Iran: Will it be jaw-jaw or war-war?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by redgrain, May 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is war with Iran inevitable, even imminent? Or is peace at hand?

    From the public diplomacy of the administration, either conclusion may be reached. Consider:

    "West Offers Iran 'Refreshed' Deal," ran the headline in the May 3 Washington Times. The story described an offer to Iran, agreed to by all five members of the Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – of a sweetened grand bargain, if Tehran will suspend its enrichment of uranium.

    Blessing the offering in London was Condi Rice.

    Details will not be made public, but the offer is said to include Western aid to Iran for a civilian nuclear program, a light-water reactor and a five-year stock of enriched uranium held for Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    America's contribution would be support for Iran's admission to the World Trade Organization, a conference to discuss regional security in the Gulf, a U.S. offer to sell Iran spare parts for its U.S.-built civilian aircraft and a beginning of the lifting of three decades of U.S. sanctions.

    News of this offer, plus the relaxed mood in Washington, which is utterly unlike the tense atmosphere prior to March 2003, suggests that war with Iran is far from the mind of this city.

    But to take the warnings and threats of the civilian and military leaders of this administration at face value would lead one to conclude the opposite – that war with Iran is indeed inevitable, and probably soon. Consider:

    Last month, Gen. David Petraeus was asked by Joe Lieberman, "Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

    "It certainly is. ... That is correct," answered the general.

    The next day, Petraeus testified, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

    Petraeus has since been promoted to command of all U.S. forces in the region.

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, known as an opponent of war on Iran, followed Petraeus, accusing Tehran of being "hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Last week, Gates was out front again. "What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq."

    Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is now also pounding the war drum. Iran's "irresponsible influence," its support of terror and its pursuit of atomic weapons, he said last week, is creating a "perfect nightmare" for the region. The Pentagon, said the chairman, is planning for "potential military ... action" because of Iran's "increasingly lethal and malign influence."

    "It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capacity," Mullen declared. A second U.S. carrier just entered the Persian Gulf.

    CBS reports that a target list of U.S. military planners includes the headquarters of the Quds Force and plants where Iran produces enhanced IEDs and the rockets used against the Green Zone. The network also reports that the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum.

    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmal Khalilzad has chimed in: "Iran and Syria must stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, and their malign interference in Iraq."

    Iraqi Maj. Gen. Qasim Atta says 700 rockets and mortars have been fired at Coalition forces and the Green Zone, and most of the "Katyusha and Grad rockets and smart roadside bombs" were Iranian-made. The U.S. military is preparing a dossier on Iran's role in the Iraq war.

    In the Landon Lecture at Kansas State, CIA Director Michael Hayden declared, "It ... is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level ... to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq." That day, State designated Iran the "most significant" and "most active" state sponsor of terror on earth.

    From the White House to State to the Pentagon to CIA, the Bush administration is now singing from the same song sheet: Iran's Quds Force, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, is arming and directing "special groups" to kill U.S. soldiers and prevent a U.S. victory.

    Is the White House rattling sabers to prod Iran into talks?

    Perhaps. But the administration has also painted itself, and us, into a corner with the war talk. And there are only three ways out.

    The first is that Iran halts the attacks, ends its intervention and negotiates on the six-nation offer. The second is that Iran rejects the deal, refuses to stop the attacks and U.S. air strikes begin.

    The third is that Bush is bluffing and goes home railing against an axis-of-evil nation killing American soldiers, having done nothing.

    With Israel, the Israeli lobby, the neocons and Dick Cheney insisting on air strikes, and even Hillary Clinton talking about Iran being "obliterated," the last course would seem the least probable.

    We are likely headed either for negotiations with Iran or war, after Bush returns from the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel's birth.

    "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war," said Winston Churchill in 1954, whose career often contradicted his wise counsel.
  2. Stick, carrot? Carrot, stick? Could George W. actually be thinking up a strategy or is this just wishful thinking on Buchanan's part?
  3. Those Iranian b*stards are responsible for the deaths of many of our comrades.

    Just nuke them and damn their eyes.
  4. "The War of Arthur's Ear(piece)" perhaps??
  5. Have the Septics not learnt anything??????
    Blundering around in the Middle East trying to secure oil supplies for themselves so that they can drive thier RV's around didn't work by picking a fight in Iraq, whats going to be different in Iran apart from the cost in dead troops,Iran won't collapse like Iraq and hopefully Broon or the Boy Dave will not be enchanted by the US fundamentalist Christian Right,unlike the Grinning Fool Blair, they are just as bad as the fundamentalist Islamists.
    The West needs oil to exist but it won't get it by allowing the US and its dellusioned followers to destroy the supply system, then hoping it can rebuild countries in thier own image, it is crass arrogance to think that the whole world wants to live the American Dream.
  6. I agree with you one hundred percent - plus you must take the powerful US Zionist lobby in to account. They, backed as you say, by religious zealots who would like to rush Armageddon along so they can be in heaven, will stop at nothing to protect Israel - the world be damned.
  7. But who to jaw-jaw with? The mad dinner jacket is a puppet of the spiritual council and are non elected by the people. They vote themselves into power. As for elections the people are told which puppet to vote for, so no real democracy there. So avoiding war is a real challenge, one which i hope wins, as the real powerhouse seems to stay in the background and avoiding contact.
    I'm sure some expert on persian studies will prove me wrong about the makeup in Iran but thats how it seems from the outside (with our media) looking in.
  8. Diplomacy could be the awnser but as the old saying goes "diplomacy is hushing and stroking a big dog with one hand whilst finding a big stick to smack it with the other"

    This has been touched upon on another forum but I, as long as Iran or elements within Iran continues to supply and aid terrorism they should be within the UK and US's sights.

    Iran (the government of) is either willingly aiding our enemies or is incompetant (as regards to policing to own nation) and should sort itself out. Either way western involvement will be neccesary in time (after Afghanistan and Iraq are finished, otherwise we will be dangerously overstretched)
  9. Well, being a 'democracy' has never been a prerequisite for US/UK dealing with anyone or not. Look at some of the losers they have propped up through the years - hardly bastions of liberty. :wink:
  10. Unfortunately the losers that you talk about rg which both UK/US foreign policy has supported overtly or covertly have resulted in some of the most heinous, 'orrible men ever to walk on this earth.

    The conditions for the emergence of Muslim Fundementalism were created by the West in installing the Shah of Iran (prolific purchaser of Western Military Equipment) and supporting his murderous regime.

    Once Khomeini's 'Islamic Revoloution' turned its attention to their neighbours Saddam Hussein was our new crusader in the ME. Even then we knew of his rise to power and the Ba'athist Regime; yet we openly supported him in his action to destroy the unwanted spawn of our short sighted foreign policy.

    The birth of Muslim Fundementalism has bought forward new players to the game, once a hero of Afghanistan, a Saudi who reputedly fought the Russian occupying forces, AKA Osama Bin Laden (Arsenal Fan - spits!); who during the struggle to defeat communist imperialism aggression was subject to overwhelming support from the allies.

    US foreign policy continues to support Israel despite their actions, there's is no suprise there. Corporate America is run by jews and undoubtedly GWB and I have no doubt his successors will continue to have decsions regarding that area of the world made for them.

    When it comes to the lives of our soldiers talk is never cheap, I hope that there are talks with I'm a Dinner Jacket and if they don't work they talk some more, offer help with the nuclear programme, do what it takes to avoid conflict.

    Whilst I acknowledge that some parties within Iran are supplying Arms etc to the Insurgents in Iraq I would like to be reassured that it is 'officially' sponsored by the Iranian Leadership before any punitive measures are carried out.

    If the likes of Clinton want targets in Iran destroyed let her or her horse- headed daughter be the pilot of the AC that is to carry out the mission.

    Have I got a suspicious mind when, in more tin-foil hat moments, I imagine a cell well within corridors of the US/UK government who are as, we dribble over our keyboards, fabricating evidence of WMD, their delivery systems and other horrors which will get the public stamping their feet in an orgy of patriotic fervour?

    Tin foil hat removed, Light Bulbs replaced.


  11. I agree with you both 100%
  12. In theory it does have a democracy but all candidates have to be screened by the Council of Guardians for the following : There belief in Islam, expressions of support for Iran's Islamic system and adherence to the belief that the state should be headed by the Faqih or supreme religious leader.
    There decision is final and if they feel particularly threatened can prevent any one who we in the west would class as moderates or modernizers from standing as they did in the recent elections.
  13. I agree with every word!
  14. Boll0cks Mate!

    Try the Saudis, Jordanians, Egypt, Somali etc...

    More Arab money is funding Iraqi insurgency than Iranian.

    All the Iranians want is the lastest iPod.