US denies report on plan to attack Iran
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST     May. 20, 2008

The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon "through peaceful diplomatic means."

Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

The official reportedly went on to say that "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic for the time being.

The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.

Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah's show of strength to constitute evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. In Bush's view, the official said, "the disease must be treated - not its symptoms."

However, the White House on Tuesday afternoon dismissed the story. In a statement, it said that "[the US] remain[s] opposed to Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon. To that end, we are working to bring tough diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior and to halt their uranium enrichment program.

It went on: "As the President has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

In an address to the Knesset during his visit here last week, Bush said that "the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages."

"America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush said. "Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


16 CommentsChronological   Reverse   Threaded
jessethecat wrote on May 20
Some really deep stuff...
blackaliss wrote on May 20
Cannot say I'm surprised. Since Bush promised no draft over Iraq I have always said he would use Iran as an excuse too..
jackfrost wrote on May 20
Cannot say I'm surprised. Since Bush promised no draft over Iraq I have always said he would use Iran as an excuse too..
mivox wrote on May 21
Oooh. Looks like I might win my bet with controlgroup after all?

*sigh*
controlgroup wrote on May 21
mivox said
Oooh. Looks like I might win my bet with controlgroup after all?

*sigh*
Y'know, I've dropped by this post about twenty times, and laughed/shook my head/insert derisory activity here, but This last one made me laugh just as I was tucking into a can of fizzy redbull, which came out of my nose, so now I have to say it: you're dreaming. I thought the (frankly contradictory) news comment about the next troop rotation being composed of only the national guard would have been a clue.

Of course, Mr. Frost is more than welcome to join you and help you lose money. I'm still taking bets from all comers.
jackfrost wrote on May 21
Hey, I just aggravate the information.
mivox wrote on May 21, edited on May 21
*yay*

RedBull out CG's nose!

*feels accomplished*

Like I said, I never said we were sending troops ... the bet included bombing the bejeezus out of them. And, sez Ms. Conspiracy, the next Iraq rotation being only National Guard could be because troops are being mustered to go elsewhere. ;-)
controlgroup wrote on May 21
Ooh. interesting possibility. You had me for a second there. But no, Iran's bunkers are too deep: the only way you're winning this bet, realistically, is if we bomb the bejeezus out of them. No amount of troops could ever secure Iran.

Kudo's on the redbull - nose thing though. Man, Fizzy stuff hurts.
jackfrost wrote on May 21
Okay, so I'll chime in here a little.

Everything that I've read that relates to a possible attack on Iran, theorized at this point, revolves around using air and naval assets in the area. Ground forces are not included as a major element on any possible Iran attack.

Our ground forces are, clearly, bogged down and over extended in Iraq (they'll be even moreso after a possible attack on Iran that results in an Iranian counter-strike again US assets in Iraq).

Our air and naval forces in the region are not being used heavily for operations in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter). Any attack on Iran would rely primarily on these unused forces. Heavy bombing of select sites is what I view as the most likely use of force. I would not reject the concept of the use of small scale tactical nuclear weapons for all those deeply buried installations. Then there's the convention warhead deep penetrators.

Regardless, it wouldn't be pretty for the US.
mivox wrote on May 21
the only way you're winning this bet, realistically, is if we bomb the bejeezus out of them.
Well, that's why I specified that as one of the terms of the bet. ;-) I figured that was the most likely possibility in the first place.
dammitjim wrote on May 24
No amount of troops could ever secure Iran?
I still bet against it happening, but certainly the US could invade and conquer Iran.
jackfrost wrote on May 27
No amount of troops could ever secure Iran?
I still bet against it happening, but certainly the US could invade and conquer Iran.
Invade and conquer Iran? YES

Invade, conquer, secure, and hold? NO (at least not with an all volunteer military)
dammitjim wrote on May 30, edited on May 30
Right, no. But invading and conquering and occupying countries is militarily stupid with any kind of army. I'm trying to think of a counterexample. Hmm. Well, okay, maybe very small, weak countries like Panama can be successfully invaded etc. by enormous and powerful countries like the USA. If that was the only way to prevent panama from getting the canal, and if it was worth it to keep the canal, then I guess that was a successful, if illegal, invasion & occupation. Of Panama! With the 103rd largest economy in the world. The experience of occupying Iran might differ in some details.

[edit]
OK, I'm thinking that occupying Japan and Germany et al. after 1945 was a pretty good idea, for many reasons - none military.

Militarily speaking, if I remember my Sun Tzu, it's best to destroy an enemy without fighting, it's second best to deflect or diffuse an enemy - without fighting. One should divide an enemy from its allies, or defeat their plans. It is always worst, even if unavoidable, to engage one's own army against an enemy army in actual warfare.

To the extent that Iran constitutes any threat to the USA (which I don't see or believe in the first place), the list of appropriate strategies for countering them does not include attacking them directly. Perhaps the administration actually knows this (which I don't see or believe either), but peacefully defeating Iran's plans, however utterly and masterfully, won't help get McCain elected, so I'm afraid they'll do everything possible to start bombing before November.
jackfrost wrote on May 30
I'm trying to think of a counterexample. Hmm.
Granada.
dammitjim wrote on May 30, edited on May 30
Ha! Granada! The only motive for the invasion was domestic politics, to cure Americans of "Vietnam Syndrome". Unfortunately it worked. And it wasn't an "invasion", it was a media stunt.
jackfrost wrote on Jun 2
We;;, it was a small weak country, like Panama, that was successfully invaded.
Add a Comment
   
© 2008 Multiply, Inc.    About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Corp Info · Contact Us · Help