PNAC is now pushing iran invasion...

[Windy]

July 20, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL

SUBJECT: CFR Report on Iran

One has to hand it to the Council on Foreign Relations. Just as Iran has spent the last several months reconfirming why it was a charter member of the "axis of evil," a CFR taskforce, led by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former DCI Robert Gates, has concluded that the time is now ripe for a policy of "engagement" with Iran. This, in spite of the fact that:Iran continues to tell the International Atomic Energy Agency - along with the British, Germans and French - to stuff it when it comes to Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Iranian officials, caught red-handed in New York photographing likely terrorist-targets, were expelled from the United States. Iranian intelligence agents were caught in Iraq building car bombs and are now assisting Iraqi radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's efforts to rebuild his militia.
Iran's hard-line clerics and revolutionary guards have eliminated virtually all remaining reformist elements from the government over the past year.

Iran apparently has had and continues to have a working relationship with bin Laden's al Qaeda. Indeed, if the 9-11 commission report is accurate, Tehran might well have been involved in both the 1996 Khobar Towers attack and in 9-11. Furthermore, Iran today harbors senior al-Qaeda leaders. And, today, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that the head of Israeli military intelligence research has warned the Knesset defense committee that Iran might well give non-conventional weapons, such as chemical weapons, to Hizballah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization. We do need a coherent, serious policy toward Iran; one of containment, pressure, accountability and, ultimately, regime change. If the CFR report helps force a real debate on Iran policy and encourages the Bush Administration not simply to kick the can down the road until after election day, it will have (inadvertently) performed a service.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040720.htm

[bryant69]

1. That's not very surprising

I find myself wondering how much the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. For example the Swift Boat story has been pushed to a much greater extant than might be smart; this escalation with Iran isn't great right before the election either, I don't think. I mean it kind of underlines the idea that if you want a lot more war you vote for President Bush, doesn't it?

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[iconoclastic cat]

4. In a couple months, that left hand will extend a giant middle finger,

and the whole divided house of Shrub will be sucked into the earth.

[Q]

2. The PNACers want to get us into IRAN in case George loses...

...and as everyone knows...once America commits to war...it virtually impossible to reverse the situation and bring the troops home.

- I think we can COUNT on Bush* attacking iran before November. War is all he has left.

[Cloud]

6. Or he can attack in November or December

and let Kerry clean up the mess.

[MichiganVote]

3. So much for the "I want to to be the peace president"

[iconoclastic cat]

5. So much for:

Healthy Forests
No Children Left Behind
Medicare Reform
etc.

[Rockholm]

12. Maybe it was "Piece" pResident?

In the way "I want a piece or Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia" "I want a piece of the oil reserves."

[MichiganVote]

13. Yeah, I think he'd like a piece of everyone's ass

[Cat Atomic]

7. I really wonder what would happen if they invaded Iran.

I don't mean in Iran itself- that would obviously be a disaster.

I mean here in the States. These days, even Republicans don't trust George W. Bush- especially when it comes to justification for war. If these idiots were to push another invasion, I think you'd see an even bigger public outcry than last time. It could get very ugly, and the National Guard isn't around to deal with it.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Hmmm... PNAC says...

Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons.
Iran has ties to Al Queada.
Iran supported the Khobar Towers bombing.
Iran was involved in 9/11.

Given PNAC's track record, I will now put money on all of this NOT being true.
Any takers?

[salib]

10. But the whole threat sure makes them WANT to have a

"deterrent." Isn't that what we called it when we were up agin' the Soviet Union?

[hang a left]

17. It's like frickin'

groundhog day.

[salib]

9. Also, Iran is a whole 'nother level of foe

Look at how difficult it has been in Iraq. Iran actually has a population and does not have an easy target like Saddam. We pick on some of the smallest lightweights of the latter 20th Century, and then pat ourselves on the back an proclaim to the The World's Only Superpower. Just a bully is what we are. Face it!

Iran would be a disaster, and for us. And what happens when we cannot "pacify" a country that can truly strike back after a fashion?

[sendero]

11. I agree...

.... if they think that Iran is equivalent to Iraq militarily, they are beyond smoking and are mainlining stupidity.

It will not be easy to "take" Iran, they have a functional army quite unlike Iraq.

Personally, as little confidence as I have in the current administration, I don't think they are stupid enough to attack Iran.

[Strelnikov_]

14. With Iran's Anti-Ship Missile Capabilities, They Could Wreak Havoc

with the oil market by threatening the shipping lanes in the gulf. Once we engage with Iran, including even a limited action such as an air strike on their nuclear facilities, I am afraid that we will be starting a chain of events that can end nowhere but in disaster.

Ever wonder why they are filling the strategic reserves at record high prices?

[StandUpGuy]

23. Thats easy.

Because it's you paying them to fill your tanks with their stuff.


Also the "chain of events that can end nowhere but in disaster",
was started in Iraq.

Iran is just further down the same road.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. We are not Israel, regardless of what Kristol thinks

The PNAC is systematically getting its way, and they're not even on the public's radar. I suppose this indicates their fear of losing the election, since they're getting all hot and bothered about taking out Iran; if they felt secure about the election, they'd be busily preparing to take out Syria. Remember: with Syria, they have a major ally right there to help with their manpower issues.

All talk like this smacks of madness, but it's impossible to talk accurately about madness without sounding a might teched in the head...

[kysrsoze]

16. Just sent this to friends and I'm now giving it a...

:kick:

[kerryhawk]

18. well

iran was one of the biggest threats. iraq was way down the list. but the way to deal with both was working through united nations sanctions and retaliating only if attacked. they can strut all they want but they know if they are involved with any direct attack on us they will be invaded just like afganistan.

[Swamp Rat]

19. We do not have the troops to invade Iran "just like afganistan."

Welcome to DU

Good luck

[LisaL]

20. SO WHAT?

They are starting to talk about how dangerous Iran is.
Iran is next.
Wake up, people, we will have another war before we know it!

[LoZoccolo]

21. How are we going to do that?

Our military's depleted now, plus we shot our credibility! Even if we needed to - and I don't leave out the possibility that we might need to intervene if they are engaged in nuclear proliferation - now we can't because of this bullshit Iraq war we fucked up!

[LisaL]

22. Well, we still got nukes

Lots of them.

[Swamp Rat]

24. SO WHAT!

Do you feel better now, knowing "we" have lots of nukes?