All destabalization would do is make them even more religious.
The irony is that Iran was slowly trending away from theocracy until we invaded Iraq.
[shrug] They might not be good people, but they’ll leave us alone because that’s their only option. We might attack them; they can’t attack us. That won’t change if and when they have nukes.
The chief problem I have with this sort of crisis-situation rhetoric is that it misled us (well, some of us) so catastrophically the last time. I can’t help comparing it with some of the opinions from the same sources a few years back:
Back then too, Evil One, you were focusing intensely on the perceived threat and evil intent of our anti-American opponent—in that case, Iraq rather than Iran. And AFAICT, you focused so intensely on those perceived dangers that it made you over-optimistic about the potential consequences of our own reactions.
You assumed that once we had tackled the visible threat we had essentially solved the problem. You largely overlooked the issue of whether we might end up producing a situation that was as bad as, or even worse than, the threat we had set out to destroy.
I think this was a mistake on your part back then, and it seems to me from what you’re saying here that you’re making the same mistake now.
History tells us the opposite is much more likely to happen. When economies fail, people clamor for strong leadership, not democracy.
The following is a question free of sarcasm, Kimstu.
What would you do about Iran if you were to take over as president tomorrow?
Like they did in Cuba? Or pre-invasion Iraq? Or North Korea?
Seriously, can you point me to an example of this strategy actually working?
You couldn’t have found an MSM source for that…you had to go with what is obviously a propaganda piece putting as sinister a spin on it as possible?
The US almost ALWAYS has a fleet in the gulf. If we were moving to invade, I would think that we’d need more than 17,000 people (about the number, last time I checked, to actually man the fleet elements). :rolleyes:
-XT
I can’t answer for Kimstu, but for my part, I would reach out and try to improve relations, starting with the offer: “We’ll apologize for Operation Ajax if you’ll apologize for the hostage crisis.”
We should all listen to Scott Ritter. It’s a long interview, yes, but also the best summary I’ve found of Ritter’s views on Iran outside of his recently released book. There’s also some youtube clips if you’re really interested; he’s a great speaker.
Ritter knows what he’s talking about when it comes to nuclear energy, weapons, and the ME. He got Iraq right from day one. He tried to prevent war with Iraq and not enough people listened. He has Bush and Clinton’s numbers, explaining their motivations. And now he’s been doing the same with Iran for about two years because he’s seen the ominous signs from the U.S. Let’s all listen this time around, hmmm?
Iran, as a signatory of the NPT, has every right to enrich uranium under article 4. It’s in Iran’s vital interests to have nuclear power. We should be working with the IAEA and Iran to make sure everything is accounted for and in tip top shape, not going along with our stupid goals of regime change and regional transformation. If Iran is our enemy and wants to harm us (which, as Ritter explains rather well, is a dubious proposition) then we should hold them close so we know what they’re doing, instead of lashing out in the dark like blind moles.
Why do anything at all other than to ensure we are fully prepared to defend ourselves against an attack from Iran? What do we do about other nations we are not on the best of terms with? The Russia’s and China’s of the world? We keep tabs on them, and we ensure that we can defend ourselves against an attack. That is what we should do with Iran.
I, for one, am utterly sick and tired of this climate of fear engendered from ideology rather than practicalism. Let’s assume the Iranians are lying through their teeth - that they are, indeed, going to make nuclear weapons as soon as possible. What are they going to do with them? Nuke Norfolk? In the certain knowledge that 20 minutes later Teheran will be nothing but a glowing glaze? They’re not that crazy.
Here’s one from Reuters.
In addition to John Mace’s point, there is the additional reality that by naming Iran as evil, those Iranians who were tepid topward the U.S. were pushed into the “oppose the U.S.” camp, those who were opposed to the U.S. havd a visible excuse to condemn the U.S., and those who favored the U.S. were put in the position of being branded “traitors” (much the way that those in the U.S. who opposed the Iraq invasion were branded), making opposition to the theocrats more difficult.
Disrupting their economy (as if they would not already know who was behind it) would hardly make them more eager to oppose the theocrats. (This was the exact error that Saddam Hussein made when he attacked Iran, believing that the country was so disrupted that they would fold in front of him and that they would refuse to support the theocrats. They are patriots of their nation and they will rally behind their government when it is foolishly attcked with cries of “Axis of Evil” or as the U.S. has done when it has been attacked.)
Couldn’t agree more. I’m sure there is a great need for intelligence gathering and such…but other than that? Leave them be I say. If the DO anything…THEN hammer the shit out of them. In the mean time, simply let them know that said hammer will decend on said head if they fuck with us…and then let them go their own way for gods sake!
All this BS posturing is probably having the effect of extending their governments life time beyond what it would have been.
And of course, if you are going to do this kind of stupid shit anyway, then for gods sake make sure you have some kind of operational security so that THEY don’t know about it…along with the rest of the world and probably the odd space alien just checking in. Sheesh…
-XT
Do you see the difference in the story?
-XT
Hussein was also counting on Arab nationalism – one of his stated pretexts for the war was to “liberate” the Arabs of the (oil-rich) Iranian province of Khuzestan from Persian rule. But even that didn’t work; perhaps the Arabs really did self-identify as “Iranians,” or perhaps they simply decided the Iranian theocracy was the lesser of two evils.
Not by much. Reuters calls it a “show of force.” Still pretty sinister.
If thats seriously the only difference you see in the two articles…well, I can’t help you BG. You are on your own. 
BTW, its clearly a move to use the Navy for what it was designed for…to rattle their cage a bit. Doubtful, despite the hushed tones you used to announce the move, that it will come to any kind of ACTUAL attack. And if it did, it would consist entirely of air strikes (or the patented Clinton tomahawk chop).
Lets just hope that the administration isn’t stupid enough to do more than rattle their cage. I’m sure the Iranians, despite the bold words, are actually hoping the same thing…
-XT
None yet, the spies haven’t successfully destabilized Iran enough to cause a crisis. It’s what we’d do if we ever fought back.
It’d be like on South Park, “Watch out Ned, their coming right for us?”
Then we’d hear all about some plans to Nuke Israel, funding to Hezbollah through Syria, Revolutionary Guard providing weapons to Shia terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, yadda yadda yadda.
If a war happens expect the Iranians to sink a bunch of ships in places where it would be difficult to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. They might sink a carrier, and we’d stoneage them by hitting all their vital infrastructure over the course of a week.
Remember, I am not saying that this will happen, I am saying that if something happens it would likely be this way without a subsequent invasion.
Actually in all fairness, since the last time they stabilized their country. We destabilized it under Mossadegh and put in the Shah. We toppled a Democracy to put in a Monarchy.