Is some sort of pincer movement on Iran coming?

[DanS]

Dunno. Our Al Qaeda radar is pretty sensitive right now and I guess being the "Great Satan" makes us a little more mindful of the downside of Iran's actions.

Broadly speaking, Europe has decided to pin its hopes on the current elected government to effect change while the US has decided they are incapable of doing much of anything with their current approach.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanS
Dunno. Our Al Qaeda radar is pretty sensitive right now and I guess being the "Great Satan" makes us a little more mindful of the downside of Iran's actions.

Broadly speaking, Europe has decided to pin its hopes on the current elected government to effect change while the US has decided they are incapable of doing much of anything with their current approach.

DanS, isn't it interesting that the UK is suffering a news blackout on Iran and terrorism, particularly the degree to which Iran is harboring al Qaida terrorists, when at the same time British policy on Iran favors better relations? One would almost think that British media is controlled by and manipulated by the British government.

[Dauphin]

Ned, I take it you've never read British newspapers, or you would never have come up with such a stupid conclusion.

[Felch]

Well maybe it's like American media. It's not blatant control, but they make sure that cooperative media outlets get the inside scoop. So the media have an interest in pleasing the government on certain issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Ned, I take it you've never read British newspapers, or you would never have come up with such a stupid conclusion.

SG, what explanation do you have?

BTW, I understand that some of your press has naked ladies on page 3? I would suspect that this press is not controlled by the government. However, do they really conver the news other that the fight down at the pub?

[Kepler]

The idea is once you knock over the Taliban and Saddam, the rest of the MidEast gets the message and stops f-ing with us.

We'll never try to attack Iran. Their government is elected by and supported by the people, legitimately (well, at least as legitimately as ours...).

Also, Iraq is secular so we can get away with an invasion without ipso facto being declared an enemy of Islam, but Iran is an Islamic state and no Islamic country will accept a US invasion. We're already pissing off the Arab Moslems, and we sure don't need to piss off the non-Arab Moslems in Indonesia, Phillippines, India, Pakistan, Eastern Russia, etc, etc, etc...

I assume the US will cut a deal with Iran like we did with Pakistan, which means the government at least pays lip service to not funding terrorism and we don't screw with their trade or rant about whacking their leaders.

If all goes well, then once the neocons are ousted over here a sensible administration (perhaps with Powell back again) can put the Israelis in the nutcracker and tell them to let up on their Arabs now that Hezbollah's $$$ is drying up, blackmail the Saudis and Kuwaitis to liberalize their governments, and let the air out of the radical Islamic balloon. Will it work? Nope, but worth a try.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, Iran is also ripe for a revolution. We may need simply to light the fuse.

It is one thing to get Congress to allow Bush to take out Saddam. It is totally different to get Congress to approve ground troops to take out Iran, seeing when it's President is a moderate.

[Felch]

Its President is a moderate, but he doesn't have real power in government. The fact remains, Imran, that we're committed to fighting nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Iran is one of these. If you align yourself with terrorists, we don't care how moderate your policies are. You are our enemy.

Frankly I think Iran is more legitimate a target than Iraq. Iraq has done very little to sponsor terror, while Iran practically invented state-sponsored terrorism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its President is a moderate, but he doesn't have real power in government. The fact remains, Imran, that we're committed to fighting nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Iran is one of these. If you align yourself with terrorists, we don't care how moderate your policies are. You are our enemy.

Mark my words (or Read my Lips ) we will NOT go to war with Iran in the next 20 years. It doesn't matter that they sponsor terrorists, we are not going into Iran.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ned


Alright, I'll bite. Who is the real enemy, Eli?

The ruling elites of pretty much every Arab/Muslim country, except Turkey, Jordan and a number of others.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
The US record when it comes to "lighting fuses" does not fill me with confidence

That reminds me of the joke:

A: "When a blah throws a pin at you, run away!"
B: "Why?"
A: "He has a grenade in his mouth!"

[Saint Marcus]

Iran today declared a fatwah against an American. Guess who? Yup, it's Jerry Falwell.

He had it coming.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
quote:

Iran today declared a fatwah against an American. Guess who? Yup, it's Jerry Falwell.



He had it coming.

Well Falwell apologized. But I doubt that will be enought to atone for his "offense."

Falwell should journey to Iran and apologize to the Ayatollah in person. No, that would take balls.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Irans harbouring of terrorists and sponsoring of terrorism now taken as read, riddle me this... why are these not being played up by the British Media/Government? I don't see an obvious reason.

As far as their connection with Hizbollah, Hamas etc goes, it's old news.

As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, it's mostly just US government claims. Don't know about the UK, but our media just don't carry every propaganda line coming out of Washington without anything to back it up. That some AlQ members may move in the border region to Afghanistan - big deal...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Irans harbouring of terrorists and sponsoring of terrorism now taken as read, riddle me this... why are these not being played up by the British Media/Government? I don't see an obvious reason.

Oh, as if the reason for attacking Iraq is obvious, it is the one the public are most likely to accept... or be persuaded to accept. It seems that US/UK might have different interests with Iran, especially UK it seems, as we are particularly friendly. What it is, normal people do not know, nor will we get to know, but hey, I'd rather have Iran in peace, whatever the reasons.

If someone was after the terrorists, than I guess they would have to bully Pakistan first of all, how they came from the war on terrorism to the attack on Iraq... well that is just good PR management. (anyway the US just claimed that they can do war on two fronts so this is clearly not related Iraq and terrorism even officially) Whatever the reasons, Iraq is surely the favourite target as the population does not like Saddam anyway... so I guess that makes him a good target. For Iran/ Pakistan/ Saudi Arabia one could definitly make a much better case for attack - ie connection with current terrorist threat for SA terror sponsors + WOMD in case of Iran and nukes + WOMD + terror sponsors for Pakistan. Huh, and puny WOMD from Iraq win, those bad opoinion polls in US/UK have bad consequences.