The Iran Controversy

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One thing I can't understand is the motive for making those statements.

Here goes.

Firstly, the West is identified as the oppressor of Muslims. Whether that is deserved or not, it is a fact that we are identified as such. Let's not go into the centuries of back-story, but it's worth pointing out that recent events (invading a Muslim country to steal its oil - don't start arguing, that's what they believe) don't exactly contradict this belief.

Secondly, Palestine. Vivid, Muslim suffering on a daily, and ethnic, basis. Don't forget they were kicked out of their homeland to make room for Israel. Easy mark there with the old ladies and children.

Thirdly, read your 1984. War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength. What do politicians do when they run out of ideas? They rattle sabres, declare war on something that everybody hates. We ought to be familiar with that stunt by now

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Spock

Boy ever since we became mods, you've turned into one of the Gamesters of Triskellion", lurking in the shadows and popping up unexpectedly.
And I used to have that rep.

Lets just say that I go where I'm needed .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Lets just say that I go where I'm needed .

Let's.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Lets just say that I go where I'm needed .

Well, while you're at it, where's my feckin' back massage.

What? There was a topic?

[Lief Erikson]

I don't think a peaceful resolution of this Iran crisis is possible, anymore. I blame China and Russia for that .

And I blame Iran too, of course .

But this is really disappointing. If enough international pressure might have been put against Iran, they might have quailed. I don't think the Security Council resolution will have any affect, because it's not sanctions. It's all bluster.

[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.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, on one hand, they might be scared because of that, but on the other, whats to be afraid of if you have nothing to hide? Iran had little press coverage until they started their Nuclear Programs. I doubt the US or anyone else would have given a dime about them if they had just played nice...but now they have Ahmudinejad.

Notice that he seems more interested in announcing stuff, than in trying to convince other countries that they are playing peaceful with nuclear energy.

[Insidious Rex]

Whats really scary is that Ahmudinejad probably has Bush to thank for his election victory. If enough citizens of Iran hadnt been so spooked by the nearby invasion and what they percieve as extremist western action by the greatest power in the world you would probably have the reform minded candidate in power there now. But such is the fall out from gun boat diplomacy unfortunately, necessary or not...

I dont see how we (the west) can do a whole lot to effect change really (other then blowing up Iran which would of course have its own dire ramifications). Do we really think sanctions will do anything? Especially when Iran has oil to sell to an ever thirsty China and pipe line issues to be worked out with Russia?

[hectorberlioz]

You might be right about Ahmuetc's victory...

But then again comes up the question, what did they do to be so scared of?
I can understand their uncomfort as bieng labeled (and perhaps they were not supporting/harboring terrorists -at least none that they knew of) "part of the axis of evil" but now...they really are!

They didn't do a lot to help their image...

[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.

[Elfhelm]

You can't nuke Israel without nuking Palestine. I wonder if that ever occurred to them.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You can't nuke Israel without nuking Palestine. I wonder if that ever occurred to them.

And the Gaza strip?

[The Gaffer]

Them = the US or Them = Iran?