Iranian issue is heating up like it or not

[Idaho]

If I were in charge of Iran, I'd be trying to use all that oil revenue to build infrastructure and a stable productive economy instead of funneling it to terrorists or squandering it in trying to spark a nuclear conflict with a world super-power.

I think your approach (and Iran's current approach) is a bit foolish. Further, just because you can imagine their motivation for wanting nuclear weapons, it doesn't follow that they should be allowed to have them.

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

[Odin]

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

Yeah those buggers in Tehran screaming "death to america" must be causing all sorts of internal discorse.

[Tribesman]

Only an idiot would go to war with Iran , luckily there is a bunch of sensible people in the whitehouse at the moment .
Its just a pity that the cleaning staff doesn't have much input on foriegn policy .

[Zaknafien]

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

The US is the only nation on earth to have actually USED nuclear weapons on people. Not to mention we have hundreds stockpiled. Who is the bigger threat to 'world peace'?

[Marshal Murat]

Iran because their leadership supports Islamic sects that are violent, and cannot monitor the stockpiles of uranium and nuclear technology that they currently maintain.

We, on the other hand, know what nuclear weapons do, and are more hesitant to use them, monitor them, and have a track record of safe storage and use of nuclear technology.

I trust our safeguards and nuclear protection than a Islamic Republic that has a stated goal of destroying Israel.

If we give everyone a rifle, it's more likely someone will get shot.

[gaelic cowboy]

Can't see this happening really only a few months ago Irael was ground to a halt in the Leb by a non state organisation. Iran has a real army with plenty people prepared to fight. US is spread thin at this time an attack on Iran would be madness when two other battles are being fought right now. Not to mention an election and feeling of bring the boys home. Most likely a targetted bombing with some kind of Israeli involvement will happen eventually but it will fail and be greatly fudged in the media.

[drone]

Iran should have as much right to develop nukes as anyone, even though they're nowhere close to doing such. They've enriched uranium to about .05% last time i checked. Maybe in ten years.

I've said it before, and I will probably say it again: Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons unless it withdraws from the NPT. Once it does that, they are free to do what they want. Until that time, they are subject to inspections and sanctions.

[ajaxfetish]

Only an idiot would go to war with Iran , luckily there is a bunch of sensible people in the whitehouse at the moment .
Its just a pity that the cleaning staff doesn't have much input on foriegn policy .

It's early yet, but this has a good shot at being my favorite post of the day.

Ajax

[Zaknafien]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?

[Odin]

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?

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.

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.

[Whacker]

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?

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.

[Marshal Murat]

So when did this change from
Us vs. Iran to the UK vs. Iran?

[caravel]

That doesn't mean the US faked 9/11 and invaded just to secure the pieline.

I don't think 11/9 was faked, but I do believe that the invasion was provoked after wrangling over the pipeline that had been going on since the mid 90s. 11/9 served as the necessary, publicly acceptable, pretext. It happened at the right time.

[ShadeHonestus]

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

And you are plain naive if you think that the U.S. and Israel can go merrily about doing good deeds within it's borders and around the globe without worrying about the Iranian military build-up and decades of repeated threats, rhetoric, sustained violence, financed violence, kidnappings, murder, unwavering support for terrorism not to mention that they've distinctly pledged a wiping from the earth for Israel and a decisive blow for great satan that is the U.S and the west.

Open war with Iran, is not however, the answer to the problem at this point. Rice spoke about the situation quite well yesterday in an interview, stating how Iran is indeed feeling the pressure from the international community. The only thing I fear is that when the choice has to be made will they use their heads or the sword of their religion. Everyone preached negotiations, so I hope your faith is well placed in them, a lot will be riding on it.

[Xiahou]

And you are plain niaive if you think that Iran can merrily go about doing good deeds within it's borders without worrying about the US military build-up and decades of repeated threats and rhetoric.

They'd have to try it first.

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?

Except middle eastern countries with a decent economy ttend to get shot to bits, either by their neighbours (like Israel) or by the US/UN. I'd be worried about defending my country too.

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.

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.

[doc_bean]

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.

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

I agree. I could see things advancing as far as targeted air strikes. But a full invasion? Not a chance.

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 .
Even just airstrikes are a silly idea .

[ShadeHonestus]

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 .
Even just airstrikes are a silly idea .

In near total agreement.

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.

[Whacker]

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.

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.

/shrug

[Zaknafien]

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...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Odin]

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.

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"

[Zaknafien]

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.