War with Iran nears - Washington Times Editorial

[Creder]

Article from mid january

EDITORIAL: War with Iran nears - Washington Times

Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, an important Iranian nuclear scientist, was killed yesterday by a bomb planted outside his home. Iran has accused Israel and the United States of assassinating Mr. Ali-Mohammadi in an attempt to disrupt Tehran's nuclear program. If true, such short-of-war methods could be seen as a means of preventing a larger conflict or paving the way for more deadly operations.

The Obama administration's diplomatic outreach effort is dead, too. The mullahs met President Obama's outstretched hand with an extended middle finger. Iran announced in November that it planned to construct 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a development former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix called "puzzling" because "even big countries don't have ten enrichment plants." Last month, top-secret technical notes from Iran's nuclear program were leaked that detailed research on a neutron initiator, the triggering mechanism for an atomic bomb.

It is increasingly difficult to claim that Iran's nuclear effort is intended for peaceful civilian purposes. The Dec. 31 deadline for Iran to reply to a proposed nuclear deal passed with no response. The debate in Washington has shifted toward how best to target sanctions and whether they should - or can - be crafted in a way to support the reform movement in the country.

But time is running out. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave the Obama White House a year to make progress with Iran, and instead, the situation has grown worse. Israel repeatedly has stated that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and the Jewish state is receiving significant behind-the-scenes encouragement from Sunni Arab states wary of the possibility of Iranian regional hegemony.

Preparation for possible conflict is ongoing. This week, a biological-warfare-preparedness exercise is being held in Tel Aviv and other cities. Starting late next month, gas masks will begin to be distributed to every Israeli citizen; similar measures were undertaken before the first and second Gulf wars.

On Sunday, Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said in a clear signal to Tehran that it would be "irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies" with respect to Iran. The next day, it was reported that America was doubling the value of emergency military equipment stockpiled in Israel, which would be available for Israeli use in the event of an emergency. Perhaps this is a signal to Iran as well.


The coming conflict will not be an overnight air strike followed by bellicose language, like the Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear site in September 2007. Disrupting Iran's nuclear program will require Israel to undertake a sustained campaign. Iran will launch reprisal attacks through its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon, encourage Syria to respond, foment chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially order terror attacks on Western targets.

U.S. policymakers are mealy-mouthed about the possibility of conflict with Iran. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the conventional view when he said that Iran developing a nuclear weapon is "potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome" but taking military action to prevent it "also has a very, very destabilizing outcome." Washington prefers the third way, a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, in the hope of somehow preserving stability. But soon, the choice will be made by others, and the real question is what role the United States will play when war comes.

 

[Tang0]

A bit late to the game eh? In the 4 months since this article came out, the US has not changed its' stance, nor has Israel made any more or less outward signs of intent to attack Iran. I don't know what time frame the Washington Post was considering, but the lead up to attacking Iraq was well over a year, and I imagine garnering support for an attack on Iran would take just as long. This is of course assuming that the Obama administration came to the conclusion that they needed to, which they have not publicly done, or even insinuated.

My interpretation is that nothing will happen with Iran until after US pulls out of Iraq, and substantial change happens one way or the other in Afghanistan. Then, maybe, the administration will try to drum up support for another military action... That is a whole lot of ifs and conditionals, the US of today is not the US of 2002 by any stretch of the imagination. At this point furthermore, the US is the only one in any position to do much about it, as Isreal simply lacks the capability to carry out long-term long range aerial warfare without US support. (Tanker, logistics, overflight privileges...)

 

[Nima]

I love how you are hiding the date
you guys are worse then neocons

pathetic really

 

[Tang0]

I love how you are hiding the date
you guys are worse then neocons

pathetic really

I'm sorry, but was that even a cogent insult? Let alone a response or interpretation of the article...

 

[Creder]

Article from mid january

I love how you are hiding the date
you guys are worse then neocons

pathetic really

reading is important then again im not surprised cuz its you

EDIT: im not angered or irritated by your sentiments rather i feel sorry for you now

 

[Creder]

A bit late to the game eh? In the 4 months since this article came out, the US has not changed its' stance, nor has Israel made any more or less outward signs of intent to attack Iran. I don't know what time frame the Washington Post was considering, but the lead up to attacking Iraq was well over a year, and I imagine garnering support for an attack on Iran would take just as long. This is of course assuming that the Obama administration came to the conclusion that they needed to, which they have not publicly done, or even insinuated.

My interpretation is that nothing will happen with Iran until after US pulls out of Iraq, and substantial change happens one way or the other in Afghanistan. Then, maybe, the administration will try to drum up support for another military action... That is a whole lot of ifs and conditionals, the US of today is not the US of 2002 by any stretch of the imagination. At this point furthermore, the US is the only one in any position to do much about it, as Isreal simply lacks the capability to carry out long-term long range aerial warfare without US support. (Tanker, logistics, overflight privileges...)

Not so much Iraq i think the reason there hasnt been a direct military operation is because the what US is doing right now in Afghanistan is crucial to its success. The up-coming offensive against taliban will be a decisive factor in its strategy against Iran. And that i think is the main reason for Israel's growing impatience with regards to the states. Engagement of US with the taliban and a possible reconciliation effort provides Iran with a window of oppurtunity to shore up its defences, however, i think US forseeing that is massively courting Russia and China to not provide any sort of helpt to Iran.

It pretty much comes down to this brief diplomatic showdown, if Iran can win over Russia and China's favor within these upcoming months, otherwise it will be a different world for the iranians im afraid. And judging from the current developments, Iran seems to be losing the diplomatic struggle.

 

[Tang0]

Not so much Iraq i think the reason there hasnt been a direct military operation is because the what US is doing right now in Afghanistan is crucial to its success. The up-coming offensive against taliban will be a decisive factor in its strategy against Iran. And that i think is the main reason for Israel's growing impatience with regards to the states. Engagement of US with the taliban and a possible reconciliation effort provides Iran with a window of oppurtunity to shore up its defences, however, i think US forseeing that is massively courting Russia and China to not provide any sort of helpt to Iran.

It pretty much comes down to this brief diplomatic showdown, if Iran can win over Russia and China's favor within these upcoming months, otherwise it will be a different world for the iranians im afraid. And judging from the current developments, Iran seems to be losing the diplomatic struggle.

On a global scale what you are saying is more or less true, but even if the US provides only nominal support to an Israeli strike, there will be greatly increased US casualties in Iraq and AF/PAK. That means the President of the United States cannot unilaterally decide to provide said support.

I am speaking from the prospective of internal US politics. He needs the approval of his political party and at least 40-50% of the US public in order for a foreign military venture not to prove disastrous domestically. He does not have said support, and in fact, has yet to ask for it. Unless somehow the evidence appears that Iran is weeks away from completing and testing a nuclear device (Highly unlikely), this "heading to war" narrative will be on hold for at least another year.
Much can happen in a year, hell, there could be a new government in Iran in a year, the Democrats could lose congress in mid-term elections, Israel could be knee deep in yet another West Bank/ Lebanon conflict... The list goes on. The current diplomatic loggerhead in the UN does not look much different in my perspective to the one back in 2006, except that the Iranians are 4 years closer to having a bomb...

 

[Nima]

I'm sorry, but was that even a cogent insult? Let alone a response or interpretation of the article...

the article? were you living in a cave since 1979?
same **** different smell

 

[Tang0]

the article? were you living in a cave since 1979?
same **** different smell

Do you prefer the term Editorial? I am confused, you don't seem to be trying to insult anyone in particular, nor do you seem to be interested in having a conversation/debate, so I am going to ignore you until such a time as you write in complete sentences or make any sense at all.

Read more Washington Post articles, and your English may improve. I doubt I am capable of conversing in your native tongue, otherwise we might be able to actually have a discussion.

 

[Creder]

On a global scale what you are saying is more or less true, but even if the US provides only nominal support to an Israeli strike, there will be greatly increased US casualties in Iraq and AF/PAK. That means the President of the United States cannot unilaterally decide to provide said support.

I am speaking from the prospective of internal US politics. He needs the approval of his political party and at least 40-50% of the US public in order for a foreign military venture not to prove disastrous domestically. He does not have said support, and in fact, has yet to ask for it. Unless somehow the evidence appears that Iran is weeks away from completing and testing a nuclear device (Highly unlikely), this "heading to war" narrative will be on hold for at least another year.
Much can happen in a year, hell, there could be a new government in Iran in a year, the Democrats could lose congress in mid-term elections, Israel could be knee deep in yet another West Bank/ Lebanon conflict... The list goes on. The current diplomatic loggerhead in the UN does not look much different in my perspective to the one back in 2006, except that the Iranians are 4 years closer to having a bomb...

indeed true but like i said much of it all depends on US mission in Afghanistan, or to be specific how they deal with Taliban. Bottom line is they cannot go after Iran while still engaged with taliban, and that is evident by the stark difference in US policy towards reconciliation with Taliban. US faces a greater danger from a nuclear armed Iran than it does from an insurgency in Afghanistan. If they are somehow able to smooth things over with the taliban, they can effectively negate Iran's influence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. A US friendly taliban can prove to be a more than asset for them in terms of dealing with any counter insurgencies that Iran might have up its sleeves in Iraq and Afghanistan.However, the weak point of such a scenario is how they are going to sell this to the american public who will view such a reconciliation as a defeat.Therefore, this is Obama's true test as a leader, if he can convince americans and the congress ofcourse that the greater american interest lies in caping Iran, and for that using taliban, i think it will set up the stage nicely. Such a deal would also be heavely favoured by the Israelis and Obama can use the lobyists to get the support he needs, not to mention improve relations with Israelis that have been strained as of late.

And ofcourse a country that stands to gain most out of all this is Pakistan. US cannot reconcile with the talibs without Pakistan and in my opinion this is like a goldmine for our diplomats.

 

[Tang0]

and that is evident by the stark difference in US policy towards reconciliation with Taliban.

Provide evidence of above statement.

I have seen no indication that any of the parties involved have expressed any public indication of doing anything other than fighting until their sole will is imposed in the region.