Options
Bush: Iran May Be Behind Crisis
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/16/160655.shtml?s=lh
Bush: Iran May Be Behind Crisis
President George W. Bush believes suspicions of Iran's involvement in the escalating Middle East violence are legitimate, he tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview. "There's a lot of people who believe that the Iranians are trying to exert more and more influence over the entire region and the use of Hezbollah is to create more and more chaos to advance their strategy," says Bush in Newsweek's July 24 cover story "Meltdown" (on newsstands Monday, July 17).
He called that "a theory that's got some legs to it as far as I'm concerned."
One aim of "those who perpetuate violence," said Bush, would be to disrupt the international consensus against Iran's nuclear-enrichment program. The second part of the Iranian strategy, Bush suggested, would be to "create conditions such that moderate governments tend to step back in fear, and the vacuum would then be filled by the proponents of an aggressive ideology."
In this week's cover story, Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Kevin Peraino and Middle East Correspondent Babak Dehghanpisheh look at how Iran is using its influence to wage a stealthy war against Israel and America and assess the extent of its ties to some of the key players in the current conflict.
Included in their reporting:
Hezbollah: "There are very clear fingerprints of Iranian involvement," Israeli Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan tells Newsweek regarding Hezbollah's attack against an Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon. Even so, the officer admitted, "whether it was operated by Iran, I can't confirm."
Other senior Israelis were less cautious in their claims. Former Mossad director Danny Yatom says Iranians have been launching Hezbollah's longer-range rockets, like the ones that hit the Israeli port city of Haifa last week. "The finger that pulled the trigger was an Iranian finger," he declares-although U.S. and British intelligence sources say they doubt it.
The Palestinians: Jordanian intelligence sources recall that by 1997 the Amman government was arresting and interrogating Hamas members who had received, in the words of one veteran security officer, "religious, military, counterinterrogation and even intelligence training in Iran."
Also, after the second intifada against Israel began in 2000, the Israelis intercepted boatloads of arms sent from Iran or through Hezbollah to Palestinian guerrilla groups. The last ship, intercepted in 2003, was a fishing trawler carrying not only munitions and manuals from Lebanon to Gaza, but a Hezbollah bomb maker as well.
The Syrians: Last month Damascus and Tehran signed a military agreement to establish a "joint front against Israel." The pact includes a commitment promising unrestricted passage through Syria for Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah.
The Iraqis: Residents of Basra report that members of the Iranian intelligence service operate openly in their city's streets. Iranian agents are said to have infiltrated the militias, the political parties and the Iraqi security services. U.S. officials believe that Iran gave Iraqi insurgents know-how to build the shaped-charge IEDs that have been so effective in attacking Coalition forces-a technique perfected by Hezbollah guerrillas against the Israelis.
Also, despite ideological differences, Tehran supports Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, which has been repeatedly linked to ferocious death-squad killings.
"I used to fight for free," a former member of Sadr's forces tells Newsweek, "but today the Mahdi Army receives millions of dollars every month from Iran in exchange for carrying out the Iranian agenda."
Elsewhere in the cover package, senior editor Michael Hirsh reports that, as hostilities escalated in the Middle East, the president, aboard Air Force One, made a round of phone calls to Arab allies, mainly Egypt and Jordan, pleading the case that Hezbollah's breach of the border was a clear violation of international law.
Bush wanted the Arab leaders to know that he was urging Israel to avoid any action that would topple the Lebanese government-and allow Syria to take back control of its neighbor.
But in return he urged them to pressure Hezbollah at an emergency Arab League summit in Cairo.
In an exclusive interview with Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe, Bush tells Newsweek that his message to the Arab leaders was: "Let's make sure this meeting is not the usual condemnation of Israel, because if that's the case it obscures the real culprit" - Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hirsh also reports that Bush's team was taken off guard by the sudden crisis. The two top U.S. Mideast envoys -- David Welch and Elliott Abrams - were in the region when hostilities began. But they had been reassured by Lebanese contacts that Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, didn't plan to "stir things up" while Hamas and Israel contended over a kidnapped Israeli corporal, according to a senior U.S. diplomat.
"You had six and a half years of, if not calm, basically a stable deterrence between Hezbollah and Israel," the official says. "I did not expect this at all."
Now, the president must watch and hope while his whole Mideast legacy-his goal of transforming a region that is the primary source for Islamist terrorism-stands at risk.
One important part of the U.S. strategy, says Welch, is to prevent Nasrallah from turning his would-be alliance with Hamas over captured Israeli prisoners into a united front, with Iran and Syria behind him. (Just before Hezbollah attacked, Hamas and Israel were close to prisoner exchange deal, brokered by Egypt. Cairo later complained privately to the Americans that it believed Nasrallah, Iran and Syria pressured Hamas to back out.) "It's to make sure we don't give the Iranians and Mr. Nasrallah, along with his subcontractor, Khaled Meshaal [the exiled Hamas leader in Syria], what they want, which is to link the two things," says Welch. "I don't know if that'll be possible or not, but it should be. Gaza should be addressed and solved on its merit."
Bush: Iran May Be Behind Crisis
President George W. Bush believes suspicions of Iran's involvement in the escalating Middle East violence are legitimate, he tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview. "There's a lot of people who believe that the Iranians are trying to exert more and more influence over the entire region and the use of Hezbollah is to create more and more chaos to advance their strategy," says Bush in Newsweek's July 24 cover story "Meltdown" (on newsstands Monday, July 17).
He called that "a theory that's got some legs to it as far as I'm concerned."
One aim of "those who perpetuate violence," said Bush, would be to disrupt the international consensus against Iran's nuclear-enrichment program. The second part of the Iranian strategy, Bush suggested, would be to "create conditions such that moderate governments tend to step back in fear, and the vacuum would then be filled by the proponents of an aggressive ideology."
In this week's cover story, Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Kevin Peraino and Middle East Correspondent Babak Dehghanpisheh look at how Iran is using its influence to wage a stealthy war against Israel and America and assess the extent of its ties to some of the key players in the current conflict.
Included in their reporting:
Hezbollah: "There are very clear fingerprints of Iranian involvement," Israeli Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan tells Newsweek regarding Hezbollah's attack against an Israeli warship off the coast of Lebanon. Even so, the officer admitted, "whether it was operated by Iran, I can't confirm."
Other senior Israelis were less cautious in their claims. Former Mossad director Danny Yatom says Iranians have been launching Hezbollah's longer-range rockets, like the ones that hit the Israeli port city of Haifa last week. "The finger that pulled the trigger was an Iranian finger," he declares-although U.S. and British intelligence sources say they doubt it.
The Palestinians: Jordanian intelligence sources recall that by 1997 the Amman government was arresting and interrogating Hamas members who had received, in the words of one veteran security officer, "religious, military, counterinterrogation and even intelligence training in Iran."
Also, after the second intifada against Israel began in 2000, the Israelis intercepted boatloads of arms sent from Iran or through Hezbollah to Palestinian guerrilla groups. The last ship, intercepted in 2003, was a fishing trawler carrying not only munitions and manuals from Lebanon to Gaza, but a Hezbollah bomb maker as well.
The Syrians: Last month Damascus and Tehran signed a military agreement to establish a "joint front against Israel." The pact includes a commitment promising unrestricted passage through Syria for Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah.
The Iraqis: Residents of Basra report that members of the Iranian intelligence service operate openly in their city's streets. Iranian agents are said to have infiltrated the militias, the political parties and the Iraqi security services. U.S. officials believe that Iran gave Iraqi insurgents know-how to build the shaped-charge IEDs that have been so effective in attacking Coalition forces-a technique perfected by Hezbollah guerrillas against the Israelis.
Also, despite ideological differences, Tehran supports Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, which has been repeatedly linked to ferocious death-squad killings.
"I used to fight for free," a former member of Sadr's forces tells Newsweek, "but today the Mahdi Army receives millions of dollars every month from Iran in exchange for carrying out the Iranian agenda."
Elsewhere in the cover package, senior editor Michael Hirsh reports that, as hostilities escalated in the Middle East, the president, aboard Air Force One, made a round of phone calls to Arab allies, mainly Egypt and Jordan, pleading the case that Hezbollah's breach of the border was a clear violation of international law.
Bush wanted the Arab leaders to know that he was urging Israel to avoid any action that would topple the Lebanese government-and allow Syria to take back control of its neighbor.
But in return he urged them to pressure Hezbollah at an emergency Arab League summit in Cairo.
In an exclusive interview with Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe, Bush tells Newsweek that his message to the Arab leaders was: "Let's make sure this meeting is not the usual condemnation of Israel, because if that's the case it obscures the real culprit" - Hezbollah and Hamas.
Hirsh also reports that Bush's team was taken off guard by the sudden crisis. The two top U.S. Mideast envoys -- David Welch and Elliott Abrams - were in the region when hostilities began. But they had been reassured by Lebanese contacts that Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, didn't plan to "stir things up" while Hamas and Israel contended over a kidnapped Israeli corporal, according to a senior U.S. diplomat.
"You had six and a half years of, if not calm, basically a stable deterrence between Hezbollah and Israel," the official says. "I did not expect this at all."
Now, the president must watch and hope while his whole Mideast legacy-his goal of transforming a region that is the primary source for Islamist terrorism-stands at risk.
One important part of the U.S. strategy, says Welch, is to prevent Nasrallah from turning his would-be alliance with Hamas over captured Israeli prisoners into a united front, with Iran and Syria behind him. (Just before Hezbollah attacked, Hamas and Israel were close to prisoner exchange deal, brokered by Egypt. Cairo later complained privately to the Americans that it believed Nasrallah, Iran and Syria pressured Hamas to back out.) "It's to make sure we don't give the Iranians and Mr. Nasrallah, along with his subcontractor, Khaled Meshaal [the exiled Hamas leader in Syria], what they want, which is to link the two things," says Welch. "I don't know if that'll be possible or not, but it should be. Gaza should be addressed and solved on its merit."
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.myspace.com/jensvad
how so?
~it is shining it is shining~
i stopped right there
these guys are truly Orwellian
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Both are active funders of both sides' military endeavors.
i agree somewhat... too many fingers in the pie and who shot first... but i don't think the u.s. is knowingly funding the terrorist organizations.
~it is shining it is shining~
Certainly most in the US don't view the Israelis as terrorists. But the actions of that nation often achieve the same ends -- a dead or afraid opposition.
We knowingly fund the Israeli miiltary. Iran knowingly funds Hezbollah. We can go back and forth all days about the "moral" justifications on both sides, but in the end it boils down to both the American people and the Iranian people funding death.
Exactly. Iran is involved in supplying weapons, and perhaps personnel as well. Apparently there were Iranian troops in Lebanon at one time ...
Amazing, considering that just a few short years back, Iran (which is NOT an Arab country) was fighting a bloody ethnic/terf war with Iraq, and the latter had the support of the Arab world.
I was gonna say, is this Newsweek or Newsspeak
You know, if you stub your toe it's Iran's fault.
The Syrians too....
The "support of the Arab world" is often times even more fickle than the support of America.
BTW, be careful with your "not an Arab country" statement. While correct, it can be terribly awkward within a discussion such as this.
evidently, you consider israel to be a terrorist country. i don't agree on your comparisons...
~it is shining it is shining~
I don't view Israel as a "terrorist country". Terrorism is a measure of means toward a specific end. My point is that the ends of Israel's actions are often the same as a terrorist's, even if their means are fundamentally different.
In the context of my original statement, however, this really doesn't matter. Both the American government and the Iranian government are funding this conflict for their own ends. To dead civilians lying on either side of the border, those ends are superfluous.
Reagan sold Iran over 2,000 TOW missiles (as well as other missiles)...al qaeda was created while bin laden was on the cia payroll...how can you say we don't fund terrorist organizations? the whole reason reagan had to be sneaky about funding the contras in nicaragua was b/c congress thought they were terrorists and made it illegal to support them
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
insane.
People can take me to task for this statement if they want, but as you said, its true. Most Iranians are Persian by ethnicity. Presumably the Iranian government sticks its nose into crises like this because it is an Islamic dictatorship, and has bought into the whole "Islam vs. the rest of the world" mentality espoused by many terrorist groups.
If America has the balls, and they have too be pretty big, to go into Iran...better get used to seeing more body bags...because Iran will be 150% more difficult to fight.....it would make Iraq look like a cake walk....
You can say that because at the time, Iran was a quasi-ally, as was Bin laden. At the time that these groups received weapons from the U.S., they were not considered to be terrorists. In fact, as far as the U.S. was concerned, they weren't.
Is this a good thing? No, not at all. But it strikes me as weird to go back into history and claim that the U.S. funds terrorists based on previous political alliances. A current example would be more convincing.
Which is exactly why no one is looking for a ground war in Iran, despite popular belief on this message board.
I still think the wrong "I" country got invaded ... You know, assuming that Bush just HAD TO pull the trigger on someone.
Okay assuming Bush had a choice I think Iraq was choosen because it was weaker prey and he was hoping for the quick victory, slam in a new government and pack up to the next fundamentalist country....but I really believe he did not foresee this much backlash.......if he does have an agenda it has unfortunatly (for him) made any type of PR campaign to invade Iran practically impossible. to promote....
For sure, I agree. No matter how much the American government might want Iran toppled, I don't think there's any way to sell it to the public.
Two ways it could.....
1) Iran jumps in defence of Lebanon....but I really don't think they are stupid enough for that to occur...
2) Terrorist attack on American soil which gets "linked" to Iran...regardless if Iran had any role...we know this tactic has worked before...and no Im not calling 9/11 a tactic....Im calling the response a tactic....
Hmm ... Not sure if the first would lead to an invasion, but certainly there would be a spanking in the form of airstrikes. I think you're probably right (not likely to happen), although the Iranian president really worries me. He sounds and behaves a lot like a nascent Adolph Hitler, who fortunately at this time lacks the means to impose his will on the rest of the world.
Number 2 would probably do it, you're right. My real fear here is that the Americans would be tempted to "cut corners" ... They already have had huge problems on the ground in Iraq, and if Iran gets linked to another terrorist attack, they might skip right to carpet bombing. With conventional weapons or otherwise ... I hate being a doomsayer, but man, I think it would be bad news indeed for the globe if Iran did anything so stupid.
I really believe they will not...Iran knows that the West/Israel is just waiting for ONE MISTAKE...thats all it will take.....for that matter I am more worried about the "cutting of corners" than Iran doing something....and people should be aware one way or another China/Russia do support Iran in some capacties (Putin believes Iran shoudl have a limited amount of nuclear tehnology)...you will be dealing with a lot more than Iran in a "cutting the corners" incident....than for example their direct entry into this conflict....
what? at the time iran had american hostages!!! we were arming iraq at the same time and suppsoedly the reason for that was to fight iran.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
ok.. the reagan/oliver north situation or whatever you term it was a mess and we are in a mess now. just can't group america with the hezbollah.
~it is shining it is shining~
i don't group america as the ppl in...just the america as the government. i just got a book on the iran/contra affair...ya know who was the head of the minority, more pleasing report? cheney. you just see these same ppl involved in all these fucked up things...cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, perle, addington, libby...
these ppl created mass graves in other countries...these ppl helped create, arm, tran, fund...death squads in other countries...these ppl helped overthrow democratic governments b/c they did what their ppl wanted, not what washington wanted...these ppl trained, funded, armed...nuts like bin laden while he created al qaeda (which started smuggling ppl and weapons to fight hte soviets)...i think it's far deeper than just the iran/contra affair. ppl say 'yeah, but we chose to side w/ the lesser of 2 evils' but that's bs b/c we armed iran at the same time we armed saddam...and we supposedly did that to fight iran!
under clinton's administration we armed over 50% of the 3rd world. if we stopped supporting and arming these fools we wouldn't have as much a mess as we do now. out of our past 5 wars 4 have been w/ former cia agents or ppl we helped arm and do the bad things we rail against now
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
We'd probably just stay airborne and blow them to kingdom come. Id guess there'd be few American body bags being filled. If push comes to shove and we feel there's no other alternative, that is.
www.myspace.com/jensvad