Iran gets belligerent with US
article. No giant quote this time, just a short summary:
---------------------
Iran is trying to claim that the US is playing hardball (which it is), and threatens to be nasty right back if the US actually puts pressure on Iran to stop developing nukes, as compared to Europe's program which effectively subsidizes Iranian nukes. Iran warned that it would respond to any "unwise measure" by Washington (just how would Iran respond? The only real threat would be nukes, which Iran claims to not have), and that Washington's goals are "not to help and encourage Europe to peacefully settle some disagreements through diplomacy and talks, [but rather] to disrupt the Iran-EU nuclear talks by pretending they are unsuccessful."
Actually, I will have a small blockquote:
---------------------
First things first: Asefi is a dead man. If and/or when the US goes into Iran, Asefi will be one of the first targets, probably because of the idiocy and arrogance of these statements (assuming this article is accurate). Asefi, BIG MISTAKE, you never screw with a Texan. How did Iran turn into an SOB all of a sudden?
So, what will happen in the future? The US will keep trying to drag Iran in front of the UN. Sanctions would be very tough to get, given the amount of oil that Europe, China, and the like get from Iran, but the US would probably insist on it. So, Iran's economy will slump a bit. Most people in Iran have a favorable view of the US, because both the US and the Iranian people hate the Iranian government. The US is in no hurry, however, to start another big war in the mid-east. The US's best bet is to get Iraq's democracy started, and put it on solid ground, so that the people of Iran might have a fighting chance against their government. If Iran has a revolution, Iraq could then help the Iranian people set up a proper, democratic, and non-corrupt government. However, Iraq won't be ready for something like this for a few years (20 months, at the very least), so this would be a long-term strategy, and a bit riskier than most would like.
On the other hand, the US could just fly air missions over nuclear facilities if Iran really is developing nukes, and destroy whatever research or production is in progress. Of course, this is an old strategy, and is at best moderately successful.
---------------------
Iran is trying to claim that the US is playing hardball (which it is), and threatens to be nasty right back if the US actually puts pressure on Iran to stop developing nukes, as compared to Europe's program which effectively subsidizes Iranian nukes. Iran warned that it would respond to any "unwise measure" by Washington (just how would Iran respond? The only real threat would be nukes, which Iran claims to not have), and that Washington's goals are "not to help and encourage Europe to peacefully settle some disagreements through diplomacy and talks, [but rather] to disrupt the Iran-EU nuclear talks by pretending they are unsuccessful."
Actually, I will have a small blockquote:
"We recommend the new American foreign minister avoids repeating past mistakes by reviewing America's wrong and unsuccessful policies of unilateralism and oppression," [Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] said of Rice.
"The United States of America has fallen into an abyss of several crises as a result of the wrong attitude of hard line neo-conservatives. There is no way out unless it reviews and corrects past mistakes."
---------------------
First things first: Asefi is a dead man. If and/or when the US goes into Iran, Asefi will be one of the first targets, probably because of the idiocy and arrogance of these statements (assuming this article is accurate). Asefi, BIG MISTAKE, you never screw with a Texan. How did Iran turn into an SOB all of a sudden?
So, what will happen in the future? The US will keep trying to drag Iran in front of the UN. Sanctions would be very tough to get, given the amount of oil that Europe, China, and the like get from Iran, but the US would probably insist on it. So, Iran's economy will slump a bit. Most people in Iran have a favorable view of the US, because both the US and the Iranian people hate the Iranian government. The US is in no hurry, however, to start another big war in the mid-east. The US's best bet is to get Iraq's democracy started, and put it on solid ground, so that the people of Iran might have a fighting chance against their government. If Iran has a revolution, Iraq could then help the Iranian people set up a proper, democratic, and non-corrupt government. However, Iraq won't be ready for something like this for a few years (20 months, at the very least), so this would be a long-term strategy, and a bit riskier than most would like.
On the other hand, the US could just fly air missions over nuclear facilities if Iran really is developing nukes, and destroy whatever research or production is in progress. Of course, this is an old strategy, and is at best moderately successful.
posted by Chris at
9:57 PM
1 Comments:
One thing to consider in regard to bombing Iran's nuclear weapons facilities: In order to hide them from the IAEA, Iran has moved them to reinforced underground bunkers. Several of them are under big cities. One is under a suburb of Tehran. While it is true that American bunker-busting bombs can probably do the job, there will be a lot of civilian casualties, and a lot of hubbub regarding that. Bush has promised not to let Iran get nuclear weapons, so such an incident is probably inevitable. It may be interesting to note that the U.S. has recently begun selling bunker-busting bombs to Israel.
I write about stuff like this at http://www.sexxxxpics.com/blog which is not safe to view at work.
By
Anonymous, at 1:22 PM, January 21, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home