It's early yet, but this has a good shot at being my favorite post of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ajax
Printable View
It's early yet, but this has a good shot at being my favorite post of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ajax
Hm, saying Iran is more of a threat, why don't we look at which country has been involved in the most military conflicts over the past 100 years, or, let's even say only aggressive military confllicts.
Iran = 1, in which they were defending, not aggressing. So who's more likley to start a war?
As for Israel, its no-where written that the US must support them, it was in fact US policy to not support them until after the brits pulled back.
Honestly, do people really think we're inching towards conflict with Iran? I'll grant you all the saber-rattling (and that is the perfect term for it) could lead to some accidental escalations.
But I mostly dismiss this as our administration not recognizing that that particular approach won't work with Iran coupled with fear (understandable, but misplaced) by those who believe our administration really is out to start a war with Iran.
Is the consensus that we really are warming up to sucker punch Iran?
So when did this change from
Us vs. Iran to the UK vs. Iran?
My opinion is yes we are inching toward conflict, to me its just a matter of scope. I find it next to impossible to believe that Israel will sit back while Iran continues to develop its nuclear technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
And in that vein I find it next to impossible to believe that the U.S. will let Israel handle the issue on its own.
If Iran continues to persue Nuclear power they will be hit militarily, by whom and to what scale? Well thats really the question isnt it? The sabre rattling is posturing for negotiations, at this point.
My opinion is largely the same as Odin's. Given our current administration's fondness for invading middle eastern nations on shoddy or nonexistant pretexts... Yes, I'm very worried about it. Further, I'm guessing that the dems are in a strong position to sweep the 08 elections, and if that happens what kind of mess and stupidity are the republicans going to purposefully do right at the end to leave the dems with an even bigger mess to clean up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Surely you aren't setting up the democrats to useQuote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
as an excuse for challenges that they will no doubt be running as our saviors from. AfterallQuote:
It's always someone else's fault
:beam: :medievalcheers:Quote:
this is a very large problem with Americans right now in general.
I agree. I could see things advancing as far as targeted air strikes. But a full invasion? Not a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
They'd have to try it first. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I don't remember the US government ever levying angry charges of "becoming prosperous" or "providing economic security for their people" against Iran followed by threats of military action. If that were their primary focus, who would have a problem with them?
Which countries? I think we can all agree that Israel's economic prosperity is only a small component of why they're always attacked. I don't remember Dubai being shot to pieces. Kuwait was invaded, but quickly freed- and what happened to Iraq afterwards? None of those countries have nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
No, it's the aggressive, meglomaniacal regimes that want to dominate the entire region that are the ones that need to worry about their "defense". The ones that provided for their people and join the world in the economic arena are comparatively prosperous and stable.
I meant Israel was a frequent agressor. Lebanon was apparently not doing too bad until Israel invaded them back in the day. Iraq got double crossed by the Americans, which is probably half the reason Saddam turned into such a violent dictator afterwards. Kuwait and Dubai, hmm, do they have much besides oil going for their economy ? They're suppliers and costumers, not competitors, which is what every capitalist loves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Dubai is investing heavily in it's economy. They could almost certainly be doing more, but they're buying up and investing in many large enterprises around the world. A recent, well-publicized example would be when their port operating behemoth, DPW, bought-out British P&O. They're also well on their way to becoming a regional IT and finance hub. They definitely seem to be guilty of long-term thinking when it comes to spending their wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
And air strikes mean no shipping through the straits which means not a lot of oil which means the worlds economies take a nose dive .Quote:
I agree. I could see things advancing as far as targeted air strikes. But a full invasion? Not a chance.
Even just airstrikes are a silly idea .
In near total agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I just walked a straight line, did the fingers to nose test....yep, I'm sober. I'll check astrology as there has to be some odd explanation for the occurrence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Both QFT. The US is the ultimate fair-weather friend. Look at all the nonsense and BS that we've propagated throughout the middle east in the past 30-odd years. We've gone from supporting "terrorist" groups to turning on them the second we don't like what they do. As I keep saying, if it weren't for oil and the need for fossil fuels (globally, not just locally) the US wouldn't give two whits about what goes on there. This includes Israel and 'nukuler' weapons. Look at N. Korea, they always talk big and the US will occasionally rise to the bait, but for the most part they have no resources to offer (exploit?), hence the lack of concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
/shrug
Iran is at least 8-10 years away from developing nuclear weapons according to the IAEA report, their enrichment of Uranium is just now reaching levels where they can use it for nuclear fuel. God forbid a country decides to get nuclear power...
I disagree that we are inching towards conflict with Iran.
We are already in conflict with Iran.
Iranian soldiers/agents have been fighting U.S. soldiers/agents for more than a year.
The conflict is currently very "cold war" in style if not in scope.
In what way would air-strikes by the USA close the straits of Hormuz? The USA would very likely not be targeting the shipping therein -- at least anything that was not flying an Iranian flag -- and what would Iran's incentive be to shut off their primary export?
Mind you, a full blockade of Iran (break the pipelines, stop all shipping in and out of all Southern ports) would do more damage to Iran than anything else we might practically try. We'd catch flak from the Chinese and Japanese for doing so of course.
I have my doubts that this would get Iran to initiate regime-change or move towards a more "secularized" stance.
I think given our track record with regime change, its more likely to me that any military option with Iran will be for the soul purpose of crippling thier nuclear development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I have yet to see any evidence offered that Israel will not act historically and address this issue via an air campaign, I just cant see them sitting around waiting for the U.N. to implement sanctions that wont stop the progress.
Of course Iran has the right to nuclear technology, but still, I find it unlikely Israel will not attempt to prevent it, and the U.S. will support them. 2 Strike force groups in the area already suggests the ability to do so.
To me its not "if" but "when" and "what scale"
Its disgusting that US policymakers blindly support Israel for some isane christianofascist end-times religous belief (or more accurately for the campaign financiers). That really irks me.
That aspect of it irks me as well, thankfully I realize its a touch more then that involved, but dont let me derail you, I find your suppositions quite entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
:balloon2:
By the way, what has Iran done to be 'aggressive'? If Iran had invaded Canada to liberate it, you can bet your arse the US would be supporting the freedom fighters in Canada.
The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement. The new government basically said ":daisy:" to the global conglomerates and British Petroleum who had been exploiting them for years. The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s. History is good for ya !
The analogy you make above is not accurate. If the USA started arming people of English descent in Canada, and whipping them up into a frenzy, telling them to go kill all Canadians of Scottish & Irish descent, then I think the world would have an issue with us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
If we wanted to hurt Iran, we could do better than what we're currently doing. For starters, we would an embargo against them (we currently only have self-enforced trade sanctions). In other words, we would enact trade sanctions against any country that deals with Iran, we don't do that.
I understand the sentiments of the rabidly anti-US crowd out there. I really do. The US government has a lot to answer for. However, I do not understand how people who claim to be pacifists can possibly think a nuclear armed Iran is a good idea, when they have as much as said that they will use them the very first chance they get.
The "wiping israel of the map" thing comes to mind, and the taking of the U.S. embassy, but I have no doubt Zak that you'll be able to find some historical reference that lays the blame for those at the feet of the U.S. and Israel, god for bid we actually take these people literally or seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Well Zak you say a lot in this, and its a rather nice condensed version of what you normally post up. Comments stated as factQuote:
The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement. The new government basically said ":daisy:" to the global conglomerates and British Petroleum who had been exploiting them for years. The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s. History is good for ya !
that the only way you can verify it is with a vague historical referenceQuote:
The targeting of Iran is payback for all the money the corporations lost out on when the Shah (who was a brutal tyrant, by the way-- king of kings my :daisy:), was overthrown by a populist movement.
mixed in is a degree of logic, which makes your posts worthy of reading. :beam:Quote:
The US has been wanting to exploit Iran since the 50s.
the taking of the embassy was a direct response (blowback, if you will) of the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh who was, I might add, wildly popular, and democratically elected. He simply didn't want to turn over the oil reserves to BP. The Shah was much more compliant, yet repressive to his people. I personally know over two dozen Persians who recall the era with a dread and hatred.
If the US was overthrowing democratically elected leaders to gain corporate ownership of oilfields, why wasn't it Exxon Mobil (not British Petroluem) that wound up owning them?
because it was the Anglo-persian Oil Company (Which became BP) that owned all rights to development and all fields in Iran according to the agreement of 1909.
During the 1920's, Persian public opinion grew ever more resentful of what were seen as the excessively favourable terms of APOC's oil concession. It was believed the country was being fleeced of its rightful share of its oil wealth. In 1932, in response, Shahanshah Reza Shah terminated the APOC concession. The concession was renegotiated within a year. It now covered a reduced area and accorded the Persian government a greater share of profits. Persia was renamed Iran in 1936 and APOC became AIOC, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
After World War II, AIOC and the Iranian government initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. But in March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated. The Iranian Majlis (parliament) elected a nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister. In April, the Majlis nationalised the oil industry by unanimous vote. The British government contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed.
The British government decided that the only way to regain its control of Iranian oil (which it regarded as a vital national interest), was to remove Mossadeq from office. It aimed to replace him with a more friendly regime led by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Its problem was that it lacked the means to do so without American support. But it was clear the U.S. government would never support a coup d'état designed only to protect Britain's commercial interests. So the British played on America's then paranoia about the Communist "threat" by producing bogus "evidence" that Mossadeq was scheming to bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence. In early 1953, incoming U.S. President Eisenhower authorised the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government. The CIA conspiracy, involving the Shah and the Iranian military, became known by its codename, "Operation Ajax".
Again, if there's one thing I do know about the American government, especially under Johnson and Nixon, it's that it's incredibly self-motivated, even when dealing with allies. If the US was responsible for overthrowing Mossagedeh, and they did it for the lease rights to oil fields, Texaco or Exxon would hold those contracts, not BP.
uh, you doubt the CIA is responsible for overthrowing Mossagedeh? That's a fact, bud. Check out the CIA's own history on their website.
Quote:
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, during the administration of President Bill Clinton, made an apology to the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2000 for the United States' role in the overthrow.[3]
Read my post again. I said if they did it, and they did it for the reason of securing lease rights to oil fields, it would be an American country holding those contracts. We don't rent the CIA out, especially not then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
And please don't call me 'bud', sport.
you don't think alot of American companies wouldn't have greatly profited? Um, Bechtel, Halliburton, MAIN... need I name more?
As a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required that the AIOC's oil monopoly should lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.
In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force in case the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of any chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly "Top Secret" documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.
The leader of Operation Ajax was Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior CIA agent, and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. While formal leadership was vested in Kermit Roosevelt, the project was designed and executed by Donald Wilber, a career CIA agent and acclaimed author of books on Iran, Afghanistan and Ceylon.
The operation centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be anti-Soviet.
Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup d'etat briefly faltered, and the Shah fled Iran. After a short exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through follow-up operations, which were successful. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given what some have alleged to have been a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah gracefully commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.
In 2000 the New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953." This document describes the planning and execution conducted by the American and British governments. Due to reasons relating to the safety of former CIA personnel and their families, and because of Iran's long history of terrorism, the New York Times published this critical document with the names censored. The New York Times also limited its publication to scanned image (bitmap) format, rather than machine-readable text. It was through the actions of Iranians sympathetic to the current Iranian Islamic dictatorship, not the New York Times, that this document was eventually published properly – in text form, and fully unexpurgated. The complete CIA document is now web published. The word 'blowback' appeared for the very first time in this document.
Well, first and foremost, I'm excited to say you truly learn something new every day. Zak, I tip my hat to you, and I thank you for enlightening me on this facet of Iranian-American history.
However, I think I would be remiss if I didn't comment on one or two of your more heavily editorialized statements above:
-AIOC held a monoploy on the oil fields before Eisenhower and the CIA ever got involved.
-You failed to mention that Prime Minister Mossadeq came to power (and yes, he was elected) in an election held after the murder of Prime Minister Ali Razmara, responsiblity for which the lay with the Fadayan-e Islam, a local fundamentalist terrorist group (thus putting the kibash on a theory I saw in another thread that Islamic fundamentalism came about in 1979) .
-The Shah was already the head of state prior to the CIA's involvement. Your claim that we installed the Shah is not accurate. We installed General Zahedi as the new prime minister.
-Mossadeq nationalized the oil fields (he took them from their owners without compensation).
-Mossadeq, beyond being an ardent nationalist, was also a very pro-Russia Stalinist. In those days, all you had to do was wear red and the USA would consider overthrowing you. I'm not saying what we did was right, but I think Mossadeq's friendliness with Moscow played a big role in our decision to remove him.
-We didn't grant AIOC exclusive rights when we were done. One of the outcomes of Operation Ajax was an end to the AOIC monoply. What's more, foreign lease holders also began paying royalties (something they didn't do prior to nationalization).
I applaud you and thank you for bringing up a relevant chapter, but I think you need to be a little more careful on the details.
Edit: Sorry for the dyslexia, it's the AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).