Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Czarjorge]

Bacasper, quoting the Asia Times and some of the wackadoo lefties doesn't help your case. This is why people dismiss you as a 'conspiracy' guy and not worth listening too.

As far as the question itself, I wouldn't put it past them. Bush has used military and security actions by the government to manipulate the news cycle already. For that matter so did Clinton. It's now part of the Presidential play book.

I think another question is, do the neocons trust McCain to keep their 'reforms' moving forward? If so, then anything is possible.

[bacasper]

[bacasper]

Maybe not...

How to silence that Iran war drumbeat

Posted: 2008/06/18

War is not inevitable. Bold, transparent diplomacy can work.

by John K. Cooley
(The Christian Science Monitor)

Athens - Increasing signs that either Israel or the US might attack Iran before President Bush leaves office have many people in Europe, the Middle East, and around the world on edge.

Whether the rumblings are real or overinflated rumors, it's time to reverse any momentum that could unleash a potentially calamitous Middle East conflict, killing thousands, sending oil prices to $200 a barrel and beyond, and accentuating global recession.

After talks with Mr. Bush on his tour through Europe, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown didn't mention war explicitly, but did say that European states would agree to impose new financial sanctions on Tehran. Bush noted that "all options are on the table," and that the ball was in Tehran's court.

Tehran, meanwhile, seems to continue to ignore the threat of sanctions.

Beyond official statements, the latest clues to war parallel proposed and actual sanctions against Iran. Immediately after a high-profile visit to Washington earlier this month, Israeli cabinet minister Saul Mofaz publicly called an Israeli attack on Iran "unavoidable" unless Iran reined in its nuclear activities.

Members of a Bush delegation in mid-May reportedly assured Israeli officials in secret that a US attack on Iran was planned, according to Israeli Army Radio and in The Jerusalem Post as well as in American blogs and websites.

Also last month, the Asia Times claimed that US Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California and Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana were given classified briefings about a planned US strike � not on Iran's nuclear sites but on headquarters of its Revolutionary Guard Corps. The purpose, the paper claimed, was to "send a message" to halt Iranian support for anti-US militias in Iraq. Offices for both senators vigorously denied the report.

To avoid further inflaming this kind of talk, the West must end Iran's race to nuclear weapons � not by force, but by bold transparent, and imaginative diplomacy.

This should include direct and comprehensive US-Iranian talks on the basic issues that have plagued Washington-Tehran relations since the Islamic Republic overthrew the late Shah in 1979 and the ensuing hostage crisis.

One immediate step the Bush administration could (but most probably won't) take is to make absolutely clear its intensions regarding long term presence in Iraq. Both Iraq � which is worried about its sovereignty� and Iran � worried about military threats � are anxious about the possibility of permanent US bases there.

Washington has forsworn such bases, but further reassurances are needed.

More realistically, the most powerful and technologically advanced nations, including the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and China, should join in offering Iran much more cooperation in peaceful nuclear and other energy fields that would finally induce it to abandon uncontrolled enrichment of uranium or plutonium production and any related weapons programs. Though such offers have been periodically on the table for years, they can be effective now if we repeat and improve them, and make them more detailed.

Although nearly unnoticed in Western media, Iran made an official offer to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in May involving a package of "comprehensive negotiations" on everything from the nuclear issue to general disarmament and help toward a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. If this were taken seriously and acted on, the West could stymie Iran's dangerous growing isolation.

To ease tensions, both US presidential candidates should specifically renounce plans for permanent US bases and presence in Iraq. As US historian William Pfaff recently wrote in his column, insisting on a permanent presence in Iraq would "turn Iraq into an American satellite state." This would force Tehran and other neighbors to regard Iraq as a threat and provide incentive to speed nuclear weapons activity.

The veracity of Iran's protestations about its purely peaceful goals has been shadowed by the most recent report from UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Years of US and UN sanctions haven't made Tehran change its policies. Why would it do so now?

In fact, some of the big Western banks have acceded to US demands to curb credits to Iran, hitting imports of products from refrigerators to children's toys. But Iranian importers have now turned to Chinese and smaller Western banks. What Iran is discovering is that it can deal somewhat successfully regardless.

What's more, Iran is a major regional power. By defeating its enemies, Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Taliban, the US � helped by Iran in both cases � has greatly strengthened this power.

By reopening a US diplomatic mission in Tehran, dropping sanctions except those involving military technology, and improving the old offers of Western and Russian IAEA-supervised peaceful nuclear technology, the US could help avert intensified tensions or an actual war.

The wisest path to peace would be to encourage rather than discourage Western investment in Iran's oil � natural gas and other (nonmilitary) industries � and engage immediately in direct, top-level dialogue with Iran's leaders.

We don't have to further back ourselves into a corner, from which neither the West nor Iran is able to come out without a fight.

-- John K. Cooley is a former Monitor correspondent who covered the Middle East for more than 40 years. His latest book is "Currency Wars."

[contrarian]

Iran needs to be taken out.

[mises]

[bucheon bum]

Anyone who thinks the US will invade Iran gives the US military way too much credit. It simply does not have the capability of sustaining another offensive. The military is already pressed to the limit.

Add to the fact that the electorate is quite negative on the war in Iraq, the poor state of the economy, etc etc and you can be 99.9% certain there will be no attack on Iran before 1/20/09.

[contrarian]

Iran will not be invaded. It will be bombed, it might even be nuked.

To cut down their nuclear endeavors all that is required is severely damage the several facilities> Iraq's nuclear weapons search never did anything after the Israelis bombed Osirak

[bucheon bum]

Alas, Iran's nuclear facilities are more protected, spread out, etc than Iraq's were. And who is to say Iran wouldn't do anything if we did bomb its facilities. It could simply cause more chaos in Iraq. The US military would not support such a measure. Only if there was definitive proof that Iran was on the cusp of becoming a nuclear weapons power would it back such an attack. That proof is not there at the present time.

[Gopher]

[contrarian]

That is why I said nuked. it would make the whole areas unuseable.

If the US doesn't do it the Isrealis will.

[Gopher]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Gopher]

Why do you state "considerable speculation and buzz" and now this as if it supported a concrete allegation...?

[bacasper]