Your position is on the Iraq war means very little to the current crisis going on with Tehran. I am sure that some can argue that are troops are too thinned out and not well equipped to deal with Iran or some similar argument. Let's put aside the old Iraq debate for this thread and discuss what should be done with Iran given known information we have on them today.

Good article out of the independent today...it's a long one but required reading to get you caught up.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article338254.ece

Iran: The nuclear nightmare
Tehran's defiance sparks fears of a regional showdown

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 13 January 2006

The confrontation between Iran and the West deepened yesterday as both sides hardened their positions over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany announced that more than two years of negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme were at a "dead end" and they urged the UN nuclear watchdog to call an emergency board meeting to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, accusing Tehran of a "documented record of concealment and deception". Diplomats said the talks at the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would probably be held in the first week of next month.

The Iranian leadership stood firm in response. "We are not worried about our nuclear case being sent to the Security Council," Gholamreza Rahmani-Fazli, the deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said on Iranian television. Earlier, the former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani said on radio that the stand off had "become very serious and has reached its climax". He said Iran intended to press on with its nuclear programme and had no intention of complying with " colonial taboos".

Western fears that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon have been fuelled by statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since his election in June last year. He has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" , and Iran has taken steps since August to reverse commitments to the international community on freezing its uranium-related activities. The most serious step came on Tuesday, when the Iranians broke UN seals at its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which can be used to produce weapons-grade material.

As a result, Iran is faced with the real possibility of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions for the first time after more than two years of talking to the Europeans about curbing its nuclear activities.

Iran insists that its intentions in pursuing nuclear technology are peaceful. But the West has continued to harbour suspicions because of the Iranians' refusal to come clean on the extent of its nuclear programme, which was concealed from inspectors for 18 years. There also questions as to why oil-rich Iran, with its vast energy reserves, is so keen to develop nuclear energy.

Last week, a leaked EU intelligence assessment provided more details about companies and middlemen used by the Iranians in their search for nuclear suppliers in Europe and the former Soviet Union. The report provided no proof, however, that the materials were destined for a nuclear weapon.

Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector who headed the UN nuclear watchdog, said: "I think some of the Iranians want to go to nuclear weapons." He pointed to a 40-megawatt heavy-water plant at Arak, which could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb, as a sign that Iran may not have purely peaceful intentions.

A former Israeli general said he recently met Iranian figures in Europe who told him Tehran was "very determined" to acquire nuclear weapons. Uzi Dayan said his informants had an Iranian academic and civil servant background and represented "the official Iranian position". Israel has refused to rule out a possible pre-emptive military strike on Iran.

The European statement issued after the ministers' talks in Berlin stressed that the current dispute is "about Iran's failure to build the necessary confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Iran continues to challenge the authority of the IAEA Board by ignoring its repeated requests and providing only partial co-operation to the IAEA." The statement noted that this is not just a dispute between Iran and Europe "but between Iran and the whole international community" . It said it was important for the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, as well as the stability of the Middle East region, "that the international community responds firmly to this challenge".

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, urged the UN Security Council to maintain the pressure on the Iranians.

However, Iran argues that it has a right under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium, and has informed the IAEA that it only intends to conduct small-scale enrichment at Natanz . The Europeans and US could face difficulties in referring Iran to the UN Security Council for breaking a moratorium which was voluntary in the first place, and without the IAEA declaring Iran to be in breach of its obligations.

The Europeans and the US stressed that they still hope for a diplomatic solution to the stand off. But some analysts said it was a mistake by the Europeans and the Bush administration in recent days to use threatening language that could force Iran into even more extreme positions.

Sounds familiar? IRAQ - WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of holding weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear arms programme. UN weapons inspectors were expelled from the country on the eve of the 2003 war.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 1995 that it had a clandestine nuclear weapons scheme following revelations by Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who had defected. Before 2003 invasion, regime was accused of concealing WMD from UN inspectors.


MISCALCULATION

Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 5 March 2003: "It serves the interest of no one for Saddam to miscalculate. It doesn't serve the interest of the United States or the world or Iraq for Saddam to miscalculate our intention or our willingness to act."

SECURITY COUNCIL

November 2002: Iraq threatened with military action unless it co-operates with UN inspectors. US leads invasion without Security Council backing.

IRAN

WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of working on nuclear weapons programme. UN weapons inspectors are at work in the country.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 2002 that it had a clandestine nuclear programme after revelations by Iranian dissidents. Iran was accused by Britain, France and Germany yesterday of "concealment and deception".

MISCALCULATION

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 11 January, 2006: "The Iranian regime has made a serious miscalculation.If negotiations have run their course and Iran is not going to negotiate in good faith, then there's no other option but to refer the matter to the Security Council."

SECURITY COUNCIL

12 January 2006: Britain, France and Germany call for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Failure to reach agreement could give US hawks - and Israel - an excuse for unilateral military action.

This is where the Bush lies will come back to bite him in many, many ways - both at home and abroad.

so i guess americans are shitting their pants again.

Iknow you want to not include iraq, but iran was a problem back when we decided to invade iraq. in fact iran would've been 3rd on my list after saudi arabia(though the saudi prince is good buddies with
the bushes) for harboring terrorists and networking with them. just barely behind syria, but not by much.

anyways what is there to say? looks like military force is being a very possible option. but not just yet IMO. like north korea leader kim the Iran leader likes to talk up a lil' more than what he's capable of at the moment. yet his brashness is a cause for concern because he'll probally look to impliment al queda as much as he can into the fight. recently telling some muslim leaders of his "white light" dream which kinda suggested nuclear holocaust idealism..but once again he talks so extreme that some of it is smoke screening.

america is run on so much fear these days that some dictators talk like that just to get in our heads. but there is a serious to iran's leader, and his connections to arab extremists isnt all that good either. but as far as being scared, i hope that bush isnt scared because he attacks head first everything he fears w/o thinking.

its funny that iran is is everything they say iraq was. maybe they were spying on iran instead. :? nevetheless i hope it is something that can be solved w/o more soldiers. because anymore invasions can mean a draft and possibly a mini world war 3 with a couple more middle east invasions. or maybe not, maybe we'll kick ass again on another country and have another set of insurgents to play with. :? . whows knows at this point.

i miss the old radical cia days of just using elite military seals or rangers and hiring asassins to knock off the head cheese.

This is where the Bush lies will come back to bite him in many, many ways - both at home and abroad.

The purpose of this thread is to hear your opinions on what we should do. Save the Bush/Iraq rhetoric for another already made thread....Pretty Please.. :alien:

Here's the deal to give you some background.

You see the Brits, Germany and yes even France taking the lead in this one. Why is that? It's because Iran is working on building a missle that has the distance to hit most of Europe. A missle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. They are the one's scared shitless right now. Our interests are in Iraq and Israel.

The other thing here is that the majority of Iranians are very pro-American.

At this point the only way you can stop Iran from building nukes is sending NATO or letting the Israelis take care of it but that won't happen, too much else at stake for them to get invovled.

So I don't think you can stop them from building them so NATO better come up with a way to mount an internal insurrection.

Here's the deal to give you some background.

You see the Brits, Germany and yes even France taking the lead in this one. Why is that? It's because Iran is working on building a missle that has the distance to hit most of Europe. A missle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. They are the one's scared shitless right now. Our interests are in Iraq and Israel.

The other thing here is that the majority of Iranians are very pro-American.

At this point the only way you can stop Iran from building nukes is sending NATO or letting the Israelis take care of it but that won't happen, too much else at stake for them to get invovled.

So I don't think you can stop them from building them so NATO better come up with a way to mount an internal insurrection.
ok pro-american? are any of these people in power? nope.

here's some background for you. America isnt getting any love despite what some guy says about iranians being "pro-american".

As far as what NATO should do. Well mounting internal insurrections is a waste of time IMO. I honestly think military force is the option that will make sense if iran doesnt back down.

This is where the Bush lies will come back to bite him in many, many ways - both at home and abroad.

The purpose of this thread is to hear your opinions on what we should do. Save the Bush/Iraq rhetoric for another already made thread....Pretty Please.. :alien:

I was answering you - there isn't anything America can do because A)Nobody will believe them B)The military is already stretched terribly thin and C)Bush is adement on keeping cuting taxes during a time of war. Blair is going to have his own issues on believeability.

This will be Israel's war, at least initially.

However Iran is pretty much surrounded, with Iraq on one side, Afghanistan on the other and the Arabian sea below - it's a battle they cannot possibly win.

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!
french segways of hate. i expect better of you Mr McClain

http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cart_people/french_guy.gif

Gecko:

You're not playing fair.

You compare the situation in Iran to the situation in Iraq in your first post in this thread - - - and then tell everyone responding to that post not to discuss Iraq.

I'll answer as best I can:

1. Targeted strikes;

2. No, I don't see the similarities you'd like me to see. Every single thing about the leadup to Iran and the leadup to Iraq are different.

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!
french segways of hate. i expect better of you Mr McClain

http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cart_people/french_guy.gif

I don't hate the French. Hate is such a strong word.

I detest the French. I detest their inate ability to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder, and their absolute hypocricy. The help build a nuclear plant for the Iranians, they sheild Arafat's family, they deny us access to their airspace for military aircraft during several campaigns in that region (flights from Ramstein AFB in Germany), they generally are a thorn in our side -- but if the shit goes down, who do they turn to?

Us.

I say, fuck 'em.

Every single thing about the leadup to Iraq and the leadup to Iraq are different.
huh

Every single thing about the leadup to Iraq and the leadup to Iraq are different.
huh

Taymelo = Rain Man.

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!
french segways of hate. i expect better of you Mr McClain

http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cart_people/french_guy.gif

I don't hate the French. Hate is such a strong word.

I detest the French. I detest their inate ability to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder, and their absolute hypocricy. The help build a nuclear plant for the Iranians, they sheild Arafat's family, they deny us access to their airspace for military aircraft during several campaigns in that region (flights from Ramstein AFB in Germany), they generally are a thorn in our side -- but if the shit goes down, who do they turn to?

Us.

I say, fuck 'em.
are you saying this from a righteous USA standpoint? which doesnt exist.

i never said love the french but you seem to think they are flip floppers which can be used to describe us. we treat saudi arabia the same as iraq?

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!
french segways of hate. i expect better of you Mr McClain

http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cart_people/french_guy.gif

I don't hate the French. Hate is such a strong word.

I detest the French. I detest their inate ability to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder, and their absolute hypocricy. The help build a nuclear plant for the Iranians, they sheild Arafat's family, they deny us access to their airspace for military aircraft during several campaigns in that region (flights from Ramstein AFB in Germany), they generally are a thorn in our side -- but if the shit goes down, who do they turn to?

Us.

I say, fuck 'em.
are you saying this from a righteous USA standpoint? which doesnt exist.

i never said love the french but you seem to think they are flip floppers which can be used to describe us. we treat saudi arabia the same as iraq?

True. But I don't believe the U.S. is "righteous". We're the dirtiest players on the block, no doubt. Much of the world hates us becase we meddle in everybody's business, and fuck leaders over by turning on them to satisfy our own agendas.

But, on the other hand, we're one of the most generous countries this planet has ever seen. Aid, military assistance, refugee acceptance (most of the time), immigrants, welfare, the home to some of the most important human rights organizations in the world, the Red Cross, the list goes on and on. Politically, we're bastards. Charitably, we give like nobody has ever given before.

Yes, and who helped Iran build their nuclear facility?

France.

I say we go after the French!!!
french segways of hate. i expect better of you Mr McClain

http://www.hasslefreeclipart.com/cart_people/french_guy.gif

I don't hate the French. Hate is such a strong word.

I detest the French. I detest their inate ability to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder, and their absolute hypocricy. The help build a nuclear plant for the Iranians, they sheild Arafat's family, they deny us access to their airspace for military aircraft during several campaigns in that region (flights from Ramstein AFB in Germany), they generally are a thorn in our side -- but if the shit goes down, who do they turn to?

Us.

I say, fuck 'em.
are you saying this from a righteous USA standpoint? which doesnt exist.

i never said love the french but you seem to think they are flip floppers which can be used to describe us. we treat saudi arabia the same as iraq?

True. But I don't believe the U.S. is "righteous". We're the dirtiest players on the block, no doubt. Much of the world hates us becase we meddle in everybody's business, and fuck leaders over by turning on them to satisfy our own agendas.

But, on the other hand, we're one of the most generous countries this planet has ever seen. Aid, military assistance, refugee acceptance (most of the time), immigrants, welfare, the home to some of the most important human rights organizations in the world, the Red Cross, the list goes on and on. Politically, we're bastards. Charitably, we give like nobody has ever given before.
we do? damn africa would dispute that. and we've by far given more to the oppessors of other countries than the actual people. throughout history thats been pretty much the case.

not all that charitable in the long run. charity is politics too and as you said we're dirty.

so once again no need to get self righteous on the punkass french cornball bastards. :wink:

We should do nothing.

Israel will take care of the problem while the rest of us sit on our asses and try to use common sense with these fucking nutjobs.

US needs to get out of Iraqi and just let them do genocide on each other after it is over, go in and try go get something done. American troops dying because Chaney is not rich enough is pure bullshit.


Art

Gecko:

You're not playing fair.

You compare the situation in Iran to the situation in Iraq in your first post in this thread - - - and then tell everyone responding to that post not to discuss Iraq.

I'll answer as best I can:

1. Targeted strikes;

2. No, I don't see the similarities you'd like me to see. Every single thing about the leadup to Iraq and the leadup to Iraq are different.

Bah! I made no such comparisons, the article did and it was at a very elemetary level. If you were the next leader walking into office of the USA, and of a different party, you wouldn't be sitting around a table whining about how the past administration wronged you and the American ppl, you would figure out a way to deal with it. Pretend your a leader for goodness sakes and come up with a plan instead of blaming.

Besides, you answered my question beautifully well without resorting to attacks against the bush admin. Targeted strikes is your answer.

Many of you need to brush up on world affairs and who has what at stake here. The Europeans will be begging us to deal with the Iranians since it's there country that will be in reach of a nuke not ours. The iranians are building one that reaches Europe for a reason, it's called leverage.

Second, no one is going to let Israel do anything to anyone. If israel attacked iran again it would spark off a war of the likes you have neer seen before. It must be said however that Isreal has the capability to wipe out any arab country that comes after them even without the use of nukes. The best military in the world is Isreal's.

The targeted air strikes that TM proposes won't work either. Iran has had a long time to plan this and have been building this nuke capability long before we went into Iraq. Iran has their shit spread out over so many places and hidden so deep it would be impossible to derail there efforts.

The only option left it seems is to let them fricking build it and then get the poeple to rise up, overthrow the mullahs and hope a pro-western gov't gets into place.

The dude that's in there now is a psychopath.

Let the people rise up....oh you mean like what we were hoping for in Iraqi? See how well that worked and now we are paying for it in American lives, something that could have been prevented by eliminating Saddam years ago. There is so much hate between Sunnis and Shitites (sp?) that Saddam fostered that eliminating him 15 years ago could have made this much easier to deal with.

Let the Europeans deal with it as well as they deal with everything else, cave in and Iran gets everything they want and then some and still does it 5 to 10 years down the line.

Deal with it now or 10 years from now when it happens again, it will be worse.

Sure Israeli going commando (which they have done before and it did not start a war) might lead to a war, but you have to know that the ME is just waiting to go to war with Israeli again. If you let Iran build the nukes, game over for Israeli. They wont hesitate to use them even if it means Martydom for their whole country. 7 whores is 7 whores.


Art

I think Israel knows exactly where all the key targets are in Iran - Mossad is scary shit.

Let the people rise up....oh you mean like what we were hoping for in Iraqi?

Art
ouch

that plan hasnt been too great as of late.

Gecko:

You're not playing fair.

You compare the situation in Iran to the situation in Iraq in your first post in this thread - - - and then tell everyone responding to that post not to discuss Iraq.

I'll answer as best I can:

1. Targeted strikes;

2. No, I don't see the similarities you'd like me to see. Every single thing about the leadup to Iraq and the leadup to Iraq are different.

Bah! I made no such comparisons, the article did and it was at a very elemetary level. If you were the next leader walking into office of the USA, and of a different party, you wouldn't be sitting around a table whining about how the past administration wronged you and the American ppl, you would figure out a way to deal with it. Pretend your a leader for goodness sakes and come up with a plan instead of blaming.

Besides, you answered my question beautifully well without resorting to attacks against the bush admin. Targeted strikes is your answer.

Honestly, I thought that from the words "Sound familiar" on it was your writing. My bad. The author made the comparisons. Although I'm guilty of this too, if you'd put his words in a quote block, it would be easier to differentiate his words from yours.

And yes, I did answer your questions beautifully well without resorting to attacks against the Bush admin. I rock!

I did catch the tail end of an interesting discussion late last night. Can't remember what show it was on, but they had experts (also can't remember if they were congressmen or military guys - yes I was drunk), talking about the best option, and one of the things one of them said was targeted strikes could be a problem, because we may not know where all of their facilities are, and they are also heavily fortified and underground - that they learned a lot about when Israel bombed nuclear facilities in the past and built facilities that are much harder to get with airstrikes. This guy was suggesting we would have to actually attack Iran with ground troops.

I don't know how legitimate what he's saying is. I'd have to imagine that although they have better technology to fortify the facilities, we have much tougher "bunker busters" and other munitions. Its the only time I've heard anyone suggest air strikes might not work. I'm guessing the guy is wrong. Also, one of his major concerns was if we only know about 3 facilities, and they have a 4th one hidden, once we strike them they will strike from the 4th facility. But I don't understand that argument. I don't think anyone is suggesting they already have a bomb, and if they don't haven't built the bombs yet, and we move quick, they aren't striking shit, even if we miss a facility.

Gecko:

You're not playing fair.

You compare the situation in Iran to the situation in Iraq in your first post in this thread - - - and then tell everyone responding to that post not to discuss Iraq.

I'll answer as best I can:

1. Targeted strikes;

2. No, I don't see the similarities you'd like me to see. Every single thing about the leadup to Iran and the leadup to Iraq are different. I like the idea of targeted strikes. Lets send W on one personally,he likes wearing flight suits. http://news.3yen.com/wp-content/images/dr_strangelove_bombdrop-300.jpg