Posted on 07/05/2008 1:56:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
LONDON - The Former US ambassador to the UN says a military action against Iran is dangerous and risky yet it has to be on the table as a last resort, PressTV reported.
"I don't think anybody views the use of military force against Iran's nuclear program as an attractive option. I think it's dangerous, risky, and not something that you would look at except as a last resort," John Bolton said in an exclusive talk with al-Jazeera on Thursday.
"Five years of European diplomatic efforts have failed and left us with very few alternatives. That's why I think the military option has to be on the table," Bolton added.
He alleged Iran's consistent refusal to meet the precondition for talks, which is the suspension of uranium enrichment, is reflective of a 20-year long decision to acquire nuclear weapons that Iran has been pursuing.
"I don't ask anybody to rely on any kind of intelligence. Just bring the publicly available reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency and you'll see there is no explanation for what Iran is doing in the nuclear area other than pursuing nuclear weapons," he claimed.
The latest report of the IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei, however, has certified non-diversion of Iran toward nuclear bomb material.
The UN nuclear watchdog has so far carried out 14 surprise inspections at the country's nuclear sites and found nothing to support western claims.
Iran says it will not stop uranium enrichment, as it is entitled to use peaceful nuclear technology under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which the country is a signatory.
Under US pressure, the UN Security Council has imposed three rounds of sanctions against Tehran. Meanwhile, Washington is seeking to toughen penalties to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear activities.
It depends a great deal on what you mean by ‘us’. If ‘us’ has BHO for a CiC then ‘us’ better hope and pray Israel has what it takes to get the job done.
> Bolton: Iran war is risky, dangerous
Barney-the-Purple-Dinosaur: Oooo! War is DANGEROUS, Kids!
You call Bolton, Barney-the-Purple-Dinosaur?
Forest fires are risky, dangerous, AND at times very necessary, to remove the decay & underbrush.
Diplomats ... what can one say?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
> You call Bolton, Barney-the-Purple-Dinosaur?
Anybody who claims that “War with Iran is risky and dangerous” is pointlessly stating the bleeding obvious, rather like Barney does. Of course war is risky and dangerous, else it would be called “peace”.
Better to take the risk now, BEFORE they can develop a nuke, than later, when we may actually have to fight in a nuclear environment.
We are pursuing General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq.
It’s true that we weren’t using an effective strategy until fairly recently in the Iraq theater.
I’ve read that some people - perhaps you are one - think the counterinsurgency warfare is “no win”. I beg to differ. What we were doing previously to CIW is what was “no win”.
I doubt you were a fan of what went on before CIW - don’t see how you could be - so, what is it you want in Iraq? Please define “victory”.
If by victory you mean levelling the country into a smoldering ruin, decimating friend and foe alike, and walking away, there’s a problem.
President Bush and the General have defined victory as an Iraq that can govern itself and can defend itself, is no threat to the region and is our ally in the Global War on Islamic Terrorism.
I’ll take that over “kill all the Muslims and destroy the infrastructure, then walk away” crowd any day.
I totally disagree and I stand with Petraeus and so does the President.
We were targets of terrorism for years, before we started nation building. Even on our own soil in the first WT center bombing and then 9-11, as well as our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and our barracks in Saudi and our ship the USS Cole.
When Bush decried nation building for US troops, he was talking about not wanting them in UN peacekeeping forces or in namby pamby type situations that were never in our national interest to be there and that went on and on. He thought our troops should be more selectively and effectively used. He was never, ever against using them in decisive warfare in our national interest.
Bush believes and the evidence bears him out, that since 9-11 we have to wage a worldwide war against Islamic terrorism. Not every tool is military warfare which includes dealing with aftermaths of invasions, but in Iraq and Afghanistan you have such necessities.
The war wasn’t effectively handled after we toppled Saddam. An insurgency came to be and we had no comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy to stabilize Iraq and get rid of the bad guys. Petraeus has changed all of that and Bush backed him when it wasn’t popular. Bully for them.
I’m glad you’re not in charge, shadowgovernment. I’m sure you mean well. But I’m stickin’ with Petraeus.
Even Osama bin laden and the ay man zawahiri have said that Iraq was the central front in their war on us.
And Iran through their proxies was trying to take over the southern part from day 1 after Saddam’s toppling. They got quite far with it, too, right under the noses of the Brits who had no effective strategy either.
Now the US trained Iraqi army is doing this necessary work against al-qaeda, and Iranian agents. The government there that we stood up is making a difference now.
It’s a different world, sg, than when Bush ran in 2000. But even back there what he said has been widely misused and abused and applied to situations he wasn’t applying it to, then or now.
We don’t need smoldering ruins and dysfunctional, chaotic countries left behind in our wake.
We need allies in the heart of the Middle East and that are worth something to us and the world.
Not hellholes that breed more terrorism, and hegemony by threatening states such as Iran.
Nobody involved is facing the scale of present events. Everybody is pretending we are still invincibly strong and can simply choose whether to engage, how much, on what terms, for what ends, etc. But the reality has already slipped well away from that, and it is now our enemies (and our own weaknesses), not our policy decisions, that are driving events.
And there will be hell to pay...
Sure.
Bolton is right that the danger and risk is great. That is why Iran will be allowed the first shot. Then public opinion will be with the USA. Even then the war must be short and conclusive because there is a time limit once the danger has passed, that limit being the beginning of the next election cycle.
Any war is dangerous but I expect we will hammer them into submission rather quickly. The most dangerous part is the media who will do everything possible to sour americans view of it.
Our energy dependence is surely one of our greatest weaknesses.
I was merely addressing contentions from an earlier post that I believe are wrong concerning our strategy in the WOT (especially Iraq) and Bush’s past (pre 9-11) statements regarding “nation building”.
Bush/Cheney might yet find a silver lining in this cloud. I’m sure they know best what our vulnerabilities are, but they might have a shot at playing well a poor hand, by using cards the rest of us haven’t considered...
We will soon see.
There’s no doubt the energy situation is terrible.
The value of the proven oil reserves of the gulf cooperation council countries currently exceed the market capitalization of all the stock markets in the world, combined.
Iran, Russia, and Venezuela between them could buy the entire US financial sector at its present smashed prices, on the strength of the oil price spike that would predictably follow a conflict in the strait of Hormuz.
Nobody is yet facing the realities of this situation. Nobody at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.