Bush raises option of using force against Iran

[Blackwood]

i think we've seen this movie before under a different name....

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President Bush said on Israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press Iran to give up its nuclear programme.

"All options are on the table," Bush, speaking at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said in the interview broadcast on Saturday.

Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

Tehran says it aims only to produce electricity and denies Western accusations it is seeking a nuclear bomb.

Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution, noting that EU powers Britain, Germany and France had taken the lead in dealing with Iran.

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country.

"In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we're working feverishly on the diplomatic route and we'll see if we're successful or not," Bush told state-owned Israel Channel One television.

Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes. But U.S. officials have played down media speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on Friday that negotiations were still possible with Iran on condition the Iranians suspend their nuclear activities.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

Douste-Blazy said the next step would be on September 3 when IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports on Iran's activities.

If Iran continues to defy global demands, another IAEA meeting will likely be held, where both Europe and Washington will push for a referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

[Old Fart]

If they keep trying to build Nuclear weapons, (like they are) we're going to have to do something about it.... Its a National Security Issue...

[Random notes]

American troops are just across the border in Iraq, and they have their hands full. I have trouble imagining that Bush is ________ (fill in the blank with your choice of derogatory epithet) enough to risk a war with Iran.

If they get a nuclear weapon program going, we will have to deal with it in a non-military way.

Roger

[jGilder]

Asked if that included the use of force, Bush replied: "As I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure our country."

Repeating a fallacy; Iraq posed no threat to US security before the US led invasion. Bush also repeats in other recent speeches the fallacy that Iraq was connected to the attacks on 9-11. How does he get away with this. If Democratic presidents did this the corporate press would eat them alive.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant last Monday after rejecting an EU offer of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

Keep in mind that Bush is saying this from a TV station in a country that developed a secret nuclear arsenal.

Israel's Secret Nuclear Arsenal

Bush made clear he still hoped for a diplomatic solution, noting that EU powers Britain, Germany and France had taken the lead in dealing with Iran.

We know about US intentions regarding "diplomatic solutions" after the Downing Street Memo surfaced. The disclosure of that memo revealed that the Bush Administration conclusively planned the war at the same time they claimed to be working for a diplomatic solution. The US can no longer be trusted about anything they say regarding these issues.

Washington last week expressed a willingness to give negotiations on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program more time before getting tougher with the country.

Does anyone hear an echo?

Bush has also previously said that the United States has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes. But U.S. officials have played down media speculation earlier this year they were planning military action against Iran.

I feel sorry for anyone that's of a draftable age.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously called on Iran on Thursday to halt sensitive atomic work.

In other words; you can't join the nuclear age unless you drink the USA brand of Koolaid.

[SteveShaw]

Well said Jack. Iran is going to be bombed isn't it? Here we go again. I could weep.

Steve

[s1m0n]

This is precisely the opposite of the truth. If you look at the text of the "deal" on offer to Iran, here's their negotiator's resonse to the Iranian request for security assurances:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH13Ak01.html

item 4(a) reads: "The United Kingdom and the French republic
would reaffirm to Iran that they will not use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons except in the case of an invasion or any attack on
them, their dependent territories, their armed forces or other troops,
their allies or on a state toward which they have a security commitment."

They won't even promise to refrain from a nuclear first strike, and they want Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions, whatever they are.

What do you think that looks like from the Iranian side of the table?

[Walden]

I feel sorry for anyone that's of a draftable age.

I was listening to the news, today, and was quite bothered by the anchorman's use of the term "yet," in describing a new draft registration bill the governor had signed into law. He said we don't "have a draft yet." And coming from a talk radio station that seems to cater to the right wing, I figured that wasn't just fear-mongering from the White House's enemies.

[Guest]

Its about Oil stupid, its about Oil.

Iran is a sideshow, the main events will unfold in Saudi and the Oil states.

[s1m0n]

Its about Oil stupid, its about Oil.

Iran is a sideshow, the main events will unfold in Saudi and the Oil states.

Iran *is* an oil state.

[Walden]

Iran is a sideshow, the main events will unfold in Saudi and the Oil states.

Iowa and Nebraska? Or am I thinking of the corn oil states?

[anniemcu]

I feel sorry for anyone that's of a draftable age.

I was listening to the news, today, and was quite bothered by the anchorman's use of the term "yet," in describing a new draft registration bill the governor had signed into law. He said we don't "have a draft yet." And coming from a talk radio station that seems to cater to the right wing, I figured that wasn't just fear-mongering from the White House's enemies.

I thin that if a Draft is reinstated mr Bush will see some serious protest from even his own flock

[jGilder]

Its about Oil stupid, its about Oil.

Iran is a sideshow, the main events will unfold in Saudi and the Oil states.

In 1950 Iran held an election and became a democracy. The winner of the election ran on the platform -- Iran's oil for Iran's people. The Brits didn't like this idea and after being rejected by Truman they approached Eisenhower in 1953 and asked him to use the CIA to overthrow Iran and install the Shah as dictator. The US complied, overthrew the democracy in Iran with a coup d'état and the Shah reined for 20 years. He was one of the 20th Century's most brutal dictators. This underlines the fact that Iran IS an oil state.

[anniemcu]

Its about Oil stupid, its about Oil.

Iran is a sideshow, the main events will unfold in Saudi and the Oil states.

In 1950 Iran held an election and became a democracy. The winner of the election ran on the platform -- Iran's oil for Iran's people. The Brits didn't like this idea and after being rejected by Truman they approached Eisenhower in 1953 and asked him to use the CIA to overthrow Iran and install the Shah as dictator. The US complied, overthrew the democracy in Iran with a coup d'état and the Shah reined for 20 years. He was one of the 20th Century's most brutal dictators. This underlines the fact that Iran IS an oil state.

Ah, but you know that we didn't have anything to do with all that evil stuff... it's "those people" that hate us because we're rich, and "Christian" and all that... (cough)

[Jack]

I never knew the "old" Iran, but from what I've heard from those families who escaped in the 1970s (?), it was a very wonderful country in which to live.

[jGilder]

I never knew the "old" Iran, but from what I've heard from those families who escaped in the 1970s (?), it was a very wonderful country in which to live.

The CIA trained a secret police force in Iran after the coup called SAVAK. They also trained SAVAK in torture techniques designed specifically for Arab men and women complete with thresholds of pain. (I saw one of these manuals myself) The Shah had over 100,000 political prisoners in his jails and it wasn't even a time of war. The effort to kill democracy in Iran was bloody, ruthless, and devastated many families. I've seen photos of Iranian women outside of the palace where the Shah lived holding pictures of their loved ones that had disappeared. I was reminded of those photos when 9-11 happened and I saw people on TV who were crying desperately and holding pictures of loved ones lost in the attack on the WTC in New York. I'm sure there were some people in Iran who weren't subjected to the Shah's brutality, but there were many others who’s families were destroyed, suffered great losses or were themselves tortured and murdered under the dictator the US brought to power.