2 responses to “The Coming War with Iran, Yet Again (Leiter)”

1. IKL

   January 30, 2007 at 12:19 pm

   There is not really much here of interest in this article.

   It begins by noting in response to growing Iranian influence in Iraq that the Bush administration has given orders to kill or capture Iranian agents in Iraq who present a threat. There are also two American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

   There is a quote from Bush’s recent NPR interview: my reverse translation is as follows:
   “If Iran wants to stop play a destructive role in Iraq and wants to play a constructive role, we, of course, would welcome this. But to this point, we haven’t seen any signs of constructive action. Only the opposite.”

   The article then refers to Cheney’s interview with Newsweek in which he says that Middle Eastern countries are interested in American military presence as a counter-weight to Iran’s growing influence. The dispatch of a second American aircraft carrier is a signal, according to Cheney, that America takes the Iraq threat seriously.

   Finally, there is a long quotation from David Koppel of the Independence Institute. A rough reverse translation is as follows
   “The discussion hardly regards direct conflict with Iran. At least not yet. But the firmness of the new course is obvious. The US has long believed in the possibility of stopping the totalitarian government of Iran through peaceful, diplomatic means. Unfortunately, the majority in congress regards Iran just like the parliamentary majorities in Britain and France in 1937-8 regarded Hitler’s Germany, naively thinking that if we give them what they want, they will leave us in peace. But the White House, at last, understands that victory in Iran is possible only by blocking the spread of Iranian influence and destroying the pro-Iranian military groups active in Iraq.”

   The article concludes to noting that Cheney told Newsweek that the US will continue to seek the end of Iran’s nuclear program though diplomatic means with the help of the UN.

   So, in summary, a few boilerplate quotes from Bush and Cheney and some spin from the Independence Institute.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. Tengku Ahmad Hazri

   February 7, 2007 at 6:46 am

   Actually the Internet can do the translation for you, albeit quite horribly. 🙂

   http://babelfish.altavista.com

   Bush prevents Iran Author: Sirotin Leading: To the correspondent of the newspaper "new -c1orkTa1ms", that Teheran plans to considerably enlarge economic and military relationships with Iraq, President Bush warned in response to the Sunday statement of Iranian ambassador to Baghdad that the escalation of Iranian military actions in Iraq and attack on the American soldiers or the Iraqi citizens will involve the appropriate measures from the side OF THE USA. America already switched over from words to the matter. To troops OF THE USA in Iraq it is returned order to destroy or to take prisoner of the Iranian agents, which present threat. Near are coast Iran in the Persian Gulf they cost now two American aircraft carriers. On this theme is in more detail – Jan Runov. The White House repeatedly charged Iran with the support of terrorism and with the deliveries of weapon to fighters in Iraq, which is used for the attacks on the Americans and their allies. In the interview for the national public radio OF THE USA Bush stated: – if Iran wants to cease to play destructive role in Iraq and wants to play kontsruktivnuyu role – we, of course, will greet this. But, until now we did not see indicative design actions. Only vice versa. But the representative of the White House according to the connections with the press Tony Snow accused Iran of the attempts to also prevent democratic processes in Afghanistan and Lebanon. Vice President Cheyni in the interview for weekly "Newsweek" said that the Near Eastern countries shere zaniteresovany in the American military presence in the region in contrast the growing Iranian expansion. Arrival into the Persian Gulf of the second aircraft carrier – "stennis" – is this, according to Cheyni, signal to Teheran, that THE USA receives Iranian threat very seriously. What do indicate such statements? The director of political studies in the institute "Independence" in Golden, the state of Colorado, David kopel answered: – hardly with the straight conflict with Iran deals the discussion. In any case, not now. But the hardness the new deal is obvious. THE USA for long believed in the possibility to stop the aggressiveness of the totalitarian government of Iran by peaceful and diplomatic means. Unfortunately, majority in the congress is disposed now with respect to the Iranian regime, just as the parliaments of England and France they were disposed in 1937 and 1938 with respect to Hitlerite Germany, naively thinking that if we give to them that, what they require, they will leave us at rest. But the White House finally understood that to conquer in Iraq is possible having only intercepted to the propagation of Iranian influence and having physically broken the pro-Iranian combat groups, which act in Iraq. This was David kopel from Insituta "Independence" in Colorado. In spite of more decisive statements and actions of the White House with respect to Iran, Vice President Cheyni in the interview for the journal "Newsweek" emphasized that America does not leave the attempts to stop the nuclear aspirations of Iran by diplomatic channel with the aid of THE UNITED NATIONS.

   Loading…

   Reply