It was a mistake, but it was an understandable one, considering the fog of war and the tensions at the time. I’m not saying the Iranian’s understand this (probably some of them do), or that they are cool with it (I’m sure they aren’t), but there is a big difference between downing a civilian jet liner on accident and, say, bombing out a countries military and civilian infrastructure, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m almost certain the Iranian’s have noticed the difference.
In short, they have no real NEED for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the US, and in fact by pursuing this particular course they have actually put themselves into the realm where the US may strike at them BECAUSE of their actions. I don’t think we will, mind…but the probability of US military action is certainly higher than if they hadn’t gone this route.
When Bush was in? He named them as one of the evil empires. that does not tend to make you open up. By the way, Iran reported the facility, our experts did not find it.
Actually, as stated numerous times in this forum, it is a pure myth that the “Axis of Evil” speech froze relations with Iran. In point of fact, the Switzerland Communique came after that.
Oh those evil Iranians, how dare their evil airliner collide with a peaceful missile! I mean the plane was in the air, I means it not as if the captain of the ship did anything wrong! I mean its not as if his fellow officers who worked with him thought bhe was over agressive, starting fights with Iranians for no reason.
But hey, they are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvvvvvvvvillllllllllll
Are you laboring under the illusion that this kind of silly hyperbole and strawmaning is actually HELPING your position?? If so, and at the risk of bursting your bubble, let me just say briefly that, well, it isn’t.
The US backed invasion of Iran by Iraq wasn’t “spectacular” enough? And why should the Iranians or anyone care if it wasn’t “direct”? Dead is dead.
How very convenient for you. The worse America behaves, the more automatically wrong I or any other critics of America are.
And like it or not, it’s become quite clear that the Bushies had every intention of attacking Iraq regardless of what Saddam did. It was clear before they attacked, and has become only more so since.
It’s a pretty good description of your position however. According to you, no matter what we do, no matter how many Iranians die WE are peace loving innocents.
How about us giving Saddam military and intelligence aid throughout the Iran-Iraq war and actually encouraging the thing to start with? The whole war was something we were pressing all our regional clients to get involved with, King Hussein of Jordan actually fired the first shot of the war from a tank. The Saudis were funding it too at our behest. Or how about funnelling arms and equipment to militant non-Persian groups in restive Iranian provinces to try and foment uprisings? Or supporting and funding a terrorist group for decades and allowing members of that group to keep living and working openly in Iraq after we invaded despite them being on the State Department terrorist list and despite us having invaded Iraq supposedly to prevent terrorism? Or thirty years of punitive sanctions for them having the temerity to overthrow the dictator we imposed on them after we got rid of their democratic government in the 1950s (because they had the temerity to nationalise their oil)?
Or how about hearing that once we’d taken Baghdad we were going to take Damascus then turn right and head for Tehran? Or the constant threats of bombing and invasion made by the US government, senior politicians, military etc. ? How do you think Iranians felt watching the GOP primaries in 2008 and all candidates on a stage, when asked about Iran dividing into two camps, those who would bomb Iran and those who might nuke it? And then the guy that wins sings a song about bombing Iran. How well do you think that sort of thing goes down with Iranians when they watch it on TV? Imagine how nuts this stuff sounds to the average Iranian when he’s watching the news. Imagine if Iran had invaded, bombed and then spent the last eight years militarily occupying Canada and Mexico and spent before and during constantly threatening the US with bombing campaigns and invasion, only for the Iranian government and media to keep insisting that it was the US that was the rogue state run by aggressive fanatics who threatened world peace?
This is not a big deal and nobody should be worried, least of all the US.
This kind of fearmongering and scapegoating became less fashionable after the last administation was ousted. Iran represents no threat to the US and marginal threat to Israel. Even if they had weapons, it would be suicide to use them. More likely, having weapons is only for the benefit of defense: now nobody can invade Iran with the expectation of a quick and bloodless resolution.
With all of the anti-Iranian talk over the last 8 years, it is no wonder that they are worried. If Obama is somehow defeated in the next election and another neocon hawk installed into office, they have every right to fear an invasion. Having nuclear weapons prevents that possibility and assures that, with China on their side, the US will be forced to deal with them on near-equal terms.
A nuclear Iran does not mean terrorist will get ahold of it. No Iranian leader will risk his countries annihilation just to piss off Israel, and no Iranian leader is actually stupid enough to carry out that threat (least of all using nukes) no matter how loudly they bluster. That is a chance people should be willing to take, because the alternative now seems like another invasion, which would be even worse than if Israel was somehow nuked.
We didn’t back the invasion of Iran by Iraq, we simply sent support to Saddam in a war that was a purely local issue between the two countries. Iran received support from the Soviets…does that mean that Saddam would have been justified in building a bomb to protect Iraq from a Soviet invasion?
Because it shows that the US wasn’t interested in direct confrontation. After all, if WE wanted to invade or attack we would have simply done so. Q.E.D. Iran really has no justifiable reason to build a bomb to protect itself from some fantasy attack or invasion by the US…well, until they actually went down this path. Now they might just get the attack they were supposedly trying to prevent.
The short answer though is that Iran really isn’t building a bomb (if in fact that’s what they are doing) to ‘protect’ themselves from the US. They are doing it because having a bomb would give them a lot of prestige in the region, and would definitely make them THE regional power, to be looked up too and feared. THAT is why they would be building a bomb…not this fantasy of yours that they live in constant fear of an imminent attack by the vicious US.
Reality is reality. The US didn’t deliberately attack that air liner, as you would know if you knew anything about it. And while I acknowledge the US bears responsibility for the action, unlike you I can see that Iran also has some responsibility for what happened. It’s not like nothing else was going on during this period, or that a US Navy ship just fired on an air liner out of the blue. Context is everything…and something that you never seem to get. Well, if we are talking about the US anyway…you are all for context in other things.
I don’t believe that the evidence shows any such thing. My take is that Bush saw an opportunity and took it. I think all that PNAC stuff is left wing mental masturbation and borders on the edge of being a CT. Obviously YMMV.
Hardly. You are the one who only wants to see black and white, to put everything into a nearly comic book-esque context. I’m well aware that the US doesn’t always have motives driven like the purest snow, and that we do distasteful things. Hell, Iraq is a perfect example. However, unlike you, I’m able to look at the bigger picture, and put things into some kind of context, to see WHY events happen, and also to see that there really aren’t any White Hats and Black Hats in these kinds of things…just shades of gray.
No justifiable reason by your standard. Based on the last 8 years, I think they have every right to do anything, including building a bomb, to prevent an invasion.
There are 3 countries in the Axis of evil. One without nukes was invaded, the other much worse one with nukes was not. Iran has every incentive to be like the one with the nukes.
I agree it makes perfect sense for Iran to seek to build nuclear weapons. If I was in charge there you can bet I’d be all over it.
That said it is a dangerous game. If the US has good reason to suppose they are near to acquiring nukes there is a good chance we will start blowing shit up. If not us the Israelis.
I seriously doubt we’d full-on invade however. More likely a flights of B2 Bombers to dig a crater to their underground facilities (makes me wish Rods from God was a reality…those would be perfect) with Nighthawk strikes on other infrastructure. I seriously doubt there’d be US boots on the ground at all.
Which of course would probably lead Iran to tell any sleepers they have everywhere to start blowing shit up.
Even if I agreed with you (and I sort of do, considering who was President in the previous administration), the thing is, Iran didn’t start trying to build a nuclear weapon in the last 8 years…they have been trying in an on again, off again manner, for significantly longer than that.
Iran doesn’t have nukes and it wasn’t invaded. And there are many other countries that were on Bush’s non-favorites list as well (say, Venezuela, for example)…they also weren’t invaded. Afghanistan, which wasn’t on the list, was. But in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were pretty special circumstances that lead to US action there. In both cases those ‘special circumstances’ would be relatively easy to avoid…and thus, relatively easy to avoid any chance of a US strike. Iran COULD put the possibility of a US strike completely into the realm of fantasy if they opened up, did everything above board and joined the rest of the international community. By doing what they are doing they have put the possibility of a US strike against them into the ‘low but possible’ category, instead of the ‘it’s more likely we’ll attack Belgium’ one.
I missed that last part there. Why would it be worse if Iran was invaded than if Israel was nuked(!!)?? Who would it ‘be worse’ for, exactly?? I’m trying not to jump to conclusions here, but what did you mean by that, YogSosoth?
While your eloquence leaves me a touch breathless, could you, perhaps, enumerate the points you are skeptical about? With some supporting data? AFAIK, the US didn’t pressure directly or indirectly Iraq into invading Iran. It was a purely internal conflict between the two countries (driven mainly by Iran’s revolution and it’s impact on an Iraq with a majority Shi’ite population who were also second class citizens), which the US mainly supported through arms and funding. Basically another proxy cold war scenario.
Feel free, though, to elucidate further whatever point you think you are making.
Hardly. You are the one who only wants to see black and white, to put everything into a nearly comic book-esque context. I’m well aware that the US doesn’t always have motives driven like the purest snow, and that we do distasteful things. Hell, Iraq is a perfect example. However, unlike you, I’m able to look at the bigger picture, and put things into some kind of context, to see WHY events happen, and also to see that there really aren’t any White Hats and Black Hats in these kinds of things…just shades of gray.