It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran's Role in Iraq Debated in Congress

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 10:46 PM
Could the fighting in Iraq spill over into Iran? for now the focus seems to be on diplomatic solutions being discussed by congress but with the Bush administration's decision to send more troops into Iraq, a solution to the insurgency seems to keep pointing to Iran.
Iran was the subject not only in House and Senate hearings on President Bush's military surge plan for Iraq, but in the first public session of the now Democrat-controlled House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The new chairman, California Congressman Tom Lantos, is one of the sharpest critics of Iran, based on what he calls its unrelenting pursuit of nuclear weapons, support of terrorism, and the Iranian president's anti-semitic statements and threats against Israel.

However, Lantos continues to assert that dialogue is a tool the Bush administration needs to use with what he calls an increasingly confident, and arrogant, Iranian government. "We should pursue dialogue with Iran even as we deploy other diplomatic tools to achieve our goals of suspending and ultimately ending Iran's nuclear program," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

With congress taking a harder look at the possibility of some sort of dialogue between the U.S. ,Iran and Syria Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice repeated the Bush administration's opposition to such a dialogue and laying yet another pavement the road toward some sort of military action against Iran in the future, seems to be a real possibility.

It didn't help that former CIA director James Woolsey in a separate testimony reiterated his pessimism about chances for dialogue with tehran "I think the chance, quite frankly, of halting the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program is about as close to zero as matters come in international relations,"

Woolsey also asserted that the only course of action left to take may be a policy of "regime change" where have we heard that before?

Related News Links:

[edit on 12-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:44 PM
What you have to understand is that the same intelligence that our own government was following to find a reason to go into Iraq is the same intelligent behind this report.

Actually is nothing than excuses to get Iran involve into a conflict with the US.

Bush goal of the Middle East was to attack Iraq get a successful end in that nation and quickly move to Iran.

However, things did not go the way that they were planned, public opinion, adversities because the hasty war, the post invasion planning led to a nightmare in Iraq.

Now congress in the democrats hands . . . all that is not a good sign that the People of this nations wants another conflict.

But the goals have to be met and Bush wants to attack Iran no matter what, because he can not sell the American people anymore that is for the good of the nation . . . now he has to find a way to get Iran involve in a confrontation with US to then pursue an attack of Iran nuclear plants.

Israel already was put in the spot with the UK news that Israel was planning to attack Iran, but how credible can it be, or perhaps US is the one planning the next assault.

Now, will the Bush administration goes ahead against the will of the American people and engage in another conflict?

I don't think so, he may tried but I wonder what the nation will do.

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 10:10 PM
Thanks marge I cant say I disagree with anything you wrote except that Iran is really is interfering in Iraq I just cant understand why the Iranians are playing right into bush's hands.

Their statements heard world wide could not be faked by the bush adminisrtation so they really do want this fight also.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by the_sentinal]

new topics

log in