Israel, U.S. military at odds over strategy with Iran

Israeli officials find themselves in a bit of a dilemma. If international sanctions fail to halt Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, as seems likely, Israel sees military action as a necessity. But the United States is making it clear that at least for the short term, it will not take such a step and strongly opposes such action by Israel as well.

The Jerusalem Post quotes U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy to that effect from a press briefing today in Singapore.

“Military force is an option of last resort,” Flournoy said, echoing earlier statements by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. “It’s off the table in the near term.”

Kim Ghattas of the BBC takes that a step further, noting testimony before Congress last week by Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the joint chiefs. In effect, Ghattas writes, Cartwright told Congress that “If Iran decides to go for nuclear weapons, the US may not be able to permanently stop this from happening unless it is willing to occupy the country.”

“Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, then asked Gen Cartwright whether the “military approach was a magic wand”.

Gen Cartwright, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged it was not, adding that military action alone was unlikely to be decisive.

Senator Reed prodded further, getting the general to agree that a military strike would only delay Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon if Tehran decided to go nuclear.

The senator then went further, asking whether the only way to absolutely end any potential Iranian nuclear weapon programme “was to physically occupy their country and disestablish their nuclear facilities?”

The general answered: “Absent some other unknown calculus that would go on, that’s a fair conclusion.”

So if the United States takes military action off the table, will Israel act on its own? As the Wall Street Journal reports (subsc. req.), that’s a difficult calculus problem:

More worrying to Israeli strategic planners examining possible attack scenarios is the possibility that Iran would respond to an Israeli attack by ramping up support to groups battling U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to recently retired officials familiar with the military’s thinking on Iran. If American soldiers start dying in greater numbers as a result of an Israeli unilateral attack, Americans could turn against Israel.

Iran could also disrupt the world’s oil supply by cutting off exports through the Persian Gulf, roiling international oil markets.

“What will Americans say if Israel drags the U.S. into a war it didn’t want, or when they are suddenly paying $10 a gallon for gasoline and Israel is the reason for it,” says retired Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, former director of the Israeli army’s Strategic Planning Division.

Martin Indyk, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Clinton, puts Israel’s predicament in blunt terms, as the Israel newspaper Haaretz reports:

In an interview with Army Radio, Indyk said that if Israel sees itself as a superpower that does not need any aid from the United States, then it can make its own decisions. However “if you need the United States, then you need to take into account America’s interests,” said Indyk.

Indyk, who is currently the vice president and director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, and also serves as an adviser to Mideast envoy George Mitchell, emphasized these interests in a New York Times op-ed published on Monday.

“This is no longer just about helping a special ally resolve a debilitating problem. With 200,000 American troops committed to two wars in the greater Middle East and the U.S. president leading a major international effort to block Iran’s nuclear program, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a U.S. strategic imperative,” wrote Indyk.

“Given Israel’s dependence on the United States to counter the threat from Iran and to prevent its own international isolation, an Israeli prime minister would surely want to bridge the growing divide. Yet the shift in American perceptions seems to have gone unnoticed in Jerusalem,” he continued.

“The shift in America’s Middle East interests means that Netanyahu must make a choice: Take on the president of the United States, or take on his right wing. If he continues to defer to those ministers in his cabinet who oppose peacemaking, the consequences for US-Israel relations could be dire,” wrote Indyk in the New York Times article.”

While the Obama administration is clearly taking a tougher stance toward Israel, the strongest U.S. opposition to an attack on Iran continues to come from within the Pentagon. It was the Pentagon that blunted efforts by Vice President Dick Cheney to force military action during the Bush administration, and its position hasn’t changed with a change of administration. Any attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel, the United States or both, would be an act of war with unknown consequences that the U.S. military would be forced to handle.

Stretched to its limits already by two long wars, with its supply lines in the region exposed, the U.S. military wants nothing to do with that assignment.

232 comments Add your comment

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:05 am

“The strongest American opposition to an attack on Iran clearly comes from within the Pentagon. It was the Pentagon that blunted efforts by Vice President Dick Cheney to force military action during the Bush administration, and its position hasn’t changed with a change of administration. Any attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel, the United States or both, would be an act of war with unknown consequences that the U.S. military would be forced to handle. ”

Jay – can you please rerun this paragraph WHENEVER this topic comes up – it definitely bears repeating that the MILITARY doesn’t think a military solution is optimal.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:06 am

ooooooooooo … firsties.

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:10 am

Stretched to its limits already by two long wars, with its supply lines in the region exposed, the U.S. military wants nothing to do with that assignment.

I think the US is already taking on Iran. If you look at a map of the ME, the US pretty much has Iran surrounded either by our presence in countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) or with allies (Turkey and Pakistan). There’s already proof of Iranian influence with the insurgencies of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Russia invaded Mexico and Canada and had troops and equipment on the ground, don’t you think the US would support insurgencies in both countries? We’re already fighting Iran but just don’t have the will to say so.

Chris

April 21st, 2010
10:13 am

If I were a either an pre-adolescent or a neo-con, I’d say the consequences be damned, let’s go. Fortunately, neither are running the country anymore.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
10:14 am

Congrats – USinUK….

“It was the Pentagon that blunted efforts by Vice President Dick Cheney to force military action during the Bush administration, and its position hasn’t changed with a change of administration. Any attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel, the United States or both, would be an act of war with unknown consequences that the U.S. military would be forced to handle. ”

THIS STATEMENT IS PARAMOUNT for ALL Americans to know!! Chickenhawks make decisions without thinking of the consequences!!

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:15 am

The Strategy has always been to have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the coming Iraning war offensive.

We, Israel and other countries can deal with them now OR deal with a nuclear Iran. The clock is ticking…

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:17 am

Perhaps we could take those discarded, graffiti laden, vandalized Marta busses, trains fill them with the homeless and Jimmy Carter and drop them on Tehran.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:18 am

“Any attack on Iran, whether launched by Israel, the United States or both, would be an act of war with unknown consequences that the U.S. military would be forced to handle.”

Everybody sing! It’s the end of the world, as we know it, and I feel fine………

Well, that’s what it would be.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:19 am

USinUK,

Robert Gates seems to get it.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
10:19 am

SoCo — Good point and analysis!!

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:22 am

Pentagon and Gates = gets it.

OGK = doesn’t
(but he’s still family and we’ll keep him)

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:22 am

SoCo,

“We’re already fighting Iran but just don’t have the will to say so.”

Good point – I’m sure we’ve got a few Steve Austin’s in there. :-) I so hated that show.

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:22 am

Bosch

While singing, we should all wear mushroom cloud t-shirts to really make it right.

HDB

Thanks. It’s amazing how a little Southern Comfort will engage the brain cells. lol

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:23 am

USinUK,

“(but he’s still family and we’ll keep him)”

Yeah, Outhouse is like the weird uncle that you like, but he’s still weird as hell, and smells like feet.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:24 am

SoCo,

And hats! They’ll look like chef hats, only more screwed up!

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:24 am

Bosch

That was the best show ever (excluding The Incredible Hulk of course). I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that we don’t have eyes/ears in or above Iran at any given moment.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
10:24 am

“We, Israel and other countries can deal with them ”

Please tell us how YOU define “deal with”

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:25 am

Bosch @ 10:24

:lol:

jefferson

April 21st, 2010
10:25 am

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:26 am

I wonder how the ME nations and Pakistan/India feel about a Nuclear Iran? They do have a vested interest in this “game”.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
10:28 am

@ Southern Comfort – That’s cool…but either Courvosier or Patron work better for me!!! ;)

Mick

April 21st, 2010
10:30 am

One sure way that iran will get nukes is if it is attacked. We are stretched too thin and should get out of the hornets nest of afghanistan and iraq. Israel needs to come up with a strategy for today and the future, an attack guarantees destabilization for generations to come. Blowing things up in the short term might seem to be the answer but it is the long term and the unintended consequences that affect the israel and the US.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:30 am

SoCo –

“That was the best show ever (excluding The Incredible Hulk of course).”

good grief – if you threw Starsky and Hutch in there, I’d swear you are my husband.

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:30 am

Tough call. However they will have to be dealt with before or after the go nuclear. After we certainly would have our hands tied even more so than now.

Somehow the govt of Iran needs to be overthrown. Bring in the CIA, Mossaud etc…yet that doesnt seem to be working either but would probably be the best way to do it.

Also dropping the Homeless/JimmyCarter filled, vandalized busses/trains on them would no doubt scare the hell out of them yet I dont see it bringing them to the bargaining table or influencing them to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:30 am

Outhouse,

Of course they do, a hell of a lot more than us, and if they are concerned, let them be the ones to step up to the plate.

Paul

April 21st, 2010
10:31 am

[[Israel, U.S. military at odds over strategy with Iran]]

I believe the topic of the other day’s thread was that SecDef Gates warned the Administration ” the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.”

All this writing about military strikes are the contingencies of last resort if the Administration fails in its stated aims to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes.

The talk about occupying Iran is in response to permanently preventing Iran from obtaining nukes. It’s also the military’s warning of a worst-case scenario if the Administration continues without an effective policy. It is also a much different scenario than a delaying action – which is what other US contingencies are.

It’s been said that military action is what happens when politicians fail. So far, the Obama Administration is failing.

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:31 am

HDB

After seeing The Ladies Man with Tim Meadows, I have never looked at Courvosier in the same light as I did before.

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
10:31 am

Wow, the words “neo-con” and “chickenhawk” have been used, and neither by Amvet. Shocker!

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:31 am

SoCo and USinUK,

By the way, your names are hard to type – best show ever? Battlestar Galactica, duh!

Although, I did like the Starsky and Hutch – a whole lot. But that’s beside the point!

Scout

April 21st, 2010
10:32 am

None of us are privy to “Top Secret” meetings so what Jay or anyone else on here (including myself) opines about is pure speculation and/or drivel. However, as all of you know what the United States often says “officially” and what we say “privately” to Israel or anyone else are two different things …………… also known as “plausable denial”.

It’s just the real world.

Israel will do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. You can take THAT to the bank.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:32 am

Bosch – “Outhouse is like the weird uncle that you like, but he’s still weird as hell, and smells like feet.”

yerp … but he occasionally makes some salient points – and he has good taste in tunes …

(feel the love OKG!!!)

Kamchak

April 21st, 2010
10:33 am

Somehow the govt of Iran needs to be overthrown.

Oh yeah, since we’ve had so much success using that strategy for the last century. :roll:

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:34 am

UnU

That was one b!tchin’ El Camino they drove around in. The best part of that show was Huggy Bear though. Your husband sounds like a swell guy!!!

jefferson

April 21st, 2010
10:34 am

“Never try to teach a pig to sing”

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:35 am

Paul,

Obama fails when we storm the beaches of Iran.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:36 am

Wait a minute Scout, I thought you had top secret of the highest order inside info on everything! :roll:

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:36 am

Bosch – “By the way, your names are hard to type ” … funny you should say that … I was thinking last night about changing my name to something a little easier to shorthand … was thinking Red w/ Glasses, but not sure …

OGK – “Somehow the govt of Iran needs to be overthrown. Bring in the CIA, Mossaud etc…yet that doesnt seem to be working either but would probably be the best way to do it.”

good gawd, NO … it’s never worked out well for us in the past – we do NOT need to bring in that (losing) strategy ever. again.

Paul

April 21st, 2010
10:37 am

Bosch 10:31

If you need a refresher –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UtpFDHDfcQ

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
10:37 am

“Somehow the govt of Iran needs to be overthrown”
“However they will have to be dealt with ”

In other words…you don’t know what should be done, but SOMEONE should do SOMETHING.

Empty words.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:37 am

Kam – DAMMIT!!! you beat me to it (10:33)

SoCo – “Your husband sounds like a swell guy!!!” – yeah, he’s okay, even if he is a bit Rain Man when it comes to 1970 teevee …

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:38 am

Give it to me baby!

Paul

April 21st, 2010
10:39 am

Bosch

15 months in office.

Iran has publicly rebuffed the US at every turn.

The Obama Administration is failing now.

You don’t have to wait until you get a report card to know you’re failing the course.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
10:40 am

OGK – Look, we ALL can agree that a nuclear Iran is NOT in anyone’s interest. It’s already a bit crazy when the Hindus and the Muslims constantly threaten each other…..but the US does have a mediating voice there. The problem is is that the US caused the escalation of the Iranian problem over several Administrations. From 1953 until now…, American influence has caused the destabilization of Iran…..from the American support of the Shah….to the Arms for Hostages exchange….to support and arming of Saddam Hussien during the Iran/Iraq Crises……to the Gulf War…..to the arming of the Muhajaddin in Afghanistan during the Russian Invasion…..to the current invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan…..

As the store owners say…”You break it, you buy it!” We’ve bought this conflict…how say you we fix it???

Paul

April 21st, 2010
10:40 am

Outhouse

[[Somehow the govt of Iran needs to be overthrown. ]]

The Iranian people tried. Remember our President’s response?

That opportunity has passed.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:41 am

Paul – “Iran has publicly rebuffed the US at every turn.”

and they were so much better under the previous administrations…???

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
10:41 am

“You don’t have to wait until you get a report card to know you’re failing the course.”

Maybe not…but sometimes you can be failing all through the year, and then ace the end of year test and realize you learned more than you thought you did.

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:42 am

Paul – “The Iranian people tried. Remember our President’s response?”

yes, I do – it was the CORRECT response – if a new Iranian gov’t is to be formed, it CAN’T be seen as having the US pulling its strings …

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:43 am

oh, hey, Paul … off-topic, but here’s another bread recipe from you (from my newest kitchen crush, Nigel Slater)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/11/nigel-slater-spelt-bread-recipes

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:44 am

Correct I dont know which Option should be chosen but odds are this hot potato is gonna land in our laps. No doubt you, Dog, have some excellent idea!! Regale us wont you!?

JDW

April 21st, 2010
10:45 am

We have put ourselves in a pickle with Iran

The best thing we had going for us relative to Iran was Saddam, opps those darn unintended consequences again. Now there is really no regional power save Israel and that most certainly ends bad.

That means at the end of the day we really only have four choices:

1) Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead
2) Active Subversion
3) Russia and China…without their full support we will not be able to squeeze them enough to deliver any kind of results.
4) Flounder around and hope it turns out ok AKA just what we have been doing for the last 30 years or so.

Guy Incognito

April 21st, 2010
10:45 am

SC,

Wasn’t it a Gran’ Torino?

Israel will defend itself from the threat before the nose-cone is placed atop a rocket….my guess is sometime before 12-21-12

BTW……..That’s still some bad B.O.!

Kamchak

April 21st, 2010
10:46 am

USinUK

That point cannot be reiterated enough.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
10:46 am

“No doubt you, Dog, have some excellent idea!! Regale us wont you!?”

No, I don’t…but you don’t see me posting that “they should be dealt with” either, now do you? I prefer to leave that to the people closer to the pulse of what is happening over there.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
10:47 am

SoCo — that was a Ford Torino that they drove on Starsky & Hutch – 351 Cleveland V8 with a 4-spd Hurst shifter!! ….and step up to Courvosier NAPOLEON rather trhan the VSOP…youi’ll change your mind!!

Paul: the course still has a ways to run….you may be failing NOW, but you have time to correct the mistakes and pass…UNLESS a major crisis explodes the region into war….THEN a change in paradigm is required!! Right now..it’s an INCOMPLETE!!

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
10:49 am

Ah yes…it’s our fault. Maybe Israel should just bomb us then, seeing how we caused all this.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:51 am

Paul,

Thanks (sniff. sniff.)

But Jesus! 15 months in office and Obama is some kind of collosial failure with Iran because, OH NOES, the were all snarky with us? USinUK beat me to it (while I was watching the BSG clip – again, thanks). This is news to you?

Scout

April 21st, 2010
10:53 am

Bosch:

Not anymore. Even then it is always “compartmentalized”. As you may or may not know there are clearances higher than “just” Top Secret.

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:54 am

Well they are gonna have to be dealt with…thats fact. The only advantage to keeping ones head in the sand is their ass is the first to go.

Scout

April 21st, 2010
10:54 am

P.S. To Bosch:

Now do you want to discuss whether or not the U.S. could be saying one thing publicly and another to Israel privately?

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:54 am

Kam – you know, I’m trying to decide on my favorite of that genre and, I gotta be honest, for pure evil it’s gotta be a tie between Pinochet and Papa Doc Duvalier …

but, you know, we’ve already DONE a CIA overthrow in Iran with Mohammad Mosaddegh – been there, done that, got the t-shirt – still paying for it, in fact …

Southern Comfort

April 21st, 2010
10:54 am

My bad on the Gran Torino. Hard to remember things without coffee. I’m trying to cut back on my caffeine intake. I think I picked the wrong day to stop drinking coffee.

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
10:54 am

“Maybe Israel should just bomb us then, seeing how we caused all this.”

lolol!

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
10:55 am

ty – “Maybe Israel should just bomb us then, seeing how we caused all this.”

actually, blame britain. they really screwed the pooch in the middle east.

Paul

April 21st, 2010
10:56 am

USinUK 10:41

Pointing out to the class that your excuse for failing is that another group member is failing is lame when the objective is to turn things around and pass.

Pres Obama was not elected to continue the failures of the previous administration.

Doggone/GA

[[and then ace the end of year test and realize you learned more than you thought you did.]]

Such an action requires a change. So far we have not seen that.

USinUK

From the BBC:

” In his first comments on the situation, US President Barack Obama said he was “deeply troubled” by the violence in Iran.

He said he would continue pursuing tough dialogue with Iran.

“I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected.”

Some would say even that was attempting to pull strings and interfere. Others would say it was tepid.

Thanks for the recipe!

Main point: does the US NOT having an effective policy make it more or less likely Iran will continue its march to obtain nukes?

Latest Defense Itel Agency estimate put the time in the ballpark of the Bush Administration’s estimates, which the Obama Administration derided as alarmist when it canceled some missile defense programs.

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
10:57 am

Usinuk,
tell that to HDB.

Kamchak

April 21st, 2010
10:57 am

USinUK

Then there’s the whole karma thing—if it can be done by us, then it can be done to us.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
10:58 am

Scout,

What’s to discuss? I’m sure they probably are. It’s called diplomacy.

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
11:00 am

and 3…2…1…wait for it…wait for it… okay i’ll go ahead and say it, “inherited”.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:01 am

“Such an action requires a change. So far we have not seen that.”

Ok, so what “change” would you like to see?

“Main point: does the US NOT having an effective policy make it more or less likely Iran will continue its march to obtain nukes?”

to me…it doesn’t matter. Iran is going to do what it’s going to do, and the world will have to live with the results. Nuclear arms are not a good defense, and they are a pretty final offense. Right now they’re more of a “membership card” than anything else. Iran thinks it will get more respect if it’s a “member” of the nuclear states. That might very well turn out to be true, but I think the fuss about them giving nuclear weapons to radicals is all smoke and mirrors.

If they DO ever get a nuclear weapon, they’ll be very careful to keep it guarded, because you don’t willy nilly hand over your membership card in an exclusive club to just anybody – who would destroy your ability to remain a member of that club.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:02 am

“Why not try a batch of spelt rolls and fill them with a tasty mushroom stew”

My sentiments EXACTLY!!!

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:02 am

“if it can be done by us, then it can be done to us.”

or, as the Army puts it: if the enemy is in range, so are you

Scout

April 21st, 2010
11:04 am

Bosch:

Glad you agree but in this case it’s called “strategy” !

In other words, how can we help you (Israel) kick Iran’s a** while pretending to the world we don’t want you to.

Paul

April 21st, 2010
11:05 am

Bosch

Administration has lurched about with enticements, threats and reason to get Iran to alter course.

Iran has not only refused, they’ve very publicly rebuffed the world community.

That’s not snarky.

The Administration had not had ANY success with Iran.

That’s failure.

Oh – you’re welcome! :-)

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:06 am

Actually Paul, I think we have seen a change. Instead of our swaggering cowboy attitude, and testosterone filled back and forths we are taking them serious. Just because they haven’t laid down arms and become our buddies doesn’t mean we’ve failed. I mean, they ain’t got a bomb yet (although it’s stupid to think they won’t) and in the meantime, maybe they can work things out from within – which, in the Book of the Way Things Work According to Bosch, that’s the way it’s supposed to be!

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
11:06 am

“or, as the Army puts it: if the enemy is in range, so are you”

true enough.

there’s also the saying, “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”
I think the world would be better served if iran never upgrades ther arsenal from a “knife”.

md

April 21st, 2010
11:07 am

“Stretched to its limits already by two long wars, with its supply lines in the region exposed, the U.S. military wants nothing to do with that assignment.”

Which is shorthand for – Iran will have the bomb.

Which means Iran’s neighbors will then have to have one, so there goes nuclear containment.

And then we get to wait and see if a mad mullah – maybe the one that thinks promiscuous women cause earthquakes – decides to give nukes to homicide bombers waiting for the chance at the “big one”.

So much for Barry’s deadlines – they all came and went, and Iran marches on.

ty webb

April 21st, 2010
11:08 am

sorry, meant to say “their”.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:08 am

Scout,

“In other words, how can we help you (Israel) kick Iran’s a** while pretending to the world we don’t want you to.”

Magic. :-)

Seriously, I don’t think Israel wants to pick that fight either. And with the US backing down a bit, they’ll probably rethink it more.

Paul

April 21st, 2010
11:09 am

Doggone/GA

[[Ok, so what “change” would you like to see?]]

It’s not about me.

Pres Obama has stated America’s goals. I’m evaluating if his actions have shown any success, at all, in obtaining those goals.

“to me…it doesn’t matter. Iran is going to do what it’s going to do,”

Far enough. But that’s not the US position as stated by the President. That’s the point under discussion. If the Pres says “you know, nothing we can do will be effective, so Iran, go ahead and do what you want and I’ll give up trying to shape events to be in line with America’s strategic interests” then we’ll have a new topic.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:09 am

“The Administration had not had ANY success with Iran”

Do we take it then, that the only thing you will accept as “success” is that Iran stops their nuclear program? I don’t see any way to force that, except the USE of force.

md

April 21st, 2010
11:09 am

“If they DO ever get a nuclear weapon, they’ll be very careful to keep it guarded, because you don’t willy nilly hand over your membership card in an exclusive club to just anybody – who would destroy your ability to remain a member of that club.”

Only matters if their long term goal is to be a member of the club.

If their goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi……………..

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:10 am

Paul,

No, it’s not failure – if that’s the case, then the whole world has failed with Iran, and when that happens you gotta rethink your definition of “failure.”

Scout

April 21st, 2010
11:11 am

Bosch:

I hear you but must disagree.

Israel will do whatever it takes (remember the USS Liberty) to defend Israel. They will never allow Iran to have a first stike nuclear capability against them.

Scout

April 21st, 2010
11:11 am

Islamic Veils in France:

Where is N.O.W. when you need them ?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36686496/ns/world_news-europe/

Paul

April 21st, 2010
11:11 am

Bosch

”I think we have seen a change. Instead of our swaggering cowboy attitude, and testosterone filled back and forths we are taking them serious.”

That’s change in what we’re doing.

Hasn’t had any effect, at all, on what Iran’s doing. Some have made the case it has, in fact, accelerated Iran’s actions.

I kinda hope the mullahs read your book -

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:11 am

Paul,

I totally agree with Doggone,

“Do we take it then, that the only thing you will accept as “success” is that Iran stops their nuclear program?”

If that’s the only thing that will characterize success, then that’s just being a pessimist for pessimist’s sake.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:12 am

“I think the world would be better served if iran never upgrades ther arsenal from a “knife”.”

I think you should consider that THEY know that same phrase and are working on it. How would you propose we stop them from doing that upgrade? So far you’re in the “someone should do someting” group.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:13 am

“remember the USS Liberty”

Actually, no I don’t remember the USS Liberty – but wasn’t that something that happened like 50 years ago? I think the world has come a long way since then.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:14 am

“But that’s not the US position as stated by the President”

And sometimes goals have to change when they run up against the situation, which can change, in the real world.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:15 am

Well Paul! Damn! We can’t control what Iran does. And again, if that is the only way you’ll see success, then what else is there to say? Obama will fail, then the next guy, and so forth. Iran is getting the bomb – with a new member in the club, we have to make a seat at the round table.

HDB

April 21st, 2010
11:15 am

Ty — I knew that the partitioning of Palestine and greater influence in the Middle East was done by the British….and both they AND the US are complicit in the problems of the ME (and I DO thank USinUK for the enlightenment)….but the US DID throw a lot of money into the situation….and our ROI has been ZERO!!

Note (from Wikipedia): Kermit Roosevelt returned to Iran on 13 July 1953, and again on 1 August 1953, in his first meeting with the Shah. A car picked him up at midnight and drove him to the palace. He lay down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The Shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA provided $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe – a bulky cache, given the exchange rate at the time of 1000 rial to 15 dollars.

On 19 August 1953, pro-Shah partisans – organized with $100,000 in CIA funds – finally appeared and marched out of south Tehran into the city center, where others joined in.

Roosevelt gave Zahedi US$900,000 left from Operation Ajax funds.

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:16 am

“If their goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi……………..”

and do you have any evidence that that is the goal of the Iranian government? I haven’t seen any.

Bosch

April 21st, 2010
11:16 am

Hey Paul, forgot to ask – how’s your mom? Did you send the strongly worded email to the doc?

getalife

April 21st, 2010
11:18 am

Scout

April 21st, 2010
11:18 am

Bosch:

You should. I suggest you look it up or read the book “Assault on the Liberty”. It was 1967. The world has changed but Israel’s position hasn’t.

That time they tried to sink a U.S. Navy ship with all hands in order to keep secret their pending surprise attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria (the 1967 war).

Israel believes in Israel first. They must ……………… “NEVER AGAIN” !

Paul

April 21st, 2010
11:19 am

Doggone/GA

[[Do we take it then, that the only thing you will accept as “success” is that Iran stops their nuclear program? I don’t see any way to force that, except the USE of force.]]

Again, not for me to accept. Iran not obtaining nukes is precisely the objective the President has stated.

Bosch

I see this as a “Yes/No” “Either/Or” situation.

A worker tells his coworkers he’ll have the information in time for them to issue the report. Either he does, or he doesn’t. Kinda like the Yoda thing, “Do or do not. There is no try.”

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
11:19 am

Paul – “Pointing out to the class that your excuse for failing is that another group member is failing is lame when the objective is to turn things around and pass”

nice, but that wasn’t the point – I think it’s disingenuous to say that O is “failing” simply because he isn’t able to achieve anything more than his predecessors

“Some would say even that was attempting to pull strings and interfere.”

really?? who are those people – because every right-leaning person on this blog has condemned him for leaving the Iranian people flapping in the breeze without US support

“Main point: does the US NOT having an effective policy make it more or less likely Iran will continue its march to obtain nukes?”

response question: what COULD the US do to stop them? has the US EVER stopped a country from having nukes ??

USinUK

April 21st, 2010
11:21 am

HDB – “tell that to HDB”

see my 10:55

(there, ty … I told him) :-)

Doggone/GA

April 21st, 2010
11:21 am

“Iran not obtaining nukes is precisely the objective the President has stated”

And again, objectives can change based on the real world scenarios encountered. Sorry, but I do NOT belong to the “but you PROMISED” crowd.

Outhouse GoKart

April 21st, 2010
11:22 am

Perhaps the crisis could be averted if Obama were to extend to the Iranians a “Laurel and Hardy” handshake.