Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian

[FONT=Book Antiqua]George Bush, right, with Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice
While Dick Cheney, left, favours military threats, Condoleezza Rice, centre, prefers diplomacy. George Bush, right, has sided with Cheney. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP


The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

Article continues
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.[/font]

This will not happen, only WWIII may be.....and also BushCo. are just screaming this from the rooftops....he's a such a weak and pathetic leader though that he can't sell this to the public........Man, Iraq has shown the US public(some) that Isreali interest is way advanced in this country than theirsss.....

And by the way, those wanting war with Iran are the same as those who started the Iraq War, allmost all them where under the AIPAC(Jewish Lobby) in the US....and now they have another heavyweight.....Jew Sen. Joe Lieberman..who just was in TV and said "the United States should be prepared to take aggressive military action against Iran."..........


This is all about Isreal....

I'd say let them go for it because they haven't resolved the situation in Aghanistan or Iraq and adding Iran to the list will makes things even worse for the US than they are now.

I would say go for it and let the Neocons screw themselves further into the ground.

Look at the big picture Huzzah if we get dragged into another war, Russia and China may strike and your country and everyone else in the NATO pact would be dragged into this as well.

If the US can attack Iran for "violating" its self imposed nuclear laws, what would stop it from doing the same to China or Russia with the other countries backing them up?

If I was a Chinese or Russian gov't leader, if the US attacked Iran, I think that now militarily would be the time to strike the US fast, hard, and ruthlessly. We are spread thin by two wars, our resources are scattered, our tropps are battle fatigued, and our leadership has proven to be incompetent at best.

The US would threaten to use nukes (being that we are the only country to use nukes during war) because of the lack of trained personnel, so the NATO countries would have to step into the skirmish.

Also, look at how much oil would be under US control if we actually attacked and defeated well destabilized Iran........ China and Russia, especially China in its economic resurgence cannot afford to allow us to dominate the region like that.....

I guess we have to stop this fool this time before he kills millions.........

Well GWB is definitely stupid but it would be nice to know what is going on with the people who think they can manipulate him.

Sometimes I think they just want to maximize chaos so they can be on top of it.

umbra

A conventional war with Iran would anything but a skirmish.

Invading Iraq was like taking candy from a child. We took Baghdad in three weeks, having invaded a country the size of France at the cost of less than 300 troops. The damage done by the first Gulf war, relentless bombing and sanctions, had crippled Saddam's ability to organise even minor resistance.

Iran is a different kettle of fish.

When Saddam launched a full-scale invasion of Iran in the early 1980's, the world's military experts thought it would be over in a matter of weeks. At that time, Saddam had one of the largest armies in the world. He had some of the latest tanks, rockets and aircraft (ironically provided by the USA). But the Iranians fought back against all the odds. After eight years of merciless warfare, the two sides had fought eachother to a standstill.

Today, Iran's population and military are far larger than Iraq's. She has sophisticated weapons and modern fighter jets (provided by the French and Russians). Also, Iran's soldiers are far more loyal to their military leadership than their Iraqi counterparts were. Iranian officers - who are mainly in their 40's and 50's - have battle experience from the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. Their casualty levels were horrendous - yet they kept fighting. They would probably fight even harder against the Americans.

Iran has the resources, the military muscle, and the willpower to engage in a prolonged conventional conflict.

Attacking Iran now would prove suicidal for any Western politicians involved. Not only would the war be attrocious, but the Iranian leadership would order sponsored terrorist organisations throughout the Middle-East (e.g Hizbollah) to launch attacks on Western interests.

It's not an option.

I'd love to see Uncle SAM invade Iran. You wouldn't need to go to the cinema to enjoy action flicks, you could just turn on the six o'clock news.

Man, that'd be so sweet. Whilst they're at it, why not hit the ruskies, too? Those vladivostocks not only killed a man with RADIATION in London, but they pulled out of the weapons treaty. They are asking for it.

I really was not even considering the Iranian army a major threat to be honest with you. I was looking at the other superpowers that are opposing us at the UN.

The US would easily win a conventional war with Iran. They know it, we know it, and the world knows it.

The Iranian pres is just shouting out the american body count would be higher because he knows it will get to the average american that does not want to lose 1 person for every 1,000 dead Iranian.

You are forgetting one thing. We have a huge navy that is in love with the Tomahawk and Cruise missles. Iran would be saturated with bombs like Iraq was back in the 90s for at least a month or two. Remember at the time Iraq was the premier super power in the region and we decimated them. Iraq had our weapons the same technology and all. Plus the Soviet MiG is not the super fighter that it once was and the french jets are 80s models and stolen US planes. So if the Iranians could not stand up to Iraqis using 10 year old American battle technology at the time, I doubt they have anything to detect stealth bombers, and the little plane they fly NAP O.T.E. which also bombs as well.

Iran knows it cannot stand an onslaught like this and do not want to lose their government because instability like iraq would cause their leaders to lose out on this just as much as the US. All of the so called terrorists as people lump them do not see eye to eye on the same thing and are actually waging war against each other in some places. The US is just the bigger threat to them all when they enter the region is all.

Iran thinks that the US will charge first, but like Iraq back in the 90s, their power plants will be hit, airports will have holes in the runways, planes will be attacked on the ground, etc.

The problem is that people forget that the US is a great aggressor when it comes to attacking to crush. The US is great at that. The US runs into problems when it is attacking to occupy.

This war will be like the first iraqi war where the US does not go all the way into the capital so they will not have to incur heavy casualties. just gain enough ground to show dominance, cripple, and to inflict more damage with heavy artillery.

This is why I said the conflict could grow larger than UsvIran. Russia knows that iran would not stand a chance no matter how much rhetoric they put out. With iran being a huge supplier of fuel to them, Russia would have to intervene at some point to protect their own interests.

Many of the Iran-iraq wars/battles were fought with US and Russian "advisors" So this war was a testing ground for cold war battle strategies using these two as pawns.

China even though she is not a Russian ally would have to form the alliance with them as well because this may be their only chance to strike a deep wound to a weary giant.

If I were either of those two, I would strike now, if the US attacked Iran. Not that I am cheering for anyone because as an African American, I know that this means a possible draft for a lot of my brothers to fight against an enemy that has done nothing to us or go to jail and possibly be executed (legally you can) for refusing to fight.

African Britons would possibly have to face this as well because Britain would have to get involved because of the NATO pact.

That is why I keep saying that everyone all over the world should hope that US does not attack and cheer the possible US body count, because this one has the chance of dragging many Africans in the diaspora into something that none of us really want to be involved in.

Safety, I think the world needs World War III. Sort the men from the boys, once again.

Saying that though,when it kicks off, I'll be in little boat rowing towards some quiet African cove.

I think I'll wait it out in the wilderness.

We don't need another war period. As usual I am sure Africa will become involved in this somehow. LOL

Every other European mass war of the past century was fought some in Africa as well. I am sure the only place you could hide would be Antartica....

Until the greenhouse effect from the detonation of a few nukes starts to melt the caps. it used to be that these fools could only kill soldiers less than 150 years ago.....

You could stage a picnic and watch the battle from afar or a hilltop without getting injured....

Now, you could be sitting in a village in Africa and get radiation poisoning from the fallout of two nations led by cowards fighting a war that you did not even know about.

It is almost scary that if anything were to jump off that the losing country would resort to launching a nuke.

I'm hoping no African country gets involved in a conflict like. You can see the big players are moving their chess pieces away from their homeland into Africa / Middle East.

One thing that pi**ed me off was when Al Queda bombed the Embassy in Kenya - that should never happend again. African leaders need to take a stand and say fight your own battles in your own countries.