Mullen: We ‘Will Have to Deal with Iran in the Very Near Future’

[ginge51]

| Thursday, April 24, 2008

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a very profound statement at Monday night’s Atlantic Council awards dinner that has received virtually no press notice: That we “will have to deal with Iran in the very near future.”



Here’s the context:

We also live in a time where Iran routinely pushes its way into more and more realms of instability. And I, for one, think it is important that we deal with that instability that they create, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas. Recent operations in Southern Iraq, recent combat operations in Southern Iraq in Basra highlighted yet again Iran’s activities in ways that very specifically pointed to activities which, in fact, resulted in the deaths of coalition soldiers. And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied, will have to deal with Iran in the very near future.

You can watch the video here.http://www.acus.org/about-news-Award...len.asp#mullen
Mullen made these remarks late Monday night in his speech accepting the Council’s 2008 Award for Distinguished Military Leadership. Perhaps because there were so many other fine speakers, or because his was the last speech of the night, or because the oxygen was all taken by the next day’s Pennsylvania primary, these remarks weren’t picked up.
Indeed, when I did my quick write-up of this the next day for the Council’s website, I headlined the piece “Mullen: ‘We Will Have to Deal with Iran in the Very Near Future’” — correctly picking out the main point — but frankly not fully grasping its significance. I was only reminded about it because some gentlemen were talking about it before a luncheon I attended today put on by The National Interest at the Nixon Center.
I continue to believe that not only is military action against Iran simply not feasible but, contrary to the conventional wisdom, not part of the Bush administration’s agenda. One would think the world’s top military man doesn’t make a point of bringing up the need for action if trade sanctions or a stern diplomatic communique are all that’s on his mind. Then again, a little strategic ambiguity on these matters can help advance ones goals, especially when the options at hand are all unattractive.

http://www.acus.org/about-news-Award...llenSpeech.asp

I don't get this at all.
How on earth can America support another war???
If Iran is attacked, surely the thing Iran will do is retaliate against the coalition forces in Iraq which a massive bombardment of missiles?
This is from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, very serious indeed.
It will be before Bush leaves office, he hasn't got very long left.
Plus if Iran is only bombarded by missiles, with no ground forces, Iran "WILL THEN" turn into a terror state, everything will breed from there as in Iraq they had to use ground forces so Iraq doesn't turn into an extremist breeding ground.
So just missile bombardments won't do the job.
Ground forces are needed to keep the peace and stop Iran becoming a breeding ground for extremists.
Basically no country has the troops to muster up a ground invasion in Iran.

[Mick Fisher]

A world war has historically proved a get out for seemingly unsolvable global economic problems.

Perhaps having initiated the current global economic turndown America is warming up to follow this solution once again?

[Enuff]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

A world war has historically proved a get out for seemingly unsolvable global economic problems.

Perhaps having initiated the current global economic turndown America is warming up to follow this solution once again?

Maybe the final solution for mankind... Hopefully.

[BBKing]

How on earth can America support another war???

Well it can't, obviously, but the people in charge aren't reasonable, rational men - ask Admiral Fallon, recently relieved of his position for pointing this out. Don't believe a word the liars say, remember last time.

The funniest thing is that they say they raided the Mahdi Army and found *gasp* Iranian weapons. Well, duh. Raid all the other Shiite armed groups and if you don't find stuff stamped 'A Present From Tehran' I'll eat my hat. You'll also find stuff made in China, Russia and practically anywhere else with an arms industry, but no one's breaking out the Tomahawks for those guys. Iraq is intensely corrupt and a centre for smuggling of all sorts, arms in and oil out and Iran being the closest border to Basra is naturally going to be the source for some. They get in on the backs of mules, apparently.

What they'd find if they raided the Iraqi Army, recently reinforced with members of the Badr Brigade to replace defectors and refuseniks, is that quite a lot of them receive pensions from the Iranian Republican Guard, which set up the Badr Brigade in the early 80s as a proxy army to fight Saddam (who at the time was backed by us). Given that, how on earth can the US simultaneously rely on them to sort out Sadr and not turn on the US when Uncle Sam attacks their Iranian friends and paymasters?

Also, it's a bit bloody rich for the US to lecture Iran on creating stability when part of the reason Iran is very interested in its border with Iraq is because, as a result of the US invasion, it's extremely unstable, and lots of Iranians go on pilgrimage there every year. What's bombing Iran going to achieve, greater stability or yet more instability, then? Oh, and a rocketing oil price, of course.

[Chrysalis]

Invading iran was planned years back.

[RizzyKing]

Iran will be attacked by the US soon and then we will all get drawn into a mess right alongside them. No one has ever accused the US of being rational that i can remember they consistently run around the globe feathering their own nest and looking out for their own interests with scant regard for anyone else friend or foe.

[frogstamper]

I cant see it myself, especially after the CIAs own report found that Iran was not in the process of building a nuclear weapon. Mind you, I doubt this will cut much ice with Dick Cheney, when the CIA told the then White House that Saddam had no important Al Qaeda ties, and little enough WMD to threaten anybody, Cheney repeatedly visited CIA headquarters to demand revisions of reports, and inclusion of "intelligence" later proven to have come from persons known by the CIA to be unreliable.

So although there is no evidence, I'm sure Dick will find some.


http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11292006.html

[Enuff]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Iran will be attacked by the US soon and then we will all get drawn into a mess right alongside them. No one has ever accused the US of being rational that i can remember they consistently run around the globe feathering their own nest and looking out for their own interests with scant regard for anyone else friend or foe.

Survival is human nature. When we feel threatened, we forget about what's right or wrong. Survivalism seems to be on the increase in this country by the looks of it.

[Mick Fisher]

It's a good job "that woman" is not still in power or we might already have a "Fleet" on the way to sort Iran out.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's a good job "that woman" is not still in power or we might already have a "Fleet" on the way to sort Iran out.

Surely you dont mean, the evil one..

[boroboi]

Our fleet was defending the falklands, not attacking argentina. :P

[BBKing]

we might already have a "Fleet" on the way to sort Iran out

We don't really have a fleet any more, we have some ships, many of which aren't fully maintained due to shortage of funds and which in any case are mostly busy. Mind you, if the Argies had attacked in 1983 we wouldn't have had a fleet either, Maggie was in the process of selling it off. It was the withdrawal of Endeavour, amongst other things, that gave the junta the impression that we wouldn't fight. They said afterwards they would never have invaded if they thought Britain would send a Task Force.

You can't invade a mostly landlocked country four times the side of Iraq with ships anyway.

Also, recent events in Basra have convinced the US loony tunes brigade that the British are soft, weak and untrustworthy. Great stuff, Uncle Sam, can we have our bloody soldiers back now, please, and you can get on with whatever lunacy you have planned?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's a good job "that woman" is not still in power or we might already have a "Fleet" on the way to sort Iran out.

the fleet ....do you mean hoseasons fleet on the norfolk broads .

[JackLord]

The problem I have with this Iran issue is, why didn't the authorities across the world worry about this sooner and why wasn't the building of these plants stopped before they were finnished. If Iran was such a great threat then they would have been dealt with similar to Iraq when Israel bombed their nuclear power station and what do Iraq and Iran have in common, they switched to the Euro.

America and the UK said Iraq had WMD, everyone else said they didn't and nothing was found but what they did do before the invasion was change it's sale of oil from the dollar to the euro and months later they were invaded and the very first thing America did was change back to the dollar. Iran is going through a similar thing, they stated they were gonna swtch from the petrodollar to the euro a while back now and would you belive it, all of a sudden they are trying to make nukes.

Iran are idiots i'll agree but i really don't think they would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel, they want to survive aswell as americans or us.

In feb this year something called the Iranian Oil Bourse (google it and check Wikipedia) was opened, what it will do is trade it's oil in currencies other than the dollar effectively this will start a chain reaction of simillar activites effectively killing the already weak dollar.

Personally i think its about american supremacy rather than nukes and for this reason i hate the USA with a passion, do some reading on the subject and i think you will see a pattern, anyway thats my 2 pence

peace and love :-)

[BBKing]

Er, Iran doesn't actually have a nuclear plant, they've got some enrichment facilities.

As for Israel bombing it, for one thing there are a number of them (Osirak was six aircraft on one site, five of which hit it), for another they're (post-Osirak) obviously not sitting there on the surface saying 'Bomb Me', they're underground and thirdly Israel didn't have long-range bombing aircraft back in 2003. Their defence needs have hitherto been pretty exclusively based on a radius of a few hundred miles (they don't have much air-to-air refuelling for the same reason). They do now have F-16I and F-15I bombers which can reach Iran, but still only about the western half.

Iran isn't so much interested in the Euro as in China and India, which are very hungry for gas and oil and not too bothered with defending Israel. Holding stuff in Euros, however, is just sensible policy at the moment. I wish we were in it, frankly, with trips to Ireland and Greece coming up.