"Secret Team" planning Iran strike

[Bill]

It's real secret! Shhhhhhh!

"Checkmate’s job is to add a dash of brilliance to Air Force thinking by countering the military’s tendency to “fight the last war” and by providing innovative strategies for warfighting and assessing future needs for air, space and cyberwarfare.

It is led by Brigadier-General Lawrence “Stutz” Stutzriem, who is considered one of the brightest air force generals. He is assisted by Dr Lani Kass, a former Israeli military officer and expert on cyberwarfare.

The failure of United Nations sanctions to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which Tehran claims are peaceful, is giving rise to an intense debate about the likelihood of military strikes.

Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said last week that it was “necessary to prepare for the worst . . . and the worst is war”. He later qualified his remarks, saying he wanted to avoid that outcome.

France has joined America in pushing for a tough third sanctions resolution against Iran at the UN security council but is meeting strong resistance from China and Russia. Britain has been doing its best to bridge the gap, but it is increasingly likely that new sanctions will be implemented by a US-led “coalition of the willing”. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece?123

Fingers crossed, folks. If we're lucky, war will spread.

[radioguy]

I hope the Iran backs down, but I don't hold out much hope of that. I think that countries like France, Germany and Israel need to take charge of this situation and we need to sit this one out. I mean they are the ones at risk if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon. If we were directly threatened by Iran developing nukes, it would be a different story.

In my opinion, we should pledge our support if some country decides to take military action, and possibly lend some logistic assistance in the event that an attack does take place, but not get directly involved in any military action against Iran.

[Bill]

Wow. Reason. Cool.

I didn't know you had it in you, radioguy.

If Iran attacks, then counterattack is reasonable.

[Linkster]

The problem, I believe anyway, is that when their president comes here and speaks at the UN he will be diplomatic about it in the worlds eyes - of course unless he gets mistranslated again
At home he is trying to maintain his power (which isnt much really) and has to try to look powerful to certain factions in Iran or they will simply replace him. The people of Iran are extremely dissatisfied with him right now although he was the better of the two choices in 2005 - the other was an extremist.
I tryuly believe that if the US govt will open their arms to him and respond to his attempts to have a discourse, this whole issue will go away and even help in Iraq in the long run - but right now I dont think that would bode well with Bush as it would make him look like a weaker person to that 30% group that he's trying to hang on to for the elections for his party

[Moby]

I tryuly believe that if the US govt will open their arms to him and respond to his attempts to have a discourse, this whole issue will go away and even help in Iraq in the long run - but right now I dont think that would bode well with Bush as it would make him look like a weaker person to that 30% group that he's trying to hang on to for the elections for his party
I agree with you totally. Dubya had to make lots of strong words calling people "Evil" to win a majority vote in this country. He couldn't have done it without hate. Ahmadinejad needs to garner the same level of hate to keep himself in power so verbally attacking the Jews was his way of doing what Dubya did.

The real problem is that Iraq was originally given weapons to keep Iran quite. Now that we've removed Saddam Iran is free to make noise. Also since Cheney implemented his Energy Policy obscene amounts of money have been flowing into Iran.

You basically have a rich gang leader that's now the only bully on the block. He can't back down. The only way to get him to roll over and play nice is show him some respect but we're acting too immature for that.

Of course all this hostility is good for oil prices so I don't there is a desire for the tension to go away.

[TheCenturion]

I hope the Iran backs down, but I don't hold out much hope of that. I think that countries like France, Germany and Israel need to take charge of this situation and we need to sit this one out. I mean they are the ones at risk if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon. If we were directly threatened by Iran developing nukes, it would be a different story.

In my opinion, we should pledge our support if some country decides to take military action, and possibly lend some logistic assistance in the event that an attack does take place, but not get directly involved in any military action against Iran.

Hmmm. Now that's a revealing perspective. Tell us then: If Iran's development of nukes wouldn't directly threaten us, then why did we bother squandering $500 billion and counting, 4000 American lives and counting, 20,000 maimed soldiers and counting, and the lives of over 100,000 Iraqis to keep Saddam - our erstwhile ally with far fewer military resources than Iran's - from acquiring the same thing?

[Linkster]

SirMoby - the only thing I wonder about is that Iran really isnt affected by the oil prices that much since it sells most of its oil to Russia and China - and they dont pay anywhere near what the US has to pay I dont believe

[Marlboro]

Wow. Reason. Cool.

I didn't know you had it in you, radioguy.

If Iran attacks, then counterattack is reasonable.

Right on !!

[Smurf-Herder]

The problem, I believe anyway, is that when their president comes here and speaks at the UN he will be diplomatic about it in the worlds eyes - of course unless he gets mistranslated again


I want to see the correct translations you must have, to be able to accuse everybody, including Aljazeera, of misquoting him, because he was mistranslated.

[Linkster]

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/ahmadinejad-we-are-not-threat-to-any.html

I figured Id pick one done by someone who is not leaning to either side left or right and is well respected throughout the community

You have to remember that even al jazeera just publishes stuff off the wires - and those are run by a very select group of censors so you wont see everything on major news networks

[Smurf-Herder]

http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/ahmadinejad-we-are-not-threat-to-any.html

I figured Id pick one done by someone who is not leaning to either side left or right and is well respected throughout the community

You have to remember that even al jazeera just publishes stuff off the wires - and those are run by a very select group of censors so you wont see everything on major news networks

Somehow this one guy's comments don't seem to stand the test of diffusing two years worth of Ahmenijad's comments, for me. It sure as hell doesn't give a word for word translation of all his speeches when he talked specifically of Israel's destruction.

And I'm sorry, but I can't believe that Aljazeera, with their credibility in the region, would not make a point of correctly translating something so extreme coming from the President of Iran.