IRAN may be next! - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-25-2003, 08:01 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:58 AM
IRAN may be next!

U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising In Iran
Officials Cite Al Qaeda Links, Nuclear Program

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page A01


The Bush administration, alarmed by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, has suspended once-promising contacts with Iran and appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy of trying to destabilize the Iranian government, administration officials said.

Senior Bush administration officials will meet Tuesday at the White House to discuss the evolving strategy toward the Islamic republic, with Pentagon officials pressing hard for public and private actions that they believe could lead to the toppling of the government through a popular uprising, officials said.

The State Department, which had encouraged some form of engagement with the Iranians, appears inclined to accept such a policy, especially if Iran does not take any visible steps to deal with the suspected al Qaeda operatives before Tuesday, officials said. But State Department officials are concerned that the level of popular discontent there is much lower than Pentagon officials believe, leading to the possibility that U.S. efforts could ultimately discredit reformers in Iran.

In any case, the Saudi Arabia bombings have ended the tentative signs of engagement between Iran and the United States that had emerged during the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.

U.S. and Iranian officials had met periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern, including search-and-rescue missions and the tracking down of al Qaeda operatives. But, after the suicide bombings at three residential compounds in Riyadh, the Bush administration canceled the next planned meeting.

"We're headed down the same path of the last 20 years," one State Department official said. "An inflexible, unimaginative policy of just say no."

U.S. officials have also been deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program, which has the support of both elected reformers and conservative clerics. The Bush administration has pressed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to issue a critical report next month on Iran's nuclear activities. Officials have sought to convince Russia and China -- two major suppliers of Iran's nuclear power program -- that Iran is determined to possess nuclear weapons, a campaign that one U.S. official said is winning support.

But a major factor in the new stance toward Iran consists of what have been called "very troubling intercepts" before and after the Riyadh attacks, which killed 34 people, including nine suicide bombers. The intercepts suggested that al Qaeda operatives in Iran were involved in the planning of the bombings.

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda members. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy," Rumsfeld said. Iranian officials, however, have vehemently denied that they have granted al Qaeda leaders safe haven in the country.

Until the Saudi bombings, some officials said, Iran had been relatively cooperative on al Qaeda. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Iran has turned over al Qaeda officials to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. In talks, U.S. officials had repeatedly warned Iranian officials that if any al Qaeda operatives in Iran are implicated in attacks against Americans, it would have serious consequences for relations between the two countries.

Those talks, however, were held with representatives of Iran's foreign ministry. Other parts of the Iranian government are controlled not by elected reformers, but by conservative mullahs.

A senior administration official who is skeptical of the Pentagon's arguments said most of the al Qaeda members -- fewer than a dozen -- appear to be located in an isolated area of northeastern Iran, near the border with Afghanistan. He described the area as a drug-smuggling terrorist haven that is tolerated by key members of the Revolutionary Guards in part because they skim money off some of the activities there. It is not clear how much control the central Iranian government has over this area, he said.

"I don't think the elected government knows much about it," he said. "Why should you punish the rest of Iran," he asked, just because the government cannot act in this area?

Flynt Leverett, who recently left the White House to join the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the administration may be taking a gamble. "It is imprudent to assume that the Islamic Republic will collapse like a house of cards in a time frame that is going to be meaningful to us," he said. "What it means is we will end up with an Iran that has nuclear weapons and no dialogue with the United States with regard to our terrorist concerns."

Ever since President Bush labeled Iran last year as part of an "axis of evil" -- along with North Korea and Iraq -- the administration has struggled to define its policy toward the Islamic republic, which terminated relations with the United States after Iran's 1979 revolution. The administration never formally adopted a policy of "regime change," but it also never seriously tried to establish a dialogue.

In July, Bush signaled a harder line when he issued a strongly worded presidential statement in which he praised large pro-democracy street demonstrations in Iran. Administration officials said at the time that they had abandoned any hope of working with President Mohammad Khatami and his reformist allies in the Iranian government, and would turn their attention toward democracy supporters among the Iranian people.

But the prospect of war with Iraq reopened some discreet contacts, which took place under U.N. supervision in Europe. The contacts encouraged some in the State Department to believe that there was an opening for greater cooperation.

In an interview in February with the Los Angeles Times, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage drew a distinction between the confrontational approach the administration had taken with Iraq and North Korea and the approach it had adopted with Iran. "The axis of evil was a valid comment, [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," Armitage said.

At one of the meetings, in early January, the United States signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujaheddin, a major group opposing the Iranian government.

The MEK soon became caught up in the policy struggle between the State Department and the Pentagon.

After the camps were bombed, the U.S. military arranged a cease-fire with the group, infuriating the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment of the thousands of MEK troops, began to envision them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

But the MEK is also listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Under pressure from State, the White House earlier this month ordered the Pentagon to disarm the MEK troops -- a decision that was secretly conveyed by U.S. officials to Iranian representatives at a meeting in Geneva on May 3.

Nine days later, the suicide bombers struck in Saudi Arabia.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 11:42 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Not a shocker. Now that Iraq is old news like Afghanistan, it's time to find another country to deflect from his glaring lack of domestic policy.

Sometimes I wonder if we are unknowingly doing Al-Qaeda's bidding. After all, we are destroying nations that they have equally hated for years (except for Afghanistan), and I wouldn't doubt that they are betting on a popular uprising from these nations' peoples in due time. "Democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq are nonexistent, and an election would probably yield fundamentalist Islam--Al-Qaeda's goal all along.

Very curious...

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 11:58 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Damn. Someone is next..........
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 02:00 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 10:58 AM
Re: IRAN may be next!

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The Bush administration, alarmed by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia,...

"We're headed down the same path of the last 20 years," one State Department official said. "An inflexible, unimaginative policy of just say no."

U.S. officials have also been deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program,...

But a major factor in the new stance toward Iran consists of what have been called "very troubling intercepts"...

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran of harboring al Qaeda members.


LMFAO

Brand New You´re Retro
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 02:06 PM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Zwischen Null und Zero
Posts: 2,025
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Someone has to sell the weapons...right?....Typical!
__________________
bayernfc is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 04:20 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 09:58 AM
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5923714.htm

More about this story,...
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 05:25 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 03:58 AM
not a surprise. we can't find Bin Ladin, we attack Iraq. We can't find the WMDs or Saddam, we attack Iran. I'm sure this is going to completely irradicate all harsh feelings toward the US from everyone living in the Islamic world and make terrorism a thing of the past. yeah. right.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 05-25-2003, 05:42 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:58 AM
What a surprise. Except, not.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 03:21 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Iran has been a potential threat to US security for over two decades now. If they are aiding Al Quada or harboring Al Quada in ways that allow them to regroup and launch more attacks then something has to be done. People here need to take the blinders off for a second and realize that there are some very legitimite security concerns here.

Melon,

"Democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq are nonexistent, and an election would probably yield fundamentalist Islam--Al-Qaeda's goal all along."

What were Germany and Japan like right after the end of World War II. You can't get democracy through the drive through at BK, it takes time, years, sometimes decades to properly develop. Think Bosnia and Kosovo.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 10:46 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 03:58 AM
I distinctly remember George Bush making some comment about not being into "nation-building" when he was running for office or newly elected. Odd how pretty much everything he promised, he has failed to deliver, or better yet gone and done the complete opposite.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 11:14 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
I distinctly remember George Bush making some comment about not being into "nation-building" when he was running for office or newly elected. Odd how pretty much everything he promised, he has failed to deliver, or better yet gone and done the complete opposite.
Well, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I sincerely believe that he did not want to. I believe his promise was sincere, but I believe that 9/11 changed the way the President, and his administration view the world. It will be interesting to see if this becomes a campaign issue. I see the commercial with him saying "No nation building".
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 11:44 AM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:58 AM
I understand that 9/11 changed a hell of alot of politics. Still, when I read about this Iran stuff, I think "enough is enough". Iran has a very strong, pretty active opposition, unlike Iraq under Saddam. They are strongly pro-democracy and I believe they want a secular state. It's a very different political situation. Hell, I personally know of an Iranian opposition web site. I've written notes to the webmaster! If they want to put this opposition into power I'll be damned if it'll take such drastic steps to pull it off.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 01:42 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:58 AM
This doesn't suprise me in the least. Bush and his allies had this foreign policy planned long before September 11th and it's not suprising that "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq have given them the confidence to continue with this direction. (I say "victories" because although the military intervention might have been successful, the proposed goal of bringing stability and democracy to those countries are far from being achieved.)

I agree with what verte said about Iranian opposition groups too. Could you possibly post a link to the website you referred to - I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.

*Fizz
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 02:21 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Here's the link.

http://www.irannews.freeservers.com/

You'll notice that this Canadian-based site is nominally apolitical. But they've had some really irrevent stuff on this site. They had a joke cartoon of Osama bin Laden that featured music, a spoof of the Taliban's ban on music.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-26-2003, 02:27 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Thanks for the link.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com