Posts Tagged ‘attack on Iran’

Pentagon: Attack on Iran Always an Option

April 22, 2010
Iran Reiterates Criticism of Nuclear Threat

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, April 21, 2010

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell quickly repudiated comments from one of the Defense Department’s undersecretaries today, insisting that attack Iran at any time is “always an option.”

The latest comments came in response to Undersecretary Flournoy’s claims earlier this morning that a military attack against Iran was “off the table in the near term” and that the Obama Administration was focusing on “engagement and pressure.”

The US has been threatening to attack Iran for years, but those threats have gotten increasingly direct since President Obama took office last year.

Meanwhile Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated his nation’s outrage at the Obama Administration’s threat to launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. Earlier this month, President Obama announced that the US would never launch a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear power, but then quickly noted that Iran was explicitly excluded from this pledge.

US/IRAN: Scowcroft, Brzezinski Urge Bush to Drop Precondition

July 23, 2008

By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jul 22 (IPS) – Two of Washington’s most prominent foreign policy greybeards praised Saturday’s direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment programme as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Ret. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counter-productive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack — whether by the U.S. or by Israel — would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

“A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure,” said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars — Iraq and Afghanstan — in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

“(Brzezinski’s assessment) may be a little more dire (than mine) but not much,” Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Centre for Security and International Studies (CSIS) here. “It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us.”

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq — although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush’s father. Both leading lights of the so-called “realist” foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.

Their joint appearance at CSIS, which was announced late last week after the administration had confirmed that undersecretary of state for policy, Amb. William Burns, would attend Saturday’s meeting between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) and Iran, seemed timed to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for continued and enhanced U.S. engagement.

Continued . . .


%d bloggers like this: