最新ニュース | フォーラム | イギリスのニュース | 米国のニュース | ワールド・ニュース | 政治ニュース | Sci技術のニュース | 戦争及びテロリズムのニュース | スポーツのニュース | マルチメディア | ホームページを置きなさい

火曜日、2007年10月2日
RINFのフォーラムでこのレポートを論議しなさい >

によって 口論のポーター

イランに対して米国を軍事活動に近い方のステップを動かす報告されているまた潜在的なターゲットに変更がずっとある。

新しいレポートはあらゆる攻撃のターゲットが国の核設備よりもむしろイランの革命的な監視、であることを提案する。

Seymour Hershピューリッツァー賞受賞のジャーナリストはずっと過去の18か月の間イランで米国の殴打の可能性について書いている。

彼の最も最近の記事のための ニューヨーカー TVのインタビューの雑誌、彼はオーストラリアに概念の「示された関心」があることを主張することを続き。

納得していない公衆

彼の最も最近の記事のための ニューヨーカー 彼はブッシュ政権を認めたアメリカの公衆をではない差し迫った核脅威イランの確信させなかった姿勢論争する。

同時に、彼はイラクの連合軍の攻撃の増加する数に更新された焦点がある言い、イランの軍需品は重要な役割を担っていると主張することを。

これは5月末頃の大統領によってジョージWブッシュスピーチの一部分行った。

「イランの供給された軍需品による私達の基盤そして私達の軍隊の攻撃ここ数か月間に増加したイラクの保証状態の安定を助けるべきイランによる帖当にもかかわらず」はブッシュ氏はスピーチで言った。

「私はとる私達の軍隊を保護するのに必要な処置を私テヘランの殺人的な活動に直面するために承認したイラクの私達の軍の司令官を」。

Hersh氏はブッシュ政権を出る変更の調子の証拠としてこの修辞を引用する。

「ゲームの名前それらが核脅威であることであるのが常であった、イランに爆弾があることをすぐに行っている私達はそれをの私達がイラクで戦前持っていたとちょっと同じゲームしなければならない」、は彼は言った。

ここ数ヶ月間それ販売していないである認識に来たこと「であるそれ起こる何が、アメリカの人々は核脅威としてイランをイラクについてあったように心配していない、確かに、そこにであるちょうど懐疑論。

「そうそれらは転換した、実際に」。

Hersh氏は今では目的からイラン人が積極的に追求すれば核兵器を開発することを計画するアメリカの公衆内に一致がそれらある少なくとも5年があることを彼が信じることを言う。

管理のアプローチの転位をひっくり返した彼は言う。

“Instead of trying to sell it, not only to the American people but to its allies, the notion of a massive bombing against the infrastructure, what they call counter-proliferation against the infrastructure of the Iraqi bomb, hitting the various facilities that we know exist - instead, they’ve now decided that they’re going to hit the Iranians, payback for hitting us,” he said.

“They’re going to hit the Revolutionary Guard headquarters and facilities, they’re going to tone down the bombing, they’re going to shift it. It’s going to be more surgical.”

Mr Hersh says the new strategy involves a subtle change of targets.

“We’re threatening Iran, we’ve been doing it constantly, but instead of saying to the American people and instead of saying internally, ‘It’s going to be about nuclear weapons’, it’s now going about getting the guys that are killing our boys,” he said.

“We’re going to hit the border facilities, the facilities inside Iraq that we think are training terrorists, we’re going to hit the facilities we think are supplying some of the explosive devices into Iraq.

“This is the administration’s position.”

Australia on board?

He also claims the Bush administration’s new focus is getting support from its allies, including Australia.

“The Brits are interested in this idea, there have been expressions of interest from Australia, other countries, the Israelis of course have gone bananas, they’re very upset about the idea of not going,” he said.

“If you’re going to go into Iran, the Israeli position is very firm, they want us to go, and they want us to hit hard. … An Israeli told me, if you run into a lion, you either shoot it, or ignore it, you don’t pluck out its eyebrows.

“Going in and taking out the Revolutionary Guard and not taking out the nuclear facilities, for the Israelis is it a non-starter.

“But that’s the plan, the plan is to be more surgical, more careful, and they’re getting some of their allies on board.”

Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said he called on Iran to stop supplying weapons to militias in Iraq during a recent bilateral meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister.

A spokesman for the Minister’s office declined to respond to Mr Hersh’s latest claims.

‘The opening gambit’

Dr Michael McKinley, a senior lecturer in International Relations and Strategy at the Australian National University, says a US attack would lead to war.

“If the United States was to engage in surgical strikes, as some people are once again talking about, you would have to say that Iran could very well behave in such a way, and there’d be a broad scope of possibilities here, where a widely escalated war would need to ensue after that, because I cannot imagine that Iran would just allow itself to be attacked without taking some sort of forceful reaction,” he said.

He is unconvinced an attack on Iran would stop with ’surgical strikes’.

“You have to challenge the logic of it, because if you attack Iran because it seems to be supporting activities inside Iraq, then by the logic that everybody in the decision-making framework seems to have, Iran would then speed up its alleged nuclear weapons program,” he said.

“That would be the logical way of regarding an Iranian reaction, which would then of course require a further and much stronger reaction on its nuclear sites from the United States.

“So this would appear to be only the opening gambit, rather than a one-off, if you take everybody’s logic at face value.”

Dr McKinley says he believes there there is a disposition in the US administration to take some form of military action against Iran.

“I would be more surprised rather than less surprised if there was not an attack sometime before the Bush administration leaves office,” he said.

Mr Hersh agrees.

“What I do know, is he wants to do something,” he said.

“He will not leave Iran in a position to be a nuclear power and a position to be a threat.”

Discuss this report in the RINF forums >

Have Your Say: Bush steps up anti-Iran rhetoric

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 am and is filed under Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA-News Video Voting Warfare White-House Wolfowitz World-News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version