View Full Version : What to do with a nuclear Iran?
Interesting article about policy wonks wargaming the looming Iran fiasco. Relevant bits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403074.html):
The gamers framed their strategies realistically: Obama's America wants to avoid war, which means restraining Israel; Iran wants to continue its nuclear program, even as it dickers over a deal to enrich uranium outside its borders, such as the one floated in Geneva in October; Israel doesn't trust America to stop Iran and is looking for help from the Gulf Arab countries and Europe.
The Obama team was confounded by congressional demands for unilateral U.S. sanctions against companies involved in Iran's energy sector. This shot at Iran ended up backfiring, since some of the key companies were from Russia and China -- the very nations whose support the United States needs for strong U.N. sanctions. The Russians and Chinese were so offended that they began negotiating with Tehran behind America's back.
"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand, but by the end, everyone was negotiating for us," said the leader of the Iranian team, Columbia University professor Gary Sick. By the December 2010 hypothetical endpoint, Iran had doubled its supply of low-enriched uranium and was pushing ahead with weaponization.
The whole thing is worth a read, especially given the recent education we've all had in the Graveyard of Empires exercise.
So let's say the Revolutionary Guard completes its coup and manages to contain the Green Revolution. Let's say that Iran manages to obtain some weak level of nuclear weaponry. And let's say that China and Russia remain as feckless as ever. What are our options?
KukriKhan
12-08-2009, 17:51
Tell em: "Welcome to the Club. Here are the rules, and here's the secret handshake.", whilst quietly shifting some NORAD resources.
The big question is: what to do if they ever launch something? On whose side are we? Can that/will that change? Do we (US) have a role to play, assuming we aren't struck directly?
-edit-
Oh... and: who is next (to acquire)?
rory_20_uk
12-08-2009, 18:23
Syria has missiles with chemical / nerve gas warheads. From a "man on the ground" perspective, both will kill thousands.
And I personally am no more pleased that Iran's got then than Israel or Pakistan.
~:smoking:
No idea really I guess we will have to bomb their facilities, I would really really hate to have the Iranians having a grudge towards us. I am still kinda hoping that the change in Iran will come from within. The Iranian people are a natural ally of the west we should aid them, no way it wouldn't be bloody but we can take everything down right now and make a new start with the Islamic world. What else can we do, they will eventually bomb Isreal and Israel is going to respond, pre-emptive or not, going to be a mess, many dead on both sides and it just isn't needed I think we should attack the place and make it quik easy and painless for the Iranians and see from there, it might be a terrible mistake we have made before but I don't want to wait for the alternative. We should take out the pain before it becomes pure death. Attack, now.
HoreTore
12-08-2009, 19:39
Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.
Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.
Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.
Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.
But they are the Axis of Terror (sic). Would you arm Lex Luthor with nuclear weapons to give him a fairer advantage because Superman can punch through a tank and check out girls while they are clothed with his x-ray vision?
Major Robert Dump
12-08-2009, 20:21
I think the only was for Afghanistan to achieve true security and economic independence is for the country to become nuclear capable. Then, and only then, can there be true peace.
The US has been threatening Iran since they got kicked out in '79. Each time a Republican president gets elected, the sabre rattling starts again. In the last few years, as HoreTore says, the US have invaded countries on either side of Iran, Israel - a secret nuclear power - has declared open hostility on a number of occassions, and another neighbour, Pakistan has nuked up.
It would be a demonstration of almost unparralelled trust and restraint if Iran did not set itself up with a nuclear deterrent.
KukriKhan
12-08-2009, 21:45
I think the only was for Afghanistan to achieve true security and economic independence is for the country to become nuclear capable. Then, and only then, can there be true peace.
Memo to Dir, CIA: plant deniable rumor of US nuke assets in Kandahar and Herat.
~signed k, potus
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-08-2009, 21:57
Thing is; Iran actually has very valid reasons to obtain nukes.
Yes. I said it. Both its neighbors have been invaded this decade and they face hostilities from just about everyone, and they are quite threatened with an invasion. Getting a nuke is a good way to prevent that from happening.
Whether they have valid reasons or not only matters to a few hippies with no grasp of international politics.
Yes. I said it. A nuclear Iran makes the world less safe, not more, and to let them be armed with weapons that can obliterate one of our cities in an instant is not a good thing to have in the hands of a country that supports terrorist organizations who are already fighting against us.
Whether they have valid reasons or not only matters to a few hippies with no grasp of international politics.
Iran has zero nuclear weapons.
Israel has a hundred to two hundred.
Yes. I said it. A nuclear Iran makes the world less safe, not more, and to let them be armed with weapons that can obliterate one of our cities in an instant is not a good thing to have...
I don't see how this would work. Iran is not completely opposed to the West. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the United States had tried to open negotiations with Iran during the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, we wouldn't have this nutjob president we have now.
But face it, people. America has been constantly trying to meddle in the Iranian affairs, ever since they put a tyrant in power (The Shah). When a democratically elected socialist was made Prime Minister, wham, he was kicked out in a coup d'etât. During this crime against the very essence of democracy, the precious American values of freedom and democracy were overlooked, cast away, thrown out, nobody ever cared about them. When the Iranians put another tyrant in power, with whom the American conservatives disagreed, there we go; there's been nothing but mud-slinging to not only the Iranian government, but the Iranian people as well.
President Mohammed Khatami provided the Northern Alliance and the United States with intelligence during the Afghanistan war, and how did the great American president respond; by placing Iran in this "Axis of Evil".
And they have the guts to say they're surprised that the Iranians may feel a slight bit of resentment towards the United States and the West that they represent. It's called action --> consequence, people, and it's time we grow up.
But it's too late to open up talks with this country right now; you've let it come this far, America. The enemy was created by yourselves.
.. in the hands of a country that supports terrorist organizations who are already fighting against us.
Who, Hezbollah? When was the last time they tried anything? And before you mention Hamas; if there's one thing the Iranian government currently hates more than America, it's Sunnis.
KukriKhan
12-08-2009, 22:49
Thus, Iran [i]deserves[/b] teh nuke, and peace shall reign throughout the neighborhood, due to parity?
Personally, I'm opposed to any country having nuclear weapons. Nuclear power for Iran is no problem, whatsoever.
However, I wonder who can go in and say "You don't have the right, but a lot of different countries do". It's not about them deserving or "earning" nukes, but rather about not deserving.
KukriKhan
12-08-2009, 23:03
So, nuke power plants = OK, nuke weapons = not OK. I think much of the world (including the evil US) agrees with you.
So, nuke power plants = OK, nuke weapons = not OK. I think much of the world (including the evil US) agrees with you.
I should have been more subtle in my wording.
Let me get this straight: Nuclear power is something I dont inherently agree with.
Weapons of mass destruction are always bad.
Nuclear power is not always bad, and can be used to power an immense area.
Now there's something else. Iran is nowhere as dangerous as say, North Korea, which is led by a delusional megalomaniac or Pakistan, one of the most unbalanced and dangerous countries in the world.
gaelic cowboy
12-08-2009, 23:17
Hmm let me see the thread is "What to do with a nuclear Iran" I suppose the short answer is nobody can do anything when a country has nuclear weapons so that would be nothing we can do nothing with Iran.
KukriKhan
12-09-2009, 00:07
I should have been more subtle in my wording.
Let me get this straight: Nuclear power is something I dont inherently agree with.
Weapons of mass destruction are always bad.
Nuclear power is not always bad, and can be used to power an immense area.
I'm with ya, mate, up to this bit:
Now there's something else. Iran is nowhere as dangerous as say, North Korea, which is led by a delusional megalomaniac or Pakistan, one of the most unbalanced and dangerous countries in the world.
So, we should concentrate on disarming NK's and Pakistan's already existing nuke packages, but allow less threatening Iran to gain a similar package, because they can be trusted more?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 00:15
Iran has zero nuclear weapons.
Israel has a hundred to two hundred.
I don't particularly care. Israel already has them. Iran doesn't, and we can stop them from having them. Israel has many more reasons than Iran to have them as well - but that isn't the issue, like I said. The less countries that are hostile to us that have them, the better.
I don't see how this would work. Iran is not completely opposed to the West. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the United States had tried to open negotiations with Iran during the presidency of Mohammed Khatami, we wouldn't have this nutjob president we have now.
You can certainly go off on an unrelated tangent on how America is evil, I wouldn't expect anything less from you. Nonetheless, it doesn't change what I said. A country that is opposed to the West, for whatever reason, should not have nuclear weapons because it is contrary to our interests and safety.
Who, Hezbollah? When was the last time they tried anything?
This year springs immediately to mind.
And before you mention Hamas; if there's one thing the Iranian government currently hates more than America, it's Sunnis.
Perhaps so, but it hasn't stopped them supplying Hamas. Admittedly the biggest perpetrator of that is Syria, but Iran does it nonetheless.
I don't particularly care. Israel already has them. Iran doesn't, and we can stop them from having them. Israel has many more reasons than Iran to have them as well - but that isn't the issue, like I said. The less countries that are hostile to us that have them, the better.
It's really quite the false dilemma you're putting us for. So, in your point of view, your either for the West or against it? Thing is, I don't exactly see Iran as directly detrimental to stability in the Middle East. Compared to most countries, they are one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, next to Jordan and, yes, Israel.
To be honest, the current problem in Iran was created by the incompetent president of the United States, who was still in office less than a year ago.
You can certainly go off on an unrelated tangent on how America is evil, I wouldn't expect anything less from you
Obviously, I don't deal in abstract terms as "good" and "evil". I'm stating that the problem with the United States that Iran has was something that was created by the United States (and more abstractly, the West). Or did you honestly think that the Iranians have something against "the West" by nature?
This year springs immediately to mind.
Which actually makes me think of something else that happened, just about a year ago.
Perhaps so, but it hasn't stopped them supplying Hamas. Admittedly the biggest perpetrator of that is Syria, but Iran does it nonetheless.
Yeah, they keep saying that. Hezbollah is Shi'a, I can understand Iran supplying them, but Hamas? That would be a strange action indeed.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 01:14
It's really quite the false dilemma you're putting us for. So, in your point of view, your either for the West or against it? Thing is, I don't exactly see Iran as directly detrimental to stability in the Middle East. Compared to most countries, they are one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, next to Jordan and, yes, Israel.
Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.
To be honest, the current problem in Iran was created by the incompetent president of the United States, who was still in office less than a year ago.
In your opinion.
Obviously, I don't deal in abstract terms as "good" and "evil". I'm stating that the problem with the United States that Iran has was something that was created by the United States (and more abstractly, the West). Or did you honestly think that the Iranians have something against "the West" by nature?
Certainly not, but I disagree that America created the problem.
Yeah, they keep saying that. Hezbollah is Shi'a, I can understand Iran supplying them, but Hamas? That would be a strange action indeed.
Stranger things have happened in international politics. Iran is supplying or supporting Hamas.
Kralizec
12-09-2009, 01:37
Not to mention their close relationship with Syria, whose population is largely sunni and wich has a secular regime.
Nevertheless I largely agree with Hax on this one. Iran would probably have been a lot more cooperative and agreeable (from a diplomatic perspective) today if it weren't for the USA's confrontational policies.
Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.
Iran is a hellhole as far as human rights are concerned, but it definitely is a lot more stable than Pakistan for exmample. The fact that their current leaders follow an ideology wich is hostile to certain western countries doesn't mean that they'd proactively start a nuclear war over it. The Soviet Union or the PRC didn't.
Supposedly Iran is comprised entirely of suicidal fanatics who'd happily sacrifice themselves if it meant wiping Israel off the map, but I don't buy that they're that radical.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 01:45
Iran is a hellhole as far as human rights are concerned, but it definitely is a lot more stable than Pakistan for exmample. The fact that their current leaders follow an ideology wich is hostile to certain western countries doesn't mean that they'd proactively start a nuclear war over it. The Soviet Union or the PRC didn't.
Supposedly Iran is comprised entirely of suicidal fanatics who'd happily sacrifice themselves if it meant wiping Israel off the map, but I don't buy that they're that radical.
But why risk it? Why allow a hostile nation to have nuclear weapons in the interests of fairness, simply because they probably won't start a nuclear war? It just isn't rational.
It's not really about nuclear weapons, is it? The problem obviously lies with nuclear power.
Israel is an awful lot more stable than Iran, unless by stability you mean the increased ability of the state to hang homosexuals.
Oh, yes, it is more stable, certainly. Actually, when it comes to the rights of the Jews, Israel is doing a really good job. Don't get started on the rights of Palestinian Israelis, though. But generally, Israel is a good example for the nearby countries. Well, there are some pretty good examples; Lebanon and Jordan come to mind.
In your opinion.
Then what else created the problem? The current position Iran is in is an effect of the continuous anti-Iranian war the US Government has been fighting. Yes, the war of words, I mean. Time after time the Iranians are demonised, leading to what? Resentment, of course. I can't believe people are actually surprised that Ahmadinejad was (re)elected.
Certainly not, but I disagree that America created the problem.
Well, kicking Mohammed Mossadeq out back in the fifties, and supporting the Shah who showed continuous disrespect to the clergy and whose reign knew disappearings, murders, torture, rape, etc*, certainly meant a lot to the orthodox Iranians, which happen to make up about at least 60 percent of the Iranian people.
*Keep in mind that the situation nowadays isn't much better, but Iran's switched to the other side of the extreme, if you know what I mean.
KukriKhan
12-09-2009, 02:40
Boy, I knew it. Somehow, some way, Bush was at the bottom of all this trouble - installing the Shah, kicking Mohammed Mossadeq out, saying nasty things about Iranians. No wonder Iran feels entitled to teh bomb, just to show Bush that he's not the boss of them.
But: "What to do with a nuclear Iran?", to repeat the OP question.
I don't think any country with nuclear weapons has the right to tell any other country that they can't have them. Just my 2c.
Thus, Iran [i]deserves[/b] teh nuke, and peace shall reign throughout the neighborhood, due to parity?
No, but it does beg the question, or rather the statement, that those allowed in The Club are allowed in either because "we" like them or because the risk of excluding them is too high.
Iran can/will be kept out of The Club because (a) "we" don't like them, and (b) because it is "easy" to blow them up and still get a good night's sleep.
Is has nothing to do with right or wrong; it has everything to do with expedience and bias.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 03:09
No, but it does beg the question, or rather the statement, that those allowed in The Club are allowed in either because "we" like them or because the risk of excluding them is too high.
Iran can/will be kept out of The Club because (a) "we" don't like them, and (b) because it is "easy" to blow them up and still get a good night's sleep.
Is has nothing to do with right or wrong; it has everything to do with expedience and bias.
True, and rightly so. Nobody so far has been able to answer my question of which good and practical reason there is for us to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Tellos Athenaios
12-09-2009, 03:25
A good and practical reason could be that a quid pro quo could be made involving for instance the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/) and a better appraisal of what their arsenal does (not) consist of. In return a hopefully more mature way of negotiating that need not involve so many ‘threats’.
I mean it is not like Pakistan was originally supposed to get that bomb. Or India. Or North Korea (which appears to be working towards that). But then again it is not like saying “no” means that whoever you tell it to will automatically comply -- and the US and EU should realize by now that they do not singularly command the world's awe or respect [anymore].
"Do as we say, but not as we do" would probably be an apt name for this discussion.
Azathoth
12-09-2009, 03:50
That's already taken.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 04:04
"Do as we say, but not as we do" would probably be an apt name for this discussion.
That's international politics. I don't want everybody to do as I do in every scenario. Yes, I want Iran to become a true democracy. No, I do not want Iran to become a nuclear power until they are clearly on our side and apt to stay that way. It's really common sense. The world is not fair, and it should not be fair if you want it to survive for another hundred years.
Sarmatian
12-09-2009, 07:53
But: "What to do with a nuclear Iran?", to repeat the OP question.
Exactly what you said - Tell em: "Welcome to the Club. Here are the rules, and here's the secret handshake.", whilst quietly shifting some NORAD resources.
True, and rightly so. Nobody so far has been able to answer my question of which good and practical reason there is for us to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
A good and practical reason would be - we can't stop them. We could only delay it and even that is questionable. The more they feel threatened, the more they will want nuclear weapons.
Major Robert Dump
12-09-2009, 08:14
Memo to Dir, CIA: plant deniable rumor of US nuke assets in Kandahar and Herat.
~signed k, potus
We are probably the only 2 who get his joke :2thumbsup:
But why risk it? Why allow a hostile nation to have nuclear weapons in the interests of fairness, simply because they probably won't start a nuclear war? It just isn't rational.
It's a matter of whether you're afraid of them or not, feelings aren't necessarily rational either way.
I think we should try to be friends with everybody anyway, whether they have a bomb or not, being friends is always preferable and usually both parties profit from trade and friendship.
HoreTore
12-09-2009, 08:58
Whether they have valid reasons or not only matters to a few hippies with no grasp of international politics.
Yes. I said it. A nuclear Iran makes the world less safe, not more, and to let them be armed with weapons that can obliterate one of our cities in an instant is not a good thing to have in the hands of a country that supports terrorist organizations who are already fighting against us.
From their point of view they have a need for nukes. That was my point, my friend ~;)
As for my own opinion? I don't want anyone to have nukes. It's a retarded weapon. But still, I'm a little torn, as an Iran with nukes would mean an Iran that won't get invaded by us, and I have to say that the chance of them actually ever using a nuke is minimal or non-existant, and the same goes for them giving the nukes to OBL(mainly because it would mean they're a legitimate target for nukes themselves). But still, my hate of nukes trumps that slightly.
Samurai Waki
12-09-2009, 11:40
Just because a country has nukes, doesn't make them safe from invasion. It's just hasn't happened... yet.
But, I'm with pretty much everybody else that thinks Nuclear Weapons are awful, and that nobody should have them.
I think a nuclear Iran may actually stabilise the area. It's a position that I find strange to reconcile, but I think it may well be the case. With nukes everyone is going to be a lot more careful when dealing with Iran, and threats of bombing raids and other aggressive intervention will dry up.
The aggressive talk of the US and Israel have in large part been used by the Iranian hardliners to justify their position. With that removed, and stable and steady relations increased, we might find that Iranian domestic politics matures. We may even get a democracy. Not that the US actually wants that in the ME, despite much lip service to the contrary. To the US "democracy" really just means access to key markets by US corporate interests.
As for the Al Quaida/Hamas connection to Iran - I think some of you need to do some reading about the political set up of the area. You are way off. Especially as you have 100 times more to fear from a nuclear Pakistan in that regard.
Can anyone really blame Iran for worrying, seeing as a massive, belligerent, nuclear superpower has invaded two of Iran's neighbours in recent years?
Strike For The South
12-09-2009, 16:17
I'll allow it if Isreal and Iran finally wipe eachother off the map and let everyone get back to their lives.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-09-2009, 17:45
I would have responded to Idaho's predictably anti-American post as well, but responding to four is quite enough I think.
A good and practical reason would be - we can't stop them. We could only delay it and even that is questionable. The more they feel threatened, the more they will want nuclear weapons.
True, but I'm sure that it would be possible to take a course of action to the contrary.
It's a matter of whether you're afraid of them or not, feelings aren't necessarily rational either way.
We should be afraid of a nuclear Iran, or indeed any other unstable nuclear power.
I think we should try to be friends with everybody anyway, whether they have a bomb or not, being friends is always preferable and usually both parties profit from trade and friendship.
Indeed it would be preferable, just not practical.
From their point of view they have a need for nukes. That was my point, my friend ~;)
Indeed.
Can anyone really blame Iran for worrying, seeing as a massive, belligerent, nuclear superpower has invaded two of Iran's neighbours in recent years?
The USA is an awful lot less belligerent than all of the other previous world superpowers. Besides, it can't and won't invade Iran based on public opinion alone, not to mention that it has little real reason to. This is a fallacy at any rate. If Iran is so concerned that the USA will invade, preparing nuclear material is only a provocation not only to America, but to the rest of NATO. Therefore, it is more likely that America would invade to stop a nuclear program then to invade if Iran did nothing.
a completely inoffensive name
12-17-2009, 06:06
We (the U.S.) are reaping what we have sown with our terrible actions with Iranian politics back in the Cold War. I don't have a proposed solution or plan on what we should do next, but I think we should always keep my first statement in my mind when we deal with international issues.
"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand, but by the end, everyone was negotiating for us," said the leader of the Iranian team, Columbia University professor Gary Sick. By the December 2010 hypothetical endpoint, Iran had doubled its supply of low-enriched uranium and was pushing ahead with weaponization.Well, the Iranians are clearly smarter than this guy. The Iranians hold all the cards and they know it. All they need to do is make a few noises about negotiating and then back out- rinse, repeat. Whenever the international community begins to find their backbones, Iran can just announce that they're prepared to agree to demands and everyone will back down. Then they can change their minds and start all over again- and there will never be any consequences. If they're really good, they can actually extort concessions from us while giving nothing in return.
I think they learned it from the DPRNK. :yes:
Well, the Iranians are clearly smarter than this guy.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. The guy says that while gaming as Iran, he managed to get everything he wanted. You go on to explain how Iran gets everything they want, saying Iranians must be smarter ... than the guy who did exactly the same thing in a simulation.
I'm missing something ...
"We started out thinking we were playing a weak hand
The Iranians hold all the cards and they know itDoes that help at all?
Does that help at all?
So, the fact that the guy realized he actually had a strong hand in the gaming scenario makes him dumb? You're saying that the Iranians are much smarter because ... having lived through their actual situation, they're more keyed in to the political realities than a dude playing their role in a wargaming session?
Eh, never mind, it's a minor point anyway. It just read really weird.
I would have responded to Idaho's predictably anti-American post as well, but responding to four is quite enough I think.
I am not anti-American. I just observe the US and it's foreign policy with an analytical eye, rather than buying into the usual patriotic nonsense that many on this board believe.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-17-2009, 17:18
The USA is, I would argue, less bellicose and interventionist than have been most of the other "great powers" of history. That, however, is a very different thing than saying that we are non-interventionist.
One factor that has proven true over the last half century is that: if you have nuclear capability, the threat of direct military action against you by the USA drops off precipitously. If you do NOT have such a capability, the USA just might thump you around a bit depending on the political context of the moment in question.
So, if you want to eliminate that kind of threat to your nation/regime/whatever, develop a nuke capability.
Why wouldn't Iran seek such? From their perspective, it is eminently logical.
Stopping them from developing such a capability is rather simple as a concept, though it might prove a bit costly in execution: conquer them. If you are not willing to bleed enough to accomplish this, then shut up and get ready for a nuclear Iran. Sanctions and condemnations, even air strikes are ultimately piffle; none of these can do more than delay Iran unless Iran itself chooses to quit the effort.
As to what to do with a Nuclear Iran, the answer is simple: accord them a greater share of power "at the table." Love 'em or hate 'em, they will have a greater say in events regionally and/or globally. So, summarizing what Kukri said earlier, we'll simply have to cope.
I put my "long term" hopes in the development of controlled fusion power and constant boost spacecraft. Barring a diaspora of sorts, we will see nuclear weapons used. Far too many of the players are well aware that the use of even dozens of such weapons will not damage the biosphere beyond repair. Therefore, the use of such economical weapons to eradicate major points of opposition becomes a tenable strategy.
Have a nice day.
Watchman
12-17-2009, 17:40
The USA is, I would argue, less bellicose and interventionist than have been most of the other "great powers" of history.The Latin Americans might dispute this. It could also be argued that the US simply missed the opportunity - by the time it could start thinking about throwing its weight around, the globe was already largely divvied up between the colonial empires which were for the most part plain too big to mess with; and after they crumbled, it was all Cold War games.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-17-2009, 22:03
I am not anti-American. I just observe the US and it's foreign policy with an analytical eye, rather than buying into the usual patriotic nonsense that many on this board believe.
You may believe you see them through an analytical eye, but that eye is tainted with your bias. That is what makes you anti-American, as you tend to see everything in an anti-US light. You are not being analytical if every action is somehow the fault of the "aggressive American" or the "American imperialist aggressor." You are being critical, and overtly so to the extent where I believe it is fair to call you anti-American.
But then, EMFM, can you claim to be unbiased?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-17-2009, 22:36
But then, EMFM, can you claim to be unbiased?
Of course not, I didn't say I was. I do view my personal beliefs with regard to foreign policy as largely pragmatic, but even so they cannot be unbiased as they are opinions. Everyone is biased against something, the question is what, and to what extent?
America missed its greatest chance with Mohammad Khatami with its gunho policy of Bush jr and their views of Iran, which led to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gaining control of the country.
So who's fault is it?
Ultimately, Bush Jr did the biggest blows to US-Iranian relations at the critical time they could resolve the issues and get some work done.
So when some one like Obama gained power, the actions of Bush Jr. lead to the radical extremist president who commits a coup to have a stranglehold on his power which makes America unable to act diplomatically. Also, because of the actions of the Republicans and their foriegn policy in causing the recent mess, they some how believe that them causing this mess now gives them justification to cause more mess by invading them.
That is the modern day truth to the matter. However, EMFM might disagree with this, because he believes America is infallible.
(Another tibit of truth, Iran offered full support and assistance to America in the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as Iran has always had trouble with those regions funding militants against them. Bush jr told Iran them where to stick it their generous offers and denounced them as the Axis of Evil.)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-18-2009, 01:01
That is the modern day truth to the matter. However, EMFM might disagree with this, because he believes America is infallible.
Hardly. Believing America is infallible and being fair to the Americans are two very different things.
The Iranian government has been hostile to the United States for various reasons since the late 1970s. You can lay all of the blame for the ousting of Khatami squarely at the feet of George Bush, but it would be much more accurate to lay it at the feet of the Iranian Guardian Council. Khatami and the Reformists were unpopular with the Guardian Council, who did their best to sabotage him and his candidacy. To be honest, George Bush was correct in his Axis of Evil speech. It may have made him much more unpopular among Iranians, but the fact is that Iran was not a democratic country, and Bush wasn't referring to Khatami, but to the quasi-dictatorial control of Iran by the theocratic rulers who did support terrorism and so forth.
To lay the blame at the feet of America is convenient and undoubtedly popular, but it is an overly simplistic response to a complex issue.
It may have made him much more unpopular among Iranians, but the fact is that Iran was not a democratic country, and Bush wasn't referring to Khatami, but to the quasi-dictatorial control of Iran by the theocratic rulers who did support terrorism and so forth.
And yet Khatami was elected. He [Bush] didn't even try communicating with him. I think if there would have been one way of gaining goodwill with the Iranian people is to have had direct one-on-one talks with Mohammad Khatami. And that chance was completely blown.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-18-2009, 02:16
And yet Khatami was elected.
Not freely or fairly.
He [Bush] didn't even try communicating with him. I think if there would have been one way of gaining goodwill with the Iranian people is to have had direct one-on-one talks with Mohammad Khatami. And that chance was completely blown.
Really?
The Bush administration has abandoned hopes it can work with President Mohammad Khatami and his reformist allies in the Iranian government and is turning its attention to appealing directly to democracy supporters among the Iranian people, administration officials said.
The policy shift, which scuttles a five-year effort in which the United States tried to explore ways to work with Khatami and encourage a reform agenda in Iran, follows an intensive review within the administration over whether to adopt a harder line toward a government President Bush has labeled part of the "axis of evil."
A senior administration official said Bush has concluded with his senior foreign policy advisers that Khatami and his supporters in the government "are too weak, ineffective and not serious about delivering on their promises" to transform Iranian society. Instead, the official said, "we have made a conscious decision to associate with the aspirations of Iranian people. We will not play, if you like, the factional politics of reform versus hard-line."
It was tried, but abandoned in favour of another strategy.
Not freely or fairly.
Nevertheless, he made it to the position of President. I think by sending a message to Khatami we might have made a huge difference in the long run.
It was tried, but abandoned in favour of another strategy.
Yes, by indirectly calling 74 million people evil. It looks like we're still in the medieval "Either your with us or against us" stage. Well done, people.
After Vietnam, I thought we'd really learned.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-18-2009, 02:27
Yes, by indirectly calling 74 million people evil. It looks like we're still in the medieval "Either your with us or against us" stage. Well done, people.
It did not. My country was part of an Axis of Evil, and at no point did I think that 80 million of my countrymen were being called evil, directly or indirectly.
Don't drop it all on Bush. Clinton should have started talking with Khatami when he was elected, Guardian Council be damned.
The US government, as a whole, has problems letting go of grudges. Think Cuba. I'm amazed we get along with the Vietnamese as well as we do.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-18-2009, 14:15
The Latin Americans might dispute this. It could also be argued that the US simply missed the opportunity - by the time it could start thinking about throwing its weight around, the globe was already largely divvied up between the colonial empires which were for the most part plain too big to mess with; and after they crumbled, it was all Cold War games.
Watch:
My next sentence was an acknowledgement of our efforts in Lat Am and globally since 1945. I said "LESS" bellicose -- which doesn't mean we weren't aggressive and opportunistic on several occasions. But even at the time, we had members of our own military decrying the wars for United Fruit.
Would we have been just as aggressive/acquisitive had we not gotten started a few hundred years later than the other Western powers? Impossible to say. I'd HOPE we'd have done better than that, but humans being humans I cannot be certain.
Tellos Athenaios
12-18-2009, 17:33
The US government, as a whole, has problems letting go of grudges. Think Cuba. I'm amazed we get along with the Vietnamese as well as we do.
Well Vietnam is kind of special. Especially since My Lai; Agent Orange and other such unfortunate decisions; combine it with the facts Vietnam of today is not exactly the Viet Cong and that the US retreated (i.e. abandoned) south Vietnam with the consequences it had. Furthermore mutual economic interest tends to simplify mutual diplomacy.
So all in all there is not really ‘something left’ for the US government to be begrudging the Vietnamese really.
You may believe you see them through an analytical eye, but that eye is tainted with your bias. That is what makes you anti-American, as you tend to see everything in an anti-US light. You are not being analytical if every action is somehow the fault of the "aggressive American" or the "American imperialist aggressor." You are being critical, and overtly so to the extent where I believe it is fair to call you anti-American.
This isn't based on anything. Who are you quoting? And who is talking about every action?
The USA is, I would argue, less bellicose and interventionist than have been most of the other "great powers" of history. That, however, is a very different thing than saying that we are non-interventionist.
The US is probably more interventionist than previous historical powers. The reach of american industrial and military power exceeds anything the British every managed.
Proletariat
12-19-2009, 03:32
The US is probably more interventionist than previous historical powers. The reach of american industrial and military power exceeds anything the British every managed.
How does the 'reach' matter? Any nuclear nation in the world has more 'reach' than the British Empire.
:dizzy2:
The US is probably more interventionist than previous historical powers. The reach of american industrial and military power exceeds anything the British every managed.
Are you being ironic, here? We're more interventionist than "previous historical powers"? Do you have any concept of how Rome would have gone about pacifying Iraq? Mass executions would be the starting gambit, followed by mass public torture. Sheesh. Some sense of history.
Are you being ironic, here? We're more interventionist than "previous historical powers"? Do you have any concept of how Rome would have gone about pacifying Iraq? Mass executions would be the starting gambit, followed by mass public torture. Sheesh. Some sense of history.
Well, you could argue that Iraq would become part of the Roman Empire after that, it wasn't intervention, it was invasion.
In that case, America would be more interventionist as he conducts more regime change activites opposed to actual invasion and expansion.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.