So, are you agreeing that Iran does have a desire to attack us indirectly?
got proof of that, december (and other than “GW” sez so)?
AFAIAC, there’s only one proven type of “weapons of mass destruction”, and they’re nuclear weapons. So far, nobody’s demonstrated the capability of inflicting more harm with bio/chem weapons than with conventional bombing. But nukes are a whole different story. And the one thing we really should want to do is prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to a whole bunch of second-tier countries.
The more countries - particularly the more unstable countries - that have The Bomb, the more likely that the 58-year interregnum on use of nukes will come to an end. This is hardly the Doomsday Clock ticking, but still, it’s something that the US, the EC, the UN - anyone in a position to be the Good Guys for a moment or two - should be working hard to prevent. Because once one country breaks the ice, it won’t be nearly as long before a second follows. And a third. And so on.
There’s no question but that Iran is really close to being able to produce a nuclear warhead, if they choose to do so. The only country that’s any closer would be North Korea, if they’re not already there.
We certainly should have a plan in place for levelling Iran’s nuclear program, to the point where they have to start it over from scratch. And we should be ready to use it if our leaders - even that numskull in the White House and his buddies - deem that that’s the safest course.
But it would have been a hell of a lot easier to get the world with us on the nonproliferation bandwagon, if that had been our focus to begin with. Our adventure in Iraq has completely eroded our credibility here; it would now be seen as simply an excuse for more adventurism.
And then or now, our best bet is still to begin with diplomacy, and to hope for positive change from within Iran. If the democrats take control from the mullahs, then we’d have a pro-Western Iranian government with nukes, and they might be persuaded to part with them voluntarily.
But looking at it from their POV, I can understand why they’d legitimately want nukes now. We’ve demonstrated a willingness to go where we want, and do what we want. Nukes are the ultimate “beware of dog” sign on the gate. WE have shown that we don’t respect anything but force: see us stay away from the military option on the Korean peninsula? If I were in charge of an Islamic country right now, you bet I’d want The Bomb.
The war in Iraq has made things worse, not better, with respect to combatting nuclear proliferation. And that stinks.
Where’s Pakistan on the radar?
The folks who helped create the Taliban, trained Osama bin Laden and who actually have nuclear weapons.
What are the actual benefits of having the US monkey w/ a ME gov?
Is there any example of where we got involved and actually made anything better in any long term sense?
Because oil pollutes and is a limited resource. Diversifying one’s resources is always a good idea.
[slight Hijack] Airman, you work with Navy CTI’s while you’re deployed? I’m a CTM ( I fix the equipment the rest of the Naval Intelligence community uses) [/hijack]
Incidently, I saw this coming along time ago, once he started naming nations. That said, I think Iran should be handled in a much different manner than that of Iraq, or even North Korea. North Korea should just be boxed up and kept there.
Simon X, quoting from the BBC:
Notice the date on that story. The Shah died in July. The hostages were released immediately after President Reagan was sworn in in January. We knew ahead of time that it was about to happen. At the time the media seemed to understand that Iran waited until Carter was officially out of office so that he would not get credit for the release – as punishment for not negotiating.
My students and I watched the Inaugration on TV. I remember sending word to the office when the hostages were released during the ceremony. The announcement of their release came to all classes came over the intercom.
I hear Godwin’s Law tossed about as if it were stupid to learn anything from what happened in Nazi Germany. If the Germans had organized and protested more when Jews were first beginning to lose their freedoms, then maybe the war in Europe would never have happened.
elucidator, I feel your “Paine.” I am not only angry, but also frightened and sickened by what I am seeing and hearing.
I wonder if the non-situation with Iran has anything to do with the Presidential request for Congress to explore (research) the redevelopment of A-bombs, now called mini-nukes.
Briefly then
Slogans are wonderful. Nice and simple.
His various claims do not match what I read. This also in response to december, although that is rather wasted on him:
(a) While it appears independently verified and accepted there are al-Qaeda in Iran, their status is unclear. Our dear author’s shrill portrait of an al-Qaeda working arm in arm with the Iranian Gov goes far beyond anything I have heard. I note for the record this same passel of folks were shrieking about Iraq in the same context. If you want to buy his stringing together fact and rumor as if it were solidily verified… well go right ahead.
(b) To my knowledge, the al-Qaeda-Iranian cell linkages have been asserted as suspicion, in part by the Saudis. I note for the record that the Iranians and Saudis have little love lost --the Wahhabis treat their Shiite minority atrociously, and of course the US says little I may add, but Iran steps up to the plate there, for both real solidarity and for power reasons. Saudis also have a long standing habit of pointing the finger for such actions outside the Kingdom. I am highly suspicious of such claims, above all when the fall intocertain US and Suadi political factions convenient political agenda.
© The characterizations of Iran-Iraq shiite relations are tenditiousHis easy characterizations of returning Shiites to Iraq as “Iranian” agents. Nice, wonderful. Ignores centuries of Shiite refuge taking back and forth between Iraq and Iran. Of course the Shiites who sheltered in Iran are going to be largely favorably disposed towards Iran – they got support there when we were happily supporting a chemical weapons using Saadam. Iranian agents? Some may fit the proper definition of the word agent, and directly and actually working for Iranian account. A larger percentage seem to me to be operating in natural sympathy of religous confreres. It is convenient for our dear neocon and fellow travelling fools to try to explain how their rosy vision of the Shiites welcoming US forces went so badly wrong by blaming it on "foreign agitators’ but hardly in accord with the reality I hear on the ground. I may further add that as in Afghanistan, it is entirely natural that Iran be looking to its interests. For those of you who recall, the US also made noises about that, and the collusion of the Governor of Herat, Ismail Khan. Well, he’s still in place, so is Iranian influence. Real realpolitik means understanding and dealing with rational interests on a rational basis.
(In re Khan see : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1809368.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2535261.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2117750.stm )
(d) Iranian nuclear program: here again I believe we have chicken little shrieking and exageration. Of course the Iranians are and will work towards having a nuclear capacity. If there is a single lesson from the Iraq war so far from them, it is North Korea is untouched, Iraq is under the boot. A further correlary is that the ideologues who wanted the invasion were willing to distort and exagerate, and possibly fabricate evidence to support a case. Neither of these lessons are helpful.
(e) Iranian opposition: our dear little neocon expert pimps a vision of Iranian anti-governmental feeling that confounds opposing the conservatives with desiring American interference in domestic affairs.
If he can back it up, let him. Otherwise I consider this in the same domain as the ‘evidence’ december was shrieking about that Iraq was months away from a nuclear weapon.
Yes, well that is the article’s aim – to get the echo chamber bleaters to bleat.
No, they have not. So the fuck what? Israel is a nation, not a subset of the United States. It is emphatically not in the US national interest to confuse that.
However, actual Iranian policy behaviour has been rational to date. They have restrained the Lebanese Hizbullah after its victory of sorts over the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the northern frontier with Lebanon has been pretty quiet since 2000, ex Chebaa’ Farms, a disputed territory btw Israel, Syria and Lebanon.
Nuclear proliferation never bodes well for anyone. However, how to deal with it is another matter.
May be harboring by some elements of Iran. Hardly a potential powder keg, you have a habit of getting carried away with stupid rhetoric.
As for the issues of the Iranian economy: there are lots of problems with the Iranian economy, including some inherited from the Shah era and exacerbated by early Iranian revolutionary commitment to State ownership (which existed under the Shah as well mind you). Corruption is a serious issue. These are issues common to the region.
The Iranian government also spends heavily on defence and FP goals. Pious posturing about “not going to the people” is just that. States have interests, they will pursue them. The Shah, our good buddy, spent heavily on weapons, and any successor state to the Islamic Republic, should there be one, will spend heavily on weapons. They don’t live in motherfuckiung Kansas after all, now do they?
Now, it is entirely in US interests and good policy to engage in a combined policy of engagement (to encourage evolution away from the radicalism of the 1980s) and containment (warning on fucking around while carefully accepting legit state interests, as in the case of what has evolved in Afghanistan, where the Iranians have not been unhelpful to US interests and have been rational actors in large part).
Their economy is typical to the region, not a train wreck but a broken down train. Exageratting and chest beating on this does not lead to accurate ideas.
Bloody emotionalism and chicken little shrieking is not the way to develop good policy.
I further note that given the situation in Iraq, Rumsfeld’s admission there may not be NBCs and generally poor performance in this area to date, this is not an ideal time for US credibility nor a time to engage in ill informed adenturism, which is what that benighted piece of shit article argues for.
Radical elements in the Iranian apparatus do.
They are not in control, but subject to rational actors. One can see this in the context of Lebanon, for it the radicals were in the driver’s seat, they would be fucking with Israel’s northern border. That is not the case. Further illustration is had through the careful game of chess and cooperation played by Iranian interests in Afghanistan.
The leadership has a clear interest in countering US influence in the region, on its borders. This interest is in many respects completely independent of the nature of the Iranian regime.
The Iranian regime for the past decade, since the bloody Iran-Iraq war, has largely acted as a rational state actor. State interests, national Iranian ones rule, colored obviously in their analysis by their religious POV.
The shrieking otherwise is just that, shrieking.
A rational and careful modus vivendi based on clear lines (carrot and stick) in re Iran is the best policy - begining to fuck around in domestic politics simply increases the risk of discrediting an already viable and peaceful opposition movement, or worse, turning them against the US by raising the specter of our Mossedegh fucking around. Few but the pampered Cali-Exile Shah connected elite Persians look to that episode with any degree of fondness.
It is self-indulgant ideological whanking to engage in this line of policy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zoe *
I hear Godwin’s Law tossed about as if it were stupid to learn anything from what happened in Nazi Germany. If the Germans had organized and protested more when Jews were first beginning to lose their freedoms, then maybe the war in Europe would never have happened.
[QUOTE]
Your words, sweetheart, but aparently you are too stupid to learn anything from what happened in Nazi Germany. #1, By and large, the German people of the time supported scapegoating the Jews for a variety of reasons that I’m not going to get into here. Saying “Hey, if the majority of the population had changed their ingrained attitudes 180 degrees, things might have been different” is possibly true but certainly pointless. #2, The one thing that COULD have contained Nazi expansionism was a more determined and forceful response by the rest of Europe. If France and England had backed Czechoslovakia with military force, Hitler would likely have backed down. German armies poured into Poland with orders to be ready to pull back if France moved against Germany agressively. France did not. Years of allowing Germany to get away with “small thing” after “small thing” are what paved the way for WWII, a fact that the apeasement crowd would do well to remember.
All this has nothing to do with Iran, of course. I just hate inaccurate history. Collunsbury has, as usual, put his finger on the issue once again. If you slog through all of the excess information where Collunsbury is busy showing us all how smart he is, you’ll notice the following two paragraphs:
So far there is nothing other that the frothing tizzy people like DTC are in to indicate that U.S. policy is going to be any different. Iran has sown a willingness to work with the U.S. recently, and we have been happy to work with them, somethig that was blatently not true with Iraq. When the U.S. starts deploying forces specifically to face Iran and refuses to talk with their government anymore, then I’ll start to worry. Until then, what we have here is political posturing, nothing more.
Oh, and Collunsbury, I think you may be underestimating the golden oportunity for infilterating agents into Iraq that the current situation offers. The Savak was brutal and sadistic but not inefficient, and Iran’s current intelegence community is built upon that base. I’d be amazed if they weren’t slipping agents inside Iraq as fast as they could get their cover documents printed. I think that baring the Israelies, Iran has the best intelegence community in the Middle East and to underestimate them would be a grave mistake.
I think the latter fact is more important than the former. They may not be two months away from testing a nuke, but they’re probably not three years or more away either, if they so choose. See this Christian Science Monitor article from last June.
Indeed. And the USA’s recent threats to go nuclear against Iraq and other potential (non-nuclear) troublemakers reinforces that lesson too, according to a former official in the Brazilian government, who’s not even talking about the Middle East, but about nuclear proliferation in general:
You and others have made a habit of talking about appeasement around here on Iraq and the Middle East, Dave, and quite frankly I’ve had it up to here with the term being used as if it actually means something in this context.
Now, what-all does it mean? Sure, you were a history major and all, but I’m sure this board is chock-full of present and former history majors. Hell, I was one for awhile before I switched to math.
So, who is this ‘appeasement crowd’? What does their ‘appeasement’ consist of? Let’s see you take the Neville Chamberlain word out of the 1930s, and make it make any sense at all in the context of the Middle East. I say it has no applicability at all, and I’m ready to argue it. Let’s rumble.
RT, if you’re going to argue that the legions of people screaming out against the war with Iraq, yelling that we need to “give the U.N Inspectors more time” or “We have no right to try an remove Saddam from power” or “We can only move when other countries tell us we can move” isn’t the very dictionary definition of appeasement :
Then I suggest that you are severly divorced from reality, probobly stuck in a mythical 60s that never existed. “Like, wow, man, we were against the Viet Nam War because it was so evil man, and we made a difference”. Revisionist poppycock. Bottom line: Those folks who were against the war in Iraq all favored strategies that prolonged Saddam’s hold on power one way or another and were willing to do anything to maintain “peace”. ( For themselves, forget the millions that SH tortured and killed, guess they aren’t worth “peace” ) That’s "granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace " no matter how you slice it.
wow, cheif, too bad that WASN’T THE FUCKING ARGUMENT, IT WAS WMD, WHICH WE’VE FOUND SHIT OF! If you love life so much, why aren’t we invading NORTH KOREA, RWANDA, SOMOLIA, IVORY COAST, SUDAN, PALESTINE, CUBA, or dozens of other oil-poor countries. guess they aren’t worth “peace”
In closing, where are the WMD? Where is Saddam? Where is Osama? When will you climb down from your moral Ivory Tower and realize your fear is being used to justify invasions based on ZERO evidence?
In what way was continuing the inspections process a “policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.” ? There was no concession involved, merely a disinclination to go apeshit over the overblown accusations of a pack of fear-blinded ideologues.
Wow, there’s a couple of intelegent arguements that I think really deserve my thoughtful reply.
Oh, wait, no they’re not, they’re spittle-laced hysterical rantings. Nevermind.
Congratulations, Dave, you have just rendered the term meaningless. That’s like saying to someone, “I’ll concede to let you live,” and calling that “appeasement.” All I can say is, what a crock.
Because by that definition, we are currently appeasing Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Burma, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and who knows who-all else. They are all potential enemies, and we are conceding that we shouldn’t violate their sovereignty and whatnot.
And you’ll notice that a few of these places - hell, all of them - are high up in the ‘being nasty to their own people’ column. And since you seem to be of the view that if we allow any such regime to live, we’re appeasing them, we’d better get a move on.
And every country on the globe is an apeaser like us. Ditto every country that ever existed.
It’s kinda like Lib’s use of ‘tyrannical’, which similarly applies to every existing government, hence becomes meaningless.
However, if you understand ‘granting concessions’ to mean ‘giving them (or letting them take) something that they didn’t already have’, then we’d have been appeasers if we’d let Saddam hang onto Kuwait back in 1991. But in the current situation, we ‘appeasers’ didn’t want to offer Saddam jack that he didn’t already have.
Sure, Saddam was evil. But we ‘appeasers’ noticed that there was no plan for the aftermath of the war: maybe the Iraqi people would be better off after we kicked Saddam out of there, and maybe not.
Now, with marauding gangs roaming the streets of Baghdad, with women being afraid to so much as step outside their doors, and with our trying to maintain order in a country the size of California with only 200,000 troops who don’t even speak the language and are in no position to know who’s who, while we refuse help from the UN, who exactly is ‘severely divorced from reality’?
I give you a clue, pal: it ain’t us ‘appeasers’. It’s you “Like wow, man, once we get rid of Saddam, everything will be peace and love and harmony, and we’ll have a big Middle East group hug” neo-idiots. When we’re still unable to extricate ourselves from Iraq in 2007 (or when we’ve done so, and the rulers of Iraq - if any, and that’s the genuinely scary part - are simply another rather nasty bunch), we’ll talk about this again, over a beer or three. Maybe the juke box will have “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”
Collounsbury, if Iran has not abandoned its stated desire for the destruction of Israel, it is difficult to see where Israel itself may not make a preemptive strike against Bushehr just as they did with Iraq’s Osiraq facility. Until Iran vocally adopts a policy that renounces such ill intentions, I do not see how they can be regarded as anything but a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. I would appreciate your feedback on this particularly inbred regional issue.
RTFirefly’s cited CSM article mentions how Russia has refrained from providing Iran with critical high speed gas centrifuge technology. I have read in other articles that Iran is already in possession of gas centrifuges and is one step away from beginning weapons grade extraction of nuclear material. According to the article I read, weapons inspectors are aware of the existence of these centrifuges and it is only the fact that inert gas alone has been used to test them that allows Iran to remain in compliance. The moment any uranium hexafluoride gas flows through those machines Iran will be in direct violation of proliferation statutes. What information do you have about this that can be shared?
If Iran is in possession of these centrifuges, it instantly refutes any claims upon their part that the Bushehr facility is solely for power generation. The CSM article also mentioned how Russia was unwilling to provide Iran with sensitive laser isotope processing information as well. All of this points to a nuclear weapons program and puts the lie to Iranian claims to the contrary. I fail to see how dissembling on this grand a scale permits one to disregard the very real possibility of a completed device falling into terrorist hands. While we would have the ability to trace the precise isotope composition to their reactor and justify a nuclear strike against Iran, all of this would be antecedent to America having been stuck with a nuclear device. If you think 9-11 damaged our economy, imagine how the complete anihilation of New York or Washington would affect our nation. I feel that these are unacceptable risks to take if a preemptive strike against Bushehr will put a halt to it.
That Shrub and his gang have so thoroughly crippled America’s credibility over the Iraq issue is disgusting beyond words. It now makes any intelligence we can evolve about Iran highly suspect, despite our having one of the finest intelligence networks, bar none. The current administration’s renewed interest in low yield atomics is nothing short of a goad to all opponents to begin weapons programs of their own. Even more recent blather of “negation” of low earth orbital space for foes and allies alike leads me to assume that crack is being smoked in the oval office.
Collounsbury, I would also appreciate your insights about Saudi Arabia. I have long maintained that they are the worst sort of friend America could have. Despite their oil and willingness to have our military bases on Saudi soil, they have secretly continued to pay blackmail, if not direct support to terrorist groups. The Wahabbist sect in their nation is nearly tantamount to a terrorist group itself. I realize how precarious the House of Saud’s position is right now. I fully believe that they have painted themselves into a corner with their corruption and policy of fundamentalist appeasement in order to remain in power. Do you think that Saudi Arabia is at risk of imploding? What ramifications do you foresee for the region should this happen? Is their any way of disentangling Saudi Wahabbists from their nation’s unique role as gatekeeper for the Haj? Is there any sort containment possible for the virulent brand of Islamic fundamentalism being spread by them?
Looking at the nightmare that is post-Taleban Afghanistan, I dread to think what our “democratic” experiment in Iraq will lead to. Do you foresee any sort of “coalition” government being formed that will deter drift toward Theocratic rule? Also, what is your own estimation of Theocratic rule? The routine crop of fanatics that are bred up by these flawed alloys of church and state give me the heebie jeebies. However much I feel that democracy is a fundamental human right, I am not prepared to foist that upon the world right now. Yet, I am beginning to feel as though Theocratic rule so often results in severe human rights violations that it has outlived any usefulness to humanity. I realize this is an ethnocentrically based observation. Were I a Muslim, I might feel that a religiously ordained government might be a good thing. I just cannot comprehend how any enlightened individuals are willing to trade off intense repression of personal freedoms (especially for women) in favor of having some sort of religiously sanctioned government. Please illuminate on this if you feel so inclined.