DSM scenario redux, this time targeting Iran

[sabra]

First there's Bolton...

<<SNIP>>
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27297882.htm

US's Bolton warns Iran, Syria over Iraqi border

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, in his debut in the U.N. Security Council, pressed Syria and Iran on Thursday to do more to stem the flow of terrorists, arms and funding into neighboring Iraq.

His comments came as the 15-nation council unanimously adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution condemning a recent surge in violence in Iraq that has killed hundreds, including Algerian diplomats, U.S. Marines and a Sunni Arab helping to draft a new Iraqi constitution.

Russia used the vote to criticize the media for glorifying terrorists after Moscow said it would bar ABC News from working in Russia when the U.S. television network aired an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.

Bolton urged all nations "to meet their obligations to stop the flow of terrorist financing and weapons, and particularly on Iran and Syria."

<</SNIP>>

Then Casey....

<<SNIP>>
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/politics/12303770.htm

U.S. warns Iran against resuming nukes

WASHINGTON - Any move by Iran to resume nuclear activity would prompt the United States to try to put the issue before the United Nations for possible punitive action, the State Department warned Thursday.

That process would begin with an immediate U.S. call for the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency's board of governors to meet in Vienna, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said.

But "for the moment, as long as they are maintaining the suspension there is not an immediate need for such a meeting," he said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency could report Iranian violations to the U.N. Security Council, which then would decide whether to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

<</SNIP>>

Don't forget Rummy....

<<SNIP>>
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/world/12312600.htm

Rumsfeld said Thursday that Iran is opposing Iraq's efforts to build a democracy.

"There's no question but that Iran is a problem for Iraq as well in terms of their developing a reasonably representative system," Rumsfeld told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

"The last thing the Iranians want is to see Iraq succeed as a democracy, as a representative system, as a moderate state. It's exactly in conflict with the situation in Iran, which has a small handful of clerics who run the country," the secretary said.

<</SNIP>>

But wait, the UK says not so fast my friends...

<<SNIP>>
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/world/12312600.htm

Dutton contradicts U.S. on Iran-Iraq ties

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The commander of British-led forces in southeastern Iraq said Friday that concerns about Iranian efforts to influence events in Iraq are based more on speculation than on facts.

The remark by Maj. Gen. Jim B. Dutton of the British Royal Marines contrasted with criticisms of Iran by U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who have said repeatedly that Iran is interfering in Iraq's internal affairs.

....

Dutton, speaking by telephone from Basra, told reporters at the Pentagon that he doubts most Iraqis in the southeastern part of the country would favor an Iranian-style theocracy.

"My understanding of the Iraqis of southern Iraq is that they have a very different view of politics and that very few of them would wish to have a similar political system as the Iranians do," Dutton said.

<</SNIP>>

At least time, the UK is speaking on the record.

[ewagner]

1. What bothers me most

is that, just like the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, the neocons are all singing out of the same hymnal.

and, just like prior to Iraq, we have NO MEANS of independently confirming or debunking their claims about their nuke program.

We, as a country, never learn anything do we?

[countingbluecars]

2. Fixing the facts, but

will the American people buy into the lies this time? I fear it would take a terrorist attack, a big one.

[sabra]

3. I have that same fear.

And there are many signs...

[iconoclastic cat]

4. Why would it take a big terrorist attack?

IMO, they'll launch an offensive as soon as the DSM, Plame, or Sibel Edmonds stuff breaks.

[countingbluecars]

6. Can they do that without the approval of Congress?

Would it just be an extension of the conflict in Iraq? Oh, and I think the terrorist attack would have to be a big one to justify the use of nuclear weapons.

[iconoclastic cat]

7. I'm not saying they'll use nukes per se.

I do, however, think that Congress will lay down for Bushco again...including some Dems.

[maxrandb]

5. Saw A Report Recently About Explosive Intercepted in Iraq

"supposedly" from Iran.

This seems awfully convenient to me. The story I read, also said that it might have been the same type of explosives that killed 20 Marines in two days this week.

Strangely convenient wouldn't you say??

I wonder if the Bolton to UN delay (thanks DEMS), threw off their time-table a little bit?

One can only hope.