[QUOTE=spoke-]
So, FinnAgain, do you think the US should fear Iran?
[/quote]
Have US citizens become immune to high explosives recently?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Do you believe they will attack us?
[/quote]
They have done so many, many times in the last few decades. I certainly don’t believe it to be impossible. And anybody who tells you that it’s definitely not going to happen is trying to sell you something.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
With nuclear weapons?
[/quote]
Unlikely, but not impossible. Much more likely is that they’d unleash Hezballah upon us, yet again, and have a nuclear deterrent in place in case we decided to deal with matters.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
What would be their motive for doing so?
[/quote]
For a number of reasons, really. When dealing with religious fanatics, reason doesn’t always enter into their calculations. A war against The Great Satan, perhaps. A move to become the regional hegemon. Their Supreme Leader has a bad dream, who knows.
What was their motivation in 1996, for example?
As long as they still support, arm, train and finance Hezballah, it’s not like we can pretend that they’re not poised to attack us.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Fareed Zakaria has a good column on the irrationality of Iranophobia.
[/QUOTE]
I notice that a certain faction has been trying to demonize all legitimate concern over certain clear and present threats by tacking “phobia” onto the end of the word. A rational fear of radical Islam is now “Islamophobia”. A rational fear of a regime that has used its proxy force to attack the west, and American soldiers and civilians in specific, time and time again is “Iranaphobia”.
Interesting.
His arguments aren’t very soundly reasoned. Or perfectly truthful. He points out that Iran has not invaded a country since the 18th century. Okay… but Iran’s proxy forces have attacked sovereign nations. An interesting dodge, and one that I’m sure he didn’t make by accident.
Moreover, he then suggests that because of Iran’s economy, it can’t pose a very real threat in terms of global terrorism and Islamism. I’d ask “what planet” is he on, especially since Mohamed himself certainly changed the global order with a hell of a lot less than the US’s GDP. Religious fanaticism unbalances equations and does not always work in accord with a strict monetary formula.
And, of course, he yet again ‘neglects’ to mention that Iran would almost never engage the US in a pitched battle. They have honed their skills at proxy war for decades now, and to suggest that they would abandon them for direct confrontation is laughable. And again, a mistake that I can hardly see as anything but deliberate on his part. There is a reason that smaller states favor “asymmetric warfare”.
And, of course, he describes us being on an “irreversible” path to conflict with Iran (yet again displaying the double standard I mentioned whereby Iran’s aggressive actions are condoned and America’s defensive reactions are demonized). He claims we know “nothing” about Iran… I can only assume that either he does not like reading or has again conveniently made a ‘mistake’ in his rhetoric.
We know a fair amount about Iran’s populace, but Zakaria makes another one of his ‘accidental’ ‘mistakes’ when he talks about Iran’s so-called “vibrant civil society”. Surely he’s not talking about a nation where reporters are regularly jailed, where mere opposition to the government can result in draconian reprisals and where gays are regularly hanged, where a death sentence was leveled against an author for writing an unflattering description of Islam?
He then repeats Dobbins recollections that Iran was helpful in the period after 9/11. What he doesn’t mention is that during that time Iran continued to fund, train, arm and provide safe haven to Hezballah. Iran’s actions with regard to the Taliban also merely continued their long standing opposition to their rival theocratic sect. They didn’t reverse policy or engage in any altruistic gestures, nor did they make any moves, at all, to dismantle their global terrorist network. Seems like a political gambit more than an honest desire for peace, at least from where I sit.
Further, Dobbins himself has said that it is a “important and legitimate” objective to “[dencuclearize] Iran”.
Which would, strictly speaking, be totally unnecessary if Iran was truly a partner for peace. Yes?
Dobbins has be said that Iran can be engaged in negotiation in order to, for instance, stabilize Iraq (largely because Iran has vested interests there.) Even then, the question must be asked as to what sort of influence Iran would exert on its neighbor. All that aside, it still does not speak to any true desire for peace on Iran’s side, merely that they believe they can accomplish certain regional goals through a combination of military and diplomatic actions.
That they would cooperate to stabilize the group that ousted their rivals, the Taliban, is hardly altruistic, and hardly shows any evidence that they’re ready for peace with the west. Dropping Hezballah might be a very good start. Arresting those genocidal scum would be an even better one. But as long as there are Hezbollah cells in the United States, south of the border, and spread across Europe, any claims that Iran is open to peace will remain in my view, and a good few others’ as cynical political gambits.
If they really desired peace, perhaps they’d quit their “death to America” military parades and turn over all the information they have on any and all Hezballah members who have infiltrated the United States.
To manhandle an analogy… someone who has hidden a bomb somewhere in your home but then gives you a ride to the corner store so you can buy him some beer isn’t necessarily a friend. He’s just using you.
We can’t be sure, as much of it was covert and, quite literally, underground. We do know that for roughly twenty years, Iran has been making clandestine attempts to purchase nuclear technology from the Khan network. Which should tell you something about their intentions. Natanz’ existence wasn’t even announced until 2002, and then only by Iranian opposition groups. Arak was, likewise, confirmed by satellite imagery only in 2002. It is dubious that the entire facility was planned, built, and equipped in the short time after Bush’s “axis of evil” remarks.
In any case, secret nuclear facilities constructed underground, with nary an inspector in site, whose technology were most likely bought on the black market, aren’t exactly ‘good vibe’ inducing.
As a caveat, yes, Iran has demonstrated greater compliance with international inspections now. But a history of clandestine action for decades gives me pause when considering if their current disclosures have been total and forthright.
Putting an end to it might very well require military action, as Iran has shown no real desire to compromise. Even when those making the offers weren’t America. As for lessening its progress, if the global community had gotten behind opposition to Iran’s nuclear program earlier, it might very well have worked. We won’t ever know, as it wasn’t until 2006 that even the barest glimmer of a united front really began to form at the UN.
So has Iran stepped up its nuclear progress? Quite probably. Would they have done so anyway if Bush hadn’t specifically mentioned them? Quite probably. Would they have stopped their nuclear progress if Bush hadn’t mentioned them? Not a chance in Hades.