Edwards told the same right wing Israeli crowd that he strongly believes we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which they were not at all happy to hear. So he got half of it right.

His comments opened up political space for the president and that is very, very dangerous.

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

^{"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination."}

I agree that Gore would finish off Edwards, then Obama, and would pose a bigger challenge to the Clintons.
But if what Scott Ritter says is right, and I've been a fan of his for a long time, we may not have another Presidential election.

What is CFR?

I actually wonder whether Lasthorseman isn't confusing it with the American Foreign Policy Council. CFR (www.cfr.org) is pretty sane, AFPC (www.afpc.org) is pretty nuts.

"Political Islam is a dream or a nightmare, but not a sociological reality." - Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10282

"On April 18, at a White House press conference, president George Bush
was asked “when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have
diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that
include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your
administration will plan for?”. President Bush replied: “All options are
on the table.”"

We want to solve this issue diplomatically and we're working hard to do so. The best way to do so is, therefore, to be a united effort with countries who recognize the danger of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And that's why we're working very closely with countries like France and Germany and Great Britain. I intend, of course, to bring the subject of Iranian ambitions to have a nuclear weapon with Hu Jintao this Thursday. And we'll continue to work diplomatically to get this problem solved."

link

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq

By JAMES GLANZ
Published: January 29, 2007
BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”...

( ... Link ... )

Instantly followed by -

Bush Warns Iran Against Action in Iraq

Jan 29, 11:47 AM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Deeply distrustful of Iran, President Bush said Monday "we will respond firmly" if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens.

Bush's warning was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the United States and Iran. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The United States has accused Iran of supporting terrorism in Iraq and supplying weapons to kill American forces.
"If Iran escalates its military actions in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and - or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush said in an interview with National Public Radio.

The president's comments reinforced earlier statements from the White House.

"If Iran wants to quit playing a destructive role in the affairs of Iraq and wants to play a constructive role, we would certainly welcome that," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. But, he said, "We've seen little evidence to date (of constructive activities) and frankly all we have seen is evidence to the contrary."

(...)

( ... Link ... )

Less than one single day to recast what could very easily be interpreted as an Iranian attempt to assist in reconstruction into a naked threat of Iranian military aggression.

A blunt, aggressive, undiplomatic, tactless, instant "fuck off and die" from Bush.

No, Bush is simply lying. There is no diplomatic front.

There is merely the talk of it to lend political cover to other actions.

[Edited to add - I find it easier to parse the Bush Administration's words when I translate their use of the word "diplomatically" into "being given an opportunity to unilaterally and unconditionally acquiesce to our demands before we attack", which I believe in all seriousness is how they understand the word. Diplomacy is their "tool of last resort" when faced with the failure of coercion, naked threats of force or its actual employment. From their perspective, they haven't yet been driven to that extent - ES].

...I tend to think that there's a lot to be gained from disarticulating the nuclear issue from the issue of Iranian influence in Iraq and that continuing to equate the two would only help any attempt to move from events in Iraq to an attack on Iran.

As it happens I just came across Gary Sick elucidating pretty much what I had come to think was going on (he apparently published this on the Gulf 2000 mail list, and I think it's something of a faux pas to toss it into the public domain - via the Arabist Network - so alternatively one can find substantially similar material from CFR). I tend to push the timeframe for this developmental trajectory somewhat earlier (i.e., I think this one had been happening since before the most recent round of war in Lebanon, but that doubtless pushed things into high gear).

"At this moment, therefore, two distinct myths emerged, fuelled by the trauma of a shared experience and amplified by the existence of a hungry mass media eager to disseminate images of the world's first televised revolution." - Ali Ansari

If he wanted the nuclear option off, he would have said it was off. When given the EXPLICIT opportunity to do so, he refused to.

Especially given the multiple leaks of nuclear planning (including a Prime Time Fox TV news special which actually pointed out which facilities needed to be hit with nukes on a map).

ALL options means the tactical nuclear option is on the table. Here are the top 5 links from an entirely cursory google of "ALL options tactical nuclear devices"

LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3
LINK 5
LINK 6

Again, if he had wanted to take nukes off the table, all he had to do is say, "they're off the table."

The US has agressively stated that it has the right to nuclear first strikes. While this was always doctrine, it has been pushed far harder and more agressively by the Bush admin than any other admin, the majority of whom downplayed it rather than played it up. It has put money and effort into developing new nuclear bunker busters. And we have had repeated reports of planning to use nukes against Iran.

ALL options includes Nukes. Period.

...mode of dealing with the issue, at least at the time when he answered the question, was through diplomatic negotiation. That's a quite different view than one might be left with were one only to look at the partial response. Diplomacy by preference, but with use of force as a potential.

Here's a little point that you haven't yet taken on board through our discussion - I happen to agree that "all options" as diplomatic discourse in this specific situation extends to using special weapons. There's a wide gap between our positions in other domains (not least, I think the threat plays a role in Iran's current intense reflection and that with careful throttling a coercive element is potentially useful in geting to a negotiated solution, so long as no one panics or gets excessively greedy), but on that we agree.

"Real men may go to Damascus, but smart men don't need to." - JustPlainDave

I wonder how many decades Iran would need to be in the nuke business before it could "assure America's destruction" in return?

"About 50% of forever" is my estimation.