Iran Answers Israel

Looks like Iran engaged in a little saber rattling of its own today...

From the WaPo:

Iran Test-Fires Long-Range Missile

Iran said today it had test-fired a long-range missile capable of reaching Israel and U.S. troops in the region, a step promptly condemned by the Bush administration as heightening tensions over the country's suspected nuclear weapons program.

The roughly 1,200 mile range of Iran's Shahab-3 rocket has been known for several years, but the test firing -- and pointed statements from Tehran about the country's "capability in hitting its enemies" -- added to a tense climate.

...

The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the missile was test-fired as part of a larger military exercise by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. In Tehran, the Associated Press said that as many as nine missiles of different sizes were fired during the exercise, carried out partly near the Persian Gulf shipping lanes that Iran has threatened to close if it is attacked.

A top Iranian official said this week the country would also retaliate against Tel Aviv if any targets inside the country are struck.

"Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch," Revolutionary Guard Gen. Hossein Salami said today, according to the wire service.

The missile tests and statements from Iranian officials are part of a recent sharp back-and-forth between Iran, Israel and the United States that have formed the backdrop to ongoing negotiations about Iran's nuclear program.

This is most definitely a response to the recent Israeli war games and was meant to send a message to Israel. Considering that Iran supposedly has stealth capable missiles I'm certain that its meaning was crystal clear. It's also a pretty good indicator of how well our current tactics in dealing with Iran are working. Those aren't going to change anytime soon so lets see what our presidential hopefuls had to say about this incident....

Senator John McCain issued the following statement:

“Iran’s most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran’s continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran’s dangerous ambitions.

Iran’s missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.”

And Senator Barack Obama, speaking on NBC’s “Today” show urged “aggressive diplomacy” when it comes to Iran:

“There’s no doubt we’re seeing rising tensions in the area, and it’s part of the reason why it’s so important for us to have a coherent policy with respect to Iran. It has to combine much tougher threats of economic sanctions with direct diplomacy, opening up channels of communication so that we avoid provocation but we give strong incentives for the Iranians to change their behavior. We’ve got to have the kind of aggressive diplomacy that unfortunately has been absent over the last several years.”

This is one area in which I agree with Obama however I'm not certain that he'd use some of the stronger diplomatic tools at his command were he to become president (example: blockading Iran's ports should concrete proof of Iran's nuclear weapon program become available and they fail to abandon pursuing nukes afterwards.)

McCain's insistence on continuing the current administrations policy towards Iran is more troubling. After all isn't performing the same actions repeatedly and expecting different results one of the definitions of insanity? Additionally McCain's "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" and his more recent kill Iranians comment don't score him any points with me at all.

There is a middle ground between the two stated positions and what I want is for one of the candidates to channel Teddy Roosevelt and be willing to go there. Is that too much to ask?

Iran To Go Nuclear In Six Months?

Its possible says IAEA chief Mohamed ElBarade in a recent interview...

From the Middle East Media Research Institute:

If It Wants To Produce Nuclear Weapons, Iran Would Have To "Leave The NPT, Expel The IAEA Inspectors, And... It Would Need At Least Six Months to One Year"

Mohamed ElBaradei: "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has..."

Interviewer: "How much time would it need?"

ElBaradei: "It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon."

Interviewer: "Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months..."

ElBaradei: "Or one year, at least..."

Interviewer:"... to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

ElBaradei: "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon." [...]

That goes a long way towards explaining Israel's recent war games However ElBaradei warns against a preemptive strike at this point noting that such action would cause Iran's nuclear program to go into high gear with popular support.

ElBaradei: "Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called 'crash course,' or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians - even the Iranians living in the West."

Israel however is interested in seeking to prevent even the testing of a nuclear weapon. Which definitely adds a sense of urgency to the situation. As a result we and our Middle Eastern allies are preparing for Iran's response to such an attack...

Possible scenarios include:

A terrorist attack on the Saudi oil port of Ras Tanura, an export point for oil bound for Asia. Saudi and American officials have in the past disrupted Al Qaeda plots on the facility, such as an attack on the Abqaiq oil processing plant near Dammam, Saudi Arabia, that killed two guards.

A naval assault on the U.S. 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran still has warships equipped with Russian-designed Shkval torpedoes that it could fire at American vessels. Another possible attack would be suicide boat sorties similar to the one that bombed the USS Cole.

The commencement of a new round in the war between Hezbollah and Israel, with Hezbollah firing its Shihab missiles into Haifa and possibly the northern suburbs of Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah or Iranian intelligence terrorist operations on soft targets, such as shopping malls and community centers, in third countries and possibly even America.
A renewed effort to stir an uprising in Iraq through Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army or the special groups controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Its becoming apparent that our ten year time line for Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities is getting shorter. We need to seriously ramp up international diplomacy and sanctions against Iran if we are to succeed in preventing military actions against Iran.

With the presidential elections less than five months away this should be a major issue to consider when choosing a candidate because should such an attack be carried out on Iran the war in Iraq could suddenly take a sharp turn for the worse and gas prices will very likely skyrocket possibly sending the US economy into a deep recession. McCain's promise to continue our current policy towards Iran gives me cause for concern. After all when the last time you settled a disagreement with someone by not talking to them?

I swear if I could cherry pick from McCain's and Obama's positions I could build a perfect candidate.

Thanks to Center Face for linking to this post.

Iran To Go Nuclear In One Year?

According to the European Commission Joint Research Center it is possible although not probable:

From Der Spiegel

As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.

For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency -- just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.

For the purposes of the simulation, the JRC modelled each of the centrifuges individually and then hooked them together to form the kind of cascade necessary to enrich uranium. A number of variables were taken into account, including the assumption by most experts that Iran isn't even close to operating its centrifuges at 100 percent efficiency. What is known, however, is that the Iranians are operating 18 cascades, each made up of 164 centrifuges. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself said last April that the country had 3,000 centrifuges in operation. At the time, most Western observers discounted the claim as mere propaganda. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Ahmadinejad's assertion in November.

However the IAEA report issued today confirms that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium and has in fact acquired better centrifuges.

From the AFP:

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) — A report by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran's suspect atomic program bolsters the case for the Security Council adopting new sanctions against Tehran, hopefully late next week, senior US diplomats said Friday.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said earlier Friday it had made "quite good progress" in its long-running probe into Iran's disputed nuclear drive, but was still not in a position to offer a verdict on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

In a confidential new report, the IAEA complained that Tehran was continuing to defy UN demands to halt uranium enrichment and had started developing faster and more efficient centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which can be used to make the fissile material for a bomb.

With the National Intelligence Estimate putting Iran as being able to produce weapons grade fissile material in ten years and the JRC's report stating its possible to do in twelve months I'm for splitting the difference and assuming it'll take five years and then crafting our policies to reflect the new assumed time line. Personally I'm not for taking military options off of the table but having said that I am also for directly engaging in talks with Iran via diplomatic channels rather than a leader to leader summit. Once we take military options off of the table we lose the ability to blockade their ports and declare no fly zones on their borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe we should only pursue such a course of action only after all diplomatic and nonmilitary punitive options have been exhausted.

Iran is either playing a dangerous or strange game. As Dave Schueler points out they are either developing nuclear weapons or want the world to think they are. So while we need to treat them as if they are pursuing the former we need to figure out what benefit is derived from the latter.

NIE: No Nukes in Iran

A declassified version of the 2006 national intelligence estimate of Iran was released today and according to it Iran has no nuclear weapon program and could not achieve that capability (on its own) before 2010.

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
...
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
...
The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong.

That certainly undermines any argument for military action against Iran in the short term. However it leaves the door open enough for this to be a cause for concern. I say that because if I were an Iranian nationalist hardliner given the fact that America invaded two of my neighbors for supporting terrorism I'd want the capability of deterring the US from invading my country for the same reason. After all if they punished my neighbors for actions they also accuse me of it would be logical to assume I'm next on the list.

Unfortunately I don't think W is going to deal with this on his watch. Like Iraq and Afghanistan he is going to pass that buck onto the President. Fotunately we have a little breathing room in which to allow sanctions and diplomacy to have an effect before we have to seriously start considering any meaningful military action against Iran. Given the fact that 2010 will roll around on the next POTUS' term you should take a really hard look at your preferred candidate's position on dealing with Iran. This weight will fall on their shoulders after all and you need to make sure that their strategy is one you can live with.

U.S. Ups the Ante Against Iran

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — The Bush administration will announce a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran on Thursday, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism, administration officials said Wednesday night.
...
The decision will be announced jointly on Thursday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration officials said. “This is going to be a broad and wide-ranging effort,” a senior administration official said. “We will be freezing assets, and there will be ripple effects of where we can go from there.”
...
The immediate legal consequence of designating the Quds unit as a terrorist organization would be to make it unlawful for anyone subject to United States jurisdiction to knowingly provide material support or resources to it, according to the State Department. Any United States financial institution that becomes aware that it possesses, or has control over, funds of a foreign terrorist organization would have to turn them over to the Treasury Department.

I still think this a good idea executed badly.

h/t to Memeorandum

Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be Officially Labeled Terrorists

From the WaPo

Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.

The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."

The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.

The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.

"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."
more

This is a good idea executed badly.

Further economically dissuading Iran from sponsoring terrorism makes perfect sense. However labeling a regular military unit a group of terrorists sets a bad precedent. The IRG is a government sponsored, uniform wearing, by the book type of military unit. By labeling them as terrorists we have effectively stated that they are not covered by the Geneva conventions. Once we start cherry picking what units are and aren't terrorists the same will be done to our troops eventually by one country or another.

What's needed is another classification entirely like"Sponsor of Terrorists" or somesuch so that we can act against such units/countries/organizations without stripping them of protections rightfully afforded by international law. Otherwise we once again sacrifice the moral high ground in pursuit of the war on terror. And we've lost enough of that already.

Iran Takes a Step Back

In what seems like a sudden reversal from its President's rhetoric Iran has opted to allow nuclear inspectors into one of its plutonium producing reactors. Odds are the threat of further sanctions coupled with Iran's current gas rationing are causal in this decision. I'm curious if W will use this as an opportunity to open a dialog with Iran, will Iran allow further inspection if he does, and what will be enough for certain hawks to stop beating the drums of war?

Al-Qaeda Threatens War With Iran

Courtesy of Memeorandum

From Al Jazeera:

The leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, who was thought to have beeen killed by US forces, has threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shias in Iraq within two months.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State in Iraq, said his Sunni fighters have been preparing to wage a battle against Shia-dominated Iran. Al-Baghdadi made the announcement in an audiotape that was posted on a web site commonly used by armed groups.
(snip)
"We are giving the Persians, and especially the rulers of Iran, a two-month period to end all kinds of support for the Iraqi Shia government and to stop direct and indirect intervention ... otherwise a severe war is waiting for you," al-Baghdadi said.
(snip)

In the recording, al-Baghdadi also gave Sunnis and Arab countries doing business in Iran or with Iranians a two-month deadline to cease their ties.

"We advise and warn every Sunni businessman inside Iran or in Arab countries especially in the Gulf not to take partnership with any Shia Iranian businessman, this is part of the two-month period," he said. full article

The only possible downside for the U.S. is that W might take it as a sign from God that it's time to redouble our efforts.

How exactly is Al Qaeda planning on defeating Iran? Two words. Spy Squirrels.

Iranian forces crossed Iraqi border

From the AFP (courtesy of Memeorandum):
Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.

Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources. more

If true I'm betting Dick Cheney is currently foaming at the mouth.

What would be great is if the Brit's capture a few then force them to play cricket and drink tea for the press and finally return them to Iran wearing tweed coats and argyle socks.

Iran Cracks Down on Dissent

From the NY Times:
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Published: June 24, 2007

Iran is in the throes of one of its most ferocious crackdowns on dissent in years, with the government focusing on labor leaders, universities, the press, women’s rights advocates, a former nuclear negotiator and Iranian-Americans, three of whom have been in prison for more than six weeks.

The shift is occurring against the backdrop of an economy so stressed that although Iran is the world’s second-largest oil exporter, it is on the verge of rationing gasoline. At the same time, the nuclear standoff with the West threatens to bring new sanctions.

The hard-line administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, analysts say, faces rising pressure for failing to deliver on promises of greater prosperity from soaring oil revenue. It has been using American support for a change in government as well as a possible military attack as a pretext to hound his opposition and its sympathizers. more

The regime in Iran has even begun publicly beating and humiliating its citizens for wearing western style clothes and posting photos of the crackdown on the countries web site. Check out the photos over at Ali Eteraz

Liberal Hawks and the Iran Debate

Ezra Klein over at The American Prospect recently wrote an article called "Let's Get Serious:
What do liberal hawks actually want to do regarding Iran?" that has stirred an interesting cross blog debate amongst moderates. Allow me to sort of abridge part of the debate in a Frankenpost before chiming in.

Mr Klein criticizes liberal hawks for being intentionally vague regarding how to deal with Iran "in their desire to avoid responsibility for their pro-war stance on Iraq and their enabling rhetoric towards a potential showdown with Iran." as Tutakai at Militant Moderates put it.

According to fellow Donklephant blogger Kevin Sullivan "Ironically, Klein seems to confront hawkish vagueness with vagueness. He insinuates that there's a cottage industry of "liberal hawk" scholars supporting the invasions of Iraq and Iran, however he only cites one example of such. If the "liberal hawk" has become such a common phenomenon, where are their think-tanks and periodicals? If they are in such lockstep over this issue, why only the one example? The truth is that the "liberal hawk" is more a theory than a person, and more accurately a tactic rather than a wing of the Democratic Party. "

and over at TMV MVDG contends: "As a more conservative blogger (hawk), I have to say that I agree with Kevin’s reasoning. The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool - a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless.

I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. If one rules it out completely, one can forget about getting one’s enemy to do what one wants / to compromise. Iran has to know that, if necessary, force will be used to prevent it from developing WMDs. If not, there will be less pressure on the Mullahs to stop ignoring the wishes of the international community."

I contend that "liberal hawks" are vague about military options in Iran because there is no preferable military solution. Should diplomacy and international pressures fail the military options left to us will only be a choice of evils. We can :

1. Bomb Iran's hardened nuclear sites.
2. Invade Iran
3. Let Israel fight a proxy war with Iran
4. Invade North Korea to show Iran how serious we are
   

Option one may only have limited success and will cause Iran to step up their research efforts resulting in a nuclear bomb in 5 years instead of 9. Additionally Israel will most likely be targeted in retaliation thereby potentially bringing option three into play as a side effect. If not then suddenly Iraq and Afghanistan become indirect wars with Iran potentially leading to a direct war with Iran.

Option two is worse. Provided we are finished in Iraq and Afghanistan (one way or the other) the goal would be achievable but at a hideous toll in Iranian lives. If you'll check out the history of the Iran/Iraq war you'll note that Iran used four million unarmed citizens (volunteers) as cannon fodder. Iraq's soldiers ran out of bullets before they ever engaged an armed soldier.

Additionally since we would have again preemptively invaded a country that didn't (directly) attack us and probably killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed citizens in the process our standing in the world drops to nothing. Additionally because we have invaded three Muslim countries in a row we radicalize even more people either the war on terror gets much harder, we fight a foreign insurgency in Iran, or both.

As for option three Israel fights Hammas, Hezbollah, and Iran at the same time and America enters if it appears Israel can't pull it off or should the war goes regional.

We have time right now and we absolutely must use it to exhaust every single diplomatic and international option before moving on to a military solution.

We can't take the use of force off of the table unless it is conditional based on Iran's actions (allowing UN Inspectors access to all sites etc etc etc). It would be folly to hamstring ourselves in such manner as much as it would be foolhardy to militarily escalate the situation before exhausting all other available options.

May common sense prevail.

Joe Lieberman Says Bomb Iran Into Behaving

(CBS) The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

Lieberman, who has been one of Congress's most outspoken supporters of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies, said that continuing the fight in Iraq and confronting Iran are necessary for achieving a wider peace in the Middle East.

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home," Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

"By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," he said.

The Senator said he was not calling for an end to the limited diplomatic efforts that are underway between Washington and Tehran.

"We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them," Lieberman said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing." more

Ummm Joe? Have you lost your marbles? Iran is expecting us to bomb it any day now. Were I insane and ruling Iran I'd make life a living hell for the US in the two neighboring countries we've invaded and make no pretense about hiding what I'm doing. Why? Because no American politician running for office would have the balls to start a draft to stop me.

Iran Caught Red-Handed Shipping Arms to Taliban

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling." more

Well that is confirmation of what we already suspected. The question is is this a strategy intended to tie up our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and to prevent the preemptive invasion that Iran suspects is in the works or a tactic to show what trouble they can be if we continue to oppose their nuclear program?

Rice to Tackle Darfur and Iran at G8

From Reuters:
G8 to tackle Iran and Darfur

Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight nations are to gather in Germany to discuss the nuclear standoff with Iran, the unresolved conflict in Sudan's Darfur region and other pressing international issues.
(snip)
Diplomats said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is hoping her counterparts from Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan and Canada will agree that the elite club of industrialised nations should put pressure on Iran at next week's summit to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme.
(snip)

Sudan is another topic on the agenda. The United States and Britain are interested in expanding UN sanctions against Sudan due to the violence in its Darfur region, but Russia is wary such action would do little to calm the situation.

On Darfur, Rice said she would discuss with G8 ministers what action could be taken at the UN Security Council to put pressure on Sudan's government following the US announcement of new unilateral sanctions on Sudan. full article

Of course the real trick will be for the G8 to get Russia and China to support any plan they come up with. While Russia has been helpful with Iran China has stonewalled any attempts at action by the UN Security Council.

France calls for tightening sanctions on Teheran

File this one under Whodathunkit

From the Jerusalem Post

Sarkozy calls to tighten sanctions on Teheran

"French President Nicholas Sarkozy called Wednesday for sanctions on Iran to be tightened if the country does not adhere to the West's demands to cease its nuclear agenda.

If Iran attains nuclear weapons, Sarkozy warned, a road to an arms race will be paved that could endanger Israel and southeast Europe, he said during an interview with a German magazine.

Sarkozy announced that France will join the official US-led struggle against head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei, who recommended that Iran be allowed to enrich uranium in some of its nuclear plants.

On Tuesday, American officials urged allies to back a formal protest against ElBaradei, saying his comments could hurt UN Security Council efforts to pressure Teheran over its enrichment program."

Looks like we have our old ally back.

Bush Authorizes Ops Vs Iran

From ABC News:
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation
and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions. more

Many have called ABC's releasing of this information irresponsible or treasonous. I see that as a gross overreaction. It only confirms what the Iranian government believes anyway. Although they might have been surprised by the nonlethal part. And that may have have been the point of the leak.

Food for Thought

A good interview with Reza Aslan author of a history of Islam entitled " No god but God" in which he brings up a few really good points about our handling of Iran.