You have commented 338 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
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran
2007-07-16
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cheney is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

"The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran
Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.
Posted by:lotp

#7  Don't lets forget all those Air Force airplanes that have surged into Iraq... and all the little accidents, riots, inexplicable murders, etc. that have been happening in Iran over the past months. Just because it isn't another blitzkrieg doesn't mean nothing is happening. (Or so I hope, anyway.)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-07-16 19:07  

#6  The only way diplomacy can work with Iran is if you carry a big stick and make them understand that you will use it. Even then it may not work because they are CRAZY!!! They are stalling, Condi, don't you get it? Tic toc, Mr. President. The clock is running.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-07-16 15:40  

#5  The donks have so much invested in Iraq that they have no vision for down the road. So if the Administration focus suddenly shifts to Iran, Iraq will be forgotten, just like Afghanistan is today.
Posted by: Skunky Glins5285   2007-07-16 15:00  

#4  Mike,

If anyone from State was there then the Guardian has a source. Forget the shaker and grab your weapon of choice.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2007-07-16 10:23  

#3  The Guardian reporting on internal WH debate . . . where's that salt shaker when I need it?
Posted by: Mike   2007-07-16 06:11  

#2  Joe, ya' pretty much nailed it. However, events have their way to conspire against any predictions, even these rather of a general nature. Some fuckin bee somewhere would fly into someone nostril, who would then sneeze and lose control of a vehicle, causing a chain collision of a multitude of vehicles and ...
Something of that sort. ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-07-16 04:47  

#1  Iran + Radical Islam desire a total US-Western pullout from the ME = Muslim Nations, NOT A PARTIAL. In any case, the USA must be ready in case of conflict between Israel + Iran-Syria in coming months. MOUD ESCALATING VZ DUBYA ENTRENCHING. Dubya has circa 17 months left before leaving office, which is a lot of time for him to unilater make the US-Allied position in the ME stronger, while Iraqi insurgents, Islamies, and suppor national Govts. can potens lose a lot of fighters, a lot of experienced leaders-commanders. loss of worldwide ideo-diplomatic credibility, and suffer US-induced, State-specific economic detriment during the same period. And, for whatever personal andor political reasons the bulk of anti-GOP US DemoLefties are NOT serious about US withdrawal or pullout from the ME, espec now that the WH will be up for grabs in 2008. NO DEM FOR 2008 + WH RUNS WANTS TO BE LINKED TO US FAILURE IN THE ME, WHILE POST-JAN 2009 US ENTRENCHMENT MEANS MORE RESOURCES = $$$ FOR A GLOBALLY-SUPPORTED US HYPER-WELFARE STATE. WIN-WIN-WIN FOR US DEMS, LOSE-LOSE-LOSE FOR MOUD + ISLAMIES EVEN IFFA DEM WINS THE WH IN 2008. Short of war, Moud per se needs a GUARANTEED ANTI-US PRO-IRAN POTUS IN AMERICA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-07-16 01:23  

00:00