U.S. Refuses To Rule Out Iran Attack (Reuters)

[Hornito]

Sun 12 September, 2004 13:08

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is determined to stop Iran getting atomic weapons, and has signalled Washington will not rule out an attack if peaceful diplomacy failed to achieve this.

President George W. Bush's top official on nuclear on-proliferation, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, was asked during a brief visit to Israel if the United States could consider such an attack.

"President Bush is determined to try and find a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons," he said. "But we are determined that they are not going to achieve a nuclear weapons capability."

Iran says it is not trying to build an atom bomb and its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes.

Link: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581763§ion=news

[Deja Q]

1. And I thought North Korea was a bigger problem right now...

Oh well.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Mice --- Starting forest fires....

And, man, you should see the craters those mice dig!

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Did you catch their Rad suits

boy I need some of them suits....

While Rome burns bush plays the fiddle

[Quetzal]

2. Bolton scares the fuck out of me

Bolton - former charman of the American Enterprise Institute, Undersecretary for Nuclear Arms Proliferation

In a Speech to the Heritage Foundation, Bolton cited Cuba as being a terrorist state and that it had the potential to create biochemical weapons.

In addition to Libya and Syria, there is a threat coming from another BWC signatory, and one that lies just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland -- namely, Cuba. This totalitarian state has long been a violator of human rights. The State Department said last year in its Annual Report on Human Rights Practices that "the Government continued to violate systematically the fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. Citizens do not have the right to change their government peacefully. Prisoners died in jail due to lack of medical care. Members of the security forces and prison officials continued to beat and otherwise abuse detainees and prisoners . . . The Government denied its citizens the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and association."

Havana has long provided safehaven for terrorists, earning it a place on the State Department’s list of terrorist-sponsoring states. The country is known to be harboring terrorists from Colombia, Spain, and fugitives from the United States. We know that Cuba is collaborating with other state sponsors of terror.

Castro has repeatedly denounced the U.S. war on terrorism. He continues to view terror as a legitimate tactic to further revolutionary objectives. Last year, Castro visited Iran, Syria and Libya -- all designees on the same list of terrorist-sponsoring states. At Tehran University, these were his words: "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this weakness from close up."

But Cuba’s threat to our security often has been underplayed. An official U.S. government report in 1998 concluded that Cuba did not represent a significant military threat to the United States or the region. It went only so far as to say that, "Cuba has a limited capacity to engage in some military and intelligence activities which could pose a danger to U.S. citizens under some circumstances." However, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen tried to add some balance to this report by expressing in the preface his serious concerns about Cuba’s intelligence activities against the United States and its human rights practices. Most notably, he said, "I remain concerned about Cuba’s potential to develop and produce biological agents, given its biotechnology infrastructure…"

Why was the 1998 report on Cuba so unbalanced? Why did it underplay the threat Cuba posed to the United States? A major reason is Cuba’s aggressive intelligence operations against the United States, which included recruiting the Defense Intelligence Agency’s senior Cuba analyst, Ana Belen Montes, to spy for Cuba. Montes not only had a hand in drafting the 1998 Cuba report but also passed some of our most sensitive information about Cuba back to Havana. Montes was arrested last fall and pleaded guilty to espionage on March 19th.

For four decades Cuba has maintained a well-developed and sophisticated biomedical industry, supported until 1990 by the Soviet Union. This industry is one of the most advanced in Latin America, and leads in the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines that are sold worldwide. Analysts and Cuban defectors have long cast suspicion on the activities conducted in these biomedical facilities.

Here is what we now know: The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states. We are concerned that such technology could support BW programs in those states. We call on Cuba to cease all BW-applicable cooperation with rogue states and to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention.

http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/9962.htm

Some other Repubs that scare me:

Rick Santorum
George Bush
Mike Gabbard (people in Hawaii should know him)
John Ashcroft

[Hornito]

3. Bolton is also a member of PNAC, a major neocon, and a...

steadfast dual-loyalist "friend of Israel". He's also about as crazy as they come. Bolton was forced onto the State Department by the Bushies, to keep Powell in line, and to satisfy the neocons.

This whole thing is an Israeli con job, with Israel's dual-loyalist puppets (the neocons) in the Pentagon, doing what they're told. Israel is bound and determined to force us into another war, using our kids, and our money.

On edit:

Notice, Bolton was speaking from Jerusalem. That's a way to win the hearts and minds of 3 billion Muslims, letting this wing-nut announce hostile action towards a Muslim state, from Israel. Gheesh!

It just proves this administration has no intention to use diplomacy. Iran is on Israel's hit list, and so it's on ours.

[leftchick]

9. hmmm....

like the photo with the article?

[Mika]

13. If one thinks that there is resistance against the US in Iraq..

.. wait until they invade Cuba.

[slojim240]

4. We just must shake off the Likudnization of America.

This is the terrorism that threatens America more than Osama.

[bemildred]

5. Bluster.

US refuses to rule out attacking France, so what?
This moron thinks he is "applying pressure" on Iran.
The deal with the UK, France and Germany where they
"set a November deadline" for Iran is more interesting.
What happens when Iran does not prove it's nuke efforts
are for peaceful purposes? (A logically stupid assertion
anyway, you cannot prove a negative.) Nothing happens,
that's what. So why do they set themselves up to look
impotent here? For the home crowd of course. This is
all intended to look tough and in charge for the home
crowd. Poltically they have to look busy or the public
will notice that they are doing squat while the various
unpleasant developments are occurring in the less-developed
world. Looking busy and frustrated is much better than
looking stupid and impotent.

[Owlet]

6. I wonder...

..if the European's setting of a November deadline was an attempt to insulate Iran from a US attack before the Election, hoping that a Kerry administration would take a different approach to Iran than John Bolton and his merry band of nutty neocons? At the very least it insulates the Europeans (Britain included!) from having to take part in any such adventure.

Yep, US foreign policy these days definitely bears a "made in Israel" label. How did these dual-loyalists ever get into such positions of authority?

[Hornito]

7. That sounds logical, and if true, a welcome development.

As far as how the neocons were able to obtain their positions in the Bush administration, it all leads back to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Both were members of PNAC, and AEI participants. They simply populated the Pentagon with like-minded civilians, once they took office, to ride herd on the military command structure.

Google "PNAC" to learn more. DU also has some wonderful archives. Again, put "PNAC" in the DU search engine, and feast!

BTW, welcome to DU!

[bemildred]

10. A reasonable theory.

Although one must admit that reasonable theories are a
dime a dozen compared to well-supported theories. In this
case I was somewhat surprised by the European action, and this
does provide an explanation where I had nothing.

[alfredo]

11. More on John Bolton.

http://www.counterpunch.org/williams02222003.html

John Bolton is one of the major reasons why few other countries trust the motives, or indeed the rationality of the U.S. administration (the list of other reasons keeps growing, but the ravings of Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld spring immediately to an apprehensive observer's mind).

These are the people whose statements scare off the diplomatic ducks that Colin Powell so assiduously tries to line up. In addition, the continual gaffes of hawks like Bolton make the U.S. position seem even more hypocritical in the global arena. For example, the ostensible excuse for attacking Iraq is its defiance of UN resolutions. However, Bolton has defied the UN's very existence for most of his political career. He has made it plain that the U.S. government should not abide by any UN decisions that may prove inconvenient to the U.S. pursuit of its national interests.

[salin]

14. Remember when Bolton tried to screw up talks with North Korea?

He got a US diplomat booted off the negotiation team because the diplomat was attempting to be... well... diplomatic. He then upped his rhetoric against NK and its leader... to the point where NK refused to go back to the negotiation table if Bolton was present. Bolton lost that round and was removed from the talks.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if investigations into actions in Feith's office ever really get serious... that we will suddenly find links to Bolton.

[alfredo]

19. I would like him to honestly answer this question:

If you had to choose between Israel and the US, which country would you choose?

[salin]

23. Sadly, his and his cronies actions

seem not to be in the best (long-term) interest of either the U.S. or Israel.

[Hornito]

24. Excellent point Salin....

n/t

[alfredo]

26. they don't care about Israelis, they want to make Israel ready for

the return of Christ.

[cliss]

12. 1 basic question:

do we even have the manpower to do something like this? I'm fully convinced that we have the fire power and the willingness is definitely there.

But do we have enough military? I'm assuming here we could just do a "midnight raid" and carpet bomb the country into capitulating. We wouldn't even necessarily need to march in. But still. I assume that once you "take" a country, you have to "hold" it, meaning you go in and you "clean up".

My girlfriend just told me that her father in law got called up for duty in Iraq. He's retired: he's not in good physical shape, has a big beer paunch, and she believes he'll be nothing but target practice. She thinks the US military has become desperate. I do too.

And if we realize this, wouldn't other countries be able to put 2 + 2 together and calculate the same result? That we're simply too stretched with the full plate we already have, trying to clean up the entire world and its problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. NOPE

We don't have enough boots on the gruond in Iraq, we are over extended.

[SOS]

15. Possible outcome

1. US bombs Bushehr
2. Iran launches barrage of Shahab 3 missles at Israel, either nuclear or targeting Dimona
3. Israel launches massive nuclear attack
WW 3 in full swing, Tens of millions dead withn the first 24 hours.
Both nations cease to exist.
Bush declares victory and goes on vacation.

[KansDem]

18. OK, the "D" word now needs to be repeated over and over...

DRAFT

No way in Hell could the Bushistas even remotely consider invading another country without a draft...

Let the flag-waving, Bush-butt kissers consider THIS: Do they really want to send their children in harm's way to steal oil for the Bush Family?

Vietnam
Iraqnam
Irannam...

[daleo]

20. There could be "forest fires" (the mushroom cloud type) in Iran's future

If they haven't built any bombs yet, this will be a little PNAC/BFEE supplied encouragement.

[DaveSZ]

21. Iran and N Korea were and are both bigger problems

than Iraq ever was.

[struggle4progress]

22. There's #1 of the "Four More Wars." eom

[VirginiaDem]

25. I agree that this is probably just tough talk...

but not necessarily. Iran learned from Iraq's mistake and spread their nuke facilities out to fifteen different places around the country. It would be nearly impossible for Israel to take them all out on their own. So Israel could just go for the main reactor, in which case they might not need U.S. help. Iran might retaliate but they would be foolish to retaliate in a big way; they're not about to get nuked without nuking Israel first, which they can't do now. The U.S. might help if the strategy is to take out several or all of the sites at once. No way are we talking about troops on the ground, though.

It's an extremely risky operation even if done properly because the Iranians are expecting it much more than the Iraqis were the first time around.