The Iran Controversy

[Lief Erikson]

Something new has happened in the Iran nuclear controversy that I felt like bringing up. Discussion of the nuclear controversy can be done in this thread, as well as other discussion of the Iranian state, its politics and such.

Originally Posted by The Scotsman News

Ahmadinejad said Iran's enemies had learned a lesson from the eight-year war during which Iran and Iraq fought each other to a standstill and hundreds of thousands were killed.

"Iran's enemies understood that the nation is very serious in defending the country's security, integrity, and the achievements of the [1979 Islamic] revolution," he said.

As in previous years the highlight of the parade, which included tanks, jets and troops, were six huge trailer-mounted Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, capable of hitting Israel, US bases in the Gulf and parts of southeastern Europe.

"If the Global Arrogance wants to attack Iran ... [it] will destroy their countries with these missiles," the parade announcer said.

"God is Great!" the announcer cried repeatedly as the missiles trundled past the presidential viewing platform.

Some of the missiles, which have a range of 2,000km bore banners proclaiming "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "We will trample the US under our feet."

US and Israeli officials have said they believe Iran intends to use its Shahab-3 to carry nuclear warheads. Iran says the missiles are equipped with conventional payloads and would be used only if Iran came under military attack.

This story is available on BBC and CNN, too. I just didn't quote the BBC article because they didn't think it worth mentioning Iran's comments about the US:

Originally Posted by CNN

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA.

[The Gaffer]

OK now imagine you are Iran.

In 1979 you overthrew a monarchy which you regarded as oppressing your religion and betraying its people. You fall out publicly with the US, the major supporter of the monarchy.

In 198? your next-door neighbour attacked, with the support of the US and other allies of your former monarch. There followed a protracted war in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died.

In 2003, this neighbour, by now out of favour with the West, is invaded by the US and its allies under a false pretext. Now they have hundreds of thousands of their troops, with the most advanced weapons in the world, positioned right next to you (think Russia and China combining to invade Mexico).

Meanwhile, the US President branded you as one of the bastions of an "axis of evil". He spouts endless rhetoric about being at war, and refuses to rule out invading you just because you might have WMDs or something.

Meanwhile meanwhile, North Korea, also part of this axis, GETS nuclear weapons. Everything goes quiet: the US stops threatening to invade them.

If I was Iranian, I would want nukes YESTERDAY.

[Spock]

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

and compounding wrongs does not make a right either... we made our bed in the middle east

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and compounding wrongs does not make a right either... we made our bed in the middle east

We did no wrong to Iran.
Do you forget the American Embassy Hostage episode?

Our bed may be there but that doesn't mean we want to build a development.
sometimes answering you with metaphors is most challenging.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

We did no wrong to Iran.
Do you forget the American Embassy Hostage episode?

Our bed may be there but that doesn't mean we want to build a development.
sometimes answering you with metaphors is most challenging.

any country who claims they have "done no wrong" will never know peace with the rest of the world... every international action has reasons behind it... we are free to label some as "justified" and others as "unjustified"... but if the goal is peace, there has to be understanding of the opposition... this includes understanding why they do what they do... just calling it "evil" is unrealistic and counterproductive... we don't live in middle-earth

the first step is admitting the fact that both sides do wrong... frequently

[The last sane person]

Nope, I haven't forgotten. Nor has anyone else, though for most that I know, its regretted.

If America is really scared shitless of these guys, why don’t the unilaterally slap an embargo on them, no oil goes in or out? They didn’t need UN permission to go to war.... That’s the only thing these Mother f-ers got going for them, in six months to a year, mullahs will be collapsed and gone. No oil= no cash= no power. Worked on Mosadeq, who was elected by the people and who actually built a functioning democracy (British style, with a parliament). Why does America and other countries keep buying oil from these jokers, who are sworn enemies...axis of evil....blah blah...when that money isn’t going anywhere but to weapons funding?

Y'know, I really would like an embargo, it will hurt me and my family and Iran in general, but we can survive and sort our own. And it will be infinitely better than what we got now. HOWEVER, that is highly unlikely to happen, as is America invading Iran.


Though, the latter is more likely than the former, and I don’t give a damn whether its rocks or nukes, I see anyone coming into my home, and making a mess, setting up a puppet government, I am going to kill them. And die myself more than likely. But I wont be the first, nor last.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

You wouldn't need them if you stopped threatening your neighbors, permitted UN inspection of the facilities, permitted more human rights in your country, etc. etc. etc. but hey, facts don't matter to some

I posted this as a thought experiment. You fail the test.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I posted this as a thought experiment. You fail the test.

That's baiting and not permitted

[The Gaffer]

Last Sane Person:

Originally Posted by Last Sane etc etc

I see anyone coming into my home, and making a mess, setting up a puppet government, I am going to kill them. And die myself more than likely.

Did you mean if you were Iran you would attack Iraq/US coalition?

[hectorberlioz]

All right then.

Iran Iran Iran...they want (at least the government) Israel off the map. And they've caught us in an uncomfortable position, if we move against their nuclear program[s], Israel gets hurt.

Three Questions:

1) What good is the UN doing?

The thing about the UN's "threats" and "calls" for countries to straighten out, is that they are not threatening to do something, but to do something to get ready to do something.

2) Will Iran continue to say that it's nuclear program is for energy efficiency, or do [or will] they find it safe now to reveal their malicious intent?

3) Obviously, the U.S. already has a load on its hands with Iraq, so if push comes to shove with Iran, will European governments hark to the call this time?

It's not something we can't see this time, like WMD's, Israel and the Muslim countries have been cooking for a long time, and Iran with Ahmudinejad is nothing to ignore and let be.

[Spock]

This is what I fear:


The UN will prove useless as it has in the past.

The US is overextended.

Israel cannot be restrained for long given the fact it is being threatened with extinction every week by the current leadership of Iran.

2012 is the end of the world according to many prophesies....this may well be the start.

[The Gaffer]

1) The UN, while largely impotent, is the best UN we've got and the only way to get the Russians and Chinese on board.
2) They will keep it secret as long as they can, ideally until they've got nukes.
3) Depends which call. I don't see them joining an invasion but they might support air strikes.

My guess it that Israel would bomb any installations the minute they get wind of where they are. (Probably from US intelligence; the US restrains Israel in the same way that a security guard restrains his dog.) That may well lead down the road to outright warfare.

However, I think that the anti-Israel stuff is mostly for domestic political propaganda. There are very good strategic reasons why Iran would want nuclear weapons (being surrounded by countries that have got 'em for a start) but I don't think they'd actually use them in a first strike against Israel. Just like I didn't think the Soviet Union would have used them against the West.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

1) The UN, while largely impotent, is the best UN we've got and the only way to get the Russians and Chinese on board.
2) They will keep it secret as long as they can, ideally until they've got nukes.
3) Depends which call. I don't see them joining an invasion but they might support air strikes.

My guess it that Israel would bomb any installations the minute they get wind of where they are. (Probably from US intelligence; the US restrains Israel in the same way that a security guard restrains his dog.) That may well lead down the road to outright warfare.

However, I think that the anti-Israel stuff is mostly for domestic political propaganda. There are very good strategic reasons why Iran would want nuclear weapons (being surrounded by countries that have got 'em for a start) but I don't think they'd actually use them in a first strike against Israel. Just like I didn't think the Soviet Union would have used them against the West.

As Condi pointed out, it may be that Iran just has a big mouth.

Though Iran should realize, that they join the rank of countries (if it really is because they are afraid of the countries with Nucular Power)...and are now part of the scaring process for scaring even more countries...Oh the merry-go-round.

[The Gaffer]

Well, they are probably not a little scared too, having just had the most powerful nation in the world invade next door and declare them Public Enemy No 1.

And of course you can't discuss the Middle East without discussing oil.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

1) What good is the UN doing?

It provides a outlet for countries to talk to one another that are too pigheaded to communicate directly. The UN was not designed as an enforcement tool, only as a forum for communication. The perceived "failures" are due to people expecting it to do something it was not designed for, and does not have the power to do anyway.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

2) Will Iran continue to say that it's nuclear program is for energy efficiency, or do [or will] they find it safe now to reveal their malicious intent?

Iran saw what happened to Iraq and they fear that the same will happen to them. While it is not impossible that they might use such weapons offensively, the certainty of retaliation (and obliteration) by other nuclear countries makes it extremely unlikely. I think they are pursuing it more as a defense against US invasion. They can not fail to notice how we invaded Iraq when they came in conflict with us (Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and we knew it ), yet did not invade or attack North Korea when they came in conflict with us and instead moved towards third party negotiations.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

3) Obviously, the U.S. already has a load on its hands with Iraq, so if push comes to shove with Iran, will European governments hark to the call this time?

It's not something we can't see this time, like WMD's, Israel and the Muslim countries have been cooking for a long time, and Iran with Ahmudinejad is nothing to ignore and let be.

Iraq would have been a bad idea even if they did have WMDs, and I think most of the world realizes this even more now. I highly doubt we would get very much support from Europe, and it would even further inflame terrorism among muslims.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It provides a outlet for countries to talk to one another that are too pigheaded to communicate directly. The UN was not designed as an enforcement tool, only as a forum for communication. The perceived "failures" are due to people expecting it to do something it was not designed for, and does not have the power to do anyway.



Iran saw what happened to Iraq and they fear that the same will happen to them. While it is not impossible that they might use such weapons offensively, the certainty of retaliation (and obliteration) by other nuclear countries makes it extremely unlikely. I think they are pursuing it more as a defense against US invasion. They can not fail to notice how we invaded Iraq when they came in conflict with us (Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and we knew it ), yet did not invade or attack North Korea when they came in conflict with us and instead moved towards third party negotiations.



Iraq would have been a bad idea even if they did have WMDs, and I think most of the world realizes this even more now. I highly doubt we would get very much support from Europe, and it would even further inflame terrorism among muslims.

All right, but letting them (terrorists etc) brew their plans with or without us saying something isn't going to solve AAA (Anything At All).

If Iraq had WMDs, and we hadn't invaded them... we might be looking at our ashened skeletal feet instead of computer screens. But you never know when...thats always how it is with terrorists.

I really don't think the past can help us now...but one 9/11 was enough for us.

Edit: Let's stay on Iran as subject...

[brownjenkins]

If we should stay on the subject of Iran, then the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 aren't "on topic" either.

We have to start thinking about global conflicts within their own context and take off the "everyone is a terrorist" blinders.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If we should stay on the subject of Iran, then the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 aren't "on topic" either.

We have to start thinking about global conflicts within their own context and take off the "everyone is a terrorist" blinders.

I was reprimanding myself as well...the solution to Iran should be the main subject.