New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What's next in Iran?

PhilFish

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Given the rhetoric, recent hype, and actions within the mediterranean...what's your thought on the next 'step' as relates Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons vs actions taken by the rest of the world...

I think Isreal will be the first to act (perhaps covertly) in an attempt to curb development by striking against facilities...sanctions will continue..
 
PhilFish said:
Given the rhetoric, recent hype, and actions within the mediterranean...what's your thought on the next 'step' as relates Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons vs actions taken by the rest of the world...

I think Isreal will be the first to act (perhaps covertly) in an attempt to curb development by striking against facilities...sanctions will continue..
Click to expand...



Here's what the administration is saying:



(CBS News)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta outlined some red lines when it comes to Iran in an interview on "Face the Nation" Sunday, saying the U.S. would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or to block the Strait of Hormuz, which is a key passageway for oil from the Middle East.

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us," Panetta told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer. "And our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."

Panetta also said that the U.S. would "not tolerate" the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.

"That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them," he added.





Whether or not that is tough talk or they mean what they say is yet to be seen. It does not seem likely that sanctions alone will deter Iran from their nuclear ambitions.
 
I think witnessing the "Arab Spring" will have more effect on them than threats of air strikes.

I don't think their citizens really want nuclear weapons. The disconnect between the people and their leaders' objectives is no greater anywhere than in Iran. The Iranian people do not want to annihilate Israel. They want blue jeans, McDonalds and Wal-Mart.
 
zzigzzag said:
I think witnessing the "Arab Spring" will have more effect on them than threats of air strikes.

I don't think their citizens really want nuclear weapons. The disconnect between the people and their leaders' objectives is no greater anywhere than in Iran. The Iranian people do not want to annihilate Israel. They want blue jeans, McDonalds and Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...


Which means the Iranian LEADERS will use such air strikes to distract them from those desires for jeans and Wal-Mart, to blunt any opposition to the leaders.

So what's the Right's answer?.....give the Iranian leaders what they want.
 
"So what's the Right's answer?.....give the Iranian leaders what they want."

Reagan surely did. They wanted weapons for hostages and he bowed to their demand.

Carter surely did not. Carter won that one with zero concessions and all hostages returned safely.

But Reagan was the tough guy in the eyes of cons. What a stupid notion. He'd have needed a stepladder to kiss Carter's ass when it came to being tough.
 
The original post asked a serious question: What's next in Iran. Rather than simply bashing the right with revisionist history, do you actually have a serious, thoughtful reply? What do you think those actually in power at this moment are likely to do? What should they do?
 
PhilFish said:
Given the rhetoric, recent hype, and actions within the mediterranean...what's your thought on the next 'step' as relates Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons vs actions taken by the rest of the world...

I think Isreal will be the first to act (perhaps covertly) in an attempt to curb development by striking against facilities...sanctions will continue..
Click to expand...

Evidence suggests Israel already is trying to covertly curb Iranian nuclear ambitions, so the next escalation would naturally be military action, but short of launching its own nukes and obliterating Iran, Israel has no course that can definitively stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons in the future.

An Israeli military strike isn't going to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, so why do it?
 
What do you think those actually in power at this moment are likely to do? What should they do?

This is your second post without offering an opinion on those pressing questions. Guess it's a rule you've made just for others. Since my first post did, I think I'll go with the evolving conversation rather than your limpid effort to stifle it.

Back up your baseless accusation. What did I "revise"?
 
They'll allow monitoring of their nuclear program or they'll get it blowed up by Israel while we mildly chastise them for it. I think they'll go for door #1. It's already cracked open and they're peeking out.

Someone really think there's a third possibility?
 
if another couple three scientists mysteriously die..or overtly blow up.... same for a research institution or two.. Perhaps this pushes the 'what should we do militarily' discussion a bit further down the road?
 
...pf, that avatar is AWESOME - you 'da man!

...as for Iran, it is a really tough read. If the financial community can pull off cutting them out from the SWIFT money transfer system, their economy will be toast, which is almost is already. I see their recent set of actions as trying to goad the west into attacking them. Covert is the best way to deal with them from my perspective, at least until they do something really desperate, which if they do, you need to bomb them back into the 6th century...
 
I believe Zam produced an interesting quote from Panetta....

"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us," Panetta told.....

It was just announced that BeeBee will be meeting with O at the WH on 3/5. I will guess that Panetta's statement is laying out Obama's position - Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon therefore there is no rush to attack Iran. This coincides with another article where both the US and Britain are urging Israel to hold off and allow sanctions to work.

I intend to pay close attention to the feed back after this WH meeting.

But I am also pretty sure that Israel does not necessarily need the US to accomplish an attack. There have been a number of innocuous statements made by a number of higher echelon political figures that imply many countries in the ME are most unhappy with both Iran and Syria to the point that they are willing to assist Israel in any number of ways.

All things considered, particularly the unrest in both Syria and Iran, it could be considered that the next few months might be the best time to attack, if that's the direction Israel plans to go.
 
A/ ZZ you missed out the link - http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/16/panetta-iran-is-not-developing-nuclear-weapons/

B/ You missed out the opening paras.

Never mind, I'll help you out:

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that Iran is enriching uranium in a peaceful nuclear program but that Tehran has not decided to develop an atomic bomb.

Top U.S. military and intelligence officials gave separate testimonies in congressional hearings on Thursday regarding Iran, and while they all reiterated the consensus that Iran’s nuclear program is purely civilian in nature, they also kept up the tough talk, hoping to satisfy hawks eager to preemptively strike Iran."

If, as it seems, it is well known that Iran isn't trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme, why all the bloody noise and sactions?
 
Hmmmm, ZZ, what do you think that the IAEA is already doing in Iran? I'll tell ya; they are monitoring Irans' quite legal civilian nuclear power programme - they aren't monitoring Irans' military nuclear power programme because, so far, there isn't one.

The idiots, in Israel, seem to have convinced themselves that they can attack Iran and, that Iran won't retaliate. Imho, Iran will retaliate. Then Israel will go screeching to hector protector yankee doodle that those filthy Irans attacked poor defenceless, 200 plus nukes, Israel, for no reason at all.

Yankee doodle will get all puffed up and rush to the defence of the worlds' most moral, and peace loving country -no, not Iran, silly - Then, you have China, and Pakistan, who have stated that if Iran gets attacked that they will intervene, the possibility exists that Russia will join them. Even India might join in, after all, they get a big whack of their oil from Iran. WW III anybody?
 
zzigzzag said:
What do you think those actually in power at this moment are likely to do? What should they do?

This is your second post without offering an opinion on those pressing questions. Guess it's a rule you've made just for others. Since my first post did, I think I'll go with the evolving conversation rather than your limpid effort to stifle it.

Back up your baseless accusation. What did I "revise"?
Click to expand...



My personal belief is that Mr. Panetta, who is in a far better to know than you or I, is likely accurate in his assessment, and that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a "red line" for us that we must respond to. Do you agree or do you think the administration is wrong?
 
Zam-Zam said:
My personal belief is that Mr. Panetta, who is in a far better to know than you or I, is likely accurate in his assessment, and that Iran becoming a nuclear power is a "red line" for us that we must respond to. Do you agree or do you think the administration is wrong?
Click to expand...

That "red line" is theoretical and does not actually exist thus far. Still, I guess it's fun for some folks to fantasize about war? That is, if you've got nothing better to do with your life.
 
NightSwimmer said:
That "red line" is theoretical and does not actually exist thus far. Still, I guess it's fun for some folks to fantasize about war? That is, if you've got nothing better to do with your life.
Click to expand...



So you think Panetta is wrong?

You seem uncomfortable with the subject........
 
If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon why the hell should anyone attack them? Why are they even under sanctions?
 
Zam,If you had included the beginning Wulk posted you would have a better discussion.As it is you are playing right into the hands of Israel,the sickening leaders they now have trying to lead us up to another war.
The American people do not want another war.Obama and Panetta know that. Panetta is one smart man.the post that Wulk posted show that he knows what Iran is doing.He also knows the war mongers among us.


Like McCain going on television and demanding we arm the Syrians. He is an embittered old man who should shuffle off the Senate floor and shut up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top