I’ve heard references to Iran having offered to help against Al Queda in the wake of 9/11. What were the details of this and what other communication was there with Iran in the early stages of the War on Terrorism?
I gather there was a large candlelight vigil in Teheran after 9/11, but the US/Iranian relations went south pretty quickly, didn’t they? Were the Iranians planning all along to produce nuclear weapons and go on the Islamofascist offensive, or was there still some potential for moderation that was somehow fouled up?
Iran is a majority Shi’ite country and Al Qaeda, while proclaiming its cause embraces all Muslims, is predominantly Sunni. So there’s a religious issue.
Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda was based most strongly in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda wanted to expand its territory, its next obvious target would have been Iran, which seperates Afghanistan from the rest of the Middle East.
So Iran had reasons to not support Al Qaeda and had been watching their activities. After 9/11 they decided “an enemy of my enemy is sort of my friend” and passed on some of their information to the CIA.
For starters, both the Taliban and AlQ are associated with an extreme Muslim sect known as wahabbism, centered in Saudi. Wahabbists are violently anti-Shia, for reasons known best by them, and the main population center for Shia Muslims is Iran. So Iran would have been entirely supportive of any effort to reduce the Taliban. Whether this would have involved any more cordial relations with the Great Satan is anybody’s guess.
There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda. Just like there is no evidence that Iran is significantly aiding insurgents in Iraq. And islamofascism is a meaningless neo-con hate-speak term signifying nothing.
Iran are entitled as sigs to the Non Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power and given the hostility of a proven aggessive enemy occupying a country on their borders you couldn’t blame them for wanting nukes…
Iran has huge oil deposits. They have absolutely no need for the expense, complexity, nor the dangers of nuclear power. Plus they are an even bigger sponsor of terrorism than Iraq was. They are doing it to make weapons grade fissionable material. No if, ands or buts about it. And they must & will be stopped by force if they don’t voluntarily. No ifs, ands or buts about that either.
It’s not up to you to judge the economic or power needs of another nation. You do not have the information, you do not understand the costs, you do not have any basis on which to make a judgment and quite frankly your record as a cheerleader for the whole Iraq debacle suggests that, like with Bush and the other unindicted co-conspirators, any judgment expressed is likely to be 100% wrong.
All you are doing is parroting the same neo-con talking points as part of the same process that led us into the current mess.
So no - your and Bush’s discredited and hysterical judgment aside - the people charged with being in the know are, like the Iraq weapons inspectors, pretty sanguine.
And be sure to get back to me when we stop sponsoring terrorism around the world. Or even in Iran.
Except that they might want to sell that oil. And they might want to have something after it’s gone.
Since Iraq wasn’t much of one, that says little. And it’s not like we haven’t cheerfully “sponsered terror”.
Yes, there is. What right do we have to stop them ? And why shouldn’t they ? Under the circumstances ( namely, having bloodthirsty, amoral conquerers like us on their border ) it’s not only reasonable, but the duty of the Iranian government to acquire nukes.
We are the ones running around conquering and slaughtering and destroying, not them. We are the danger to the region and the world, not them. More than just a danger, since we have and are mass murdering people right now.
I believe you are mistaken on that point. From CNN:
There is also the matter of UNSC resolution 1737, passed by that body in Dec 2006. It’s a PDF file, and I can’t quote from it, but it clearly expresses concern about the potential military nature of Iran’s nuclear program.
The US may be more vocal about Iran’s nuclear program and the potential for military applications, but it is absolutely not alone in that concern.
As for Iran and al Qaeda, I’m not aware of any ties that have been substantiated and, as others have said, there are good reasons to suspect they would not be compatible as allies. OTOH, there is a saying (originating in that part of the world)… something about “the enemy of my enemy”. You know the drill. Now, that could cut both ways (either in favor of the US or in favor of al Qaeda). In the first year of the invasion of Afghanistan, it seem to cut in our favor, with Iran helping on its border with that country. Given Bush’s bellicose rhetoric, it’s unclear that it might not cut the other way sometime in the future. Fortunately, for us and the rest of the world, that should not be much of an issue after Jan '09.
Accusations from right-wing pols cut no ice with me and neither, given the Iraq fiasco, should it with anyone else.
When some independent evidence emerges - and the IAEA are the people who are monitoring it - then I’m willing to listen.
But as the USA and the UK refuse to hold up their end of the non-proliferation bargain I don’t think we are in any position to get upset with Iran. We ignored Pakistan’s nuke bazaar and we blithely ignore the fact it is their nukes that will make Pakistan the first Islamic fundamentalist state.
Any attack on Iran will just make that more likely.
In the end I don’t think there is anything that can be done to stop Iran getting a nuke if that is what they want. Nothing that won’t make matters worse in terms of pissing off the muslim world even more thoroughly, destabilising our allies and screwing the world economy. And we have no moral leg to stand on anyway.
If we want to stop them diplomacy is the only game in town. I’m convinced however, that the Bush regime will do their damnest to engineer a causus belli for bombing.
So, can we get a cite that he is one of the “same old war criminals” (your words, not mine)? Or have you moved the goal post? And can we get a definition of what a “right-wing” pol is-- preferable not: *anyone **tagos *disagrees with.
But that’s not what you said earlier, and that’s not what I was responding to. You said “There is no evidence that Iran is going for nukes. Just the same old suspicions and same old accusations from the same old war criminals with an agenda.” Do you retract that now?
A separate issue entirely, but one that I don’t have any substantial disagreement with you over.
What are we supposed to do about it? Ain’t much we can do. BTW, did you mean to say the first Islamic fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons? Surely you didn’t mean what you wrote, since there is at least one such state already (If Iran or Saudi Arabia doesn’t qualify, I don’t know what does).
Again, I can’t disagree with that in any substantive way.
But you were still wrong in your initial statement about who thinks Iran is trying to develop nulcear weapons. It is not just Bush and the crowd that cried wolf about Iraq. I gave cites to back up my claim, and you have not repudiated them. All I can see that you have done is to move the goal post instead of admitting you made a mistake.
OK, but it wasn’t for some months after 9/11 that Iran re-started its nuclear program. Have any analysts provided an explanation as to their timing? Were they keeping with their schedule to nuke Israel, or were they reacting to something?
Your first 3 points imply that we might not be in this situation (assuming, etc.) if the US had acted differently after 9/11. #4 could very well be true, but raises the question of why their nuke program was dormant for so long.
We should have acted differently after 9/11/01. Well, more like after 10/11/02 (when the Iraq AUMF passed), or whenever it was that Bush made his “Axis of Evil” speech (SoU address in '02?). I don’t know if we could have completely stopped their nuclear ambitions, but it seems pretty clear that Bush’s actions and rhetoric have played at least some role in what the Iranians are doing.
It could be a little bit of all 4, plus others I didn’t think of. I don’t know that there is 1 and only 1 reason.
Burning oil to run an electrical grid is dangerously short sighted for both economic and environmental reasons. In fact, no less serious men than Cheney and Rumsfeld under the Ford administration advised Iran under the Shah that acquiring nuclear energy would be an intelligent and prudent long term investment.
Does Iran have significant uranium deposits? I’d say their nuclear program makes sense if they cn mine their own uranium. But importing it, refining it, enriching it-doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.
That said, I don’t think Iran has any intention of provoking any wars.