It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: VP Cheney Voices Fear of Isreali Attack on Iran Over Nuclear Standoff

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Vice President Dick Cheney expessed his fears of independent Israeli military attacks on Iran in an inaugural day interview on the Don Imus radio program. Cheney fears that Israel may take unilateral action if it deems Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon capability.
 



www.msnbc.msn.com
IMUS: but my question is, are we trying to determine what they have? And if we find out that they have a nuclear program, then what?

R. CHENEY: Well, we are, I’d say, very concerned about Iran, because for two reasons, again, one, they do have a program. We believe they have a fairly robust new nuclear program. That’s been developed by, or being pursued I guess would be the best way to put it, by members of the E.U.—the Brits, the Germans and the French—have been negotiating with the Iranians to get them to allow greater transparency in their program so the outside world can be confident they’re not building weapons, that it’s for peaceful purposes.

The other problem we have, of course, is that Iran is a noted sponsor of terror. They’ve been the prime backers of the Hezbollah over the years, and they have, in fact, been—used terror in various incendiary ways to kill Americans and a lot of other folks around the globe, too, and that combination is of great concern.

We’ll continue to try to address those issues diplomatically, continue to work with the Europeans. At some point, if the Iranians don’t live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the U.N. Security Council, and seek the imposition of international sanctions to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations they’ve signed up to under the non-proliferation treaty, and it’s—but it is a—you know, you look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list.

IMUS: Would that mean us again?

R. CHENEY: I think it means a serious effort to use the...

IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?

R. CHENEY: Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Cheneys comments on the Iranian nuclear issue coming on the day of Bushs inauguration where Bush said that he stands for the end of tyranny could be taken as a shot across the bow by the Iranian government.

The question down the road in the event Israel does take unilateral military action is how and in what way will the U.S. re-act to such a move.

Will it condemn the attack but vis a vis support Israel as in the past ?

Will it take advantage in the aftermath to forment an overthrow of the Mullacracy now in place ?

Or will it be faced with a choice of undercutting Israel diplomatically in an effort to prevent another possible world war.

These are some of the questions that come to mind when I consider Cheneys words " let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards".

That usually means the U.S. will have to clean up the mess while the rest of the world complains about how we do so.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
This is one of those time that reading it, is diffrent than in context. I seen it when it happen or just after. It was more like it was something that could happen, but he didnt seem worried or concerned to me anyway.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I don't want there to be a war with Iran but if there is to be one, I'd prefer that the Israelis put their troops on the line instead of getting the US and UK to kill for Israel and die for Israel.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
This is one of those time that reading it, is diffrent than in context. I seen it when it happen or just after. It was more like it was something that could happen, but he didnt seem worried or concerned to me anyway.


Well yeah I can understand why its not something that he would take exception to and be in a worried state, he (Cheney) probably wishes that Israel would in fact take action so that follow on action can be effected by the U.S., Irael could break the ice jam so to speak giving the U.S. all the provocation it needs to end Irans nuclear ambitions as well as political ambitions.

I am not pro Iran by any means but I have to call the VP's comments as I see them.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
This is one of those time that reading it, is diffrent than in context. I seen it when it happen or just after. It was more like it was something that could happen, but he didnt seem worried or concerned to me anyway.


Well yeah I can understand why its not something that he would take exception to and be in a worried state, he (Cheney) probably wishes that Israel would in fact take action so that follow on action can be effected by the U.S., Irael could break the ice jam so to speak giving the U.S. all the provocation it needs to end Irans nuclear ambitions as well as political ambitions.



I agree with all this. I was just tring to give what I saw, knowing we all see things diffrently.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Man, it's so easy to jump a couple of chapters with the neo cons. They build plots like a penny fiction writer.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I don't want there to be a war with Iran but if there is to be one, I'd prefer that the Israelis put their troops on the line instead of getting the US and UK to kill for Israel and die for Israel.


AoB, I'm with you on that sentiment.

I don't think any action by Israel involves troops on the ground (maybe a few commando's) but thats about it.

The issue comes into play that the U.S. has or is percieved to support anything Israel does in a military fashion outside of its borders.

So their is no way that the arab world (maybe european) will not connect Israels actions to U.S. support and permission.

It is these aspects that can lead to another world war as other non-middle eastern countries line up behind their various economic hegomenys.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Man, it's so easy to jump a couple of chapters with the neo cons. They build plots like a penny fiction writer.


To many Austin Powers Movies watched or what ?

This stuff has been going on since the inception of Israel in what? 1948

Give the Neo thing a break - its getting old and tired.

My advice is if you dont have anything to add directly to the treads subject matter dont bother posting.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I definatly think the U.S. would back up Isreal

Matter of Fact I would think the U.S. would want Isreal to attack Iran.

Gives us a good excuse to get rid of Iran. Get rid of Iran and the middle east is pretty much won.
So why wouldn't we want Isreal to attack Iran.

Hell the Isrealis and the Americans have probably been planning this for months...ya never know.





And just by the pesidents inagural speech you could tell that Iran is next on the list...



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is a very mature and sensible approach from Dick Cheyney, not as gung-ho as we are used to.

I agree with him that we should continue the dialogue with Iran, and pursue the U.N. course if that fails. If Iran are playing foul of the non-proliferation treaty the UN will come down against them. Whatever action is deemed necessary won't then be the US acting on their own initiative, and possible alienating the rest of international opinion.

Thr US has a lot of influence in Israel. I hope behind the scenes they are advising Israel to back off so this can be sorted peacefully.

Iran has moved on a lot since the 80's. Yes they have a long way to go, but they are moving slowly in the right direction.

If Israel bomb the sh1t out of innocent people it'll just inflame the situation further and create another unstable breading ground for terrorists to attack Israel and anyone who allies themselves with them (US?).



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardCore American
I definatly think the U.S. would back up Isreal

Matter of Fact I would think the U.S. would want Isreal to attack Iran.

Gives us a good excuse to get rid of Iran. Get rid of Iran and the middle east is pretty much won.
So why wouldn't we want Isreal to attack Iran.

Hell the Isrealis and the Americans have probably been planning this for months...ya never know.





And just by the pesidents inagural speech you could tell that Iran is next on the list...



There may be no surprise in any pre-planned collusion or planning in respect to an attack on Iran by Israel but it also must comply with U.S. policy and capabilities in order to have a successful conclusion.

If the Iraelis jump the gun so to speak then the U.S. response may not be what was expected by the Israeli government.



[edit on 20-1-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
my take on this is we feel we can't strong arm the UN and use mostly US and UK troops to invade Iran, so they are cooking up this isreal/iran spark to begin the conflict so we can get more allies and support and resources. I really don't think we can take Iran on (even with our convenient staging areas in afghanistan and iraq) alone without suffering massive casualties.

if they frame it around "isreal acted in self preservation, and is an ally, so we must join the war and end tyranny and give the iranian people democracy" they may be able to recruit more countries. they may even already know who they can count on to join in on the spoils



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I think the 'fear' is warrented.
ATS has archived threads dealing with the possibilities of Israel making a pre-emptive strike on Iran or taking pre-emptive action, as they did in Iraq, many years ago when they took out some Iraqi nuclear facilities.

VP Cheney is merely mentioning concern, legit concern, that Israel may take this type pre-emptive move. The EU has been trying to work a deal with the Iranians concerning their nuclear intentions, as with the IAEA. To what extent these dealings work, remains to be seen. Of consideration here is the word of Iran in keeping with the wordings of these dealings and possible subsequent agreement(s). If Israel acted pre-emptively, then the talks are off or setback, thus defeating the purpose of those talks. Hence VP Cheney's 'fear'.

IMHO, no matter the amount of wheeling and dealing, no matter the agreement(s) reached, Iran will continue to work for a bomb. They have come and gone through too much to not go for one. One problem here is that the continued EU efforts are slow, tedious, and seemingly not getting anywhere. Inches do not equal miles, unless of course, you are talking an applied nuclear detonation. As such, the longer that these 'talks' go on without stopping or curtailing Irans intentions to gain a nuclear device(s), the sooner that the Iranians build/acquire one. Once that happens, the talks are pointless.




seekerof

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Phoenix,

Sorry but what is happening now I've been predicting since the middle of last year. I just thought they'd be a little smarter about it. Maybe have tried to challenge people’s intellect a little. I suppose they’re just getting cocky.

I know creative writing isn't part of Straussian teachings, but really; You can almost measure down to the hour when it was decided the "threat of Iran" had to be pushed. The current "threat" of Iran has existed for years. Don't you think it's the least bit suspicious how all the vehement anti Iran stories (not even including the nuclear plant stories) have appeared and have accelerated in the last few months? Do you really think Iran is stupid enough to increase activities that would be viewed as highly negative by the US and international community with the US on its doorstep? Every step so far in increasing the vilification of Iran to increase support for another invasion has read like something a fourteen year old would write. It's pathetically obvious what the plan is. No doubt though, the Neo Con Monty Python logic of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" will succeed again as it did with Iraq. Cheer that if you want.

EDIT:

Yeah, here we go, a little off with my timing but not far wrong. From July:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think the way they are playing the idea of invading Iran to the American people is quite clever psychologically; at least it is in their minds. I think they know there will still be a large group in favour of invading Iran, especially because of the two countries relatively recent history and anything they can find to link them to 9/11 will reinforce that (never mind that Saudi Arabia has by far the biggest links to 9/11).

I think there's a good possibility they're going to use Iran as a major re-election factor. For instance they could spend the next few months continually vilifying Iran, reinforcing the ideas of the "war on terror" and capping it with overtones of a promise of invasion if re elected.





[edit on 20-1-2005 by kegs]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I don't think we can say the US would be bringing democracy. Hasn't Iran got an elected Government? We have no right in imposing our will on them.

There are worse regimes than Iran in the world - ofcourse America supports many of them, so they'll stay off the list. Saudi?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
HOW IRONIC[/b Far be it for Cheney to voice "fear" for any war. You mean he's salivating on the prospect of it.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

as posted by kegs
Do you really think Iran is stupid enough to increase activities that would be viewed as highly negative by the US and international community with the US on its doorstep?


Umm, yes.
They are aiding, supporting, supplying, and outfitting the Iraqi insurgents.
They are continuing on with their alledged "peaceful" intentions of acquiring a nuclear device. Whats it going to take for anyone to believe such? A UN report? That can be supplied. The IAEA report asserting such? That can be provided. The EU to report such? That can be provided, as well. What then? An actual hands-on look and see that Iran has a nuclear device? I guess well have to wait for that one, huh?

Iran is thumbing their noses at the US, and doing just that with the US sitting on their collective doorstep.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Phoenix,



I know creative writing isn't part of Straussian teachings, but really; You can almost measure down to the hour when it was decided the "threat of Iran" had to be pushed. The current "threat" of Iran has existed for years. Don't you think it's the least bit suspicious how all the vehement anti Iran stories (not even including the nuclear plant stories) have appeared and have accelerated in the last few months? Do you really think Iran is stupid enough to increase activities that would be viewed as highly negative by the US and international community with the US on its doorstep?



Kegs you assume all your informationn is indeed correct making this a conspiracy to start a world war on purpose by the so called neo-cons.

What if Iran really was indeed dumb enough to push Israel or by proxy the U.S. beyond the point of no return.

What then?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

By Seekerof They are aiding, supporting, supplying, and outfitting the Iraqi insurgents.


That's the kinda the stories I was talking about.


They are continuing on with their alledged "peaceful" intentions of acquiring a nuclear device. Whats it going to take for anyone to believe such? A UN report? That can be supplied. The IAEA report asserting such? That can be provided. The EU to report such? That can be provided, as well. What then? An actual hands-on look and see that Iran has a nuclear device? I guess well have to wait for that one, huh?


So what would it actually take? that's a perfect example of the Monty Python logic I'm talking about. The same kind of evidence as it would of taken Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD's during the 48 deadline he was given to disarm before the invasion began perhaps?


Kinda reminds of a posting catch 22 i noticed a while back:


Everything that goes against the readers beliefs, the source/author is biased and therefore the information is irrelevant.

How then would someone go about presenting the reader with conflicting information/opinion without being labeled biased?

They can't! Simply by having opposing information/opinion the writer/source automatically places themself into the 'biased' category in the readers mind. The material is, to the reader, justifiably discarded and the reader remains safe within their self created bubble of reality!

Genius!



The Neo Cons work on a similar logic.


By Phoneix What if Iran really was indeed dumb enough to push Israel or by proxy the U.S. beyond the point of no return.

What then?


Then I would expect to see Iran preparing all its political, media, and military forces for war against Israel. Instead we have the US preparing (what it hasn't alreadly prepared) it's political, media and military forces to invade Iran.



EDIT: btw, if someone replys with a "we live in time of danger" post I'm going put a bet on this weeks football right now.



[edit on 20-1-2005 by kegs]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs

The Neo Cons work on a similar logic.


By Phoneix What if Iran really was indeed dumb enough to push Israel or by proxy the U.S. beyond the point of no return.

What then?


Then I would expect to see Iran preparing all its political, media, and military forces for war against Israel. Instead we have the US preparing (what it hasn't alreadly prepared) it's political, media and military forces to invade Iran.



EDIT: btw, if someone replys with a "we live in time of danger" post I'm going put a bet on this weeks football right now.



[edit on 20-1-2005 by kegs]


Kegs I understand your views and arguments about U.S. involvement, thats a given for those opposed to any U.S. involvment in any foreign wars voluntarilly entered into , the premise here is that Israel forces a position based on their percieved policy position forcing the U.S. into one sort of action or another regardless of any existing plan by U.S. politicians.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join