I don’t know…I was reading an update of this story on Yahoo today and its almost like Iran WANTS to be attacked. Maybe this is part of a plan to get their infrastructure bombed in order to completely rally the population? Did you guys catch this part?
The article also seems to be saying that the other Islamic nations in the region are secretly happy…as this shows Iran as unstable politically. Again…it seems the Iranians may WANT to be attacked (and that some of their neighbors, and I’m not talking Israel, may WANT them to be).
Ordinarily, I’d agree. But out-and-out civil war might have them feeling beset by Kurds to the North and Sunnis to the West. A mighty army to the East, which only requires an invitation in return for “protectorate status” (and a cut of the oil revenues), might seem very tempting.
But…an out-and-out civil war would play to the strength of US forces. Obviously, the US can crush any military in the region in a standup fight on the battlefield. So of course the best option against the US is to never try to fight head to head, but rather harrass, murder collaborators, and make Iraq ungovernable. And of course, Iran can never hope to invade Iraq conventionally, they’d be rolled up in days. So Iran might be able to help their friends assume power in Iraq, but they will never annex Iraq. The only country that I can think of that has voluntarily allowed itself to be annexed in the last 50 years is East Germany.
Anyway, I think Xtisme has a good idea…Iran knows that the US isn’t going to invade Iran. But what if we dropped a few bombs on Iran, or Israel drops a few bombs on Iran? That would be just the thing to whip up anti-western, anti-zionist, anti-US fanaticism.
Legally, can one declare war on a country when your official policy toward it is to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and loudly chant “YOU DO NOT EXIST”?
That, of course, was another case of the same phenomenon (a foreign power helping their friends take power in another nation so as to gain control thereof).
I’m not refering to the creation of the German Democratic Republic by the Soviet Union, I’m refering to the annexation of the German Democratic Republic (“East Germany”) by the Federal Republic of Germany (“West Germany”). The East Germans voluntarily dissolved their country and became part of West Germany.
Of course, annexations at gunpoint happen, and installation at gunpoint of puppet governments happen. That’s how East Germany was created. But I can’t think of any other country besides East Germany that voluntarily dissolved itself.
But in german unification case, we have the subjects of an impoverished totalitarian dictatorship voluntarily becoming citizens of a much wealthier liberal democracy with a shared language and ethnicity.
The only thing the Iraqi Shiites share with Iranian Shiites is religion. I don’t see any Sunni countries voluntarily unifiying, even though they share religion and ethnicitiy and language. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, not Persians. Iran has an interest in seeing Shiite domination of Iraq, but if they want to turn Iraq into a vassal state they’re going to have to do so by force.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday cautiously retreated from remarks by its president that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” saying it stood by its UN commitments and would not use violence against another country…Conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday stood by his sabre-rattling rhetoric, calling for Israel to be destroyed.
While not specifically refuting the president, the Foreign Ministry said Tehran had no intention of launching an assault on the Jewish state and would back whatever course the Palestinians chose to resolve the Middle East conflict
I would think it is self-evident, but perhaps it is worth pointing out/remembering that the office of the Presidency is no more powerful now under a reactionary like Ahmadinejad than it was under the moderate Khatami.
You mean the Bantustans? They don’t really count as independant countries. Only South Africa (& presumably other Bantustans) recognized them. Their territories were broken up into numerous, non-contiguous enclaves, and the boundaries between these were very convoluted. In one instance, the South African embassy to Bophuthatswana had to be moved because it turned out that it had actually been built in South Africa rather than the homeland.
If true, can this, under international law, be considered acts of war. When one nation pays mercenaries to attack another nation is that any different than attacking the nation directly? If I pay a hired killer to shoot my wife I should imagine that the punishment would be no different than had I fired the gun myself.
Likewise funding front organisations which sole purpose is the destruction of another nation through violent means, is that any different than pursuing that destruction yourself directly with guns and rockets?
Dunno. The Saudi government has assisted al-Qaeda, and the US itself has supported terrorist groups in Latin America, but nobody’s actually gone to war over it. I agree it’s not morally much different from war, but I don’t know what the legal status is.