Iran the next strategic target for America?

[Sparrowhawk]

Published January 18, 2005

Report: Iran 'strategic target' over nuke program


The Associated Press

The Bush administration has identified Iran as a "strategic target" as intelligence officials grapple with the purposes behind the Islamic republic's nuclear program, according to a story in Monday's edition of the New Yorker magazine.

In another story

Bush Doesn’t Rule Out Military Strike On Iran

SecurityProNews | Staff Writer 2005-01-18

President Bush has stated that he wouldn't rule out military action against Iran unless they start being more open about their suspected weapons program.

Iran has denied that they're making such weapons and says the nuclear program is focused on producing electricity.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," the President said in a television interview yesterday.

Mr Bush's comments followed Pentagon criticism of a report that it was mounting reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets.

"The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organisations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled The Coming Wars, said the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita.

Mr Hersh's article, published on Sunday, was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed", Mr DiRita said.

Mr Hersh reported that Mr Bush had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorising secret commando groups and other military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

Mr DiRita did not comment on that assertion."


Reporter Seymour Hersh said Bush and his national security advisers had been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer" for the purpose of gathering intelligence and targeting information.

Hersh, who broke the story about the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal, wrote that he had repeatedly been told by intelligence and military officials, on condition of anonymity that, "the next strategic target was Iran."

President Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, questioned earlier this week about the Hersh article, said he had read excerpts.

"I think it's riddled with inaccuracies. And I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," the White House spokesman said.

Iran said Sunday that samples taken from a military complex by U.N. inspectors will show that the country's atomic program is for peaceful purposes and not for weapons, as the United States alleges.

[yellowwing]

...some of the conclusions...
Hmmmmm...Nice message to the Mullah's to watch their ass!

[LivinSoFree]

This is what we should've been doing 2 years ago.

[mrbsox]

"NOW HEAR THIS...
... NOW HEAR THIS !!

WE WILL BE WATCHING YOUR ACTIVITIES
'VEWY VEWY CWOSLEY'
PLEASE DO NOT ALTER YOUR ACTIVITIES !!

Come on media... LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS !!

How about a nice big cup of 'SHUT THE Fk UP' !!

[Toby M]

Just once, I'd like to read " We won't rule out the use of nuclear weapons..." (and then follow thru)

[hrscowboy]

If our president wants to be the police officers of the world then its time to start the draft back up, other wise all these men are going to say to hell with this crap and leave the service. what the hell is going on with this president...

[d c taveapont]

Cowboy.......nothings wrong with THIS President....its THOSE who whisper in his ear who will be heard.....and right now its for war with iran......Heck we can YELL no more lives lost and not be heard.....me i'm going to sit back and see what does become of this Nation...:marine:

[ARMORY5]

I think if any military action is taken by the US it will first be sanctioned by the UN with more defined rules on what we can do. We won't do this one alone, and we would more than likley just bomb the nuclear factories. In and out with out majory confrontation. From what i read in new's articals the press is quoting what some army dogs that are prison guards said along time ago. That they thought Iran was to be the next stratigic target. Liberals!! I don't think with the current politics that we will make a move for along time down the road if at all.

[hrscowboy]

hell we cant hardly get the young men and women to go back now what the hell is this going to do.

[yellowwing]

They keep talking about that the Exit Strategy is to set up an Iraq that can protect itself from insurgents.

What they are not saying is anything about setting up an Iraq that can protect itself from IRAN! That's a much bigger job.

The current high-low number of trained Iraqis is 120,000-4,000. Even the high optimistic number is nowhere near enough to stave off Iran.

[Jarhed]

Let Iran dig their own grave. It's only a matter of time. They'll keep bullsh***ing the UN about their nuke program, someone at the UN will leak information, but of course, the UN wont act.

At that point, NATO should just level their nuclear facilities and be done with it. That'll stop them because their ground forces arent worth the s**t paper in my head.

[yellowwing]

Cheney suggests Israel may attack Iran
New York, NY, Jan. 21 (UPI) (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050121-073820-2712r.htm)
The vice president of the United States is publicly speculating Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities, widely seen as bomb-making sites.

Dick Cheney raised the possibility Jerusalem may unilaterally destroy the Islamic republic's atomic plants on the MSNBC program, "Imus in the Morning," the New York Times reported Friday.

"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," he said Thursday.

"We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it," he said. "In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically."

He also said Iran "is a noted sponsor of terror," supporting Hezbollah, and that the combination of nuclear technology and terrorism "is of great concern."

[lucien2]

Israel has done it before and will do it again. They really can't afford to a rogue Arab country with nukes, so I say look for a strike by the Israelis in the near future.

[USMC-FO]

Hrscowboy has it right: We're hard pressed to find troops--mainly shooters--as it is now. Unless we're prepared to put a draft back in place there is no way we can round up enough boots to go romping off to Iran, N Korea or any other freaking place to shove democracy down anyones throat. I am pretty sure this government does not have the stones to put a draft back in place, and that is quite apart from the issue of its ever having been dropped in the first place. This country would erupt if it were to come back in place.

Really how many of us are prepared to sacrifice our sons and daughters to this silly nonsense that we need to be the worlds police force and available to put freedom and democracy in places that don't want it let alone have a clue how it is to operate.

[d c taveapont]

Hrscowboy,USMC-FO, you two think alike and I like your opinions...I have two sons and one Daughter and I never pushed them to enter the Armed Services....I served and Thats good enough for My family. BUT my oldest said that in a National Emergency He would step up to the plate...as well as my Daughter...My youngest son is on dialysis..so that leaves him out...And I really don't think that we can go though another war...without the whole USA behind it.....

[hrscowboy]

heck dc taveapont the whole usa isnt behind this deal in iraq how the heck we gonna rally the people for iran? My daughter is an attorney and she told me just yesterday you would not believe the...

[hrscowboy]

This very same crap went on in Vietnam also...

[gwladgarwr]

Originally posted by yellowwing
They keep talking about that the Exit Strategy is to set up an Iraq that can protect itself from insurgents.

What they are not saying is anything about setting up an Iraq that can protect itself from IRAN! That's a much bigger job.

The current high-low number of trained Iraqis is 120,000-4,000. Even the high optimistic number is nowhere near enough to stave off Iran.

I won't go into what I saw when I was in Iraq, but I will say that in towns and areas I was in near the Iranian border showed me that Iran has a much bigger influence on the opinion of the average Iraqi than people think. The border was and still is so porous that our own southern border would be a role model for the Iranians. The Shi'ites in Iran definitely have a vested interest in Iraq that many Westerners fail to grasp, and those Iraqis who live near the border have much more in common with Iran than they do with most other Iraqis, even more so than Shi'ites who live far from the Iranian border.

The question is: is the United States prepared to go head-in with an Iranian Shi'ite revolutionary power before Iraq is "pacified"? That remains to be seen. However, those in the media who "leaked" the alleged ulterior motives and plans of the United States government with regard to the Iranian issue are not exactly doing anyone a favor. Sure, he/they have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but in a very limited sense, you may consider some of these "First Amendment proponents'" actions as lending "aid and comfort" to the enemy (the United States still does not have relations with Iran and trade restrictions are still in place). Witness Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam.

And yes, some of my views may be taken for "liberal". "Liberal" does not mean "doormat" to international bias and hatred for the United States, and "liberalism" MUST not be equated with "hatred of the United States within its own borders." However, many seem to confuse the abuse of our freedoms and liberties with "liberalism". That is not liberalism - to me, that is sedition and espionage. And those out there in the Middle East are quick to take advantage of and make use of our freedoms while simultaneously trying to destroy them and the newly-established democracies elsewhere.

There is a high level of individual responsiblity in exercising any kind of freedom or liberties that seem to be lacking in this country and everywhere else. It is very hard to watch people such as the person who made his public announcement in the press regarding the U.S. government's intentions vis-a-vis Iran and see countries such as Iran take advantage of such an announcement by proclaiming that such revelations obviously justify Iran's continuing development of a nuclear policy.

Suppression of the press is exactly what Iran and similar countries practice consistently. We will not have that here in this country. However, there must be a balance. The means by which we strike a balance is the fly in the ointment.

[hrscowboy]

The buttom line is that the powers that be need to think this deal with iran real real close before they decide to take on iran head to head..

[yellowwing]

Yes, we can redirect our I MEF to Iran and kick thir ass. It would really would be great if we had a few Pakistani and Turkish Divisions to help along theway.

We can count on the Hebrews, either way! But they may be busy with Syria-Lebanon. We could only give them air support, at first.

[hrscowboy]

I say nuke the rag heads and lets get that show in iran over..

[yellowwing]

Rumsfeld: Iraq Needs Time for Military
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Feb 7, 2005 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=476871)
Once its internal security forces are trained to handle violent insurgents, Iraq will require more time to build a military force strong enough to meet any threats from Iran or other neighbors, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says...."It will take some time after that before they would have the kind of capability to dissuade Iran, for example, if Iran decided to try to conduct a war with them again."


And we brought up this issue almost three weeks ago! Our Marine Corps mindset was thinking about it, we know SecDef was thinking about it. It took the Media this long to bring it up?