| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||
| US ramps up Iran attack plans after Germany refuses additional sanctions | ||
| 2007-09-11 | ||
| A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday. Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council. The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.
Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty. Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs. Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections. The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment. On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets. Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq. The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them. "The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said. Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically." The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration. Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries. If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns' approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action. | ||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #26 RIAN > IRAN [IRGC] IS READY TO REPEL ANY ATTACK; + SPACEWAR > UN CHIEF WALKS OUT OF IRAN SANCTIONS MEETING. After Iran was critiqued. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-11 23:23 |
| #25 I grow weary of such 'allies' You guys got it all wrong. What Germany is doing makes no sense at all because they are about to lose Iran completely as a trading partner. The only thing that makes sense is that Germany has silently agreed with the US to "break" the sanctions so the US has a really cool excuse to level key parts of Iran now. Of course, that leaves Iran in a quandry as to what to do with the Germans. But as long as nobody utters a word about this, they should be OK . . . . |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-09-11 23:18 |
| #24 Damn, TW! That's pretty harsh from a usually proper RB'er. But hey I understand. After a 9/11 remembrance day on the Burg, I'm pretty pissed off too. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-09-11 23:05 |
| #23 Culturally, the Germans do this. Having established a decision point, when reached they generally decide. Germany has decided that additional sanctions will not move toward their goal of stopping Iran's nuclear program by negotiation, therefore they will not agree to impose further sanctions. It was established up front that the negotiating team of France, Germany and Britain would attempt to persuade Iran, in lieu of the U.S. invading. The Germans know what result follows, since they established the conditions. Those of you who've dealt with diplomats can say for certain, but I suspect that if diplomats are talking about distinct private impressions, someone authoritative said definitively so in private, with the caveat that it would be denied in public. Or they should just eat shit and die. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-09-11 22:39 |
| #22 Russian land and wimmens. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-11 21:42 |
| #21 The problem for Putin is that, except for Cuba and Venezuela, the tyrants he can support and trouble he can cause are close neighbors and likely to turn on Russia. From China to Iran to Syria, those weapons he sells can just as easily be sent back via conquering armies or separatist movements. Lots of folks with their eye on Russian land wimmens. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-11 21:42 |
| #20 #19 was an answer to ed BTW |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-11 21:02 |
| #19 Maybe - but between now and then there is a serious power struggle going on and Putin does not think small. I agree with NS, reluctantly. I really did not want to write off NATO, but the last year or two has done it for me. Pull us out now. And then fund ship platforms for missile defense. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-11 21:01 |
| #18 I dunno. I think it is rather clever, Germany taking first steps to say Diplomacy is not working. Hell, they are capitalists right? So, why not fess up and say "Hey, these stupid sanctions are hurting us more than them - damn blackhats don't care about anything normal - lets try (wink wink) something else. Next, perhaps, the French will also agree that sanctions are not working, then the British ... then it's kind of official diplomacy is over and with tacit consent, we can solve the problem. |
| Posted by: Beau 2007-09-11 21:00 |
| #17 Russia is done for. It will be a miracle if the territory isn't further divided by the Chinese and muslims. In 30 years the US will have 4 times the population vs 2X today. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-11 20:56 |
| #16 Darth, When the Russkies come rolling to Berlin, you'll see how dead it is. We need to pull out NOW. Sever all commitments to all Euros and reestablish them selectively on a country by country basis. We need to be able to tell them all they're on their own. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-11 20:50 |
| #15 If they are afraid for their economy the US could always mull a tarriff on German cars and beer and make tourist visa's manditory for folks coming to the US from Germany. I don't want to start a trade world but this is crap. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-09-11 20:38 |
| #14 Zen, Word. On the twisting gently in the breeze. |
| Posted by: jds 2007-09-11 20:35 |
| #13 This is the "home alone" treatment while your aid and fools gold evil continues to imperil the world. the "German economy ". You screw with this, you die. You shall never rule again. Screw Germany. It is the worlds Dick Durban. The traitors prose. Your country is afterall where all of the "anti war" propaganda started from? no? The arms and nukes you were selling them? the oil for food? I have little to say after the two major wars your country started, but I will tell you this. If you go against this now, you will never recover and you can kiss your 38 hour work week goodbye. dumbasses. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-09-11 19:42 |
| #12 We are never going to get approval, and we are never going to get help. What with Russia and China overtly impeding the fight against terrorism even while Europe covertly facilitates it, America is going to have to go it alone. Either we find the will to believe that we are worthy of survival or commit national suicide. There is no better time than this somber anniversary of the 9-11 atrocity to recall Abraham Lincoln's address before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois regarding "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions": Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-11 19:37 |
| #11 NS, NATO is dead. It is a gentleman's club (and I use the term loosely), not an defensive alliance. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-09-11 19:20 |
| #10 Pull. Out. Of. Nato. Now. Let these cowards defend them selves or convert. No more American $ for Brussels. And tell the Central Euros they can choose between us and Brussels. Including statehood. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-11 19:14 |
| #9 "If the US can just get a nice, clean casus belli, then we can follow international law and kick seven bells out of Iran." 'moose, if we had radar and optical tracking of a missile from launch in Teheran to nuclear detonation in Washington, DC, the world would STILL not even support real sanctions, never mind military retaliation by the US. There would be some mixed message lip service, tending towards 'the US deserved it'. We are never going to get approval, and we are never going to get help. We must come up with the will power to face down Satan alone, and do whatever has to be done. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-11 19:13 |
| #8 Not to mention senior German engineers actively aiding the Khan nuclear proliferation ring. Germany's been playing both sides of the road for a long long time. And I'm tired of funding and protecting it -- despite the fact the Mr. Lotp has relatives there. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-11 19:08 |
| #7 I figure the Germans want us to bomb Iran's stuff so they can sell them a set of replacements and double their profit. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-11 19:08 |
| #6 That's not the part that angers me - it's the hypocritical public stance. It's the German press, partly state owned, that preaches hatred of the US and publishes demonstrable (and damaging) lies about us. There's a reason 49 jihadis were ready to murder Americans in Germany -- and this sort of shit is a good part of that reason. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-11 19:03 |
| #5 The Germans are being realistic. They cannot do anything without the approval of Brussels, and Brussels will never approve what needs to be done to stop Iran, or even slow them down. So the BEST thing Germany can do is to put an end to the fiasco and walk away, taking the rest of Europe with it. And this is a valuable thing as far as the US is concerned. It also means that Iran will no longer be able to get Europe to intercede in its behalf, or stand in the way. If the US can just get a nice, clean casus belli, then we can follow international law and kick seven bells out of Iran. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-11 18:13 |
| #4 How about US economic sanctions on Germany? |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-11 18:11 |
| #3 according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities. Pushing America into the role of the World's Policeman™ while simultaneously bemoaning our unilateralism is the very worst sort of moral hypocrisy. During any future onslaughts upon them, these fair weather friends should be left to twist gently in the breeze. When they finally beg for help, make the price so steep such that they will never forget their betrayal. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-11 18:06 |
| #2 If the UN imposes sanctions on Iran, it would cut into the sweet deals that Germany is running with Iran. Just like France and Iraq. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-09-11 17:54 |
| #1 and also gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities. par for the course nowdays. The leaders know what needs to be done but not the spine to stand up to their lefty folks back home and explain it. If this is a real emergency, please hang up and dial the United States. The time is coming that we will stop picking up the call for help and just keep looking out for ourselves. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-09-11 17:52 |