<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td><p class="story2"><font size="3"><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.</font></p><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="308" align="right"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" width="8"><font size="3"></font></td><td width="300"><font size="3"></font></td></tr><tr><td class="caption"><font size="3">Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush </font></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="story2"><font size="3">Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories. </font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same". </font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3"></div></font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3"><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></font></p><font size="3"><p class="story2">The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.</p><p class="story2">The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran. </p><p class="story2">"One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets."</p></font><p class="story2"><font size="3"></div></font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3"></font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3"></font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3">Source</font></p><p class="story2"><font size="3"></font></p></td></tr></tbody></table>
France was also putting threats out towards Iran. I really hope this does not escalate. There's been too, much death already.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'>France was also putting threats out towards Iran. I really hope this does not escalate. There's been too, much death already.</div> Yeah, Sarkozy is defintely setting a much "tougher" tone with relations regarding Iran. They are pushing for UN Sanctions but there is no way those will get harsher because China and Russiawield veto power. One interesting thing to note is the possibility of European Union sanctions that France said it would propose if the UN refuses to implement sanctions.</p> These next 3-9 months will defintely be an interesting. It is my firm belief that Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office and not leave it up to the next President. Rice also has a lot of "say" and the fact that she is beginning to side with Cheney on Iraq, makes one think that the question of confrontation is no longer "if" but "when". </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hunter)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'>France was also putting threats out towards Iran. I really hope this does not escalate. There's been too, much death already.</div> Yeah, Sarkozy is defintely setting a much "tougher" tone with relations regarding Iran. They are pushing for UN Sanctions but there is no way those will get harsher because China and Russia wield veto power. One interesting thing to note is the possibility of European Union sanctions that France said it would propose if the UN refuses to implement sanctions.</p> These next 3-9 months will defintely be an interesting. It is my firm belief that Bush will deal with Iran before he leaves office and not leave it up to the next President. </p></div> Yea, and today Kouchner, the foreing minister, said france should prepare for war. </p>
Vive la France.</p> They've been one of the key players in trying to negotiate a diplomatic settlement with Iran and their patience seems near an end.</p> </p>
War w/ Iran is a stupid idea. It is a larger & more homogeneous country. Just think how poorly rescuing the hoistages went back in the day. Combine that w/ that piss poor strategy that is the war in Iraq and you are asking for a disaster.</p> It has been rumored that the country is not in good economic shape nor do the masses really care for the ruling theocracy. I see no reason why we can't engage in subterfuge and get the people to rise up and overthrow the mullahs and clerics who obviously have their turbans wrapped too tight. Ahmadinejad IMO is sociopathic puppet under control of the Ayatollahs. </p>
I'm sick of wars, but I don't want anything to do with a nuclear armed Iran either. It's pretty much a lose/lose scenario for the US (and everyone really). Bombing them will galvanize support for the nutcases who run the country and make us look like the bad guys.</p> But letting them get the bomb is a pretty shitty outcome too. Most people seem to misunderstand why though. I don't really expect their leaders are nutcases who'll use it, but it'll certainly give them a lot more ability to fund terrorists and push their agenda militarily without fear of retribution.</p> Like all global thermonuclear war, the only way to win that one is not to play.</p>
