US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. How does "The World" think that sanctions will succeed with Iran when they failed with Iraq.

All sanctions did in Iraq was to starve thousands of citizens including children. We invaded them anyway for pretentious "justifications".

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html


http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~progress/pamp_ed3.html

[think]

2. Who's in charge here in America anymore? Obama? The MIC?

To be sure it isn't the American people!

[RZM]

6. How does 'watching' an Israeli attack indicate anything about who is in charge of the US?

Israel is a sovereign nation. While the US is their strongest ally, we don't dictate their policies toward the Palestinians or anybody else. They've frequently done things that the US government doesn't approve of. That's got nothing at all to do with who is in control in the US.

[RZM]

14. Was he really a 'prominent Jewish leader?'

Or a dumbass who runs a paper and was immediately denounced by actual Jewish leaders in Atlanta?

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. Prominent?

In his own mind, perhaps.

This reads like something that stormfront would be collectively fapping over.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. "American Free Press" is an anti-Semitic, white nationalist, Holocaust denying "newspaper."

Southern Poverty Law Center for active hate groups (DC): http://www.splcenter.org/node/105/activegroups

The Jews run the media, "reverse racism" is real, and so is the New World Order.

On edit: The "author" of that "article," Michael Collins Piper, is a Holocaust revisionist/denier!

[think]

22. Sorry I am not familiar with "American Free Press" nor their hate speech

I was more concerned with the hate speech of Andrew Adler and should have vetted my source more closely. I did just a quick read of the article and it had the same substance and appearance as many other articles posted by other sources.

Here's a list of MANY stories about this individual who uses his religious magazine to openly call for the assassination of Obama by the Israeli secret police as possible option to influence American foreign policy and to bomb Iran on Israel's behalf:

https://www.google.com/search?q=atlanta+jewish+magazine+obama&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ei=-iZBT5e_MITCgAeN2tWqCA&ved=0CAwQpwUoBA&biw=1199&bih=645

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Well now you know.

Not a great idea to use Holocaust deniers from an anti-Semitic site to quote things about Jews. As for the story, it was all over the news and had SEVERAL threads here on DU.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. Panetta & Pentagon admits their "bunker buster" bombs cannot penetrate Iran's underground facilities

Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran By Reuven Pedatzur
Published 03:42 09.02.12

Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.

If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840

[WillyT]

4. K & R !!!

[xchrom]

5. Iran risks nuclear Cold War

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9089995/Iran-risks-nuclear-Cold-War.html

Dealing with the Iranian nuclear programme is a “crisis coming down the tracks” which could lead to military conflict in the Middle East, the Foreign Secretary warns.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Foreign Secretary says that Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could be more dangerous than the original East-West Cold War as there are not the same “safety mechanisms” in place.

“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” he said. “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme … If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.

“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms … That would be a disaster in world affairs.”

[RZM]

7. Sounds almost like an argument in favor of military action against Iran

No doubt that is a case made by those who support air strikes. As long as Iran is prevented from obtaining the bomb, you can make a strong case against its Sunni Arab rivals obtaining nuclear weapons. But once Iran has it, these countries might re-evaluate their positions no matter what anybody else in the world thinks.

[leveymg]

20. Newsflash: Saudis already have the bomb. It's called Pakistan.

Your point is so transparently false, I'm amazed it still gets made by those who should know better.

[RZM]

25. That's not the same as having it yourself

Can the Saudis rely on Pakistan 100 percent? It's not the most stable country in the region. Besides, Pakistan spends most of its time worrying about India and Afghanistan.

[leveymg]

26. For the Saudis, it's better than having the bomb, itself. Nuclear ambiguity gives them very

effective political cover.

Much of the instability in Pakistan actually reflects infighting among various Saudi and GCC factions. But, despite the complexity, the nuclear proxy arrangement has worked very effectively to deter and has actually turned Israel into an ally of convenience.

If Iran were to also become a nuclear power that might similarly calm regional tensions, considerably.

[ronnie624]

23. The bias in that article is very obvious.

The problem with the point of view being pushed, is that it is on very shaky ground, legally, morally and logically.

Iran is legally entitled, as per the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue the development of nuclear technology in a sovereign capacity. Nothing in the treaty allows for one country or a group of countries to arbitrarily deny the rights of other signatories. In fact, it specifically forbids it. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and our government's own intelligence estimate says that Iran has made no attempt since 2003, and that those attempts were limited to theoretical research.

The moral issues are glaring. The attitude of both American and Israeli policy makers is premised on a belief in an ordained right to violently intervene in the affairs of other countries out of fear or to promote a political agenda. Surely the flaws in this line of reasoning are obvious.

Attacking Iran would inflame the population against us and further radicalize the country's politics. It would anger Muslims throughout the world, and probably initiate a wave of terrorist attacks globally. It would certainly destabilize the Middle East even more, and radically increase the potential for broader regional conflict. It would also further endanger the global economy by an increase in oil prices. In short, it would dramatically decrease global security. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by attacking Iran.

People might as well get used to a nuclear powered Iran. The capability of producing nuclear weapons is part and parcel to processing nuclear fuel and operating reactors for peaceful purposes, and the only way to deny Iran that capability, is to deny them their rights as a signatory to the NPT.

Israel and the U.S. are the aggressors. Iran is in far greater danger of being attacked by them than vice versa.

[xchrom]

24. i agree w/ you -- i think what we should take away from the news yesterday --

is that we've turned a corner.

today iran cuts oil off from the UK and france.

we're just in a different place than we were.

[Vincardog]

8. Considering the FACT that the "experts" said much the same about Iraq' WMDs. I don't hold

much credence in their opinions. Add that to all the LIES they have been telling about our
"success" in Afghanistan and I line my Bird cage with their opinions.

[woo me with science]

9. Of course they do.

K&R

[roamer65]

10. WW3 is coming...just in time for the 2014 centennial of WW1.

[annm4peace]

11. A Cold War with Iran ????

that is so ridiculous.

There has been no proof Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. The IAEA is at all Iran sites.


Even if they did make ONE nuclear bomb.. which would take a whole lot to make, they would have to test it and once they tested it they would be back to ZERO.

When I heard a news guy say "Cold War with Iran" I thought how stupid can people be???

if other countries threatened or attacked the US because of all the stupid and threatening comments and threats made by our Presidents, VP, Speaker of the House, Sec of Defense, Many Ignorant and Arrogrant Religious leaders, the US would have been blown away.

There are children freezing and starving to death in Afghanistan and we still have media and politicans calling for an attack or sanctions on a country that has not attacked us.

[RZM]

15. There's been a 'Cold War' with Iran since 1979

Not a nuclear standoff, of course, but a period of bad relations and cultural/ideological competition that's significantly 'colder' than the other Cold War. We have no diplomatic relations with Iran and don't really trade with them. We even have had some similar incidents, including backing their opponents in a war and accidentally shooting down one of their civilian airliners (which the Soviets did to a Korean Airlines flight in 1983, though it's still debated whether either was really accidental).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Erect bogeyman. Wave flag. Send in the bombers/drones/troops. Demand more money for "defense".

[Bonobo]

17. "This is not the Bush White House"

[rudycantfail]

18. Ship of fools

[JCMach1]

19. Another reason I am planning to get out of UAE as soon as I can

the risk of conflict rises daily and will probably double after the US election whoever wins.