by Mark Silva
In the realm of Washington press conferences, this one proved to be an exercise in disconnection: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, addressed questions from reporters assembled at the National Press Club, connected by a video link from United Nations headquarters in New York.
“At the outset, I would like to raise a fundamental question on a key issue,’’ Ahmadinejad said in a lengthy, sermon-like statement about insecurity in the world and the necessity of religion translated into English. “When we take a look around us, we are not happy with what we see.
“Security threats have affected everyone,’’ said Ahmadinejad, whose own government is accused of supplying insurgents inside Iraq with weaponry such as 240 mm rockets and fighters. “Continuous wars have, in fact, hurt the human spirit,…. I believe if we look at the root cause of some of these problems, we will think about how to build a better future.’’
“I believe we all believe strongly that it is possible to create a better world for humanity and to realize this beautiful and sublime goal,’’ said the Iranian leader, wearing an open shirt, sport jacket and eyeglasses. “In looking for the root causes of the world problems today, we first confront deviations on how mankind is viewed and how the world is viewed through the prism and the point of view in fact of some politicians and statesmen.’’
He went on to say that he does not recognize the Israeli ''regime.''
(See the entirety of his remarks at the National Press Club) and read on:
Opening with passages from the Quran, Ahmadinejad also made a lengthy statement about the importance of devotion to the deity – “following God means wanting the best for all others.’’
Curiously for a leader whose government also is accused of developing nuclear weaponry, in defiance of international objections, Ahmadinejad also spoke of the “insecurity’’ caused by threats of nuclear arms -- “the happiness and joy of life is replaced by fear.’’
“Lies and deceits are in fact a form of oppressing mankind,’’ he said. “We are all against that oppresssion – oppression of all sorts.
“I think to have a better world, the way we look at mankind must change,’’ he said. “The role of the press is to disseminate moral behavior… purity, honesty, peace, security and all the positive messages… The press can be the voices of the divine prophets… Time will pass and join history, so it is best for all of us to seek peace, security and purity.’’
The press had some other interests today, such as getting some basic questions answered.
From the National Press Club, the questioning of a leader who has challenged Israel’s right to existence started with: “How important do you think the worldwide spread of Islam is to creating the beautiful and sublime world that you envision, and is there room for other religions?’’
“We think that all religions, and all divine religions, have the same message. They all come from the same place,’’ Ahmadinejad said. “These prophets have all given the same messages… They are all brothers. They all want the same thing, justice and friendship, and this is the common ground for all religions.’’
He was pressed to say whether Christianity has a place in the world which he describes. “We should all build a prosperous world together and we must all move hand in hand,’’ Ahmadinejad replied.
Asked about the curtailment of freedom of expression in Iran and closings of newspapers, he said: “In our country, law prevails. Freedom is flowing at its highest level… You know that a government newspaper was actually shut down because it engaged in illegal acts – a newspaper that was reflecting the views of the head of state… We have dozens of newspapers in our country,’’ he said, claiming that anti-government newspapers outnumber the pro-government press in Iran. “Our peole are the freest people in the world, the most enlightened.’’
Asked about a written report about the arrests of reporters issued by Reporters Without Borders, he said, “I don’t know people by that name.’’
Asked about treatment of women in Iran, including beatings and torture, he laughed and said, “Can you again tell me where you get this report from?… The freeest women in the world are women in Iran,’’ he said through his interpreter, a woman. “They are one of the most active women in the world, and very free.’’
He noted that over 60 percent of university students are female – though the Iranian government is working to curtail that number and has stepped up enforcement of laws that women veil their heads in public.
Asked what role Iran will play in the future of Iraq, he said, “We want an independent, powerful Iraq, a developed Iraq that will benefit the whole region… We are the ones harmed most by instability in Iraq.’’
Asked if Iranian weapons are moving into Iraq – an assertion which U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus and others have made – the president said: “Iraq’s security means our security… No, this does not exist,’’ and then he asked: “Are you telling me that the U.S. military is defeated as the result of a few weapons? It undermines the power of the U.S. military by making statements like this.’
Asked why Iran must enrich its own uranium, raising suspicions about its plans for nuclear weaponry, he said: “First of all, that’s our right…’’
Is Iran willing to go to war with the West to protect its nuclear program? “The United States and France are not the world – don’t speak for the world…’’ he said. “We are working under the inspection of the IAEA system, and our activities are legal and for peaceful purposes… We think that talk of war is basically a propaganda tool. Why is there a need for war?…’’
Is there any circumstance in which the Islamic Republican of Iran and the state of Israel can coexist in peace, Ahmadinejad was asked.
He said: “We do not recognize that regime because it is based on discrimination, occupation and usurpation, and it consistently threatens its neighbors. Last week it attacked Syria, and last year it attacked Lebanon… This is occupation and expansionism in the true sense of those words, and they discriminate between people, they displace people… They kill people in their own homes. How is it possible to recognize this?’’
Asked about his own questioning of the Holocaust in the past, he said: “I raised two questions about the Holocaust… Granted that the Holocaust is a reality, why do we limit research about it?… Let us remember, then, where did the Holocaust happen, to begin with?
“It happened in Europe, and given that, why is it the Palestinian people should be displaced?’’ he said. “That’s what our question is based on. It’s a very right question to ask.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
if the jews build a man made island to live on will iran help pay for the building of the island and for the cost of moveing 6millon jews to the island?
Posted by: aaron silverstein | September 24, 2007 1:49 PM
Wow, if President Bush could behave that intelligent and well mattered this country would surly be one of the strongest in the world. Anyways, why does Bush want to start a war with a country for researching nuclear technology when Americans know America has had nuclear weapons for decades? Kinda a double standard isn't? And what about Israel? Doesn't Israel and company have nuclear warheads?
Posted by: Jim Reynolds | September 24, 2007 1:54 PM
Jim Reynolds, you're trying to be funny, right? For your sake, I hope you are.
Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM
No matter what the international community achieves with Iran, Bush will always oppose. No matter what positive outcome the IAEA outputs, bush will always oppose, not matter what Iran does (even if they stop enriching uranium) bush will always oppose, no matter what the world tells bush, he will always oppose! WHY??? GOOD question.... Bush is a puppet of Dick Cheney, who in turn is a puppet for Israel. Israel wants more land in the middle east and America wants to control the resources(oil)** in the middle east. things go hand-in-hand and it just happens that both countries have concentrated more on technology and building their armies rather than watching out for their citizens, hence the women in Israel and America are constantly living in sin Cities, they have no respect for one another or any other culture, they posses mush envy within their blood cells, they encourage sexual intercourse at a very young age, the men are continually consuming alcohol on a daily basis, they are "pot heads", they degrade women and perceive them as objects, they commit adultery, bigamy, robbery, and participate in rape, conspiracy and immoral behavior,,,, but these citizens keep quite because in this era and rise or individualism, freedom, and lets not forget the V8 vehicles by the americans (which was a huge mistake to humanity). americans cannot live without this type of life style because this is what is promoted when u create individualism and freedom .. so this is why the do not respect all other cultures and religions,, if a society is not based on drugs, alcohol, lies, sex, and money,,,, then it must be invaded and stripped of its resources because lets face it.... 80% of north americans smoke weed, and drink....compare them with citizens in Iran.. there is no comparison whatsoever, Iran is the most beautiful country that ever existed and will inevitably go to war with america and israel.
Posted by: mike abandonment | September 24, 2007 2:29 PM
Jim Reynolds,
If this is your idea of sarcasm, it's not funny.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 24, 2007 2:48 PM
Iran has the US, led by a bellicose and unpredictable leader, on two of its major borders. If I'm Iran, I'm thinking the only way I'll survive is to hasten the nuclear program, which they have done. Does this mean I'll use the nukes? India and Pakistan have had them for a decade and not used them. The Soviets had them for 5 decades (and the Russians another decade and a half) and never used them. The French and British have each had them for over half a century and never used them. The Israelis, around 40 years. The only country that ever used a nuke is us.
I understand the desire to keep nuclear technology away from Islamic states, but it would be nice if that was the actual guiding philosophy of our foreign policy. We talk out of all sides of our mouth- extending nuclear cooperation with non-NPT signatory India, while developing technology for NEW USABLE NUKES and threatening nuclear retaliation, chastising Iranian pursuit of nukes while ignoring Israel's, trimming Nunn-Lugar and thus failing to secure the nuclear stockpiles of the old Soviet Union, etc.
Iranian society is far more complex than we give it credit for, but there is one thing that just about everyone in Iran agrees upon, from the clerics to the progressives to the moderates to the generals- Iran has the right to nuclear technology, end of story. Therefore, there is no regime that we can put into place (setting aside our lack of capacity and skill in that arena) that is going to renounce nuclear technology.
The Iranians learned from Osirak; their nuclear facilities are underground and diffuse, so it won't be possible to quickly decapitate it. Further, we probably don't really know what sights are what but pretend that we do, like Rumsfeld's we know there are WMD's north, south and west of Baghdad.
What I really would like to know is what precisely the objective of attacking Iran would be.
Is it to stop the nuclear program? As I said, there is no leader we could install even if we wanted to who would survive on a platform of renouncing nukes. Is it regime change for regime change's sake, to show that we aren't as impotent as Iraq makes us look? Or is it just another corporate welfare boondoggle, designed to enrich Halliburton and Bectel and the military-industrial complex on the backs of the working men and women of this country? Or maybe we'll pretend that Shiite Iran is teamed up with Sunni Al Qaeda and do the Bin Laden for Saddam bait-and-switch all over again, but this time Bin Laden will become Ahmehemiwhatshisname.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 3:08 PM
This jerk sounds alot like
Arafat reincarnated. Arafat was allowed to speak at the UN and he proved himself to be a hypocrite and a liar.This is history repeating itself.
Paul Jaeger
Canton, Ga.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | September 24, 2007 3:22 PM
Mike, the Bush administration has been working through the UN and European countries to get Iran to behave properly. In addition, the Bush administratin has had some direct talks with Iran. But I know facts and the Loony Left's hysteria have little, if anything, in common.
I do enjoy seeing all the Loony Left's here, lead by Distrust and Verify, make excuses for Iran. And it's even more hysterical seeing you folks ignore Iran's misdeeds and crimes the past 30 years and blame it all on Bush.
Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 3:39 PM
"..Iran has the US, led by a bellicose and unpredictable leader, on two of its major borders. If I'm Iran, I'm thinking the only way I'll survive is to hasten the nuclear program, which they have done. Does this mean I'll use the nukes?.."
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 3:08 PM
Nice fake out- your magnanimous approach to giving Iran the status of "just trying to be one of us" fails when you place the Iranian leaders rhetoric next to it..
simply stated this guy on day says that he does not want Israel to exist,while, at the same time, moving extremely close to acquiring the ability to have nuclear weapons...
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that since police have guns - criminals should have guns too.
Posted by: heartburn | September 24, 2007 3:58 PM
Dyslin,
I ain't making excuses for Iran, son. Simply applying a little perspective, something no one will ever excuse you of having. We act like Iran is irrational, but nothing they've done since we invaded Iraq is irrational from a level perspective, its only "irrational" because it doesn't help us accomplish our goals, which are either unrelated or antagonistic towards Iran.
Frankly, I'm not afraid of everything like you lily-livered conservatives (and I live in DC, so I'm not saying there is no terrorist threat). When is the last time that Iran attacked the US, exactly? Why should I cower in fear from the Iranians?
They've reaked havoc in Israel through Hezbollah, but so what? Let the Israelis fight their own wars (and I'm Jewish, so spare me the knee-jerk anti-Semitic rhetoric, k?) And they've reaked havoc in Iraq, but is that REALLY a legitimate casus belli? We have no more business being in Iraq than they do.
My greater, and more important point, is what are our options? Iran is Iraq x 2.5. The nuclear program is diffuse and underground. So aside from the feel-good talk coming from the perma-war hawks, how are we going to accomplish the goal of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?
Bombing the sites is not going to work, they learned from Osirak.
Regime change is not going to produce a leader who is going to renounce nuclear technology.
They ain't gonna greet us with flowers and candy.
Their resources won't pay for the reconstruction.
So, the ultimate question is:
1) why and how will the Iran war be more successful than War of Choice #1 in Iraq,
2) where will the troops and money come from without instituting a draft and raising taxes, and
3) how will attacking Shiite Iran roll back Sunni Al Qaeda?
In my opinion, America should be at war with Al Qaeda, but has chosen to broaden the field to encompass just about any hostile nation. Iraq War should have taught us that we need to be careful about the unintended consequences of throwing our weight around. Instead, the insane NeoConservatives are incapable of internalizing the old adage: "WHEN YOU'RE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING."
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 4:15 PM
heartburn,
I think what Distrust and Verify is saying is NOT that criminals should have guns, but rather we should not be surprised when criminals seek guns to protect themselves from other criminals who have guns.
Posted by: john | September 24, 2007 4:18 PM
"simply stated this guy on day says that he does not want Israel to exist,"
Wow! Someone said he doesn't want Israel to exist, I'm shocked, SHOCKED!! So we're going to go to war with them?
"while, at the same time, moving extremely close to acquiring the ability to have nuclear weapons..."
So, what's your idea how to stop it? I don't mean this as glib or flip, but seriously. I've explained why this goal will be elusive and nearly impossible to counter, here on Planet Earth where things do happen beyond our control that we are unable to effect the way we'd like.
What's your counter-argument? And please address the Big 3 quesstions I asked which strike at the heart of what we are trying to do and how we are going to manage to do it.
"Your argument is the equivalent of saying that since police have guns - criminals should have guns too."
Isn't this essentially the argument the NRA makes, that since criminals have guns therefore honest citizens should be able to as well, and that's the best way to make everyone safer? If the NRA's argument is true, why can that not be extrapolated elsewhere? IF the safest thing for America is that everyone be armed, wouldn't the safest thing for the world be the same?
I'm not saying I believe that, but I have seen you argue against gun control so I'd like to know why one is applicable but not the other.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 4:26 PM
To take lines from Protocol 1 (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion)
RIGHT IS MIGHT
12. Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.
13. Where does right begin? Where does it end?
It appears that the Bush and his neo-con buddies have been brushing up on the Protocols, be they fictitious as some zionists would have you believe. Israel is the thorn in the side of peace, not Iran. The disease of aggression and occupation that has infested our nation and leadership was carefully orchestrated by the neo-cons who are in Israeli's
employ (Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrahams, Fueth, Bolton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and his Christian Zionists).
Wake up - Zionists are pitting Christianity against Islam to cause chaos and diversion while they reap the benefits both in power, land and wealth and nukes.
Why is there a need for nuclear warheads for any nation in the Middle East, including Israel. I just bet if the U.S. and the UN tried to eliminate the WMD's from Israel, Israel would kick them out and laugh in their faces.
Posted by: the truth | September 24, 2007 4:27 PM
They've reaked havoc in Israel through Hezbollah, but so what? Let the Israelis fight their own wars (and I'm Jewish, so spare me the knee-jerk anti-Semitic rhetoric, k?) And they've reaked havoc in Iraq, but is that REALLY a legitimate casus belli? We have no more business being in Iraq than they do.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 4:15 PM
So - just a sanity check here- at what point do you stand up to all of this havoc- wreaking? or do you ever?
Why is there so much passion in the left to stand up to conjured up violations of womens rights, gay-lesbian rights, freedom of speech rights here- when this guys country violently and murderously opposes these issues.. and the left puts him up as a reasonable person worthy of discourse.
There is a right and wrong son-you are wrong in being an apologist for this Iranian leader.
Posted by: heartburn | September 24, 2007 4:32 PM
Isn't this essentially the argument the NRA makes, that since criminals have guns therefore honest citizens should be able to as well, and that's the best way to make everyone safer? If the NRA's argument is true, why can that not be extrapolated elsewhere? IF the safest thing for America is that everyone be armed, wouldn't the safest thing for the world be the same?
I'm not saying I believe that, but I have seen you argue against gun control so I'd like to know why one is applicable but not the other.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 4:26 PM
First of all your three questions are distractions from the main point- and unless you are with the state department, NSA, CIA or Dept of defense- you don't have the answers to how to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons either- so answering them would make both of us armchair quarterbacks in that subject.
You have gone thru great lengths to avoid defending your apologist attitude for the Iranian leader... so I question your motivation. Because murder, rape, kidnapping etc. are essentially not able to be completely stopped- do you stop trying to prevent them?
And you and john (Posted by: john | September 24, 2007 4:18 PM ) have distorted the gun analogy to make it a 2nd amendment question- I said that your argument supports the concept of giving CRIMINALs guns because POLICE have guns- which does not make sense and is not a 2nd amendment argument.
So can you try to get by your "I hate bush" mentality long enough to look at an issue on its face value and realize that Ahmadinejad having nuclear weapons is a horrible prospect?
Posted by: heartburn | September 24, 2007 5:07 PM
Al Qaeda attacked the US on Septemeber 11 form their base in Afghanistan.
There were no Iraqi hijackers, and no legitimate intelligence has been produced to suggest that they were involved. The same holds true for Iran.
I used to consider myself a liberal, but perhaps a more accurate term would be Pragmatic Cynicist.
Its clear that "conservatives" used to be the more pragmatic bunch, but clearly that is no longer the case. That is why I bring up the what, how and why questions. That you, heartburn, have no idea or theory as to my 3 questions means you either haven't given this much thought or are simply copping out because the answers wouldn't fit with you desired policy prescription. If we can't eliminate the nuclear program, then what would be the purpose of invading?
Anyway, here's a quick rundown:
Do I think Iran wants nuclear weapons? Clearly.
Is that a bad thing? Perhaps.
Is Ahmeniemiwhathisname the most powerful man in Iran, the one who makes the big decisions? No, so I'm not going to give him as much credit as your perpetually afraid ilk would.
Here's the biggie, heartburn:
Can we stop Iran's nuclear program? I don't think so, for the reasons I've already laid out. I asked you to answer this question and you punted. Why? I'm guessing because you can't straighten out what you would like to happen with what you can actually make happen. That's where that "pragmatic" part comes in. I feel your frustration, you wanna kick some Persian ass, but vengeance should not be the guiding thrust of our foreign policy- coldblooded calculations of interest should.
Who will fight this new war when we already must end the Iraqi "surge" in 6 months when the tours end?
Who will pay for it? Will there be a draft?
What will happen after the invasion? Will the large Kurdish minority finally get a homeland? What would this do to Turkish interests which demand that no independent Kurdistan nation come into existence? (And, on an aside, why do Americans universally accept that Jews such as myself should have a homeland in the Middle East, but not the similarly persecuted Kurds?)
Whose coming with us on this adventure? I'm guessing the Brits might wanna sit this one out.
All that is beside the point, though. I want the United States to focus on FIGHTING AL QAEDA. Going after Iran will do nothing to help this cause, and will most likely produce more terrorists than it stops.
Al Qaeda is living comfortably in Pakistan while an ostensible "ally" sits by. If we're going to risk the ire of the entire world, maybe just maybe this time it should be about Al Qaeda instead of about... well, what would the Iran war be about exactly?
"Because murder, rape, kidnapping etc. are essentially not able to be completely stopped- do you stop trying to prevent them?"
Why do we care about that happening in Iran and Iraq, but not, say, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Israel, Sudan, etc? I'm sorry, but the selective focus of the NeoCons and warmongers is rather ironic, and I don't buy your "trying to stop rape murder, etc." bit. If you want to stop raping, murdering and pillaging, we could start in Darfur.
I know this is ever-so-radical, but how about focusing on America and not trying to change everyone else's political system. There used to be a time where that was the conservative position. Now conservatives are mushy-headed do-gooders looking to Crusade around the world remaking it in our image.
I got news for ya, the world doesn't want to be remade in our image, and we don't have the means to do so. Maybe we should focus on protecting our orwn direct interests.
If we're gonna go around crusading, let's at least acknowledge the costs this time around and learn at least SOME lessons from the Iraq debacle, which heartburn apparently would not mind replicating.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 5:49 PM
There is a right and a wrong alright. But THE UNITED STATES fighting to preserve the APARTHIED SYSTEM that exists in ISRAEL is WRONG. At what point do the Israelis sleep in the bed that the Israelis have made for themselves in the region? It is a HUGE contradiction of HARD LEARNED AMERICAN VALUES for the United States to support a country that CONFISCATES PALESTINIAN PROPERTIES FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING JEWISH ONLY SETTLEMENTS. Of course everyone in the region wants Israel gone! Israel is violating the very international laws that we endorsed with the Nuremburg trials, the Geneva Accords and the United Nations Charter. The settlement building in Israel has not stopped. If Iran is such a problem to Israel then that is Israels problem.
Instead of starting wars on behalf of Israel, the United States should lead the movement to remove all nuclear weapons out of the middle east and Israel. That way the Iranians would have no incentive to weaponise their nuclear technology. Then we should LEAVE IRAN ALONE and start some real diplomatic dialogue with Iran.
Because while many Americans see the conflicts with Iran as beginning in 1979 with the Embassy take over, many Iranians see the conflicts beginning in 1953 when THE UNITED STATES OVERTHREW THE IRANIAN DEMOCRACY AND INSTALLED A MURDEROUS DICTATOR (the Shah) TO LEAD IRAN!
If you can imagine how angry you would feel if the Iranians overthrew our government, then you would understand how Iranians felt so angry that they attacked the American embassy in Iran. And what's amazing to me is that none of these "Gung-ho-to-attack-Iran-polititians" would ever acknowledge our history in overthrowing the Iranian democracy.
So cut the Bull! Leave Iran Alone!
Posted by: Drew Rogers | September 24, 2007 5:54 PM
More than anything else, I want America to understand what its getting into if we take on Iran. I would have thought the appetite for destruction would have been satiated by the Iraq debacle, but apparently not.
More than anything else, I want America to understand what its getting into if we take on Iran. I would have thought the appetite for destruction would have been satiated by the Iraq debacle, but apparently not.
Here's an article outlining some of the challenges of an Iran invasion. I challenge any of the attack-Iraners to produce an alternative source that thinks that Iran would be easier to conquer and pacify than Iraq.
-----------------------
'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran
By Thomas Harding
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 13/02/2006
A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today.
Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War.
The research coincides with reports that strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for "a last resort" strike if diplomacy fails. Plans for an assault have taken on "greater urgency" in recent months, The Sunday Telegraph said.
Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, have been identifying targets and the weapons needed to hit them.
The Oxford report says that Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the Prime Minister allowed American B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000lb of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Glos, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
Precision bombing could put Iran's weapons programme back five to 10 years but within a month the situation would become "an extremely dangerous conflict", says Prof Paul Rogers, the report's author.
The attack would result in "a protracted military confrontation" involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states.
More than 100 American bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, would take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities, the report says.
If the targets included the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which will become fully fuelled this year, a radioactive cloud could spread over the Gulf. Iran's small navy, which includes three submarines, would have to be attacked to negate threats to vital shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz.
But Iran could still retaliate with suicide speedboats, possibly leading to crippling rises in the price of oil.
***Prof Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, says that American military action would also have a unifying effect on the rule of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exacerbate anti-American hostility in the Islamic world.***
The report says that a ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops - and American forces are already over-stretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.
Iran would probably withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and speed up its secret nuclear weapons programme.
The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."
In a similar briefing before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Oxford group predicted that Saddam Hussein's regime could easily be overwhelmed but that the country would become a hotbed of insurgency.
Here's an article outlining some of the challenges of an Iran invasion. I challenge any of the attack-Iraners to produce an alternative source that thinks that Iran would be easier to conquer and pacify than Iraq.
-----------------------
'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran
By Thomas Harding
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 13/02/2006
A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today.
Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War.
The research coincides with reports that strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for "a last resort" strike if diplomacy fails. Plans for an assault have taken on "greater urgency" in recent months, The Sunday Telegraph said.
advertisement
Tacticians at central command and strategic command, who report to Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, have been identifying targets and the weapons needed to hit them.
The Oxford report says that Britain could be drawn into the conflict if the Prime Minister allowed American B2 bombers, which can carry 40,000lb of precision bombs, to use bases at Fairford, Glos, and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
Precision bombing could put Iran's weapons programme back five to 10 years but within a month the situation would become "an extremely dangerous conflict", says Prof Paul Rogers, the report's author.
The attack would result in "a protracted military confrontation" involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states.
More than 100 American bombers, many based on carriers in the Gulf, would take part in a huge simultaneous surprise air attack on 20 key nuclear and military facilities, the report says.
If the targets included the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which will become fully fuelled this year, a radioactive cloud could spread over the Gulf. Iran's small navy, which includes three submarines, would have to be attacked to negate threats to vital shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz.
But Iran could still retaliate with suicide speedboats, possibly leading to crippling rises in the price of oil.
Prof Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, says that American military action would also have a unifying effect on the rule of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and exacerbate anti-American hostility in the Islamic world.
The report says that a ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops - and American forces are already over-stretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.
Iran would probably withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and speed up its secret nuclear weapons programme.
The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."
In a similar briefing before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Oxford group predicted that Saddam Hussein's regime could easily be overwhelmed but that the country would become a hotbed of insurgency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=42ALOOIG5SEXTQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 5:54 PM
Since Shiites are a majority in Iran & Iraq, what do you think is going to happen in the future?
Bush says democracy is going to spread throughout the Middle East because the US invaded Iraq?
This is conservative logic & they somehow believe millions of radical Muslims are going to embrace democracy, convert to Christianity, Shiites, Sunnis & Kurds are going to sing Kumbaya together & oil producers from Texas are going to drown themselves in oil profits.
Oh yeah, & this will rid the world of Al Qaida & terrorism.
Now how do conservatives propose to fix your mess?
Posted by: RomanB | September 24, 2007 5:58 PM
We need to be careful in our condemnation of Iran for supposedly supply insurgents in Iraq. I seem to recall a war in the 1980's where the U.S. was supplying insurgents fighting against another super power. A neutral observer may ask why it was OK for the U.S. to supply stinger missiles that killed Soviet aircrews yet it is evil that Iran supplies weapons that kill American GIs. I don't want to see our troops hurt, but for our long term credibility, we need to be careful when we get indignent over other nations doing exactly what we have done. Much of the world is going to think that the U.S. thinks it is above the law. We can have nukes, but no one else (except our friends) can have nukes. We can invade countries we feel are evil, but we condemn anyone else that does that (except Israel). If we don't want to look like the worlds temper tantrum bully, we need to follow our own words.
Posted by: John | September 24, 2007 6:20 PM
Jim Reynolds, you're trying to be funny, right? For your sake, I hope you are.
Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 2:13 PM
John I doubt you can grasp what the above comments are driving at, which among other things is that other people may consider the Bush administration as thugs. The scary thing is that Cheney and his gang pay no heed to the American peoples will. I can't imagine how much turmoil would result from bombing Iran. That my dear Johnny Dolt is a truely frightening and real prospect. Think about it!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 24, 2007 7:18 PM
This is conservative logic . . .
* * * * *
Posted by: RomanB | September 24, 2007 5:58 PM
Let me stop you there. This is not conservative logic of which you are speaking. It is neo-con logic that never existed within any conservative movement or the Republican party at any time before George W. Bush was in office. T
Traditional conservatives have NEVER favored “exporting democracy” by force before Duh’bya got us into Iraq. Never. Conservative foreign policy dictated a minimum of military entanglement in foreign countries. Prior to Reagan’s administration, one has to go back to 1896 to find another instance of a Republican President committing U.S. troops to a large scale shooting war. Even Reagan only got us into a few minor military actions (Grenada & Lebanon) which were almost over before they began. The same could be said for Daddy Bush were it not for the U.S.’s involvement in the First Gulf War as part of the U.N. forces.
In general there is little a conservative can like about Duh’bya’s handling of the Presidency. And that’s a fact.
So please don’t give me this B.S. about how war mongering is somehow a “conservative” policy, or that exporting democracy by force is conservative logic.
Posted by: John W. | September 24, 2007 7:50 PM
I see Distrust and Verify is a self-loathing Jew. Not surprised.
No Logic Man, the fact that you and your ilk would even think of lumping Bush in with the Iranian kooks into the thuggery world is just one more reason why the Left has lost it, will not be accepted by most Americans and out of the mainstream.
Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 8:14 PM
"I see Distrust and Verify is a self-loathing Jew. Not surprised."
Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 8:14 PM
You are a phenomenal jackass Dyslin.
How about showing some example where I have implied this "self-loathing" stereotype. Isn't this suggestion anti-Semitism, Dyslin?
How is your "self-loathing" stereotype any different than saying a Jewish cabal runs the media? Both are common Jewish stereotypes. Both are anti-Semitic.
Of course, you are far too ignorant to understand that one can be critical of a nation's policies and love its people. That would be a complex thought far outside your jingoistic, dittohead capabilities.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 24, 2007 8:52 PM
John D that goes for you too when you lump together the "looney left" with the Iranian president (or more popularly Chavez). Something tells me that nothing will make YOU any more "accepting" of the looney left in your world though.
Remember no need to reply I've got you covered ... attempt at semi- rationalization followed by but .... something something .... worst of humankind ever end quote. Got it.
Posted by: Not John D For Sure : ) | September 24, 2007 8:57 PM
I see Distrust and Verify is a self-loathing Jew. Not surprised.....
That comment was uncalled for. John D. you are in need of some serious therapy. The only self-loathing that exists is in your mind. You are a pitiful example of a warmongering, self- righteous, pseudo-patriot who tries to compensate for his own inability to think by throwing out insults.
Posted by: the truth | September 24, 2007 9:02 PM
AHMADINEJAD'S NONSENSE ON ISRAEL.
I watched with interest your report on President Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia. You reported his standard line “Why should the Palestinians have to pay for the Holocaust (if that event happened)”? This implies that Israel has no right to exist without the Holocaust.
Israel does have a right to exist, independent of the Holocaust – and independent of European Jewry. Half of Israel’s population are descendants of Jewish refugees from Arab lands, and Iran. Why do they not have a right to self determination? Especially as they suffered persecution in Arab lands for centuries. Their history, their losses, their refugee stories are never told.
Iran and Iraq are two cases in point. Before the Iranian revolution there were 80 000 Jews in Iran, now 25 000 are left. Baghdad was one third Jewish in the early twentieth century. Pogroms in the early 1940's (before Israel was founded) and later persecution led to the flight of 150 000 Jews. Similar stories were repeated across the Arab world.
Finally, the Palestinians suffered because of their own actions, and because of their manipulation by the Arab world – far more than because of Israel. They could have had a Palestinian state in 1948, 1967, 2001, but at each stage rejected it. For the Palestinian cause has been built not for its own sake, but for the negation of Israel. The bottom line is not the desire for a Palestinian state, but the refusal to accept Jews as anything but “dhimmis” under Arab domination.
Posted by: Shaul | September 24, 2007 10:17 PM
John D makes that whacko from Iran seem tame by comparison! John you have completely lost it. GET HELP FAST. Your a nut and a psycho. Keep spouting off yer nutty insults. They only give everyone who is subjected to it a look into the psyche of a disgruntled fool. I guess if my heros (Bush, Cheney etc) all let me down I might become a raving lunatic. Concentrate on the real enemy John. The face that stares back at you from your bathroom mirror!
Posted by: John D's analyst | September 25, 2007 1:24 AM
Just what does John D. loath about himself? I wonder.
Posted by: TheReamer | September 25, 2007 12:31 PM
Nearly every Republican candidate, including all the conservative ones for president, is attempting to defend what the US is attemtping to accomplish in Iraq. They believe if democracy isn't accepted in the middle east, then it will be forced onto you. No form of government forced onto its citizens ever had a chance of succeeding. Conservatives (or neocons) have embraced forcing democracy, in this case Iraq, since Bush took office. Conservatives all throughout the media; Limbaugh, FOX, etc., have done nothing but trumpet this cause.
It may be bs, but it appears to be the conservative mantra. So what due "true conservatives" propose as a solution?
Posted by: RomanB | September 25, 2007 3:33 PM