Blogcritics Comments on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:13 EST

ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggested that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ultimately would not thwart its ambitions. "What we know is that Iran has the knowledge, but you cannot bomb knowledge," he said.

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:50:31 EST

Cyrus, I don't have an opinion on the letter from Iran to the United States. For all I know there have been 3 or 4 or 5 different letters saying various things over the past years. Perhaps things are as you say and the United States lost a chance to develop a relationship with Iran than would have sustained the so-called "moderates" hold on power. The letter said nothing about the nuclear weapons program so that, in itself, might have been a diplomatic non-starter for the administration at that time. On the face of it the letter seems to have deserved a more substantive response. Then again, the letter might well have generated some level of conversation between the countries that either did not pan out or may, in fact, be still underway "behind the scenes." I suppose some sort of pact could be worked out . . . such as the United States signing a mutual non-agression treaty with Iran in return for Iran recognizing the existance of Israel as a legitimate nation and ally of the United States, etc. But I doubt that the US government has enough faith in the stability or stated intentions of the current regime to take such an approach very seriously. Sorry. I am glad to know of the existance of the letter, however. It is one more piece in the very complex puzzle. Oh, and by the way. The United States is blamed for everything else in the world these days, I suppose they might as well be blamed for being responsible for the current elected leaders in Iran, too.

Comment by cyrus the great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:25:07 EST

BoP, 1. You did not mention your idea about the letter. 2. Iran is mass producing shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles (Misagh 1 and 2). Also, guided anti-tank missiles (Toophan and .....). They are not much bigger than RPG-7. Iran has been accused anyway, what is the point of hiding it? 3. Why US is closing eyes to flow of fundementals sunnis and their supply of money and weapons passing from Saudi and Jordanian borders to Iraq everyday?!

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:25:25 EST

Factory produced directional IEDs that are able to pierce the armor of an M1 tank. As for large rockets that require large launchers as are needed to fire rockets from Lebanon deep into Israel, they would be difficult to sneak into Iraq, difficult to hide, difficult to use, more or less useless for any purpose strategic or otherwise and, most important, more difficult for Iran to deny knowing how they got there. Like you have said, Iran is smart. I have not disagreed with that.

Comment by cyrus the great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:30:10 EST

Franco, I think #32 answer your concerns. First, Iran tried dircect contact via its representative(s) in New York at UN. Switzerland embassy had to be used in addition. Because,two countries has not have formal relation. This should not be considered as an insult. Second, as you see in the letter, there is no language of threat. I agree with you, actions speak louder that word. But, consider this: when the letter was sent, Iranian president was Khatami which is 180 degree different from current president (Ahmadinejad). Khatami belongs to reformist movement. Iran's positive actions included: 1. Full cooporation with invasion of Afghanestan. Northern alliance were supported, trained and equipped by Iran. They faught for years against Taliban before Americans come. They could not survive without Iran's support and got approval of Iran for working with Americans. 2. Iran assured Americans which will do rescue operation for any shut down American pilots during the war. 3. Iran opened its air space in a predetermined corridor for use by US air force. 4. After defeat of Iraq, Iran ask for full cooperation of Shei majority. Having no positive feedback from west toward Khatami's regime help Ahmadinejad to win the next presidential election. Now, I have a question for you and BoP. If Iran is helping the insurgency in Iraq, why we don't see advanced weapons in their hand. Like at least what Hezbollah has?

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:23:06 EST

Cyrus, Thank you for the references to the letter. That is why I hang around and dialogue with people . . . because I learn things I did not know before. I do not have a "set mind" as you put it a few comments ago. My mind is closed enough so that my opinions don't fall out of it onto the floor, but it is open enough to allow some fresh air to clear out the dust and cobwebs once in a while!

Comment by cyrus the great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:21:50 EST

According to a Newsday story of February 19, 2006 the letter was initiated by Sadegh Kharazi, Iran's ambassador to France and nephew of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and passed on by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran. It is not clear that Kharazi had the blessing of the Iranian government. It is assumed that the document reflect Iranian reaction to the US invasion of Iraq, which was then in the first flushes of success

Comment by cyrus the great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:18:49 EST

The existence of such a letter was also claimed by Flynt Leverett in a New York Times article of January 24, 2006. He wrote: In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line. source - brookings.edu

Comment by cyrus the great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:17:42 EST

BoP, Read this: Summary of letter purportedly sent by Iran to the US government in the spring of 2003 Iranian aims: (The US accepts a dialogue "in mutual respect" and agrees that Iran puts the following aims on the agenda) Halt in US hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the US: (interference in internal or external relations, "axis of evil", terrorism list.) Abolishment of all sanctions: commercial sanctions, frozen assets, judgments(FSIA), impediments in international trade and financial institutions Iraq: democratic and fully representative government in Iraq, support of Iranian claims for Iraqi reparations, respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Karbal. Full access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology Recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity. Terrorism: pursuit of anti-Iranian terrorists, above all MKO and support for repatriation of their members in Iraq, decisive action against anti Iranian terrorists, above all MKO and affiliated organizations in the US US aims: (Iran accepts a dialogue "in mutual respect" and agrees that the US puts the following aims on the agenda) WMD: full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD, full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols) Terrorism: decisive action against any terrorists (above all Al Qaida) on Iranian territory, full cooperation and exchange of all relevant information. Iraq: coordination of Iranian influence for activity supporting political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government. Middle East: 1) stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad etc.) from Iranian territory, pressure on these organizations to stop violent action against civilians within borders of 1967. 2) action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon 3) acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration (Saudi initiative, two-states-approach) Steps: I. Communication of mutual agreement on the following procedure II. Mutual simultaneous statements "We have always been ready for direct and authoritative talks with the US/with Iran in good faith and with the aim of discussing - in mutual respect - our common interests and our mutual concerns based on merits and objective realities, but we have always made it clear that, such talks can only be held, if genuine progress for a solution of our own concerns can be achieved." III. A first direct meeting on the appropriate level (for instance in Paris) will be held with the previously agreed aims a. of a decision on the first mutual steps Iraq: establishment of a common group, active Iranian support for Iraq stabilization, US-commitment to actively support Iranian reparation claims within the discussions on Iraq foreign debts. Terorrism: US-commitment to disarm and remove MKO from Iraq and take action in accordance with SCR1373 against its leadership, Iranian commitment for enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran, agreement on cooperation and information exchange Iranian general statement "to support a peaceful solution in the Middle East involving the parties concerned" US general statement that "Iran did not belong to 'the axis of evil'" US-acceptance to halt its impediments against Iran in international financial and trade institutions b. of the establishment of the parallel working groups on disarmament, regional security and economic cooperation. Their aim is an agreement on three parallel road maps, for the discussions of these working groups, each side accepts that the other side's aims (see above) are put on the agenda: 1) Disarmament: road map, which combines the mutual aims of, on the one side, full transparency by international commitments and guarantees to abstain from WMD with, on the other side, full access to western technology (in the three areas), 2) Terrorism and regional security: road map for above mentioned aims on the Middle east and terrorism 3) Economic cooperation: road map for the abolishment of the sanctions, rescinding of judgments, and un-freezing of assets c. of agreement on a time-table for implementation d. and of a public statement after this first meeting on the achieved agreements mideastweb.org

Comment by Nancy on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:22:02 EST

Don't play that crap Rovian game of labelling those who aren't warhawks & don't support those neonazis, Bush/Cheney, as 'terrorist sympathizers'. It's old & it's been exposed. Those of us who have seen the wannabe Emperor/Decider has no clothes & speak out about it are the ones with courage & patriotism enough not to allow the US & our troops to be thrown away by the arrogant idiocy & ego of a moral monster in the white house.

Comment by MCH on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:48:46 EST

"Don't let the terrorist sympathizers get you down." - Dave Nalle Nalle, until you back up your phoney written bravado with action, you might also be construed as a "terrorist sympathizer."

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:54:26 EST

Cyrus, What is wrong with you! NOT ONCE in any post or comment have I advocated war with Iran. I have written of my appreciation for the Persian people and the historic greatness of the nation and culture of Iran. I have advocated increased sanctions and, while I have discussed the possibility of strategic attacks within Iran I have never advocated them. You cite an 2003 letter from Iran as evidence of their good will but you cannot cite any source that can back up your claim. Until you do I will consider your "letter" to be worthy of a red dot on Snopes. On my part, however, I can direct you to a personal letter sent from Iran President Ahmadinajad to President Bush informing him (in the form of friendly advice) that he can either convert to Shia Islam or burn in hell along with the rest of the United States.

Comment by Franco on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:14:59 EST

27 — Cyrus the Great "United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980." "June, 2003. Iran via Switzerland embassy send an official letter for US government." OK, you make a point and for the sake of discussion/debate I will not dispute your claim and assume that you are 100% correct about the letter.. This leaves me with the following questions. If formal diplomatic relations broke off in 1980, and then 23 years pass before Iran sends a letter (indirectly) via another county 3 months after the US had invaded and topple Saddam, don't you think the letter could be looked at by the United States as.. 1.) An insult due to indirect correspondence thus less sincere in the eyes of U.S. Officials? 2.) The letter appearing more as a threat or ultmadum then cooperation. Now I have not read the letter, I am only going on what you said it said. If your interpretation is fairly accurate, it means that my questions above could have been the way the US took its meaning or intention. The interpretation of foreign text (correspondence) is always subject to misunderstanding. Every culture has is own way of communicating that differs from another and here in lays danger. From what I have seen, read, and studied on Iran, the current president is not showing a single thing "through is actions" that resembles anything that the letter clamed. As a wise man once said, action speak louder then words. If the letter was sincere, then why has not the president of Iran shown any of these intentions through is actions. That and that alone would have convinced that US that Iran was in fact sincere. If the 12 billion had not been return yet, it would have been on the table for release had Iran shown an honest attempt at displaying what was addressed in the letter. Help me understand, and tell me more of what you know.

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:38:59 EST

BoP, u wrote: "Cyrus, the United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980. Iran has done nothing since to mend that relationship by addressing or reassessing the reasons that precipitated that break." Around June, 2003. Iran via Switzerland embassy send an official letter for US government. In the letter, it was mentioned that Iran will fully recognize Israel, stop supporting Palestinian and other extremist group, support middle east peace process and help in peace and stability in Iraq. In return, Iran wanted security gaurantee, return of $12 billion (not 8) freezed assets with interest, and hand over of MKO terrorists who have been under control of US since defeat of Saddam. This request was even not answered by US government. Above has been confirmed by international 3rd parties. As you see, there are things that you don't know or don't want to know. Your other arguments also can be debated easily. But, it is over. War soon will be started. Not you and not me will be the winner. Big corporations will gain from it. I tried to inform you that we are not obligated to solve problems through war. But, seems you have a set mind. You will soon see that Iran's capabilities are not bluff. I'll pray for peace.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:19:58 EST

Keep up the good work, BoP. Don't let the terrorist sympathizers get you down. Item for discussion - there was never a war with Iraq. It's just part of a war with Iran which has been going on for 30 years. Dave

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:38:51 EST

Doug, Iraq signed the United Nations Cease-Fire Agreement. Later, because of multiple and defiant violations of the agreement and of unacceptable human rights violations within Iraq (attacks on civilian Kurds and Shi'ites) other restrictions, such as no-fly zones, were imposed.

Comment by Doug on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:04:34 EST

So, tell me BoP, which of these "resolutions" did Iraq agree to? Please do be specific, okay? The point in your original post that I took issue with was that Iraq has/had violated terms of cease-fire that they agreed to. Let's stick to the issue you raised, rather than wandering tangentially, okay? :-)

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:07:42 EST

Cyrus, Again from Wikipedia, "In May 2003, in a case brought by the families of the 241 servicemen who were killed, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[7] Among the intelligence information initially uncovered by Thomas Fortune Fay, an attorney for the families of the victims, was a National Security Agency (NSA) intercept of a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran to Hojjat ol-eslam Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus. As it was paraphrased by presiding U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, "The message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the terrorist group Islamic Amal, and to instruct him ... 'to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines.'"[3] I have a personal friend who was held hostage in the Bekaa Valley for over a year during that same period. There is no doubt that those who held him operated out of Syria with links to Iran. After all, the release of these hostages were negotiated by President Reagan's administration but cutting a deal with . . . Iran! ("Arms for Hostages"). Hzbollah had not yet been formally organized at that time but the seeds of its creation had already been planted and were well-rooted at that time.

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:00:59 EST

Cyrus, the United States broke off formal diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980. Iran has done nothing since to mend that relationship by addressing or reassessing the reasons that precipitated that break. The US, through intermediaries and State Department liasons, has "unofficial" diplomatic contact with Iran via Switzerland. These folks were called to Iran just today to explain the US attack on the Iranian "consulate" in Kurdistan yesterday. Unofficial diplomatic communication takes place every day between Iran and the United States. More formally, the United States has worked with a consortium of countries both within and without the United Nations to confront Iran with its violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We all know how well that has been received by Iran.

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:55:00 EST

Cyrus, you say the hostages were returned...Yes, but after 444 days, described by one of them at 95% bordom and 5% sheer hell. They all believed that they might be killed . . . up until the day they were released. According to AP in a 2006 article, "The 52 hostages or their families have sought compensation from frozen Iranian assets through the courts, where their options are exhausted, and through Congress. Legislation is pending, but it has not moved past committee." According to Wikipedia, "In 2000, the hostages and their families tried to sue Iran, unsuccessfully, under the Antiterrorism Act. They originally won the case when Iran failed to provide defense, but the U.S. State Department tried to put an end to the suit, fearing that it would make international relations difficult. As a result, a federal judge ruled that nothing could be done to repay the damages the hostages faced because of the agreement the U.S. made when the hostages were freed." Terms of the agreement for their release included the US unfreezing $8 billion of Iranian money. None of this ever enriched those who had been taken hostage. The Embassy, owned by and sovereign territory of the United States, remains in the hands of the Iranian government. Wikipedia has a lovely photo of the defaced Great Seal of the United States imbedded in the embassy wall as it looks today.

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:33:14 EST

BoP, U wrote: "It is clear from Iran's posturing (and you have confirmed this repeatedly in your comments) that Iran's response to any American response will be to escalate the violence incrementally, forcing America to be drawn into an ever-increasing cycle of violence or to back down" You misunderstand. I mean, Iran will not role over and die. But, will fight back. It is going to be pretty bloody. There is no need for another war. Diplomacy and negotiation is the answer.

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:27:38 EST

BoP, Y wrote: "Iran already declared war on the United States when it stormed the US Embassy in Tehran 28 years ago" But, all of them were returned back in one piece and now multi-millioner thanks to money they got from Iran. On the other hand, Iranian passenger plane was shot down over Persian gulf with 290 passengers for no reason. All dead.

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:24:24 EST

Bop, U wrote: "when it provided the funds and training for the blowing up of the US Marine compound in Beiruit several years later." Where is your prove for that?

Comment by Cyrus the Great on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:15:02 EST

BoP, You wrote: "negotiate with Iran (we have tried this repeatedly and have gotten nowhere except to provide entertainment and amusement for Iran's leadership)" Can you remind me when was that?

Comment by Bird of Paradise on Bush Threatens to Attack Inside Iran If Necessary

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:29:34 EST

Doug, In response to your question I Googled "Iraq ceasefire violations" and came up with the following results. If you really want an answer to your questions you can find plenty of examples in these selections (this is not exhaustive, I spent 15 minutes on this): Security Council Warns Iraqis to Halt Cease-Fire Violations 1992 Note: In order to "fool" the blogcritics limit on the number or webpage citations in a comment I have intentionally left off one of the three "w"s in each link address [I have restored and correctly formatted the links for you BoP. Comments Editor] UN Cease-Fire Agreement for the First Gulf War 1990 USIA Statement 1991 The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions involving Iraq since it invaded Kuwait in 1990. These include: (1) Resolution 660, regarding its illegal invasion of Kuwait; (2) Resolution 678, authorizing U.N. member states cooperating with Kuwait "to use all necessary means" to implement resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of and withdrawal of forces from Kuwaiti territory and to "restore international peace and security in the area"; (3) Resolution 686, ordering Iraq to release prisoners of the Gulf War, return Kuwaiti property seized during the war, and pay damages resulting from the war; and (4) Resolution 687, requiring it to "unconditionally accept" the removal, destruction, or rendering harmless of all WMD and ballistic missiles with a range greater that 150 kilometers, allow weapons inspectors to operate in Iraq, and pledge not to seek to develop or acquire such weapons in the future. Iraq violated each of the above resolutions. It had to be forcibly evicted from Kuwait and continues to defy the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zones. Iraq has not paid reparations for the war, has not returned illegally seized property, and has not freed all prisoners taken during the war. In violation of the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, Iraq routinely interfered with weapons inspectors and barred them entirely in 1998. Intelligence and statements of defectors provide ample evidence that Iraq still possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. September 2002 Talk of the Nation, November 5, 1998 � Iraq halts all United Nations weapons inspections until the U.N. Security Council reviews international sanctions against them. Military force could be used if Iraq continues to defy the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. From NPR's Talk of the Nation Here's an interesting chronological history of events... regarding our topic you can begin reading with 1991 ff Here's the UN view of compliance in a resolution passed in 2002