Election over; now it's Iran's turn!

[techumseh]

That the ultimate goal of the Bush administration is an attack on Iran, I've never had any doubt. Nor do I doubt that, had the war in Iraq been more successful, the US and it's allies, with Israeli support, would have attacked Iran just after the last US presidential election.

Had the latest midterm elections gone in favour of the Republicans, I'm sure the US would now be ramping up preparations for an all out attack on Iran. However, given the results, this is now impossible. What's left for the the neo-cons in Washington is to unleash Israel.

Hence the latest "intelligence" reports linking Iran to attempts to influence Al Quada, including allegations that they are promoting pro-Iranians for the top leadership. Intelligence reports and "leaks" in the last couple of days suggesting that an Iranian nuclear bomb will be made available to terrorists and ultimately used against the US are intended to set the stage for an Israeli strike against Iran. All this is to convince the ever-gullible American public that their safety requires yet more military action.

I believe the current visit of Ehud Olmert to Washington is intended to finalize these plans and to discuss what effects the US election results have on these plans. These need not stop an Israeli attack on Iran, since the majority of Democrats are very pro-Israel. All that is needed is for the US to appear to stay out of things, and domestic opinion can be rallied, they hope.

There are also many voices calling for a dialogue with Iran, including Tony Blair, who seems to have learned his lesson. It remains to be seen which view will prevail. I put the odds at about 50-50 for an Israeli attack on Iran within 2 weeks.

It's my opinion, what's yours?

[KrazyHorse]

My opinion is that you're a ******.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My opinion is that you're a ******.

[KrazyHorse]

It was too easy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sadly, I missed the opportunity. I was just going to ignore him...

[KrazyHorse]

He's too ridiculous to be infuriating. It's why I don't ignore him, but do ignore Ned.

[Drake Tungsten]

I tend to ignore the people that are so retarded that they aren't worth the time and effort needed to call them a ******. It's a very select group, but growing...

[techumseh]

And if I'm right?

[Lancer]

Then we won't have to watch Nancy Pelosi on the tube anymore.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by techumseh
And if I'm right?

We won't deport you to Calgary.

[techumseh]

I can handle a lot of abuse, but that's going too far!

[notyoueither]

Harsh times and desperate measures.

[techumseh]

IRAN is trying to form an alliance with al-Qaeda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, Western intelligence officials say.

The Iranians were determined to take advantage of bin Laden's reportedly declining health from kidney disease to promote senior officials known to be friendly to Tehran, the officials said.

The revelation could be a blow to Tony Blair's hopes of establishing what he termed a "new partnership" with Tehran.

The British Prime Minister said in a speech in London on Monday night he wanted a diplomatic initiative to secure peace in Iraq by talking to Iran and ending threats of military force against the regime.

The Iranians are said to want Saif al-Adel - a former Egyptian Special Forces colonel who fought with the mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - to be the organisation's No. 3.

Adel, 46, was bin Laden's head of security and named on the FBI's 22 most-wanted-terrorists list after September 11, 2001, for his alleged involvement in attacks against US targets in Somalia, Tanzania and Kenya in the 1990s.

He is believed to be living in a Revolutionary Guards guest house in Tehran since fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001.

The Iranians were training al-Qaeda fighters at centres previously used by other Islamic militant groups, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, the officials claimed.

"From the evidence we have seen, Iran's links to al-Qaeda go far deeper than simply supplying them with equipment," a Western intelligence official said.

Mr Blair's hopes of a dialogue with Tehran were dealt a further blow on Monday, when the US President, George Bush, rejected the notion that talks with Iran were the key to undermining the Iraqi insurgency.

While Mr Bush said he had not seen the contents of Mr Blair's speech, he was insistent that Iran should pay the consequences for continuing work on its nuclear enrichment program.

"It's very important for the world to unite to say to the Iranians, "If you choose to continue to move forward you will be isolated," Mr Bush said. "There has to be a consequence for their intransigence."

Telegraph, London

No sooner has Blair made his statement calling for the engagement of Iran, than an unknown "western intelligence source" claims that Iran is seeking to get control of the leadership of al-Qaeda. According to the Daily Telegraph, it's a "blow" to Mr. Blair's hopes for a dialog with Iran. Thank you Telegraph. Over to you, Fox News.

[DRoseDARs]

I have serious doubts about the Bush Administration trying to start hostilities with Iran directly. He'd have a full-scale uprising in Congress - not to mention anti-war protesters and what few allies we have left - and he'd be in some deep sh*t. The US public has really soured on Iraq and getting into it with Iran might effectively end Bush's term two years early as a much wider swath of people may well demand his immediate resignation or impeachment. If Israel starts something with Iran, Bush would not take the brunt of international anger but he'd certainly get an earful from the US public and Congress for involving us as well.

[Dis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My opinion is that you're a ******.