An interesting point on the IRGC terror designation
Last night I was struck by the politics of the terror designation being applied to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, dismissing the idea that this was related to possible military action and seeing it as a bargaining chip being played in the Iran nuclear row.
Will Bunch points out that this terror designation of the IRGC could lump them (and Iran as one who harbors terrorists) into the already existing Authorizations of Military Force passed by Congress for Iraq or Afghanistan.
My gut still says this designation is about the nuclear program, but it does open the door to "authorized" military strikes. But that threat could be part of the nuclear discussions, too.
Will Bunch points out that this terror designation of the IRGC could lump them (and Iran as one who harbors terrorists) into the already existing Authorizations of Military Force passed by Congress for Iraq or Afghanistan.
My gut still says this designation is about the nuclear program, but it does open the door to "authorized" military strikes. But that threat could be part of the nuclear discussions, too.
posted by mikevotes at
1:33 PM
4 Comments:
Do you know how or where this 'terror designation' thing got started? I still think it will be used as a trigger to start bombing.
By
Anonymous, at 2:20 PM
No, It all broke last night/today.
The NYTimes said that Condi Rice was talking it around European capitals awhile back as a threat if US sanctions didn't get approved.
But, I find it impossible to believe this doesn't go down without Cheney's OK, and the possible bombing window would be enough for him to sign on.
I still don't see attacks out of this unless the US abandons negotiations. World support for the US position would crumble. But, as the clock ticks on, Condi Rice loses ground to Cheney's militarism.
They want a resolution on Iran before the next president, and you figure they bomb before summer of next year because of the elections.
By
mikevotes, at 3:18 PM
Sorry. I was kind of interested in the mechanics of the thing. I know it comes from the State Department but who decides who to put on the list?
I think this is a step towards getting actual attacks going. I'm not sure how it will work but it reminds me of the run-up to Iraq.
By
Anonymous, at 3:50 PM
Officially it is an independent decision based on the State Departments own intelligence analysis,but we know that's not true.
And, the atmosphere is quite different now than 2002. Leaving aside the mindset following 9/11, there's not this mass "let's go kick ass" sense in the country.
America is well aware that Iraq is kicking our ass and is not willing to go into another war unrelated to terrorism. (I think if there was any interest from the administration, there might be support for going into the tribal lands of Pakistan after Bin Laden, though.)
But Iran is seen as Iraq should have been, separate from the direct terrorism against the US.
By
mikevotes, at 5:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home