A ray of hope on Iran? ...I don't know whether to believe this or not...¿?

[99th_Monkey]

I'd LOVE to believe this, that some actual thinking is going on regarding attacking Iran, and cooler heads are prevailing. Could this be true?
Anyone else have a take on this? :shrug:

************************************
US and Israel 'face up to' Iran bomb
telegraph.co.uk
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 4:35pm GMT 18/11/2007

America and Israel are secretly drawing up plans to deal with an Iran that has acquired nuclear weapons, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Teheran's two arch-foes are preparing for what they have long declared is an unacceptable scenario, as the prospects for air strikes to cripple Iran's nuclear network fade, and China and Russia undermine efforts to forge an international sanctions regime.

The United States and Israel are sticking publicly to their threats not to allow the Islamic Republic to develop an atomic bomb. But intelligence chiefs and military planners have given warning that Iran has done better at hiding and dispersing its nuclear facilities than previously assessed, this newspaper has been told.
advertisement

The revelations come as the United Nations nuclear watchdog has revealed that Iran has stepped up its production of enriched uranium, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tightens his grip on Teheran's nuclear programme by threatening domestic critics with treason charges.

Pentagon strategists are updating US deterrence policies for a future nuclear-armed Iran, even though — after the terrorist attack on New York and Washington in 2001 — the Bush administration put a policy of pre-emptive military action at the heart of national security policy.

"The more they looked at the intelligence and the information they had, the more pessimistic they have become about what could be achieved on the operational front by military action," said Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/18/wiran118.xml

[Basileus Basileon]

1. It's no more "good news" than

American military plans for an airstrike are "bad news." We find that there is a possibility that war will occur, so we plan for it. We find that there is a possibility of an Iranian nuke, so we plan for it.

You know, planning for all contingencies. It's what we were angry that Bush didn't do after the fall of Baghdad.

As for the strike being found unfeasible? That's good news, sort of, but I doubt it's anything that wasn't known in the Pentagon months ago.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Well, I know CENTCOM Commander Fallon has said "not on my watch"

AND I also know Cheney et. al. have been beating their war drums non-stop. Clearly there's something in play here.

I also know Petraeus just came back to DC for a week to lead the committee selecting new Generals, so there's that too.

It would appear there's a quiet mutiny among the current Generals & Joint Chiefs, and I hope they continue to stand their
ground. The last thing we need is a new war to further weaken and abuse our military.

[HuffleClaw]

2. the professionals have become 'more pessimistic' the administration sure as hell hasn't

and we've all seen how the administration treats those professionals who dare to oppose their aims. they WILL have their war with iran, its only a matter of time.

[1corona4u]

3. And what's worse...

I don't buy the whole story. Bush has had it in for Iran since we went into Afghanistan. In short, Iran helped the US to get the Taliban. After they fell, Bush told the Iranians that he knew they were hiding OBL's brother. They insisted that they didn't have him, Bush insisted they did. So they stopped talking and 2 days later Bush added Iran to the "axis of evil".

If you all have not watched either of these 2 PBS docu's, you really should;
(about Iran)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/

(about Cheney, and inventing new laws for Bush)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

[99th_Monkey]

6. thanks. got them bookmarked now, for later. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

5. Petraeus hand-picking a new crop of Generals as we speak.

Petraeus Helping Pick New Generals
Army Says Innovation Will Be Rewarded

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A01

The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus's conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602258.html?hpid=topnews

[AndyTiedye]

7. Looking for Generals That Will Say "Yes Sir" When Bush** Orders them to Attack Iran

[HuffleClaw]

10. a purge?

meep

[mmonk]

8. All papers are coming out with Iran as enriching uranium

at a speed enough to have a bomb in a year. Not really sure it is true. The problem being of course, that lies have carried the day before and have not been dealt with. When there is a mix of truth and a mix of falsehoods, we are in trouble as a people. You don't know when and how much you are being manipulated. If Iran does have nuclear capability, we won't attack (I thought I would add).

[99th_Monkey]

9. If you believe Cheney, Iran's 1-2 years away from a nuke. If you believe

professional experts it's more like 10 years. I'm going with the latter.

[HuffleClaw]

11. the papers are parroting bush lies and as usual ignoring the truth

the IAEA only seems to be treated with respect by 'other than american' media.