I agree, but you need to explain in details what a US President should do as a "concrete action" .

You know, some ignorant people interprete this as a call for a war against Iran.

Although i don't advocate violence, i think that we (meaning the West ) should fund the opposition, both inside and outside Iran and even give them weapons.

But, i start thinking that, even if the US acts alone,the regime would survive cause half a world is doing business with the Mullahs.

Europe, Japan and Australia should cease their support for the Mullahs, otherwise i fear that action by the US alone is not going to change anything.

A regime falls when it is isolated from the entire world.

What keeps the regime in the power is the money of the EU,Japan and Australia.

Also, i think that if the Iranian military take the side of the people, it would be the end for the Mullahs.

The most important thing to remember is that this is an election year and that the US is at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. both candidates are seeking to be elected/reelected and really do not wish to increase their political exposure by engaging Iran as a potential political landmine.

Second, Iran is truly dangerous and politics aside, I really doubt whether the US can muster the political will at present to confront Iran in view of the present military picture. I hate to say it, but Iran developing nuclear weapons, and even using one, would likely be a necessary precondition for any meaningful action by the US against the mullahs. Do not try to rationalise this posture, because it is not rational. WWII did not just happen, we blundered into it.

The damnable thing is, we can't be certain that a second Bush term will commit to regime change in Tehran.

But we CAN be certain that a Kerry presidency will NOT.

We have to keep the pressure on Washington to get serious. The regime's continued attacks on US and Iraqi forces are unacceptable - morally, strategically, and (for the Administration) politically. President Bush will have to do something early in his (G-d willing) second term. US citizens must let him know that the support and the willpower exist to go through with the ONLY real solution to the problem. Activists elsewhere should keep the pressure on their governments as well.

Kerry will not orchestrate change in Iran. He has made his positions clear enough that he would leave such actions to the UN and a world coalition. One thing we have learned clearly in last four years: the UN does not have the will or fortitude to affect such important humanitarian changes, even when the scale is much smaller.

I feel confident that Iran was very much on the Bush administration's plans for post-Iraq but the weak-kneed world community and American "liberals" have almost scuttled those plans. And why? For the biggest naesayers in the UN Security Council, it was kickbacks and bribes from Saddam. For the American left, it was a chance to gain a political advantage.

Colossal greed has threatened the future freedoms of millions of Muslims, strengthened the terrorists, and left Western govennments more vulnerable than ever.

I believe that Iran is still very much on the Bush administration's calendar but the effort has been set back years. For Bush to discuss it now in this political environment would have nothing but detrimental effects for the future of the Iranian people.

Appeasing the Nazi's before WWII did not work. Appeasing the terrorists now will not be any more effective. This lesson has been taught over and over throughout history. It is incredible that humankind remains so ignorant of our own past.

Support from another source:

One Small Detail

Direct link:
One Small Detail

I can hazard a guess as to why President Bush has not made Iran a "front burner" issue heading into the elections.

Until the elections he has political cover provided by the European powers who are "negotiating" with the regime of Iran. The whole goal is to get re-elected and he won't bring up Iran because it isn't a winner with those who might be persuaded to cast their vote for him. His base would welcome a tougher public stance towards Iran; however, it might drive off voters who are leaning towards re-electing him. So as a compromise he makes sure his language and tone leaves little doubt in his supporters that he will approach Iran much more toughly in a second term without specifically mentioning particulars.

Also I'd find it hard to believe, at this time, if the U.S. did not have agents already inside Iran gathering intelligence information. Being in control of a majority Shiite nation, a nation that remembers the wars between their mad dictator with Iran's mad mullahs, you have to consider it a strong possibility that some number of Iraqi nationals - and possibly even Iranian nationals or other foreign nationals - are currently providing the U.S. and its coalition with intelligence information from within Iran. I think an understated aspect of the current war with Iraq has been the intelligence gathering effort. The best stance for any intelligence organization is to publicly portray weakness and impotence, as the U.S. did prior to undertaking operations against Iraq. For the President to speak in particular terms regarding Iran at this time would leave him open to possibly revealing information to put the mullahs' guard up even more than it is.

Finally, President Bush has a habit of letting his opponent think he has the upper hand before moving against him. It's the classic poker player's mindset: to win the big pots you need your opponents to believe that they can win the hand. Otherwise your winning hand will only gain you a small pot. I think Iran's government understands this. Hence their public pronouncements that they either don't care who wins the election, and even going so far as to indicate a preference for President Bush since the Democrat party has treated them so poorly in the past. It's a version of "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Of course this is all just a guess. It is possible, I suppose, that the President is as intellectually limited and unsophiscated as the press - both domestic and international - portray him to be.

I agree with all of the previous reader's comments. The US has overthrown two regimes - in Afghanistan and Iraq - in as many years; it can hardly have escaped the Government's notice that those two nations also border Iran on either side.

Encouraging our enemies to misunderestimate our strength and our intentions is both strategically smart, and very much in keeping with the Chief's style. I believe that while the mullahs are playing games with the kindergarten kops of the EU, President Bush is biding his time until he receives the mandate to take the battle to this enemy.

Upon Reading Article:
I suspect due to the elections We (the US) are in a holding pattern. I support Bush, however he has been much too weak in addressing Fallujah and Sadr City.
As I may have stated before, Our lawmakers need to untie the arms of those inside and outside Iran, so as to foster violent resistance. AND Back them up.
It's not being said, but a Draft will be needed of pre-trained personnel, such as police and military support, as well as College trained individuals.
I am resentful of how the US Govt. is treating those who want to help like children that should be neither seen or heard. The US should be using ALL the skilled rescources available to it. NOT just a select few companies.
This has to be a TOTAL War Effort remaniscent of WWII, where the entire might of our country is brought to bear against those who would seek to destroy us, and their own countrymen, in the name of Power and Greed masked in Religion.
Also by opening up the range of ages that are able to fight, you would have a less immediate need of a Draft.
One other thing, If we are not gathering intelligence on the internet then we should be sending worms into Terrorists' Servers. As far as N. Korea they should be heated to a temperature of 35,000 degrees. I'm sick of their SH*t. Nuke 'em!

I have thought since the axis of evil speech that taking out Saddam was a prelude to taking down the mullahs at a later date. Make no mistake, the war on terror leads straight to Tehran. I believe you will see the beginings of a new democratic life in Iran by the end of Bush's second term. Help is on the way.

I believe John Kerry has failed to mention Iran because he has no intention of doing anything about it except as part of an international effort. Since he does not yet know how the international community would respond to a suggestion to put pressure of any kind on Iran he is unwilling to articulate a position. That might make him accountable and we know how he feels about that. I get the sense that no matter what the case he would be reluctant to kick the bee's nest that is Iran. I am willing to believe that John Kerry would indeed respond to a direct attack but have difficulty imagining him supporting any significant provocative action against Iran. His history is one of avoiding conflict.

I expect President Bush is fully aware of the threat that is posed by Iran. His problem is the impending election. Iraq is his Achilles heel and he'd be foolish to even hint that any sort of conflict with Iran was on his mind. However, I suspect it is indeed on his mind and, if re-elected, he'll start dialogue on Iran in the near future.

The good news is that Iran is sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq. This is, it is physically situated in an optimal place to be effected by the spread of regional democracy. I would hope that the administration would try to promote an internal revolution as opposed to another all out assault. On the other hand, I would support an attack if it came to that. Iran cannot be allow to posses nuclear weapons. The Mullah's are precisely the type who would use them.

Michael

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: