Ah by ‘three way’ I should have also perhaps been clearer. The US and Israel would be allies of course but Israel isn’t under the control of the Americans. The Israeli’s cannot to stopped by Washington from acting although considerable pressure can be heaped upon them. If Israel really decides it needs to do something, it will.
I also wouldn’t be too sure about Iran’s attitude toward mutual destruction nor it’s attitude towards its own citizens. Iran’s Ayatollah’s are heads of a Shiite martyrdom cult. Half a million Iranians were killed in the war with Iraq, it doesn;t value it’s own citizens too highly except under the terms of it’s own religious viewpoint. They sent children in their thousands to march into mine fields to clear them. I’ve read reports that say 100,000 of them though I can’t find a reliable cite for the numbers. Cite for the mine field story: Matthias Küntzel: Ahmadinejad's Demons
I actually also doubt that Iran wants to invite nuclear weapons to rain down on it. But nuclear stand off can mean brinkmanship which is the tactic that Khrushchev used so brilliantly (and dangerously) when he initiating the Cuban Missile Crisis. Brinkmanship games with a nuclear-armed Iran is not a good future for the world.
I only came to the opinion in my OP earlier today and have been ruminating on it for a few hours. I’m interested to hear what others say because it would be nice to be wrong about this!
America’s actions have been more than enough to spark such a race, even if Iran vanished tomorrow.
America has been the enemy of Iran since before the present “regime” existed. Their quest for nuclear weapons is just the latest excuse. At most, it adds urgency just because if they do get nukes we’ll largely be forced to use actual diplomacy with them.
I didn’t say Iran was actually threatened by the U.S.
I am not saying Iran is actually being threatened* by the U.S. and Israel. I do think the Iranian government wants to neutralize the threat of military action against them.
*Bush’s implied “Axis of Evil” threats notwithstanding even though they played a large part in starting this.
Possibility of war with Iran reminded me of a part of the Eisenhower- farewell address to the nation speech. Even back in 1961 this kind of thing was being warned against by an outgoing american president and war hero.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, either sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
This kind of nonsense doesn’t clarify matters. Iran’s mullahs and ayatollahs were revolutionaries 30-odd years ago and now a lot of them are old men who want to hold on to power and keep things the way they are. They’re not in a big hurry to die.
Ah, so they are seeking to “deter US threats” against them much as my Magical, Dragon Repelling Rock repels dragons. Fair enough.
Speaking of which, dragons can really mess up your house/car/wife. I’m offering a firesale: no shipping and handling on any order of five or more MDRR’s.
I’m not playing this game. I think Iran wants to make sure no one can threaten them (however empty that threat is), and nuclear weapons would do that. Meanwhile I think your analysis is pretty good and it raises the ugly possibility of Iran and Israel acting like India and Pakistan have been.
Have and dragons shown up recently and made threats against you? Have any recently destroyed your neighbors because they didn’t have anti-dragon rocks? Because that would have to be so for your analogy to work.
Iran has been funneling weapons to the Taliban to be used against us so we’re already at war with them at some level. So the question as I see it is at what level are we willing to engage in. Should we support dissidents in the country with the CIA? Funnel weapons to militants inside Iran? Destroy their nuclear research program?
As I see it there is sufficient discord among Iranians to bring the government down from within. That’s just a function of time. The only question is whether we should support efforts to keep them from building nuclear weapons before that happens.
What game?
I thought you just agreed that Iran wants to “deter US threats” but that you “didn’t say Iran was actually threatened by the U.S.” Do you or do you not agree that Iran is not currently being threatened by the US with military action?
The statement was in the context of a Cold War. That’s not the kind of “war” he’s asking if people would support. But like I said, if it makes you feel better, show me where all this serious talk in the US is coming from. I don’t see it.
Let’s be clear. The OP is talking about a war with Iran, not a so-called surgical strike.
Re-read the OP. He’s talking about:
The question is: do you support a full-on Iraq-style invasion war, by a UN[SC] sanctioned coalition. If the Israelis want to go it alone in a war with Iraq, they can knock themselves out doing so. But that’s a topic for a different thread than this one.
Nonsense; any replacement government would be just as much our enemy* unless it was a puppet government, and popular revolution won’t produce that puppet for us. We were the enemy of Iran before the present regime, we will most likely continue to be its enemy after the present regime unless we - not them - change.
*Even if it didn’t start out that way; our own attitude and behavior insures it.
And and by the way, Obama refusing to rule out military action against Iran made me realise how close we are to this becoming a genuine issue. This combined with a British cabinet minister today who previously had been quoted a couple of years ago as saying that war with Iran was “inconceivable” was today asked if he stood by those words on a television debate. He simply said “I’ve no comment to make.” I think it’s seriously being talked about by our politicians. It’s probably because they want to use it as a threat to make Iran comply with various requests and to back up the EUs sanctions newly imposed this week. But once you imply a threat, it’s a slippery slope from there. Maybe this is being talked about more in Europe than in the US: for instance there’s an anti Iran war protest outside the US embassy in London tomorrow.
I’ve worked in the media for over a decade: I know how to read between the lines of a story, and I reckon this’ll be the only news in town by the summer. Again, hope I’m wrong.
BTW, America has been building up its forces in the Gulf, and the USS Abraham Lincoln is on it’s way to join other forces already positioned there. That’s not the sign of an imminent strike I’m sure, but it is a sign of the US moving it’s pieces into tactically wise positions to give the President some better options should the need arise…
I don’t think Iran is being threatened with military action. I think Iran wants to make sure it can’t credibly be threatened because nuclear weapons are a strong deterrent to invasions and other military action.
Obama has been saying that since he took office, and Bush said it for several years, too. It is not close to being a real issue - it’s bluster, and it’s really the only possible position to take if you’re a government that doesn’t want Iran to have nukes.
That would be my assumption too considering the toys that turn up in the strangest of places.
how many governments have fallen in that area of the world in the last 2 years? I’ve lost count. If I pick up the paper tomorrow and Syria is added to the list I wouldn’t be remotely surprised.
You may be right. I’m not going to second guess what they believe. I’ve no doubt they’d be deep in bunkers should the shit hit the fan. Is a young extremist more of a danger than an old extremist? You could argue both ways I reckon.
Again, I’d imagine that Iran would not just launch nukes and happily wait for retaliation. I’m worried that we’d get a Cold War scenario which could in turn lead to disaster, although I wouldn’t rule the former sort of disaster out. The fact is, there’s a ton of conjecture here and I guess that makes it all the more scary.
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
You say you would support a war if they closed the straits. They threaten to close the straits in retaliation for escalating sanctions. You also support imposing sanctions. This seems to be the current state of mind for the U.S. government and it seems conflicting to me.
[/QUOTE]
I support sanctions because I think they work and are the lesser of two evils wrt this situation. They are certainly escalating tensions between the US, Europe and Iran. Price of doing business. If Iran CHOOSES to take it up a notch and attempt to close the straights then that is their choice…and they will have to pay the consequences for that choice.
Conversely, Iran could easily avoid ever increasing sanctions by simply fully opening up their nuclear program to UN inspections and fully complying with the NNPT, a treaty they signed. Contrary to what Der Trihs says, if Iran decided not to be so aggressively contrary, and would instead join with much of the rest of the world, they would have zero to fear from the US. Saudi isn’t scrambling to build or acquire nuclear weapons, afaik, in the stark fear that the US is going to go rogue and invade them to swipe their oil. Neither is Belgium. Iran would have nothing to fear either if they decided to cooperate and play nice. They CHOOSE not to, at least thus far…so, that’s where those sanctions come into play. To me this is the best and most optimal path the US and Europe can take to TRY and prevent or at least delay Iran getting nukes.
How do you know our intelligence has been unable to uncover proof? What constitutes proof? Are you privy to it? Would you believe it if, say, the CIA came out tomorrow and said they have such proof? Based on the UN’s own findings I’d say the odds are relatively balanced that Iran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons.
That said, regime change is certainly a possibility, given the increasing pressures on the Iranian state and it’s government, especially with this new set of sanctions. It’s easily solvable for the Iranians, however…if they really aren’t trying to build nukes they simply have to open up their nuclear program to full UN inspection and strive to meet the UN (not the US’s) compliance issues. If they did that, regardless of how evil you might believe the US to be, Europe would certainly back off of their sanctions and normalize relations with Iran…and US sanctions (which I don’t for a moment believe we’d maintain in the face of a fully open Iran) would be pretty much meaningless. It’s the European sanctions that are really hurting Iran…they have gotten used to a lack of trade ties to the US.
