Cheney: "All options" open to Iran

#1
US vice president Dick Cheney has asserted that while the US will try to stop Iran's nuclear programme diplomatically, it has not ruled out military action.

Mr Cheney stressed that the White House policy was to strive for a non-military solution. "As we've said, we're doing everything we can to resolve it diplomatically, but we haven't taken any options off the table," he told ABC News.

Speaking at a press conference in Australia with the country's prime minister John Howard, the 66-year-old American insisted that a diplomatic process would be preferable: "We worked with the European community and the UN to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference."

"I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table," he added.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, also expressed concern over Iran's nuclear development, a programme Iran says is purely for non-threatening energy production, affecting the conflict in neighbouring Iraq.

"I can't think of a country whose influence and potential clout would be more enhanced in that part of the world than Iran's could be if there were to be a coalition defeat in Iraq," he said.

Mr Cheney's comments come one day after Iran failed to meet an UN-imposed deadline to cease its nuclear development programme, which Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly defended and refused to bring to a close
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news-channels/headline-channel/cheney-all-options-open-iran-$1055988.htm
 
#2
Have to say I think a strike against Iran is on the cards. Also think US/Israel will maximise the element of surprise. I have been fiercely critical of the Iraq war but I would have no problem with stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions. I am surprised by Blair's comments against such an action. Clear to me that he chose to support the wrong war from the start.
 
#3
What, if any, are the potential risks to our troops in the area? By which I mean those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does Iran have the potential to cause us major problems or will US/Israeli airpower overwhelm them?
 
#4
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070203/60153725.html

"The United States assured us [Russia] that it has no plans to wage war against Iran and the presence of supplementary [military] forces in the Persian Gulf region helps to stabilize the situation in the region," Sergei Lavrov said upon his return to Moscow from Washington, where he attended the meeting of the Quartet of Middle East mediators.
So Russian FM was assured in Washington that the war with Iran will not take place (at least in the near future). I strongly doubt that the administration will violate the promise.
 
#5
Bit oh warmongering eh? Business as normal in the good ol' US of A.
 
#6
I just can't see how the Septics envisage doing this. They've identified over 200 sites which would have to be banjoed; some of those may be decoys or real. But there's no reliable int on how many secret sites exist, or if they're decoys too.

My greatest fear is that any attack will immediately provoke a response. All this sword-rattling and useless waffling has given the Iranians ample opportunity to get their act together counter-strike wise. In addition to the real risk of Iran stepping up to the plate in Iraq, particularly in the south of the country.

Of course, all that makes no odds to Babbeo Bush and his gang of lunatics, but it makes me fear for the British Army troops in Iraq when the brown and smelly comes into contact with the rapidly spinning blades.

On the other hand, it could be just a ploy by the Septics to keep up pressure by threatening measures which they're in no position to carry out.

MsG
 
#7
But is Iran going to capitualte on the grounds of this American postering. Iran probably believes that Allah will protect them and defeat the great American infidel.

Iran's confidence will be further boosted by the way the USA folded over the Korean Issue.
 
#8
There is no way that the Israelis are going to allow Iran to join the nuclear club. As long as Iran has a lunatic in charge I can't say that I blame them either. To reduce the risk of retaliation US/Israel might have to go for more like 2000 targets. Very very risky but what is worse? A nuclear Iran supporting global terrorism? Just hope sanctions work and the Iranians see sense, soon.
 
#9
Bugsy said:
My greatest fear is that any attack will immediately provoke a response. All this sword-rattling and useless waffling has given the Iranians ample opportunity to get their act together counter-strike wise.
Didn't the Pentagon wargame something similar just before Iraq and the result was two sunk carrier groups?
 
#10
Israel wouldn't be able to do much by themselves, as soon as they kicked off with Iran all the other Arab nations would be on them like a pack of dogs.

If Iran do go nuclear watch the house prices fall in and around London, no one will want to live in that big juicy target.
 
#11
armchair_jihad said:
Bugsy said:
My greatest fear is that any attack will immediately provoke a response. All this sword-rattling and useless waffling has given the Iranians ample opportunity to get their act together counter-strike wise.
Didn't the Pentagon wargame something similar just before Iraq and the result was two sunk carrier groups?
Would they use Nukes if the Iranians moved into Iraq after a strike?
 
#12
Might the US be tempted to threaten a nuclear retaliation in the event that the Iranians go after shipping? I think house prices might take a dip everywhere! Time to move to NZ.
 
#13
Well the Iranians have plenty of Sunburns - to be launched in volleys from fishing boats against the US carriers?

If the Iranians did sink one then the Yanks would have to do something spectacular in retaliation.
 
#14
armchair_jihad said:
Well the Iranians have plenty of Sunburns - to be launched in volleys from fishing boats against the US carriers?

If the Iranians did sink one then the Yanks would have to do something spectacular in retaliation.
It would certainly be a spectacular warning to Korea etc
 
#15
Blablabla...Cheney and co have been saying this for years now.

Nothings going to happen, its all mindgames.

There is no viable so-called military option anyway, intel isnt solid enough to guarantee any sort of success.

Iran will fillibuster their way to nuke capability and noone can do anything to stop them.

Mind you, all these Patrick Robinson fantasies of Israeli jets coming in via Iraqi air corridors are highly amusing!
 
#16
Problem with your argument is the size of Israel. Would not take many nukes to destroy it. Compared with the shere landmass of Iran. Can Israel depend on Iran to do the right thing and not press the button?

Do you really think US would ignore the plight of its partner in the event of an Iran/Israel confrontation?

Sorry, but there is a real possibility here of war.
 
#17
Well Hezbollah are Iranian proxies to a degree. The recent Lebanon skirmish could have been a useful pretext for an attack on Iran but neither the Israelis or the Yanks chose to follow that route.

Very telling that.
 
#19
Bear in mind that Iran shat themselves in 2003 and tried to make terms on the quiet. They're going to carry on going for the nuke as they can't lose face - but they must know they're in for a slapping shortly.

If they did decide to mount a counter attack I reckon it'd be human wave stylee - their best shot at coming out of it looking good would be to get as many of their own people killed as they possibly could while retaining any proper military units around Tehran to keep the government in power. Mind, their navy shouldn't be completely discounted as they have some good kit and could manage to give some bugger a nasty surprise. 200+ knot torpedoes? Ouch.
 
#20
TEHRAN (AFX) - Washington is not in a position to go to war against Tehran and its pressure over the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear programme is nothing more than 'intimidation', Iran's top nuclear negotiator said.

'There will not be a war ahead of us. The situation in America does not allow them to create new fronts,' Ali Larijani was quoted as saying by the student news agency ISNA.

'War with Iran is hard for them, so they want to intimidate us into committing suicide,' he added, referring to Western efforts to make Tehran abandon work on the sensitive nuclear fuel cycle.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/10/09/afx2267111.html
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top