Bush Warns Iran Of "Serious Consequences"

During Meeting With Israeli PM In Jerusalem, President Calls Iran A "Threat To World Peace"

(CBS/AP)  President George W. Bush Wednesday directed a stern warning toward Iran over an incident involving a threat by Iranian boats toward U.S. naval ships in the Persian Gulf.

"All options are on the table to secure our assets" and there will be serious consequences if Iran provokes another confrontation with U.S. ships, Mr. Bush told reporters during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem.

Mr. Bush said he and Olmert also discussed Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions along with Sunday's incident when Iranian boats harassed and provoked three American Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials said Iran threatened to explode the vessels, but the incident ended peacefully.

Mr. Bush, in Jerusalem as part of a week-long trip aimed at pushing the Israelis and Palestinians toward a peace agreement, said Iran continues to be a "threat to world peace."

"It was a very dangerous gesture on their part," he said about the incident at sea. "They know our position and that is there will be serious consequences if they attack our ships - pure and simple. My advice to them is don't do it."

Iran on Wednesday called the video and audio released by the Pentagon showing Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats confronting U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz "fabricated," an English-language state-run television station reported.

Mr. Bush found himself challenged by his Israeli allies on a recent U.S. intelligence report saying Iran halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003. Tehran's nuclear ambitions are a chief fear in Israel, and the U.S. report led some in the region - both Israelis and Arab nations concerned about rising Iranian influence - to doubt the U.S. commitment to reining Tehran in.

"The fact that they suspended the program was heartening," Mr. Bush said. "The fact that they had one was discouraging because they could restart it."

Meanwhile, Olmert said Wednesday that "there will be no peace" unless attacks are halted from all parts of the Palestinian territories, including those not controlled by his negotiating partners in the Palestinian leadership. But he said that both sides "are very seriously trying to move forward" on a deal.

"Israel does not tolerate and will not tolerate the continuation of these vicious attacks," Olmert said, after two and a half hours of talks with President Bush. "We will not hesitate to take all the necessary measures. There will be no peace unless terror is stopped. And terror will have to be stopped everywhere."

On the first day of his eight-day Mideast trip aimed at pushing the Israelis and Palestinians toward an agreement, Mr. Bush declared there is a "historic moment, a historic opportunity." But he also said: "I'm under no illusions. This is going to be hard work."

"America cannot dictate the terms of what a state will look like," he added. "We'll help."

Mr. Bush's staff says the timing of the visit, his first ever to Israel during his presidency, shows his personal commitment to pushing the peace process forward, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports.

Earlier Wednesday, an Israeli airstrike in northern Gaza killed two Palestinians and wounded four others, a move the Israeli army said was taken in response to Palestinian militants who had bombarded the rocket-scarred southern Israeli city of Sderot with rocket and mortar fire.

Mr. Bush's arrival in Israel came amid ongoing land squabbles and fears of violence. There's been little headway since he hosted a splashy Mideast conference in November in Annapolis, which launched the first major peace talks in seven years.

But Olmert, despite his tough words on terror attacks, spoke optimistically as well.

"Your visit is timely and is very important to encourage the process that you and Secretary Rice helped start in Annapolis few weeks ago and that we, both sides I believe are very seriously trying to move forward with now in order to realize the vision of a two-state solution," the Israeli leader said.

Mr. Bush said he believes both Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas" are determined to make the hard choices necessary."

"Am I nudging them forward? Well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge because yesterday they had a meeting," he said. And he said he would step in when and if his involvement is needed. "You know me well enough to know I'll be more than willing to provide it," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush and his team stepped into a tricky issue - Palestinian anger about Israeli plans to build new housing in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Those areas were captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war and are claimed by the Palestinians for their future state.

Of Jewish settlements in the disputed areas, Mr. Bush said simply "They're illegal and they've got to go."

Earlier, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also said that Israeli construction in Palestinian-claimed east Jerusalem constitutes settlement activity and is opposed by the U.S. Rice's comments, published in The Jerusalem Post daily, marked the U.S. administration's strongest criticism yet of Israeli policies in disputed east Jerusalem. The Palestinians are expected to put settlements at the top of their agenda when they meet Mr. Bush on Thursday.

Said Olmert: "We must abide by our commitments and we shall do so."

Mr. Bush also indicated a willingness to address Israel's concerns with the Palestinians. Israel has demanded that Palestinian forces do more to rein in militants in the West Bank. Since Olmert and Abbas last met, two Israelis were killed in the West Bank, and Israeli security forces say members of Abbas' Fatah movement were responsible.

Mr. Bush said he would tell Abbas that his territory "cannot be a safe haven for terrorists."

[samsel3]

Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''t care they are in control ! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios

[samsel3]

Russia is the second largest supplier of oil on the planet, the Saudis are number one. After Saddam was removed they lost one of there sources and moved to Iran to fill the void. In exchange they also negotiated contracts to build multiple nuclear power plants in Iran. Russia is well aware of the Cheney plan for the Casapian Sea pipeline which will be cheaper to build if the US goes through Iran. Iran does not want to negotiate with the US on this pipeline. Cheney wants regime change, but Russia does not because it''s not in there economic interest. Thats the real deal !
Russia reneged on contracts with BP oil UK for new Siberian wells and also renegotiated contracts for existing BP production wells in Russia for less money. BP was not happy and teamed up with US oil interests for the Caspian Pipeline deal now under construction.

[amazedd]

And they all lived happily ever after.

- Sekhmet

[samsel3]

Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co. major Israeli oil company needs more crude and this is why the Turkey Israeli pipelines are going to be built......From there corporate site some info..".One of the reasons that triggered this project was the assumption that part of the crude oil produced in Russia, the Central Asian Republics or in the Caucasus and loaded at Black Sea ports can be marketed at competitive prices for distribution in Southern Asia and the Far East".

[samsel3]

One million barrels per day capacity for the Eilat Ashkelon pipeline where tankers are filled at the Red Sea port for transport to Asian markets. Currently tankers are unloaded at Ashkelon and pumped through Israel to Eilat a Red Sea terminal. The Turkey Israel pipelines project will save tanker transport costs to Ashkelon and increase market share for Caspian Sea oil. This is the purpose behind the Bush peace talks!

[samsel3]

January 9, 2007 Bush met with the president of Turkey on the 10th he was in Israel. The connection is the Turkey Israeli pipelines, the real purpose of the recent middle east peace summit . The actual story is the proposed oil pipelines that will be built down the coast from Turkey to Israel. Condi Rice is trying to broker this deal. BP oil, US oil interests and the Saudis all have a stake in that pipeline. Domonique Strauss- Khan managing director of the International Monetary Fund and Robert Zoellick president of the World Bank were in attendance. Big money won''''t finance the venture without stability in the region.
In the Daily telegraph, July 22, 2006 Condoleeza Rice stated her main objective in the middle east was not to push a ceasefire in Lebanon, but to cause an isolation of Syria and Iran. The strategic objective is all tied to oil and oil pipelines. In April of 2006 Israel & Turkey made their announcement which included four pipelines which will bypass Syria & Lebanon. The source of the oil is the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea Region. Shareholders in the BTC pipeline are: British Petroleum, AzBTC, Chevron, Statoil, TPAO, ENI, Total, Itochu, INPEX, Conoco-Phillips & Amerada Hess. Another very important factor on the war with Lebanon is that Israel will have a strategic role in protecting the pipeline and transportation corridor out of Ceyhan Turkey. The strategy will weaken Russian oil''s role in central asia and also isolate Iran.

[castanea-2009]

This looks like the Gulf of Tonkin incident all over again !

[ourtomorrows]

But it is more than just a hatred of the President, it is a hatred of your own country that you try to hide but is all too clear. Where that comes from I can not understand. So many of you here seem to believe that the Iranian-Us Navy engagement was all fabricated, in other words, you believe IRAN over your own government. Wow. The United States has made many mistakes in its history, but there is much we can also be proud of. George Bush is not perfect, but he does not deserve the hatred and name calling that many of you seem to take so much pleasure in. Even now as he tries to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most of you one here seem to not want him to succeed, a position I can not even fathom. As you continue to demonize the President, many of you should take a few minutes and look in a mirror. In that mirror is the reflection of what is weakening us as a nation, not because of your opposition or disagreement with the President, that is what free speech is, but because of your blind, unadulterated hatred based on what can only be misguided guilt.

[ourtomorrows]

President Bush should be applauded for what he is trying to do in Israel and Palestine. And, in spite of what NPR, that bastion of fairness, says, perhaps give him a chance.

It does not surprise me anymore to see the venom direction at President Bush. It does not surprise me to see the hatred. It saddens me because the real threat to the United States is not Bush or Cheney or even terrorism, the real threat is many of you on sites like this. Your blind hatred of the President which is, in reality, a hatred of your own country . There is a difference between disagreeing with the President, feeling his is wrong and expressing that, and the kind of vicious hatred that pours forth on this and so many other sites.

[beehive21-2009]

Remember,when the twin tomers fail , and TV shoeed how all the arabs celebrated ? that is all we have to say about it.

[jw218389]

Re: Iranian boats approach US Naval Vessels

GULF OF TONKIN?? Helloooooo.... BUSH IS AT IT AGAIN.... Hasn''t Halliburton made enough money yet????
---------------------------------------------------
For you youngsters the Gulf of Tonkin ''incident'' was a fabricated claim that US ships were fired upon and was used by Lyndon Johnson to start the Vietnam war.



From Wikipedia: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is a pair of supposed attacks allegedly carried out by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1]

Although it is possible that the first attack, on the destroyer Maddox, was in fact carried out after the Maddox fired first, some altercation did occur. The second supposed attack almost certainly did not occur.

[mcv57]

''''''''Gulf incident clip fabricated'''''''' (video)
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Teheran, Iran

Iran on Wednesday called video and audio released by the Pentagon showing Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats confronting US warships in the Strait of Hormuz "fabricated," an English-language state-run television station reported.

"fabricated."

The Iranian boats appeared to ignore repeated warnings from the US ships, including horn blasts and radio transmissions, according to the video, which was shot from the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper.

Intend no harm."

The audio and video recordings were made separately but were pulled together by the Navy. Often uneven and shaky, the video condenses what Navy officials have said was a 20-minute or so clash.

That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party," he told the state news agency IRNA.

"The identification of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian Navy units is a natural occurrence," the official IRNA news agency quoted Najjar. "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy units always put questions to passing vessels and warships at the Strait of Hormuz and they need to identify themselves. This is in accordance with the normal procedures."

Najjar called Western news reports that the boats threatened to blow up the US warships as "mischief."

[three-o-six]

I propose that we give Iran the nuclear energy they want, in the form of sub launched tomahawks. Then we coul have their oil fields and solve two problems at once.

[hungry1968]

FORMER -- That''''s not even close to being a comparison and you know it. There is not only a huge, but a MASSIVE difference in Hussein doing all that he did to us after the first gulf war with ingnoring all the resolution compared to us ignoring the UN because of their refusal to act.

Not even close dude...not even close.....

Posted by poopusbuttus at 08:45 PM : Jan 09, 2008




Saddam Hussein broke what resolution? The no fly zone?

You think that compares to the invasion of a sovereign nation for NO LEGITIMATE REASON? Killing hundreds of thousands, making refugees out of millions, destroying their infrastructure, and plunging their economy into the toilet, WHILE destabilizing the entire region somehow compares to shooting at an F-16 flying at 30,000 feet, at 1000 MPH with an Ak-47?

[hungry1968]

Agreed. I''''m off to cook dinner for my lady. Take care hungry, J.

Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:43 PM : Jan 09, 2008



Take it easy....

[hungry1968]

After getting his asss kicked the first time, and, after all the other BS we, and your beloved UN, put up with for several years, after 9/11 we had to take him out.

There was too many things going on with Hussein to just let slide by in that part of the world.

Posted by poopusbuttus at 08:40 PM : Jan 09, 2008



Don''t you think that MAYBE we should have went after the terrorists instead?

[poopusbuttus]

It matters because your contention was that the U.N. never does anything.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by formrusmcsgt


It doesnt do anything. Never. The UN had no choice but to act because every nation was against Iraq invading Kuwait. That was the correct move...however, just because they''ve failed in every other aspect of acting, does not make them correct, FORMER.


What you''re saying is that if the UN doesnt sanction it, it must be wrong. That''s BS and you know it.

[j-whitman]

formrusmcsgt,,,, Have a good dinner, I''m tired of arguing with the poser too. See ya later & Semper Fi

[hungry1968]

Sure he would have. After 9/11 and provided that negotiations would have taken place to first, get rid of Ansar-Al Islam, and if that didnt work, go take them out.

Posted by poopusbuttus at 08:37 PM : Jan 09, 2008




Are you really delusional enough to think that we can invade anyone, any time we want, no matter if we have a legitimate reason or not?

And then you morons on the right can''t figure out why we don''t have any credibility....

[poopusbuttus]

It is not that I place confidence, per se, in the U.N., but as we are a signatory nation to the charter, I feel we need to honor that just as we expect others to honor treaties.

You youraelf have slammed Saddam for not honoring his commitments of the cease-fire yet justify the U.S. ignoring it''''s agreements just as he did.



FORMER -- That''s not even close to being a comparison and you know it. There is not only a huge, but a MASSIVE difference in Hussein doing all that he did to us after the first gulf war with ingnoring all the resolution compared to us ignoring the UN because of their refusal to act.

Not even close dude...not even close.....