Wednesday, January 11, 2006


(1) SYRIA -- "Reuters":
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.
(More HERE and HERE.)

(2) 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.

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.]


Pastorius said...

I don't understand why you say we would carry out an attack on Iran "at any time after sanctions are approved."

First off, I can't think of a time when UN sanctions have worked against a dictatorship. This leads me to think that sanctions are merely a crimp in the line towards actually doing something.

Second, the diplo-appeasement community seems to think sanctions are a way to AVOID doing something.

What is it you think, that the UN Sanctions will carry a threat of force if Iran violated this or that part of the sanction? And, you don't think the UN diplo-appeasers will have language included in the Sanction dictating that there must be a vote after any violation, and before an actual attack?

Ultimately, what I don't understand is why you think this whole UN sanction process means anything. I know you understand this stuff better than I, so maybe you can educate me.

Reliapundit said...

a unscr sanctioning iran will NOT have aby threat of force clause.

we want it merely to assuage the after-indident weenies/whiners.

i believe this because UNLIKE iraq, the most effective way to strike iran's nuke assets is by preemptive/surprise attack - in one fell swoop in one night withj 1000 missiles, and NOT by moving 500,000 troops on its borders in a show of force.

a unscr sanctioning syria MIGHT be foillowed by an over-border incursion by us and iraqi troops from iraq, coordinated wiht a smaller missile attack on syria's command & control assets. this will be coordinated wiht the recognition of a govt in exile, prob khaddam.

i think iraq might have gone smoother if we had arranged a govt in exile before invading. we should do that with syria NOW - and even with the UN and arab league - if we could.

sad thing is mubarak and the house of suaid LIKE the status quo in syria. and they control the arab league.

in this light it strangle makes sense to go after iran foirst: they are a bigger threat, and most everyone (all the arab GOVTS) wants them neutralized. everyone wants it done except for the jihadoterrorists.


Pastorius said...

Yeah, you make sense. And I agree that no one will oppose us on the Iran thing.

ON the other hand, if we leave it to Israel, it might be a real problem for them.

I was wondering if you thought the UN sanctions were important merely as play for the appeasers. Ok, that makes sense. Gotta give them a little grease so they can whack off in happiness.