US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

reply to post by bknapple32


Then it negates the whole idea of an outside terror cell, can be tied directly to Iran, and still likely wouldn't work because if you know about Israel.. they aren't going to be having anything smuggled in. Especially not a nuke. Look what happens when they try to bring humanitarian aid to gaza. Isreal searches every inch of those boats, takes the aid from them and gives to to gaza themselves.
It's just not a plausible scenario.. and it is moving way into a fantasy scenario. Before any of that could happen Iran would have to want the kind of trouble that would entail and have to want to be completely annihilated by nukes.

Israel has second strike capability. If they were nukes they would nuke Iran into the ground. That isn't something Iran wants, no matter how bad they might hate Israel.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


True, it would be a lot easier to smuggle a nuke into a U.S port. Perhaps thats what theyd do with it. Throw in some Saudi passports on the Iranian martyrs and there ya go.

IRan needs to be free,,,check mu thread out > www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SharpKnife


Not sure what that has to do with Iran and a nuke....

Letting Iran have nukes is like being Neville Chamberlain. What most pacifists don't seem to understand is pacifism only works of your enemy is a democracy or can be reasoned with.

reply to post by bknapple32


We shall deconstruct that article. You will need to read that article several times and to examine it with a fine toothed comb to separate the direct quotes from the anonymous quotes.

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration

Oh yea? which key parts?

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department

Oh really? No names are given.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy.

Oh really? An official? I'm impressed. Not.

"We don't see a way forward," said one official.

Another anonymous official chimes in.

Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot"

Finally we get a name but the author of the article relies again on anonymous official analsysts Can someone please tell me what an official analyst is?

American officials are resigned to the fact that the US will be seen in much of the world as a partner in any Israeli assault on Iran..

Yet another group of anonymous American officials.

"The sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking this issue seriously," said one official.

Here we go again, said one anonymous official.

Colin Kahl, who was US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East until December, said: "With the European oil embargo...

Finally! Someone has the balls to be quoted.

Dennis Ross, Obama's former envoy for the Middle East and Iran, this week said that sanctions may be pushing Tehran toward negotiations.

There is another name, but no direct quotes are attributed. The article includes more direct quotes from Kahl. And the article finishes off with some quotes from Dennis Kucinich,

Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this week he fears sanctions are less about changing Tehran's policy than laying the ground for military action. He warned that "the latest drum beat of additional sanctions and war against Iran sounds too much like the lead-up to the Iraq war".

We the people of the United States of America do not want war with Iran. Israel does. US Government listens to Israel.

Sounds like what our founders wanted.

reply to post by bknapple32


From a diplomatic perspective,things really do not look good at all.Unfortunately at a time like this, when any popularity considerations in the polls ,on the run up to the elections ,need to be put to one side and a solution that does not involve military action found,those from all sides of the political divide will no doubt continue with their petty point scoring and back stabbing against each other,making a military confrontation more or less inevitable.

reply to post by popsmayhem


3 year olds preventing 3 year olds from getting a gun at gunpoint? Note that the 3 year old currently holding the gun has commited two shooting sprees before causing mass murder of men, women, children and pets without batting an eye. Which three year old is more dangerous? Hypocrite.

The War Drums are really starting to beat louder in the media. More and more stories about Iran being a nuclear threat are starting to surface and it seems like many people are falling for the propaganda. Most sane people do not want this war to commence and we must do all we can to avoid it from taking place.

reply to post by popsmayhem
I cannot understand this type of reasoning. Iran has every right to research and utilize nuclear energy, without regard to what the US says or thinks because they are a sovereign nation. They should not have to put an end to their nuclear program just because the US and Israel "think" they may develop nuclear weapons.
The US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another country, and is guilty of using depleted uranium in Iraq and most probably Afghanistan as well. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are both illegal wars of aggression, by the UN's own definition of such. If Iran can be compared to a 3 year old with a loaded firearm then the US can be compared to a spoiled 2 year old playing with a bazooka. Another illegal war is not the answer.

Originally posted by bknapple32


IF we need to attack, then we attack. Elections wont matter when we all witness a mushroom cloud in Israel or Washington DC.


Einstein said it best. "World War two ends with a nuclear bomb, world war 3 will begin with one."

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 17-2-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

I am willing to be parachuted into iran so that i can disguised as an iranian can get into their nuclear making place and destroy it.

we need to recruit/ train a bum army (as in fighting bums) for a couple of weeks equip them with suitable equipment,parachuted into iran to destroy their deep deep deep facilities.


these bums who live in card board box in dark alleys and steal food from dumpsters will finally have meaning in their life dying for their country.

we could engrave their names on a gigantic phallic monument.


i also suggest you too volunteer to be parachuted into iran and destroy their deep deep deep underground evil factories.


into iran.

It's no wonder the administration officials are divided...
the oil and bank sanctions will be hurting our Allies more so than Iran


are we going to divert our share of OPEC oil to the western nations which were being supplied oil from Iran to the tune of 15-20% of their national oil imports
~of course not~
because that would mean that places like India, Greece, Japan would have to do without some basic necessities while the USA gasoline prices would stay below the $4 gallon excitement point---
otherwise
our allies will be devising ways to procure more of the life blood oil which will make gasoline above $5 gallon before the USA election cycle


it is clear that the Iran nuclear program is a strawman--- the real threat is the absence of the USA petro-dollar in oil trading between Iran and other countries, like India trading Rupees & Gold for Iranian oil (75% & 25% respectively)..or China & their agreements in trade & money with Iran...
it has been years now, but the oil bourse in Iran is still not up and running

A lot more defense for iran in this thread than I expected. Interesting.....

The sanctions have already failed, theres so many legal lope holes that a country such as Iran doesnt have much trouble circumventing. Theres busines to be done, and not many people in busines can be bothered loosing money because America is on some insano crusade against brown people.

whos trying to start ww3 here -_-

Originally posted by shadowreborn89
whos trying to start ww3 here -_-

How either side dont see that WW3 starts with one of them becoming aggressive against the other is beyond me

Originally posted by bknapple32
A lot more defense for iran in this thread than I expected. Interesting.....

No not interesting. They don't have a nuke, couldn't hit us if they did. Besides the only socially acceptable way to call something interesting, odd, quaint, etc is that it is of a minority opinion. Only then can you attempt to marginalize another persons truth. Many people excel at being lemmings and others practice critical thought and are objective. Subjective thought is the tool of religions. Hell, if the people int he Churches were objective they would all leave the buildings and start being kind to one another and be servants to humanity ( by wisdom and not slavery ).

On the whole the people of this planet are probably MUCH more worried about the USA's terrorist actions. Mostly because they can do them in the open with great vigor and what is some poor schmuck living an impoverished life and trying to take care of his family supposed to do? Die, that is their roll. America was the only country to ever use nukes on a people and, lol, if you were an alien from another world looking down on the planet who would you think stands out as a problem right now?

Leave the Iranians alone. They won't be trying to take out Israel. Their greatest sin is having a large proven pool of oil beneath their soil. And now we have them surrounded.

reply to post by bknapple32

Iran is just bidding time. They know they're gambling their future. We're all fumbling the ball. It's like a murderer has his gun pointed at your wife and you're somewhere else on the phone with him and just happen to have his wallet. You take out 100 dollar bills and rip them and he increasingly presses his gun against the back of her head and the tension in his trigger finger becomes visible.

We should have bombed them first thing. We should have acted sooner.

This situation is not going to end up good for anybody. Too late. We weren't assertive.

Iran will eventually lose too much money. They're using this time to build up their military and nuclear weapons program. Once they realize that the sanctions are crippling them too much, they'll fight.

Then we have a war. A big one.

The sooner we bomb them the better because the situation will just grow worse. But we wouldn't be in this position if we had acted earlier. Thanks to our incompetent administration, most likely.

I didn't like GWB, but he would have acted more proactively before it got this bad. Literally, every day we wait we give Iran more time to develop their plans and to prepare for an all out war.

This lack of assertiveness in US leadership was seen in WW2 before Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, there's a strong disconnect between leadership and military. It has fractured our effectiveness.

reply to post by bknapple32


There will be no attack until after U S elections. If there is an attack it wont stop Iran from eventually getting the bomb. Once Iran has the bomb it will grow immediately less adventurous in foreign policy. Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon or conventional force.