The EU, US, Israel and Iran

**~~lulldapull~~** · 29 Dec 04,, 07:11

The EU, US, Israel and Iran

The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and the "Mullahs"

By SASAN FAYAZMANESH

The international community now realizes that Iran--with missiles that can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia - does not only pose a threat to the security of Israel, but to the security and stability of the whole world.

Indeed, Iran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number one exporter of terror, hate and instability.

(Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom speech at the U.N. General Assembly September 23, 2004)

In reference to a deal being worked out between Iran and the EU negotiators, Britain, France and Germany, over Iran freezing uranium processing, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on November 20, 2004 that "my view would be that the incentives of the Europeans only work against the backdrop of the United States being strong and firm on this issue . . . In the vernacular, it's kind of a good-cop bad-cop arrangement. If it works, we'll all have been successful"

(New York Times, November 21, 2004).

Instead of the "good-cop bad-cop" scenario, it would have been more apt for Mr. Armitage to use the good, the bad and the ugly scheme, since Iran faces not two characters, but three. The third character, the "ugly," is played by Israel. Mr. Armitage conveniently left out the important role of this last character. But this is quite expected. Israel, as the late Edward Said used to say, is the last taboo. It is sacrosanct. No mention of it in the context of the US foreign policy is possible. It is the Teflon state. Nothing sticks to it, not even the charge of spying.

It was only a few months ago-to be exact, late August 2004-when it was first reported that the FBI had discovered a spy network in the Department of Defense which passed confidential documents, particularly those detailing the Bush Administration's policy toward Iran, to the main Israeli lobby group in the US, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC-whose website proudly states that through "more than 2,000 meetings with members of Congress - at home and in Washington - AIPAC activists help pass more than 100 pro-Israel legislative initiatives a year"-brought out its heavy artillery. All the AIPAC men and women, including its top leadership, the leadership of other Israeli lobby groups, Congressmen, Israeli officials, and even the officials in the current Administration, went to work and used the O.J. Simpson defense- i.e., anti-Semitism of the FBI agent involved-to put an end to the whole sordid affair in a few days. Indeed, the representatives of both Presidential candidates, namely, Condoleezza Rice and Richard Holbrooke, appeared at AIPAC's "Largest-Ever National Summit" on October 24-25 in Hollywood, Florida, to pay homage to an agency that was accused of involvement in spying. Soon after, AIPAC's usual website, which was temporarily halted by the cries of we are "loyal U.S. citizens," went back to what it does best, i.e., trying to lead the US to wage another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran:

Today, AIPAC has 65,000 members across all 50 states who are at the forefront of the most vexing issues facing Israel today: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism and achieving peace. And above all, ensuring that Israel is strong enough to meet these challenges. (AIPAC website)

As I have shown in CounterPunch and elsewhere, Israel, its lobby groups, its Congressmen, its friends in the Administration-both the cons and the neocons-as well as its Chalabi-like mercenaries, who are in the business of fabricating lies, have been trying for sometime to repeat in Iran what they did in Iraq. That is, by accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons, they have attempted to get the UN to pass economic sanctions against Iran. Once the sanctions are imposed, Israel and its cohorts believe, Iran will be weakened sufficiently to make a military operation against it succeed. That would destroy yet another supporter of the Palestinians and would make Israel's rule over the entire land between "the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates" possible.

Smelling blood, in recent months Israel and the gang increased their attacks. As the above quotation from Silvan Shalom shows, Iran was said to have "replaced Saddam Hussein as the world's number one exporter of terror, hate and instability," and Iranian missiles were ready to reach "London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia." Similarly, Ariel Sharon said on October 25, 2004 that "Iran is making every effort to arm itself with nuclear weapons, with ballistic means of delivery, and it is preparing an enormous terrorist network with Syria and Lebanon." This was, of course, the same Sharon who as far back as February 5, 2002, had told The Times of London that "Iran is the center of 'world terror,' and as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, he will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do list'". Even though the "Iraqi conflict" is not yet concluded, Sharon was doing his best to push the US in the direction of destroying Iran. In other words, the tail was once again trying to wag the dog.

The cons and the neocons also went on a massive campaign to assist the leader of "the only democracy" in the Middle East, or as some know him, the "butcher of Sabra and Shatila." On August 2, 2004, in reference to the EU's attempt to engage Iran in a dialogue concerning processing uranium and to prevent another US-Israeli (USraeli) war in the Middle East, the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice warned: "The Iranians have been trouble for a very long time. And it's one reason that this regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote, 'engaged'" (Reuters, Aug 2, 2004). This was, of course, the same Condoleezza Rice who on September 8, 2002, warned the world about Iraq's non-existing nuclear weapons by saying "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Similarly, on August 17, 2004, the Undersecretary of State John Bolton-who after discussing the Iran case with the EU and Russians often stops in Tel Aviv before returning to Washington-said at a neocon event held at the Hudson Institute:

"Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability is moving it further and further down the path toward international isolation. We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond. Without serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the international community, Iran will be well on the road to doing so." (US Department of State)

Then, of course, there are the USraeli mercenaries and hirelings who, like the old Iraqi National Congress, are in the business of cooking up evidence for sanctioning Iran and ultimately attacking it. One such group is the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization, the "good terrorists" who used to work for Saddam, but now work for the USraelis. Every few weeks these Chalabi-like, men-in-black characters-and also Fox News commentators-come up with some "top secret satellite photos" showing non-existent nuclear weapons sites in Iran (how a US designated terrorist organization gets top secret satellite photos is, of course, beyond one's imagination).

It was apparently one of these men-in-black characters who was behind Colin Powell's embracing revelation on November 17, 2004. According to the Washington Post, "a 'walk-in' source approached U.S. intelligence earlier this month with more than 1,000 pages purported to be Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike" (November 19, 2004). The Secretary of State, who seems to be easily duped, then made a great "revelation" by stating that he was given "some information that would suggest that they [Iranians] have been actively working on delivery systems. "I'm not talking about uranium or fissile material or the warhead," Powell told the reporters, "I'm talking about what one does with a warhead" (Washington Post, November 19, 2004). This revelation, similar to the "irrefutable evidence" that the Secretary of State presented in February of 2003 at the UN Security Council concerning the Iraqi's WMD, of course turned out to be nothing but another fabrication.

Such non-existent sites are also reported by other individuals who are in the business of fabricating sensational news. On September 16, 2004, David Albright, a former arms inspector, who now heads some "Institute for Science and International Security," made a "disclosure" which appeared as headlines in many major US news outlets. This "prominent international expert," according to Reuters, "disclosed" that the "new satellite images showed the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran may be a site for research, testing and production of nuclear weapons." Reuters then added that a "senior U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity" that "this clearly shows the intention to develop weapons." The day after, IAEA chief ElBaradei stated: "We do not have any indication that this site has nuclear-related activities (BBC September 17, 2004). As usual, the news disappeared without a single major US news media reporting that the earlier story was a lie.

All this effort on the part of USraelis, however, has so far failed to produce the desired result. Having lied too many times, USraelis have had a hard time convincing the rest of the world that Iran's missiles will soon rain on London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia. Exasperated by their futile efforts, in late November, 2004, the "bad" and the "ugly" had to watch with dismay a deal finalized between the "good" and what the USraelis call the "mullahs" (this is a pejorative and demonizing term used by the USraelis in reference to the primitive nature of the ruling clergy in Iran, as if the Zionist rulers of the "Jewish State" or the Christian fundamentalist rulers of the US are any more modern!).

On November 29, 2004, the Board of Governors of IAEA passed a resolution stating what the "mullahs" had said all along, i.e., "all declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for." It further announced what the "mullahs" had demanded all along, i.e., the halt to enriching uranium by Iran "is a voluntary confidence building measure, not a legal obligation." It also noted with "interest" a deal made between the EU negotiators, Britain, France and Germany, and the "mullahs." According to this deal, not only Iran does not give up its right to enrich uranium permanently, but it will get some goodies from the EU. For example, the EU will resume trade negotiations with Iran, which had been halted since the enrichment controversy arose. Also, the EU will actively support Iran joining the World Trade Organization, which so far the US has prevented. In addition, the EU "will confirm its determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, such as Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization" (IRNA, November 15, 2004).

In the final analysis, the "mullahs" have, at least for now, outfoxed the "bad" and the "ugly." If the "good" can also deliver the promised goodies, the clever "mullahs" will definitely have the last laugh.

Sasan Fayazmanesh is a professor of economics at Fresno State University. He can be reached at: sasan.fayazmanesh@gmail.com

**tarek** · 29 Dec 04,, 18:15

It's an important topic and Dr. fayezmanesh wastes his energy and tests the limits of credibility by wasting time on "Teflon" Israel and Aipac -- After all, the israeli offer countercharges to the effect that nothig sticks to the Pakistani nuclear program and Dr. khan.

It's simply nonsensical to argue that American policy is designed and operated to serve the interests of any other than the US. If the American and Israeli discuss policy behind closed doors and not in the pages of newspapers and 24hr news channels, it is because they have an agreement to do so, does Iran even have diplomatic relations with the US?

What can stop the Iranian ballistic missile and percieved nuclear imperative?? Why has Iran opted for this route to begin with??

European proxies will bring little joy to the American, fact of the matter continues to be that commercial interests posing as strategic interests are vulnerable to the allure the Iranian now and then dance before the European proxies and their American partners.

Neither the Europeans nor the Americans have any serious intent to exercise the option of applying pressure on the Iranian economy, even a small decrease in production will have global implications, as will the intolerance of the exercise of any Western policy that is or can be made to be percieved as punitive towards Iran.

Can the Us and it's European proxies stomach this? Can the US trust the European to not take advantage and seek to replace the US and regain their "traditional" role in Iran??

**antelope** · 29 Dec 04,, 22:14

Iran is an oil rich country with no need for nuclear power. The only reason to have a nuclear industry at all is to produce nuclear weapons.

With this as the easy assumption the only question is whether one wants to let Iran have nuclear weapons or not. If the answer is no than their entire nuclear industry needs to be shut down. Any piecemeal deal only allows for unknown sites and in league nations to complete whatever the above board sites can't complete.

If the decision is made to shut down the program the question becomes how much military action is needed.

All the negotiations on the part of the EU is simply buying Iran time and helping to put paper on a problem so we can pretend it was solved when it wasn't.

The decision is simple: Either attack Iran and live with the consequences or allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and live with the consequences.

What is really scary is that American universities continue to be filled with people like Sasan Fayazmanesh who get some kind of credibility while they spread their hate filled rascist beliefs. Saying that Israel wants to conqueor everything from the Nile to the Euphrates is something that only a brainwashed lunatic could believe. I guess this person hasn't read a newspaper and thinks the Yom Kippur War is still going on. Last I heard Israel did conqueor almost to the Nile and then gave it all back.

**troung** · 29 Dec 04,, 23:15

"Iran is an oil rich country with no need for nuclear power. The only reason to have a nuclear industry at all is to produce nuclear weapons."

Not really. They started looking into nuclear power in the 1970s with help from the west. It seems they want to look into another source of power. It is not good to just rely on oil. All that people can really prove is they are looking into nuclear power and the rest is simply specualtion and fear mongering.

And even if they wanted to get the bomb (I doubt it seeing as a lot of this "info" is coming from the MKO from example) I could not blame them seeing as the position they are in and the history they have.

If we want them to only use nuclear tech for peaceful reasons it is better to talk and dialoge then trying to threaten them. Bombing what could turn out to be a peaceful nuclear program would raise all types of hell. Of course I do think all this talk of bombing is simply scare mongering on all sides....

**Confed999** · 29 Dec 04,, 23:38

Originally Posted by troung

If we want them to only use nuclear tech for peaceful reasons it is better to talk and dialoge then trying to threaten them.

Tried talking, now we're up to threats.

**antelope** · 29 Dec 04,, 23:42

Originally Posted by troung

I could not blame them seeing as the position they are in and the history they have.

Everyones entitled to their opinion, however once I meet someone that says "They don't want the bomb...but I don't blame them for wanting the bomb" there is little evidence I think that will change their mind.

At this point my guess is either you wouldn't mind if they get the bomb or you don't really want to do what needs to be done to stop them.

It's a lot easier to pretend they don't want a bomb. That way you can ignore the implications of the bomb and sleep well at night doing nothing. The "Iran doesn't want a bomb" crowd sounds like the same people that said the same thing about Pakistan despite all evidence to the contrary.

Note: Iran's goal to get a nuclear bomb started in the 1970s and predates the Islamic Republic. Western governments selling nuclear technology is no proof of good intention. Osirak, in Iraq was French built.

**troung** · 30 Dec 04,, 00:09

"Tried talking, now we're up to threats."

These "threats" from everyone are childish and will accomplish nothing. Hell we are not going to invade them or even bomb them.

"It's a lot easier to pretend they don't want a bomb."

Nothing concerte other then MKO spokespeople (hopefully people knw about them). It's all speculation driven for various reasons that they are "simply" steps away.

But everyone at this point is welcome to guess and speculate what they are dojng and what we should do and I doubt debating would change anyones opionin on the matter....

**~~lulldapull~~** · 30 Dec 04,, 04:27

Originally Posted by tarek

It's an important topic and Dr. fayezmanesh wastes his energy and tests the limits of credibility by wasting time on "Teflon" Israel and Aipac -- After all, the israeli offer countercharges to the effect that nothig sticks to the Pakistani nuclear program and Dr. khan.

It's simply nonsensical to argue that American policy is designed and operated to serve the interests of any other than the US. If the American and Israeli discuss policy behind closed doors and not in the pages of newspapers and 24hr news channels, it is because they have an agreement to do so, does Iran even have diplomatic relations with the US?

What can stop the Iranian ballistic missile and percieved nuclear imperative?? Why has Iran opted for this route to begin with??

European proxies will bring little joy to the American, fact of the matter continues to be that commercial interests posing as strategic interests are vulnerable to the allure the Iranian now and then dance before the European proxies and their American partners.

Neither the Europeans nor the Americans have any serious intent to exercise the option of applying pressure on the Iranian economy, even a small decrease in production will have global implications, as will the intolerance of the exercise of any Western policy that is or can be made to be percieved as punitive towards Iran.

Can the Us and it's European proxies stomach this? Can the US trust the European to not take advantage and seek to replace the US and regain their "traditional" role in Iran??

Yaar Sino there are three factors at play in this standoff dilemma!

1) The U.S. is not going to attack iran...due to various resons cited and generally accepted...chiefly the extreme over strtch accompanied by Iran's previously shown willingness to play very dirty and the prospects of a long guerila war many times more intense and costly than this curent Iraq episode.

2) The demand for oil, is such that as you concur that no one can even flinch for a second and let the oil prices soar out of control! That would hurt the pathetic U.S. economy the hardest....specially at a time when we haven't seen a weaker economy than the one of today!

3) And interstingly it appears to be a turf war betwen the EU/ Russia and Unkal Sam, all vying for influence in the Persian gulf!....as is China with their $2.5 Billion oil and energy deal with Iran, with prospects for another $3 billion more as an add on to further develop newer Khuzestan oil fields.!

For some reason I find that highly speculatory that Unkal Sam will defy China and Russia and the EU, and attack a sovereign nation.....fully concious of the fact that the credibility of Bush and Co. is running fairly low, after this bullshiit and fictitious war in Iraq!

Irans entire history is riddled with playing one external aggresor against the other. The article exactly predicts that it might exactly be what ends up happening again. Bush has to put up a brave face even though he has been officially stymed by the harami Mullah's!

**~~lulldapull~~** · 30 Dec 04,, 04:30

Originally Posted by troung

"Tried talking, now we're up to threats."

These "threats" from everyone are childish and will accomplish nothing. Hell we are not going to invade them or even bomb them.

"It's a lot easier to pretend they don't want a bomb."

Nothing concerte other then MKO spokespeople (hopefully people knw about them). It's all speculation driven for various reasons that they are "simply" steps away.

But everyone at this point is welcome to guess and speculate what they are dojng and what we should do and I doubt debating would change anyones opionin on the matter....

Hey Troung since you've been following this Iran thing, what do you think about those 10 scientists arrested so far at Natanz facility? 2 were suspected of being part of the MKO! The Mullah's threatened to roll a tank on one of em, and he squeeled!

And apparently gave up his buddy!

just read this at the MKO website!

**tarek** · 30 Dec 04,, 17:26

Lull
Once there was this optimism that Central Asian reserves would enable the kind of pressure Iran ad Saudi Arabia need to experience to allow them yo reevaluate their policies - I think you have offered a sobering fact: as long aswe remain as dependent as we are on Middle Eastern supplies, we will be unable to exerise the kind of leverage necessary.

U know I just don't take the Iran armed invasion stuff seriously.

every option one turns to, one is sobered the question of supplies, especially as the speculation reflects.

**~~lulldapull~~** · 31 Dec 04,, 05:41

Originally Posted by tarek

Lull
Once there was this optimism that Central Asian reserves would enable the kind of pressure Iran ad Saudi Arabia need to experience to allow them yo reevaluate their policies - I think you have offered a sobering fact: as long aswe remain as dependent as we are on Middle Eastern supplies, we will be unable to exerise the kind of leverage necessary.

U know I just don't take the Iran armed invasion stuff seriously.

every option one turns to, one is sobered the question of supplies, especially as the speculation reflects.

Yaar I was watching the charlie Rose Show last month and the guy was interviwing Exxon mobils CEO and one of the questions he asked him was that whythe fukk can't the U.S. just dump all them camel jockeys and just bust open that Alaska! And the Guy...I think his name was Lee something...quickly countered by saying that this is the fundamental issue surrounding these "Alaskan" oil reserves and for that matter many other un-touched places! and as far as I can recall the problem he outlined was that....okay you got a substantial oil deposit! You figure out its pw today! Then you figure out the feasibility of drilling it out, and after you reach it. FW!.. you tell me what is it gonna be worth 2 years from now! when you reach it!..and start to market it! Also is it all in one god-damn giant sea! All in one place?...or in pockets? Does that mean you have to drill in many places? and the biggest thing that he mentioned was that was will the quality of that oil compare favourably to the world standards set by the Arabian or Iranian heavies?

Many many things! ...The problem is that Mid-east oil is highly accessible...it is of the highest quality..is all basically in that crescent shaped arc coming down from Iran's Khuzestan to Daharan in Sodi !...is plentiful, and will be available for many more decades!.... and both Sodi's and the Irani's know this fact! are making sure that Persian Gulf's importance as an energy outlet doesnot diminish!

Thats what its all about yaar! now even Pakistan is part of it with the Iranian pipeline going to India.....and hopefully will be for the Turkmenistan one aswell.

**~~platinum786~~** · 01 Jan 05,, 14:58

You see, this is what i cannot understand.

The west is uncomfortable with the theology in Iran, they feel they are being shown as the enemy in Iran, so why go out to prove it?

This farce that everyone is scared of Iranian nukes...which 2 nations who have had nuks have ever used them? If Japan had nukes in WW2 would USA have used them? I think not.

Iran is constantly being threatened by the USA and Israel and then when they reply to keep face with thier own public you like go crazy and say the mullahs are gonna bomb us with nukes.

Then we have the exporting terror rants. Lets face it, apart from Hizbullah who else is Iran affilliated with? Nobody. There may be elements within iran who are stirring within Pakistan and Iraq, but that is it, Iran is not into international terrorism, why because it has bigger fish to fry, The mullahs are not that stupid, they know that if the world lets them into the international community, they can get so interlinked within a few years, the possibility of marginalising Iran can never come up again.

Quite simply, nobody has the ability to attack Iran......the Iraq war proved that. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities could trigger a nuclear exchange in the middle east, i think it's best that the world gained from iran rather tahn trying to shun it. And why are you trying to shun it? Because of Irans massive strategic advantage. Iran has a lot of education, it has a lot of oil, it is not KSA who needs western firms to pump it's oil, to keep it alive, Iran is an independent country and the west knows that they cannot push Iran around to exploit them like they have the arabs. So you are trying to make Iran sound bad to somehow get rid of those in power and replace them with your own, heck If it was upto some within the far right circles, they'd replace the ayatollah with Saddam, as long as Saddam promised to be a good boy and listen to daddy.

**Ray** · 01 Jan 05,, 16:28

Platinum,

That is an interesting post.

What you may say, let us assume that it is correct; just for discussion's sake.

Is it wrong from the point of view of the West to 'demonise' (as you are stating) Iran?

Would it serve the Western interest if Iran produced a nuke with a compatible delivery system?

All countries have to look after it's own interests, strategic, economic and political.

One can say that Iran is looking after its interest. True, but sad as it might be, international pressure is also a great weapon of war. The legitimacy of the Iraqi War, waged by powerful nations, whatever may be said, is internationally not acceptable. This has become sort of politically uncomfortable. That is the power of international opinion.

Therefore, the West is drumming up international opinion by what you feel is 'demonising' Iran. It is only pursuing its interest. Nothing wrong really. Rather alarm the world and put international pressure and force Iran to discontinue her nuclear policy than have to ensure it through a war. Actualy, it is a very clever move, if what you say is correct.

Lastly, it is important to remember that no matter how fantastic a nuke one can produce, unless the delivery system has the capability to hit the target country, it is as good as not being not there. It will take a long time for Iran to design and produce ICBMs that can target Europe or the US. There are more than one way to ensure that such technology does not reach Iran. AQ Khan was an aberration and the CIA at that time to suit the US interest turned a blind eye.

It would be a big mistake to underestimate the CIA or even the US political imperatives.

**~~lulldapull~~** · 01 Jan 05,, 17:22

Originally Posted by Ray

Platinum,

That is an interesting post.

What you may say, let us assume that it is correct; just for discussion's sake.

Is it wrong from the point of view of the West to 'demonise' (as you are stating) Iran?

Would it serve the Western interest if Iran produced a nuke with a compatible delivery system?

All countries have to look after it's own interests, strategic, economic and political.

One can say that Iran is looking after its interest. True, but sad as it might be, international pressure is also a great weapon of war. The legitimacy of the Iraqi War, waged by powerful nations, whatever may be said, is internationally not acceptable. This has become sort of politically uncomfortable. That is the power of international opinion.

Therefore, the West is drumming up international opinion by what you feel is 'demonising' Iran. It is only pursuing its interest. Nothing wrong really. Rather alarm the world and put international pressure and force Iran to discontinue her nuclear policy than have to ensure it through a war. Actualy, it is a very clever move, if what you say is correct.

Lastly, it is important to remember that no matter how fantastic a nuke one can produce, unless the delivery system has the capability to hit the target country, it is as good as not being not there. It will take a long time for Iran to design and produce ICBMs that can target Europe or the US. There are more than one way to ensure that such technology does not reach Iran. AQ Khan was an aberration and the CIA at that time to suit the US interest turned a blind eye.

It would be a big mistake to underestimate the CIA or even the US political imperatives.

Ray the CIA had been taught a very convincing lesson by the Iranians in 1979, when all those agents were arrested blind folded and paraded publicly, and the U.S. embassy in Tehran laid open to the general public and shown the level of interference and involvement of the U.S. in Irans internal affairs.

The entire embassy was nothing but a spy mission! As amatter of fact the top mission in the middle East!....Something that Rummy and his thugs are contemplating doing in Baghdad's Green zone currently with a 30,000 member super American mission!

And after the terrorist acts sanctioned by Carter against the Ayatollah's in 1979 when the truck bomb exploded outside the majlis and Savak was blamed for it, thats when khomeini sanctioned the take over of that mission by the revolutionary students.

The time has come to leave both Iraq and afghanistan due to utter and inconceivable and totally unforeseen policy and military failures! more so in Iraq's case than Afghanistans. But nevertheless it has been a very unpredictable campaign so far. No one anticipated iraq to become a quagmire.

The CIA knows very well what its limits are in iran! Any wrong or dirty move on their part, and the mulla's will hack of a pound of flesh! trust me!

Right now its in U.S.'s interests to not blunder.... like they already have in the case of (Iraq/ Afghanistan), or else the Iraqi and even the Afghan situation will spiral out of control! Good behaviour is a virtue that the U.S. administration has to stick by ruthlessly when dealing with iran.

bush doesnot have the nads to take on the Mullah's currently! There are zero troops available, and even lesser money!! And like I say, he must first figure out a way to wriggle free of the iraqi and afghan leeches...sucking on him currently!

t And more importantly the Bush administration has zero support in the world viz a viz Iran in the international community/ EU/ Russia/ China. And in all honesty I wouldn't be surprisd if Russia and China will directly aid Tehran if Bush starts to behave as a terrorist!

**Confed999** · 01 Jan 05,, 18:16

Originally Posted by troung

These "threats" from everyone are childish and will accomplish nothing.

So, no political, economic or military threats huh? Magic spells are the answer?

Thread: The EU, US, Israel and Iran

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

The EU, US, Israel and Iran

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

US preparing to nuke Iran

Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council

Face-To Face: Pak and Israel

An Article worthy of Lull.....

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions