Cheney's ultimate goal has been the invasion of Iran since the beginning of the Mid East folly March 19, 2003. He has less than 6 months to have his way.

His mouth was watering when the British navy and Iran had a little confrontation. How he would have loved to come to the aid of our friends. Then those Brits decided on a peaceful settlement. How could they do this to Cheney?

He has one more trump card: Israel.

If Israel will get Iran to make some moves that can be interpreted as a prelude to a confrontation then the door is open again for Cheney to assist Israel without getting the approval of Iraq.

It will remain nail biting time until the end of this year.

Can't you people make up your minds...?

Cheney wants war with iran...We invaded Iraq so halliburton could get rich...Its all about Bush's legacy of spreading democracy to the Middle East...its was for the oil..The only commonality in your accusations is that they all try to portray the US in the worst possible light.

Lets review the situation with iran.

We have iranian leadership that absolutely and without doubt is supporting terrorism in the region. It funds and supplies Hizballah in Lebennon; it supports HAMAS in Gaza; it provides weapons, training, and fighters to the insugency in Iraq; it has harassed and threatened US vessels on the high seas; it has repeatedly threatened the very existence of a US ally; and it is pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet...somehow, the US---with its continued calls for a diplomatic solution--is the bad guy in all this.

I have repeatedly suggested it is not in the US long term interest to allow Israel to attack iran. The consequences are far more manageable on the global stage if the US acts to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. At the same time, Israel absolutely cannot afford to wait for the US to act...especially given the vagaries of the US political system. For us it is a matter of policy to keep iran from getting the bomb. For israel it is a matter of national survival. Does anyone seriously doubt that a nuclear armed iran would refrain from attacking Israel?

I see this happening along these lines: I think the Israelis will continue to try and obtain incontrovertable evidence that the Iranians are close to obtaining the bomb. They are then likely to present that information to the US along with an ultimatium: Destroy the program or we will.

The US is unlikely to act until the last possible moment. There is a significant chance the Israelis may feel forced to act before Bush leaves office as there is the strong chance the next President may be willing to cut them loose...especially if that President is Obama. With that in mind, a McCain victory may buy them, and us, more time to pursue a diplomatic solution (though to be candid I think such a solution is extremely unlikely.) On the other hand, an Obama victory may force the israelis to accelerate their efforts before Obama takes office.

Frankly, I am not sure we can actually take military action if Obama wins in November. It would be unprecedented for a President about to relinquish office to the opposition to actually start a military conflict. I am not sure how things would play out if the President were to order such actions. The military is extremely unlikely to directly disobey such orders but I can see them being leaked to the press and the Congress before they are executed. Whether that would be sufficient to stop the action is an open question. Whether it should even be stopped is another open question.

What scenarios do you envision if

a. Israel unilaterally attacks Iran

b. Israel attacks Iran and the Americans then join in to "assist"

c. America unilaterally attacks Iran.

d. We do nothing and Israel does nothing until there is an actual attack on something by Iran.

.

Dax...lets see. This is what I think...for what little its worth.

A. I do not see Israel launching a unilateral attack on Iran...unless the US forces them to go it alone. Frankly, I do not see us doing that absent an Obama victory and even then its possible we might act...though I doubt it.

B. I am not sure we would get to a fait accompli scenario...

C. A US attack is possible though I suspect it would not be truely unilateral.

D. I think waiting for Iran to act first is no an option. For one, Israel absolutely CANNOT afford to allow Iran to obtain the bomb. Unlike the rest of the nations in the Middle East, Israel is simply not large enough to endure a nuclear attack. As few as half a dozen bombs could destroy israel as a functioning nation. israel has no option other than preventing Iranian nuclear armament.

I expect a September attack on Iran by the U.S., or by Israel ( At the instigation of the Bush Administration).

I hope it won't happen but I just got this feeling...

Let me add scenario "E" to Dax's list:

e. The nuclear powers agree, and present to the world--including IRAN--an ultimatum to the effect that any country that uses a nuclear weapon in a first strike will be retaliated against by each and every one of the signatory countries. (Details to be determined.)

I know that you can respond to this, as you did to Dax's list, with an 'it ain't agoin' to happen!' response, but what if such a scenario did happen?

As I said I hope I'm wrong but I do believe that we will try a September attack on Iran, and the results I feel will not be good.

Even the U.N feels this would not be a good thing ( Not that the Bush Administration ever listens to the U.N.), but I tend to agree with the U.N. in this case.

Check this story out..............

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20080621/Iran.Israel/

It is our policy to use a first strike pretty much as we feel. Doesn't our policy make it clear that retaliation against our policy will be met with some sort of retaliation?

Would you expect the next president to recind this policy?

We are also under a National Emergency first ordered in 1996. I'm not sure what authority is granted to whom in a National Emergency but it sounds interesting.

If you mean that if we use our first strike policy and somebody retaliates that we will then retaliate? Sounds fair to me!


Assuming "this policy" is "our policy to use a first strike pretty much as we feel":
McCain: No. Perhaps even use it.
Obama: Yes. At least I would hope so.


I must have been asleep in 1996. What is the National Emergency that we were--and must still be--in? (Not that we don't have some other current emergencies.) I did a web search and found a number of "Declarations of National Emergency" in 1996, but found only one that seemed even remotely relevant: it concerned IRAN's WMDs. It would appear that once such a declaration is made that it is subject to an annual redeclaration, but that might not be true for all of them.

From a message to Congress dated June 18, 2008 (and yearly since 1996) by G.W. Bush
Stating why the Exectuive Order 13159 of June 21, 2000 is being extended, is all I know.