Experts challenge White House line on Iran's influence

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Experts challenge White House line on Iran's influence
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Financial Times


Updated: 1:12 a.m. ET July 18, 2006
From the moment last Wednesday when Hizbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers, the Bush administration immediately held Iran and Syria responsible.

The White House mounted a systematic campaign on the US airwaves to get that message across while seeking to put pressure on the G8 summit to unite in confronting those two governments.

That it has become the received wisdom in the US that Iran was directing Hizbollah to deflect international pressure on Tehran's nuclear programme, is testimony to the Bush administration's ability to dominate the discourse in the mainstream media. The crisis has also demonstrated how it can rely on the support of the US foreign policy establishment – Democrat and Republican – when it comes to matters of vital national interest to the US and Israel.

Challenging these assertions, Iranian analysts and activists in the US – both those for and against the Iranian theocracy – are warning that such simplified arguments may not only be completely erroneous, but will also complicate the process of calming down the crisis while raising the chances of a direct conflict between Iran and the US.

Akbar Ganji, Iran's most prominent dissident who recently emerged from six years in prison, began a symbolic hunger strike outside the UN headquarters in New York at the weekend to press for the release of all political prisoners in Iran. But he also said his mission to the US was to prevent the spread of war.

"There are two voices in this – one is the voice of warmongers, terrorists and fundamentalists. The other is the voice of pacifists, pro-democracy activists and freedom-seekers," he told the FT.

"Unfortunately, the Christian-Jewish-Islamic fundamentalists are stirring up this situation and setting [Lebanon] ablaze," he said. "They should all be isolated."

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former reformist member of the Iranian parliament who was barred from seeking re-election by hardliners in 2004, said Iran knew that direct confrontation between Hizbollah and Israel would not benefit Hizbollah.

"For this reason I don't think Iran is provoking this situation or wants it to be intensified . . . Iran has taken a pragmatic approach in its foreign policy and does not want to get into a serious confrontation with Israel," argued Ms Haghighatjoo, a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

She concedes Iran has influence over Hizbollah, but says exercising that will become more difficult as Tehran becomes the focus of US pressure.

Ervand Abrahamian, history professor at the City University of New York, doubts Iran has sufficient influence over Hizbollah to calm the situation.

"Hizbollah's leaders are not the types to take orders from elsewhere," he says. Mr Abrahamian believes the Bush administration's main objective remains "regime change", and does not rule out US air strikes.

An Iranian expert, who is close to Tehran's thinking and did not wish to be identified, told the FT that Iran was not looking for a crisis in Lebanon at a critical moment in the nuclear diplomacy. He said Iran had received signals from members of the UN Security Council last week that it would be given more time to consider the west's proposals.

It was inconceivable that Iran had ordered Hizbollah to take Israeli soldiers prisoner. Iran wanted a negotiated way out of the nuclear stand-off, he said. He argued that Israel's fierce retaliation for the abduction of the soldiers strengthened the hands of US hardliners who did not want such a settlement.

Meanwhile, American neoconservatives are calling for swift military action against Iran.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, says Iran and Syria are enemies of both the US and Israel. "We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak," he wrote, urging the US to consider strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. "Why wait?" he said.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13907826/

The warmongers always want war it is there way of making a profit and gaining power. Lets not get taken for a ride again.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[vortexring 0]

It seems a war involving Iran and America(and therefore the UK) is ever more likely. Many things happening now regarding US and Iranian interactions are very similiar to how things were with Iraq around 2002.

In a sense we're already in a conflict with Iran. It would make strategic sense for them to keep us as busy as possible in Iraq and Afghanistan. And guess what? They are.

My point really is that a conventional war with Iran = EndEx. I'm sure most people understand why. So will it be unconventional?

Seems we're on a bit of a knife edge at the moment. And sure, we've been there before. 2001? Russians moving into Pristina? Apparantly one mans decision quite possibly prevented a major conflict with Russia.

Hopefully at crunchtime something similiar happens again............................

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

The neo-cons have to go.

1/20/09 is Bush's last day. Let's hope we can hang in there before they start any more wars. Shit, it seems like a hell of a long time.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm breaking out the champagne the night of 1/19/09.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Skyrad 0]

I strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along. I also suspect this is a White House inspired idea as America can't be seen to do the job itself. Yet Isreal can if it looks like its self defence. Just wait and see.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[vortexring 0]

What if Jeb becomes next US President?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

It seems a war involving Iran and America(and therefore the UK) is ever more likely. Many things happening now regarding US and Iranian interactions are very similiar to how things were with Iraq around 2002.

In a sense we're already in a conflict with Iran. It would make strategic sense for them to keep us as busy as possible in Iraq and Afghanistan. And guess what? They are.

My point really is that a conventional war with Iran = EndEx. I'm sure most people understand why. So will it be unconventional?

Seems we're on a bit of a knife edge at the moment. And sure, we've been there before. 2001? Russians moving into Pristina? Apparantly one mans decision quite possibly prevented a major conflict with Russia.

Hopefully at crunchtime something similiar happens again............................

The UK won't go to war against the Iranians, Tony Blair would be commiting Political suicide. The British people simply wouldn't go along with it. He fooled alot of people with Iraq he won't be able to do it again. As for America, its sabre rattling lacks substance. The American millitary would not be able to sustain any kind of war against Iran.
1) America can't afford it.
2) The American people wouldn't accept the losses such a war would bring.
3) The Iranians wouldn't just role over they'd fight and its alot bigger and alot more cohesive than Iraq, it would also drg Syria into a war against the US. Without the UK and others the US wouldn't be able to provide the manpower to undertake such a war. Along with its other current commitments.

Thats why the US willl use the Israelis to attack Iran under the guise of 'self defence'

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[vortexring 0]

Quote

I strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along. I also suspect this is a White House inspired idea as America can't be seen to do the job itself. Yet Isreal can if it looks like its self defence. Just wait and see.

What you've said has certainly crossed more than a few minds, including my own.

Skyrad, do you think Diana was murdered?

Edited to add: Yeah, I know - hence conventional = EndEx.............................

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along. I also suspect this is a White House inspired idea as America can't be seen to do the job itself. Yet Isreal can if it looks like its self defence. Just wait and see.

What you've said has certainly crossed more than a few minds, including my own.

Skyrad, do you think Diana was murdered?

I really don't know. I'm not in possesion of enough of the facts to make a call on that. However, I do have a open mind on it and wouldn't be suprised if she was.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[vortexring 0]

Cool, just wondered.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It was inconceivable that Iran had ordered Hizbollah to take Israeli soldiers prisoner. Iran wanted a negotiated way out of the nuclear stand-off, he said. He argued that Israel's fierce retaliation for the abduction of the soldiers strengthened the hands of US hardliners who did not want such a settlement.

Of course, the fact that Iran is the founder, and financial backer of Hizbollah. Hizbollah wouldn't dream of heeling to Iran at all.

Quote

Meanwhile, American neoconservatives are calling for swift military action against Iran.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, says Iran and Syria are enemies of both the US and Israel. "We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak," he wrote, urging the US to consider strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. "Why wait?" he said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13907826/

I'll say it too. Iran is an enemy of the US. They proved it to us by their own actions during the revolution and the taking of hostages. We didn't respond, they viewed us as weak. Our failed attempts to respond were also perceived as weak. Obviously our policies are not popular with them. They are opposed to us in just about every way.

Iran has openly said they want Israel wiped off the map. I'd say that makes them an enemy of Israel too.

It's not exclusively commentary. Now determining what action to take is a whole other matter. Sanctions alone? Haven't worked without a unified effort from the world, not likely to happen either. More time and negotiation? The problem with that is that Iran keeps reversing its position, first saying they'll do one thing, then do another, etc. They even reject offers from their so-called allies (like Russia). Their motives are not benevolent. Military strikes? Of course everyone will be up in arms over it. We're already the bad guys, so the heat wouldn't be new. It's the ripple effect from that action. Where and how would retaliations be executed, etc.?

It boils down to whatever metrics the policy makers think are tolerable.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[vortexring 0]

>It boils down to whatever metrics the policy makers think are tolerable.

[vortexring 0]

>The UK won't go to war against the Iranians, Tony Blair would be commiting Political suicide. The British people simply wouldn't go along with it. He fooled alot of people with Iraq he won't be able to do it again. <

Skyrad, bet you a tenner your wrong.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

It was inconceivable that Iran had ordered Hizbollah to take Israeli soldiers prisoner. Iran wanted a negotiated way out of the nuclear stand-off, he said. He argued that Israel's fierce retaliation for the abduction of the soldiers strengthened the hands of US hardliners who did not want such a settlement.

Of course, the fact that Iran is the founder, and financial backer of Hizbollah. Hizbollah wouldn't dream of heeling to Iran at all.

Quote

Meanwhile, American neoconservatives are calling for swift military action against Iran.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, says Iran and Syria are enemies of both the US and Israel. "We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak," he wrote, urging the US to consider strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. "Why wait?" he said.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13907826/

I'll say it too. Iran is an enemy of the US. They proved it to us by their own actions during the revolution and the taking of hostages. We didn't respond, they viewed us as weak. Our failed attempts to respond were also perceived as weak.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone.asp

Yes the failed attempt was percived as weak, but never the less it was America's response, and it was a total disaster.

Also, you can't compare peri revolutionary Iran with todays Iran its as different as comparing America of then with America of now.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Your on!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along. I also suspect this is a White House inspired idea as America can't be seen to do the job itself. Yet Isreal can if it looks like its self defence. Just wait and see.

So, you think the US is good enough to have Hizbollah start firing rockets at Israel? Sounds like a first for you. Send beer money to the Blue Sky Ranch, Gardiner, New York. I'll toast you at least once, maybe even twice

ps - a case of green bottles cost USD $40.

We are all engines of karma

[Michele 1]

Quote

strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along.

Interesting, and I agree....but I disagree on it being the game plan all along. I think what happened has presented an opportunity, and that opportunity will be taken advantage of. Further, it will be used as a negotiation tool from Israel ("hey, you want us to do that? Sure...but you need to do XYZ"), which is what allies do for each other.

It will be very interesting, and while I don't exactly see this as being WW3 (or 4, depending on who's talking), I think it could be rather dramatic before it completes.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Michele 1]

Darius, there are warmongers on all sides, it seems...

Iran's Hezbollah Says "Ready!"

While there hasn't been iron clad proof yet that Israel has been hit by Iranian rockets, Israel says it has been. If true, it still doesn't indicate Iranian involvement, but does indicate Iranian weapons have managed to get into the hands of the Lebanese Hezbolluh, likely through a sort of "gee, how'd we misplace that?" type of thing.

It will get very interesting should Israel prove Iranian munitions...especially as there are some who claim that Iran already has nuclear weapons...and the means to deliver them.

Ciels-
Michele

Edited to add: I wonder what happens when the war ships that are to protect the evacuation (Iwo Jima group, iirc) make it into the area. I wonder if there will be a strike on them, thus involving us directly in the conflict. It's going to get interesting, as I said...and my thoughts and prayers are with all the civilians in, around, and near the areas.

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

While there hasn't been iron clad proof yet that Israel has been hit by Iranian rockets, Israel says it has been. If true, it still doesn't indicate Iranian involvement, but does indicate Iranian weapons have managed to get into the hands of the Lebanese Hezbolluh, likely through a sort of "gee, how'd we misplace that?" type of thing.

It will get very interesting should Israel prove Iranian munitions...especially as there are some who claim that Iran already has nuclear weapons...and the means to deliver them.

Ciels-
Michele

Edited to add: I wonder what happens when the war ships that are to protect the evacuation (Iwo Jima group, iirc) make it into the area. I wonder if there will be a strike on them, thus involving us directly in the conflict. It's going to get interesting, as I said...and my thoughts and prayers are with all the civilians in, around, and near the areas.

I know it's not "iron-clad", but something tells me the intel is more than enough ammo for our politican's and war-mongering leaders: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizballah-rockets.htm

Some quotes for you:

Iran appears to have furnished Hizballah with their unarmed Mohajer-4 UAV, which was flown over northern Israel on 07 November 2004 and 11 April 2005, both times surprising Israeli air defenses
...
In October 2002 it was reported that Iranian Zelzal-2 short-range ballistic missiles had been delivered to Iranian Revolutionary Guard units in the Beka'a Valley in Lebanon. Israelis sources frequently claim that long-range rockets have been transferred to Lebanon, including 240mm versions of the standard 122mm 'Katyusha' rocket, and Iranian Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets. The unguided Zelzal-2 ballistic missiles, intended to strike area targets such as communities and cities, are equipped with explosive warheads weighing up to 600 kilograms. The longer range rockets require some expertise to aim and use effectively, which may be beyond the capability of the Hizballah to operate without direct Pasdaran support in the field.

And this, should give you some indication of what these rockets look like http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/mrl-iran-specs.htm

Here's the way my warped little mind plays it all out:
Israel continues to bomb Lebanon and Hizballah continues to rocket whatever they can. Next, Israel starts targeting supply routes into Lebanon. Intel starts building a case about where the supply comes from: Iran via Syria. Israel takes 'action' to prevent this (ground troops, air strikes, etc). Syria gets pissed and retaliates, either as a country/gov united, or as some faction inside Syria. Iran now has their excuse to wage war on the West and Zionists. Target: Israel and US interests in the ME. WWIII.

/oh, and all the while, we continue to make zero progress in Iraq and Afghanistan
//ain't life grand? the world is a beautiful place!

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[Erroll 80]

Quote

It seems a war involving Iran and America(and therefore the UK) is ever more likely.

I am just an innocent bystander trying to understand all of this.
In your opinions, what would be the reason (or purpose) for America to go to war with Iran? What would be the goal? How would success be measured?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I strongly suspect that the war on the Lebanon is simply a pre cursor to Israeli attacks on Irans Nuclear facilities. I suspect that this was the game plan all along. I also suspect this is a White House inspired idea as America can't be seen to do the job itself. Yet Isreal can if it looks like its self defence. Just wait and see.

So, you think the US is good enough to have Hizbollah start firing rockets at Israel? Sounds like a first for you. Send beer money to the Blue Sky Ranch, Gardiner, New York. I'll toast you at least once, maybe even twice

ps - a case of green bottles cost USD $40.

I don't think it would take much imagination to figure out Hizbollahs response if Israel started bombing Lebanon. So yep, I recon it was a deliberate escalation.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I'll say it too. Iran is an enemy of the US. They proved it to us by their own actions during the revolution and the taking of hostages. .

As one would expect after the US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, putting the hated puppet Reza Shah Pavlavi in its place. Memories are long, the US started it and has never apologized.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Darius11 12]

I don’t see what the issue is if Iran sold or gave weapons to Lebanon so what.
Israel has received far more help from the US. The US has even supplied them with the Bomb. No matter how you feel about Israel you can not in honesty call them a "peace-loving" nation. I don’t see how we are any better. At least Iran is helping its neighbors it not giving weapons to Mexico.

It’s good to look at both sides and compare what we have done. If something is an horrible act then it should be viewed as such for any one who commits a similar act.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll say it too. Iran is an enemy of the US. They proved it to us by their own actions during the revolution and the taking of hostages. .

As one would expect after the US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, putting the hated puppet Reza Shah Pavlavi in its place. Memories are long, the US started it and has never apologized.

Not to mention there has always been rumors that the US embassy and the people in were used as a front for spying on the Iranians.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

• Quote

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll say it too. Iran is an enemy of the US. They proved it to us by their own actions during the revolution and the taking of hostages. .

As one would expect after the US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, putting the hated puppet Reza Shah Pavlavi in its place. Memories are long, the US started it and has never apologized.

Not to mention there has always been rumors that the US embassy and the people in were used as a front for spying on the Iranians.

I am NOT excusing the taking of diplomats and embassy staff as hostages - that was unacceptable behavior.

Just pointing out that Iranians have very good reason to treat the US as hostile, and that the US initiated the emnity and has really done nothing to ameliorate the situation. In fact, US support of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s just made things worse.

If I were an Iranian leader I'd want to have nukes too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote