Let’s step back a moment and look at the forest, instead of staring at the trees.
I think most of us can agree that military action against Iran would be a bad idea, whether they planned to make a bomb or not. So, strategically, I don’t really care whether they have a weapons program or not. The goal of the US and our European allies is to get them to stop enriching uranium. Bomb or no bomb. And it’s not a simple dichotomy-- are they making a bomb or not making a bomb. Uranium enrichment is part of the bomb making process. It’s the most difficult and time consuming part of that process, and it wouldn’t be that hard for the Iranians to start up a weapons program any time they want.
This report might change some of the tactics we use and how we use them, but it doesn’t alter the long term view we should be taking in Iran. And, we should prepare ourselves for a time when Iran does have nukes, because there is a good possibility that will happen, regardless of our efforts.
The report also makes it clear that there isn’t any immediate threat, since we’re talking five year timeframe (more or less) if they decided to restart their weapons program today. So, we continue working with the Europeans, keep the pressure on the Iranians, but don’t try to back an angry dog into a corner.
Of course it is a bad idea to launch a war against Iran, bomb or not.
And of course with enrichment capability they could restart a weapons program at any time they want.
As I have said elsewhere, we should adopt a defensive stance and not be convinced of Iran’s intentions unless and until they make substantives move towards peace.
All that is important.
But it is equally important not to distort intelligence findings just because it makes the case stronger. Otherwise, people have no leg to stand on when another neocon-esque administration distorts intelligence findings because it makes their case stronger.
Conducting a debate honestly is important. When glutton makes a claim that the Marines killed by Hezbollah in '83 weren’t noncombatants, and then it’s proven that they were noncoms and he not only doesn’t retract his mistake, but ignores it, that is not conducive to fighting ignorance. Especially twhen hat mistake, along with a complex of others, is used to support a political position. When someone says “America, America, America” and the response is “ah-hah you quisling, you’re really talking about Israel!” and others chime in with “ah-hah! Those dost protest too much when someone first calls you a quisling!” that does not serve the cause of fighting ignorance.
An unfortunate side effect of more than half a decade of Bush being in power, and full of shit, seems to have been not only the utter polarization of the discussion but the descent of the debate to same level of discussion and the same tactics that Bush used. If in 2004 everybody can agree that the OSP spinning caveats and probabilities and possibilities into definites in order to support a political position is wrong, when then in 2007 does it become right?
So agreeing that we shouldn’t launch a war against Iran is fine. But doing so based on dishonesty makes a mockery of this board’s mission. This is supposed to be a place where we cleave to the truth, where we fight ignorance. It’s not just any old message board. And that distinction is important.
I hesitate to intrude on this discussion for obvious reasons. But on this very minor point I think I’d have to agree that combat troops can never be classed as non-combatants pretty much by definition. Non-combatants are either civilians or non-combat military like medical personnel. I’m afraid armed peacekeepers do not fall into that category.
Regardless violence had already been escalating ( or rather re-escalating ) in Lebanon for months. The multinational force had gradually gotten drawn into operations against Druze forces in the Chouf on behalf of the government of Bashir Gemayel. The marines and the Druze ( among others ) had already been engaged in mutual artillery duels, with deaths on both sides. By the time the barracks bombing occurred, I would expect it is fair to say that the Lebanese at least, both those aligned with the U.S. and those opposed, probably regarded the marines as combatants.
A timeline, sans the ( internal Lebanese ) political maneouverings that led to some of the fighting:
I think the term “non-combatants” is a bit problematic here. Are policemen non-combatants? If someone blows up a police station, is that an act of terrorism? Peacekeeping forces are more like policemen than military.
Having said that, any peacekeeping operation is going to be placed in a militarily volatile zone (otherwise they wouldn’t be needed), and foreign military personnel in any given country are going to be targets of whatever faction or factions are dissatisfied with the status quo.
Whether you want to slap the label “terrorism” on what happened in Lebanon is perhaps debatable (per the legal finding in that link). Still, I see it as a different kind of act than the 9/11 attacks or the OK City bombing.
There’s a big difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Go back and watch the movie Hotel Rwanda and watch how the Canadian colonel who headed the UN peacekeeping mission there served in a military uniform and had virtually no authority to use force. There’s a fine example of someone in the military who, IMHO, should not be considered a combatant. In fact, the UN has established a convention that specifically protects peacekeepers from being considered legitimate targets of war: link.
Were the Marines in Beiruit non-combatants? Honestly I do not know enough of the mission to say. But I don’t believe that military uniform always equals combatant.
More info, from the same link on the role of this Marine unit, in specific.
Moreover, that was a tangent (although an important factual distinction). The important issue was that the Marine Barracks Bombing, like the Khobar Towers Bombing, represented times when Iran gave direct orders to Hezbollah to kill Americans. And, as such, that Iran’s continued for support represents non-benign intentions.
And, on the Khobar Towers Bombing, as already quoted in this thread:
The point, I would argue, is not whether or not we’re going to classify these as terrorism or not. The point is that, simply, even without a nuclear weapon Iranian support of Hezbollah remains a threat to America and that their proven track record of directing Hezbollah to attack specific American targets should be cause for prudent concern over their intentions in continuing to fund, arm, train and given safe haven to Hezbollah. That Hezbollah also attacks other targets, even primarily focuses on other targets, do not change that they have a history of being ordered by Iran to attack Americans.
That is the important issue, saying that Iranian support for Hezbollah has nothing to do with America or that Iran has not attacked the United States is false. Equally false is that, realizing and recognizing that fact, instead of ignoring or denying it, automatically leads to war. If we cannot conduct an honest discussion of the issues for fear that honesty will lead to war, then we have a serious problem.
As I have stated, my position is that as long as Iran continues to arm, finance, train and give safe haven to Hezbollah, we should remain wary of their intentions. And that we should adopt a defensive posture. War is not a guaranteed consequence of correctly noting the truth or the facts. Our response to the truth, and to the facts, is our own to make.
When we reach the point that we have to pretend the truth isn’t true and that the facts aren’t facts, because we’re afraid of what some people will do with the truth and with the facts, then we’re abandoned any claim to any moral high ground or an honest appraisal of the situation.
Wanting to prevent war with Iran is a perfectly noble and laudable goal.
But not if it’s accomplished through such methods.
I think this is the only truly important bit of flotsam amid the deluge.
You argue that Iran remains “a threat to America” due to the Marine barracks and Khobar Towers bombings. Hezbollah takes orders from Iran, Hezbollah attacks Americans, ergo Iran is a threat to America.
It is not at all clear why this should be the case. The strategic objective of both attacks was to remove the US military presence from the affected area. In both cases, Hezbollah was successful and America withdrew. The attacks ceased. In fact, Hezbollah has a track record of success in driving democracies to yield territorial concessions.
If anything is going to be a “threat to America”, it is our continued military presence in a region where we know nothing and are clearly unwanted.
You might find this paper by Robert Pape interesting.
Nothing wrong with coming out out the closet – quite the opposite really – but how do you think that post makes King George feel after all these years of your unrequited indulgence? Betrayed and scorned would be my guess. Then again, who am I to get between a lover’s quarrel amongst people I’ve never met? Clearly none of my business. And I rather hope it stays that way…
…meanwhile, in The Real World:
You mean, for instance, other than proving that claims like “Iran has never attacked America” or “Iran has not engaged in military aggression” or “Iran hasn’t had Hezbollah attack America since the Marine Barracks Bombing” , made here and in other threads, are all untrue? I think that keeping the debate honest is important, even if most of what I prove may be handwaved away or ignored by some.
I’m not even going to begin to elaborate on how the NIE’s report, which many are now championing, states, with a higher degree of confidence than that Iran’s nuclear weapons program remains suspended, that they had an active nuclear weapons program until fall 2003.
I’m not exactly waiting on pins and needles for those who are saying that the report says “Iran does not have an ongoing nuclear weapons program” to also say “Gee, by the same logic, if I said, back in 2002 or some of 2003, that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, I was wrong. Iran really was working on nuclear weapons just a few years ago.”
Much like how I’m not exactly expecting a retraction of the claim that Iran stopped “seeking rapprochement” after the Axis of Evil speech. I don’t expect some people to acknowledge and correct factual errors in their claims.
I don’t have any faith that some of the people putting forward arguments in this thread are arguing with sufficient intellectual honesty to admit when they say things that are not true.
But I do have great faith in the peanut gallery.
And so I certainly feel that keeping this debate honest is important.
Anyways, more ‘deluge’.
No, to the first sentence, as it is a drastic oversimplification of what I have actually said and it ignores most the points I have made, and it is an oversimplification which focuses on the fact that I used two examples to illustrate a point as if those two examples were the point. I never said, anywhere, that Iran was a threat “due to” the Marine and Khobar bombings. Merely that they help illustrate why Iranian support for Hezbollah is a threat.
‘Kinda’ to the second, sorta.
I have argued that Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah represents a pattern, that Iran has not distanced themselves from them, has in fact continued to support them, even during times when they were attacking American civilians, and that as such they represent a threat. Direct control or orders are not necessary for Iran to threaten American lives by supporting Hezbollah.
Hezbollah represents a threat to America both because Iran may direct it to such ends, and because its leadership has clearly stated that they are enemies of America. When Nashrallah declared, in 2002: " Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: death to America."… it’s obviously not limited to troops.
Now, no matter how you slice that (mere ‘saber rattling’) or not, that’s a threat.
A nation that supports a group like that, continually, with weapons, training, finances and safe haven, obviously isn’t too interested in opposing such threats. More to the point, a state that continually supports a group like that can only be seen to endorse such threats. Never mind, of course, Iran’s own Death to America military parades. Something that, of course, some posters in this very thread will most likely perform semantic gymnastics to avoid calling a threat. (But I’m sure if Bush said that our official policy was “Death to Iran”, they’d say he was a warmonger, threatening Iran, yadda yadda yadda)
What support do you have for this claim?
Especially since, for instance, in the context of the Khobar Tower Bombing, a number of targets were cased, including numerous non-military targets, before the Towers were chosen as a final target due to their importance.
Noitice, the goal was to attack Americans, and American interests not necessarily American military targets. That an important American military target was found does not detract from the fact that numerous other targets were considered. Targeting American homes and businesses is rather odd if their goal was to get troops out of the nation.
As a matter of fact, actually, the indictment, based on roughly, as a conservative estimate, 400,000 of the FBI’s man-hours, said that the motive was " to expel the Americans from Saudi Arabia."
Note, not “American troops” but “Americans”. That Hezbollah planned attacks against “American interests” not specifically American military targets. That “the goal of the party was to target foreign interests, American in particular, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.” Targets cased included but were not limited to the US embassy, the homes of Americans, and a fish market which was frequented by Americans. At least one member was told he was going to be attacking, not a military target, but “an American housing complex”
Which is not to say that Iran’s support of terrorism was not influenced by a desire to drive American troops out of the region. Simply that they did not only want American troops out of the region. Nor is their history of support, military and otherwise, to groups like Al Quaeda and Hezbollah, support to groups whose goals are not limited to driving American troops out of the region. They also do not seem to be currently cooperating with Al Quaeda, and have indeed taken some steps to oppose them. But cooperating with Al Quaeda as late as 2001 is not indicitave of good intentions.
Now, I know that some folks, who abhor learning about an issue before trying to debate it, are already readying objections of “You evil neocon warmonger Zionist quisling, Iran had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Bush said that about Iraq and Al Quaeda, and since this situation seems similar, your claim is wrong!”
On Al Quaeda and Iran, from the 9/11 commission report:
From the same document, Bin Laden’s stated ideology was:
Notice, expelling the Americans without differentiating between soldier and civilian.
Nor was Bin Laden’s rhetoric divorced from actions, as in 1998 Al Quaeda bombed the US embassy in Kenya (not a Muslim nation) as well as Tanzania (a nation with a roughly equal percentage of Muslims and Christians).
Note that it was after that 1998 Fatwa, and the attacks on US embassies, that Iran was still attempting to collaborate with Al Quaeda. That was after Bin Laden’s clarification that he supported the murder of “any American, anywhere on earth” and that when he said “any” that he really did mean the he did not “differentiate between military or civilian.” And that “As far as we are concerned, they are all targets”
Rather hard for Iran to feign ignorance as to what their support would mean.
That they changed tunes, at least WRT Al Quaeda, after 9/11 may be because they object to AQ’s methodology, or some didn’t want to risk war with America after we set precedent with Afghanistan.
Also, equally interesting to the topic of this thread, the NIE report states as a solid judgment that Iran had a nuclear weapons program up to 2003. Now, what exactly caused them to stop is not clear. There may have been various internal pressures, to be sure… but we do know of two external pressures in 2003.
First, we rejected a trial balloon of a prototype offer of softening relations (as I’ve already described and cited, an offer whose ability of implementation on Iran’s side was most likely questionable at best).
Second… we started a war with Iraq.
Or as the NIE put it:
To head off any mouthbreathing-type distortions of my position here, *I am not saying that it was a good thing that we invaded Iraq * (I’ve already gone on record, numerous times, as being against the war), simply that Iran may very well have chosen to suspend its nuclear program in 2003, in part, because of the military consequences suggested by our invasion of Iraq. I am saying, as long as the goal here is to fight ignorance and be honest, (right?), that our stance in 2003 regarding Iran, coupled with our invasion of Iraq, may very well have contributed to Iran suspending their nuclear weapons program.
Again, to head off any mouthbreathing-type distortions of my position, I am not saying that we should adopt a stance whereby we make Iran think we might attack them. Merely noting, in the interest of looking at the NIE’s findings, that our actions in and before 2003 may very well have, at the time, contributed to the suspension of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
It also may have decided to end and/or suspend its support for Al Quaeda in 2001 due to our invasion of Afghanistan. Specifically, the 9/11 commission report (in chapter 7) says:
Further, on your suggestion that “it is our continued military presence” that is a “threat to America”… Saudi Arabia is not Iran’s territory, they don’t have much of a right to determine if we have troops there or not. Likewise, the presence of US peace keepers was requested by Lebanon. Surely you are not saying that we don’t have a right to military cooperation with any nations in the region (inside their own borders) that Iran does not approve of? You aren’t placing the blame for attacks on America instead of those initiating acts of aggression against American troops?
And, hopefully, you are not making the common mistake of not reading up on Hezbollah before talking about them? You know they were also involved in years of kidnapping, torturing and murdering Westerners? That they have bombed a US embassy a non-military target? They blew up a Jewish Community Center in Argentina, obviously also not only not a military target, but not connected with getting troops out of anywhere.
It is very hard to argue, honestly or accurately, that Iran’s support for terrorists is not a threat to us, nor is Iran making threats when they themselves drape “death to America” over their missiles." Now, that would **not rise to the level of an imminent threat, which would allow the application of Webster’s justification for a preemptive strike, that of “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.”
But a threat, sufficient to be on our guard, and adopt a defensive stance?
I suppose you could always argue that having a military parade with banners draped over the missiles that say “Death to America” isn’t something that would justify America thinking that Iran’s intentions might not be 100% peaceful.
…what?
America ended its participation in the multinational peacekeeping force in March 1984.
In September 1984, the US embassy was bombed.
It wasn’t until 1991 that the last US hostages were freed. In December of 1991.
One, Terry Anderson, was taken hostage in 1985.
The other, Joseph Cicippio, was taken hostage in 1986.
Would you care to retract your claim that the attacks ceased?
So despite the fact that we were invited by both Lebanon and Suadi Arabia, we were unwanted?
Being in a nation where we are invited is a “threat” to us, and not the fact that Iran directed Hezbollah to attack us because we were in nations that invited us?
Isn’t is Iran’s responsibility for attacking us, not our responsibility for being in a sovereign nation that invited us?
And do you honestly think we “know nothing” about the region, or is that just some overblown rhetoric?
And while I’m at it, should we make other foreign policy decisions this way? If terrorist organizations will attack us, does that mean that we accept their demands?
What point are you making with that cite?
I’m not even sure what you’re using it to suggest, if it has information I do not already possess or if it would actually interest me.
And I’m not going to browse a 19 page PDF in order to puzzle that out.
I think that the Bush-adm. hard line agaist Iran have more to do with geo-politics and less with nuklear weapons. USA want’s to dominate that region (mostly because of the oil) and Iran is an obstacle for their goal.
It’s rather reminiscent of the end of a fight scene in a Bruce Lee movie.
FinnAgain is standing with his shirt ripped off, breathing deeply. Surrounding him are hordes of extras, clutching their heads, ribs, and groins, moaning softly on the ground or lying motionless.
From somewhere under the shattered heaps comes a half-muffled groan.
Well John, winning or losing one of these kinds of debates is purely subjective and has a lot to do with your baseline assumptions. If your baseline assumption is that Iran is no threat (zero) threat to the US then you will perceive this debate in a certain way…if your baseline assumption is that Iran DOES pose a strategic threat to the US in the region, then you will look at things differently.
While Finn was handicapped by my own efforts, I have to say that your side had both 'luci AND Redfury on it…so, the secondary players were kind of a wash. Over all I think Finn presented more actual data (woofa) to support his own take on things, while I thought (as always) that Ravenman made some excellent points (with an always welcome special guest appearance from Tamerlane with some good info).
As always, I learned a lot in this thread and it made me re-think some of my own positions slightly. I think declaring victory on either side however says more about your own baseline assumptions and bias than it does about reality…and it’s not something I would have expected from you.