[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Iran is not sufficiently stupid to launch any sort of actual attack on the U.S. that could be traced back to Tehran. In the current situation, the U.S. would use any such evidence as an excuse to launch some sort of massive retaliatory attack.
[/quote]
After 9/11 you are most likely correct. However, it is not totally clear that all of the factions in Tehran are unwilling to risk reprisals or that the degree to which we’re tied down in Iraq isn’t seen as significantly weakening any ability to deal with matters. It also stands to reason that the ‘current situation’ will not remain current forever. Already, judging from some of the posters on this board, Iran could direct Hezbollah to attack US targets, we could have a 250 agent team investigate the issue for five years, come back showing that authorization for the attack went back to the highest levels of Iran’s government… and have Americans say that it was only alleged and/or no problem.
It seems that you are using “genuine threat”, instead of, perhaps “imminent threat”. No, they are most likely not going to launch Hezbollah attacks on us tomorrow, it is not an imminent threat. But as long as they do sponsor Hezbollah, they are definitely a genuine threat.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I don’t have any dreamy notion that Iran wants peace and love to permeate the world. They are driven by their own senses of self-interest. In this they are no different than any other country powerful enough to attempt to stand independent of other nations, whether it is the U.S., the U.S.S.R., ancient Thebes, Britain, ancient Judah, or modern Israel.
[/quote]
That’s a bit of a strawman, isn’t it tom?
The issue isn’t one that Iran wants peace and leave to permeate the world. And the concern isn’t simply that Iran is looking out for its own interests. The concern is that some of what Iran has been doing (eg. supporting Hezbollah and spreading Islamic fundamentalism) are threats to the safety and security of America and Americans.
If Iran was an isolationist nation, or simply wanted to maintain political influence in the region (of a non-Islamic fundamentalist influence type), I don’t believe there’d be any real problem. The issue is not that Iran is pursuing its own interests, but the threat that some of those interests pose to the United States.
And of course, the response to an agenda which threatens America is to be on our guard and not assume they’ve got peaceful motives until they change their agenda. Heck, we can (and as I just said, probably should have) engaged in negotiations, but until there aren’t factions in Iran’s government who have a very real connection to and influence over Islamic fundamentalism or Hezbollah, it makes sense to be on our guard. We don’t have to demonize them, but nor do we have to drop our guard when another nation still threatens us. That’s reasonable, right?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
However, they cannot launch an actual invasion against the U.S. and they do not appear to be sufficiently stupid as to sponsor an actual attack against this country’s soil.
[/quote]
No… they can’t launch an actual invasion. But then again, I doubt at this point that even China could with a ‘human wave’ tactic. And some of the Iranian government certainly do seem nuts enough to launch Hezbollah attacks on American soil and damn the repercussions (remember the plastic keys).
Then again, nobody in this thread has actually suggested that Iran could invade the US.
But even if we assume that any possible attacks wouldn’t come on American soil, that would still leave our troops, embassies, tourists, etc… vulnerable to attack. As an American all those things worry me. Support of Hezbollah is not benign.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I have no problem with the U.S., (on those rare occasions when it appears to be motivated by a desire for actual peace and stability rather than a desire for hegemony or oil), playing the same game to limit Iranian advances in power, but I think that demonizing them and grouping them with their worst enemies as a country motivated merely by malice is counterproductive.
[/quote]
Define “demonizing” in this context. Are we just talking about the Axis of Evil speech (which nobody in this thread has actually supported)? If not, could you clarify?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
The troubles in Northern Ireland were prolonged by at least twenty years because each side insisted on conditions to participate in peace talks. The Balkans have been suffering for over four hundred years because all the various factions operate under the assumption that they “know” the evil of their opponents and they are more interested in avenging the deaths of various great-grandparents than in ensuring the survival of their own children. It is a pretty dumb way to run a world.)
[/QUOTE]
Analogy is always suspect. Would you dispute that as long as certain factions in Iran hold power and continue to support groups like Hezbollah, any peace agreement we reach is only reached with a portion of their government? That preconditions like that are a bit more in line with, say, a police negotiator asking someone to drop a gun before they start talking, rather than, say, someone being more interested in avenging the deaths of various great-grandparents?