Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (192827)	1/13/2007 10:53:15 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793743

I think the way to put is whether we err on the side of caution by taking out their nukes, or at least slowing their progress substantially, or do we accept a very dangerous future status quo which will inevitably result in the wholesale nuclearization of the ME because Sunni Saudi Arabia will acquire them (as will perhaps others) in response to Shia Iran's acquisition. Can we accept the nuclearization of the Muslim ME in view of the nature of its leadership and Iran's professed goal of destroying Israel? That is the real question, in my view. It is not limited solely to Iran though it is the most immediate problem. What will happen to oil supplies in the event of a nuclearized ME? Is the economic policy against Iran which Bush is pursuing prompting the MadMullahs into a more difficult negotiating posture vis-a-vis nukes? Have Ahmadinejad's provocations put the Iranians in a collision course with the US and Israel from which they cannot retreat? I'm asking all these questions, which are incredibly difficult to answer, to point out that there are no easy answers. Bush, however, is a fan of simple and direct responses. My guess, nonetheless, is that his penchant for simple and direct responses has been tempered by the Iraq experience and by the difficulties presented by Iran's pending nuclearization. My guess, therefore, FWIW, is that the most seriously threatened state, Israel, will take the lead in attacking Iran's nukes as they present a threat it cannot ignore. We'll probably follow and assist. All hell will break loose. But not now and probably not within the next six months. In the meantime, the economic impact of cheaper oil will be felt in a resurgent stock market, lower interest rates, etc.

To: LindyBill who wrote (192827)	1/14/2007 8:09:12 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793743

The Administration is apparently talking softly re: Iran: latimes.com iraq13jan13,0,1284559.story?track=mostviewed-homepage White House softens Iran tone The administration tries to assure the public and lawmakers that it isn't planning a second war in the Middle East. By Julian E. Barnes and Solomon Moore, Times Staff Writers January 13, 2007 WASHINGTON — The Bush administration sought to assure lawmakers and the public Friday that despite harsh new rhetoric, it did not intend to go to war with Iran, even as U.S. sources charged that Iranians captured in Irbil, Iraq, were suspected members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. President Bush accused Iran in a speech this week of helping launch attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. His remarks were followed by combative comments from his top war advisors, new moves by U.S. naval forces and a raid Thursday in the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil. The administration moved Friday to defuse concerns that it was planning or inviting a confrontation with Tehran. At a news conference, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow dismissed as an "urban legend" suggestions that the United States was preparing for another war. Similar denials were issued by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But other U.S. officials pressed the case that the Islamic Republic was helping foment violence in neighboring Iraq. One Western official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, charged that the Iranians captured in Irbil were suspected members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and were suspected of involvement in bomb smuggling. The raid followed another U.S. operation last month in Baghdad that netted several high-level members of the Quds Force, an elite intelligence and special operations group within the Revolutionary Guards, who were involved in transferring Iranian explosives to Shiite militias in Iraq, the source said. Iraqi officials say the building raided Thursday was a long-standing Iranian liaison office. The Kurdistan government said it was a consulate and called for the U.S. to immediately release the detainees, who it said were protected by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. But Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. Army spokesman, said that it was not an accredited consulate and that the officials did not identify themselves as diplomats or have diplomatic credentials when detained. Although witnesses reported gunfire, Garver said the soldiers used only nonlethal concussion grenades to force the Iranians from the building. They surrendered without incident, he said. "The operation was conducted without a single shot," Garver said. He declined to say where in Iraq the Iranians were being held. U.S. officials said both raids were intended to disrupt Iranian interference in Iraq. The Revolutionary Guards have been linked to transfers of Iranian-made bombs that are designed to focus a cone of concussive force so powerful that it can punch through a tank. Increasing numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq are being killed by the bombs, particularly in Diyala, Kirkuk, Baghdad and other areas where Shiite militias have a strong presence, commanders say. U.S. officials believe the Quds Force is in control of elements of two powerful Shiite paramilitary organizations, the Badr Brigade and the Al Mahdi army. In his national address Wednesday, Bush accused Iran of providing "material support" for attacks against U.S. troops. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," he said. "We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." His comments were part of his new strategy on Iraq, a plan to add 21,500 U.S. troops that was unveiled to widespread opposition. He announced he was moving a second aircraft carrier group into the Persian Gulf and pledged to stop the attacks and Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq. Military officials also had announced plans to send Patriot missile batteries to the gulf region. At a hearing Thursday in Washington, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whether Bush "has plans to cross the Syrian and-or Iranian border." Rice did not answer directly. "Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq," she told Biden. Speaking to reporters Friday on her plane at the beginning of a trip to the Middle East and Europe, Rice said Friday that the United States would find ways to "adjust over time" to any difficulties in its new plan for Iraq. Aides said during a fuel stop in Shannon, Ireland, that the raids against Iranian targets were not separately authorized by the president but were authorized under a decision made several months ago about how to approach Iranian influence in Iraq. Congress showed concern over what could happen. "Now we see the specter of a new war front in Iran," said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said an administration move against Iran would be reminiscent of the secretive U.S. incursion into Cambodia in 1970 under the Nixon administration. After the criticism, Snow tried to temper the administration's rhetoric by emphasizing that war preparations were not underway for Iran or Syria. At a meeting Friday of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) evoked Vietnam and again asked whether U.S. forces intended to cross into Iran in pursuit of the Iranian networks. Gates and Pace said U.S. military forces in Iraq would not enter Iranian territory. But both Gates and Pace emphasized that they believed Iranians were responsible for the deaths of American troops.