The Iranian threat

[Tribesman]

Well , "Recognising Iran as a strategic threat"
I wonder what words spring to mind regarding the US administrations latest take on Iran and the threat it constitutes .
Incorrect
Unsubstantiated
Misleading
Erroneous
Dishonest
Outrageous

I wonder if they will scrap the report and re-write it to take the IAEAs criticisms on board:inquisitive:
After all they wouldn't want to repeat earlier mistakes would they:laugh4:

[Hepcat]

I do not see how the Iranians are really a nuclear threat. They aren't going to amass an arsenal equal to that of the USSR in it's heyday. But then I am an "appeaser to fascism" according to the Bush administration.

Firing nuclear weapons is suicide and the Iranians (despite what the stereotype suggests) don't wish to have their country bombed back to the stone age. So WHY make such a big deal, they have a long way to go if they hope to even just qualify to compete with the US in an arms race.

[Spetulhu]

At first A-Q was a worldwide threat, organized, able to strike at any moment... Then there was the worldwide threat of groups with similar ideas.. No, wait, now it's Iran that is more dangerous than Stalin and Hitler. Together. :inquisitive:

Seriously. Their rulers arent crazy enough to want suicide. Martyrs? They quietly let their own wannabe-martyrs go off to fight Israel. Iran itself isn't much of a threat. While ten years of sustained hard work will produce a nuke, that ignores whether they will be able to sustain ten years of work.

They have a 1.8(Below replacement) fertility rate and migration favouring leaving the country over staying(Both from CIA Factbook). 80% of it's economy is just business done by the government and friendly clerics. About 80% of the population works in the remaining twenty. Most of the big businesses are failing, and where never-rebuilt oil refining infrastructure never got built, hefty shortfalls are made up with expensive imports.

Iran's not going to conquer anything. It's no 900lb gorilla. It's a senile old man grumbling weakly about how people should get off his lawn.

[Hepcat]

Iran's not going to conquer anything. It's no 900lb gorilla. It's a senile old man grumbling weakly about how people should get off his lawn.
:laugh4:

I think that the Bush administration WANTS there to be some huge superpower that they can wrestle with, but such things are in short supply since the Cold War ended.

[Sir Moody]

Iran's not going to conquer anything. It's no 900lb gorilla. It's a senile old man grumbling weakly about how people should get off his lawn.

heh that is definatly worth saving for my sig :laugh4:

[Spetulhu]

heh that is definatly worth saving for my sig :laugh4:

It's not originally my saying. Someome called SirNitram said that somewhere else.

[macsen rufus]

I think that the Bush administration WANTS there to be some huge superpower that they can wrestle with

Spot on -- they need a "bogeyman" to scare the public into baying for their own freedoms to be suppressed. It's classic rabble-rousing, populist politics. Set up paper tigers to defeat, wave the flag, create an atmosphere where dissent is UNTHINKABLY unpatriotic, then you can get away with appropriating more and more instrusive powers to the executive at the expense of the balancing arms of govt.

[Sir Moody]

It's not originally my saying. Someome called SirNitram said that somewhere else.

ah ok then - great line tho :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think Iran is a direct threat. The actual threat is that all the sabre rattling provokes Israel into a pre-emptive strike, which then escalates and we end up with another War in the Middle East, during which Iran nabs Iraq and already inflated oil-prices go through the roof.

The other threat is that Iran might supply dirty nukes to terrorists but given the most effective current brand are Sunni I don't see that as a big likelihood.

[Vladimir]

I do not see how the Iranians are really a nuclear threat. They aren't going to amass an arsenal equal to that of the USSR in it's heyday.

*sigh* Here's one (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305) example. Besides, do you really think they'd be stupid enough to launch an overt nuclear attack?

[Tribesman]

*sigh* Here's one example.
*sigh* heres Memri , the propoganda mouthpiece run by an ex IDF officer and a stand up comic .:no:

But while you are here Vlad , any comment about the words the nuclear inspectors use to describe your governments assesment ....
Incorrect
Unsubstantiated
Misleading
Erroneous
Dishonest
Outrageous
~;)

[yesdachi]

Seems lots of people didn’t think Bin Laden was a threat in the early 90’s and didn’t act proactively, same goes for dozens of others, both people and countries. I think it is a smart thing to pay attention to them and try and curb their nuclear aims, peacefully at first thru sanctions and what not but I wouldn’t take a preemptive strike off the table. They are a fairly powerful country in their neighborhood and have made wild threats to other countries, they are not trustworthy in a “nuclear deterrent” situation and they don’t seem to have any issue supporting terrorists, why give them the chance to build a weapons program big enough to hurt us or our allies.

We ware seatbelts because we might get in accidents but people don’t think we should confront this country of terrorist supporters and hate preachers who want to see us all dead. Put your heads back in the clouds and wait for the bomb to show up at the port (or worse) of your choice.

[Tribesman]

They are a fairly powerful country in their neighborhood
They are an even more powerful country in the neighbourhood because your government made them more powerful by putting out and acting on information that was .....
Incorrect
Unsubstantiated
Misleading
Erroneous
Dishonest
Outrageous

After all they wouldn't want to repeat earlier mistakes would they:oops:

[yesdachi]

They are a fairly powerful country in their neighborhood
They are an even more powerful country in the neighbourhood because your government made them more powerful by putting out and acting on information that was .....
Incorrect
Unsubstantiated
Misleading
Erroneous
Dishonest
Outrageous

After all they wouldn't want to repeat earlier mistakes would they:oops:
We repeat mistakes all the time, how else can you be sure they are mistakes and not just coincidences. :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

Seems lots of people didn’t think Bin Laden was a threat in the early 90’s and didn’t act proactively, same goes for dozens of others, both people and countries.

IIRC Clinton was droning on and on about Bin Laden during the 1990s, but Newt Gingrich and his chums were forever yelling "Wag the Dog" or similar things.



I think it is a smart thing to pay attention to them and try and curb their nuclear aims, peacefully at first thru sanctions and what not but I wouldn’t take a preemptive strike off the table. They are a fairly powerful country in their neighborhood and have made wild threats to other countries, they are not trustworthy in a “nuclear deterrent” situation and they don’t seem to have any issue supporting terrorists, why give them the chance to build a weapons program big enough to hurt us or our allies.

We ware seatbelts because we might get in accidents but people don’t think we should confront this country of terrorist supporters and hate preachers who want to see us all dead. Put your heads back in the clouds and wait for the bomb to show up at the port (or worse) of your choice.
Iran has repeatedly said that the main precondition for giving up nukes is that the US guarantees it will not attack Iran, or try regime change, or any of the stuff the neocons are so fond of. Without this guarantee, nothing the Europeans can offer will suffice. Why then, is the US so unwilling to give this guarantee, when all it consists of is an adherence to the internationally recognised principle of state sovereignty? Americans may fear the possibility that Iran might give material for a dirty bomb to terrorists, but the Iranians have actually seen America invade its neighbour and thrust its people into a living hell. Americans may fear a possibility from Iran, but Iranians have already seen an actuality from America, and the current US regime has threatened more of the same to Iran itself.

[yesdachi]

IIRC Clinton was droning on and on about Bin Laden during the 1990s, but Newt Gingrich and his chums were forever yelling "Wag the Dog" or similar things.


Iran has repeatedly said that the main precondition for giving up nukes is that the US guarantees it will not attack Iran, or try regime change, or any of the stuff the neocons are so fond of. Without this guarantee, nothing the Europeans can offer will suffice. Why then, is the US so unwilling to give this guarantee, when all it consists of is an adherence to the internationally recognised principle of state sovereignty? Americans may fear the possibility that Iran might give material for a dirty bomb to terrorists, but the Iranians have actually seen America invade its neighbour and thrust its people into a living hell. Americans may fear a possibility from Iran, but Iranians have already seen an actuality from America, and the current US regime has threatened more of the same to Iran itself.
I purposefully didn’t point a finger at Clinton because who was in charge didn’t matter the fact that nothing got done is what matters. Besides, Clintons “droning” didn’t equal any results, obviously Bin was not considered a great enough of a threat. Newt is a slimy guy but he and the GOP had every right to yell Wag the Dog because that is what seemed to be happening (Desert Fox, Infinite Reach & the worst IMO Allied Force in Serbia).

Guaranteeing that America wouldn’t attack would be very foolish from a PR standpoint and why would we want to make a deal with them unless it included them stopping all their hostel actions towards us and our allies. They actively promote violence against us and our allies and we continue to defend ourselves. They are clearly the pestering aggressors that seem unwilling to simply stop the hostilities against us.

[Ice]

I don't think Iran is a direct threat. The actual threat is that all the sabre rattling provokes Israel into a pre-emptive strike, which then escalates and we end up with another War in the Middle East, during which Iran nabs Iraq and already inflated oil-prices go through the roof.


Yes, we are going to let Iran simply "grab" Iraq. That is very feasible. :laugh:.

Some of these other conspiracy ideas are quite funny.

[Pannonian]

I purposefully didn’t point a finger at Clinton because who was in charge didn’t matter the fact that nothing got done is what matters. Besides, Clintons “droning” didn’t equal any results, obviously Bin was not considered a great enough of a threat. Newt is a slimy guy but he and the GOP had every right to yell Wag the Dog because that is what seemed to be happening (Desert Fox, Infinite Reach & the worst IMO Allied Force in Serbia).

IIRC Somalia left Clinton with a certain nervousness about committing US troops overseas. Certainly Blair had to push him into Kosovo, and the eventual threat of using NATO troops used Europeans Clinton was less squeamish about. Despite that, Clinton did occasionally order military strikes. It should have told you something about the importance of the matter, that an essentially pacifistic President should feel so strongly about this threat.



Guaranteeing that America wouldn’t attack would be very foolish from a PR standpoint and why would we want to make a deal with them unless it included them stopping all their hostel actions towards us and our allies. They actively promote violence against us and our allies and we continue to defend ourselves. They are clearly the pestering aggressors that seem unwilling to simply stop the hostilities against us.
So talk to them, sort out a deal whereby Iran will have a certain geographical and political sphere of influence, within which they can play the regional power as long as they do not overly interfere with America's friends and allies in the region. The standard diplomatic game, understood by people all over the world. Instead, Bush has insisted that the precondition for America even deigning to talk to Iran is its abandonment of its nuclear programme. Considering that the neocons have been talking about regime change in Iran for around a decade, if Iran does indeed accept this demand, what bargaining chips will they have left when they do enter the talks?

As I've said in one of the Israel threads, the problem is America's penchant for unilateral actions, unilateral demands. Talk to them, for edit's sake, you don't lose anything by doing so.

[yesdachi]

IIRC Somalia left Clinton with a certain nervousness about committing US troops overseas. Certainly Blair had to push him into Kosovo, and the eventual threat of using NATO troops used Europeans Clinton was less squeamish about. Despite that, Clinton did occasionally order military strikes. It should have told you something about the importance of the matter, that an essentially pacifistic President should feel so strongly about this threat.
I don’t think he was as pacifistic as he was preoccupied and he wagged the dog to preoccupy America. My point is that he felt strong enough about other “threats” that didn’t really threaten us then he did about the one that really was a threat, but wouldn’t get a big enough headline to distract from the issues he wanted to cause a distraction from.


So talk to them, sort out a deal whereby Iran will have a certain geographical and political sphere of influence, within which they can play the regional power as long as they do not overly interfere with America's friends and allies in the region. The standard diplomatic game, understood by people all over the world. Instead, Bush has insisted that the precondition for America even deigning to talk to Iran is its abandonment of its nuclear programme. Considering that the neocons have been talking about regime change in Iran for around a decade, if Iran does indeed accept this demand, what bargaining chips will they have left when they do enter the talks?
My calls keep going unanswered or unreturned. :laugh4:
Dealing with America is not difficult if you want peace, they don’t. They want to destroy their enemies, not build a prosperous country that enjoys the benefits of free trade and commerce. A hostile environment is good for them politically.


As I've said in one of the Israel threads, the problem is America's penchant for unilateral actions, unilateral demands. Talk to them, for edit's sake, you don't lose anything by doing so.
America (right now) does have some black and white demands but they are not unreasonable IF peace was the goal but it isn’t. The only thing talking more will do is give them more time. Why bother?

[Pannonian]

I don’t think he was as pacifistic as he was preoccupied and he wagged the dog to preoccupy America. My point is that he felt strong enough about other “threats” that didn’t really threaten us then he did about the one that really was a threat, but wouldn’t get a big enough headline to distract from the issues he wanted to cause a distraction from.

And yet he pressed, above all else, for action on Osama Bin Laden. Why? Focusing on Al-Qaeda didn't merit headlines in America, Iraq did, yet he emphasised the threat posed by Bin Laden, not that posed by Saddam. If he really wanted to distract people from his domestic problems, wouldn't he have gone for the headline threat instead of the more insidious one?



My calls keep going unanswered or unreturned. :laugh4:
Dealing with America is not difficult if you want peace, they don’t. They want to destroy their enemies, not build a prosperous country that enjoys the benefits of free trade and commerce. A hostile environment is good for them politically.

America (right now) does have some black and white demands but they are not unreasonable IF peace was the goal but it isn’t. The only thing talking more will do is give them more time. Why bother?
Have you read the various goals of the neocons? Regime change ("democratisation") in the middle east, except of course if they elect governments unfriendly to Israel (eg. Lebanon, Palestine). Starting with Iraq, but other prominent targets are Iran, Syria, and even Egypt. Is it a conspiracy theory if the neocons state it themselves?

[yesdachi]

And yet he pressed, above all else, for action on Osama Bin Laden. Why? Focusing on Al-Qaeda didn't merit headlines in America, Iraq did, yet he emphasised the threat posed by Bin Laden, not that posed by Saddam. If he really wanted to distract people from his domestic problems, wouldn't he have gone for the headline threat instead of the more insidious one?
That’s a bit of a stretch. The fact is, nothing got done about Bin Laden, Clinton was the President and no one in the world could have stopped him if he wanted to “deal” with Bin Laden. So either he was not seen as a great enough threat or Clinton was incompetent.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago describe Clinton during a meeting, he said he had a yellow legal pad and a pencil and was very interactive during the parts of the meeting that involved policy and economic numbers but paid hardly any attention when the topic would change to security and terrorist activity. Clinton was good at some things but he did not recognize the threats and that is what i think we, right now, need to do and then deal with them.


Have you read the various goals of the neocons? Regime change ("democratisation") in the middle east, except of course if they elect governments unfriendly to Israel (eg. Lebanon, Palestine). Starting with Iraq, but other prominent targets are Iran, Syria, and even Egypt. Is it a conspiracy theory if the neocons state it themselves?
Our desire for a regime change in countries that are hostel to us is a bad thing?

[Don Corleone]

Okay, I'll bite. Tribesman, you're apparently making the case, without link or quote, mind you, that the IAEA in no way considers Iran to be a threat, and for the USA to describe it as one is misldeading, erroneous, etc.

Am I correct here?

If this be the case, kindly enlighten a stupid sod as myself as to why the Security Council is investegating and even Russia and China agree that something must be done, they just disagree on the particularities of the something?

If Russia, who's quite possibly Iran's best friend in the world, is claiming that yes, they're developing nuclear weaponry, but to get them to stop, we need to use diplomacy, not force of arms, something doesn't add up. :idea2: Maybe somebody forgot to tell Putin about the IAEA report.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said before, Iran is not a direct threat to us, but they could make things even more awkward in the Middle East, though at the moment the way Iraq and Afganistan are being hadled they don't need to.

[Pannonian]

That’s a bit of a stretch. The fact is, nothing got done about Bin Laden, Clinton was the President and no one in the world could have stopped him if he wanted to “deal” with Bin Laden. So either he was not seen as a great enough threat or Clinton was incompetent.

I heard someone on the radio a few days ago describe Clinton during a meeting, he said he had a yellow legal pad and a pencil and was very interactive during the parts of the meeting that involved policy and economic numbers but paid hardly any attention when the topic would change to security and terrorist activity. Clinton was good at some things but he did not recognize the threats and that is what i think we, right now, need to do and then deal with them.

The departing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about the danger of terrorism, and specifically that coming from Bin Laden.

As for terrorism and security - Muslim countries during Clinton's presidency forced the extremists out of their countries. They collected in Afghanistan because it was just about the only Muslim country in the world that still openly welcomed them. Was this due to Clinton? I haven't seen it said that he materially helped, but he certainly encouraged it, not least through his diplomatic stance. While conservatives may have despised the western corruption that he embodied, the image of America that he presented tended to persuade Muslim populaces away from Bin Laden's view of Islam, and towards a more cosmopolitan view that was more accommodating with the west. Did this materially improve America's security against terrorist attacks? Who can tell, except that this was how Britain successfully defeated the IRA, by wooing their support base. Compare global views of America then with views of America now. Whatever Bush may have done about security, America has far more enemies now than under Clinton.



Our desire for a regime change in countries that are hostel to us is a bad thing?
It's illegal. Nuremberg established that the worst crime a state can commit is to pursue an aggressive war. Bush 1 reinforced this principle in GW1.

[yesdachi]

The departing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about the danger of terrorism, and specifically that coming from Bin Laden.
But he wasn’t considered a big enough threat to do anything about.

As for terrorism and security - Muslim countries during Clinton's presidency forced the extremists out of their countries. They collected in Afghanistan because it was just about the only Muslim country in the world that still openly welcomed them. Was this due to Clinton? I haven't seen it said that he materially helped, but he certainly encouraged it, not least through his diplomatic stance. While conservatives may have despised the western corruption that he embodied, the image of America that he presented tended to persuade Muslim populaces away from Bin Laden's view of Islam, and towards a more cosmopolitan view that was more accommodating with the west. Did this materially improve America's security against terrorist attacks? Who can tell, except that this was how Britain successfully defeated the IRA, by wooing their support base. Compare global views of America then with views of America now. Whatever Bush may have done about security, America has far more enemies now than under Clinton.
Would America have as many enemies now if Clinton had dealt with the growing terrorist threat/Bin Laden then? It is an unanswerable question but in hindsight you must admit that there was a greater threat there than we realized?


It's illegal. Nuremberg established that the worst crime a state can commit is to pursue an aggressive war. Bush 1 reinforced this principle in GW1.
Desiring, encouraging and even participating in a regime change is far from illegal depending on how it is carried out.

[rotorgun]

I say, judging from the link that Vladimir provided us with Achmadenijad's
speech at the Tehran conference, that they are primarily a threat to Isreal. If so, isn't this Isreal's problem? Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is wanting to ratchet up the stakes by claiming that they threaten the entire region. Why must evrything that is Isreal's problem become an issue of life or death for us in the States? When I see Iranian soldiers or suicide bombers trying to infiltrate the US, then I'll be willing to do plenty to defend this country from them. As much as I am for the survival of Isreal, I do not think I owe them my blood any more than they do me.

If they have been making these threats for 28 years, than why are they all of a sudden such a big threat? It seems that they are nothing more than a sounding brass bell to me.

Cordially,

[Pannonian]

But he wasn’t considered a big enough threat to do anything about.

Would America have as many enemies now if Clinton had dealt with the growing terrorist threat/Bin Laden then? It is an unanswerable question but in hindsight you must admit that there was a greater threat there than we realized?

You're missing the point. Whether it was due to Clinton or not, effective counter-terrorism on a grand scale, as demonstrated by Britain, relies on persuading people to your point of view. Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all. Whether he did it as part of anti-terrorism or not, Clinton was an expert at getting people overseas to like him, and by extension, America.

[yesdachi]

You're missing the point. Whether it was due to Clinton or not, effective counter-terrorism on a grand scale, as demonstrated by Britain, relies on persuading people to your point of view. Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all. Whether he did it as part of anti-terrorism or not, Clinton was an expert at getting people overseas to like him, and by extension, America.
I get your point, really, but I just don’t think they will ever like us, and that it would be far easier and safer to contain them.

Which plays into what Rotorgun comments above, Israel likes us and that is very precious, easily worth dedicating military support in order to keep them safe and to reassure them of our support.

[Pannonian]

I get your point, really, but I just don’t think they will ever like us, and that it would be far easier and safer to contain them.

Just like Libya would never like you? Look up Libya and Blair for a textbook example of counter-terrorism through diplomacy.



Which plays into what Rotorgun comments above, Israel likes us and that is very precious, easily worth dedicating military support in order to keep them safe and to reassure them of our support.
What exactly do you gain from this unconditionally supportive relationship with Israel? Washington warned against precisely this kind of thing when he left office.

[Spetulhu]

Which plays into what Rotorgun comments above, Israel likes us and that is very precious, easily worth dedicating military support in order to keep them safe and to reassure them of our support.


What exactly do you gain from this unconditionally supportive relationship with Israel? Washington warned against precisely this kind of thing when he left office.

Duh! You get the feeling of being Biblically Righteous by supporting Yahweh's Chosen People, of course. That's a sound reason for conducting foreign policy. :laugh4:

[macsen rufus]

Duh! You get the feeling of being Biblically Righteous by supporting Yahweh's Chosen People, of course. That's a sound reason for conducting foreign policy.

And also the extremist Xtian lobby associated with the American Right that hold to the view that the State of Israel is some sort of precursor to Armageddon, the Second Coming and the Rapture. This is more the constituency that US support of Israel is courting, rather than the supposed Jewish lobby in the States.

[Pannonian]

And also the extremist Xtian lobby associated with the American Right that hold to the view that the State of Israel is some sort of precursor to Armageddon, the Second Coming and the Rapture. This is more the constituency that US support of Israel is courting, rather than the supposed Jewish lobby in the States.
Which is why it is more accurate to call it the Israel lobby, rather than the Jewish lobby.

[Mooks]

I hope Iran never gets nuclear weapons.

They have repeatedly screamed death in Isreal's and Americas face. Not only that, they are religios nutsacks/fanatics.

[rotorgun]

I hope Iran never gets nuclear weapons.

They have repeatedly screamed death in Isreal's and Americas face. Not only that, they are religios nutsacks/fanatics.

Let's see....

o Iran launches one or two nukes at Isreal.

o Isreal launches massive retaliatory strike at Tehran and major military targets and Iranian nuclear manufacturing sites.

o The United States launches missles from several boomers in the Persian Gulf which completely finishes off Iran as a country for the next 50-100 years.

o Russia and China threaten retalliation on Isreal and The US, but blink when offered chance to glow like a Christmas tree.

o War over.

....Oh yeah, they are a real threat. I forgot to mention that Oil prices will definately go up several times in price during and after the war, which brings in massive profits for the Oil barons and their industrial base.

I guess I hope they don't have them either. I couldn't afford 4 dollars per gallon and still be able to drive to my job, which would make me unemployed which would make me dependent on the mercy of the conservative Republicans who would rather see me starve in the streets than offer me a helping hand up.

Lord Almighty!

[yesdachi]

What exactly do you gain from this unconditionally supportive relationship with Israel? Washington warned against precisely this kind of thing when he left office.
In one breath you say…
“Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all.”
Then ask what we gain from a relationship with Israel. Don’t they like us? Isn’t that the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all?

Let's see....

o Iran launches one or two nukes at Isreal.

o Isreal launches massive retaliatory strike at Tehran and major military targets and Iranian nuclear manufacturing sites.

o The United States launches missles from several boomers in the Persian Gulf which completely finishes off Iran as a country for the next 50-100 years.

o Russia and China threaten retalliation on Isreal and The US, but blink when offered chance to glow like a Christmas tree.

o War over.

....Oh yeah, they are a real threat. I forgot to mention that Oil prices will definately go up several times in price during and after the war, which brings in massive profits for the Oil barons and their industrial base.

I guess I hope they don't have them either. I couldn't afford 4 dollars per gallon and still be able to drive to my job, which would make me unemployed which would make me dependent on the mercy of the conservative Republicans who would rather see me starve in the streets than offer me a helping hand up.

Lord Almighty!
So because they are not a threat of equal proportion to us we should what, ignore them? Wait until they are a threat equal to us? If we let it go now, what happens in a few years when/if they do bomb Israel and they retaliate, would you look back and say all this mess could have been handled back in 2006 before Iran got their nuclear program off the ground.

[Pannonian]

In one breath you say…
“Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all.”
Then ask what we gain from a relationship with Israel. Don’t they like us? Isn’t that the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you saying that the best way of countering Muslim terrorism is to befriend Israel?

It's been alleged that there was a chance, early in the Bush admin, of making friends with Syria, the US sharing its opposition to Bin Laden and his fellow Islamist fundies. The prize was sharing the fruits of Syria's intelligence service, one of the most effective in the Arab world, reputedly second only to the Libyans. The price was US non-intervention in the region - not active support for Syria, merely allowing Syria and Israel to duke it out without US support for Israel. The CIA thought this was wonderful, significant material gain for no material cost, and set about establishing links to take advantage of this new relationship. Then Bush put a stop to it, declaring that America will only consider relations with Syria once it stops all opposition to Israel.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Iran , from a military point of view, is a weak state.

I think in the moment when the US will eventualy decide to invade it (if a civil war does not break out), at least 2/3 of the iranian army will change sides and join the americans ... Same as in Irak when the US bribed iraki generals and entire regiments of the Iraki army did not fight, or simply surrendered...

They simple have no chance.... the terrain does not help them... there is no jungle or forres except in the north, to cause any "vietnam complex" to the US forces... there is plain desert and mountains (mostly barren)... just good for the US choppers to hunt down islamists....

Many iranians despise the fanatic islamists... i am sure they will have enough ration and conscience to change sides when the time will come. I am also sure that in the near future, Iran will go apart from Islam - ones who read history, knew that Islam destroyed the iranian civilisation, and there are already different factions formed out of ex-patriated iranians which are suporting this kind of opinions.Surely they will form the backbone of the new regime.

About Israel, as farr as the freemason magnates rule the world, Israel will remain as a living state, no need to worry ~:) For reasons yet unknown to me, Israel occupies such a central role in theyr thinking, that they will do all what is necesary to keep it alive.

[yesdachi]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you saying that the best way of countering Muslim terrorism is to befriend Israel?

It's been alleged that there was a chance, early in the Bush admin, of making friends with Syria, the US sharing its opposition to Bin Laden and his fellow Islamist fundies. The prize was sharing the fruits of Syria's intelligence service, one of the most effective in the Arab world, reputedly second only to the Libyans. The price was US non-intervention in the region - not active support for Syria, merely allowing Syria and Israel to duke it out without US support for Israel. The CIA thought this was wonderful, significant material gain for no material cost, and set about establishing links to take advantage of this new relationship. Then Bush put a stop to it, declaring that America will only consider relations with Syria once it stops all opposition to Israel.
Not at all, well maybe. Israel is like an island of people that don’t want to kill us in a sea of people that do want us dead. Israel likes us and doesn’t send terrorists to kill us. What you said “Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all.” holds true.

As to Syria’s possible friendship with the US, It doesn’t seem like a very noble (or smart) thing to do. Turn your back on a current ally to enjoy the “fruits” of a new one that would disappear as soon as the domino of Muslim countries finished beating the crap out of Israel leaving behind a region that totally hates us without an island of people who like us.

Starting with Israel and either expanding our support to others that will like us or defeating the others that hate us is the only way to increase stability in the region, swapping allies seems pretty silly to me.

[rotorgun]

So because they are not a threat of equal proportion to us we should what, ignore them? Wait until they are a threat equal to us? If we let it go now, what happens in a few years when/if they do bomb Israel and they retaliate, would you look back and say all this mess could have been handled back in 2006 before Iran got their nuclear program off the ground.

Fair enough point yesdachi. As a person who lived through the Cold War, it is often difficult for me to relate to this modern day hysteria over one weak country having an insignificant nuclear ability. I lived every day of my life from birth until the fall of the Berlin wall thinking that any day could be the world's last. I still think of this as a regional problem that should be handled by the nations that live in that region, backed up by the United States diplomatically. A message should be clearly sent to Iran:

Think about launching one missle or providing one terrorist group with a bomb and you will be annihilated. It is a simple as that.


Many iranians despise the fanatic islamists... i am sure they will have enough ration and conscience to change sides when the time will come. I am also sure that in the near future, Iran will go apart from Islam - ones who read history, knew that Islam destroyed the iranian civilisation, and there are already different factions formed out of ex-patriated iranians which are suporting this kind of opinions.Surely they will form the backbone of the new regime.

Careful there Rex. This kind of thinking is what got us into the current mess we are in in Iraq. This has been the tired excuse for invasion throughout history-to delude ourselves that we have a right to intervene in another country's matters without invitation. Hitler remarked before operation Barbarossa "We have only to kick in the door, and the whole [Soviet] house will come crashing down!" We all know how that little episode ended 25 million deaths later. Do not underestimate the capacity of a country to resist if the people are given common cause to hate the enemy. I believe that this is what will happen if we invade Iran.

Respectfully,

[Pannonian]

Not at all, well maybe. Israel is like an island of people that don’t want to kill us in a sea of people that do want us dead. Israel likes us and doesn’t send terrorists to kill us. What you said “Getting people to like you is the most effective counter-terrorist strategy of all.” holds true.

I would have thought that targeting your befriending efforts at the people who would otherwise hate you would be the sensible thing to do, not targeting someone else altogether. The terrorist threat from Libya exists no longer because Blair brought Libya into the western fold. It didn't cease to exist because we befriended Japan.



As to Syria’s possible friendship with the US, It doesn’t seem like a very noble (or smart) thing to do. Turn your back on a current ally to enjoy the “fruits” of a new one that would disappear as soon as the domino of Muslim countries finished beating the crap out of Israel leaving behind a region that totally hates us without an island of people who like us.

What makes you think the Arabs are capable of beating the crap out of Israel? Egypt and Jordan guard at least two of the Israeli flanks, so the only real threat Israel faces is from Syria, and the Syrian military is nothing compared to the Israelis.



Starting with Israel and either expanding our support to others that will like us or defeating the others that hate us is the only way to increase stability in the region, swapping allies seems pretty silly to me.
What Syria requested was for non-intervention from the US in the region. How does this amount to abandonment of an alliance with Israel? The US alliance with the UK amounted to guaranteed intervention against the greater threat of the USSR, but otherwise we were left to deal with things as best we could (Falklands, especially early stages), and on occasion the US even intervened against us (Suez, Northern Ireland).

It is inexplicable to this outsider that America, which in other respects is like any other historical imperial power in looking out only for its own interests, chains itself thus to Israel. No conditions, no discussions, no arguments, just "whatever is good for Israel is good for America".

[yesdachi]

I would have thought that targeting your befriending efforts at the people who would otherwise hate you would be the sensible thing to do, not targeting someone else altogether. The terrorist threat from Libya exists no longer because Blair brought Libya into the western fold. It didn't cease to exist because we befriended Japan.
Blair didn’t turn his back on another ally in order to befriend Libya did he?


What makes you think the Arabs are capable of beating the crap out of Israel? Egypt and Jordan guard at least two of the Israeli flanks, so the only real threat Israel faces is from Syria, and the Syrian military is nothing compared to the Israelis.

Russia didn’t boarder North Viet Nam either and still managed to get supplies and people there to help fight. I think if Syria were to go to real war with Israel (without a US ally) others would join in and how would that benefit the US?

I just think if we recognize it is a problem today and anticipate it being a bigger problem tomorrow why not deal with it today when we have the power to stomp on it rather than tomorrow when stomping it is no longer an option, it will have grown too big.

[Tribesman]

Okay, I'll bite. Tribesman, you're apparently making the case, without link or quote, mind you, that the IAEA in no way considers Iran to be a threat, and for the USA to describe it as one is misldeading, erroneous, etc.

Am I correct here?

Incorrect Don , the original post explained
Well , "Recognising Iran as a strategic threat"

That is the title of the governments report released . A report supposedly based on the IAEA assessment
I wonder what words spring to mind regarding the US administrations latest take on Iran and the threat it constitutes .

That is the stinger since ......
Incorrect
Unsubstantiated
Misleading
Erroneous
Dishonest
Outrageous
.... are words used by the IAEA to describe Washingtons report that is supposedly based on the IAEAs own report .
Hence the question.....I wonder if they will scrap the report and re-write it to take the IAEAs criticisms on board

[Pannonian]

Blair didn’t turn his back on another ally in order to befriend Libya did he?

Turning your back on your allies never stopped the US before. Thatcher had to apply a fair bit of pressure before the US supported us on the Falklands, support which took the form of military intelligence (like you provided for your other good ally, Saddam Hussein, except the latter didn't have to push for it). That was as much help as we got when sovereign British territory was invaded. And let's not forget Northern Ireland, India, Suez, or numerous other occasions when we were undermined by our good friends and allies across the water. All understandable, because we were in the way of US interests and, being a relatively weak nation, had to stand aside or be trampled.



Russia didn’t boarder North Viet Nam either and still managed to get supplies and people there to help fight.

I'ev not heard this claim before. Cites? Or is this the usual equating of anything Communist with Russia?



I think if Syria were to go to real war with Israel (without a US ally) others would join in and how would that benefit the US?

Who's going to join in who can get at Israel? Lebanon and Palestine have negligible military value. The other neighbours are Jordan to the east, and Jordan is virtually an Israeli vassal state, and Egypt to the south, and Egypt is a dependable friend of Israel. Perhaps Malaysia and Indonesia can help the Syrians invade Israel?



I just think if we recognize it is a problem today and anticipate it being a bigger problem tomorrow why not deal with it today when we have the power to stomp on it rather than tomorrow when stomping it is no longer an option, it will have grown too big.
Such was the logic that took you into Iraq. Still, US foreign policy is none of my business. Invade Iran, Syria, the whole of the middle east if you like. As long as Britain is left out of it, I'm content, especially if the next PM sees sense and gets out of Iraq without further ado.

[rotorgun]

It is inexplicable to this outsider that America, which in other respects is like any other historical imperial power in looking out only for its own interests, chains itself thus to Israel. No conditions, no discussions, no arguments, just "whatever is good for Israel is good for America".

Tribe, that is a fair question that deserves answer. Have you never heard of the enormous amount of money spent in lobbying the Senate and Congress by Jewish-American political groups in my country? Does JINA ring a bell? That would the Jewish Institute for National Affairs, a powerful lobbying group within the Beltway of Washington DC. Some of it's more inflential members are or have been the likes of Richard Perle, David Fieth and Paul Wolfowitz. These men have all served in various capacities at high levels of the Defense Deparment, most recently as Deputy Secretaries of Defense under several Republican administrations. These "Hawk" Neo-Conservatives have all heavily influenced policy to help insure that it stays wieghted towards Isreal. I would highly recommend a simple Google search about them if you want to see who is actually making strategic policy for the United States. It will raise an eyebrow for sure. :inquisitive:

Cordially,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

. As a person who lived through the Cold War, it is often difficult for me to relate to this modern day hysteria over one weak country having an insignificant nuclear ability. I lived every day of my life from birth until the fall of the Berlin wall thinking that any day could be the world's last.

Gah.....Your just a kid :laugh4: What were you 2 during the Cuban crisis?
I lived through that whole deal and I was rarely if ever scared. Hell I was immortal until I reached 32 and had a kid .


Think about launching one missle or providing one terrorist group with a bomb and you will be annihilated. It is a simple as that.


Ive been wondering how you nuke the hell out of Iran without major fallout throught the rest of the region ? Also I would guess that Iran is the oldest standing state in the world going back over 2000 years and being called Persia. It would be a shame to see it annihilated.



Careful there Rex. This kind of thinking is what got us into the current mess we are in in Iraq.

I think most yourn Iranians would like a change. But just how willing to fight they would be is the question and we all know how willing to fight the fundamentalists will be.

[yesdachi]

Turning your back on your allies never stopped the US before. Thatcher had to apply a fair bit of pressure before the US supported us on the Falklands
Not much of a reason to do it again. IMO our lack of support during the Falklands was a bit embarrassing, and doesn’t make much sense.

I'ev not heard this claim before. Cites? Or is this the usual equating of anything Communist with Russia?
I thought it was common knowledge that Russia was a supporter of the Vietcong. Money (I remember hearing something like 400 million annually) and supplies for sure and troops and pilots for training.

My point about Russia’s involvement with Vietnam is that other countries that want a piece of Israel can funnel troops and supplies and money thru Syria just like Russia did thru Vietnam to get to the US.

[Pannonian]

I thought it was common knowledge that Russia was a supporter of the Vietcong. Money (I remember hearing something like 400 million annually) and supplies for sure and troops and pilots for training.

As I've said, I've not heard the claim before.



My point about Russia’s involvement with Vietnam is that other countries that want a piece of Israel can funnel troops and supplies and money thru Syria just like Russia did thru Vietnam to get to the US.
Isn't Syria surrounded by countries which are supposed to be US allies? Hezbollah did pretty well in the recent war with Israel with Iranian weapons, but only when the Israelis ventured into Lebanese territory, into the prepared battlefield. For Israel to be threatened, Syria would have to carry the fight into Israel, and that requires rather heavier equipment than can be easily transported by existing means. The only way Syria can defeat Israel is if the Israelis invade Syria, and that hardly describes an Israel threatened by Syria.

All the guff about Israel being surrounded by enemies who would extinguish it without a thought is just that: guff. There is no-one nearby who even remotely approach the Israelis in military power, and any use of nukes on Israel will invalidate existing agreements and result in all remaining powers nuking the aggressor back. Israel's security as a state is already guaranteed. The only thing that isn't guaranteed by anyone except the US is Israel's right to (mis)treat anyone however they should wish.

[sapi]

As I've said, I've not heard the claim before.It's certainly true - why else (apart from teh cold war) would the USA lend its support to south vietnam?


All the guff about Israel being surrounded by enemies who would extinguish it without a thought is just that: guff. There is no-one nearby who even remotely approach the Israelis in military power, and any use of nukes on Israel will invalidate existing agreements and result in all remaining powers nuking the aggressor back. Israel's security as a state is already guaranteed. The only thing that isn't guaranteed by anyone except the US is Israel's right to (mis)treat anyone however they should wish.
I'd have to disagree. Israel is threatened (both in a direct military way and in a more indirect one). You only have to look at the numerous wars in israel's history where everyone around it has 'ganged up' on it understand that there is at least some threat from them. More importantly is the threat from Palistinean terrorsts, who can at least win a moral victory.

[Banquo's Ghost]

All the guff about Israel being surrounded by enemies who would extinguish it without a thought is just that: guff. There is no-one nearby who even remotely approach the Israelis in military power, and any use of nukes on Israel will invalidate existing agreements and result in all remaining powers nuking the aggressor back. Israel's security as a state is already guaranteed. The only thing that isn't guaranteed by anyone except the US is Israel's right to (mis)treat anyone however they should wish.

And Pannonian sayeth, 'Let there be Light' and yea, there was light and thou couldst see for bleedin' miles.

And the Conservatives looked upon the Light and ignored it, for it remaineth cumbersome to their blindness.

:2thumbsup:

[rotorgun]

Gah.....Your just a kid :laugh4: What were you 2 during the Cuban crisis?
I lived through that whole deal and I was rarely if ever scared. Hell I was immortal until I reached 32 and had a kid .

Actually I was three years old at the time (a real old timer:laugh4:). I wasn't trying to say that I was paralyzed with fear or anythinglike that. It was more like a constant state of anxiety that was ever present in the backround. It is this climate that I think the warhawks would like to see the world kept in. 9/11 gave them the perfect "causus bellii" to do so. It's just that, after living through the real cold war, it's very difficult for me to equate the Iranian threat with anything close to the Soviet threat of the 50's through the late 80's.


Ive been wondering how you nuke the hell out of Iran without major fallout throught the rest of the region ? Also I would guess that Iran is the oldest standing state in the world going back over 2000 years and being called Persia. It would be a shame to see it annihilated.

I didn't say it would be pretty. It is just the threat that they must be made to understand that should deter them from thinking nuclear. I do not wish to see any use of atomic weapons at any time. It is really up to Iran if they want to have them used against them.

[yesdachi]

Isn't Syria surrounded by countries which are supposed to be US allies? Hezbollah did pretty well in the recent war with Israel with Iranian weapons, but only when the Israelis ventured into Lebanese territory, into the prepared battlefield. For Israel to be threatened, Syria would have to carry the fight into Israel, and that requires rather heavier equipment than can be easily transported by existing means. The only way Syria can defeat Israel is if the Israelis invade Syria, and that hardly describes an Israel threatened by Syria.

All the guff about Israel being surrounded by enemies who would extinguish it without a thought is just that: guff. There is no-one nearby who even remotely approach the Israelis in military power, and any use of nukes on Israel will invalidate existing agreements and result in all remaining powers nuking the aggressor back. Israel's security as a state is already guaranteed. The only thing that isn't guaranteed by anyone except the US is Israel's right to (mis)treat anyone however they should wish.
I guess I misunderstand everyone’s dislike for Israel. Perhaps Israel has a relationship with the US that other countries desire and are jealous of. You say we should befriend countries then complain that we are friends with one, one you said is the most powerful in the area, isn’t it good to be allied to the strongest regional power? I’m not sure why your dislike for Israel has become a focal point to the discussion but why don’t you get it out of your system and let us all know why you hate Israel. Is it because they are bullies? Or because the US supports them? Do you think they shouldn’t exist? They have more of a western mindset then others in their, kill the infidel region, Is there a reason we shouldn’t like and support them? Go ahead and get it out, then we can get back to why, when there is a threat like Iran potentially developing a nuclear program, we shouldn’t do anything about it.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth (and I don't really know if this will aid the discussion) a credible military figure (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sam_Gardiner) has announced that we are probably already involved in military actions against Iran.


Gardiner: We’re conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and from Congressional sources.

Gardiner: The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state.

Full transcript below the spoil tag.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So how likely is a U.S. military strike against Iran? And would it lead to all-out war?

Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. He’s taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, the
Air War College, and the Naval War College. Colonel, thanks very much for coming in. You’ve just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled
"Considering the U.S. Military Option for Iran." You speak to a lot of people, plugged in.

What is your bottom line? How close in your opinion is the U.S., the Bush administration, to giving that go-ahead order?

COL. SAM GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): It’s been given. In fact,
we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at
least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming.

BLITZER: Wait. Let me press you on that.

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: When you say it’s been given, the president says he wants
diplomacy to work to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching
uranium, to not go forward.

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: "I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for
conflict,: he told David Ignatius of "The Washington Post" the other day.

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: So, what does that mean, the order has been given?

GARDINER: We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now.
The evidence is overwhelming from both the Iranians, Americans, and
from congressional (ph) sources.

BLITZER: What is military operations? Define that.

GARDINER: Sure. Sure.

They probably have had two objectives going back 18 months. The first
was to gather intelligence. Where is the Iranian nuclear program?

The second has been to prepare dissident groups for phase two, which
will be the strike, which will come as the next phase, I think.

BLITZER: Well, preparing intelligence, that’s understandable…

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: … using all sorts of means. They want to know what the
Iranians are up to in terms of their nuclear — nuclear program. But
are you suggesting that U.S. military forces, Special Operations Forces,
or others are on the ground right now in Iran?

GARDINER: Yes, sir. Certainly. Absolutely clear. The evidence is
overwhelming from lots of sources.

And again, most of them you can read in the public. Seymour Hersh has
done good work on it, and there are lots of other people who have done
that.

I have talked to Iranians. I asked an Iranian ambassador to the IAEA,
"What’s this I hear about Americans being there?" He said to me, "Well,
we’ve captured some people who worked with them. We’ve confirmed that
they’re there."

BLITZER: Yes, but, you know, these guys, the Iranians, you can’t
necessarily believe what they’re saying.

GARDINER: Sure. Sure.

BLITZER: They could arrest some dissidents in Iran…

GARDINER: Sure. Sure.

BLITZER: … and say these are American spies. They do that all the
time.

GARDINER: Sure. The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have
a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and
Defense to come and answer this question because it’s serious enough to
be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the
hearing. There are sources that I have talked to on the Hill who
believe that that’s true and it’s being done without congressional
oversight.

BLITZER: Look, I was once a Pentagon correspondent many years ago…

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: … and in those days and in these days, and as Jamie McIntire
just reported, and as you well know from your time in active duty at
Pentagon in the U.S. military, these guys are planning contingency
operations for almost everything. If Canada goes to war against the
United States, they’ve got a contingency plan.

GARDINER: OK. Different now. Two differences.

Number one, we have learned from "TIME" magazine today that some U.S.
naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.
That’s first.

The second thing is the sources suggest the plan is not in the Pentagon.
The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning.
When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a
different state.

BLITZER: You think it’s possible there’s a little psychological warfare
being played on Ahmadinejad right now to rattle him, to spread the word,
to put out this kind of information to get him nervous, perhaps a little
bit more agreeable to the diplomatic option?

GARDINER: It’s possible. It’s also possible that this path was
selected a long time ago.

You’ll recall that even before Gulf Two, at a time when the president
said we have no plan, "I have no plan on my desk," in the summer of 2002
we began bombing Iraq, Operation Southern Focus. Without congressional
approval, without the U.N. sanctions, we went ahead and began bombing…

BLITZER: Well, the argument at that time was if there were violations
of the no-fly zone, if U.S. warplanes were flying in the north and the
south and there were rockets or anti-aircraft fire going up, they could
take those out.

GARDINER: Yes, but it was a campaign to begin the war before the war
began. And, you know, I would suggest the evidence is there.

BLITZER: All right. So you see a similar pattern right now.

GARDINER: Exactly.

BLITZER: We’re going to follow this closely.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, thanks very much.

GARDINER: My pleasure.

BLITZER: We’ll look forward to reading your report that the Century
Foundation is putting out as well.

[Pannonian]

I guess I misunderstand everyone’s dislike for Israel. Perhaps Israel has a relationship with the US that other countries desire and are jealous of. You say we should befriend countries then complain that we are friends with one, one you said is the most powerful in the area, isn’t it good to be allied to the strongest regional power? I’m not sure why your dislike for Israel has become a focal point to the discussion but why don’t you get it out of your system and let us all know why you hate Israel. Is it because they are bullies? Or because the US supports them? Do you think they shouldn’t exist? They have more of a western mindset then others in their, kill the infidel region, Is there a reason we shouldn’t like and support them?

Kafirchobee posted a thread about how Americans like to see things in black and white, rather than in shades of grey. Now, because I disagree with the view that Israel should be given carte blanche in the region, you accuse me of not wanting Israel to exist. If I don't wholeheartedly support one, it must mean I support the opposite. If I saw this on TV, I would assume it was a parody of that mode of thinking courtesy of Rory Bremner or Chris Morris.

If you want to know my view of Israel's security, try looking through old threads about the subject. If you can find material to suggest I support the destruction of Israel, feel free to repost it.



Go ahead and get it out, then we can get back to why, when there is a threat like Iran potentially developing a nuclear program, we shouldn’t do anything about it.
The last IAEA report I have read, dated April or so this year, said the Iranian nuclear programme had no chance of turning military in the forseeable future. Do you have any new information to contradict this assessment? Credible sources please.

[yesdachi]

Now, because I disagree with the view that Israel should be given carte blanche in the region, you accuse me of not wanting Israel to exist.
I did no such thing. My comments were all ended with a “?”. I have read enough of your past posts to know you are usually thoughtful in you responses but I see a difference when commenting on Israel.

The last IAEA report I have read, dated April or so this year, said the Iranian nuclear programme had no chance of turning military in the forseeable future. Do you have any new information to contradict this assessment? Credible sources please.
There is a lot that can be done without turning “military” and I have no doubt others made similar comments about Bin Laden not being a threat in the foreseeable future. Why not, if you have the power and authority to deal with a potential threat now, wait until later when it could turn into a real threat. There are rules you must play by if you want to join the nuke club and fortunately the nuke club has the means to enforce the rules. There are all sorts of energy solutions, Russia has offered plenty, but they have military aspirations for their nuclear program and that is why they have not agreed to any other of the proposed solutions.

[Pannonian]

I did no such thing. My comments were all ended with a “?”. I have read enough of your past posts to know you are usually thoughtful in you responses but I see a difference when commenting on Israel.

That's because discussions of Israel here are usually framed in an either/or definition. If you are not 100% for Israel, the assumption is you are 100% against Israel. Since there aren't many Muslim posters here, it means that the many Israelists here tag anyone in the middle as anti-Israel. Perhaps it might interest you that x-Danger has accused me of being an Israel apologist.

For a digest of my view of Israel, the paragraph quoted by Banquo's Ghost is pretty illustrative. Does it mean I hate Israel?



There is a lot that can be done without turning “military” and I have no doubt others made similar comments about Bin Laden not being a threat in the foreseeable future.

Maybe I should email Mike Godwin to see if he can update his famous Law. In a discussion about military action, the probability of a threat being compared to Bin Laden approaches 1 the longer the discussion carries on. Perhaps I should name it Godwin's Law - the Turban corollary.



Why not, if you have the power and authority to deal with a potential threat now, wait until later when it could turn into a real threat. There are rules you must play by if you want to join the nuke club and fortunately the nuke club has the means to enforce the rules. There are all sorts of energy solutions, Russia has offered plenty, but they have military aspirations for their nuclear program and that is why they have not agreed to any other of the proposed solutions.
If you are that fearful of Iran becoming a military threat with its nuke programme, why not accede to the one condition that they have repeatedly said must be fulfilled before they'll stop? A guarantee that the US will not invade, or otherwise attempt regime change in Iran. The promise that the US will respect Iranian sovereignty. Something that should be a given. Why not give this promise? If you fear that Iran and Syria may join across Iraq, why not make this promise conditional on the reciprocal sovereignty of Israel? Meaning that any Iranian action against Israel will void the US promise to respect Iranian sovereignty.

As the Iranians have repeatedly said, without the guarantee that America will not attack Iran without provocation as they have done to Iraq, nothing the Europeans, or anyone else for that matter, can offer will suffice. The stated foreign policy doctrine of this US administration places regime change in Iran among its central tenets, they have already toppled a neighbouring regime without provocation, and they have systematically surrounded Iran. Is it any surprise that the Iranians fear the US, and would seek a defence against them? And if you think the Iranian people will support US-sponsored regime change in Iran, consider they have the example of their Iraqi neghbours to draw conclusions from.

[yesdachi]

That's because discussions of Israel here are usually framed in an either/or definition. If you are not 100% for Israel, the assumption is you are 100% against Israel. Since there aren't many Muslim posters here, it means that the many Israelists here tag anyone in the middle as anti-Israel. Perhaps it might interest you that x-Danger has accused me of being an Israel apologist.

For a digest of my view of Israel, the paragraph quoted by Banquo's Ghost is pretty illustrative. Does it mean I hate Israel?
You seem more against than for but it is a dead horse and I’ll move on.


Maybe I should email Mike Godwin to see if he can update his famous Law. In a discussion about military action, the probability of a threat being compared to Bin Laden approaches 1 the longer the discussion carries on. Perhaps I should name it Godwin's Law - the Turban corollary.
Sounds good to me! People use the reference because it is timely and topically relatable.


If you are that fearful of Iran becoming a military threat with its nuke programme, why not accede to the one condition that they have repeatedly said must be fulfilled before they'll stop? A guarantee that the US will not invade, or otherwise attempt regime change in Iran. The promise that the US will respect Iranian sovereignty. Something that should be a given. Why not give this promise? If you fear that Iran and Syria may join across Iraq, why not make this promise conditional on the reciprocal sovereignty of Israel? Meaning that any Iranian action against Israel will void the US promise to respect Iranian sovereignty.
Why should we cede to any conditions? Especially ones that would make them appear empowered.

As the Iranians have repeatedly said, without the guarantee that America will not attack Iran without provocation as they have done to Iraq, nothing the Europeans, or anyone else for that matter, can offer will suffice. The stated foreign policy doctrine of this US administration places regime change in Iran among its central tenets, they have already toppled a neighbouring regime without provocation, and they have systematically surrounded Iran. Is it any surprise that the Iranians fear the US, and would seek a defence against them? And if you think the Iranian people will support US-sponsored regime change in Iran, consider they have the example of their Iraqi neghbours to draw conclusions from.
Without provocation is hardly accurate.

They fear us because they are trying to do something “bad” and they don’t want us to stop them. If not, they wouldn’t have an issue with following the rules everyone else goes by.

[Tribesman]

For what it's worth (and I don't really know if this will aid the discussion) a credible military figure has announced that we are probably already involved in military actions against Iran.

How can he say "probably" Lemur ?
I thought it was quite apparent that the current phase of military involvement was widely known , the Iranians have certainly been complaining about it loud enough over the past few years anyway .
I am just waiting to see how long it is until one of those planes operated by the nasty Saddam backed terrorist group that isn't allowed to be backed because it is on the nasty terror group list (apart from the branch that renamed itself so it could get backing while the house applies yet again to get its proper name taken off the nasty list) gets shot down while operating out of a US airforce base , like happened in Cuba , and funnily enough they are flying the same type of plane .
Given the geography of the area it will be a little harder this time to claim (falsely as it happened) that it occurs in international waters .

Hmmmmm...international waters ....thats one for Gawain isn't it , that would be international law wouldn't it:laugh4:

[Vladimir]

More goodies. (http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1222#)

[Dâriûsh]

More goodies. (http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1222#) You should see his stand-up routine.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You should see his stand-up routine.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Lemur]

I really liked this summation (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWZiMWE3MmFiYjFiNTNlM2Q3NTZiZmZlMjdiYTUwNGE=) of our position:


One the one hand, we are faced with a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, nuclear blackmail and terrorist chaos at the heart of the world's Persian Gulf oil supply, and terrorist-planted nuclear weapons in America's cities. On the other hand, we can choose an economically disruptive war with Iran that will alienate us from the world, push us to and beyond our military limits, and that even then may not even succeed. The by now stock phrase, "there are no good options" doesn't quite do justice to the awful choice we face.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I really liked this summation (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWZiMWE3MmFiYjFiNTNlM2Q3NTZiZmZlMjdiYTUwNGE=) of our position:


One the one hand, we are faced with a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, nuclear blackmail and terrorist chaos at the heart of the world's Persian Gulf oil supply, and terrorist-planted nuclear weapons in America's cities. On the other hand, we can choose an economically disruptive war with Iran that will alienate us from the world, push us to and beyond our military limits, and that even then may not even succeed. The by now stock phrase, "there are no good options" doesn't quite do justice to the awful choice we face.

Or there's the third option - swallow your pride, engage with the Iranians and encourage them to move gently in the direction of non-confrontation and eventual moderation. As Pannonian has outlined.

If the alternatives are so awful, maybe this one is at least worth a try, since it doesn't exclude the others later on.

:inquisitive:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Or there's the third option - swallow your pride, engage with the Iranians and encourage them to move gently in the direction of non-confrontation and eventual moderation. As Pannonian has outlined.

If the alternatives are so awful, maybe this one is at least worth a try, since it doesn't exclude the others later on.

:inquisitive:

Something to that; at least worthy of considering.

But its not pride so much as fear. We're reluctant to take the option off of the table because we're fearful that it would be turned against us as a "carte blanche" to do as they wish (a la Munich 1938). This is especially true since a terrorist nuke would go off in one of our cities to the tune of 100ks of dead -- and this is a nightmare possibility that Presidents do not enjoy and cannot tolerate.

Remember, if Bush made such a promise and Iran subsequently continued to support terrorism & develop nukes, Bush might conclude that an airstrike was then the only remaining option, he would then, however, be lambasted by all domestic political opponents (and most of the UN) for having broken his promise not to attack -- regardless of Iran's prior breach of promise (which they would view as inconsequential as no Iranian "attack" may have occurred).

So, to the idea of creating a third option I say yes, but I'd tread carefully.

[ChewieTobbacca]

I think those 3 choices pretty much sum it up - we're between a rock and a hard place.

[yesdachi]

Something to that; at least worthy of considering.

But its not pride so much as fear. We're reluctant to take the option off of the table because we're fearful that it would be turned against us as a "carte blanche" to do as they wish (a la Munich 1938). This is especially true since a terrorist nuke would go off in one of our cities to the tune of 100ks of dead -- and this is a nightmare possibility that Presidents do not enjoy and cannot tolerate.

Remember, if Bush made such a promise and Iran subsequently continued to support terrorism & develop nukes, Bush might conclude that an airstrike was then the only remaining option, he would then, however, be lambasted by all domestic political opponents (and most of the UN) for having broken his promise not to attack -- regardless of Iran's prior breach of promise (which they would view as inconsequential as no Iranian "attack" may have occurred).

So, to the idea of creating a third option I say yes, but I'd tread carefully.
If Bush didn’t have the personal constitution he has he could easily negotiate a BS deal like this and let the next President deal with the destined fall out. I admire his desire to deal with the issue now, regardless of his ratings.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Something to that; at least worthy of considering.

But its not pride so much as fear. We're reluctant to take the option off of the table because we're fearful that it would be turned against us as a "carte blanche" to do as they wish (a la Munich 1938). This is especially true since a terrorist nuke would go off in one of our cities to the tune of 100ks of dead -- and this is a nightmare possibility that Presidents do not enjoy and cannot tolerate.

Remember, if Bush made such a promise and Iran subsequently continued to support terrorism & develop nukes, Bush might conclude that an airstrike was then the only remaining option, he would then, however, be lambasted by all domestic political opponents (and most of the UN) for having broken his promise not to attack -- regardless of Iran's prior breach of promise (which they would view as inconsequential as no Iranian "attack" may have occurred).

So, to the idea of creating a third option I say yes, but I'd tread carefully.

Agreed, one must be careful. But Iran is at least eight years away from getting a single nuke - and 'suitcase' bombs are wildly over-rated as a threat. Nonetheless, it is certainly possible for the President to say, OK we will engage and undertake not to threaten action against Iran - and then see if Ahmadinejad can deal.

Let's face it, the odd air strike is the only realistic possibility to deal with Iran's possible ambitions, and most of their facilities are way, way underground. A ground invasion is simply not going to happen, ever. Ahmadinejad and everyone else knows this. When the world and his dog knows what a weak hand you've got, it's time to change the game. Call his bluff. As Pannonian has noted elsewhere, Gaddafi was changed from public enemy number one into a useful ally by careful diplomacy. Maybe Ahmadinejad (I keep wanting to write Tribesman's Aimadinnerjacket :laugh4: ) is too far gone, but there's plenty of successors who might be bribed over.

If after a couple of years of stalling, it will be pretty apparent to everyone in the international community that the US tried. As yesdachi noted, a new administration will not be bound (frankly, realpolitik means that the current administration wouldn't be bound in fact) by previous agreements if they judge security is at stake.

And in the end, it's not as if international opinion means a damn to a US President convinced he is protecting his country.

There is absolutely no reason to fear a country like Iran. If fear is the problem, then you have a problem.