want you to build any nuclear weapons."

"We don't want to build nuclear weapons."

"You'll give them to the terrorists."

"Power plants are too large for terrorists to carry."

"That's it. We're done negotiating with you!"

[Roland99]

3. So, Germany doesn't feel additional sanctions would have any benefit or may harm Iranian people?

and that means we must go to war???



AAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[sabra]

4. it also appears Cheney is giddy at the prospects

:crazy:

[Exultant Democracy]

47. It's Cheney's world we just live in it,,,

[LakeSamish706]

5. I think most on DU have seen this coming... It's really not been any ...

kind of well kept secret that the US wants to bomb Iran back to the ice age.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Anything to placate the base

bushcheney do not want a diplomatic solution with anyone, ergo burns marching orders, damn the propaganda. Typical republican modus operandi. "burns, go fuck up an attempt at diplomacy and be an ardent supporter of diplomacy", then we can tell the fucking morons that think we are patriots that there just ain't any talking to Iran.

YOU HAVE TO BE A REAL FUCKING IDIOT TO BELIEVE OR SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE BUSHCHENEYFOXNEWS WHITEHOUSE.

[Ian David]

7. Time to buy iodine pills, Ensure, duct tape, seeds, potting soil, ammunition... n/t

[Canuckistanian]

55. ... Zoloft, Depends..... n/t

[MiniMe]

8. What diplomacy? Has this admin tried diplomacy in Iraq?

When the CIC goes over on a secret visit for 6 hours and doesn't bother to talk to Maliki?

[trashcanistanista]

31. My question exactly

There has been no diplomacy with Iran except when Nancy P. went over and got the hostages released. Uh, oops, that was Syria with Al Sadir.

[baldguy]

51. Me three

Over over & play dead, or we'll kill you?

[OwnedByFerrets]

9. Faux news needs this war badly.........

for ratings boosts.

[Cha]

11. And when have we

fucking heard that before?

fauxnoise reports buSHITS' LIES.

[bryant69]

12. That's scary - if not unexpected.

What a depressing world we live in.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[endarkenment]

13. I estimate we are preparing to kill upwards of 2,000,000 Iranians.

Offhand, Iran should be twice the mess Iraq is. Oh, and by the way, initiating a war of aggression, as we did in Iraq and as we are going to do in Iran, is a war crime and a crime against humanity and is what we hung a bunch of german and japanese generals and political leaders for after WWII. Why should the world not do the same to us?

[cali]

18. They won't kill 2,000,000. It'll be thousands

And the reason that the world won't hold the U.S. accountable, is because we're still too powerful. Germany was completely crushed.

[endarkenment]

22. No, by the time it is over it will be millions.

And our crushing is inevitable, perhaps not soon, but inevitable.

[truebrit71]

40. Bull....if we attack Iran, China and Russia will NOT sit idly by....

...Pootie-poot has just recently re-started flying his long-range bombers again...think that's a coinky-dink? I don't...it's a clear sign to the giggling war-criminal in the WH that if he thinks he can attack Iran and face no consequences he is sorely mistaken...

There is no doubt in my mind that these war criminals will attack Iran next year....the question is what will remain of the world if China and Russia retaliate?

[cali]

45. I disagree. I haven't read one piece of analysis

that says that China and Russia will retaliate if the U.S. bombs Iran. At least not directly. And I think, that if the insane bushies are going to do it, they'll do it within the next couple of months.

[Megahurtz]

61. And I Agree. n/t

[Initech]

14. If Iran retaliates on LA, I will be in D.C. demanding their resignation.

Fuck these warmongerers, seriously.

[endarkenment]

16. Iran has no capacity to retaliate on LA. nt.

[sharp_stick]

26. They have 3 Kilo class submarines

and are militarily a lot stronger than Iraq ever was. If we attack Iran I'd stay the hell off of ships in coastal US waters for awhile. I don't know if Iran would try to send the Kilo's this way but for a diesel/electric boat that is one quite sub.

[endarkenment]

34. You are joking, right?

Iran is going to attack LA with submarines?

Range: 7,500 miles.

Air distance, Tehran - LA: 7581 miles. Ok, it probably is just barely possible. The three ship armada is not going to be able to maneuver much and certainly can't return to base. Are they going to sink the city? Blockade the port? Scare the surfer dudes? It is an anti-ship anti-sub weapon armed with torpedoes.

[Initech]

43. They have repeatedly warned us they will retaliate if attacked.

I don't quite think that Dumbass has got the message yet.

[endarkenment]

53. Yes fine but they are not going to attack LA.

A terrorist might blow some shit up anywhere, but Iran's armed forces have no capability to project military force outside of the middle east, and even then only a very limited ability to attack outside their own borders. Iran is not a military threat to anyone living in the United States.

We, on the other hand, are a very real military threat to every nation on the planet, and all people around the world have a legitimate fear of our intentions and capabilities.

[Megahurtz]

62. LA??? As in Los Angeles?

Why the fuck would Iran retaliate on L.A. of all places? :crazy:

[Lorien]

15. With what army?

They can't seriously be thinking that they can "occupy" another Nation-they are barely doing so in the two they've invaded already.

[cali]

19. They're not planning an occupation

They want to bomb, bomb, bomb away.

[LakeSamish706]

21. How will they steal their oil though if they don't occupy the country? n/t

[endarkenment]

23. Underwear Gnomes. nt.

[endarkenment]

20. They intend to bomb the crap out of Iran.

They are planning an unprecedented air campaign. Their plans most likely do not include invasion and occupation of Iran as, quite magically, their plans imagine that the Iranians will topple their government and install a friendly neoliberal regime after we kill lots of Iranians and blow up all of their shit. In the real world, the 200,000 - 300,000 units we have in the region will not be enough for the actual calamity that ensues. So there will be a national emergency and a draft.

[LakeSamish706]

30. And of course this will call for Martial Law here at home... How...

convenient is that? Just when we thought he might be down and almost out he will pull this shit and really seriously screw both the American people and the rest of the world...

All I can say is it's to bad we can't get some shrinks into the WH and maybe commit both Bush and Cheney before they have time to start this!

[Lorien]

42. Well, of course I expect that they'll want to bomb it nearly to glass

but, as another poster pointed out, SOMEONE will have to be there to ensure that we can steal their oil will little interference. Unless they plan to kill ONLY the men and fundamentalist women then there will be no toppling of the government by Iranians.

BushCo =:crazy: (and stupid).

[doublethink]

28. Here's the only area to be occupied ......

Khuzestan Province where 90% of Iran's Oil Wealth is, amazing how it's just across the Iraqi border .... the rest will just be bombed back to the stone age. And another coincidence is this thread from yesterday .... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3509483#3509580

And what happened to that other story of the B52 Nukes Flying locked and loaded to that Airbase Barksedale a few days ago anyway? Just another coincidence too I guess. Have we had enough of this administration yet? Peace.

[LakeSamish706]

33. "Have we had enough of this administration yet?" I would say....

along time ago, but how the hell does one get rid of them before this shit goes down?

[doublethink]

39. To your second question .....

how the hell does one get rid of them before this shit goes down? Long shot there ..... only by Impeaching Dick Cheney somehow, someway someday. And that would only happen if more REPUBLICANS in the House and Senate cared a bit more for humanity and their kids, relatives, maybe even the U.S. population .....then they do say ..... $$$$$. Don't count on them carrying about them there foreigners overseas and such though. That would be asking too much. If a Republican revolt started in the House/Senate .... the Democrats would go along. Otherwise, Pray. Just my humble opinion. Peace again.

[LakeSamish706]

17. This is going to be one huge Cluster Screw if they follow thru with this....

Makes one wonder, how both Russia and China will view a hit on Iran by these thugs!

[Breeze54]

24. Holy shit!! WW III or IV

:grr:

IMPEACH THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. Has there been any diplomacy with anyone during the whole Bush presidency?

[sabra]

27. Cheney: we don't do diplomacy

[onethatcares]

36. I'm with you,

condisleezy rice does not have time to talk, to anyone. This bunch of crooks will do what they want and blame it on the other guy. Gaud we all know that already. Joe Average has no clue about any of this because he has no time to even read about what is going on. Seriously, I work with people that don't even know that general is speechifying today in the senate, they don't have a clue as to the mortgage fiasco, my boss is totally unaware of the 50 Billion requested appropriation and he's a rightwing nutjob.

[Arkansas Granny]

29. This sounds so much like the run up to the invasion of Iraq. They

just keep following the same old playbook. I guess another country invaded in the name of the War on Terror will be good for Bush's approval ratings.

[calimary]

32. Well, if you put contradicta on it, you're GUARANTEED to fail.

She's a veritable Alice in Blunderland.

[FVZA_Colonel]

35. Their entire attempt at "diplomacy" with Iran was a half-assed joke from the beginning.

Of course it would have failed. I'm just interested in seeing how Russia and China will react.

[Purveyor]

37. Has israel started the redistribution of gas masks that they collected to be refurbished yet?

If not, don't expect any bombing of Iran until you hear reports of that taking place and other civil defense preparations in israel.

[Cheap_Trick]

38. IMPEACH THESE FUCKERS NOW!

don't wait for the mushroom clouds. impeach these war mongering assholes. keep impeaching until you get to someone with some goddamn common sense. ....which might take awhile

[ClayZ]

48. Throw them directly in JAIL!

[librechik]

41. I thought you had to try something before you consider it a failure

they always come up with a new spin--

[Zywiec]

44. U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan

Ok, so they're beginning now?

I guess the hundreds of threads announcing this since 2003 were incorrect. Luckily we finally have the definitive information.

[ladjf]

46. Hmm. I believe that is what they said prior to invading Iraq.

[fooj]

49. Diplomacy?

They don't have a diplomatic bone in their bodies. Grrrrrrrr...

[GeorgeGist]

50. So diplomacy is working ...

therefore the White House wants no part of it. Clever strategy, Dick.

[KoKo]

52. CNN's Barbara Starr believes it too...She even said Iran is supplying Afghanistan

with weapons and manpower...and expertise. She showed some grainy black and white photo's of things that looked like missiles with hands moving them.

I'm sure the Pentagon rolled out that tape and the script to follow up on Petraeus two day hearings and to follow up on the "9/11 Redux" hoopla.

So many dead and the Bushies are rolling out Iraq II while the nation sits in awe at how well their Marketing Roll Out for this September is going. :eyes:

[Clark2008]

54. When are they going to listen?

Whether the surge succeeds or not—and especially if it doesn’t—the United States needs other leverage points. It should immediately open an unconditional dialogue within the region, including dialogue with Iran and Syria. The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes. While the Saudis and other interlocutors with the Iranians have been helpful, a more direct conversation will accelerate both the application of pressures and the development of the kinds of positive inducements—recognition, admittance to international organizations, resumption of economic relationships, and a regional security structure—that may be necessary for Iran to see the overwhelming advantages of giving up its nuclear weapons programs.

In essence, the policy issues come down to a debate over leverage—how much and what type of leverage is required for Iran to dismantle and bar the resumption of any nuclear weapons programs. The administration would argue that it currently lacks leverage, and so must continue to apply pressure and use indirect dialogue—that the Iranians are stubborn, only understand the use of force, can’t be given the impression that they are winning, and so forth. The administration seems to consider “sticks” the only form of leverage. But the truth is that the Iranians have survived almost thirty years of isolation, hostility, and war. The U.S. intervention in Iraq probably altered permanently the sectarian balance of power in the region in Iran’s favor. And whether our allies in the region appreciate Iran or not, its population of nearly 70 million people, enormous wealth of resources, and strong heritage make it a significant power. A policy of sticks alone is unlikely to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The administration’s dogged pursuit of leverage by sticks, unfortunately, is too much a holdover of the tough-guy, new-sheriff attitude that landed us in the Iraq mess. But another kind of leverage—carrots—could succeed. The United States is the largest economic power in the world, and has control, or very near controlling influence, over almost every international institution of significance to the Iranians. I believe we can gain far more from Iran by dispensing some carrots—and can also apply the sticks more effectively—if we are in face-to-face dialogue. Dangling some carrots now in an unconditional dialogue with Tehran while the surge in Baghdad is only beginning could prove decisive.

What can Congress do to help? First, push the administration to support Iraq with the nonmilitary resources that are essential to progress there. Congress should hold immediate hearings to investigate why the nonmilitary elements of the administration’s strategy have failed so badly, and why the appropriate resources cannot be brought to bear. Second, add pressure on al-Maliki to convince him to take the tough measures required to settle the issues of oil revenues, federalism, and the militias. Congress should strengthen its efforts to investigate corruption inside the economic-development program, and demand stronger accounting for the Iraqi government’s and leaders’ relationships with Iran. And third, demand that the Bush administration commence an unconditional dialogue with the regional powers and each of Iraq’s neighbors immediately. This is the next sense-of-the-Congress resolution that is required.

For the United States, the possible use of force against Iran must remain on the table. But military conflict is not inevitable, and neither is Iranian nuclear weaponry.

April 2007 Op-Ed by Wesley Clark

[eppur_se_muova]

56. Oh, uh, when did we try diplomacy? I musta slept through that.

Oh, I remember, it was the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION that used diplomacy.

This administration has lost the instruction book for diplomacy and won't 'fess up to it.

[HuffleClaw]

57. WHAT 'diplomatic approach' ????

there was not a shred of diplomacy. there WAS bushels of bluster, threats and provocative military moves, but diplomacy? who are they kidding?

[skip fox]

58. We were literalists and didn't even know it.

Haiku du jour:

Bush's foreign policy's
insane, we said, thinking we'd
exaggerated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Ah yes, how many ways to Sunday does this paralel

2002?

We may be six months away, max, from war

[Javaman]

60. Don't you all see???? This is morons* solution for global warming...

nuclear winter. :scared: