US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, says the American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.
In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target".
Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.
But the White House has described his article as "riddled with inaccuracies".
The authorities in Islamabad have also denied Hersh's charge that the special forces were working with a group of Pakistani scientists who had contact with Iranian colleagues.
"There is no such collaboration," Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan said, adding that the report was "far-fetched" and that Pakistan knew little about the Iranian nuclear programme.
An intelligence official, quoted by Hersh, said Washington had given Islamabad an assurance in exchange for information that it would not have to hand over AQ Khan, the father of the Pakistani nuclear programme who last year admitted to illegally transferring nuclear secrets.
Sniffers
Potential targets include nuclear sites and missile installations, he says.
The New Yorker journalist adds that President Bush has authorised the operations, defining them as military to avoid legal restrictions on CIA covert intelligence activities overseas.
They constitute a revival of a form of covert US military activity used in the 1980s, notably in support of the Nicaraguan Contras.
The task force has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan and leaving remote detection devices known as sniffers capable of testing for radioactive emissions in the atmosphere, Hersh says.
He reports as well that American special forces units have been authorised to conduct covert operations in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hersh bases his claims on anonymous sources, including former intelligence officials and consultants with links to the Pentagon.
One such consultant is quoted as saying that the civilians in the Pentagon wanted to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.
'Riddled with inaccuracies'
There have also been calls from Pentagon hawks to use a limited attack on Iran to topple the country's religious leadership, one of Hersh's sources said.
The article has already drawn fire from the White House: the communications director, Dan Bartlett, called it "riddled with inaccuracies".
"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Mr Bartlett added.
He said the diplomatic approach was still the priority.
"No president, at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table," he said. "But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now."
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that while Hersh could be wrong he has a series of scoops to his name, including the details of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal last year.
His track record suggests that he should be taken seriously, our correspondent says.
US special forces 'inside Iran'
Moderator: Super Moderators
There is one very real possibility that Curious George might
We might lose...
Pentagon hits at 'fantastic claims' in news report about Teh
Pentagon hits at 'fantastic claims' in news report about Tehran mission
By Peter Spiegel, Defence Correspondent, and Daniel Dombey in,Brussels
Published: January 18 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 18 2005 02:00
Pentagon officials yesterday lashed out at a published report that claimed they were preparing for possible strikes on Iran by carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside the country, saying the article contained "fantastic claims" about programmes that did not exist.
The article, written by the veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for the New Yorker magazine, claims that President George W. Bush plans to expand the war on terrorism drastically, and has already signed executive orders authorising secret commando operations against terrorist targets in as many as 10 Middle Eastern and south Asian nations, including Iran.
The Iranian operation, which the article claims has been under way since last summer, allegedly intends to identify as many as three dozen Iranian military or nuclear sites for US missile attacks or commando raids.
Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in a statement yesterday that many of the facts upon which the story was based were inaccurate. Neither he nor Dan Bartlett, the White House spokesman, commented directly on the commando operations claim, however.
"Mr Hersh's sources feed him with rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programmes that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made," Mr DiRita said.
It is rare for the Pentagon to issue such a long and detailed response to a single news account; Mr DiRita's two-page statement includes four specific refutations of claims made in the piece, including an alleged post-election meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and the joint chiefs of staff in which the defence secretary claimed the 2004 US election was a referendum on aggressive action in the Middle East.
Despite the denials, European diplomats, who are currently engaged in negotiations with Iran to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, were startled by the report, saying that in private discussions US officials had strongly backed the European initiative.
"No one can say if this is correct or incorrect," said one European Union diplomat. "The US administration has never shared any information like this with us. On the contrary, in our last meetings, it has supported EU policy on Iran."
By Peter Spiegel, Defence Correspondent, and Daniel Dombey in,Brussels
Published: January 18 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 18 2005 02:00
Pentagon officials yesterday lashed out at a published report that claimed they were preparing for possible strikes on Iran by carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside the country, saying the article contained "fantastic claims" about programmes that did not exist.
The article, written by the veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for the New Yorker magazine, claims that President George W. Bush plans to expand the war on terrorism drastically, and has already signed executive orders authorising secret commando operations against terrorist targets in as many as 10 Middle Eastern and south Asian nations, including Iran.
The Iranian operation, which the article claims has been under way since last summer, allegedly intends to identify as many as three dozen Iranian military or nuclear sites for US missile attacks or commando raids.
Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said in a statement yesterday that many of the facts upon which the story was based were inaccurate. Neither he nor Dan Bartlett, the White House spokesman, commented directly on the commando operations claim, however.
"Mr Hersh's sources feed him with rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programmes that do not exist, and statements by officials that were never made," Mr DiRita said.
It is rare for the Pentagon to issue such a long and detailed response to a single news account; Mr DiRita's two-page statement includes four specific refutations of claims made in the piece, including an alleged post-election meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and the joint chiefs of staff in which the defence secretary claimed the 2004 US election was a referendum on aggressive action in the Middle East.
Despite the denials, European diplomats, who are currently engaged in negotiations with Iran to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, were startled by the report, saying that in private discussions US officials had strongly backed the European initiative.
"No one can say if this is correct or incorrect," said one European Union diplomat. "The US administration has never shared any information like this with us. On the contrary, in our last meetings, it has supported EU policy on Iran."
Pentagon criticises report Bush okayed covert action
Pentagon criticises report Bush okayed covert action
Washington: The Pentagon has criticised a report in The New Yorker Magazine which alleged that US President George W. Bush had sanctioned US commandos to conduct covert operations and reconnaissance missions against 10 nations, including Iran.
The report written by journalist Seymour Hersh, alleged that teams of US commandos had entered Iran searching for hidden sites that could be working for developing nuclear weapons.
Pentagon's spokesman Lawrence DiRita said in a statement that the article "is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his (Hersh) entire piece is destroyed". "The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," DiRita said. He alleged that Hersh's sources fed him "rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."
However, the spokesman did not confirm or deny Hersh's claim that the administration had authorised covert operations against the countries, located in West Asia and South Asia.
Defence Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable also refused to comment on them, saying "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."
Washington: The Pentagon has criticised a report in The New Yorker Magazine which alleged that US President George W. Bush had sanctioned US commandos to conduct covert operations and reconnaissance missions against 10 nations, including Iran.
The report written by journalist Seymour Hersh, alleged that teams of US commandos had entered Iran searching for hidden sites that could be working for developing nuclear weapons.
Pentagon's spokesman Lawrence DiRita said in a statement that the article "is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his (Hersh) entire piece is destroyed". "The Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled "The Coming Wars," DiRita said. He alleged that Hersh's sources fed him "rumour, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."
However, the spokesman did not confirm or deny Hersh's claim that the administration had authorised covert operations against the countries, located in West Asia and South Asia.
Defence Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable also refused to comment on them, saying "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."
Damn It, Alien_UK, You Got There First!
Yesterday morning, I stopped at my local Dunkin' Donuts for a cuppa coffee, and the person who waited on me --- a person with whom I share a fundamental political agreement and with whom I have quietly talked politics a little here and there --- openly congratulated me on my prescience. "Joe," he said, "you have been telling me for months that Bush was getting ready to go into Iran, and now I discover that you were indeed right." Yes, it is true: I have known for months that Bush intends to invade Iran if he can do so. When the fellow congratulated me, I assumed that he had talked to somebody else who told him the same thing, so I did not think much of it. But today I stumbled across the following website
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
and read the full text of Seymour Hersh's article that will appear in the January 24th and January 31st editions of The New Yorker. The article is entitled "The Coming Wars" and it is one of the most shocking articles that I have ever read in my life! This is the article that the person in Dunkin' Donuts must have heard about on the radio or read in the papers, and this must have been the reason why he congratulated me on my prescience! I did not understand what was going on on Monday, but I certainly do understand now.
Let's start with fundamentals. I don't know about you, but I have become so skeptical about anything that I read or see or hear in the mainstream mass media that I need to check it out before I believe it. So many reporters make things up, and even when they are trying to be truthful, so many reporters are too immature or too inexperienced or too stupid to get the story straight. So I always try to double-check the facts. But not in this case...
The author of the article is Seymour Hersh. I don't know how many of you know who Seymour Hersh is, but I know, very well, who Seymour Hersh is. He was the stringer (the mainstream mass media would not hire him as staff reporter) who broke the My Lai Massacre story in 1967, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize. But that is only the start of it. In the last thirty-eight years Seymour Hersh has gone on to unearth some of the most earth-shaking stories of the post-war era: The Dark Side of Camelot, for example, is a shattering expose of the seamy, mafia-ridden, blackmail-infested world of the JFK Presidency. Seymour Hersh is an extremely careful reporter who never goes off half-cocked and who never betrays a source. For these reasons, Hersh has an "in" with the backstairs corridors of power that very few contemporary reporters have. And he is a reporter of great courage. The Bush Administration, as indicated in previous posts in this thread, is condemning Hersh's article as a falsity, a tissue of fabrications. As Hersh himself states in The New Yorker piece, he tried to clear the story with both the White House and the Department of Defense before it was published, and neither organization made any comment on it. Now, however, both are attacking it. How typical of the Bush Administration's modus operandi! And how disingenuous for those who are capable of reading between the lines!
As far as the article itself is concerned, the insinuations about covert American actions in Iran designed to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and even to destabilize the Iranian political regime are the least of the revelations! Iran is mentioned only parenthetically by Hersh as being one of ten targets of such action. Many of the others are friends of the United States, who trade heavily with it and who have supported it in the War on Terror! But what is that to the Bush Administration? Bush and Cheney have instructed Rumsfeld and Cambone and the utterly insane General Boykin to implement these plans regardless of how favorably disposed to American interests the target country may be. And the Pentagon does not even have to inform the American Ambassador or the CIA Station Chief of the country in question, much less the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (except in summary form after the fact), what is going on! Unbelievable! Absolutely, totally unbelievable!
I could go on and on and on about Hersh's article, but I believe that you have to read the article --- several times --- for yourself to begin to get an idea of what is at stake here. Believe me, folks, Hersh's Monday article in The New Yorker is one of the most frightening --- and insane --- pieces of information that I have ever learned. Please read the article and comment --- at length --- here. I want to know, I really need to know, that you are reading what I am reading.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
and read the full text of Seymour Hersh's article that will appear in the January 24th and January 31st editions of The New Yorker. The article is entitled "The Coming Wars" and it is one of the most shocking articles that I have ever read in my life! This is the article that the person in Dunkin' Donuts must have heard about on the radio or read in the papers, and this must have been the reason why he congratulated me on my prescience! I did not understand what was going on on Monday, but I certainly do understand now.
Let's start with fundamentals. I don't know about you, but I have become so skeptical about anything that I read or see or hear in the mainstream mass media that I need to check it out before I believe it. So many reporters make things up, and even when they are trying to be truthful, so many reporters are too immature or too inexperienced or too stupid to get the story straight. So I always try to double-check the facts. But not in this case...
The author of the article is Seymour Hersh. I don't know how many of you know who Seymour Hersh is, but I know, very well, who Seymour Hersh is. He was the stringer (the mainstream mass media would not hire him as staff reporter) who broke the My Lai Massacre story in 1967, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize. But that is only the start of it. In the last thirty-eight years Seymour Hersh has gone on to unearth some of the most earth-shaking stories of the post-war era: The Dark Side of Camelot, for example, is a shattering expose of the seamy, mafia-ridden, blackmail-infested world of the JFK Presidency. Seymour Hersh is an extremely careful reporter who never goes off half-cocked and who never betrays a source. For these reasons, Hersh has an "in" with the backstairs corridors of power that very few contemporary reporters have. And he is a reporter of great courage. The Bush Administration, as indicated in previous posts in this thread, is condemning Hersh's article as a falsity, a tissue of fabrications. As Hersh himself states in The New Yorker piece, he tried to clear the story with both the White House and the Department of Defense before it was published, and neither organization made any comment on it. Now, however, both are attacking it. How typical of the Bush Administration's modus operandi! And how disingenuous for those who are capable of reading between the lines!
As far as the article itself is concerned, the insinuations about covert American actions in Iran designed to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and even to destabilize the Iranian political regime are the least of the revelations! Iran is mentioned only parenthetically by Hersh as being one of ten targets of such action. Many of the others are friends of the United States, who trade heavily with it and who have supported it in the War on Terror! But what is that to the Bush Administration? Bush and Cheney have instructed Rumsfeld and Cambone and the utterly insane General Boykin to implement these plans regardless of how favorably disposed to American interests the target country may be. And the Pentagon does not even have to inform the American Ambassador or the CIA Station Chief of the country in question, much less the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (except in summary form after the fact), what is going on! Unbelievable! Absolutely, totally unbelievable!
I could go on and on and on about Hersh's article, but I believe that you have to read the article --- several times --- for yourself to begin to get an idea of what is at stake here. Believe me, folks, Hersh's Monday article in The New Yorker is one of the most frightening --- and insane --- pieces of information that I have ever learned. Please read the article and comment --- at length --- here. I want to know, I really need to know, that you are reading what I am reading.
Last edited by joequinn on 01-18-2005 07:47 PM, edited 1 time in total.
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
Yes I've read this...
I believe from what he said that Mr. Hirch is holding back and being conservative in his appraisal of what is going on..
I also believe if Mr. Bush goes ahead with an attack on Iran, that we will suffer heavy losses of both Aircraft, and ground troops...
which will break the back of military capabilities for many decades to come...
Further it will result in the World not only turning against us but allaying with Iran against the us..possibly resulting in an economic boycott of US products and corporations, and a recalling of loans made to the US government by Communist China...
It is indeed a dire situation for our country, graver than at any time since World War Two, coupled with tonights address by Mr. Bush in which he stated that more would be asked of our military, I beleive that attacks on Iran will begin soon, maybe even the same time that the Inaguration takes place...
It is unlikely that Congress will act to impeach Mr. Bush until it is already to late, his adminstration is a criminal administration..and if we survive without getting incinerated we will be lucky...
I would advise everyone to stock pile can goods, and water as a precaution...
I also believe if Mr. Bush goes ahead with an attack on Iran, that we will suffer heavy losses of both Aircraft, and ground troops...
which will break the back of military capabilities for many decades to come...
Further it will result in the World not only turning against us but allaying with Iran against the us..possibly resulting in an economic boycott of US products and corporations, and a recalling of loans made to the US government by Communist China...
It is indeed a dire situation for our country, graver than at any time since World War Two, coupled with tonights address by Mr. Bush in which he stated that more would be asked of our military, I beleive that attacks on Iran will begin soon, maybe even the same time that the Inaguration takes place...
It is unlikely that Congress will act to impeach Mr. Bush until it is already to late, his adminstration is a criminal administration..and if we survive without getting incinerated we will be lucky...
I would advise everyone to stock pile can goods, and water as a precaution...
Rice names 'outposts of tyranny'
Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's nominee as secretary of state, has identified "outposts of tyranny" where the US must help bring freedom.
They are Cuba, Iran , North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma and Belarus.
Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's nominee as secretary of state, has identified "outposts of tyranny" where the US must help bring freedom.
They are Cuba, Iran , North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma and Belarus.
Syria will be first, that simple...
IMO
Why?? Because of who stands behind Iran and their nuclear program and what they have stated.
LAVROV: RUSSIA WILL NOT TOLERATE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE ITS POSITIONS ON IRAN'S ENERGY MARKET
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id ... do_alert=0
Wake up. We will not directy confront Russia, and Rice's appointment is not a "coincidence" or the "yesman" role that the partisans wish you to believe.
fab
IMO
Why?? Because of who stands behind Iran and their nuclear program and what they have stated.
LAVROV: RUSSIA WILL NOT TOLERATE EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE ITS POSITIONS ON IRAN'S ENERGY MARKET
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id ... do_alert=0
Wake up. We will not directy confront Russia, and Rice's appointment is not a "coincidence" or the "yesman" role that the partisans wish you to believe.
fab
Last edited by fabzilla on 01-19-2005 01:00 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Ah drrr drrr drrr
These are trying times aren't they? Yeah....Russia backing Iran in this deal of there's and now that I have thought about it it seems that this is one we could not win...well maybe in Bushka's mindset. Hell he actually thinks he is king so why not....!
After all he is rapture ready isn't he..?
spiritme:eek:
After all he is rapture ready isn't he..?
spiritme:eek:
Iran tops US 'trouble-spots' list
Iran tops the list of "potential trouble-spots" worldwide, according to US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
But Mr Cheney said diplomacy was the best way, for the time being, to ease the crisis over Iran's nuclear plans.
As George W Bush began a second term as president, Mr Cheney said the US did not want another war in the region.
Iranian leaders, who reject suspicions they are building nuclear weapons, have said US forces will not risk a "lunatic" attack on their country.
President Mohammad Khatami said Tehran was fully prepared to defend itself but it did not expect the US, already overstretched in Iraq, to mount an offensive.
Israel risk
Speaking just before his inauguration, Mr Cheney told MSNBC: "We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it.
"And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," he said.
But if Iran continued to resist demands to rein in its nuclear programme - which Tehran insists is solely to produce electricity - the US would seek international sanctions against the country from the UN Security Council, the vice-president warned.
He also suggested that Israel might itself take action against Iran to safeguard its own future - indicating that this would be highly undesirable.
Iran was also cited as a centre of tyranny by the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in her confirmation hearings this week.
An article by veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, has claimed US special forces are already operating discreetly inside Iran to identify nuclear sites.
'Saddam to blame'
Mr Cheney also said he miscalculated how long it would take Iraq to recover from the impact of Saddam Hussein's rule.
He blamed the brutality of the regime for what he said was the slowness of Iraqis to "take control of their own affairs" following the US invasion.
"The brutality that he [Saddam Hussein] used in 1991 to put down the revolt at the time I think just had devastating consequences in terms of the ability of the Iraqi people to recover from his rule," he said.
The Bush administration has been repeatedly criticised by its opponents for not admitting mistakes were made in the handling of the occupation of Iraq.
Iran tops the list of "potential trouble-spots" worldwide, according to US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
But Mr Cheney said diplomacy was the best way, for the time being, to ease the crisis over Iran's nuclear plans.
As George W Bush began a second term as president, Mr Cheney said the US did not want another war in the region.
Iranian leaders, who reject suspicions they are building nuclear weapons, have said US forces will not risk a "lunatic" attack on their country.
President Mohammad Khatami said Tehran was fully prepared to defend itself but it did not expect the US, already overstretched in Iraq, to mount an offensive.
Israel risk
Speaking just before his inauguration, Mr Cheney told MSNBC: "We don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it.
"And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," he said.
But if Iran continued to resist demands to rein in its nuclear programme - which Tehran insists is solely to produce electricity - the US would seek international sanctions against the country from the UN Security Council, the vice-president warned.
He also suggested that Israel might itself take action against Iran to safeguard its own future - indicating that this would be highly undesirable.
Iran was also cited as a centre of tyranny by the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in her confirmation hearings this week.
An article by veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, has claimed US special forces are already operating discreetly inside Iran to identify nuclear sites.
'Saddam to blame'
Mr Cheney also said he miscalculated how long it would take Iraq to recover from the impact of Saddam Hussein's rule.
He blamed the brutality of the regime for what he said was the slowness of Iraqis to "take control of their own affairs" following the US invasion.
"The brutality that he [Saddam Hussein] used in 1991 to put down the revolt at the time I think just had devastating consequences in terms of the ability of the Iraqi people to recover from his rule," he said.
The Bush administration has been repeatedly criticised by its opponents for not admitting mistakes were made in the handling of the occupation of Iraq.
Look beyond what our media and their worldwide cohorts in their venture in the psy-ops field would and obviously, want you to believe, enough said.
Look to the Foreign Council on Relations, its membership, and then do a quick take on the major contributers to them and their associated seats and past positions within administrations current and past. And the appointees to the seats of power and their "true" agenda.
Do some homework of our inner political system Alien UK, and you will see....
fab
Look to the Foreign Council on Relations, its membership, and then do a quick take on the major contributers to them and their associated seats and past positions within administrations current and past. And the appointees to the seats of power and their "true" agenda.
Do some homework of our inner political system Alien UK, and you will see....
fab
Ah drrr drrr drrr
Iran must give up nuclear arms, says Barnier
MOSCOW, Jan 21 (AFP) - There is no alternative to negotiations with Iran to force the Islamic regime to abandon nuclear weapons, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Friday.
"The Americans are regularly informed on the state of negotiations" which are being led "in complete transparency with 22 European partners and Russia," Barnier said, during a visit to Moscow.
Washington has charged that Tehran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a charge which Iran denies saying its nuclear programme is purely peaceful.
But the European Union's "big three" - Britain, France and Germany - are holding crucial talks with Iran aimed at finding a long-term solution to assuage international fears
about the nuclear programme.
"This is a delicate cooperation and we are keeping our eyes open. But there is no alternative" to negotiations, Barnier said, adding Iran must give up nuclear arms.
He was talking at a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, and the French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie as well as Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov.
Source
"The Americans are regularly informed on the state of negotiations" which are being led "in complete transparency with 22 European partners and Russia," Barnier said, during a visit to Moscow.
Washington has charged that Tehran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a charge which Iran denies saying its nuclear programme is purely peaceful.
But the European Union's "big three" - Britain, France and Germany - are holding crucial talks with Iran aimed at finding a long-term solution to assuage international fears
about the nuclear programme.
"This is a delicate cooperation and we are keeping our eyes open. But there is no alternative" to negotiations, Barnier said, adding Iran must give up nuclear arms.
He was talking at a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, and the French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie as well as Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov.
Source
Last edited by SETIsLady on 01-22-2005 03:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sandreckoner
- Pirate
- Posts: 158
- Joined: 11-09-2001 03:00 AM
Heavy military losses against Iran: unlikely. We wouldn't use large ground forces against them anyway. Despite what media around the globe seem to have bought in to, we are very far from overstretched when it comes to air and naval resources - which are exactly what would be used in the case of action against an Iran (or a North Korea).
Economic boycott of US products and corporations: unlikely. This reveals a lack of understanding of the tentacle-like nature of U.S. corporations. There is a reason that under Clinton the U.S. was accused of economic imperialism. U.S. corporations are vital to the global economy.
Recalling of "loans" made to the U.S. by China: those aren't loans, those are investments. Recalling those investments would be the same as destroying - literally - as much as 20% of the Chinese economy, as well as the economies of much of Asia which are dependent on the export of materials to China, which China pays for with profits from American pockets.
America has had a hands-off stance toward the European negotiations to bring Iran to heel. The Europeans are very frustrated, and their 'bargaining tool' is primarily the threat of giving up and turning Iran's fate over the U.N. Security Council and the United States. Yes, the French keep insisting there is "no alternative," in public, and Iran keeps defying them. This is why so many are so skeptical of the success of these negotiations. For how long can you speak with an enemy and tell them, "You must comply, but we will do no more than talk."
Economic boycott of US products and corporations: unlikely. This reveals a lack of understanding of the tentacle-like nature of U.S. corporations. There is a reason that under Clinton the U.S. was accused of economic imperialism. U.S. corporations are vital to the global economy.
Recalling of "loans" made to the U.S. by China: those aren't loans, those are investments. Recalling those investments would be the same as destroying - literally - as much as 20% of the Chinese economy, as well as the economies of much of Asia which are dependent on the export of materials to China, which China pays for with profits from American pockets.
America has had a hands-off stance toward the European negotiations to bring Iran to heel. The Europeans are very frustrated, and their 'bargaining tool' is primarily the threat of giving up and turning Iran's fate over the U.N. Security Council and the United States. Yes, the French keep insisting there is "no alternative," in public, and Iran keeps defying them. This is why so many are so skeptical of the success of these negotiations. For how long can you speak with an enemy and tell them, "You must comply, but we will do no more than talk."