While the candidates continue to posture over the War in Iraq, I have yet to see or hear any of them make statements on how they will deal with Iran.
If Iran, with its vast reserves of oil, does build nuclear weapons, it will become the major power in the Middle East.
Should Iran be allowed to continue its nuclear program?
If not, what steps should America take to dissaude them?
Someone has allready posted Iran as one of the topics under foreign policy.
1000 pardons
I didn't see it all the way there at the bottom.
I see see no one has commented on it since July 17, 2024.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Also, what actions should be taken against Iran's supplying of weapons to the insurgents.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
At his news conference today, Bush was somewaht intellectually dishonest in his answer to Newsweek's Richard Wolfe's question about why he refuses to condcut face-to-face talks with Iran.
Bush said it becsuase "it won't work". In taking such a flippant he gives credence to the Democrats who say the say thing about the troop 'surge'.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
first of all the U.S. intelligence has told us that iran was going to create an atomic bomb. now no offense to the U.S. intelligence agency but they also told us that saddam hussien had nuclear bombs or as president bush put it " weapons of mass destruction" so lets say that the intelligence agency is right about iran, and that it did want to make a bomb, would it really use it ever? would it really be that stupid to get the whole world angry at it... i think the president of iran is smarter than that, i think he knows the consequences of using a "bomb" and he would never put his country in such a position. second, i think that the only reason why iran would want to gain a "bomb" which i doubt that they want to to do, is because of the rising tensions between the two country.. it only makes sense.... get a nucleur bomb, threaten to use it, and prevent the U.S. from invading the country. The weapon is only gonna be used in defense thus protecting itself from any possible invasions of attacks from any country in the world.. i also think that's why North Korea wants to gain a bomb too.. to prevent the U.S. from invading it and combining south and north Korea into one democratic nation.
it's only logicall but our politicians dont think very open mindedly.
these leaders in Iran would us the bomb in New York minute, these people are fanatics, they hate Isreal, they hate the USA, they would bomb us the first opportunity they got.
Apparently, the the chief operations officer for Sojourners/Call to Renewal, Jeff Carr, is now in Iran to meet with high-level members of the Iranian governemnt.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/jeff-carr-what-would-you-ask-irans.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/jeff-carr-welcome-to-iran.html
Strange how this is getting no press coverage. Esepcially in light of the UN deadline today for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichemnt program.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Iran has failed to comply with a UN resolution to suspend nuclear enrichement, and now faces sanctions. A UN report is expected to be released later today.
Strange how this is getting very little play in the mainstream media, much like the story about the Sojourners visit to Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad I cited below.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
It's quite Ironic that noone has done more in the last 5 years to enhance Iran's position and influence in the Mid East that George W. Bush and company. It's the "Law of Unintended Consequences" rearing its head in Washington Politics. And now ever weakened with allies and Sunnis alike he wants tomaybe push the envelope over Iran.even the Israelis think that Iran is at least 5 years away from anything close to a nuke bomb. Which I think gives us a little time to actually thinkout a gooddecent consistent policy with some Strategic Context thistime around. Once again. Use the locals to pressure Iran so Ahamedinijad hangs himself rather than us unintendedly bailing him out. Our Strategic quals are not the best right now. Use the locals!!
In destabalizing the Middle East, it was only natural that Iran grew to prominence. The big miscalculation the Bush Administration made was not forseeing that the blatantly anti-Israel Ahmadinejad would win the Iranian election. All the polls at the time seemed to indicate he would not win.
So much for "polls".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Iran is demographically going off the cliff just like Europe. It only has a generation to assert itself influence-wise and it is history. It is economically a disaster and politically not much better. Bush bailed Iran out by the push into Iraq and not stabilizing thingsand igniting a Shia revival in area. And Bush in his inimical Keystone cop ways seems like he is on course in bailing out Iran and the Ahmadenijad yahoos once again. With our actions and incompetencies in Iraq - we made crazy Mahmoud what he is today in Iran - and have destabilized the whole region. We'll be cleaning up this Bush mess for a long long time! What we need now more than anything is some sober dispassionate long-term strategic context in dealing with Iran. They are stronger due to Bush's policies but all-in-all Iran (and Ahmadenijad) is much much weaker that we preceive them to be esp visavi the nuke issue.
Let's see if I can break it down into little baby steps, just for you.....
1) War in Iraq destabilized the Middle East. That should have not been a surpise to anyone.
2) Iran has long sought to gain prominence in the Middle East. I think the Bush administration recognized this, which is why they approached Iran to actually aid operations in Afghanistan.
3) The problem is, somewhere along the line, the Iranian mullahs decided to set-up Ahmadinejad. This is something the Bush administration failed to recognize. It suggests Iran pulled some sort of a diplomatic 'double cross'. Since this has occured, the administration has failed to deal effectively with it.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
If it were only so neat! It's a tad more complex that you state there Kris. The problem with the haphazard way Bush has done Iraq is that sectarian violence in the MidEast is no longer just limited to Iraq. This violence has expaned in scope and intensity to Lebanon and throughout the Persian Gulf areas. This fast rising sectarian violence adds a new complexity to the already complex conflicts of the region and it will play an important role in deciding regional alliances and how state and sub-sate actors will act. All will complicate the management and furtherance of US interests. All was totally unnecessary and unanticipated blowback from Bush's bungling, short-sighted and unidimensional nonstrategy on Iraq.
The shift in sectarian balance of power has met with Sunni resistance in Iraq with a brutal Sunni jihadi resistance and more and more in Arab capitals. With the US unable to control the sectarian conflict after 3 years and with the bombing of the Shiite Temple in Sammarra, sectraianism that began in Iraq has turned into a regional dynamic. The US was slow to understand this convergence of sectarianism and regional politics. The specter of the new Iranian hegemony as a result of the Iraq chaos has been a source of tremendous concern for Iran's neighbors many of whom are our traditional allies (including Israel). The rivalry between the Iran and its neighbors threatens what regional instability still exists, and more importantly acts as a fuel to pro-al-Qaeda jihadi activism.
Ahmadenijad is least of Bush's our worries. He'll fall under the weight of his own pathologies if we let him stew in them and Iran's severe demographic and economic dilemmas. Rather it's this growing cauldron of Sunni-Shiite sectarian instability throughout the Mid East now (inflamed and released by our total do-it-on-the cheap bungling of Iraq) that must somehow now be adroitly contained in some strategic way that prevents further bleeding. That is the test and I question deeply whether Bush is up to the task. Bush just does not get it sad to say. Hopefully our candidate or some candidate will before it spins out of control entirely.
What "sectarian violence" is going on in Iran, pray tell?
John, your posts just keep getting more and more rambling and nonsenical.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Iran does not have as much sectarian violence as in the rest of the Mid East now (I never said Iran was subject to it), but Iran is not immune form the ME sectarian blowback as well if it gets out of hand. Iran has great vulnerabilities not only from the Kurds, but esp from the Azeris and the Baluchis who all together makeupabout 40% of their population. There big vulnerabilities are of course their economy which is indecrepit shape. Hey they have to import 50% of their oil!! All great levers on Iran that we should be exploring rather than the military stuff. And sorry for the rambles!!
The subject is "IRAN". You really do love to blather senselessly, dontya John?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Another posting on Jim Wallis's blog about a Sojourner's mission to Iran....
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/02/jeff-carr-how-do-you-know-someone-until.html
I'm surprised NONE of the major cable news networks have mentioned this. I'm begining to wonder if it is simply a lie.
I certainly don't put much faith in this "Religious Left" movement. The Gospel they appear to preach is mostly watered-down psuedo-intellectual claptrap.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The Sojourner's "Jeff Carr" continues to report from Iran in the "God's Politics" blog (and yet STILL no reports of this in the mainstream media....I guess they still have 'Anna Nicole fever')
http://jesuspolitics.typepad.com/jesus_politics/2007/02/link.html
Mr. Carr seems to be somewhat of an 'apologist' for the Khomenni(sp) revolution. More evidence that the growing religious Left movement is slouching toward apostasy.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I saw where Jeff Carr was on Hannity and Colmes this evening. That's the first time I've seen anything about this trip in the mainstream media.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
..was on Hannity and Colmes tonight.
He pointed out how Americans are actually helping to fund Iran's nuclear program. Mutual and pension funds have holdings in Europe that are being funneled in to Iran. He suggested that American companies divest from European ones that help support the Iranian regime.
While Netanyahu still held his hard line about Iran not acquiring nukes; he did suggest means other than military may achieve that end. He seemed pushing for regime change.
Netanyahu also leads Olmert by 27% in the polls, but the Knisset would have to be resolved before Israel could hold new elections.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This message from Perry Stone lays out the case for why Iran must be dealt with soon...
https://www.voiceofevangelism.org/prophecy_update.cfm
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Why don't you go and take care of the problem in iraq krisw. You talk the talk, real good, lets see if you can, walk the walk. Join the military and lead it to victory, you wannabe!!
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
I fail to see how you think I alone can take care of the "iraq problem".
I think Petraeus's plan is actually working.
And this topic is on Iran anyhow. You do know the difference don't you?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I guess, by "Petraeus's plan" - you mean Bush's surge?
The best description of it I heard was: "It's a heavier lid on a boiling pot".
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I think the whole thing with the surge is to see what Maliki is all about - whether he is a lackey of Sadr or not and whther he can opull it together. It has hardly even started but looks like Bush may have some leverage on Maliki if he is found wanting and that is in our the feelers to the SCIRCI forces of Hakim who really do have more wherewithal to reign in Sadr's Mahdi Army if Maliki is found wanting. Petraeus Plan actually a more deft lid with pressure holes on a boiling pot that allows the locals to take the lead in putting the "lid" somewhat on their own. Use the locals! That is the key!! May take some time and firm deadlines are not conducive - The Iraqi Study Group said as much!
The surge is working....
Until our troops leave that particular sector, then everything reverts back to what has become "normal" in Baghdad. The surge was designed to be a political tool - not a military solution.
The surge will not solve anything by itself - it was designed to buy time, with the hope that a political solution would be found in the future.
What is actually happening, is that the disparate elements of the insurgency are coalescing against us - this could bring a whole new chapter of violence to the area.
The situation in Iraq hasn't changed because of the surge - the only way out for us is a political solution - and there is little chance of that when we refuse to open a channel of communication with the principals involved. We are expecting the current government to do the dirty work for us - but there is no real incentive for the current government to change anything - not when change could imperil the current government.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Iran has taken 15 British soldiers hostage.
And this occurs the day before Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak before the UN concerning sanctions.
You may return to you regualrly scheduled slander and rumor-mongering.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Ahmadenijad bowed out of the UN blaming unjustly the US for the visa snafu. We need to keep our center and keep up working the sanctions angle even more so and above all getting the Russians on board even more in concert to those efforts. That tact will really put the pressure on Ahmadenijad and isolate him more in his country and show him for what he is. Netanyahu is right in that there are many non-military options to use here and we should not limit. Cowboy Trigger happiness may play right into Ahmadenijad's hands.
More sanctions were imposed against Iran, and Ahmadinejad was unable to attend the UN security council meeting as he could not get a US visa.
And the 15 Royal Marines are still being held hostage.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Tony Blair vowed to 'turn up the heat' on Iran diplomatically and with sanctions for the seizure of 15 Royal Marines.
Iran released a video tape made by the female hostage in which she claimed (alsmost certainly under duress) that Birtian violated Iranian waters.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
It seems Rosie O'Donnel is siding with Iran in the current dispute, claiming it was a set-up to provoke a war with Iran (kinda like the Poles 'set-up Germany, huh Rosie?)
Oh, and Rosie also claims 9/11 was a conspiracy as well with her metalurgical expertise.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
We all have only G W Bush and company to thank for the Iranian rise to prominence in the Middle East. Saddam was the stopper on Iran, Georgie got rid of the stopper!! If war is started between Iran and the UK/USA, then we will be forced to use Tactical nukes because the conventional forces are NOT up to the task!!!!!!
That's right, blame everything on Bush.
But don't mention how Clinton allowed Osama to flee from Sudan.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
...from Tora Bora. Isn't this getting a bit old and non-productive? Aren't we about looking forward to solutions rather than backward to blame?...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Rosie O'Donnell doesn't seem to looking for solutions.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Sounds like a line from the party line.
Look, Iran actually cooperated with us on Afghanistan, wanted to talk with us early on about Iraq, but were snubbed.
Funny how you mentioned oil, Kris - at least you bring in the open.
How is Iran supposed to feel? Clearly we want their oil. We went into Iraq on bogus reasons, called Iran part of an "Axis of Evil".
If I were head of Iran I'd feel I better get something to keep the US from invading and stealing the oil, and nukes could do that.
By all accounts, Iran is several years away from a nuke - unlike N Korea, which has them. Oh, that's right N Korea isn't sitting on oil.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Is Iran "co-operating" with the UK and UN right now?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
No, Iran isn't cooperating withthe UN or the UK. Why would they? We have stated our goal is regime change in Iran - why shouldn't they feel threatened? How do we know the facts about the UK incident? Let's face it, Blair has nothing to lose, has been in Bush's unique other world, and could very well have arranged the incident - like the Gulf of Tonkin was - we're looking for an excuse to bomb Iran.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Come on! Blair is much smarter than that - than to let the Iranians embarass him in his last fe months swan song al Jimmy Carter. Besides the Brits have diplomatic relations with Iran and that did not prevent the sailors capture/continued media exploitation by Ahmadenijad's lackeys. Ahmadenijad is claerly desperate and wanted to goad the Brits and US into an action we would reget to bolster his shaky domestic standing. Blair is smarter than to be sucked in to Ahmadenijad's little game and he is going about it the correct way behind the scenes diplomatically and will probably get the sailors back in short order after some under the table deals have been made. Such is life in the crazy Mid East Kabuki Theatre!! And it shows that it may pay to have full diplomatic relations with these guys as nefarious as they are. God Bless Tony Blair!!
I hope you are right, John.
Blair is intelligent, but he's been behind Bush 100%, so he's ideology-driven. Sometimes people like that believe the end justifies the means.
I really do hope you are right...I hear a lot of war drums being beaten....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Trust me ..
popo
Royal Air Force Vet WW2
I look at it another way. Blair is the one guy who has provided ANY semblance (what little there is) of rationality on Bush and Company and has acted as a moderating force somewhat in the MidEast and elsewhere. I can only hazard to guess where we would be if not for Tony Blairs modearting force on Bush! God Bless Tony Blair!
Note the confusing signals coming from Iran... Yesterday they were saying one thing, today another, tommorrow....?
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
As in a lot of these Mid East countries, they (Iran) play these varying signals for their domestic politics. That is the game they are playing now and just using us and the Brits and UN as a prop. We think the world revolves around us, but we miss the big piture that in evolves around THEIR domestic politics. Even in the MidEast "Alice and Wonderland" ALL politics is LOCAL!! Use the locals!! That is the key folks!!
If Iran was truly interested in stabilizing the Middle East, they wouldn't be kidnapping people and building the bomb.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
everything you've said sounds straight from CNN...poor, helpless Iran, all the oil the U.S. steals....PLEASE! I guess ignorant people will belong to every political movement...keep your head in the sand!
We should not forget that we are the superpower when dealing with Iran. Unlike Israel, we are not surrounded by enemies. Thus, we can deal with them through diplomatic means. Effective diplomacy contained the USSR (who had a real nuclear weapons program) for almost fifty years. Overreacting to the bluster of Ahmadinejad empowers him and limits our abilities to act rationally and responsibly.
Thought Ajami's article below posed the stark policy dictomies facing us in Iran and the Nuke question if we do not find a sane and rational Third Way. Very perceptive article! But we NEED that Third Way folks! John
----------------------------------------
"Son of the Ayatollah"
Fouad Ajami - WSJ - 5/22/06
"Is Persia about to enter, nay, has she already entered the comity of civilized nations or does she still sit a contented outcast without the gate?" - GEORGE CURZON, PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN QUESTION, 1892
"Writers on "revolutions" always dwell on the course of these upheavals in human affairs, on their natural life cycle. In his seminal great book, The Anatomy of Revolution, historian Crane Brinton sketched the progression of revolutions--their outbreak and early euphoria, the destruction of the moderates who had brought to the revolutionary experiments their own idle hopes, the triumph of the extremists as revolutions, like the Roman god Saturn, devour their own children, the reign of terror and virtue. In the final phase, there is Thermidor--borrowed from the "poetic new calendar" of the French Revolution--where there is a slow return to less heroic times, a period of "convalescence." The fanaticism now guiding the Iranian state is thus a break with the calendar of revolutions. In Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man at the helm of the Iranian state, the great Brinton has met a challenge to his "anatomy" of revolutions.
The idle hopes of the era behind us, the claims that the Iranian experiment had begun to "mellow," have been shown to be a thin reed. If anything, the Iranian revolution appears to have entered an "apocalyptic phase," as Bernard Lewis, the great historian of Islam, recently warned. It is thus that the world now watches Ahmadinejad. The man seems unhinged, a stranger to this modern world. As is the way of evil, this man's evil was, at first, hard to recognize and to acknowledge. For eight years, his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, courted the world, talked seductively of a "dialogue among civilizations." In Europe, Khatami had been a hit, and it was a matter of time, it was thought, before Iran made its peace with the world. But the Khatami era was a swindle.
Ahmadinejad's primitiveness seems more true to Iran's brutal theocratic enterprise than Khatami's false spring. He is a faithful son of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He hails from the depth of Iranian society; he had his induction into politics through the Basij, a volunteer underclass militia that the merciless Khomeini had established to "deepen" the revolution and supply dispensable young foot soldiers for the terrible war of the 1980s against Iraq. The Basij were fed on a diet of "martyrdom" and sacrifice. Men like Ahmadinejad are no mystery: They are awake at the apocalypse. They are believers and cynics at the same time. They set fires and have a way of walking away from them in the nick of time, leaving the heartbreak to others. What are we to make of Ahmadinejad's millenarianism--the belief he expressed in the return of the Hidden Imam, that apocalyptic moment in history when the wicked are punished and the lowly inherit the Earth? In the same vein, what is one to make of the man's threat to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Persian power dreams:
A darkness has settled upon Iran. Ahmadinejad and the clerical custodians of the state appear to have convinced themselves that history is on their side, that America is a "wounded beast" in Iraq. A new oil windfall sustains this primitivism. There is no need to give Iran's tormented people a chance at normalcy, give an overwhelmingly young generation a piece of this modern world. An impressionable population has been presented the dream of Persian power through the pursuit of nuclear weapons. To be sure, voices can be heard in Iran at variance with the official orthodoxy. A maverick cleric, Grand Ayatollah Yusuf Saanei, recently opined that "no one can lead a country to death and destruction in the name of nuclear energy, neither those who are in charge here nor those who are in charge in other countries." In the tumult of Iran, and in the balance of its power, this cleric is a loner.
Revisionist regimes that break with the code of international order are never easy to deal with. The arguments of appeasement are always there--and legitimate fears of the destruction these regimes could unleash. But slowly a clarity is coming on the challenge Iran poses. The best words uttered yet are those of Sen. John McCain: "There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran." Ayatollah Khomeini is long gone: We now await how the world shall come to terms with his terrible inheritors."
Ahmadinejad once again showed how skillful of a politican he is.
After taking 15 British soldiers hostage (and getting Rosie O'Donnel to help with the propaganda), he shows the world how magnaniomous he is by "pardoning" the soldiers as a "gift".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
And since Nancy Pelosi was so 'successful' with her trip to Syria, she seems to be thinking traveling to Iran now.
The house divided against itself cannot stand.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/