U.S. Options Few in Feud With Iran ((Here we go AGAIN!))

U.S. Options Few in Feud With Iran

U.S. Options Few in Feud With Iran
Alarmed at Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Washington for now can only watch and wait.
By Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2004

WASHINGTON — Top diplomats from the United States and its closest allies gathered this fall in Washington to hammer out a common approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the mood quickly soured.

Dispensing with the usual diplomatic niceties, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton simply read aloud a U.S. position paper. In it, the administration refused to back European negotiations with Iran and instead insisted that Tehran be dragged before the United Nations Security Council to condemn it for concealing a nuclear weapons program.

Irked, the Europeans demanded to know what good it would do to bring Iran before the U.N. when Washington knew it could not muster enough Security Council votes even to slap Tehran's wrist.

Bolton referred them to another U.S. position paper. ((:eyes:))

"He was not willing to discuss anything," said one stunned participant.


(snip)

Some prominent conservatives are arguing for a preemptive U.S. military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, but State Department, Pentagon and National Security Council officials have been insisting in recent weeks that military action is not under discussion.
(snip)

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes444.htm

Times staff writers Josh Meyer and Mark Mazzetti in Washington contributed to this report. Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

((Right "No war plans on the President's desk"- Gee when have we heard that one before??)) i/i]

Games!!! Its looking like the time is running out and US is getting ready to attack or Bluff that they are going to attack. But I'm tempted to say Iran is definitely the real Prize. Lots of Oil in Iran!!!

Related to this thread where Feith announced in the Jerusalem Post that "US action against Iran can't be ruled out" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1066352

Radfringe called it right yesterday, gets an A+ so far lol.

radfringe (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-13-04 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #4

35. ok -- so we invade just in time


for it to be the patriotic music and flag waving theme for 2006 midterms

my prediction on the timeline:

---scattered stories between now and June 2005 - will include "connections" between Iran and 9-11, and how Iraq's WMDs are now in Iran

---July - some more sputtering, and a couple of statements opposing the invasion of Iran

---August -- bush* goes on vacation, lapdogs ask about invasion of Iran, WH says 'no plans are on bush*'s desk'

---September -- "new product rolled-out" -- saber rattling and dick-wagging rhetoric ramps up

---October -- bush* claims he's has the right to invade based on Congressional approval of the 2002 resolution authorizing him to invade Iran -- little reported clause in the resolution is twisted to imply congress approved of invading anyone bush* wants. Repugs quickly pass resolution affirming that bush* can invade Iran -- those opposed are beaten with the flag

---November-December -- bush* spits on the UN then claims they won't co-operate so we have to go it alone

---2006 - Jan-Feb: Patriotic flag-waving choruses hit the talkshow circuit/news media. Those opposed are discredited and accused of being unpatriotic

March-April -- bush* invaded Iran

more blood, MORE BLOOD!!!

guess it's time for the right wingers to line up their kids and get them enlisted.

They cannot wait to fuck with the US.
God Bless them.

Waiting for the 'event' that will take us into Iran.

I give it a year... 2 if we're all lucky.

I almost wish they would just get it over with. somebody send apostcard to my fallout shelter and let me know what country took over whatever is left of us.

:nuke:

right before the 2006 elections.

Perhaps the military has been "used" by Rummy but those Generals are far from stupid. They know for a fact that Iran is a formidable enemy. We don't have the numbers and will not unless we add at least 250,000 more into our active duty military.

Perhaps that will be a GOP goal for the run up to the 2008 elections? However, there's NO possible way we will have the sane capability to invade Iran before 2008, and only if we start gearing up in the near future.

Gee, why do you think they're drinking espresso with Old Europe and smoozing with Russia? They know that the * Administration is posturing for show.

But the American sheeple are easily spooked. Boo! Be very afraid little people ... we have always been at war with Iran. :P

none scarier than bush and the neocon mafia.

trying to build a missle sheild, ripping up treaties on WMD and weapons in space, actively weaponizing space, develop new tactical nuclear weapons, have the most dangerous arsenal of chemical and biological weapons in the world, have started aggresive war, overthrown governments by force and dirty tricks and loudly espouse the claim that god is on their side.

scary, no?

point that the * Administration's authorization of taping the IAEA's phone system was the ultimate in TACKY as well as perhaps ILLEGAL.

Iran mocks U.S. for bugging UN nuclear chief


TEHRAN (AFP) -- Iran on Monday accused the United States of violating international law by allegedly listening in on telephone calls between the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats.

Government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh said the conversations did not even merit being bugged given that nothing secret was ever even discussed with the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"This affair is not very important, because we don't have any secret discussions with Mr. ElBaradei and tapping the calls would not make any difference," the spokesman told reporters.

But he added that "this is not the first time we have seen the United States violate international rules.

"We would expect those people who spend their time accusing other of breaking international law to respect it themselves," he said.

(snip)

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/14/2004&Cat=2&Num=003

"The national security bureaucracy has conducted war games". -- I would be very interested to know what the assumptions and outcomes of those games were.

There are a number of good "nuggets" in this article that give insight into what is going on in this administration and in the wider neocon circles. -- Concerned about potential Hezbollah strikes at Israel, indeed.

And there is this: "You have to be crystal clear with them that whatever they dream up, we can dream up something much, much worse," Gerecht said. "The Iranians understand that in the tit-for-tat game, they lose overwhelmingly." -- Ah yes, the Iranians wouldn't dare respond to any attack by us. They simply wouldn't dare...

It will be interesting to see how long the voices of sanity can keep up the current stalemate.

...And Syria is a much easier target.

is having some success with Iran.

Is there any real doubt left that Bush's foreign policy is an abysmal failure abroad and just barely 'successful' at home?
Who knows, the world may yet discover that they don't really need the good, ole, USA.