( In essence, Bush just declared war with Iran. So Bush has an ongoing war in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, and now he wants one with Iran... ) U.S. to Designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as Terrorists By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 14, 2007; 9:14 PM The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances. The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials describe as the group's growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said. The designation of the Revolutionary Guards will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It identifies individuals, businesses, charities and many extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guards would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization. The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists." The move reflects the escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad. The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guards' vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guards' financial operations. "Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who requested anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people." For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guards Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Although administration discussions remain ongoing, the initial decision is to target the entire Guards Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran. Formed after 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guards took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guards, also known as the Pasdaran, have since become an powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are tied to many mainstream businesses in Iran. "They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines, even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration." The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines last spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The Guard Corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The United States took punitive actions against Iran after the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions either reduced or eliminated their business with Iran, following a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. And over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 individuals -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- tied to Iran's nuclear program. The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, which is now Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a third resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said. China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations. The administration's move also comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), and by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) in the House, where it already has 323 cosponsors. The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach." Such sanctions can only work alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added. "Sanctions can serve as a prod but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401662_pf.html
Of course five years of failed Iran-Europe nuclear negotiations have convinced many in the western/american elite that there is no point in talking with them and the only thing that will stop their nuclear program and meddling in the war in Iraq is regime change.
Lookie how well regime change has worked in Iraq... Bush wants war with Iran, pure and simple. For all we knew, coming on the heels of Rove's quitting unexpectedly, Rove was against this move from a political point of view. I doubt beating the war drums with Iran and including the Iranian army in the "war on terrorism" will help the repubs in 2008...I doubt we will see another "coalition of the willing" go along with this preemptive war...
Lookie how well regime change has worked in Iraq... Lookie how well European negotiations with Iran worked... Claiming after 5 years of failed efforts that Iran's elite may not want to talk with us is pathetically ridiculous. Bush wants war with Iran, pure and simple. Maybe so but the designation does not prove (or disprove) the assertion, you're yet to provide a single fact supporting it. US labeled Lebanon's Fatah al-Islam as terrorist organization a couple of days ago. According to your logic it means the Bush wants war with Lebanon or Palestinians, right?
What does a war on terrorism mean when you designate the military branch of a sovereign nation as terrorists? It is a declaration of war. As a hawkish blind supporter of Israel, I expected you to support Bush on this...
What does a war on terrorism mean when you designate the military branch of a sovereign nation as terrorists? I was not discussing the validity of the designation. My only point was that in light of 5 years of failed negotiations only complete idiots can seriously entertain the idea that the Iranians may not want to talk to us. It is a declaration of war. Hmm, not really, not according to international law it is not. Regardless, the Iranians are helping to get our troops killed in Iraq (not that you give a shit). Whether we do or don't have any business being in Iraq, their actions constitute casus belli, not some silly designation. As a hawkish blind supporter of Israel, I expected you to support Bush on this... Well, as a blind supporter of every terrorist and dictator on the planet and a hater of the western world you were certainly expected to have a knee-jerk reaction against it and you did not disappoint. You made it perfectly clear that unlike the rest of the civilized (and most of the uncivilized) world you actually do want Iran to have nuclear weapons so we will certainly never agree on this issue.
What does a war on terrorism mean when you designate the military branch of a sovereign nation as terrorists? I was not discussing the validity of the designation. My only point was that in light of 5 years of failed negotiations only complete idiots can seriously entertain the idea that the Iranians may not want to talk to us. So we fail, and the solution is declaring war... It is a declaration of war. Hmm, not really, not according to international law it is not. Regardless, the Iranians are helping to get our troops killed in Iraq. Whether we do or don't have any business being in Iraq, their actions constitute casus belli, not some silly designation. Let's see. Bush said God told him to invade Iraq... You think International law means anything to Bush? Too funny... As a hawkish blind supporter of Israel, I expected you to support Bush on this... Well, as a blind supporter of every terrorist and dictator on the planet and a hater of the western world you were certainly expected to have a knee-jerk reaction against it and you did not disappoint. [/B] More lies...
Bush is slow as usual. Should have started bombing Tehran the minute we had evidence that IEDs killing our troops in Iraq originated from Iran. Also as usual - the Zzztroll has his head up his ass.
evidence... LOL LOL LOL.... yeah.. i am sure they have all the evidence you can swallow. wmd's... baby incubators... satellite photos... 9/11 connections.... tora bora bunkers. have we not learned anything in the past 6 yrs?
I should point out, that historically, bombing is a retarded idea. It escalated , after the bombing of london, mobilizing citizens against the common enemy.......to dresden, which mobilized the entire country against the "enemy". It escalated the korean war, with much needed propaganda after usaf bombed "civilian" columns of refugees, and escalated vietnam, after north vietnamese cities and ports were bombed , was it nixon? It missed the target of Gaddafi in tripoli, instead killing his adopted child-and libya is now best friends with the west. Hmm, that must be a win for bombing, you got me there!!! Its nearly as good as AAA's "cut and run-to the green zone" policy.