Ron Paul: Strikes On Iran Not Imminent- Yet

Link to Full Story

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | March 16 2006

Congressman Ron Paul has contradicted other high profile warnings that a military strike on Iran is right around the corner by opining that any act of aggression is still some time away and that the build-up to another war is still in the propaganda phase of being sold to the American people.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show, Paul speculated that the Iranian oil bourse issue cannot be the only and most pressing reason for war because a similar situation arose before the Iraq invasion yet the Europeans' attitude was different.

Many speculate that the last straw for the US and Israel will be when Iran prices its oil in Euros and others follow suit.

"If they demand Euros for their oil it might not have a tremendous ramification immediately but if they do in other OPEC nations follow then they start trading oil in Euros it will have a lot of ramifications, said Paul."

Other key Ron Paul opinion points from this interview:

- Less resistance both internally and abroad about confronting Iran than there was about Iraq

- Warnings that military strikes on Iran will cause oil prices to double are falling on deaf ears in Washington

- That any Iran war is still in the propaganda phase of being sold to the American people

- Believes that Democrats might try to impeach Bush following the 2006 elections
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if anyone would dare listen to the opinions of a congressman, and if what he says is true, then all these doomsday posts around here appear to be incorrect. For now, that is.

That being said, I still have my doubts, and my spidey senses are tingling just as much as the rest of yours are. But with a bit of rationale, clearly the administration realizes the potential ramifications of strikes on Iran, and are not prepared to move as quickly as some's anticipation here might like to see, if at all. Nonetheless, with all the signs and warnings that we are seeing floating about, it could be that we are being given adequate time to prepare, if and when it should be necessary to strike Iran.

Even so, this may still not be enough to stop a determined Israel, if negotiations fail in the upcoming weeks with Iran over the nuclear issue. Let us hope and pray that talks will work out, and that it won't be necessary for anyone to go there. But there is still no harm in being prepared, for either war or Flu. Basic necessities should be the main focus, and nrky has a good podcast up entitled Survivalism 101 for anyone interested.

I find it really interesting how no one wants to hear this, or bother to comment on it. Instead, most people here just want to talk war war war. But I'll bet if you spent just one day in brutal combat on a battlefield, you'd trade anything to be here talking peace peace peace.

If I were inclined to listen to anyone in Congress (and yes, there are some I still respect to a degree) Ron Paul would be one. Now the question is, Does he know enough that I should be comforted by his words? And I don't know the answer to that. He makes sense, but I just remember that in the lead-in to 9/11, I trusted everything I heard and was screwed in a major way. So I don't take complete comfort in what he says, but it's an interesting perspective and I will listen to him. Trust? Nah. Not that I think he's lying, but I don't trust that he knows enough to secure us under the circumstances.

Let's just say I'm on the fence, but ready for the fall, should that fence be shaken by something real big.

I claim "IT" is going to happen, but closer to the truth is I won't get fooled again!


I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not that I think he's lying, but I don't trust that he knows enough to secure us under the circumstances.

Most definately. The "need to know basis" can be such a clandestine, malicious tool even at the highest levels of government. It is a powerful right bestowed upon elected officials, as well as on management in the military, CIA, and FBI to name a few. I think it gets abused more than people realize, and mostly because hey, "they have no need to know."

My question is do they have the RIGHT to know. It's funny how the very officials we elect are given the rights to take away those of the people that elect them. I firmly believe that Ron's information here will only be of limited use, as you say. I don't trust either, and I share the sentiments of The Who.

it looks like it has begun
BAGHDAD, March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. officials in Iraq on Friday again accused Iran of meddling in its neighbour's internal affairs, saying the Islamic Republic was carrying out "unhelpful activities" there.
Dialogue with Iran over Iraq without N-issue: Rice

Originally posted by leejones

it looks like it has begun
BAGHDAD, March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. officials in Iraq on Friday again accused Iran of meddling in its neighbour's internal affairs, saying the Islamic Republic was carrying out "unhelpful activities" there.
Dialogue with Iran over Iraq without N-issue: Rice

Can you provide a link please lee?

thats fishy its been deleted uk.search.yahoo.com... +news&rs=0&fr2=rs-top&ei=UTF-8&meta=vc%3D&fl=0&fr=fp-tab-web-t-1 thats about IRAQ

It's still there:

US accuses Iran of "unhelpful activities" in Iraq

BAGHDAD, March 17 (Reuters) - U.S. officials in Iraq accused Iran again on Friday of meddling in its neighbor's internal affairs, saying the Islamic Republic was carrying out "unhelpful activities" there.

The charge came a day after Iran said it accepted a proposal by a leading Iraqi Shi'ite leader to open a dialogue with the United States on Iraq.

A U.S. embassy statement said Washington was "concerned about unhelpful Iranian activities in Iraq. These concerns are well known and we have talked about them."

Jak

[edit on 17/3/06 by JAK]

Hey thanks Jak, for that link, and well, you know...

And lee, I assume what you meant by "it has begun" is the propaganda campaign? or what?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hey thanks Jak, for that link, and well, you know...

And lee, I assume what you meant by "it has begun" is the propaganda campaign? or what?

yes and the start off the war

It seems that Iran is still reasonable (or pretend it to be at least). What about the oil borse?

Originally posted by jefferson101
It seems that Iran is still reasonable (or pretend it to be at least).

Well, according to Bus's top foreign policy adviser Steven J. Hadley, Iran is bluffing.

By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press
Saturday, March 18, 2006; 1:11 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's top foreign policy adviser said Friday that Iran's new willingness to talk about Iraq with the United States is probably a ploy designed to "divert pressure and divert attention" from international concern that Tehran wants a nuclear bomb.

"What is interesting is that the Iranians would choose now, at this moment, in such a very public way, to embrace this idea and try to expand it to a negotiation about a broader set of issues," Hadley said.

"The concern, therefore, is that it is simply a device by the Iranians to try and divert pressure that they're feeling in New York, to try and drive a wedge between the United States and the other countries with which we are working on the nuclear issue and, if you will, divert pressure and divert attention."

Hadley added: "Obviously, this is something that we and those who are working with us on these issues will not let happen."

Also, note the US postition with which these "talks" will be held, for really they are NOT negotitations, but a mere forum where concerns will be expressed:

But officials made clear that any talks with Iran would be given as low-key a status as possible, in an effort to defuse any broader benefit Iran might gain. The Bush administration is also sensitive to possible criticism that talks with Iran represent negotiating with terrorists.

The American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, in charge of discussions on the talks, said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press that any meeting should be held in Baghdad. He also made clear that discussions would be limited only to issues related to Iraq, not the standoff over Tehran's nuclear activities, and would represent merely a face-to-face forum for the United States to state concerns it has expressed publicly.

"This is not a negotiation by any means," McClellan said.

The article also makes clear that the US administration is determined to keep this low key and not let Iran benefit from any aspect of them. So whether Iran is reasonable or not may not have that much bearing at this point, jefferson.