The Iranian threat

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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,

[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