And a Gore Administration might have done all that – but the Pubs in general and the neocons in particular seem to regard Iran as a bit of unfinished business; no friendly relations are possible until we have our vengeance on the regime that bloodied America’s nose in 1979-80.
Why 1979-80? As late as 1996 Iran was still helping Hezbollah murder Americans.
And that’s if we discount all of the reports of Iranian actions in Iraq after our invasion.
Because those were the years of the Hostage Crisis, which is all most Americans remember regarding Iran (conveniently forgetting Operation Ajax).
Yeah, I’d say we could find just as many reasons for the Iranians to be pissed at us as vice versa.
The trick is getting past all the history and finding a path to peaceful coexistence going forward.
That wasn’t the formulation you used BG. Not at all, you said that:
That suggests several things, among them that the only reason for ‘vengeance’ or unfriendly relations was the hostage crisis. Or at least that was the most recent one. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Iran is “unfinished business” because they were actively attacking us for decades, and that even now they’re helping to finance and train the terrorist organization which has cells within our country? And, like I said, that’s if we ignore the entirety of the claims of Iranian actions in Iraq.
Wouldn’t it be more honest and accurate to say that some believe that no friendly relations are possible as long as Iran still sponsors a terrorist organization responsible for hundreds of American deaths, which has cells within our nation? Until Iran stops organizing “death to America” parades?
I know that you don’t like Bush or his political associates, but credit where it’s due, the only reason some people are opposed to Iran is certainly not the memory of the hostage crisis.
Only if you ignore that we’re not only talking about history, but current events. It’s an interesting meme that seems to have sprung up among certain folks that Iran has not engaged in military aggression against America after the hostage crisis. Or after the 80’s. Or after the 90’s. It’s an interesting view of reality, but it isn’t supported by any facts.
I find it odd that so much of a burden is placed on the United States when Iran has military parades with their missiles draped in slogans of “death to America” (not to even mention their support for Hezballah). If America were to do that, many folks, and many on this board, would blame America exclusively for deterioration of relations and a hostile environment. If Iran responded with hostility or increased military production, they’d blame America and say Iran was just responding as it’d been threatened. Many have, in fact, done exactly that in the wake of Bush’s “axis of evil” comments.
But when the roles are reversed, it’s still America’s fault if rapprochement isn’t the official policy.
So, Iran has military parades, missiles draped with “death to America” slogans; it’s America’s fault that relations are bad and America would not be entitled to prepare for war.
If America had military parades, missiles draped with “death to Iran” slogans; it’s America’s fault for warmongering and stirring up tensions and Iran would be entitled to prepare for war.
The double standard is interesting. Especially since many Americans hold it.
Of course I discount them. Why believe the claims of known liars and fools ?
And we are hardly in a position to whine about people interfering in other countries without looking ridiculous.
Now let me get this straight. Pearl Harbor was a surgical strike?
That’s what a “surgical strike” looks like to the victims. We are used to being the victimizers.
And we have matched them, tit for tat. (Remember our support for Saddam’s invasion of Iran, for example?)
But tit for tat is a fool’s game (though seemingly a popular one in the Middle East). I say we opt out of it.
Hezbollah has cells in the U.S.? Cite? And what’s this about “actively attacking us for decades”? The only example I can think of is the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing – and even there, Iranian involvement was never proven. And if proven it would have been justified – that was the time when the U.S. was supporting Hussein in his war of naked aggression on Iran; we can’t do that and pretend any troops we send to the region aren’t legitimate targets.
I take it that you’re letting your rhetoric get away with you a bit? Although there have been actions taken on both sides, it’s more than a stretch to call the US’ reaction “tit for tat”. There wasn’t, for instance, any tit-for-tat military response to the Khobar Tower bombing, was there?
Now, it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that quid-pro-quo retaliatory strikes that aren’t designed to eliminate an enemy’s capacity to make war against us? Then sure, we shouldn’t engage in empty posturing. Defending ourselves from, say, a renewed wave of Hezbollah attacks would not be tit-for-tat in my book either, but I suppose that some see self defense differently.
If you mean, however, that we should pretend that Iran’s government is a willing partner for peace , then no. We don’t have to sell ourselves a bill of goods, we can simply maintain a defensive posture as we have done. Good fences, good neighbors, and all that.
Don’t you think that sort of background reading should be done before you get into a debate, BG?
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.
Cite.
I’m really not going to dig much more up at the moment.
Decades of time during which we were being attacked by Iranian funded, trained and armed proxy forces?
Hezbollah hit the barracks. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy group. Did Iran stop funding, arming and training Hezbollah before, during, or after those bombings? No?
By the way, not only was Iranian involvement proven, there was a fairly significant trial that dealt with it. And, honestly, you can only think of the marine barracks attack? Only? You can’t think of the Khobar Tower bombing? The murder of William F. Buckley? The attack on a restaurant in Torrejon? TWA flight 847?
I could go on, but I really don’t have the patience right now to give you a backstory on an issue if you won’t at least meet me half way and learn more about it than a single one of the most memorable incidents in a long chain of events.
Well, on that point, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree. If you believe that US peacekeeping forces are fair game, that’s your call, I suppose. It should be pointed out that Hezbollah also attacked the US embassy and later the US annex. You might have a bit more trouble rationalizing those.
And I wonder just how far your reasoning goes, and if there’s a double standard at work. The US, which took actions hostile to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (as well as taking actions hostile to Iraq) had its military targets become fair game. If someone were to find, say, any of the evidence linking Iran to the Mahdi Militia, would we then be justified in attacking Iranian military targets?
We have always been at war with Iran…
I actually wasn’t angry at all but rather responding in jest to the “making a caricature out of me” comment. I was in that narrow sense that I involved xt – who, does, in fact, try to mock all or most or my posts on these matters (US foreign policy). That’s plain for the eye to see as well.
But enough. My apologies. And I’ll add my own censoring – this place is not my life.
I’ll be out for a while.
Take care.
So, FinnAgain, do you think the US should fear Iran? Do you believe they will attack us? With nuclear weapons? What would be their motive for doing so?
Fareed Zakaria has a good column on the irrationality of Iranophobia.
How active was their nuclear program at the time of 9/11?
And did the resoluteness of our Commander-in-Chief put an end to it or light a match under it?
Have US citizens become immune to high explosives recently?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That has never been proven, though it is more than likely. Something called “Islamic Jihad” – probably but not necessarily an alternate name for Hezbollah – claimed responsibility.
Are you not going to touch on any other of the points BG, or read up on Iran’s history of involvement with Hezbollah and their attacks on the US, which certainly aren’t limited to the marine barracks bombing?
I also see that you repeat your “not proven” claim, even though I just linked you to the trial in which it was proven. Are you attempting to debate that trial’s findings, or ignoring them?
In any case, even if Islamic Jihad’s claim of responsible was genuine and they were operating as a seperate organization… IJ is also armed, funded, and supported by Iran. And has close ties to Hezballah as well. And Hezballah has used the name “Islamic Jihad” in the past for their own activities. In many cases, in operational terms, they function as part of the same organization. And just to head the usual suspects off at the pass, here is that arch rightist broadsheet, The New Yorker, has run a few pieces where they talk about this issue in specific.
[
](http://www.jeffreygoldberg.net/articles/tny/a_reporter_at_large_in_the_par_1.php)
But the fact remains: Iran bankrolls, trains, and arms both of 'em. Talking about how one Iranian proxy attacked American rather than another Iranian proxy attacked America doesn’t change that fact that it was an Iranian proxy.
At a range of ten thousand mile, with no means of delivery? Yeah, pretty much. But no, not recently.
Ah! So its Hezbollah that has the long range missiles! No doubt supplied by Iran so that…oh, wait, that won’t quite work, now will it?
Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary, they take their marching orders directly from Teharan? This part needs a bit of substantiation. Like, for instance, any at all.
I have a suspicious bump on my toe, I suspect it is a flea bite, which is most assuredly an attack, my very blood is at risk. I will shoot the dog.
A “certain faction”? Secular humanists? Trotskyists? Satanic Amish? And how is the verbal construct “Islamophobia” more “interesting” than “Islamofacism”, which merges an Italian secular political construct with fundamentalist Islam. And, of course, the orginal Facists, had they any religious convictions at all, were most likely Catholic.
Innuendo is as poor a substitute for fact as masturbation is a poor substitute for sex.
If its so secret and well-hidden, how is it that you know so much about it, with such unassailable certainty?
And if its not so secret, how is it that Mr Al-Baredei believes otherwise?
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/10/29/iaea-chief-el-baradei-tells-cnn-no-evidence-iran-nuclear-wea.html
IAEA Chief El Baradei Tells CNN: No Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapon Program
(The cite is from the Lydon LaRouche newsletter, thought you’d appreciate the homage…)
I tire, I am weary, this point by point process is too ennervating. But one last thing: this whole “proxy” thingy you seem to be so set upon.
Is it true, then, that a power that arms and supports another entity or movement has direct responsibility for the actions of the beneficiary? Would you say, then, that the USA has direct responsibility for the rape and murder of nuns in Central America, or the murder of an Archbishop?
China and Russia supplied arms and material help to the VC in Viet Nam. Is it your contention that the most correct response would have been all-out thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union and China? Granted, that would have simplified things rather marvelously.
Still, seems a bit much. Extreme. Batshit crazy.
Not since, oh, say 9/11…ehe?
Sure they do…it’s called a really big boat full of LNG. All one needs is a few folks with guns willing too die for Allah in a big fiery ball.
Oh wait…it worked well for AQ with planes. Perhaps Hezbollah isn’t as bright? Is that your point? Or, er, something?
-XT