Why Iran will lead to World War 3 

"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News 

by Mike Whitney 

08/08/05 " http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ - ICH " -- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war. 

Sound familiar? 

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple. 

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack. 

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran." 

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground. 

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake. 

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace. 

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself. 

No way. 

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members 
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process. 

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal? 

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda. 

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts. 

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that. 

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is in their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt. 

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war. 

Isn't that so? 

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future. 

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict. 

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain. 

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists. 

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence. 

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails. 

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Translate this page

GeoStrategic Reality 101:

The U.S. and Turkey are allies.  Enlighten us all on what the purpose of that might be.

Well, I dont see any reason for attacking Turkey, Infact USA is  one of our best ally. We benefited this alliance much.

Allies for now. International relationships are based on benefits. If their benefits turn against us one day (it will), then no allyhood will remain.

Turkey has huge amounts of oil in the southeast, we also have the richest Bor mines and lots of underground treasure that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, but we cant use them. USA will need them soon.

Anyway, that's a very informative article, thanks for sharing Zagros...

Isn't the US trying to use Azerbaijan as a base to attack from the north?

Turkey didn't let the Americans use its' land to attack Iraq from the north. I don't think it will let them use its' land for Iran either.

I think this is alarmist.  Think for a minute, the US army is stretched to the breaking point already.  Not even just Iraq alone has popular support anymore, people are increasingly skeptical about what the government says and there is simply no troops reserves left.

The US isnt going to be launching a full scale invasion of any other country for a long time.

Perhaps it is somewhat Tobodai, but Iran has today resumed its uranium enrichment process, a move that will likely see it referred to the UN security council and which may prompt Israel to use its recently supplied American toys.  This will no doubt spur Iran into reaction against America and Israel.

-----

Iran has warned Azerbaijan that such complicity would have dire consequences.

-----

I don't believe Turkey (with its current government) will ever be in the sights of America, that is unless Israel has some dire water shortage and Turkey becomes part of the "promised land".

Yeah, wishful Israel hoping to get the Land of Hittites...

They'll have to wait another million years for that until a meteor hits our country...

For once again, as i read US information about Iran nuclear weapon programme isnt any better than it was about Iraq. There is no incontrovertible evidence that Iran has nuclear capabilities but from time to time there are rather ambiguous reports and they come from similar sources to those that led the US into Iraq.

From what i remember Iran hasnt invaded any country for the past 50 years, whereas we cant say the same for our good US. In fact, the case was actually the other way around with Iran. During recent history Iran was invaded  by Iraq, with support of course of US.

I love also the case of Israel having nuclear weapons. A nation founded also on religious conviction and its long time policy of nuclear ambiguity, is sanctioned by the US abd continues to irritate Islamic countries. As far as i know Israel is not a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and has never formally acknowledged a nuclear programme but the justification for having them, is for defensive purposes. 

I doubt even for defensive purposes that weapons are in good hands in Israel. A country which occupies territory in violation of international law, has violated UN resolutions and has as head of state someone who is being accused of war crimes, can hardly be called a righteous state. In case in future we have an Israeli-Iran war or even a Israel-Arab war, Israel can easily decide to release a nuclear winter therefore it doesnt matter at all whether it did so for defensive or offensive purposes.

I think that since the problem is with the E.U., that Iran turned down the agreement(apeasement), the E.U./U.N. can and should take action in some form, does not have to neccesarily be military action, against Iran. You gentlemen talk of the United States perhaps attacking, but I believe the E.U. can itself handle the problem, for once..

Also, if Turkey sided with Iran and Syria, this could make them have bad relations with the E.U., if the E.U. decides to stand against the Iranian government.

So the Iranian says to as well! Sir, have you actually witnessed any training or supplying of terrorists from the government, or are they granted freedom to train in Iran? Iran is not known for international terrorism though, but I do not doubt that they would have terrorrists.

No America is with its endless thirst for resources.

Only the ignorant think the US is going to attack Iran or Syria. Its jsut something america-haters love to rant about even though they have no real knowledge of the US. Iran is an EU problem. Notice the EU is doing the negotiating, not the US. And in a war, Israel could beat the crap out of Iran without using any nukes.

"The American people will not stand for another war" - Bill Clinton

We aren't going to be attacking no one, so stop getting all excited and alarmed about it. You say we want all these natural rescources and even have a "thirst" for them, but we don't even have the rescources to fight another war. And from what I understand is Iran has a better army then Iraq, and while we did make quick work of the Iraqi army, Iran is a whole new ball game. While we may be able to take their army also, there will be higher casualties and once again our army would be spread thinner for the after math which we are already have a hard enough time keeping in rotations for our soldiers already active.

The only way to even consider there being a US vs Iran war is just wishful thinking. Why do I say that, because we are going to be going to war for atleast another 5-10 years and that I can guarantee.

And about the US attacking Turkey over treasures under ground, don't hold your breath.

Iraq did not have a coherent army after we destroyed their infastructure fromt he sky.  We lost very few soldiers during the actualy "war".  We lost 90% of our casualties to people who aren't even Iraqi!

i think if there will be a WW III  then it must has something to do with Oil and therefore something to do with Middle east

and that can be guessed in many ways such as the US want to get more control over the middle east (which whats happening) and most of the Powers in the world are not that happy about that (wonder why?) and that all to do with Oil and money, and plus oil there is Isael which is not benifiting the US in anyway execpt making No stability in the Middle east and continues struggle from both sides.

that is one of the US's mistakes focusing too much in the middle east and forgetting about China rising. plus aling with India for possible Chinese wake up wont help much that india needs help by itself to control its population and its economy.

You are right, Oil should be just for Mullahs, anyway they need it for setting fire to the people!

Actually some people think that the whole reason we went to Iraq was to prevent China from buying it in the future because they are going to need to import more then 50% of oil I think it was said in 2007, don't quote me on that I can't remember the exact number. Anyways a military moves on oil and if you take that away from a enemy you get an upper hand. If this is true then it strategically thinking ahead for the future.

And enough about us needing oil because we don't. We have two allies that we buy off of that are in the top 10 countries that produce oil, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. North America also produces alot of oil only that the US sells its oil to Japan for a higher price and buys from the Mid.East. We honestly don't need oil or crave it, but if its true about controlling it from China getting it then the US is thinking about the future and not right now. Heres a graph of oil production from 2004 I found for you guys.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050810/pl_afp/irannuclearisfahanus_050810162244;_ylt=AuU.DC_xgvEDthRfOlpf6YJSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050810/pl_afp/irannuclearisfah anus_050810162244;_ylt=AuU.DC_xgvEDthRfOlpf6YJSw60A;_ylu=X3o DMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

US condemns Iran's breaking of UN seals on nuclear plant 47 minutes ago VIENNA (AFP) - The United States condemned Iran's breaking of UN seals to bring online a key nuclear fuel plant, calling it a sign of Tehran's disregard for the international community. "Today's breaking of seals is yet another sign of Iran's disregard for international concerns," Matt Boland, spokesman for the US mission to international organizations in Vienna, told AFP. Iran on Monday took the first steps to break a suspension of nuclear fuel cycle work, which it had begun in November to start talks with the European Union on getting trade and other benefits in return for guarantees it was not making atomic weapons. Iranian technicians on Wednesday removed seals placed by the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at a uranium conversion plant in Isfahan, 400 kilometres (250 miles) south of Tehran, allowing the facility to return to full capacity and raising the stakes in a standoff with the international community. The United States accuses Tehran of covertly developing nuclear weapons, a charge vehemently denied by Iran which says its atomic program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity. Boland said the United States "strongly" supports the European Union's effort through talks with Tehran "to convince Iran to stop its dangerous activities." "We urge Iran to give serious consideration to the EU's proposals," for the Islamic Republic to suspend all nuclear fuel cycle work in order to guarantee it will not make atomic weapons, Boland said. Iran's removal of the seals comes as the European Union tries to win approval at a emergency IAEA meeting in Vienna for a draft resolution calling on Iran to reverse its decision to push ahead with the nuclear fuel work. Conversion turns uranium ore or yellowcake into a feed gas for making enriched uranium, which can be the fuel for reactors or the explosive core of atomic bombs. Iran points out that its right to the nuclear fuel cycle is legally enshrined under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that it has infringed no international rules by resuming uranium conversion.

How come the US always has to be the one to point things out, I wish my government would quit doing that.... Anyways theres some more news on the whole Iran situation I thought you might like to read.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

I don't Iran is planing to build Nukes right now. Their plan is to be nuclear ready. Maintaining a a full nuclear arsenal is very costly and not that many countries can afford that. US has a little bit of conflict of interest with the nuclear issue from one side we would actually want Iran to develop nuclear energy so they have more oil to export from the other side having a nuclear Iran with the current government makes us and the Isrealies uncomfortable.

As for Iranians, they should take responsibility for their own internal affairs. Government of every country is responsible for the interest of people of that country first any government appointed by the US or other foreign forces would be inline with interest of the foreign power first which may or may not be the same as what the interest of Iranians are

Most governments take care of their own interests first (and those of the ruling elite) and the interests of the rest of the governed second, especially as those interests relate to the interests of the government.

What makes you think the mullahs give a rat's ass about the people?

I didn't say they did. I said they have the responsibility to to so as any other government does, and if they don't it is the responsibility of Iranians (or any other governed society )to get ride of them or change things. A US appointed government won't be much better than what they have in the likes of Egypt and Saudi. All they are being told by the US is to watch for our interest and we will help stay in power.

One of the short coming of democracy has been than in many cases it could lead to the rule of the elite and influential but that is another discussion

OK; maybe I read too much into your post.

The development of nuclear capability that can be turned to armaments will do nothing but make Iran a target of military power far, far more powerful and sophisticated than theirs.  They can be as defiant as they want...it will not change anything.

There is NO WAY Israel will not respond to this development.  There is a great possibility the U.S. will respond to this development.  I do not think Russia will be unconcerned, and they may respond forcefully to this development.

Perhaps we are dealing with "brinksmanship" here with an eventual backdown from the abyss, but the Iranian mullahs, and their governmental puppets are playing a dangerous game with this stuff, and they do not seem to understand the discrepancy in strategic capability that they may face.  Oh, well......their problem.

For a similar reason that Greece does not export oil.

Try doing without it.

The more populous and developed a a country is the more oil it consumes. The reason many arab countries can export so much of their oil is that most have very low population and are not very high on development scale. As oil becomes more expensive it make other sources of energy like nuclear more cost effective and that is why there is an effort to increase the use nuclear power in the use and cut back on oil consumption in the US

I agree...as oil consumption increases, nuclear generation becomes more attractive.  Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl are becoming victims of that 'cultural amnesia' that afflicts us all.

It is pointless to argue the merits of "alternative" energy sources.  The reality is what it is......we continue to exist in the oil age, and all the ramificationas of that will have to be dealt with somehow.

A great concern is that those who think they can exert control over this commodity by some degree of military capability (Iran) will force a confrontation that may be far more devastating to their own interests than it will be to those of others......Take that for what you will; the West, and the increasingly industrialized East will have what they require, and, if conflict arises, the majority of the real price for that will be paid for by someone else.

Maybe they should stop storing a certain percent of there oil.

Or dig in Alaska.

And what is that supposed to do? Bush is already pushing for digging in Alaska just to get people off our back about the US trying to take the middle east for oil.

Make produce alot of oil, but we buy it from the Mid.East and sell ours to other countries to make a profit. We buy our oil from Saudi Arabia who sells it to us for a good price and we don't have to worry about them running out of oil. The US has plenty of oil, its going to be China from what I understand thats going to be desperate.

I really do believe we didn't need this war at all. We did make some Iraqi's happy, but there was and is to much blood shed for something that wasn't even apart of the objective and that was to prvent Terrorist from having a safe haven to train in. The only way I can think of for the purpose of this war was to get our presence in Iraq to prevent China from being supplied oil. Using the war on terror to justify this action I think was just a cloak for the larger strategy and was planning ahead, but honestly I don't know the truth, but I do know we really aren't having oil problems.

If the U.S. happens to attack Iran, it wont be another Iraq....there will be more casualties in a much shorter period of time than there is in Iraq.

And the domestic situation in the U.S. if we happen to go to war with Iran will be one of a Nazi-dictatorship posing as a democracy. After 9/11 the government passed the Patriot Act, which gives the government the right to break into ANY home at ANY time, and they dont even have to have a reason to do it (one of the many Nazi-esque laws in the Patriot Act). This is the makings of a domestic police-state similiar to the SS and Gestapo of Nazi Germany. If a war with Iran ensues, the domestic situation will only be worse, with more outrageous domestic laws being passed under the guise of "protection from terrorism". Also, the economy will go to sh**.

And also, if the U.S. goes to war with Iran, chances are they will bring back the military draft. They are currently trying to pass it in the senate and congress, but with no success. But i think the rule is that in a wartime situation the president can decide 'what is best' because the U.S. president is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. There is already a shortage of soldiers in Iraq, and if we start a war with Iran, its almost certain that they will reinstate the military draft.

For all you U.S. citizens in the forum, here are the most common age groups to be drafted into the military, according to their system of drafting soldiers.

1. If your 20th birthday is in the same year as the draft, you will have the largest chance of being drafted.

2. If your 21st birthday is in the same year as the draft, you will have the second-largest chance of being drafted.

3. 22nd b-day
4. 23rd b-day
5. 24th b-day
6. 25th b-day....after this it goes to the 25 and older group. 18-year olds and those turning 19 will probably not be drafted. But i wouldnt be surprised if they change this order before wartime. Afterall, they change anything they want when its convenient for them.

Im gonna be 20 in 2006, so im probably going to be shipped to Tehran or Esfahan or Tabriz or any one of those great places. Problem is my job will be to blow up innocent people. Id rather serve jail-time or leave the country.

I think its a better idea if the first group to get drafted are all the males that voted for Bush in the last election. They chose him, let them deal with his BS. Hell, let them send the women that voted for Bush too...being ignorant is not gender-exclusive. At least this way the army would be more loyal, because half of those U.S. soldiers dont even agree with the war, especially after they experienced it.

A first step to what?  

Having nuclear power won't do anything except maybe causing a few nuclear explosions in the wrong hands, who has the wrong hands, I don't know but I wish America would stay out of this decision. The US I'm guessing is worried about Israel, but can't that country handle itself now? That country really is dragging us down...

The competition America needs to worry about is China and India and not Iran, because supposedly they are the next super powers and China is supposed to become stronger then the US from what I hear.

We get rescources from those countries? The US isn't even in dire need for rescources and won't be for along time. The only way Iran can hurt the US is by taking Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, and I guess now Iraq if they sell us oil because those three sit on the largest oil fields. But Saudi Arabia is the country we have the deal with and they give us more then enough of oil. On top of that the US is in the top 10 or even 5 oil producers and we haven't even opened up oil fields in Alaska yet. Honestly the US doesn't have to worry about oil, our profit comes from selling our own oil and buying Saudi Arabian oil.

But I do like the theory of America trying to control the oil fields in the Mid.East because of China, its the only thing that really makes sense. I don't know how China is going to be as a Super Power, hopefully they'll be better then my country so we don't have to have these debats lol. We'll know more as the years go on though.

Oil demand has nearly caught up with oil production, the economy of every nation runs on the back of oil.

You have to take economics of extraction into account, I hear the Alaskan oil would be far too expensive to extract compared to regions elsewhere, that is a huge consideration. 

The US needs a counter to give balance to world politics, it would certainly be much worse if the Chinese were a sole superpower, but as a counter they will be productive.

Well its the first time in about 15 years Americans are watching how much they spend on oil and its because of the prices, but in reality we aren't running out of any oil, not that you said  that, but big companies have found away to make money and blame it on the war.

China already kinda taunts America right now, how do you think they'll be on equal footing with us. I hope they make a better world power then we are right now, the alternative I think would be them being more agressive then us.

The fact of the matter is that consumption is rapidly closing in on production - how long will it take to exploit alternative sources how much will it cost? If Alaskan oil was cheap to produce they would already be doing it and saving themselves from the variables of ME oil, but despite those variables, the biggest factor affecting prices is demand.

Why was Iraq even invaded? There was just no need based on what was being said and everyone in the US government knew it, remember that ridiculous show put on by Powell at the UN? Everyone there knew it was complete BS, a school teacher wouldn't even indict a suspect pupil based on evidence as shakey as that.  How the hell were the American public duped so readily and easily?

Iraq, with one of the largest known oil reserves, was invaded to eventually boost global oil production and more importantly, destin it for the US market. 

The US is doing everything it can in a mini cold war vrs China and Russia to make good on its foothold in central asia (founded on the basis of the war on terror) and get its companies contracts for oil industry development in that area.

Why was the US bothered about the fact that Azerbaijani oil was going to run over Iranian territory  to a Turkish port?  Why did it pressure the Azeris and others to build the pipeline over a MUCH more expensive route?  Because in case of conflict with Iran, Iran could turn off the pipeline and affect global supply and thus the price of oil.

I feel like what I am saying is a little incoherant, but I hope you can get the general idea that i am trying to put across.

North America produces alot of oil itself, the thing is even if the Alaskan fields were cheaper then they are to open now, M.East oil would most likely still be cheaper and we would still buy it. The US can produce enough oil for itself, but the companies are trying to make a huge profit and the best way of doing this is selling US produced oil and buying M.East oil for the American consumer.

That is why I believe the Iraq war was to have greater control over oil so China won't have the chance to buy enough oil to sustain its military as well as the US could.

I'll be honest I didn't know about that Iran pipeline issue, but thinking about it, it fits into the theory. I don't know how good of allies Iran and China are, but Russia and Iran are allies. Russia has helped the Iranians build their nuclear power plant. The US government keeping that in mind probably going along with the future strategy of Iraq thought that they could supply China with oil in the future, becoming a major ally of China and a stronger enemy for the US. This is just a theory.

Honestly I don't know the truth, I can say its easily for the oil as the whole world does, or go on a theory that makes sense in thinking about the countries future and the gov't look for any means to keep its super power status from others. We can point fingers and argue for hours, but we don't have any of the information that the governments do have and it could be that both things we are saying are far from the truth, like I said we'll know why its happening the way it is in the future, only time will tell.

I also agree with this sentiment, the only people that should pay for this war are those who so vehemently want to fight it.  Oh and they should have to pay for it too, wheras my taxes can go to something cooler like research.

Well yeah, if THEY were doing the picking...

Stil part of me almost wants to go, because part of me feels I simply must see everything "on the ground" but thats a very small part of me.

Well, doesn't this sound all too familiar?  I guess if Mr. Blair can be George Bush's "lap dog," Herr Schroeder can be Jacques Chirac's.

I have come to think that all this contemporary pacifism on the part of France and Germany is a result of the fact that between them they have not won a war in almost a century.  They are allies when it suits, but watch your back, and if you cannot win any wars, just act superior.

Schroeder may be the sacrificial lamb in the current European (read French) outrage.  It will not happen while the German government is under his direction.....The way things are going for him he may not be in office all that much longer. 

Another comment:

By taking the military option off the table, you have just handed the other party to the negotiations a major victory.  If there are no serious consequences to be feared, why negotiate?  Why should Iran have any concern over the E.U.?

Productive to whom?  Not to the United States certainly, and incidents such as the UNOCAL deal show we know realize that fact and are working to put China in their place.

productive for world politics (like I said) when faced with US unilateralism.

U.S. unilateralism is far preferable to the "multilateralism" of, say, the U.N., that debates, debates, debates, and passes impotent and facetious resolutions and "sanctions" such as the "oil for food" B.S.  That has been shown to punish innocent populations while benefiting no one but the targets of the sanctions and corrupt U.N. bureaucrats.

Give us critics if this "multilateralism" some credit for being able to see through the smoke screen.  The multilateral ideal of a united international community is ephemeral.  nothing of substance has come of it in 60 years (perhaps 80 years), and it never will.  The U.N. and organizations like it are propaganda mechanisms and nothing more.

What will they debate next.... Zimbabwe's Mugabe?  What will they do?  A safe bet is nothing.  That jackass deserves to be shot by everyone whom he has screwed.

In regard to this subject, I rather favor the "unilateralism" of the Romanian people, and the army who shot Ceaucescu and cleared the air for their future.  Multilateralism did them no good, and that piece of trash got exactly what he deserved.  What has multilateralism achieved other than to provide employment for a bunch of empty suits in New York who can flaunt parking tickets due to their diplomatic immunity?   

I will use this as an example: The US has adopted a first strike policy with nuclear weapons, meaning that if it so pleased it would launch at any country which it feels threatened by, and based on the shadyness of the level of evidence required for the US to feel threatened, that is a very worrying propect.  If however there was another real superpower it could say, hey if you do something stupid like that, you'll start a nuke war, such potentially catastrophic policies would be sidelined by the US in that case.

Zagros:

I see.  You are talking about the geo-strategic balance of power as an antipode to hegemony.  I misunderstood your point and postion.

I still think the U.N. sucks though.

Perhaps Schroeder is not supporting the US, because he needs some support from the German people against the Christian Democrats (possible winners of the next election).

And why shouldn't we?  We've struggled hard to get this much power, I say we use it as we see fit.  If the rest of the world doesn't like it, I dare them to try and stop us.  Al Qaeda did, and 2/3 of their leadership are dead or rotting away in Cuba. 

Don't mention such ideas as "the world community" or "humanity", they exist, but they mean nothing.  Would a lion not eat a sheep because they both belong to the "animal community"?  Should the US agree to such principles as multilateralism which are propounded only by idealistic fools or the frightened in an attempt to curtail our power?  The only diplomatic goal any state should have is to aggrandize itself and impose its will.  The world is nothing but a massive jungle, and nations are the beasts, the well behaved ones always get devoured, I would like to see to it that America does not slide into their unenviable position because we wanted to please the sore losers.

To use force, and to use force stupidly is two different thing. I am not against to use force, but america is somehow gone to berserk.

Komnenos:

As it isn't over yet, nothing has been "proved."  And in fairness, in re the French, I said almost a century, and referred to winning a war, not being "on a victorious side"....there is a difference.

Some international conflicts (as a German, I know you are aware of this) can only be solved by military actions. 

Also, I never said the French are not good soldiers.  The paras, the Foreign Legion, and others have shown that they are.  Currently, they have excellent weaponry and equipment....tanks and aircraft...and pilots who are well trained and very daring as shown in the 1990/91 Gulf War; all very professional.

Their leadership is just slimy.  It is the "je suis superieur" attitude that annoys the hell out of me (and others).

While I am on a rant, I saw in the New York Times a comment by a Frenchman that went something like "It would be impossible to have someone in French politics like this Bush person."

Interesting.  Who is that Action Francaise type fascist over there?

I guess George W. is no saint, but, unlike the Vichy government, he has not conspired with Nazis to deport Jewish citizens to death camps.

Well, maybe, but I read it differently, and Komnenos and I now know each others' political proclivities.

Nice article, seems being a American is going to make me more hated from the world over.

The only thing I see that makes sense in this article for the US to attack Iran is the oil to China as that can change alot in the future. Then again I can't see the future so I don't know how China would act as either the Second world power or the only world power. But thats definitly not a reason to cause another war, especially when there can be alot of diplomatic options that can be taken that other nations can agree with.

It says we don't have enough troops to go into another war, but the government wants to pull out all our troops as sson as possible it seems. Makes me wonder why with this article, and if it is to support another war it'd be wrong to do. All those soldiers will be thinking that they are going home to finally see their family only to be sent back out, these people will have no will to fight. And if thats not the case, then sending all our troops back will bring back recruitment because people will think the wars are over and are more likely to enlist when its not during a war so the government still gets more bodies to send over there for their personal war. Reading that article makes me think the government is trying to give us Americans high hopes saying things are getting better and the troops will be home within the year, then having a high possibility we'll be right back in the Middle East fighting another war.

Thats not fact, but it does seem plausible with the way the government keeps saying about the troops returning. I think there should be a law made, in order for you to become President you have to serve in a war as a leader who has to be on the front lines, the Romans did it, and George Washington faught in wars, why not take that tradition as well. This way idiots like Bush can see the reality, he had a chance to goto war but got his father to get him out of it, obviously he can't take war seriuosly and its a reason that makes his campaigns even more dangerous as current events show us now...