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

[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.

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.

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

[Spetulhu]

heh that is definatly worth saving for my sig

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

[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 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 .

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

[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

We repeat mistakes all the time, how else can you be sure they are mistakes and not just coincidences.

[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. .

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.
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.
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. 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.