CE Week #8: “Cheney, Like President, Has a Warning for Iran”
LANDSDOWNE, Va., Oct. 21 — Vice President Dick Cheney issued a pointed warning to Iran on Sunday, calling the government in Tehran “a growing obstacle to peace in the Middle East” and promising “serious consequences” if the government there does not abandon its nuclear program.
The remarks, just days after President Bush suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III,” amounted to Part II of a one-two punch from the administration at a moment when it is trying to persuade its allies in Europe to impose stiffer sanctions on Tehran. Those efforts grew more complicated on Saturday when Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator resigned on the eve of crucial talks with Europe.
“The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences,” Mr. Cheney said, without specifying what those might be. “The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
Mr. Cheney delivered his warnings during a wide-ranging foreign policy speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a research organization. During the 35-minute talk, he also took aim at Syria, accusing Damascus of using “bribery and intimidation” to influence the coming elections in Lebanon, and he presented the case for the administration’s muscular approach to investigating suspected terrorists.
But Mr. Cheney reserved his harshest language for Iran. Calling it “the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism,” he said, “our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions.”
That language is not radically different from what Mr. Cheney has used in the past. But people at the conference said that, placed in the context of Mr. Bush’s remarks, it represented a significant step toward increasing pressure on Iran. The speech seemed to lay the groundwork for the threat of military action — either because the administration actually intends to use force or because it wants to use the threat of force to prod Europe into action.
“This week we heard a significant ratcheting up of the rhetoric,” said Dennis Ross, who served as a Middle East envoy for President Clinton and the first President Bush and is now a scholar at the Washington Institute. Repeating Mr. Cheney’s remark about serious consequences, he said those were “strong words” with “serious implications.”
Mr. Bush has repeatedly said the administration would not “tolerate” a nuclear-armed Iran. But during a news conference on Wednesday, the president went further, saying of Iran: “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
That distinction — having the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, as opposed to actually having a weapon — is one the administration has not made in the past. David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute who moderated a panel discussion before and after Mr. Cheney’s speech, said the vice president also seemed to draw a new red line when, instead of saying it is “not acceptable” for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, he said the world “will not allow” it.
“The first is a condition,” Mr. Makovsky said. “The second is a commitment.”
In an interview on Friday, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, made it clear that he thought immediate attacks inside Iran would be a bad idea, while warning Tehran not to “mistake restraint for lack of commitment or lack of concern or lack of capability.”
The United Nations Security Council has already imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the government in Tehran to abandon its program to enrich uranium, and Iran has defied those sanctions. Now the United States is beginning to examine even tougher economic penalties, including a far broader cutoff of bank lending and technology to Iran than in the past.
Since 2005, Iran has taken a two-pronged approach toward the West, allowing its chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, to engage in talks with Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency while the country’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says there is no room to negotiate. Mr. Larijani has been viewed as more moderate than Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Larijani resigned Saturday and is being replaced by more of a hard-liner.
The Bush administration, for its part, seems to be making an appeal directly to the Iranian people in the hope that they will rise up against the Ahmadinejad government. The White House wants to avoid any perception that it would use military force to bring about a change in government but has made clear that it would be only too happy if the Iranians brought it about themselves.
Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he intended to continue to pursue a policy of isolating Iran with the hope that “at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it’s not worth the isolation.”
Mr. Cheney echoed that theme. “The spirit of freedom is stirring in Iran,” he said, adding, “America looks forward to the day when Iranians reclaim their destiny, the day that our two countries, as free and democratic nations, can be the closest of friends.”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/22/ce-week-8-cheney-like-president-has-a-warning-for-iran/trackback/
If I were to buy a bunker how would I go about doing that? I have to be honest this article kind of scares me a little bit. I do believe though that this situation is unavoidable and has left our government to make a stand against Iran. Knowing what Iran has done in the war in Iraq and now with their nuclear weapons program, I think it’s about time we gave Iran a little push back. If our troops are really getting killed by Iranian weapons AND their threatening us with nukes, I applaud Dick Cheney’s aggressive stance toward them. I’m pretty sure this Iranian president does not know peace and that if we tried to come at him in a peaceful scenario he would have just abused it and ignored us again. I am glad to see the UN do SOMETHING to help us out and not just ignore the situation. The Iranian president probably doesn’t care about the sanctions but it is progress in the UN direction. That is why this Iraq war is so important. If we leave Iraq high and dry I don’t think the Iranian president has any objections to taking it over himself.
I agree with Walters. This article is frightening especially when “World War III” comes to use. To me it just seems like the Iranian president is messing around with us. We try to make peaceful relations and he abandons us. I’m glad to hear that Dick Cheney is being aggressive toward them, especially since they are threatening us with nukes and have been killing numerous amounts of soldiers. It also doesn’t help that one of our more moderate communicators in Iran resigned recently. “Mr. Larijani has been viewed as more moderate than Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mr. Larijani resigned Saturday and is being replaced by more of a hard-liner.” If we are in for another hard-liner then I think that the aggressive stances we take toward them could be ambiguous. Do we try to make peaceful relations with someone else over again or do we threaten them with our confidence? I do not like the fact that we are being threatened with nukes and I think that is appropriate for the United Nations to enforce economic penalties. We are making a point by isolating them. “The Bush administration, for its part, seems to be making an appeal directly to the Iranian people in the hope that they will rise up against the Ahmadinejad government.” Of course an uprising would be nice, but is it likely to happen? I’m not up to date with the conditions of the people in Iran and maybe a hopeful uprising could happen.
World War III?!? That is a scary thought. Thinking about another World War really freaks me out. No one wants to be in a war; nonetheless, World War III. Also Cheney is not making the situation any better by threatening Iran. There has to be another way to get Iran to cease its nuclear program. If all else fails, then threaten them. The United States cannot afford to be in a World War. We are already in debt by trillions of dollars because of one war; imagine a World War. We will go deeper into the hole, which could cause our economy to collapse. We could face another great depression. Not only would our economy collapse but also our defenses will weaken. We will vulnerable and helpless to our enemies. The United States will be in peril. That is a scary thought. I really hope that a World War III will be avoided. I do not want to think about the future of the United States after a World War.
If a World War III ever happened, then who would be against whom? There is the obvious, Iran vs. the United States, but who would join which side? It seems that it would be the Middle East versus the World. Wouldn’t a lot of countries be against terrorism and them possessing nuclear weapons? I would hate to be in a World War III, but it seems kind of pointless if most of the world would be against the Middle East. It seems that Cheney and Bush are kind of overreacting, but nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is a scary thought. I can see why they are taking this seriously.
I know Mr. K would like it more if I disagreed with everyone here, but I can’t deny it, the words “World War III” scare me. I can’t even imagine how horrible it’d be if that were to happen. Thankfully (I think) Mr. Cheney is making some sort of action to prevent this from happening. Since he is the real brains behind Mr. Bush, he is making the strong statement of “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” This is my opinion is a little risky. What if we get all worked up over Iran attempting to create a nuclear missile that we impose more sanctions and get them a little angry? Instead of saying, “Oh we’re sorry America please give us back your wonderfulness,” they might just spit in our faces, make a nuke anyways and blow us up. We really have to be careful of what accusations we are making. Sure, we really don’t want Iran to get a nuke, but how far will we go to make sure that won’t happen? How do we know that they already don’t have 15 nukes just in some guy’s basement? So if we do threaten them with a world war thinking that they have nothing and it turns out they have nukes, what then? Maybe we should look more into what’s going on over there, be 110% positive they don’t have nukes pointed at 10 capitol cities in our country before we try to bully them around.
Ahmadinejad needs to be dealt with, I’m tired of him getting away with everything he says and does. He develops a nuclear weapon, supports insurgency in Iraq, and supplies weapons for killing American soldiers. He has made very bad decisions and its time he gets what he deserves. I believe he is more threatened by the U.S. presence in the Middle East, instead of dealing with it peacefully and trying to work out a good relation with the U.S. he killed American soldiers and continues his plans of nuclear proliferation. The U.N. has tried to handle this situation peacefully but he refuses to comply. Dick Cheney did the right thing by showing that we mean business and are not going to tolerate this lack of respect for a peaceful world. Ahmadinejad is has one thing on his mind and it isn’t peace. – Matt Powles
Well, I completley agree with Cheney on this. Iran is a threat and if they build a nuclear weapon they will become an even greater threat to us and the world. We need to stop them. Someone has to or else they will have a nuke. Who wants that? It’s just more problems and more people dead. If they did build one their threats would become real. I’m very glad that Cheney has taken as strong as he has. Someone needed to do it! We are the leading world power it’s our responsibility to, not to mention that we are the primary country that Iran hates. However, I was particuraly upset with the United Nations. They have told Iran to stop what they are doing, but there is no enforcement, which is ultimately why the UN always fails. I mean who’s going to listen to them? I think they should have tried to get their members from every country to stand behind the US when Cheney made his speech. We should not be alone in this fight. Other countries need to take a stand against terrorism and Iran building a nuclear weapon. They are a threat to the world. We need to stop them. If we don’t we will face serious consequences.
Who would have ever thought about the idea of World War-III? This would be a new aged war with nuclear weapons and probably not fought on land. Cheney going after the Iran nuclear program isn’t going to do anything. It doesn’t make the situation any better or worse. The United States cannot afford to go into another war. The bill for the war in Iraq is through the roof. What will they do with the troops over in Iraq? I think if we just packed up and left, Iraq would be in chaos. We need to finish what we started in Iraq. I think if Iran makes the first move then we must counter that move. Otherwise, how can we spare more troops? It leads one to think that “the serious consequences” Cheney has in mind is a nuclear bomb – think Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Otherwise, unless the international community and the United Nations are willing to back us with much stronger sanctions, how can Cheney and Bush’s comments have any teeth? It’s scary that Iran’s President, Ahmadinejad has replaced his more moderate negotiator, Mr. Larijani, with a hard-liner. With the U.S. taking a harder stance stating it will “not allow” Iran to have a nuclear weapon and the Iranian government being less willing to negotiate on the issue of nuclear weapons, one wonders how this situation will be solved. The prospects in this situation are truly frightening.
Of course a nuclear armed Iran, or, for that matter, any Arabic country that is a nuclear-armed, might lead to World War Three. Cheney backs up what Bush is saying to help the Republicans out in this election, but Bush has no teeth to back up his bite. Both Bush and Cheney are stupid for even responding. To tell the truth, the US could be compared to a UN type figure these days. Are we really willing to go into ANOTHER war? We’re in Iraq; we’re in Afghanistan. I am confident that Congress will not approve another war, costing thousands of billions more of taxpayers money for something that, for all we know, might not exist. What if they really are using the nuclear plants for cleaner power sources?
And even if they are attempting to create nuclear weapons, it’s not a system in which warheads are produced overnight. It takes years for a country to produce a nuclear anything. It isn’t like the blueprints are just sitting around somewhere for a neighboring country to pick up. Plans are top-secret. It would cost billions of dollars to even purchase blueprints to such a weapon, and much more to attempt to create one. For what it’s worth, it takes hundreds of thousands of tries to even create a successful bomb. And while I am not familiar with the fiscal happenings in Iran, I am convinced that they do not have the financial capabilities to even dream about creating a nuclear weapon.
Even the Secretary of State, Condelezza Rice, last week said that there was no way that we were even considering the invasion of Iran. It would be stupid on our part. We are already so far in debt, and there is no real light at the end of the tunnel for the war in Iraq, and we have such a shortage of willing troops that I agree, we are in no position to enter another war; especially not another in the middle east.
Just today, I was watching the news. There was a story about Ahmedenijad and how there has been a two-hour meeting with Javier Solona today. Although there was obviously no direct quotes about the possibility of shutting down the nuclear power plants in the country of Iran, Solana was “very upbeat and positive.” The meeting was deemed “constructive” and there was a possibility that there would be another in the ear future. “Iran’s incentives to shut down the plant was that they could begin to buy spare parts for civilian aircraft made by US manufacturers, and the provision of light water nuclear reactors and enriched fuel.” [BBC NEWS]
“Other incentives are said to include the lifting of restrictions on the use of US technology in agriculture and support for Iranian membership of the World Trade Organisation.”
That’s obviously progress, but we’ll see where it takes us from here.
So, I agree with Powles, Ahmadinajad does need to be dealt with, in which way, I don’t really care he just needs to get out of their. I also agree with Walters, that I am pretty scared of a world war III situation because technology is so advanced now days that it won’t be fun. The United States and I am sure other countries now have missiles that could hit a fly from at least 1,000 miles away. I am sure if we used the nuclear bomb on Iran, they would use it right back, even though they supposedly don’t have that certain weapon. But is going to happen, I think war is not the answer right now. We need to think smarter, maybe cut off all ties with Iran, like take all the trading and importing and exporting we do with them away. Maybe then they would catch the drift that we mean business. But what are we supposed to do as citizens, I surely don’t know. Are we supposed to just sit and watch as another war breaks out, or are we supposed to do something to help? I just don’t know. All I hope is that Iran stops being ridiculous, and ends their nuclear quest, because if they don’t, for all we know hell might break loose.
Brian i have to disagree with you in well a lot of things. If Bush and Cheney would not have said anything would anyone else step up. No we are the protector of the world it seems like nothing happens without the United States. The second disagreement is that i think congress would support another war. If we are the only one willing to step up and prevent world war three then we will have to do it. And its not like we’re in an all out war with Afghanistan and Iraq. we’re just facing a few insurgent groups who won’t quit. I have confidence that an all out war with Iran, we will own them. That’s why Iran is hiding behind their nukes is because that’s all the have against us. Another disagreement is that it would cost Iran billions of dollars for Iran to get the blueprints of a nuke. With everything involving the black market, i’m sure its not that tough for the president of Iran to get one. I think World War 3 will not involve the world unless the UN and allying countries dedcide to man up. It looks like World War 3 will be us and Iran lobbing nukes at each other but i doubt that event will happen.
I have to say that I agree with Jackie, that yes it is hard to disagree with anyone on this issue and that we better be very careful in how we deal with Iran on this issue. Of course the thought of World War III scares anyone, so the American government should really think through what they are doing before they just march over to Iran and start pushing them around and threatening them. I must say that Cheney is making some good accusations in that we need to take some sort of action towards the Iranian’s in making sure that they do not have any nuclear weapons. Some people have said that they don’t think that Cheney should be threatening Iran and that we should find another way to get rid of the nuclear weapons. I think that if we try to find a way around threatening, Iran will not see us as a huge threat or obstacle and continue to advance their way to building a nuke. I do agree with Jackie that we should completely 110% know what we are getting into before we start to enforce our tactics toward Iran. They could quite easily already have some hidden weapons ready for our attack. But I do think that if we can show Iran that we mean business and are going to do whatever it takes to stop them from producing nuclear weapons, even a World War, then it could put a stop to them.
Response to Trevor and Cody
This whole issue with Iran seems to me like it will not have a happy ending. But it also reminds me a lot of something that probably happened to a lot of kids when they were younger. Did anybody ever want a BB gun and a dirt bike or any thing that your parents “mom” thought could be dangerous for you to have. This reminds me about this issue of Iran wanting a nuclear weapon. It’s like we are the parents saying; now Iran, I really don’t think you should get this thing you are trying to acquire. Now did any of you get that toy you wanted anyways? And if you did what probably happened, your parents found out after you hurt yourself. Now I am thinking what if this would work the same way. Think about it? What if we let Iran get an atomic bomb, and why don’t we wait until they hurt themselves. Or dare I say, blow themselves up. First of all, it’s not like they are just instantly get an atomic bomb. And after they do get on they might want to see if it works, which usually you do with anything but it is not smart in this case but who knows they still might attempt it. Next, they have to transport it which will not be easy. SO basically I think that the United States as the parents of Iran lets them acquire a nuclear bomb they will probably have a better chance of killing themselves rather than anyone else.
I disagree with Brian. For one Bush and Cheney are not just saying things that they cannot back up, for instance Iraq. They mean what they say and will do whatever they can in order to carry out what they believe is best for the country. Even if it means that the United States has to spend more money on another war, in order to insure the safety of the country. As for congress, they would approve another war if the evidence was there and that the need to act upon Iran was shown. As for World War 3, it could happen, but only if country’s like the United States don’t step up and try to put and end to the corruption and tyranny of other country’s. However, I feel that World War 3 would not escalate and be sparked by Iran. For there are to many other powerful nations that do not back Iran and terrorist activities and they know they do not have a chance.
My opinion regarding Iran is a mixture of what Trevor and Brian said. I think I might be a little bias when it comes to nuclear war, due to the fact that I’ve watched far too many episodes of 24. I don’t think we are the only country in the free world to step up to the plate on this issue, but I do think we are the most capable country to do so. As far as WW3 in concerned, I definitely do not think it is too premature to be worrying about it. Ahmadinajad, nuclear bombs, and Iran, are three things I don’t want to mess with “just in case.” But, it is very, very, very important we keep our eye on Iran. As far as Congress approving another war, I don’t think we can predict something like that without knowing the situation. As of now, Democrats control Congress, but what if the Iran issue comes up in years from now? What if Republicans control congress then? Republicans are more likely to approve a war, especially in Iran. Regardless, we will be cautious, but Ahmadinajad is a trouble maker in my opinion, and maybe there is something we can do about that now.
I have to disagree with you on this Brian. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if we go into another country if it is to ensure our safety as a nation. If we go into another country for no reason I agree with you, but we wouldn’t go into Iran with a lack of a reason. I agree though that it is possible that Iran is using the Nuclear power plants to create cleaner and more efficient power, but they have a surplus of resources and they don’t need to use nuclear sites for power. The environment is not as important as our safety as a nation. If we don’t have a nation, then the environment will take care of itself because we won’t be here. I have to disagree with you that terrorist’s can’t get nuclear weapons, because if Iran gets them, they will give them to terrorist’s to use against our troops and allies. We know that Iran has been giving weapons to terrorist. Even though it does take years to create nuclear weapons, Iran has been working on acquiring them for quite a few years now, so it would make sense that they are getting closer and closer.
Cody, I have to agree with you on the whole war isn’t the answer right now. It truly isn’t the answer for the United States. If we do bomb Iran, like Cody said, they will just return the favor right back to us. Let’s cut off our ties with Iran as Cody said. Any business we have with them, whether it is from oil to goods, should be cut off. I would maybe give them an ultimatum on coming clean in a certain amount of time. If what Cody suggested didn’t work? Then they would learn the hard way about it after we bomb them. As I stated earlier, what about the troops? Trevor thinks that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan won’t make a difference. I think it will. It will have an effect with the American people the most. Pulling out will make people think of Bush as someone who couldn’t finish the job and someone who couldn’t keep a promise. Just think… that small little insurgent group, if left alone, over time will start to grow back and things will be back to the way it was – chaos. The troop’s morale will be down; it will be lower then the Braves in 2006. We need to finish this project before we start an even bigger one in Iran.
Waltz,
I respect you a lot man, but I disagree with a lot of the things that you are saying.
First of all, on the policies of Bush and Cheney: all of Europe, generally, has stepped up and made a stand against Iran; realizing that creating a nuclear bomb is definitely a scary thing. However, Amadenijad, is kind of like the type of kid who looks for attention. The more attention we give him, the more he will seek. This is why the most effective method of dealing with this theocracy is for ignoration. Yes, we obviously needed to put sanctions on them, and we did, but we didn’t need Bush and Cheney to go out and give unintelligent and meaningless threats in which America will never fulfill. Yes, we are the protector of the world, but if it devastates our economy to the brink of collapse, should we still be obligated to be the police dogs of the world?
What warrants do you have behind the claim that you make, that congress would support another war? The democrats already want out of the war that we’re already in. Mind you, they do have the majority of congress in their hands. Moreover, the republicans have become split to the point in which many disagree that we still have viable aspirations for Iraq. If we’re not in an all out war against Iraq and Afghanistan, what do you call it? Multiple American troops died daily trying to “reconstruct” a broken Iraq. We have trained thousands of Iraqis to defend themselves from terror, and have met all the checkpoints needed for troop pullout, but we still occupy their country. The American economy has become so chaotic that it needs to destroy entire countries and profit from their “reconstruction”. We’re feeding off of Iraq, just like what Cheney and Bush aspire to accomplish in Iran. No one can win a war against terror, especially not one country by itself. We cannot forever watch over the world and take care of every little problem that pops up. Just like they say in sports, defense wins championships. In this case, the championship would be not getting bombed with a nuclear weapon. So, the more we criticize, and the more we threaten Iran, the closer we come to a nuclear attack on our very own soil.
Cheney and Bush need to shut up before they get us all killed. What happened to the SHIELD project that we spent billons of dollars creating? Please tell my why we wasted all of these tax payers money when there is no visible, successful results to prove American Superiority. We lost in Vietnam and we’ll lose against any other guerilla insurgents that we will face in the future.
As for the black market, it still costs a lot of money to get your hands on these types of things. Is A-Jhad going to pay out of his own pocket? NO, he’s going to use federal funds.
IF WE AND IRAN ARE NOT GOING TO LOB NUKES AT EACH OTHER, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION. IRAN DOESN’T HAVE NUKES. AND THEY’RE NOT GOING TO USE THEM UNLESS THEY HAVE THEM. THAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE.