We're Not Going To Iran

[bemildred]

Looking small and humbled on the big stage, trying to appear at once defiant and reasonable, President Bush yesterday addressed the United Nations General Assembly with few arrows in his quiver. Never before has the United States had so few allies, never before has an American president appeared before the world body so utterly bereft of credibility. The sprawling wreckage of American foreign policy was figuratively strewn across the room as Bush spoke. And when he addressed the central diplomatic question of the day—namely, what to do about Iran’s quest for nuclear technology and its likely plans to build a bomb—the president appeared naked and unarmed.

After three years of bluster, after three years of menacing Iran with military options ever “on the table,” after three long years of declaring forcefully that Iran will never gain access to nuclear technology, the president’s stunningly mild-mannered comments on the topic yesterday—“we’re working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis”—may be a sign that the corner has been turned on Iran. It may be a sign that once and for all that the realists have won, that the international community has triumphed, that the opposition of Russia and China to sanctions on Iran has been victorious, and that Western Europe’s far more level-headed approach to Iran has prevailed.

For the neoconservatives, David Frum—Mr. “Axis of Evil”—wrote soon after Bush’s speech: “Make no mistake: boring as it was, the president's speech to the U.N. today was one of the most important of his presidency. It marks the final fizzling out of his Iran policy of the past three years.” Indeed.

Tom Paine

[CHIMO]

1. UN General Assembly Hears Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Criticism

UN General Assembly Hears Bush, Ahmadinejad Trade Criticism

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you talk about what President Ahmadinejad and President Bush -- the major conflict going on, expressed on the world stage at the UN?

PHYLLIS BENNIS:.....

That would be reflected in the new stories that have come out in the last couple of days in Time magazine and elsewhere, indicating that there have in fact been orders preparing to deploy U.S. Navy warships towards Iran with the goal being not necessarily a direct military strike, but rather a naval blockade of Iranian oil ports, which, of course, constitute an act of war. In that situation, the danger, of course, is that if there was, for example, imagine, a week or so of a U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports, Iran knows, its government and its people know, that that's an act of war. Most Americans don't know that a blockade is considered an act of war. And if Iran responded militarily, which unfortunately would be their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter calling for self-defense rights, the Bush administration would very likely call that an unprovoked attack on peaceful U.S. ships and would respond militarily, claiming to be responding in self-defense. That's, I think, a very serious danger that we face right now. And seeing Bush at the United Nations choosing not to use that rostrum as a podium for escalating threats, direct threats, against Iran, it makes the danger of a unilateral military move right now all the greater.

Frigate to patrol in Mideast

Canadian warship to do six-month tour in tense region
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1156542610772

Matches up pretty nicely.

[bemildred]

2. Iran will stir things up in Iraq, on the q.t.

Meanwhile bleating loudly to the UN, stalling, etc. They have figured out how the game is played, I think.

[bananas]

3. We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2165337

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/18/gardiner-iran /

Just now on CNN, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) said, “We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming.”

Gardiner, who taught at the U.S. Army’s National War College, has previously suggested that U.S. forces were already on the ground in Iran. Today he added several additional new points:

1) The House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense Department officials to testify on whether U.S. forces were in Iran. The officials didn’t come to the hearing.

2) “We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.”

3) “The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state.”

Watch it:
transcript here

[soothsayer]

4. Hard to know what's posturing, and what's real. No troops, no $$

to go into a HUGE and difficult place like Iran and try to take them over or whatever the plan is.

[bemildred]

5. Yeah, don't doubt it.

Been going on for some time I think. That is a different thing altogether from a concerted bombing attack.

[cliss]

6. The US has a rather big toolbox.

I'd say the Tools of the Trade are a very wide range of options. You can -

threaten a country, bang on the war drums 24/7
infiltrate a country, fix their elections
infiltrate, just for the hell of it, cause unrest
install your own dictator, hope for the best
torture people
get up in front of the UN make lots of speeches
bribe people
bribe & kill people
bribe, kill & threaten people, make alliances with tribal leaders
hold out foreign aid as a carrot
withdraw foreign aid as a stick
have the World Bank give loans, use them as a bludgeon against country

The list goes on and on.

[bemildred]

7. It's good to have choices I suppose.

This one is fairly good on why we won't attack Iran too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x236546