Next Administration Must Deal With Iran

[Infidel]

AP

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

WASHINGTON — Iran (search), a country that has bedeviled the United States for decades, could prove to be the biggest foreign policy challenge facing whoever is the next president. The messy Iraq war and a spy scandal linking Pentagon and Israeli officials could complicate U.S. hopes of halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Both President Bush (search) and Democratic nominee John Kerry (search) say they want to use diplomacy — although with different approaches — to prevent what could be a nightmare scenario for the United States: a nuclear-armed, hostile Islamic state in the volatile Middle East.

But the United States' ability to sound an international alarm on Iran has been damaged after much of its intelligence on Saddam Hussein's (search) weapons programs proved to be wrong. And its credibility could be further hurt by suspicions that a Pentagon official passed secrets about Iran to Israel.

Neither Bush nor Kerry advocates a pre-emptive strike on Iran. "The military option is always the last option for a president, not the first," Bush said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show.

Yet Iran, by many standards, poses a greater threat to the United States than Saddam ever did.

As they did with Iraq, U.S. officials suspect Iran has chemical and biological weapons. But Iran's nuclear program is much more advanced than Saddam's program was believed to be. U.S. officials say Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within a year and a nuclear weapon three years after that.


Iran says its nuclear program is for making electricity, not weapons.

The United States has long considered Iran the world's most active state sponsor of terror. Iran has supported militant Palestinian groups and U.S. officials say it has provided safe-haven for Al Qaeda members.

And even though Iran is more democratic than other nations in the region, the United States continues to condemn its human rights record.

In 2001, Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. Yet his administration has been divided on how to deal with it. Some, mostly in the Pentagon, favor a tougher approach. Others, mostly in the State Department, believe some accommodation is possible with Iranian moderates.

Tehran has offered some signs of seeking better relations with the United States, providing some cooperation on narcotics policy and in the war in Afghanistan. A State Department paper says relations with Iran "are frequently confused and contradictory due to Iran's oscillation between pragmatic and ideological concerns."

In a speech Monday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said the Bush administration "has stood on the sidelines" while both Iran and North Korea "advanced their nuclear programs."

Kerry holds out some hope that a negotiated solution with Iran is possible. He said the United States and other nations should "call their bluff" by offering nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, then taking back the spent fuel so it can't be used for weapons.

If that process fails, the United States could try to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) takes the issue to the U.N. Security Council, where Iran could face sanctions.

Bush administration officials have suggested that it is too late for incentives. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said recently that Iran "has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not engaged."

The administration is expected to request Security Council action if the IAEA condemns Iran at a meeting Sept. 13.

Yet prospects for action at the U.N. are uncertain. Russia, which is building Iran's nuclear reactor, has a veto. Other council members also have trade relationships with Iran.

Bush has demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program, but it's unclear what he would do if Iran refuses and the United Nations doesn't act.

Winning either domestic or international support for military action against Iran would be difficult.

Invading Iran has never seemed a credible option, said Robert Malley, an adviser to President Clinton on Middle East issues. "I think it has become far less so after what has happened in Iraq," he said.

Yet Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he believes the next president will have little choice but to support the main Iranian opposition group, the MEK.

That group, however, is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations and few politicians openly support it.

And Tanter says support for either military action or for using the MEK could be undermined by the investigation into whether Larry Franklin, a Middle East analyst at the Pentagon, provided classified information on Iran to Israel.

"Those people who would say unleash the MEK could be accused now of following a Zionist agenda," Tanter said. "The Franklin flap is quite damaging. It plays into Iran's hand."

[WBR]

Iran and North Korea should have been first on the list rather than Iraq.

Hussein was a gnat compared to the threat posed by either of these two regimes.

I suspect Bush realizes this. I hope a second term will see the start of dealing with these two beasts.

Kerry would do nothing. At least Bush made an attempt.

[B. Ungaro]

If a country is PROVEN to support Terrorist who CARRY OUT TERRORIST ACTS against our people, our country has the right to take action against that country.

This has to be a case solid as a rock. No ifs, maybees or butts. A proven case beyond the doubt. Iraq was not any of that.

Without such a Terrorist Act, solidly proven, any nation has the right to obtain any weaponry that they deem necessary. The reason being that we already have too many countries that have WMDs and use them as NEGOTIATING leverage. Israel and Pakistan having Atomic Weapons eliminates the reason for any other country being prevented from having them.

Further, let us not forget that from all the countries that have Atomic Weapons, the USA is the only who ever used it. We used it against civilians
when the other country was seriously negotiating for peace. Shame on us.

[Infidel]

Originally Posted by B. Ungaro

Weapons, the USA is the only who ever used it. We used it against civilians
when the other country was seriously negotiating for peace. Shame on us.

There was no negotiating with Japan. They trained the general population to fight to the death. We would have lost hundreds of thousands of men in combat. That would have been the shame. We were absolutely right to use nukes to put an end to the war in the Pacific!

[WBR]

There was no negotiating with Japan. They trained the general population to fight to the death. We would have lost hundreds of thousands of men in combat. That would have been the shame. We were absolutely right to use nukes to put an end to the war in the Pacific!

Unfortunantly, that isn't true. Begining in the Spring of 1945, Japan had indicated it would surrender if it could be assured that the Emperor would not be hanged. Japan had sent word of this to Washington through both the Soviet and Swiss governments.

MacArthur and Nimitz both urged Truman to accept these terms. MacArthur had already been designated as the Military Governor of a defeated Japan. He had advised Truman that he would insist on preserving the Emperor as a figurehead. Truman had agreed to this.

Truman and the State Department decided to ignore the Japanese overture. They knew the Bomb was almost ready and they wanted to use it for political reasons.

They knew the post-war problem would be Stalin. They wanted Stalin to see the destructive capabilities of the A-Bomb. They also wanted him to be aware that the U.S. did not mind using it.

I'm not faulting this decision. It may have been the correct one, but the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands of American lives is a myth.

[B. Ungaro]

Thank you WBR. The reason why we used the Nukes was to impress the Russians. How Calculating and Evil is that?

[Osiris]

Unfortunatly, that isn't true.

Oh boy WBR, what you said is true, but it sure is going to stir the pot around here. That part of history has been so deeply buried, that almost no one anymore even has heard of it.

[dcannady]

How Calculating and Evil is that?

Apparently, something that a Democrat President was quite capable of doing.

No Republican President has ever nuked anyone.

[DoubtingThomas]

Good information on the nuking of Japan, WBR. This is another example of many Americans refusing to accept that sometimes the U.S. military commits evil acts or that U.S. foreign policy is flawed. And speaking of flawed foreign policy, we can barely find enough troops to pacify Iraq, so how are we going to invade North Korea and Iran if they continue to develop nuclear weapons?

[B. Ungaro]

Doubting Tommy,

We no longer have the right to invade, just because somebody has NUKES. That Train has left the station when Israel and Pakistan developed NUKES. Further, as long as George is (low intellect) running amuck in the White House, I can fully understand why leaders of other countries would want to defend their people.

[B. Ungaro]

dcannady,

You are absulutamente correcto. Republican Presidents did other evil things. Like the creation of PANAMA. Look that up in your Funck and Wagnel.

[WBR]

This is another example of many Americans refusing to accept that sometimes the U.S. military commits evil acts or that U.S. foreign policy is flawed

It wasn't my intention to characterize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as evil.
Scaring the hell out of Stalin may have been a legitimate reason for nuking Japan.
We now know, from documents released by Russia, that Stalin was deathly afraid of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Did this save post-war Europe from an attempted Soviet take over? That's something we may never know.

It will probably be a hundred years before there is a meaningful historical analysis of these events. Historians are, for the most part, liberals. Harry Truman is a leftist folk hero. It isn't fashionable to level criticism at him.

[DoubtingThomas]

We no longer have the right to invade, just because somebody has NUKES.

Bungee, I agree that we shouldn't invade countries just because they are developing or already possess nuclear weapons, although that might be necessary as a last resort. When I said that we don't have enough troops to invade North Korea and Iran while pacifying Iraq, I was simply pointing out another obvious flaw with Bush's foreign policy.

It wasn't my intention to characterize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as evil.

WBR, how can you say that Japan was willing to surrender, which we knew because we had broken their codes, and then say it was not evil to nuke civilian targets? If nuking innocent women and children is not evil, then evil has no meaning. We could have at least bombed a purely military target, or even invited the Soviets to New Mexico for a demo.

[WBR]

We could have at least bombed a purely military target, or even invited the Soviets to New Mexico for a demo.

There were no purely military targets. Japan systematically built armament stores and factories in the center of civilian populations. They did the same with POW camps.

A demo at Los Alamos wouldn't have worked either. The scientists who had wittnessed the first A-Bomb test were shocked at the damage done to an actual city. Blowing up sand didn't translate to what the thing was capable of. An important part of the equation would have also been missing - the demonstration of our resolve to actually use the Bomb on a population.

I think the morality in this case is iffy. As I wrote, I would like to see an honest historical evaluation of these events.

If you are looking for a clearer case of atrocity, read up on the firebombing of Dresden, Germany on Feb. 13, 1945 by joint British and American sorties. I'll give you that one.

I also believe that the reason it isn't taught in schools is Roosevelt.
If Truman is a leftist folk hero, then FDR is a god to the liberal scholars. To admit that he commanded such a thing would be blasphemy.

[B. Ungaro]

I think that we should examine our own values periodically. There is no way to justify or rationalize Dresden, Hirosima and Nagasaki.

As good and kind as the American People are, we have been brainwashed into thinking that somehow we have the right to do things like that.


"You should not start an illegal, unjustified, illconcived war, so you can call yourself a War President."

[WBR]

There is no way to justify or rationalize Dresden, Hirosima and Nagasaki.

I agree with you on Dresden. I think the historical jury is still out on the A-Bombs.

What intelligence did Truman have as to Stalin's post-war intentions?
I don't know.
It may have been that he knew for certain that the mobilized Red Army was preparing to roll over a supine Western Europe.

As I said, the problem is that the topic is taboo. It shouldn't be. History should be history and it should be complete and accurate. We should be able to learn from it.

[DoubtingThomas]

Assuming it was necessary to nuke an actual city to gain bargaining power with the Russkies, it was not necessary to nuke two cities. Truman must have thought it would have been a waste to go to all that trouble and expense and not use them.

By the way, we killed three more children and a woman with a “precision” missile attack on Falluja yesterday, not that it matters to the wild-eyed Bush believers. Winning hearts and minds with brute force.

[pbrauer]

Why is North Korea developing Nukes? Are they hungry for power or just plain hungry?

[B. Ungaro]

What is complicating the North Korean situation is that they have fooled around with Nukes as far back as Clintoon. I guess they are just plain paranoid about us sitting on their border. It's hard for them to forget that we have already caused one war between the two Koreas.

It makes for interesting reading. I hope that everybodt reads up on the reasons for the Korean War. While you are at it, might as well read up on the reasons for the war in Vietnam. You will find that we are not very good at living up to treaties. (My oppinion)

[Don R.]

Bile, you ignorant piece of Euro-trash and the illegitimate child of a female elephant. Just when I think you have sunk as low as any lifeform (I no longer classify you as a human) you dig a little deeper.