I don’t think that they will attack us, but I think there is a chance that Israel will attack them Operation Opera style. I don’t know how they’ll manage it though. We’re not going to let them get nukes.
Actually, if we hit Iran we’d simultaneously mess with Russian, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian oil interests all at the same time. See the way Iran works is like this. They have a lot of oil they drill from the ground, but their refining capacity is kind of crappy. So what they do is they get refined oil shipped from Russia in a three way deal with India. Russia sells their oil to India, they pump it to Iran. Iran uses Russian oil internally, and sends a negotiated amount of crude to India.
It’s not as simple as ‘Bush’s cronies benefit due to an increase in oil prices.’ The loss of Iran increases the price of everything when you think of the hit that Chinese manufacturing takes as they are already scaling up industrial capacity at the brink of their oil consumption. If China loses access to oil, their industrial growth slows in compensation.
Now this leads us to a further complication. If we invade Iran, then we are in control of one of the main sources of oil that wasn’t going to the US to begin with. It was largely going to other major powers in the world. So now those countries begin to fear that the US is going to take the oil that they were previously benefitting from. This increases US oil hegemony, and thus further disturbs relations with the other big kids on the block. It also makes our relationship with Saudi Arabia more tense, because there are a number of what ifs. ‘What if the US starts getting the oil it needs from Iraq and Iran, and can now turn its sights on us?’
A market crash doesn’t necessarily benefit the oil companies. Even though the price of oil goes up, so do their operating costs due to the increase in the costs of industrial goods that require oil to be manufactured. The more instability, the more they have to pay Blackwater to guard their people overseas. The more people they piss off the more people will be attacking them. The less government stability in the middle-east, the more Muslims you have blowing up pipelines.
The oil companies do not win by having a zone of anarchy from Kandahar to Damascus as much as it is popular to believe so.
It was Nicaragua. Back in the eighties, before terrorists and Muslims and homosexuals, we had communists as the biggest threat to America. A communist government took over in Nicaragua. Some people argued that this wasn’t really all that important and that Nicaragua, communist or otherwise, posed no threat to the United States. Reagan thought otherwise and, in an effort to play up the danger, said that Nicaragua was only a three day drive away from the United States.
It’s true that communism was the big enemy. But the first war on terrorism wast fought not by George W. Bush but by Ronald Reagan.
Yes, because our murderous maniacs are freedom fighters, and their murderous maniacs are terrorists.
In other words, no, we haven’t ever fought a “war on terrorism”. Not Bush, not Reagan.
Yes, Der Trihs, I know. But I am talking about rhetoric. After communism and drugs, Reagan’s big bogeyman was terrorism.
Ah, I understand.
As a resident member of the Left, I’ll try to explain. During the past few years, America has attacked one country based on a totally bogus premise and killed about a million people. In that same time period, Iran hasn’t attacked any country or killed any non-trivial number of people. In order to know the future, study the past. The recent past tells us that the fundamentalist nutcase who runs the United States is far more dangerous than the fundamentalist nutcase who runs Iran, because he’s killed a lot more people.
How many times do people have to be told that the Iranian president has no real power? He can’t order an attack on anybody.
Conversely the theocracy that DOES control Iran can do whatever they want…including ordering an attack on the tides or whatever else meets their displeasure.
-XT
And yet their record is 0 acts of military aggression in their nearly 30 years of power.
Well, that certainly depends on how you go about defining military aggression. To take one example, Iran helped found Hezbollah. They have helped arm, train, and finance Hezbollah as well as providing safe haven for them.
They have continued this relationship during, after and in spite of Hezbollah’s attacks upon United States civilians and military targets. One might argue, convincingly I believe, that they have continued this relationship not just in spite of its results, but precisely because of them.
[ul]
[li]During the 1980’s Hezbollah kidnapped many western citizens, often murdering them. [/li][li]In 1983, Hezbollah car bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut killing 63 people, 17 of them American citizens. [/li][li]In 1983 Hezbollah attacked a U.S. Marine barracks killing 241 members of the American peace-keeping force. [/li][li]In 1984 Hezbollah attacked the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut killing 24 people, 2 of them Americans. [/li][li]In 1984 William F. Buckley, then working at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, was kidnapped and later murdered by Hezbollah.[/li][li]In 1984 Hezbollah attacked a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon. Eighteen U.S. servicemen were killed and 83 people were injured.[/li][li]In 1984 Hezbollah hijacked a Kuwait Airlines plane. Four passengers were murdered, including two Americans.[/li][li]In 1985 Hezbollah hijacked TWA flight 847. The hijackers beat Robert Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver. They then killed him and dumped his body onto the tarmac. [/li][li]In 1988 Hezbollah kidnaped Col. William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving with a United Nations truce monitoring group in Lebanon. They then murdered him. [/li][/ul]
In the present day, the FBI has confirmed that Hezbollah has cells within the United States itself.
In the present day, Nasrallah publicly and proudly supports genocide and calls for the destruction of America.
If supporting these actions and beliefs was not Iran’s goal, they could have withdrawn support. They did not then. They have not now. They have voiced no intention to do so any time soon.
After how many attacks, and how many dead American civilians and soldiers does Iran’s facade become risible? After how many years of continued support does Iran achieve complicity? Past a certain point, giving weapons, money, training, and safe haven to a group who you know will attack certain targets makes you, at the very least, an accomplice in those attacks.
So , to get back to the OP, it is highly unlikely that Iran would attack us with conventional forces. There are few powers on the planet who could currently challenge America in a pitched battle. But with the safeguard of a nuclear deterrent, it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that they will continue or expand their support of groups like Hezbollah and their campaign of what is fashionably termed ‘asymmetric warfare’.
As for the idea that Iran would not use nuclear weapons… it is certainly not cut and dry. While there have been fatwahs condemning the use of nukes, their use has also been approved via fatwah.
The issue of whether Iran would attack the United States via its proxy forces is certainly not as clear as some suggest. And that, of course, does not even touch on whether or not Iran would attack any of our allies via its proxy forces.
So will Iran attack us? The only truly honest answer is “maybe”.
Some of us are willing to take that chance, others are not. And there are certainly arguments to be made for both positions. But to pretend that Iran does not have a history of military aggression aimed at America serves neither truth, nor honest discussion.
My answer to the OP was “They’ve been attacking us since 1979.” In fact, I thought this fact was so obvious that I made sure to read the entire thread to make sure I wasn’t repeating someone.
The last post I read was by Finn Again. It was well thought out, factual and relevant. Therefore it will be summarily dismissed by those who find such facts troublesome to their ideological outlook.
I’ll even save some of you some time in response.
“His was but yours isn’t! Neener Neener Neener!”
Finn Again, your last example of Hezbollah “attacking” the United States was 19 years ago. 5 of the 9 examples you cited took place during the Lebanese Civil War. One of them is a vague, “They kidnapped a bunch of people.” None of them occurred in the Western Hemisphere.
How much command and control do the Iranians have over Hezbollah? Do you know? Does anyone?
If Hezbollah does indeed have cells inside the United States, why haven’t they attacked? Why didn’t they rise up to support their Al Qaeda brothers when bin Laden made his move. They’ve had six years, and we’ve heard nary a peep out them.
What facade? The one they constructed by not “attacking” us since Ronald Reagan was president?
It is also well within the realm of possibility that they could respond to the development of nuclear weapons by entering into a detante with the West like the Soviet Union, who had a much bigger army and many, manynuclear weapons and the actual means to deliver them on about a half-hour’s notice. It is also within the realm of possibility that they could respond positively to diplomatic engagement. It is also within the realm of possibility that they could help stabilize Iraq. But one thing is out of the realm of possibility and into the realm of certainty: if we attack them, those positive possibilities will all evaporate.
Which would put it squarely within the window of the alleged total lack of military aggression within the last 30 years. I also find it odd that you put attacking in quotes. How many hundreds of Americans have to be killed before it graduates from an “attack” to an attack? Further… you are knowledgeable about Hezbollah and Iran’s involvement in it, right? You do know that my list was hardly exhaustive, yes? You are aware of Hezbollah scouting out American targets in Europe all through the 90’s? Of its recruiting efforts? Of its European weapons caches? Of the Kobar Towers?
Would you deny that Hezbollah forces engaging in recon against American targets might speak to a possibility that they would attack? Would it not speak to a probability that they were planning or at least considering such attacks? Would that probability not speak to whether or not one could only honestly describe the possibility of further attacks by saying “maybe?”
Well then, Iran supporting the murder of American peace keepers and civilians was okay?
That’s not vague at all, nor do I see the fact that they had roughly a decade long pattern of kidnapping and murder as disproving that Iran was supporting a group that was attacking western targets. What would make it less “vague” and more relevant? Do you require an itemized list? I would also point out that they did not simply kidnap many people, they also tortured and/or murdered many of those who were kidnapped.
That is good then. As long as we don’t have any embassies and/or allow our citizens to travel. Or have Jews living here. Or take an active role in Middle East politics.
It’s also worth noting that, again, my list was not exhaustive and did not include attacks on our friends and/or allies. Argentina is most certainly within the western hemisphere.
I specifically and deliberately avoided getting into a discussion about control, as it is simply not required. Funding, arming, training and sheltering a group with a history of attacking a specific target makes one complicit in those attacks.
It makes no difference if Iran said “Here are weapons and money, go attack America” or “Oh, you’re going to be attacking America? Here are weapons and money.”
How many years were between the first and second WTC attacks? Would major attacks within the US be easier or harder to orchestrate than the WTC attacks? Is it quick and easy to plan major attacks? What if their role is to serve as sleeper cells, gather reconnaissance, and establish a foothold?
Hezbollah went twelve years between major attacks on American military targets. It’s been 11 years since the last one. Are you confident in declaring that this negates my position, that another attack is possible?
If the FBI confirms that there are terrorist cells within the United States itself, does it negate their threat by pointing out that they have not attacked us yet? We do know, however, that Hezbollah cells within the United States do indeed take orders from their leadership abroad, and have in the past helped provide material for Hezbollah fighters that could easily be used for attacks within the continental US. It is rational and prudent to treat the cells we have caught in the same manner as you might treat a roach that you find in your kitchen late at night. Where you find one, there are almost undoubtedly more that you have not found. And we have found numerous Hezbollah cells. Can you vouch for all of their intentions?
It is also worth pointing out that Hezbollah has cells and has carried out some heavy recruiting south of the border. Can you vouch for their intentions, as well?
Hezbollah is not with Al Qaeda in a well organized global alliance of bad guys who act in concert. That Hezbollah did not attack in coordination with an operation that they had no coordination with is hardly surprising.
Is your contention that it is okay, and not a threat, to have agents of a terrorist organization with a long track record of attacking American civilians and military targets… hiding within our own country? Do you contend that those cells belie what I have posited, that Iran attacking us again via its proxy force can only be honestly answered by saying “maybe?”
Do you condone those cells?
First… Hezbollah did attack us after Reagan’s presidency. I’ll get back to that in a minute.
I will also point out that it is the same facade that is picked up and repeated by many in America: that Iran has been totally peaceful and has not engaged in any acts of military aggression. Do you deny that Iran has put forward that fictitious claim? Do you deny that many American news/political organizations have repeated it?
I will also reiterate that it is somewhat odd that it seems you relied on my list to inform you about Hezbollah’s actions. Hopefully you are not basing the entirety of your knowledge of Hezbollah on what I post here. I’m not writing a book and my efforts at fighting ignorance have only so much energy behind them. Were you aware of the bombing of the Khobar Tower in 1996? That the bombing occurred after Reagan’s term?
You will note, as well, that it was roughly 12 years between that attack and a previous attack on an American military installation. I would suggest that shows something about Hezbollah’s timeframe and dedication to killing Americans.
And that doesn’t touch on the 1994 bombing in Argentina designed to murder Jews, an attack that almost certainly had Iranian backing. Or the numerous attacks, planned, foiled, or carried out against other Western and/or allied targets.
In addition, Nashrallah is proudly and publicly genocidal. Are there any Jewish community centers in America? Can you honestly state, with 100% certainty that they would never be attacked? Can you deny, with 100% certainty, that the only honest answer to the OP’s question is “maybe?” Do you deny that a history, decades long, of launching attacks and a recent history of conducting recon against American targets speaks to a probability rather than a simple possibility of attacks?
How many indications have you seen that such an event has a realistic probability rather than a mathematical possibility? Was the USSR motivated by the same things that motivate Iran/Hezbollah? Are they fungible?
How have they done so, so far?
Do either of the above quoted scenarios put paid to the possibility that Iran will attack us via Hezbollah before such diplomatic endeavors take root?
In what form do you believe this stability will be achieve, and what would it look like? Might it be akin to the way in which Iran has helped stabilize southern Lebanon?
I thought the question in this thread was one as to whether or not Iran would attack America.
In any case, they have been attacking us for decades now but have not carried out a successful attack within the last 11 years. The last successful major attack before that one was 12 years prior to it. Is it your contention that Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah is indicative of anything other than a desire for violence?
In keeping with the topic of this thread, is your contention that Iran’s continued support, financial, military, logistical, operational, tactical, etc… for Hezbollah an indicator for or against the possibility that Iran might attack us, yet again?
As that is the question posed, I would suggest that should be the topic of this thread. While you may oppose American preemptive action against Iran, we should be able to differentiate that from the possibility of Iranian preemptive action against America. Yes?