You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US Tops List for Threatening World Peace, Says Khatami
2005-01-27
President Mohammad Khatami, responding to comments by a senior US official that Iran tops the list of world trouble spots, said yesterday the United States was the country which most endangered global peace. Tensions between Tehran and Washington, which broke diplomatic ties in 1980,
And the reason was...? Think back, now...
have heightened in recent days as US officials have taken an increasingly tough line on the Islamic state. "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," US Vice President Dick Cheney said last week on the day George W. Bush was sworn in for a second four-year term as president. Khatami, speaking to reporters after a meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, responded in kind. "We say that America is at the top of the list of countries which are endangering world peace and security and we hope that one day they come to their senses," he said, adding he thought a change in US policy was very unlikely. Iranian officials have been quick to stress that Tehran would respond vigorously to any military attack by the United States or Israel, which Cheney said may decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Posted by:Fred

#11  We're #1!

We're #1!
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-01-27 6:11:05 PM  

#10  ok "Kofi" lol. I also hope US action is imminent, harsh, and successful. I'm still not over the '79 embassy hostages. I think Iran's minions will have their hands full enough to worry about the MM's demise
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-27 3:12:05 PM  

#9  Frank, frank, frank, how many times do I have to tell ya....

Hezbollah and Hamas have a global reach far beyond an attack on Israel. Shit, they are even in Latin America. Iran's counter punch is asymetric warfare, using H & H and AQ. They've been planning counter measures for years.

There are by some estimates over 2,500 IRG in Iraq, including some senior folks. They are primarly in southern regions and Sadr is a huge backer.

Baby Asshat does not control his daddy's country, they do have WMD, and pose problems. It is no surprise that a mutual defence (and more) alliance has been struck with Iran.

US action on Iran is imminent. You can bet that plans have been developed to counter the above-mentioned potentialities.
Posted by: Kofi Annan   2005-01-27 3:02:01 PM  

#8  For Khatami, "world peace" == current status quo, where Iran and its agents spread their poison around unopposed.

It seems the mullahs' current comfy position is being threatened, and they don't like it. Well that's just too damn bad.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-01-27 11:13:16 AM  

#7  IMHO the "Iranians rush the border scenario" is absurd. A decapitating or disabling strike would cause havoc among the IRG and mullarchy. They barely control the populace now. Rushing our troops and arms would be like condensing the Iranians'8 yr Iranian-Iraq war casualties into a week-long carnage. They have no chance to counterattack, and we don't want to invade. Destabilize and arm the opposition/population for regime change. Why would the war spread beyong Hezbollah firing (briefly) into Israel? Think Israel wouldn't annihilate them? Syria gonna attack? who?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-27 10:44:26 AM  

#6  What I mean by no boots on the ground 2xstandard #3, is that without the nation building option on the table as a hindrance, the US could concentrate on unfiltereddestruction of the enemy! A filtered war (using surgical precision) will only inflame the Iranian street (such as what has happened in Iraq) as nationalism take root! Take Japan for instance; the Emperor never would have surrendered if the targeted sights of "Fatman" and "Littleboy" were isolated but totally military encampments. The horror of war is what prevents or stops it!
Posted by: smn   2005-01-27 10:37:55 AM  

#5  "Right on Frank...The US need not have to invade per se in order to accomplish it's primary objectives of neutralizing the nuclear threat. I would recommend to the President: No boots on the ground (other than CIA, special forces, and or mercenaries)! Hit the 300+ targets, both known and suspected in a first stage wave; wait for reaction and prepare for the second demoralizing hit. Take them back atleast 22 years!"

An added benefit, it'll remaind the Iraquis who is who, and what is what.
Posted by: gromgorru   2005-01-27 9:50:27 AM  

#4  Now wait a minute, let's be cognizant of the circumstances underway:

1. There IS IRG (Iranian Republic Guards) in Iraq. So, when (not if) the US takes action against Iran, there would be an uprising in Iraq. That is why we must accelerate the military training of Iraqis, who are best equipped to identify friend from foe.

2. SF is the tool of choice in Iran (and Syria for that matter), only SF can ID the numerous targets, paint them for targeted missle attacks.

3. Attacking Iran will unleash a much wider theatre of attack, perhaps beyond the ME region. It will also make overt the insidious relationship between al Qaeda and Iranian groups like Hezzbolah and Hamas.

4. Like with Iraq, Iran has had years to prepare for the inevitable. They are deploying a worldwide counter US strategy, while stroking the EU-3 for all its worth.

There is a red line, folks, a point at which action is required. Moves and counter-moves are well underway, they are just not obvious.

Posted by: Captain America   2005-01-27 9:04:29 AM  

#3  No boots on the ground
See that's the problem, smn. There are "boots" on the ground-our GI's and coalition forces in Iraq. This has been discussed quite a bit on other threads. The problem is that Iranians would rush the Iraqi border and call their Shiite cousins to arms. One of the top contenders in the Iraq election is a Shiite cleric called Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. He's a pal of head honcho Shiite cleric, Sistani. Hakim lived in exile for many years in Tehran like other Iraqi clerics did when Saddam the Terrible was in power.

Hakim made some odd comments recently about looking to Iran for suggestions about security issues in Iran, so it may not be so far fetched for Iran to think they have some sympathies in the Iraqi political community:
In comments certain to raise eyebrows in the United States, al-Hakim spoke of a role for Iran and Syria — both regarded in Washington as enemies in the war on terror — along with Iraq’s other neighbours, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, in the security of the country.

“These countries have past experiences and good security forces and with good relations we can solve this problem together,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1452397,00.html

This situation is very tricky. The US needs to tread carefully.
Posted by: 2xstandard   2005-01-27 1:22:26 AM  

#2  Right on Frank...The US need not have to invade per se in order to accomplish it's primary objectives of neutralizing the nuclear threat. I would recommend to the President: No boots on the ground (other than CIA, special forces, and or mercenaries)! Hit the 300+ targets, both known and suspected in a first stage wave; wait for reaction and prepare for the second demoralizing hit. Take them back atleast 22 years!
Posted by: smn   2005-01-27 12:56:26 AM  

#1  Tehran would respond vigorously to any military attack by the United States or Israel

as in: panicked scattering in all directions for cover
Posted by: Frank G   2005-01-26 9:44:14 PM  

00:00