US special forces 'inside Iran'

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I would say in that case prepare for a 9/11 x 50.

Well I doubt either side is licking their chops and praying for war, so don't worry too much. The Iranians replied to the New Yorker story today and said it was an obvious psychological warfare ploy. I tend to think so too.

[notyoueither]

ie, they are too smart to fall for the obvious. The obvious being that the admin had a few people talk to a 'reputable' outlet in the hopes of sending a message to the Iranians.

Still, I wonder if they got the message.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by notyoueither
ie, they are too smart to fall for the obvious. The obvious being that the admin had a few people talk to a 'reputable' outlet in the hopes of sending a message to the Iranians.

Still, I wonder if they got the message.

Their bragging about their nuclear puissance tells me that they did, though their reaction may not have been what whoever leaked the story had hoped.

[notyoueither]

I put $10 on airstrikes from Israel or a CVA within 12 months.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was what U2s were supposed to do too, until an unfortunate incident.

We didn't stop spying on the Russians after Powers got shot down. We just developed better methods.

Don't you see a problem with sending troops into a neutral country?

Not particularly. And Iran is hardly "neutral"...

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I put $10 on airstrikes from Israel or a CVA within 12 months.

Maybe. But I think Bush will go to the UN and ask for tough sanctions on Iran first. I think the primary purpose for the surveilance inside Iran is to get hard evidence on exactly what Iran is doing. Regardless of his tough public attitude on not finding WMD's in Iraq, Bush obviously was highly embarrassed about the intel failure and does not want to repeat the mistake with Iran. Furthermore, he knows that he cannot get tough resolutions from the Security Council without proof, this time, of Iranian perfidity.

It would be interesting to see what the Ayatollahs do if the entire world stops trading with them.

[Ted Striker]

They will go on trading with Russia the same way the always have.

[Arrian]

It would be interesting to see what the Ayatollahs do if the entire world stops trading with them.

What diplomatic capital do you think this adminstration has left? As usual, you're delusional to think that the "whole world" will stop trading with Iran. Not only will Russia and China likely refuse to go along, but I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also. I wonder, why would they be reluctant to back us up? Hmm....

Seems to me the last time we went the UN about WMDs in a Middle-Eastern nation and requested action, there was little political will in the world, including our allies, to take military action. Then we ignored that, did it anyway, and lo & behold THEY WERE RIGHT - no WMDs, and futhermore a helluva mess to deal with. So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also.

I suspect France is smarting the Russians beat them to the punch this time when it comes to giving a Middle Eastern nation nukes.

So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?

To be fair, Iran actually has WMD. That would appear to be the main difference.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Arrian


What diplomatic capital do you think this adminstration has left? As usual, you're delusional to think that the "whole world" will stop trading with Iran. Not only will Russia and China likely refuse to go along, but I rather strongly suspect much of "the West" will also. I wonder, why would they be reluctant to back us up? Hmm....

Seems to me the last time we went the UN about WMDs in a Middle-Eastern nation and requested action, there was little political will in the world, including our allies, to take military action. Then we ignored that, did it anyway, and lo & behold THEY WERE RIGHT - no WMDs, and futhermore a helluva mess to deal with. So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?

-Arrian

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I suspect France is smarting the Russians beat them to the punch this time when it comes to giving a Middle Eastern nation nukes.

So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?

To be fair, Iran actually has WMD. That would appear to be the main difference.

Unfortunatley the rest of the world community already gave us the benefit of the doubt already and got burned the first time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Unfortunatley the rest of the world community already gave us the benefit of the doubt already and got burned the first time.

Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't have to give us the benefit of the doubt this time, unless they happen to believe the IAEA is in Bush's pocket. Is that what you believe Ted? Is Bush that powerful? Come on you can tell me.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

So what, exactly, would make any of the nations that disagree with us last time do otherwise w/regard to Iran?

To be fair, Iran actually has WMD. That would appear to be the main difference.

But they are not threatening anyone with them, are they? You could expect them to give some to Hizbola, but so far they haven't. So why bother?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Fortunately the rest of the world doesn't have to give us the benefit of the doubt this time, unless they happen to believe the IAEA is in Bush's pocket. Is that what you believe Ted? Is Bush that powerful? Come on you can tell me.

No, we don't have to depend on the rest of the world for anything if we want to go bomb them, we can do it any time we want to.

Unfortunatley you don't understand the loss of politcal capital that goes with it, at this point we are about to go into a political capital deficit.

[Arrian]

First off, if Iran actually already has WMDs, they're safe from us.

Second, it is unclear to me that we have the right to decide who gets nukes and who doesn't.

Notwithstanding #2, even if one assumes it IS our right to prevent other nations from getting the bomb, as a practical matter we do not appear to be in a position to do anything about Iran, other than bombing. Bombing has a pretty good chance of missing some or all of the WMD program, and furthermore will greatly strengthen the regime's claims about the U.S. being the Great Satan. PLUS, if and when Iran DOES get WMDs, they will have a legitmate axe to grind... because, well, we ****ing BOMBED them!

-Arrian