[Poseidon]

It seems to be more and more likely, do you think Dubya is actually going to use ground forces in this campaign?

[Ninong]

Your poll question is confusing. It reads "use of force against Iran," but then in your post you ask if Bush "is actually going to use ground forces in this campaign."

It is very likely that we, or the Israelis, will attack Iran's nuclear facilities with air strikes unless the current regime cooperates with the U.N. and discontinues uranium enrichment activities inside Iran. The best hope for a compromise would be to have the uranium enrichment activities on Russian soil under Russian supervision. That has been proposed by the Russians but rejected so far by the Iranians. That way, the Russians could see to it that it isn't enriched beyond 4%. (P.S. -- Don't discount this possibility. We should know more about this within the next couple of weeks.)

As to the use of "ground forces," we already have special ops forces in Iran and have had for months now.

[Ninong]

BTW, the enrichment that Ahmadinejad announced the other day is not even sufficient for use in nuclear power plants much less nuclear weapons. They have only 164 centrifuges connected in tandem and that gave them, according to him, enrichment to 3.5% U235. The uranium in uranium hexafluoride gas naturally contains 0.7% U235 -- the rest is U238.

You need to enrich it to 4% U235 for use in nuclear power plants but for nuclear weapons, it must be 90% U235. That would require thousands of centrifuges working in tandem. (When the centrifuge spins, the heavier U238 settles to the outside and then the gas is passed to the next centrifuge where the process is continued, making it just slightly richer in U235. Repeat as necessary. In this case, thousands of times to get it to 90% U235.)

Our government's official position, the most recent NIE on Iran, says that Iran is 10 years away from a nuclear weapons capability. Contrast that official position with the political statements coming out of the White House right now.

P.S. -- Ironic, isn't it, that our president talks to God and hears one thing and their president talks to God and hears something entirely different.

[Poseidon]

Sorry George, you are right about the poll. I will change it to use of ground forces. I am all but certain about the use of air power, it WILL happen! If it is us or the Israeli's I don't think it matters much!

[Poseidon]

Oh, and you are right, the way the white house is talking, Iran could have nukes TOMORROW!

I agree with "W" that I don't want Iran to have nukes at all! Why does a country so rich in oil need Nuclear power?

[Ninong]

Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer (12 years) and former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq (7 years), Scott Ritter, has been saying for more than a year now that Bush has already made the decision to attack Iran, it's just a matter of timing.

Scott Ritter's Statements on U.S. - Iran policy

On February 18th, 2005 Scott Ritter told an audience in Washington that George Bush had signed-off on preparations to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, and that these preparations would be completed by June of 2005. On the same occasion, he also made reference to the Iraqi elections, saying that the United States had manipulated the 2005 parliamentary election, changing the percentage of United Iraqi Alliance votes from 56% to 48%. [6]
Ritter reiterated and clarified his statements about Iran in a March 30 article published by Al Jazeera. [7]





On October 21st, 2005, Ritter was interviewed by Amy Goodman of the radio and TV show "Democracy Now!" and qualified his earlier statements about U.S.A. policy toward Iran, as they had been reported by some sources.

I was very clear, based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005. That means, have all the resources in place so that if the President orders it, the bombing can begin. It doesn't mean that the bombing is going to begin in June. And a lot of people went, "Ah, you said they were going to attack in June." Absolutely not. [8] (transcript) [9] (mp3)

Ritter has also made the following two statements regarding military intervention in Iran.

The real purpose of the EU-3 intervention - to prevent the United States from using Iran's nuclear ambition as an excuse for military intervention - is never discussed in public.

The EU-3 would rather continue to participate in fraudulent diplomacy rather than confront the hard truth - that it is the United States, and not Iran, that is operating outside international law when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.

On February 06, 2006, in James A. Little Theater Santa Fe, Ritter stated about a US war with Iran: "We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," and said that after the UN security Council will have found no evidence of WMD, Bolton "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves." and continued "How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter," [10]

From Wikipedia


And then last night on CNN retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner said that U.S. military operations are already 'underway' in Iran.


It is common knowledge that we have Iran under intense satellite surveillance and have had for the past couple of years. And for more than a year now we have been sending in reconaissance drones, one or two or which have been shot down and displayed on Iranian TV.

It is common knowledge that we're funding and equipping the MEK to carry out clandestine operations in Iran. Col. Gardiner claims that they are being led and advised by U.S. Special Ops forces on the ground in Iran. Scott Ritter and others have previously claimed that we have sent in small special ops recon teams over the past several months.

Rumor has it (and it's strictly rumor) that Bush wants to get this going before the elections in November. I don't know how much credence to give that idea. I'm hoping it's not true. We are not in a position to open this particular can of worms right now for obvious reasons. I'm even more concerned about this possibility than I was about going into Iraq when we did. Remember WGScott's "War" thread that he opened back in October 2002? I didn't think we should go into Iraq without giving the U.N. inspectors more time to complete their mission and I didn't think we should do it without more international support and a new U.N. resolution. And that's when I expected the U.N. inspectors would eventually find something. The Bush Administration obviously knew more than I did, which is why they wanted to rush things.

I'm still holding out hope that China and Russia will exert enough pressure on Iran that a compromise can be worked out. The Chinese have a top-ranking diplomat in Tehran right now trying to drum some sense into them. We should hear something from Russia before the end of the month. If Tehran doesn't quit their enrichment program (in Iran, that is), then Bush will almost certain hit them with air strikes. This could turn out to be a VERY big mistake for world peace and stability. They are nowhere near being an imminent threat and the better course of action would be to contain them and ratchet up the pressure through U.N. sanctions first. Iran is a politically complicated country and international sanctions may help undermine the current leadership.

[Poseidon]

I don't know why, but the idea of committing ground troops to IRAN really scares me. I think it may the "straw that breaks the camels back" for the US, in the eyes of the Arab world. I KNOW we are pretty much hated, but to push into Iraq with Saddam is one thing, to push into Iran is another.

[Ninong]

You know how both sides in a court case know which expert witnesses to hire to bolster their case before they even tell the experts any of the details. Some psychiatrists will always say the woman was insane when she drowned her five children before they even examine her and others will say she was fully aware of right and wrong. Let's call it a reputation for reliability. Lawyers know in advance which doctors to call. And the doctors know that their lucrative expert witness fees are dependent on their reputation for the "right stuff."

Well, have you noticed that it's pretty much the same with the various TV networks' in-house military analysts? Have you ever seen a Fox News military analyst who disagreed with the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq? Or Iran?

On the April 12th. edition of The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing the potential use of military action against Iran, Fox News military analyst retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney purported to "lay out a campaign today that will take Iran down very quickly." When asked by Bill O'Reilly if his military strategy "would be all air, no infantry, and maybe some Special Forces trying to help," McInerney responded that was "correct."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

That's because back on December 20, 2002, McInerney made a similar prediction about the upcoming Iraq war. He said it would be "shorter" than the 42 days it took to complete the Persian Gulf War in 1991, adding "It is going to be absolutely awesome, and that's why this war, if we do it properly, will go very quick, and we'll have less civilian casualties than we did last time." Doesn't that sound like exactly what Rumsfeld was telling us at the time? Shock and awe, baby!

The Gulf War, for those of you who are really young or really old with lousy memories, lasted a total of 42 days (38 days in the air and 4 days on the ground).

Here we go again!

P.S. -- Don't forget, we started the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 before we had finished the job in Afghanistan. Nobody wants to talk about the fact that we still haven't captured Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden. Or that the Taliban and tribal warlords control more of Afghanistan today than they did three years ago. Or that the new Afghan constitution doesn't really guarantee freedom of speech or freedom of religion or equal rights for women. Or that the opium poppy crop is now bigger than it ever was. Or that Mayor Karzai can't leave Kabul without risking being captured.

[Poseidon]

So we are going to open a whole new can of worms, and let the other 2 cans we have open just crawl all over!

I think if we push to many Muslim countries around we will start seeing more happen at home. I know if I lived in Iran/Iraq/Afganistan I would not be very fond of the USA right now.

[Ninong]

Asymmetrical warfare is something Rumsfeld doesn't like to talk about. Like Napoleon before him, he believes his superior force is invincible.

Before attacking Iran, I hope the Pentagon will give some thought (more than they did to the occupation of Iraq) to how they will deal with the brigades of suicide bombers that Iran has threatened to unleash worldwide in response. I just hope that if they are going to attack Iran, that they have realistically planned for this possibility.

No one questions our status as the world's only military superpower but people may have some questions about the judgment of those in charge of managing the application of that power. If this were a game of chess, I would say that Rumsfeld doesn't think more than two moves ahead.

[Poseidon]

You give him two moves? Hell I would only give him the CURRENT PLAY! I am not so sure about Iran's claims to 40,000 suicide bombers, but I know even 10 could make a heck of an impact, even with conventional explosives and a trip to the hardware store.

We know Iran is a long way off from producing a "real" atomic weapon, but what about a "dirty bomb"?

As far as our military is concerned, I don't think there is anyone except CHINA that could really stand up to us in a CONVENTIONAL WAR, this is anything BUT CONVENTIONAL though.

[romunov]

The suicide bombers story sounds fake to me. Just another manufactured story to scare people in submission. But, I could be wrong... Or not.

Why does a country so rich in oil need Nuclear power?

Oil is too precious to waste it as fuel - besides, I hear it's not good for the air we breath.

Let us just not forget that Iran has, under the NPA, right to a civilian nuclear program. Israel has not signed the treaty as of today. Makes you wonder... huh?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by romunov

The suicide bombers story sounds fake to me. Just another manufactured story to scare people in submission. But, I could be wrong... Or not.

It doesn't sound like the sort of propaganda that our side is noted for. If it's fake, it's coming from Mahmoud "Mad Dog" Ahmadinejad and not from Donald "I Don't Do Diplomacy" Rumsfeld. Chances are it's true but probably exaggerated. In fact, just about everything coming out of the new regime in Tehran is exaggerated. Beware people in positions of power who think God is talking to them and giving them divine guidance.

Here are the opening paragraphs of that story in the Sunday Times:

IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

Dr Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified: “We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He added that some of them were “quite close” to the Iranian border in Iraq.

In a tape recording heard by The Sunday Times, Abbasi warned the would-be martyrs to “pay close attention to wily England” and vowed that “Britain’s demise is on our agenda”.

At a recruiting station in Tehran recently, volunteers for the force had to show their birth certificates, give proof of their address and tick a box stating whether they would prefer to attack American targets in Iraq or Israeli targets.

Chances are that they have no more than a few hundred trained suicide bombers. The 40,000 figure probably refers to potential volunteers. I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. Their religious fanatics sound a lot more scary than our religious fanatics. Our religious fanatics might be willing to blow up the environment but they draw the line at blowing up themselves.

Let us just not forget that Iran has, under the NPA, right to a civilian nuclear program. Israel has not signed the treaty as of today. Makes you wonder... huh?

No, it doesn't make me wonder. Israel is not a party to the NPT and has no intention of ever being a party to it. Just as India and Pakistan are not signatories. South Africa signed the NPT and destroyed their nuclear weapons only after it became obvious that they were about to undergo a radical regime change.

The most serious breach of the goals of the NPT was Pakistan's Dr. A. Q. Khan selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. He was fired in 2001 due to pressure from the U.S. but he's still free as a bird and living in luxury in Pakistan, even though he has confessed. He's still a national hero there for giving them the bomb to counter India.

The U.S. is not likely to ever rock the boat with Israel about its nuclear arsenal and it is highly unlikely that we will do anything about Pakistan's nuclear weapons unless the country should fall into the "wrong hands." As to India, we just reached a new agreement to cooperate with them on their nuclear power program.

As far as Iran's right to a civilian nuclear program under Article IV is concerned, it is a qualified right that is subordinate to its obligations under Articles I and II. It is not an unlimited right. The IAEA has broad discretion regarding what kind of assistance they will provide, or allow other states to provide, to a non-weapons state. Iran has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to comply with the provisions of the NPT, which is why the IAEA has given them an ultimatum to cease uranium enrichment by the end of this month.

It is not in the national interests of either China or Russia for Iran to have nuclear weapons, which is why both of them can be expected to exert pressure on Iran to give up it's uranium enrichment program. The IAEA would almost certainly allow other states (i.e., Russia) to supply Iran with enriched uranium for nuclear power. China will probably explain to Ahmadinejad that if he doesn't agree to the Russian proposal, they and Russia will join the western powers in the UN Security Council in imposing severe sanctions on Iran. Pressure from Russia and China is much more likely to produce results than pressure from the EU-3.

In the meantime, gold hit $616/oz today and light sweet crude broke above $72/bbl.

[Poseidon]

Boy I wish my GOLD STOCK that I have would rise like the price of GOLD!

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...bol=US%3ACBLRF

As for the NPT, I still say Iran has no need for nuclear power. I think they are just pushing it to see how far they can get.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Boy I wish my GOLD STOCK that I have would rise like the price of GOLD!

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...bol=US%3ACBLRF

NEVER fool around with penny stocks, especially penny stocks that have anything to do with mining. You may as well buy a bunch of lottery tickets with the money instead, you would probably have a better return.

My gold investments are in one mutual fund and it's up 90% over the past year (40% per year over the past three years).

For oil, I invest in a natural resources mutual fund. It's up 61% over the past year (45% per year over the past three years).

I got into both of those funds in 2003 when I realized that WGScott's advice from October 2002 was looking better and better. He said we should all invest in oil stocks now that it appeared likely our cowboy president was about to attack Iraq. The gold was a play on the long-term downward trend of the dollar and in anticipation of a lengthy period of worldwide political instability.

That's a lot safer than trying to pick a single company and hoping it takes off. I've been burned enough on individual companies, especially biotech companies, that, in general, I tend to shy away from them.

[Poseidon]

I agree George, my Dad actually bought me this stock as a High School graduation present. When he bought it, it was about .50 a share, and I HAD 500 shares. About 8 years ago they sent me a letter stating they were COMBINING shares 10 for 1, so now I own 50 shares! The funny thing was when they did the combine, the value stayed about the same, this stock just STINKS. I don't even bother watching it, except for maybe a couple times a year when someone brings up gold.

Looks like you are doing VERY WELL on your investments, my real investment is my 401K, and I am gaining about 25% at the moment. I am hoping to increase my contribution soon, but I have to pay the bills too!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Looks like you are doing VERY WELL on your investments...

I still haven't recovered what I lost in 2000, 2001 and 2002. All three of those years were losers for me. The past three years have been much better, especially the past eight or nine months.

[Ninong]

The IAEA's report is exactly what was expected. The response of the U.S., Britain and France is exactly as predicted. The response from China and Russia is exactly as expected, which is not exactly a negative here.

Excerpt:

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton already has said he plans to introduce a resolution requiring Tehran to comply with the council’s demand to stop its enrichment program. The resolution would not call for sanctions now, but it would be introduced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows for sanctions and is militarily enforceable.

Iran’s U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, said Tehran will refuse to comply with such a resolution because its activities are legal and peaceful. Enrichment can be used to generate fuel or make the fissile core of nuclear weapons.
“If the Security Council decides to take decisions that are not within its competence, then Iran does not feel obliged to obey,” he said Thursday in New York.

He also said Tehran was prepared to return to discussions of the offer it made in negotiations with the Europeans last year if the international community agrees to “stop this nonsense, pressure tactic.”

Moscow idea 'still alive'

A Russian proposal to move Tehran’s uranium enrichment to Russian territory “is still alive,” he said, “and Iran is prepared to consider any proposal that will guarantee Iran’s rights.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, insisted the U.N. nuclear watchdog should continue to play a central role in the dispute. “It mustn’t shrug this role from its shoulders and pass it on to the U.N. Security Council,” Putin said.


P.S. -- The Russian proposal is the best hope for a peaceful resolution of this crisis. Both the Chinese and the Russians are pushing the Iranians to accept this "out" for two reasons: They really don't want Iran obtaining nuclear weapons because it would upset the balance in the entire Middle East, but more importantly, they don't want the United States to have an excuse to attack Iran.

In the meantime, "Mad Dog" Mahmoud is still sounding like a Mississippi or Alabama governor standing in a school doorway during the desegration mess in the 1960's. Who knew politicians all over the world could sound so much alike when they were appealing to "their base?"

An interesting consequence of all this wild blustering is that the price of oil, which had dropped from last Friday's record high of $75.35/bbl all the way down to $70.90/bbl yesterday, is now up more than $1.00 today and back above $72/bbl.

The price of gold is going bonkers today! Right now it's $656/oz!!! Thank you Mad Dog.

[Ninong]

I think it's time we revived this thread from a year ago now that we're getting close to bombing Iran. But before I get into that, I want to update my last post on the prices of gold and crude oil. Gold reached $732/oz two weeks after my last post to this thread. It fell back to around $540/oz a few months later and it's now back up to $654/oz, just about exactly where it was back in April 2006. Crude oil fell dramatically a few months ago, all the way down to $51/bbl thanks to reduced demand resulting from global warming. It's around $58/bbl today.

The reason I mention gold and oil again in this Iran thread is because both will rise dramatically should we attack Iran, assuming Iran retaliates in a way that causes supply disruptions in the world oil markets.

Anyway, back to the game of predicting if and when Bush will bomb Iran...

He will. He has been planning this for the past five years, so I don't see him changing his mind now.

My guess would be between March 17-21 or April 15-19, 2007. It will be a massive bombing campaign against several hundred targets, including a few dozen deep bunkers. It will probably be over in three to four nights.

[schrocat]

Nahhh.

He'd have to be a moron to do that.

...and since we all know he isn't a moron...