Iran Disquieted by Nearby U.S. Presence(pre-emptive war against US possibl

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-US.html

Iran Disquieted by Nearby U.S. Presence(pre-emptive war against US possible?)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: August 19, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's defense minister expressed his government's disquiet about the U.S. troop presence in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and hinted that some Iranian generals believe they should strike first if they sense an imminent U.S. threat.

In an interview with pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, Ali Shamkhani was asked how Iran would respond if America were to attack its nuclear facilities.

``We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us,'' he said. ``There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that.''<snip>

``The Iranian government will never pursue turmoil and unrest in Iraq,'' Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera.

[von Staufenberg]

1. Oh, goody

I can see the Neoconners now, "We must pre-empt them before they pre-empt us."

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Hmmm...pre-emptive retaliation against pending pre-emption

Everybody wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran.

Funny how none of these real men actually did any combat time...

Nice moniker, by the way, Colonel...

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Is that the pre-pre-emptive doctrine? nt

[2Design]

2. Iraq wants us gone because they know we are colonizing...

by building 14-16 bases in their country while killing

I can see why iran doesn't want us there, because they know BushCo is trying to take over the world....

[ignatius 2]

4. Do you think a push into Iran before the election is what this

new fighting in Najaf is all about? A great commander in chief like Bush couldn't be voted out if we are in yet another war.

[KoKo]

6. I posted about a week ago that Limbaugh was hyping this....no. I don't

listen to Limbaugh, just heard it by accident, and the way he was going on and some of the PNAC'ers on C-Span's Think Tank Roundtables were talking, I posted I thought Iran Invasion or "pre-emptive" strike of their nuclear facility would be the "October Surprise."

Nothing has come along that seems to say that it wont be...I guess we just have to wait and hope that there are forces working against Bush doing this.

[Zero Gravitas]

5. Ahh the "Bush Doctrine" effect

Clearly US forces in Iraq are a "potential threat" to Iran and given the Chimperor's past record of starting wars that threat is more than merely hypothetical, so under Bush's own theories it would make sense for them to pre-emtively attack Iraq before the US can launch a pre-emtive invasion of Iran (because Iran my or may not have WMDs or may or may not launch its own pre-emtive attack on Iraq.)

[Terran]

14. And Iran's concerns are a lot more real than Bush's ever were

The situation is as if China had invaded and overrun Mexico and Canada. We'd have real concerns then too.

[Ghetto_Boy]

7. Iran wants to fill the power vacuum now that Iraq is flat on its back

[maxsolomon]

8. where will you attack exactly?

iraq? afganistan? israel?

we got you surrounded; come out with that juicy juicy persian crude!

[David__77]

9. Strategically speaking, an Iranian offensive...

...would be good for Iran from a military standpoint, if they see a US invasion as a likeihood. If would enable them to catch the US off guard. If they coordinated with their assets in Iraq and the region, it would be a fine mess indeed!

[jayfish]

13. If They Were Smart They Wouldn't Do It Alone.

They would enlist the help of Syria to sweep down through the North. If that alliance had even slightly effective AA it could wind up a route. The US simply doest have the manpower to stop it. I also believe that we brought quite a bit of our armor home and all of our carrier groups (last time I heard) were somewhere near China. The only real defense we would have against the superior numbers of enemy troops would be the B-52' at Abu Garcia. It would be very advantageous militarily for them to attack now. It's like that all over though. Anyone can pretty-much do anything they want without fear of immediate military retribution. If the world wants, it can have us over a barrel.

Jay

[Eloriel]

10. Hmmm, wonder how much "provoking" on our part will now go on

This worries me greatly. It would be absolutely fabulous for Bush if Iran pre-emptively attacked us in Iraq sometime just before the elections, now, wouldn't it? And we know that certain parts of our govt wouldn't be at all shy about provoking things like that -- in fact, Rumsfeld in particular is quite fond of the idea.

Oh dear, oh dear.

[LizW]

16. Tripwire

Isn't that what they call it? We put our troops near their territory so that ANY contact is likely to lead to hostility (or Bush can just lie and say it did -- think Tonkin Gulf).

This is very, very frightening. The neocons want war with Iran AND an attack by Iran would be great for Bush before the election.

No one would buy another preemptive war by Bush right now. But if they attacked us...

This is bad.

:scared:

[Eloriel]

17. Well said

I don't think I was familiar with the term tripwire. But you're definitely right: This is BAD.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. I agree. Very, very scary. nt

[Beetwasher]

11. The US Can Not Lay Sole Claim to Preemptive Doctrine

Unfortunately, Iran is 100% correct in this. If I were them, I'd do the same thing. We attacked Iraq w/out provocation, and our bullying and belligerence towards Iran can only be construed as a build up to an attack. The US has proven that it will not act reasonably or responsibly and in fact will lie and construct phony reasons to invade anyone they chose. If I were in charge of Iran, I would not just sit around and wait for that to happen. It's also unfortunate that since the US is so bogged down in Iraq, if Iran attacked, we'd be fucked and there wouldn't be too much we could do about it. Iran actually has a sizeable armed forces.

[Trillo]

12. Haven't Iranians been implicated in some of the "fighting" in Iraq? nt

[Rockholm]

15. The Middle East Is A No-Win Situation.

This is rather simplistic, but consider this:
For many years, the Cold War between the USA and USSR was never "fought" because each were to scared to actually launch a war. Instead, the USSR fought Afghanistan for 10 years. Iran and Iraq fought each other for 8 years.
The Middle East is a quagmire for whomever enters in battle.
Thank you George. The friggin' Soviet Union QUIT fighting in Afghanistan because the could not win.
Sadly, there is no "win" in this kind of war.
Oh, exactly what is the correct term for whats happening in Iraq? It sure as hell is NOT the "War on Terror." One local station here calls it the "Conflict in Iraq."

[Moderator]

20. Duplicate topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=760518