[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding! Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025 LadyX Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show 1963 Chrysler Turbine 3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: IRAN: Former German official says war imminent
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bab ... d/2008/05/iran-former-ger.html
Published: May 31, 2008
Author: ?
Post Date: 2008-05-31 17:24:55 by PSUSA
Ping List: *Lets Bomb Iran*     Subscribe to *Lets Bomb Iran*
Keywords: None
Views: 140
Comments: 6

An opinion piece by the former German foreign minister published today in a leading Middle East paper says that Israel is planning to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

Joschka Fischer, German's top diplomat from 1998 to 2005, is a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

He wrote a piece that appeared in today's Daily Star, an English-language Lebanese newspaper, arguing that President Bush's recent visit to the Middle East was a precursor to a war on Iran's nuclear program:

The Middle East is drifting toward a new great confrontation in 2008. Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high time for serious negotiations to begin.

Fischer said Bush's speech during his address to the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, this month indicated a coming Israeli-U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear program:

He seemed to be planning, together with Israel, to end the Iranian nuclear program -- and to do so by military, rather than by diplomatic, means.... Although it is acknowledged in Israel that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't stand by and wait for matters to take their course.

Fischer, former leader of Germany's Green Party, was one of the key diplomats involved in assessing Iran's nuclear facilities and pressuring Tehran for a temporary halt of its uranium enrichment program from 2003 to 2005, when he left office.

His piece was the talk of the town in Beirut. It stunned some abroad, as well. Conservative blogger Don Surber writes:

I had hoped that reasonable minds would by now have resolved this situation amicably and without violence. When a lefty like Fischer doubts that can happen, I worry.

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

Links in article Subscribe to *Lets Bomb Iran*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: PSUSA (#0)

Iran was invaded in 1941 by the Soviets and British with the connivance of FDR.

The fact that they have the worlds second largest oil reserve of course has nothing to do with the Jews wanting the US to invade or destroy.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-05-31   17:29:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The fact that they have the worlds second largest oil reserve of course has nothing to do with the Jews wanting the US to invade or destroy.

A lot of good that does, when Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz and we lose an aircraft carrier or 2. Iranian missiles and torpedos are nothing to sneeze at.

$200+/bbl and a crashed economy, and a LOT of really enraged people in other countries.

Edit to add: I wonder if this is the proverbial "line in the sand" that makes people take action.

policestateusa.net/

PSUSA  posted on  2008-05-31   17:59:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Two years ago from Fischer:

The Case for Bargaining With Iran

By Joschka Fischer
Monday, May 29, 2006; Page A23

The Iran crisis is moving fast in an alarming direction. There can no longer be any reasonable doubt that Iran's ambition is to obtain nuclear weapons capability. At the heart of the issue lies the Iranian regime's aspiration to become a hegemonic Islamic and regional power and thereby position itself at eye level with the world's most powerful nations. It is precisely this ambition that sets Iran apart from North Korea: Whereas North Korea seeks nuclear weapons capability to entrench its own isolation, Iran is aiming for regional dominance and more.

Iran is betting on revolutionary changes within the power structure of the Middle East to help it achieve its strategic goal. To this end, it makes use of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as Lebanon, Syria, its influence in the Persian Gulf region and, above all, Iraq. This combination of hegemonic aspirations, questioning of the regional status quo and a nuclear program is extremely dangerous.

Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb -- or even its ability to produce one -- would be interpreted by Israel as a fundamental threat to its existence, thereby compelling the West, and Europe in particular, to take sides. Europe has not only historical moral obligations to Israel but also security interests that link it to the strategically vital Eastern Mediterranean. Moreover, a nuclear Iran would be perceived as a threat by its other neighbors, which would probably provoke a regional arms race and fuel regional volatility further. In short, nuclear Iran would call Europe's fundamental security into question. To believe that Europe could keep out of this conflict is a dangerous illusion.

In this crisis, the stakes are high, which is why Germany, Britain and France began negotiations with Iran two years ago with the goal of persuading it to abandon its efforts to close the nuclear fuel cycle. This initiative failed for two reasons. First, the European offer to open up technology and trade, including the peaceful use of nuclear technology, was disproportionate to Iran's fundamental fear of regime change on the one hand and its regional hegemonic aspirations and quest for global prestige on the other. Second, the disastrous U.S.-led war in Iraq has caused Iran's leaders to conclude that the leading Western power has been weakened to the point that it is dependent on Iran's goodwill and that high oil prices have made the West all the more wary of a serious confrontation.

The Iranian regime's analysis may prove to be a dangerous miscalculation, because it is likely to lead sooner rather than later to a "hot" confrontation that Iran simply cannot win. After all, the issue at the heart of this conflict is this: Who dominates the Middle East -- Iran or the United States? Iran's leaders underestimate the explosive nature of this issue for the United States as a global power and thus for its own future.

Nor is the debate about the military option -- destruction of Iran's nuclear program through U.S. airstrikes -- conducive to resolving the issue. Rather, it rings of a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no guarantee that attempts to destroy Iran's nuclear potential and thus its capability for a nuclear breakout would succeed. Moreover, as a victim of foreign aggression, Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions would be fully legitimized. Finally, a military attack on Iran would mark the beginning of a regional, and possibly global, military and terrorist escalation -- a nightmare for all concerned.

So what should be done? There remains a serious chance for a diplomatic solution if the United States, in cooperation with the Europeans and with the support of the U.N. Security Council and the non-aligned states of the Group of 77, offers Iran a "grand bargain." In exchange for long-term suspension of uranium enrichment, Iran and other states would gain access to research and technology within an internationally defined framework and under comprehensive supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Full normalization of political and economic relations would follow, including binding security guarantees upon agreement of a regional security design.

The high price for refusing such a proposal has to be made absolutely clear to the Iranian leadership: Should no agreement be reached, the West would do everything in its power to isolate Iran economically, financially, technologically and diplomatically, with the full support of the international community. Iran's alternatives should be no less than recognition and security or total isolation.

Presenting Iran with these alternatives presupposes that the West does not fear rising oil and gas prices. Indeed, the two other options -- Iran's emergence as a nuclear power or the use of military force to prevent this -- would, in addition to all the other horrible consequences, increase oil and gas prices. Everything speaks in favor of playing the economic-financial and technology card vis-à-vis Iran.

Knowledge of the potentially horrible consequences of a military confrontation and of the equally horrific consequences of Iranian possession of the atomic bomb must force the United States to abandon its policy of no direct negotiations and its hope for regime change. It is not enough for the Europeans to act while the Americans continue to look on as the diplomatic initiatives unfold, partaking in discussion only behind the scenes and ultimately letting the Europeans do what they will. The Bush administration must lead the Western initiative in harmonized, direct negotiations with Iran, and, if these negotiations succeed, the United States must also be willing to agree to appropriate guarantees. In this confrontation, international credibility and legitimacy will be the deciding factors, and ensuring them will require farsighted and cool, calculated American leadership.

An offer of a "grand bargain" would unite the international community and present Iran with a convincing alternative. Were Iran to accept, its suspension of nuclear research in Natanz while negotiations are ongoing would be the litmus test of its sincerity. Were Iran to refuse the offer or fail to honor its obligations, it would totally isolate itself internationally and provide emphatic legitimization to further measures. Neither Russia nor China could avoid showing solidarity within the Security Council.

But such an initiative can succeed only if the American administration assumes leadership among the Western nations and sits down at the negotiating table with Iran. Even then, the international community would not have long to act. As all sides must be aware, time is running out for a diplomatic solution.

The writer was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005 and was a leader in the Green Party for nearly 20 years.

The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2008-05-31   19:21:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Iran was invaded in 1941 by the Soviets and British with the connivance of FDR.

I am confident that the Soviet's actions in Iran would have been taken whether or not the US approved.

As for the Brits actions -- they were at war, and the US was not. It's not exactly as if Churchill sent the British fleet to Canada in 1940 when FDR said to.

On the other hand, since the Iranian seizure was intended to open another Lend Lease route, it seems likely the US was advised when it happened.

The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2008-05-31   19:24:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

As for the Brits actions -- they were at war, and the US was not.

Then as now it was for the oil.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-05-31   19:30:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Then as now it was for the oil.

Correction: for oil in that particular place.

I Will - Radiohead

I will
Lay me down
In a bunker
Underground
I won't let this happen to my children
Meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
Sitting ducks
I will
rise up
Little babies eyes eyes eyes eyes
Little babies eyes eyes eyes eyes
Little babies eyes eyes eyes eyes
Little babies eyes eyes eyes

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-31   21:22:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]