Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

[German Embassy spokesman Ulrich Sante told FOX News on Wednesday that Germany fully supports the ongoing U.N. process, saying the meeting in Berlin "was evidence we are seeking further progress…. The issue is being moved ahead."]

Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.

The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."

The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.

Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.

If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns' approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action.


*head**desk* I'm moving to Amsterdam if this really happens.

Hey Cloudy, just so you think nobody read your article, I read it. Seems pretty problematic for the ol' political solution to me too. But I have had that opinion since they started going down the road of appeasement. Germany and France were very pro-Germany and France for a long time. Now France is looking a little at the bigger picture. That's good anyway.

Russia and China do not have any interest in Iran getting in line with the civilized world. For them, weakening the US is to their long term advantage. Having Iran creamed would probably be to their advantage as well so it doesn't matter too much either way. But I hardly think either country is going to applaud military action by the United States.

So there is no simple way to manage Iran. They will get bigger and stronger and meaner until someone smacks them. Then the world will set about rebuilding Iran and another country will come along and have to be the evil focus of international intrigue and ambition. Probably it will be Venezuela next. I think Syria will temper its ambition if Iran is hit. Wonder if that is true.

Allen, when the hell are you ACTUALLY coming to Amsterdam??

I'd love to meet up with you. (and see Alex at the same time, obviously)

So, stop teasing us, and get your butt over here.!!!

Not Scary...*Iran go Boom* sounds good to me to bad the who Middle East cant go *boom* the world would be better off.

'Philosopher',

You wrote:

"... So there is no simple way to manage Iran. They will get bigger and stronger and meaner until someone smacks them."

Being a fan of philosophy, can you not appreciate that that is exactly what many in the rest of the world are thinking about the US?!?!?

At the risk of being further labelled 'anti-american', which is so totally pathetic, I will say again that the 'one-sided', 'dominate or be dominated', 'we're right / they're wrong', sclerosed perspective of the world by some, is the most potent threat to human kind.

Iran had never been a problem, nor a concern to the western world, until Great-Britain (the 'superpower' which was replaced by the US and USSR around mid 20th century), decided around the first part of the 20th cenury, that they would 'imperialize' Iran, based on GB's self interest for the oil ressources of this Middel-Eastern country.

Around mid 20th century, in the downfall of GB and emergence of the US as a superpower, the US were the proud inheritants of the Iran oil fields 'crown jewel'.

Remember the Shah of Iran: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi??? Not a free choice of the Iranian People. The US never took the fall of the Shah in the mid 70's, as the end of a morally unacceptable situation on their part (imposing a puppet autocracy to support their own self-interests on a sovereign nation).

Yes there are some dangerous tensions with the middle-east, and with Iran in particular today.
But the 'pyromaniac-fireman' shouldn't go around accusing the fire of threatening him, when he was the one to start it, and 'happy-go-lucky' fueled it all along.

Ignorance, unconsciousness, and irresponsibility will never lead anyone to what is true and just!!!

RandomX,

With all due respect, please wipe out that 'random' smile off your face!!!


You so irresposibly wrote IMO:

"... Not Scary...*Iran go Boom* sounds good to me to bad the who Middle East cant go *boom* the world would be better off."

What kind of a statement is that!!! That's how you deal with human beings you don't agree with.

Did you train in the Al Quaïda camps??? You sure speak their language.

They simply replace Iran with US, and trade Middle East with Western World.

Here is the Osama's version:
"... Not Scary...*US go Boom* sounds good to me to bad the who(le) Western World cant go *boom*(,) the world would be better off."

Come on my friend, put your jerry can and matches away. You obviously haven't thought this out.

It could be said...true...Iran to me is not Scary......WE find Ahmediijhad.......all the Iranian Clerics...Light um up Blow um Up.And Let the Persian People decide there fate after that.Radical Islam is Pervasive in the middle east. There is no SIMPLE way to Deal with Radical Isalm......If you know a Better way than Blowing them up Please sir Enlighten me.

Voir, yes, unfortunately I recognize the other side of the blade. People like to take that look at the United States quite a lot, but then they tend to appreciate it when the US looks out for their country's interests. Unfortunately it is popular to hate the success of the US. That does not change the fact that the United Stated does enormous amounts of good in promoting free society and helping to maintain peace in the world, or that it contributes to help impoverished people all over the world, or that it helps to develop the sciences. That also does not change the fact that Iran is a problem in the world and I'm really not interested in arguing that point. You are free to consider Iran a bastion of freedom and an upstanding promoter of peace and fair trade throughout the world, but I don't know why you would want to do that.

Have you read enough of the history of Iran to recognize that the country flourished under the shah, and that while there were some suppressed people, the country as a whole grew more and more modern, with privileges and growing wealth for the majority of its population. And in fact the repressed segments of society were the extremists for the most part anyway. People love to talk about the CIA involvement in the rise of the Shah. but the Pavlovi family had a more valid claim to the leadership of Iran going back through decades than the Ayatollah ever did. And besides that the guy the Shah supplanted was a radical anyway and only had any influence in government for a year or two. The CIA helped factions within the gov't to cast the guy out, but they were trying to do that already. So essentially the CIA was supporting more moderate groups within Iran.

Prior to the period when the Pavlovi family was in power in the region, Iran was a little like a flag in a breeze, influenced by Russia and Turkey and whoever was strongest at the time.

The influence by GB and the US is most resented by those other groups who had more influence before that time, say prior to WW1 or so.

I consider most of the complaints about the US involvement to have stemmed largely from the propaganda fostered by such groups. Obviously not everyone is going to be happy. Someone is going to have more influence than others. With the US as a major influence there is the capacity for the region to build trade agreements and flourish without fanatical, dictatorial governments. Without the US influence you get what you have now, a militaristic dictatorship steeped with religious hatred and a ongoing drive to create atomic bombs.

OK let's see if we couldn't bring this down a simple equation with fewer words and complicated sentences.

Turn of the 20th century

1900:
Emergence of the Industrial era, with OIL as its fundamental and quintessential ressource. (UK: the superpower of developed nations at the time, realizes this fact, and moves to 'control' Mid-east huge petroleum reserves. Its first 'target': Iran, the oil reserve crown-jewel of the day.

1900- 1945:
US starts showing up as an emerging player, and forces its inclusion (much like China today) into the world's developped nations market (mainly Europe, lead by UK and challenged by Germany at the time).
Race for superpower status in Europe: Germany going for broke twice (WWI - WWII) challenging the UK in the dominant role. They won't succeed in gaining supremacy, but will have caused, by default, the emergence of the US and USSR as potential candidates to fill the void created by UK and Germany's downfall.

1945- 1989:
With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US does a fireworks display using Japanese civilian populations, to send a message to USSR that it won't leave it alone to occupy superpower territory. USSR gets the mutual self-serving message and 44 years of a posturing cold-war followed, where world superpower status was shared between two nations and two ideological camps.
Realizing their bluff: immoral fireworks with innocent Japanese civilians, worked with the USSR, the US realized the road was clear to occupy Western Nations superpower status, smack in the middle of the Industrial Era golden age. OIL, OIL, OIL! Middle-East, Middle-East, Middle-East.
It no coincidence that the US, whom had shown no interest in the world wide restitution effort towards the Jewish people, all of a sudden became VERY INTERESTED!!! Favoring only one single solution: offering the 'heart and soul' of the Mid-East (Palestine and Jerusalem), as a gift and reperation for the European and Western Nations prejudice caused to the Jewish people. How generous, as you might venture to say Philosopher.

That was nothing but a cost and benefit analysis of a geo political situation that had not attracted the US attention until the self-serving benefits showed-up: A foothold in the Mid-east to ensure that the OIL would keep feeding their newly won Industrial Nation Superpower, and 'All Things Supplier' role to the world in great need of 'everything' after WWII.

That was also the only way the US would keep the anti against the USSR, whom were securing their own petroleum and natural gas reserves to feed their own growing industrial machine.

Iran with the installation of the US 'Shah', gave the US an insurance policy worth in weigh in (gold) OIL.

What ungrateful people these Iranians. How dare they throw out the US puppet, and DO IT THEIR WAY IN THEIR OWN NATION. (remember people: that's the darn thing about freedom: other people's way of dealing with their own nation's affairs, might very well not have anything to do with YOUR WAY of dealing with YOUR FREE NATION's affairs.

If you refuse to make a littl;e effort to see this simple perspective, these nations will keep finding it a problem that you keep insisting in 'HELPING THEM'!!!
... AND IF YOU KEEP INSISTING, THEY WILL KEEP WANTING TO SEND YOU LOUDER AND LOUDE MESSAGES THAT THEY WILL NEVER TOLERATE THAT YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS ON THEIR NATION OUT OF PURE SELF-INTEREST. Again class, remember that there are in Africa alone, far more and far worst oligarchies and dictatorial messes than Iran or the Middel-east, Really. But you've guessed it no OIL, or othr cost benefit equaltion worth 'spreading' US generosity.

Spare us all the juvenile propaganda. You're wasting your breath. We're all westerners. We're all on the same team. And like any team, family, corporation, etc., we don't agree on everything. I would bet on 50% of US citizens whom would agree with the general gist of the general picture I paint here. Heck, the basis for it comes from US papers and studies written by US scolars.

Again this is not a US bashing comment. It is a call for the urgent need for self-criticism among friends.

A call to move beyond the 'randomX's' : 'blow them all up'!!! pyromaniac approach.

And 'philosopher', a call to move beyond your own questionable filter for all global questions:
'US can do no wrong because it is the US, and anyone suggesting otherwise is obviously misguided and dangerous, and the US should manage their affairs for their own good, or BUY them to see 'the way', or pass them up to the 'random'x' BLOW 'EM UP! maniacs.

'philosopher', the shortcomings of these unwavering, closed perspectives, make it impossible to auto-ctitique, or debate without being suspected of treason to the nation. And whether you agree or not, history has taught every nation of significant status, that if it is incapable of auto-critique, other nations will take care of it in their stead.

Let's hear it gang!!! It can't be all one sided forever and be OK!!!

What Voilazure said.....I applaude you.

naaa...just blow the bastads up

It's just a bit more than BLOW THE BASTARDS UP!!!

All the plans that I have seen, call for at least 150 500 Mega-Ton Atomic Warheads and Bunker Busters over a 13 hr. period...

The Fallout alone will dessimate India,China,Pacestan, Iraq and possibly Saudi Arriba depending on the wind speed and Direction...

Much Fall Out will be pushed into the upper atmsphiear, that will fall on Australia, Indonisia and The Philippines...

It will also become a Global problem that will shorten all of our lives and after our Rag Weed ,fearing Leader hit's the Botton, Russia and China are free to launch on US Targets...

Well, I recognize the perspective you are putting forth here as being not only your opinion but a widespread opinion among many groups. I know there are some shades of gray in the matter as well. Ordinarily I am pretty generous in listening to the opinions of others and I don't mind saying that for the most part your comments make sense. However I still feel that the facts chosen are picked to back your opinion and that and for the most part you give the least favorable interpretation to the United States motives and actions over the years.

Referring to a fireworks display using Japanese civilian populations completely overlooks the fact that there was a war going on. It does not consider the opinion of people at the time that without that action there would have been bloody battles from one side of Japan to another with quite a lot more lives lost. So while you might have interpreted it differently, you chose to consider it wholesale murder without provocation.

I'm going to add some historical clips here.

In 1925 Reza Khan deposed Ahmad Mirza, the last shah of the Qajar Dynasty, and was proclaimed shah of Iran. He changed his name to Reza Shah Pahlevi, thus founding the Pahlevi dynasty.

During World War II, Britain and the USSR were concerned by Reza Shah's friendly relations with Germany. In 1941 the two countries invaded and occupied large areas of Iran. They forced Reza Shah to abdicate, and in the absence of a viable alternative, permitted Mohammad Reza to assume the throne.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-80) was king of Iran (1941-1979) with the exception of about two years. He replaced his father, Reza Shah, on the throne on September 16, 1941,

In 1949 an assassination attempt on the Shah was attributed to
the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party,

The shah's regime suppressed and marginalized its opponents with the help of Iran's security and intelligence organization, the SAVAK. Relying on oil revenues, which sharply increased in late 1973, the Shah pursued his goal of developing Iran as a mighty regional power dedicated to social reform and economic development.

In January 1979, religious leaders gained control of Iran and forced the Shah to flee. Iran became an Islamic republic. Boys and girls were no longer allowed to attend classes together. Alcohol and western music were forbidden. Men could not wear T-shirts, short sleeved shirts, or neckties. Women and girls had to wear long, dark garments that covered their hair and body. Religious police severely punished anyone suspected of opposing the revolution.

The point of the clips is to add some perspective here. His position was supported by the US, and he was undoubtedly given help from time to time, but there was some history there. The rise of his father's dynasty was supported by both USSR and Britain.

Now for the flip side. There is also substantial literature supporting the position that the shah would have had no position whatsoever without the aid of the CIA, and that his regime was the most repressive anywhere. But I think the truth lies somewhere between the two camps. His regime was repressive. British Petroleum did all they could do to eliminate Mossadegh and asked for help from the CIA, which did help.

I think that the present regime in Iran is much worse than the Shah's government. People I know from Iran agree with that position.

I happen to have the opinion that if the present government in Iran were dashed and more moderate people in control, so that they were less dictatorial towards their people and less supportive of anarchy and terror throughout the middle east, that a lot of things would be better, not the least of which is the welfare of the Iranians.

People tend to look at the rebuilding of Iran as some sort of winner take all scenario but I don't see it that way. If the government there were changed in a positive manner it would benefit all the countries of the region and countries farther away as well. France, Germany, England, the US and even the USSR and China could benefit from contracts and trade with the country. As it is now, trade with that country is governed largely by corruption for the sake of a greedy few bent on regional domination.

So I'm not looking for some sort of prize here where the United States takes over Iran because of its activities. I simply prefer them to drop their nuclear ambitions and quit exporting terror to other countries. And I think it might be nice if they keep their mitts off Iraq and give it a chance to heal.

I do not consider the US to be the great moralist and to have a monopoly on decent motives. You're painting me with a radical right paint brush and that's not entirely reasonable in my case, so you might relax a bit on the rhetoric.

So let me make the point here that I do not necessarily oppose other countries doing things their own way. however I take exception to Iran's activities since the rise of the Islamic regime. I thank they need to be managed, but that they are resistant to management. I really prefer not to have war under any circumstances, but I lean a little to the right on Iran. The trouble is that, as you say, any such intervention on the part of the US would give the impression that this country is a bunch of war mongers. Well guess what, Iran seems to be so as well. Between the two it looks like trouble.

One more thing, your comment about the US,,,"'heart and soul' of the Mid-East (Palestine and Jerusalem), as a gift and reparation for the European and Western Nations prejudice caused to the Jewish people. How generous..."

What does that have to do with anything I am talking about here? It seems to me to suggest that Israel is the fault of the United States. I take exception to that and I consider the comment to be inflammatory and incorrect. The building of Israel was brought about by a lot more than the United States. As for the heart and soul comment, much of what the Jewish people found there was uninhabited, barren land, which they built up through their own work.

I'm pretty open minded to other solutions about the Iran issue. I think it just irritated you that I suggested they might need some force to get things on track. I don't recognize any of my comments as propaganda, juvenile or otherwise. They are just my thoughts on the matter. Maybe it might be a matter of difference between the sources you have been reading and the sources I have been reading.

I also have the opinion that Iran is a big part of the trouble with killing of American and other soldiers in Iran. They do this by supporting groups with weapons and training and in particular the explosive devices used in bombings all over. Pick any American soldier who died there, as far as I'm concerned any one of them is worth more than the ayatollah.

Spare me the righteous indignation, it looks better on mothers against drunk drivers and even they are puppets of the trial lawyers.

BOTTOM LINE, American Dirty Tricks got US over there,then and NOW!!!

Our hans are not clean, 2 Wrongs have never made 1 right...

America should GTFO of the eastern asian area and stay out,whatever those people hatch can be their deal NOT OURS...

The Founding Fathers said our Military Forces are best used protecting our own soveren nation and NO OTHERS...

Hennnrey WTF dude?? Americans and their dirty tricks?? gimme a break!!!! its awful good timing on this Iran issue with american troops ready to LEAVE the region??!! the middle east has wanted us THERE fighting THEIR HOLY WAR. OK so decades later here we are. NOW WHAT?


Waving to you voileaz!! good to see you babydoll!!!

Do you know whats sick and scary?

The US with nuke em all mentalities running loose in the multitudes maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational.

These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs). Some of these carry 10-12 individual 100 kton warheads each with a seperate target and each accurate to within 90 meters.

1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Of 500 "tactical"/"nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. These can be single warhead or carry 8-10 indiv 100kton warheads with seperate targets. Some are 1 kton warheads and can be fired using conventenal artillery!

A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at seven bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.

A weapon I cant find any numbers on is new. They are called nuclear bunker busters and have been developed and deployed in direct violation of our own treaties!

Scary isnt it, and Bush has his finger on the button!!!

<--------- Better represenative picture dont you think?

Why would anyone need that many nukes for?

Do you realize how powerful a 100 kton nuclear warhead is?

The nuke used on hiroshima was 20 kton!!

where's Garden?? he belongs in here!!!

i was so looking forward to his take on this!!

Check em out hun, and Im sure you didnt miss that some of them are deployed in the Netherlands!!

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/usnukes.html

yes i know that we are holding some of your arsenal of nukes

i am not proud of that and we have protests there weekly.....


i'm on it Glen... but they don't let us get too close...lol

one thing about the Netherlands though is that we are just simply so much more civil in the way we carry on our business....


unlike the cutthroat tactics of the american cowboy mentality