(1) SYRIA -- "Reuters":
IRAN --FORBES/AFX: The dispute over Iran's suspected nuclear arms program is 'more likely than ever' to be referred to the UN Security Council, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened on Wednesday to send the inquiry into the murder of Lebanon's former prime minister back to the U.N. Security Council if Syrian "obstruction" continued. In a strongly worded statement, Rice also voiced grave concerns about what she said was Syria's "destabilising behaviour and sponsorship of terrorism" and said Damascus must stop interfering in the affairs of neighbouring Lebanon. "Syria must cease obstructing the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and instead cooperate fully and unconditionally as required by U.N. Security Council resolutions," said Rice in a statement.
The Christian Science Monitor (PARIS):
Iran's abrupt resumption of its nuclear program this week, throwing Tehran's clerical regime into open conflict with the rest of the world, appears to have doomed current diplomatic efforts to curb the country's nuclear ambitions.
Britain called on Wednesday for the U.N. Security Council to consider action against Iran after it vowed to resume nuclear fuel research and Washington said a referral to the body was "more likely than ever".
QUESTION: (a) How long after sanctions are enacted by UNSCR will it become necessary to take military action against Assad and/or Iran? And, (b), what might trigger military action?
I think that after sanctions are approved by the UNSC that we will attack the command&control apparatus of the Assad regime as soon as there is (1) another assassination in Lebanon; and/or (2) another major incursion by "insurgents" fromn Syria. BOTH may srve as pretext for a MAJOR military strike, like Clinton's 1998 OPERATION DESERT FOX against Saddam.
I think we will preemptively attack and disable Iran's nuclear facilities (1) as soon as we document ANY interference by Iran in Iraq; or, (2) at any time after sanctions are approved.
I think EITHER OR BOTH of these attacks against islamofascism will happen NOT LATER THAN late summer 2006 IFF Bush and the GOP are TRAILING BADLY in polls regarding the mid-term elections - (because Bush will strike before the appeasing doves of the Democrat Party gain control and attempt to tie his hands as they did Reagan's vis a vis the CONTRAS and Nicaragua). If Bush and the GOP are leading comfortably then Bush will bide his time.
[This is based on my understanding of Lincoln's approach to the US Civil War in 1864: In October of 1864, it appeared to Lincoln (and most everybody else) that he was CERTAIN to lose the election to Democrat dove/appeaser McClellan; therefore, Lincoln ordered his War Cabinet to pull out ALL the stops and do WHATEVER they had to in order to win the war before McClellan would be inaugurated in March 1865 - whereupon McClellan would immediately carry out his campaign promise to cut a deal with the Confederacy - either allowing them to secede or to re-enter the Union WITH slavery intact. This order by Lincoln led DIRECTLY to the great battlefield victories for the United States of America and to utter defeat for the rebels.]