PDA

View Full Version : 4th Quarter, Full court press| U.S. Weighing Terrorist Label for Iran Guards


CaJuNsOuLjA
08-15-2007, 09:13 AM
U.S. Weighing Terrorist Label for Iran Guards

By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 — The Bush administration is preparing to declare that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a foreign terrorist organization, senior administration officials said Tuesday.

If imposed, the declaration would signal a more confrontational turn in the administration’s approach to Iran and would be the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations.

The Revolutionary Guard is thought to be the largest branch of Iran’s military. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, a decision to single out the guard would amount to an aggressive new challenge from an American administration that has recently seemed conflicted over whether to take a harder line against Tehran over its nuclear program and what American officials have called its destabilizing role in Iraq.

According to European diplomats, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned of the move in recent conversations with European counterparts, saying that a delay in efforts to win approval from the United Nations Security Council for further economic sanctions on Iran was leaving the administration with little choice but unilateral action.

A move toward putting the Revolutionary Guard on the foreign terrorist list would serve at least two purposes for Ms. Rice: to pacify, for a while, administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action, and to further press America’s allies to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the Security Council.

The State Department and Treasury officials are pushing for a stronger set of United Nations Security Council sanctions against members of Iran’s government, including an extensive travel ban and further moves to restrict the ability of Iran’s financial institutions to do business abroad. American officials have also been trying to get European and Asian banks to take additional steps against Iran.

Senior administration officials said current plans called for the declaration to be made this month, but cautioned that it could be put off, and that the effort could still be set aside if the Security Council moved more quickly to impose broad sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

The officials said the declaration was being pushed by Ms. Rice, and would not say if it had been endorsed by the National Security Council or the Pentagon.

President Bush seemed to signal a tougher approach to Iran last week when he called attention to what American officials have said was an active role by the Revolutionary Guard in providing munitions, training and other support to Shiite militants who have been attacking American troops in Iraq. “When we catch you playing a nonconstructive role, there will be a price to pay,” Mr. Bush said of Iran during a news conference on Thursday.

Listing would set in motion a series of automatic sanctions that would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the guard. In particular, the action would freeze any assets the guard has in the United States, although it is unlikely that the guard maintains much in the way of assets in American banks or other institutions.

In the internal debate over American policy toward Iran, Ms. Rice has succeeded over the last year in holding the Bush administration to a diplomatic course in which America and five other world powers have used the Security Council to impose sanctions to try to get Tehran to suspend its enrichment of uranium.

But in recent months, there has been resurgent debate within the administration about whether the diplomatic path is working, with aides to Vice President Dick Cheney said to be among those pushing for greater consideration of military options. The debate has been kindled by reports from international inspectors detailing Iran’s progress in its nuclear program, including the installation of more than 1,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, as well as the assertions from American intelligence officials about an Iranian role in providing arms and other support to Shiite militias in Iraq and to Taliban militants in Afghanistan.

Iran has repeatedly denied that it is seeking to build nuclear weapons, that it is helping in any way to facilitate attacks on American troops in Iraq or that it is shipping any weapons to the Taliban, a group Iran opposed in the 1990s.

On Tuesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again dismissed American complaints that Iran is providing weapons to the Taliban. Speaking in Kabul, Afghanistan, after talks with President Hamid Karzai, he said Iran was “fully supporting” its new government.

Mr. Karzai played down the dispute over the weapons shipments, as he did during a visit to the White House this month. He said that Afghanistan and Iran were “brothers” and that both the United States and Iran were helping reconstruct his country.

In June, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the volume of weapons reaching the Taliban from Iran made it “difficult to believe” that the shipments were “taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government.” In a television interview the same day, Assistant Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said there was “irrefutable evidence” that the weapons were coming from the Revolutionary Guard.

There are currently 42 organizations on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In taking aim at the guard, the administration is also trying to divide Iran’s population. During his news conference on Thursday, President Bush addressed the Iranian people directly. “My message to the Iranian people is, ‘You can do better than this current government,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “ ‘You don’t have to be isolated. You don’t have to be in a position where you can’t realize your full economic potential.’ ”

The United States government has not made a public estimate about the size of the Revolutionary Guard, an organization that dates to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and whose branches are believed to extend widely throughout the Iranian military. An estimate by GlobalSecurity.org, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., puts the total guard forces at 125,000.

The guard and its military wing are identified as a power base for Mr. Ahmadinejad. Under his administration, American officials said, the guard has moved increasingly into commercial operations, earning profits and extending its influence in Iran in areas involving big government contracts, including building airports and other infrastructure, oil production and providing cellphones.

The immediate legal consequence of the guard’s designation 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 the guard, 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.

Because Iran has done little business with the United States in more than two decades, the larger point of the designation would be to heighten the political and psychological pressure on Iran, administration officials said, by using the designation to persuade foreign governments and financial institutions to cut ties with Iranian businesses and individuals.

The decision would have little impact on American military activities in Iraq, where coalition forces already pursue fighters, advisers and financiers who support antigovernment forces, according to a senior Defense Department official. “We are going to go after any forces that are engaged in activities that are disruptive to the stability and security of Iraq,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject was pending administration policy.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/middleeast/15diplo.html?ei=5065&en=a2ff8e7f7b47bd5c&ex=1187841600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-15-2007, 09:17 AM
Should we go ahead with the labeling of an entity of a foreign governments military as a terrorist organization, we are effectively, officially, regarding the host country as a direct sponsor of terrorism and therefore setting up a justification for attacking said country...thoughts?

Gigolo Jason
08-15-2007, 09:21 AM
This is only diplomatic paperwork, it has no teeth.

BigComfy
08-15-2007, 09:26 AM
^ for once I agree

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-15-2007, 09:26 AM
This is only diplomatic paperwork, it has no teeth.

Of course not, it hasn't even been officially declared...but it definitely serves to lay out the groundwork AND tests the amount of support w/o making anything official. I personally think this is more to put pressure on the UNSC to pass these resolutions and pressure Iran to comply and discontinue certain activities they are conducting both in Iraq and regarding nuclear facilities/processes in-country than to be the "CIA Report PreWar Iraq".<---We've made that mistake once, I'd hope we learned that first VERY expensive lesson

Gigolo Jason
08-15-2007, 09:32 AM
Should we go ahead with the labeling of an entity of a foreign governments military as a terrorist organization,

We did the same with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We had Libya's government on this list for almost two decades.

we are effectively, officially, regarding the host country as a direct sponsor of terrorism and therefore setting up a justification for attacking said country...thoughts?

Are we labeling them as unfriendly? Yes

Is this label unjustified? No

Will this lead to the invasion of Iran? No

It has been evident for a long while that Iran has a hand in the instability in Iraq. They are already running a war-by-proxy with the US in Iraq and this statement puts them where they belong.

Unfortunately it will not change anything. Iran will still go ahead with their nuclear program unchecked. They will still supply, man, equip, and train the Iraq insurgency. They will still support Hezbollah.

Gigolo Jason
08-15-2007, 09:36 AM
Of course not, it hasn't even been officially declared...but it definitely serves to lay out the groundwork AND tests the amount of support w/o making anything official. I personally think this is more to put pressure on the UNSC to pass these resolutions and pressure Iran to comply and discontinue certain activities they are conducting both in Iraq and regarding nuclear facilities/processes in-country than to be the "CIA Report PreWar Iraq".<---We've made that mistake once, I'd hope we learned that first VERY expensive lesson

The UNSC does not scare Iran at all. History has shown this. The UNSC has as much teeth as this declaration.

The US will not invade Iran any time soon unless Iran tests a nuclear bomb. That will be trigger for war.

Putting them on the list does nothing.

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-15-2007, 09:48 AM
We did the same with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We had Libya's government on this list for almost two decades.

1) Never said there was no precedent bud...:icon_thum

2) That wasn't a question but rather, an assertion

3) Was the assertion inaccurate? No, what happened after we declared the Taliban Terrorists' hint:: BOOOOOMMMMMM Same with Libya....


Are we labeling them as unfriendly? Yes

Is this label unjustified? No

Will this lead to the invasion of Iran? No

1) There was no need to re-establish them as unfriendly, they were already regarded as one of the trifecta of the Axis of Evil...member? :happy3:

2) Nope, not unjustified in the least...I personally think we have more reason to attack Iran than we had for Iraq ( I won't get into the why as you should already be aware of it/them but hint: more substantial evidence) and would look forward to an attack on Iran, but for the fact that we are overloaded with Iraq.

3) How about you be honest with yourself by admitting that YOU DON'T KNOW if this will lead to war with Iran, wars have been initiated by far more minuscule catalysts


It has been evident for a long while that Iran has a hand in the instability in Iraq. They are already running a war-by-proxy with the US in Iraq and this statement puts them where they belong.

Glad to know we are in FULL agreement as it pertains to the above...

Unfortunately it will not change anything. Iran will still go ahead with their nuclear program unchecked. They will still supply, man, equip, and train the Iraq insurgency. They will still support Hezbollah.

We mostly agree...I think they will do so until they are made aware of just how serious we are that they not acquire nuclear devices. I HIGHLY doubt we (with the current administration anyway) will allow Iran to go forward with it's nuclear program to the point of developing weapons grade materials...my fear is what will happen given a new administration

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-15-2007, 09:52 AM
The UNSC does not scare Iran at all. History has shown this. The UNSC has as much teeth as this declaration.

The US will not invade Iran any time soon unless Iran tests a nuclear bomb. That will be trigger for war.

Putting them on the list does nothing.

Of course not, that's exactly why, given all the resolutions passed thus far, they've continued with their nuclear program. It's also another reason I think it's retarded to continue as a member of the UN if it accomplishes nothing in the way of implementing and enforcing its policies. You have no idea what the administration or it's intelligence & war faring communities are brewing, lets not assume ourselves privy to such decision making.

NorthHoustonGSXR
08-15-2007, 10:41 AM
This is only diplomatic paperwork, it has no teeth.


It doesn't have to have teeth...I don't think there has been a "true" war meaning one that has approved by congress in our lifetime...I think the Korean war may have been...

Allegations is all it takes nowadays...

Gigolo Jason
08-16-2007, 06:26 AM
Here is my speculation on the subject.

An invasion of Iran will not happen under current conditions without a draft.

The draft will not happen because there is an election in 2008 and there is a good chance that the Republican party will win if they keep the status quo for the next year and a half. A draft would ruin these chances.

The military is already stretched to it's limits as is and is busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, this document puts Iran where they belong, on a short list of state sponsored terrorists. I will give you Libya as an example of precedence for this situation. They lived in the same list for two decades without an invasion by the US or any other UNSC member country.

BTW, Libya has plenty of oil so you can't us the the "they have no oil" argument for their survival.

Thats my two cents.

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 09:07 AM
Here is my speculation on the subject.

An invasion of Iran will not happen under current conditions without a draft.

The draft will not happen because there is an election in 2008 and there is a good chance that the Republican party will win if they keep the status quo for the next year and a half. A draft would ruin these chances.

The military is already stretched to it's limits as is and is busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, this document puts Iran where they belong, on a short list of state sponsored terrorists. I will give you Libya as an example of precedence for this situation. They lived in the same list for two decades without an invasion by the US or any other UNSC member country.

BTW, Libya has plenty of oil so you can't us the the "they have no oil" argument for their survival.

Thats my two cents.

Whether you are aware of it or not, Libya was attacked by the US in April of 1986 for what Reagan qualified as Libya's direct involvement (notice the familiarity of the term "direct" and the topic with which it is related in both instances-past and present) in terrorist activities negatively affecting America and American assets...as far as the draft, I don't know what the future holds, but we definitely have a problem in terms of our military involvement overseas, in multiple theatres and prolonged tours for Soldiers; retention numbers WILL fall and there WILL BE a shortage of Soldiers in the near future. We will have to compensate in some way, I'm not sure how we'll do that short of reinstating the draft.

NorthHoustonGSXR
08-16-2007, 09:17 AM
In 20 years from now we will have developed more mechanical means for war. Such as remote controlled vehicle, un manned aircraft, guns on wheels, etc you get the picture. Watch Future Weapons on discovery or History channel. The need for soldiers will diminish. It cannot go completely away but the majority of battle will be mechanical. my two cents

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 09:58 AM
In 20 years from now we will have developed more mechanical means for war. Such as remote controlled vehicle, un manned aircraft, guns on wheels, etc you get the picture. Watch Future Weapons on discovery or History channel. The need for soldiers will diminish. It cannot go completely away but the majority of battle will be mechanical. my two cents

Regardless of how technologically advanced we get, the need to have a standing military will never be completely removed. To be completely dependent, particularly militarily, on a technological force would be one of the greatest military blunders in history. Look at the various technologies being advanced by the Chinese and other nations...both look to exploit our technological military advantages. China has developed a branch of military specifically designed to attach/hack computer and satellite based systems (more specifically, our computer and satellite systems). Here's a link (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132284-pg,1/article.html(News))to some relative information. There is also a weapon which was featured on the very show you mentioned, Future Weapons, that featured a thing called a "High Power Microwave weapon" or "e-bomb" aka electromagnetic pulse. High-power microwave pulses can "knock out computers, electronics, and electrical power, crippling military and civilian systems". There are obvious, severe implications that are associated with becoming too technologically dependent. You may want to read Richard Clarke's "Breakpoint" for a current fictional, but very real instance of the capabilities other nations are working on for future attacks against the US. Being a former Counter-Terrorism Czar, specializing in Cyberterrorism in particular, Richard Clarke is very knowledgeable on that particular subject. But I digress, my point is this: we will forever need a standing military and that military will forever need to be able to go out with weapons and fight, navigate (w/o the use of a GPS system) and gather real-time on the ground intelligence from our nations enemies...as long as our generals are interested in winning wars, we will never be wholly technologically dependent.

Gigolo Jason
08-16-2007, 01:52 PM
Cajun, please reread my above statement. Libya was never invaded. Their government survives today even though they were on the list for over two decades.

With the US military on the ground on two sides of Iran another 1986 shoot and scoot is not a card that will be played or one that is being discussed in this topic.

An invasion of Iran is not likely with the current status quo. This diplomatic document does nothing to change the status quo.

jus10
08-16-2007, 02:32 PM
I agree with you Jason in the sense that action will most likely not be taken as of yet. It is merely a "warning" of "hey, you're on our shit list, beware!" more so than anything else (for now) But as you said Sean, it does set the stage for the possibility of (and giving us a reason/excuse for) invasion/attack. But I honestly don't think it will happen in this administration, unless severely provoked by Iran and possibly backed into a corner. We all know that Bush does not have the support to wage another war right now.

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 02:55 PM
Cajun, please reread my above statement. Libya was never invaded. Their government survives today even though they were on the list for over two decades.

With the US military on the ground on two sides of Iran another 1986 shoot and scoot is not a card that will be played or one that is being discussed in this topic.

An invasion of Iran is not likely with the current status quo. This diplomatic document does nothing to change the status quo.

No I suggest you go back and re-read mines, I never mentioned nor alluded to the possibility of an invasion as an invasion would require a significant amount of troops, troops we don't have momentarily. I'm thinking something more along the lines of bombing infrastructure-particularly with regard to nuclear facilities. Libya was attacked by the US and that was all I was saying, for clarification, here's my initial post (the one which you were, and have been responding to ever since):

Should we go ahead with the labeling of an entity of a foreign governments military as a terrorist organization, we are effectively, officially, regarding the host country as a direct sponsor of terrorism and therefore setting up a justification for attacking said country...thoughts?

...notice I never mentioned invasion but rather, an attack. Some which as I had said "has precedent". If necessary, I believe this administration, particularly while Cheney is in Bush's ear, bears the capability AND will to attack Iran for what it (the Administration) deems as direct support of terrorism AND more importantly, continued efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 03:00 PM
...it does set the stage for the possibility of (and giving us a reason/excuse for) invasion/attack. But I honestly don't think it will happen in this administration, unless severely provoked by Iran and possibly backed into a corner. We all know that Bush does not have the support to wage another war right now.

Right, I don't think we will surely attack Iran, matter of fact I am of the same mind that it is less than likely as I am thinking the UN will get something with a lityle more teeth passed through to the Security Councel in the near future, particularly due to this new message, but to completely rule it out as possible is ridiculous. The administration has a record of doing thing unilaterally and I wouldn't put it past them as a possibility. Bush and Cheney have both reassured us, through various speeches, that the Iranians will not acquire/possess nuclear weapons. Even if we have to act through the Israelis, something which I think is highly possible, Iran will be attacked if it doesn't cease and desist with it's aspirations of becoming a nuclear nation.

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 03:02 PM
...notice I never mentioned invasion but rather, an attack. SomeTHING which, as I had said before, "has precedent". If necessary, I believe this administration, particularly while Cheney is still in Bush's ear, bears the capability AND will to attack Iran for what it (the Administration) deems as direct support of terrorism AND more importantly, continued efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

jus10
08-16-2007, 03:16 PM
I would consider this more of "getting our papers in order." Not that we are definitely going to do anything yet, but just in case. Now we somewhat have justification for any future attacks.

EDIT: I should make that a little clearer... by justification, I meant BUSH-ification. Sorry for the confusion!:keke:

CaJuNsOuLjA
08-16-2007, 03:24 PM
I would consider this more of "getting our papers in order." Not that we are definitely going to do anything yet, but just in case. Now we somewhat have justification for any future attacks.

EDIT: I should make that a little clearer... by justification, I meant BUSH-ification. Sorry for the confusion!:keke:

That I can definitely see that...sort of a matter of being able to say post facto that "due diligence" was exercised...:nod::icon_thum

Gigolo Jason
08-19-2007, 06:38 PM
One effect of this document is to allow more talk about Iran's activity in Iraq by military commanders instead of making them pretend the Iranian problem doesn't exist.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070819/D8R43DE00.html

U.S. Forces Tracking Iranians in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) - American forces are tracking about 50 members of an elite Iranian force who have crossed the border into southern Iraq to train Shiite militia fighters, a top U.S. general said Sunday.

In east Baghdad, a mortar barrage slammed into a mainly Shiite neighborhood, killing 12 and wounding 31, police said, and a major battle raged north of the capital where residents of a Shiite city were fighting what police said was a band of al-Qaida in Iraq gunmen.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, whose command includes the volatile southern rim of Baghdad and districts to the south, said his troops are tracking about 50 members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in their area - the first detailed allegation that Iranians have been training fighters within Iraq's borders.

"We know they're here and we target them as well," he said, citing intelligence reports as evidence of their presence.

He declined to be more specific and said no Iranian forces have been arrested in his territory.

"We've got about 50 of those," he said, referring to the Iranian forces. "They go back and forth. There's a porous border."

The military has stepped up allegations against Iran in recent weeks, saying it supplies militants with arms and training to attack U.S. forces.

Iran denies the allegations and says it supports efforts to stop the violence.

The Bush administration is moving toward blacklisting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist" organization, subjecting at least part of the entity to financial sanctions, U.S. officials said this week.

A decision has been made in principle to name elements of the corps a "specially designated global terrorist" group, but internal discussions continue over whether it should cover the entire unit or only the Guard's Al-Quds force, the most elite and covert of Iran's military branches, which has equipped and trained Muslim fighters outside Iran's borders.

Lynch, whose mission is to block the flow of weapons and fighters into the Baghdad area, said Sunni and Shiite extremists have become increasingly aggressive this month, trying to influence the debate in Washington before a pivotal progress report on Iraq.

He singled out the Shiite extremists as being behind rising attacks using armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, which he said were largely assembled in Iraq from parts smuggled in from Iran. He also noted a marked increase in Iranian-rockets that have been increasingly effective against U.S. bases.

There has been an overall decrease in attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces, as well as civilians, south of Baghdad, but 46 percent of those were being carried out by Shiite extremists, Lynch said.

"The real difference now is we've got to spend as much time fighting the Shia extremists as Sunni extremists," he said.

Women and children were among the 12 victims of the mortar attack in eastern Baghdad. Some houses in the neighborhood were damaged, according to police, and witnesses said U.S. helicopters were hovering above the attack site.

Hussein Saadon, 56, an owner of a small minibus station, was soaked in blood after he drove four victims to the hospital. He said the district had been without electricity for several days and the people were suffering in the heat.

"It fills me with pain and anger to see an attack on such poor area where is no presence of police nor army bases or checkpoints," Saadon said.

In Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, police said more than 1,500 people including sheiks and dignitaries had gathered near city hall to launch the counteroffensive against al-Qaida fighters who have been regularly firing mortars into the town and kidnapping residents at illegal checkpoints. Police said five townspeople were killed in the early hours of the fighting.

At least seven people were killed and 18 wounded in a mortar attack on Khalis on Saturday.

Police said members of the city militia also said they were determined to push al-Qaida fighters out of the nearby town of Hibhib, where the terror organization's former leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in an U.S. air strike.

In central Baghdad, gunmen driving several cars waylaid a minibus headed for Sadr City, the capital's Shiite enclave, and abducted 15 passengers, police said.