Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 10/10/2007 View Tue 10/09/2007 View Mon 10/08/2007 View Sun 10/07/2007 View Sat 10/06/2007 View Fri 10/05/2007 View Thu 10/04/2007
1
2007-10-10 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US needs "maximum diplomatic relationship" with Iran, sez Carter
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Seafarious 2007-10-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ]  Top

#1 NEWSMAX > IRAN CONTINUES ITS DEADLY GAME.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-10 00:18||   2007-10-10 00:18|| Front Page Top

#2 Carter's demise would elicit the sound of one hand slapping clapping flapping crapping.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-10 00:24||   2007-10-10 00:24|| Front Page Top

#3 ATLANTIC FREE PRESS > Daan de Wit -ATTACK ON IRAN: THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN AND IN WHAT FORM. USA allegedly already bureaucratically gearing up for Iran war. IRAN WAR GAME PLANNING -USCommand officers see inevitable escalation.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-10 00:28||   2007-10-10 00:28|| Front Page Top

#4 AH yes, Jimmuh Cartah, the renowned expert on Iranian relations. There wouldn't be a problem with Iran if you had done your job as POTUS.
Posted by GK 2007-10-10 00:31||   2007-10-10 00:31|| Front Page Top

#5 AMERICAN THINKER [10/7/07] > IRAN PLANS TO CHECKMATE THE USA.Iran is willing to sacrifice not only the pawns, but the trophy as well, vv CHAOS in a masterful geopol chess game of all chess games. ALso, IRIB NEWS [Iran] > MOUD > reiterates that MATERIALIST WORLD + MATERIALISM ITSELF IS AT AN END.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-10 03:44||   2007-10-10 03:44|| Front Page Top

#6 Because reassured mullahs are delightful, easy going folks. We should rock them to sleep whispering soft lullabies in their ears.

If we disbanded our military they would be assured we would not attack them. Would we be safer then?

Is it more likely they took hostages because they thought we would attack them, or because they were fairly sure we wouldn't? Hmmm.
Posted by Baba Tutu 2007-10-10 04:56||   2007-10-10 04:56|| Front Page Top

#7 And the Peanut Farmer is the expert on caving in to negotiating with the Mullahs.
Posted by Bobby 2007-10-10 06:52||   2007-10-10 06:52|| Front Page Top

#8 "...because it worked out great for us in 1979-80, after all."
Posted by eLarson 2007-10-10 07:37|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2007-10-10 07:37|| Front Page Top

#9 From JM's comment :

American Thinker Iran Plans to Checkmate America
Posted by anonymous5089 2007-10-10 07:46||   2007-10-10 07:46|| Front Page Top

#10 Carter, whose re-election bid in 1980 may have been foiled by the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis...

Now that's an understatement!
Posted by Raj 2007-10-10 07:47||   2007-10-10 07:47|| Front Page Top

#11 Ohfergawdsakes Dhimmi, just STFU already!
Posted by Spot">Spot  2007-10-10 07:55||   2007-10-10 07:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Carter is rapidly falling into the domestic enemy category with his constant stream of hurtful talk.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-10-10 08:20||   2007-10-10 08:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-10-10 08:43||   2007-10-10 08:43|| Front Page Top

#14 "If the Iranian leaders feel they are going to be attacked, "then I think that is one incentive for them to be more militant," Carter said.

So...why did they become more militant back in 1978-79 when they knew they weren't going to be attacked by a president with absolutely no guts and no clue?
Talk about "disconnect"...
Posted by tu3031 2007-10-10 08:58||   2007-10-10 08:58|| Front Page Top

#15 I was all set to say something snarky, but tu3031, eLarson, Bobby, and GK beat me to it.
Posted by Mike 2007-10-10 09:10||   2007-10-10 09:10|| Front Page Top

#16 OK, so war is diplomacy carried on by other means. So let's get jimmuh appointed as a special ambassador to iran, and then go with the maximum other means diplomacy while he's there...
Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek  2007-10-10 09:35||   2007-10-10 09:35|| Front Page Top

#17 He's right, diplomacy works. Except with killer rabbits.
Posted by anonymous5089 2007-10-10 09:46||   2007-10-10 09:46|| Front Page Top

#18 Like he had?
Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-10-10 11:01||   2007-10-10 11:01|| Front Page Top

#19 Will I have to help pay for Carter's funeral?
Posted by Heriberto Ulusomble6667 2007-10-10 11:01||   2007-10-10 11:01|| Front Page Top

#20 Gee, thanks Jimmuh, but you did enough back in 78/79. You go take your meds and have a nice nap, ok old timer? We'll take it from here.
Posted by mojo">mojo  2007-10-10 11:01||   2007-10-10 11:01|| Front Page Top

#21 Carter is an idiot.

Question: Who the hell says we are INVADING Iran?

Nobody. What we are likely getting ready to do is a combination of strikes that will destroy the nuclear weapons infrastructure, the command and control of the Government inclduing the leadership, and the C&C IRG and terrorist support areas, and the religiously controlled forces there. Basically put the Mullahs out of communication, unable to control, and if lucky kill many of the worst who have led this.

Its more of a decapitation and cordon. They can rot for all we care after that. Leave enough of the Army intact and encourage a coup.

If the Iranians want to continue the fight after that, then we move on to targeting dual-use civil infrastructure that their military needs - power, phones, bridges, rail, roads, pipelines and the single refinery, and interdict the ports.


Ultimately if we have to demolish the infrastructure, then we should dismember Iran from the start rather than invading. There are plenty of ethnic fault lines to use to accomplish this, and they are are quite fortunately placed in terms of geography and oil.

Maybe encourage the Turks to "pacify" the northern Oil regions and use the threat Iranian Kurds declaring independence there to motivate the Turks to move quickly. And get Arab countries to do the same thing in the SE part of Iran with Pakistan's help (Arab money, Paki troops). Have Iraq offer to help, shia to shia, in the Basra region - give that little bastard Sadr a chance to hold the whip hand over his old masters. The rest, we just cordon it off, and allow humanitarian aid in.
Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-10 11:07||   2007-10-10 11:07|| Front Page Top

#22 OldSpook - you have my vote for prez!
Posted by 3dc 2007-10-10 12:12||   2007-10-10 12:12|| Front Page Top

#23 They can rot for all we care after that.

Yup. If there is one single lesson we must carry away from Afghanistan and Iraq it is that the era of nation-building is over. Most likely, forever and especially so in the case of these thankless, treacherous Muslim majority countries. From now on we will just drop by to break the bad boys' toys and they can clean up the mess themselves. Someone here even suggested going in after their national treasuries to pay for the beatdown. I like that idea a lot!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-10-10 12:41||   2007-10-10 12:41|| Front Page Top

#24 Who the hell says we are INVADING Iran?

Thanks for that, OldSpook. This is yet another example of loony liberals using lies, half truths and emotional appeals to advance their dubious agenda. And this time it's from King of the Dhimmis.

Nobody, except jimmuh himself, said anything about invading Iran. What we need to do is break it, disable the nuke program and let the survivors figure out what to do with the rubble.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-10-10 12:49||   2007-10-10 12:49|| Front Page Top

#25 Pappy seems disinclined to re-comment on this issue, but he presents a really valuable perspective over at:
http://mycardboardbox.wordpress.com/
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2007-10-10 13:06||   2007-10-10 13:06|| Front Page Top

#26 Jimmy, Jimmy who, the penis farmer?
Posted by Icerigger 2007-10-10 13:18||   2007-10-10 13:18|| Front Page Top

#27 'Spook, I'm glad you work for our side.
Posted by Mike 2007-10-10 14:04||   2007-10-10 14:04|| Front Page Top

#28 Worst. President. Ever.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2007-10-10 14:49||   2007-10-10 14:49|| Front Page Top

#29 So what happened to Billy Beer anyway? Did such a fine brand name die off when Jimmy left the White House in disgrace?
Posted by rjschwarz 2007-10-10 15:27||   2007-10-10 15:27|| Front Page Top

#30 Maximum diplomatic relationship with Iran


Works for me.
Posted by DMFD 2007-10-10 19:19||   2007-10-10 19:19|| Front Page Top

#31 Glemore, I agree with Pappy. You have to read it all. I have the same perspectives, having had my ass on the line, and seeing and knowing peopel that continue to put it on the line.

There is NO silver bullet, no magical way of donig it.

Thats why I said it has to be combined actions going after and destroying enough of the command and the things needed for command (C3I) to ensure there can be no effective responses. unlike going after terrorists, Iran does present conventional leadership targets, and they have to have soem semblance of structure and infrastructure to maintain their power. Unlike Bin Laden, they cannot simply leave and run things from a cave in another country.

The key is to damage the sectarian ability to command and control and act as a government to the point where they are incapable/impotent in their responses. Create a power vacuum, and leave enough of the secular Iranian Army to fill it.

But above all, no invasion.
Posted by OldSpook 2007-10-10 19:55||   2007-10-10 19:55|| Front Page Top

#32 Pappy's crazy - I support him totally
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-10-10 21:42||   2007-10-10 21:42|| Front Page Top

#33 One of the things I've advocated is alienating the IRGC and the mullahs from the populace. If you take away what support/fear/respect they have (and the power from it that results), it makes it much easier to allow a response to a power vacuum.

How? Knock down their economic power so they can't provide jobs (or money for their own use). Designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization is a good first step. I'd go with designating certain mullahs as terrorist enablers as well. Nothing like starting a intramural conflict.

OS is correct on the other stuff, but I'd hit the Baseej first. They're the ones trained in handling civil strife. They're also the ones trained in urban combat.

That the Baseej have come under IRGC control is a development that can be taken advantage of. If the IRGC have to get involved as a result of the Baseej being reduced, so much the better.

Hit the IRGC camps involved in supporting the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban. Still a strike, but it's a legitimate reason.

The idea is to get them off balance. Off balance means making mistakes. Making mistakes means creating opportunities.

There are risks. Likely the Iranians will respond, the obvious target areas being the rest of the Middle East. I suspect that's why Mr. Carter is concerned - because his Saudi paymasters are concerned.
Posted by Pappy 2007-10-10 22:03||   2007-10-10 22:03|| Front Page Top

#34 So what happened to Billy Beer anyway?

I found an unopened can when I was cleaning out my parents' house.
Posted by Mike 2007-10-10 23:30||   2007-10-10 23:30|| Front Page Top

#35 TOPIX > PUTIN - IRAN NUCLEAR BOMB IS A STRATEGIC THREAT TO RUSSIA, despite Russ finding no "objective proof" that Iran intends to build said bomb(s). OTOH, KOMMERSANT > USA, BRITAIN WORK AGAINST RUSSIA, FSB. Milyuhns and Zilyuhns, or circa 300 [RIAN][300 Spartans?] of anti-Russian "foreign intelligence" operatives caught or exposed in Russia.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-10-10 23:40||   2007-10-10 23:40|| Front Page Top

23:57 JosephMendiola
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:36 Zenster
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:32 Zenster
23:30 Mike
23:28 49 Pan
23:28 Zenster
23:28 3dc
23:27 49 Pan
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:23 3dc
23:21 DMFD
23:17 DMFD
23:17 Zenster
23:14 3dc
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:13 Old Patriot
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:55 Old Patriot
22:48 buy one war, get one free









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com