The Iran Thread II

[Midnyte_Sun]

America will bare the cost of a war against Israel. If Israel is attacked by Iran, in hopes of destroying the state: America will work hard to build a coalition (it might have already done that) in getting Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE to cooperate, and using their bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey. They will also get support from European countries, France, Germany, UK. I also think China and Russia are all bark no bite, they will cooperate with the ousting the Iranian regime.

[Hobgoblin]

Iran War Scenario (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJzHVVGrCs0)



Well now...that's cute.

[8wid]

A war in Iran will anihilate the power of the American Empire in a matter of weeks. Even without it, the wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, and all the other nations during the War on Terror will do it with in the next quarter century. The age of Imperialism is soon going to be over and America will no longer have overseas bases for much longer to come, it simply cannot afford to maintain them.

[Dr. Evil]

America will bare the cost of a war against Israel. If Israel is attacked by Iran, in hopes of destroying the state: America will work hard to build a coalition (it might have already done that) in getting Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE to cooperate, and using their bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey. They will also get support from European countries, France, Germany, UK. I also think China and Russia are all bark no bite, they will cooperate with the ousting the Iranian regime.

Only if they believe that they can get a fair deal (for oil and exports and natural resources) in an Iran after war. Otherwise, they will oppose it.

I don't see it happening though, at least not this year, an election year in the United States.

[8wid]

The Iran threat: Separating fact from fiction (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/05/the-iran-threat-separating-fact-from-fiction/?hpt=hp_bn2)

[DoomsdayApex]

Incidentally, does anybody think The States, instead of engaging in another Stalemate War/Invasion, will just organize a coup or send assassins? Granted, the assassin strategy hasn't worked in years (that I'm aware of anyways) but if Iran does continue to disturb Israel, actions will be taken. Hell, provisions and strategies have probably already been formed and attempted.

[8wid]

^It seems the CIA or the Israeli Intelligence organization already is trying by taking out civilian nuclear scientists. I think this is another reason that the idea of invading Iran is not likely because it's rhetoric that's been around more than eight years now. Iran is always less than a year, two years of five years from developing an atomic bomb, the US needs to to go in with bunker busters, Israel might strike this year or the may not etc. It's all hype that's been going on in the media since the Iraq War started.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Incidentally, does anybody think The States, instead of engaging in another Stalemate War/Invasion, will just organize a coup or send assassins? Granted, the assassin strategy hasn't worked in years (that I'm aware of anyways) but if Iran does continue to disturb Israel, actions will be taken. Hell, provisions and strategies have probably already been formed and attempted.

How is Iran disturbing Israel?

And I want to hear about Iranian actions, not rhetoric.

[DoomsdayApex]

^It seems the CIA or the Israeli Intelligence organization already is trying by taking out civilian nuclear scientists. I think this is another reason that the idea of invading Iran is not likely because it's rhetoric that's been around more than eight years now. Iran is always less than a year, two years of five years from developing an atomic bomb, the US needs to to go in with bunker busters, Israel might strike this year or the may not etc. It's all hype that's been going on in the media since the Iraq War started.

Yeah, more than likely.

I don't see The States getting involved in anything that requires lots of boots and artillery on desert sand yet again... unless Iran finally does decide to bomb Israel.

Black Op/Cloak-and-Dagger and Joint Op missions appear like the more attractive route for The States, in the matter.

[DoomsdayApex]

How is Iran disturbing Israel?

And I want to hear about Iranian actions, not rhetoric.

Well, the rhetoric is what seems to captivate the attention of The States. I'm quite aware, however, that rhetoric doesn't warrant or translate to actual forceful activity but the rhetoric is still coated with threats. Whether they be empty or hallow, that is another story, but The States are going to respond, in one form or another to Ahmadinejad and his cabinet.

[8wid]

Ron Paul on Super Tuesday (http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/03/04/exp-sotu-paul-part-1.cnn)

[DACrowe]

OBAMA TALKS ABOUT THE THE WAR-MONGERING IN THE GOP RACE
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73674.html

I'm more worried about the hawks in a different country at this point.

[Lighthouse]

Interesting seeing Romney criticize the administrations actions, while saying if he was president he would do the exact same thing.

[Thundercrack85]

Interesting seeing Romney criticize the administrations actions, while saying if he was president he would do the exact same thing.

He's actually being consistent then. He always criticizes things he once did himself.

[DACrowe]

Or will inevitably find himself doing and/or supporting in the future.

[Arc-Light]

Interesting seeing Romney criticize the administrations actions, while saying if he was president he would do the exact same thing.
LOL because he is a Republican robot and when intelligence and common sense kick in, it interferes with the rest of his conservative right-wing programing.....

[Marx]

The GOP war-mongering is certainly nothing new. The last thing we need in this country is yet another war.

[Paradoxium]

GOP is no surprise, but I am surprised you think Obama won't go through with it.

[The Overlord]

If Iran attacks Israel first than it's Israel's problem. Iran firing missiles at US bases in Kuwait or Afghanistan or planning a suicide bombing in the New York Subway on the other hand is a blantant act of war that could be justified by an aerial war that eliminates the regime, no ground troops though. The occupation alone would take at least twenty-five years. An attack by Iran would see that nation as the aggressor in the eyes of the international community though.

The problem is Israel is such a small country, that a couple of nuclear missiles could destroy it. I don't think Israel is some country full of super villains who just want to do bad things for no reason, after the Holocaust, I do think the Jewish people in Israel are paranoid about another attack like that. Sometimes that paranoia isn't justified, but it is understandable considering history and Iran's rhetoric is not helping here. If the Iranian government insists on using this type rhetoric, other countries won't trust their intentions, some of the worst crimes in human history started as mere rhetoric.

[DACrowe]

I think it's more than Iran's rhetoric. They smuggled weapons to Hezbollah to fire at Israel in the 2006 war and have baited sectarian war and the killing of Americans in Iraq. Also, if Iran does get a nuclear weapon, it could start an arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all trying to get them too.

Israel has the right to be upset, but will bombing Iran solve anything or just make it worse? It won't bring regime change and set them back years. Whether it be two years or ten, they'll still want a nuke and be more angry and duplicitous about it than before.

[DACrowe]

I think it's more than Iran's rhetoric. They smuggled weapons to Hezbollah to fire at Israel in the 2006 war and have baited sectarian war and the killing of Americans in Iraq. Also, if Iran does get a nuclear weapon, it could start an arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all trying to get them too.

Israel has the right to be upset, but will bombing Iran solve anything or just make it worse? It won't bring regime change and set them back years. Whether it be two years or ten, they'll still want a nuke and be more angry and duplicitous about it than before.

[The Overlord]

I think it's more than Iran's rhetoric. They smuggled weapons to Hezbollah to fire at Israel in the 2006 war and have baited sectarian war and the killing of Americans in Iraq. Also, if Iran does get a nuclear weapon, it could start an arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all trying to get them too.

Israel has the right to be upset, but will bombing Iran solve anything or just make it worse? It won't bring regime change and set them back years. Whether it be two years or ten, they'll still want a nuke and be more angry and duplicitous about it than before.

That may be true, but what else is there for Israel to do? They are in between a rock and hard place here. The Iranian government says they want to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but they go out of their way to be antagonize Israel and Israel is just naturally paranoid due historical events. While I do not wish a war in the Middle East, Iran contesting testing Israel's patience is a good way to create one. While bombing Iran may not be the right decision, I think Israel may feel backed into a coroner and may do it out of desperation.

[Midnyte_Sun]

As much as I think any war with Iran is about protecting Israel, I can see that the goal would instead turn to regime change. This is the #1 reason that Iran will build nuclear weapons, and that is to prevent invasion and toppling of their government.

If Israel triggers the toppling of the Islamic republic, the US and their allies will be dragged into it and the ramifications are huge. I highly doubt Israel would be nuked, but with NATO forced on Iran, there will be alliances made to free Iran (which holds holy places for Shia Islam).

If American doesn't make peace with the Taliban, the Taliban will find new allies among Shia groups like the Shia Hezbe Wahdat that have now been friendly with the US in Afghanistan. There will be hordes of Shia's from the tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan that have been friendly with the US, turning their backs. You will see Shia's from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, maybe even China, getting armed and ready to attack US interests throughout the region. Their goal would be to free Shia Islam's holiest cities from Western forces creating new Bin Ladens of the Shia Design.

With the alliance of Sunni and Shia armed groups, there will be regional instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Shia regions of the Middle East and I doubt the US will be able to contain them all. It will be death by a thousand cuts for NATO.

[The Overlord]

As much as I think any war with Iran is about protecting Israel, I can see that the goal would instead turn to regime change. This is the #1 reason that Iran will build nuclear weapons, and that is to prevent invasion and toppling of their government.

If Israel triggers the toppling of the Islamic republic, the US and their allies will be dragged into it and the ramifications are huge. I highly doubt Israel would be nuked, but with NATO forced on Iran, there will be alliances made to free Iran (which holds holy places for Shia Islam).

If American doesn't make peace with the Taliban, the Taliban will find new allies among Shia groups like the Shia Hezbe Wahdat that have now been friendly with the US in Afghanistan. There will be hordes of Shia's from the tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan that have been friendly with the US, turning their backs. You will see Shia's from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, maybe even China, getting armed and ready to attack US interests throughout the region. Their goal would be to free Shia Islam's holiest cities from Western forces creating new Bin Ladens of the Shia Design.

With the alliance of Sunni and Shia armed groups, there will be regional instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Shia regions of the Middle East and I doubt the US will be able to contain them all. It will be death by a thousand cuts for NATO.

None of that sounds likely, when you consider that there is still a lot of tension between the Sunnis and Shia. I doubt the Taliban would ally themselves with the Shia, even the Iranians thought the Taliban were insane and a lot of the civil strife in Iraq is Sunnis attacking *****es and mainly Sunni countries, the *****e minority is often targeted for discrimination and attacks. There won't be an alliance between the two factions any time soon, they hate each other.

Just because one doesn't want a war in the Middle East, doesn't mean that one has to think that Iran having a nuke would be a good thing. If a Shia country like Iran gets a nuke, the surrounding Sunni countries could see Iran as a great threat and fear they will stir the Shia minorities in their own countries to revolt and they try to get their won nukes to counter Iran. A new nuclear arms race in the Middle East can't be a good thing. There is more then one path to war, it cuts both ways. I am of the belief that fewer nuclear weapons makes the world a better place, not more.

[Midnyte_Sun]

I just can't buy that. Hezbollah is run by Shia's, but they support the plight of the Sunni Palestinians. Hezbe Wahdat was funded by the CIA and Iran, and they joined forces with Hezbe Islami, the Sunni faction when fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan is mostly Sunni, but the Shia Pashtuns there joined forces with the Sunnis to remove the Russians from Afghanistan. The Shia of Pakistan and India look to Iran and Iraq for spiritual guidance. If the Ayotollahs of Iraq and Iran call for Jihad against NATO, they will throw away immediate rivalries to fight a common enemy.

[The Overlord]

I just can't buy that. Hezbollah is run by Shia's, but they support the plight of the Sunni Palestinians. Hezbe Wahdat was funded by the CIA and Iran, and they joined forces with Hezbe Islami, the Sunni faction when fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. The tribal lands between Afghanistan and Pakistan is mostly Sunni, but the Shia Pashtuns there joined forces with the Sunnis to remove the Russians from Afghanistan. The Shia of Pakistan and India look to Iran and Iraq for spiritual guidance. If the Ayotollahs of Iraq and Iran call for Jihad against NATO, they will throw away immediate rivalries to fight a common enemy.

There are several examples of Sunnis attacking Shia in the Middle East:


http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Suicide-attack-against-Shia-pilgrims-in-Basra-kills-at-least-20-23697.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16035254

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/02/jundallah_kills_18_s.php

Why haven't the religious leaders in Iraq manged to stop the attacks on the Shia there, they can't even unite one country, let alone the entire the Muslim World. Why would they Taliban join with Iran when they are murdering Shias in Pakistan? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, a common enemy is not always enough.

And again they would only unite against a common enemy if the US attacks Iran, if the US doesn't attack Iran and Iran does gets a nuclear weapon, all the Sunni countries may just decide that Iran is the common enemy to all Sunni countries, who persecute the Shia minority and turn their efforts to getting their own nukes to fight . Alliances basses on common enemies are fundamentally weak, they disappear as soon as the common enemy is gone, look at the US and the USSR after WWII. Any alliance between Sunnis and the Shia would be short term and as soon the US was out of the picture, they would turn on each other.

Besides, exactly how is more countries getting nuclear weapons a good thing? I think there is a middle ground bombing Iran and saying its not a big deal if they get a nuke.

When someone gets a nuclear weapon, that country's rivals want one too. When the US developed a nuke, the USSR and China hurried to make their own, when India developed a nuke, Pakistan quickly developed their own. If Iran develops a nuke, all their rivals in that area will want to develop their own. The Middle East is a tinder box and this is just adding gasoline.

[Midnyte_Sun]

There are several examples of Sunnis attacking Shia in the Middle East:


http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Suicide-attack-against-Shia-pilgrims-in-Basra-kills-at-least-20-23697.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16035254

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/02/jundallah_kills_18_s.php

Why haven't the religious leaders in Iraq manged to stop the attacks on the Shia there, they can't even unite one country, let alone the entire the Muslim World. Why would they Taliban join with Iran when they are murdering Shias in Pakistan? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend, a common enemy is not always enough.

And again they would only unite against a common enemy if the US attacks Iran, if the US doesn't attack Iran and Iran does gets a nuclear weapon, all the Sunni countries may just decide that Iran is the common enemy to all Sunni countries, who persecute the Shia minority and turn their efforts to getting their own nukes to fight . Alliances basses on common enemies are fundamentally weak, they disappear as soon as the common enemy is gone, look at the US and the USSR after WWII. Any alliance between Sunnis and the Shia would be short term and as soon the US was out of the picture, they would turn on each other.

Besides, exactly how is more countries getting nuclear weapons a good thing? I think there is a middle ground bombing Iran and saying its not a big deal if they get a nuke.

When someone gets a nuclear weapon, that country's rivals want one too. When the US developed a nuke, the USSR and China hurried to make their own, when India developed a nuke, Pakistan quickly developed their own. If Iran develops a nuke, all their rivals in that area will want to develop their own. The Middle East is a tinder box and this is just adding gasoline.

The tinder was already lit when the CIA orchestrated the assassination of democratically elected leaders (Mossadegh), installed puppet leaders, allied with Europe to carve up the Middle East into fiefdoms at the expense of the local populations, and allowed Israel to attain nuclear weapons and expropriate Palestinian land. It's not a tinder, it's a volcano. The volcano has been quietly erupting for over 50 years.

Where did I say that nuclear proliferation is a good thing? Regardless, I can't see anywhere in history where nuclear proliferation has led to nuclear war. I only say Iran would be seeking it for one reason only, and that is as a deterrent to regime change. As for other nations in the Middle East already getting them, Israel already has estimates of up to 200 or so nuclear war heads, enough to blow up every major city 10 times over in the region. Also, just because radical governments own them, it doesn't mean they will use them. Pakistan and India are good examples of bitter enemies that have yet to use any of their stockpiles on each other.

I saw your examples, but I can find you links where Shia's and Sunni groups have united to fight common enemies. Afghanistan is the best example. Sunni CIA backed militant leaders had refuge in Iran during the civil war. It might not have been a perfect relationship, but it worked for the common goal. The US has long made the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban to fight the US in Afghanistan. Afghan security agents have also caught Iranian agents in the western city of Herat.

The Shia religious establishment in Iraq has deep ties with the Shia government in Iran. A war to topple the Islamic republic can create new Shia Al Qaedas and bolden Hezbollah. It will also make Bahrain also less stable. We can kiss American hegemony in the Middle East goodbye.

Even with all the bloodshed and animosity between the two rival sects, I really doubt the Sunni Al Qaeda would make an announcement that Sunnis should be happy with any regime change in Iran. If anything, should Iran's government topple, there will be increased insurgencies in the Southwest (Awaz Arabs), Northwest (Kurds) and Southeast (Baluch). The Kurds might feel the need to break away (which would get Turkey and Iraq involved), as would the Baluch who have been helping Israel terrorize Iran.

These are all legitimate risks.

[DACrowe]

Friedman on Iran:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/friedman-israels-best-friend.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman

The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.


Why? Because the question of whether Israel has the need and the right to pre-emptively attack Iran as it develops a nuclear potential is one of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today. It is also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy.

In that context, President Obama, in his interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and in his address to Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby, offered the greatest support for Israel that any president could at this time: He redefined the Iran issue. He said — rightly — that it was not simply about Israel’s security, but about U.S. national security and global security.

Obama did this by making clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then “containing” it — the way the U.S. contained the Soviet Union — was not a viable option, because if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, all the states around it would seek to acquire one as well. This would not only lead to a nuclear Middle East, but it would likely prompt other countries to hedge their commitments to the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The global nuclear black market would then come alive and we would see the dawning of a more dangerous world.

“Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States,” the president told The Atlantic. “If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. ... It would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation. ... If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won’t name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, ‘We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons.’ And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold.” In sum, the president added, “The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.”

Every Israeli and friend of Israel should be thankful to the president for framing the Iran issue this way. It is important strategically for Israel, because it makes clear that dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was not Israel’s problem alone. And it is important politically, because this decision about whether to attack Iran is coinciding with the U.S. election. The last thing Israel or American friends of Israel — Jewish and Christian — want is to give their enemies a chance to claim that Israel is using its political clout to embroil America in a war that is not in its interest.

That could easily happen because backing for Israel today has never been more politicized. In recent years, Republicans have tried to make support for Israel a wedge issue that would enable them to garner a higher percentage of Jewish votes and campaign contributions, which traditionally have swung overwhelmingly Democratic. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who is more pro-Israel — and over-the-top declarations, like Newt Gingrich’s that the Palestinians “are an invented people.”

And it could easily happen because money in politics has never been more important for running campaigns, and the Israel lobby — both its Jewish and evangelical Christian wings — has never been more influential, because of its ability to direct campaign contributions to supportive candidates.

As such, no one should want domestic electoral politics mixed up with the Iran decision, which is why it was so important that the president redefined the Iran problem as a global proliferation threat and grounded his decision-making in American realism, not politics.

Reports from the Aipac convention this week indicated that those advocating military action were getting the loudest cheers. I’d invite all those cheering to think about all the unintended and unanticipated consequences of the Iraq war or Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That’s not a reason for paralysis. It’s a reason to heed Obama’s call to give diplomacy and biting sanctions a chance to work, while keeping the threat of force on the table.

If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel. I respect that this is a deadly serious issue for Israel — which has the right to act on its own — but President Obama has built a solid strategic and political case for letting America take the lead.

[8wid]

There is lots of money to be made from hyping up potential war in Iran by corporate media companies who want their viewers to think the world is more dangerous and insecure that it actually is. This is what drives sensationalism in the press, just like high speed chases, school shootings, made up terror threats, potential war with North Korea are all examples of this.

Ever since big macho America invaded Iraq there has been a desire to hit Iran's nuclear facilities because they were being investigated the same time it was being done in Iraq. How much progress has been made on Iran getting closer to a nuclear bomb in the last decade? None. Israel says it will strike Iran any time to keep the fear it could be any second, and America keeps wondering whether or not they will go in to keep up the fear of another war. There is no crisis brewing in Iran besides what can be drummed up to sell news broadcasts, newspapers, magazines, books, videogames, ideas for TV shows, comics, and more.




Time for Bush to strike Iran

By Mark Dooley

Sunday November 28 2004


THERE can be only one response to Iran's (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Iran) serial addiction to terror - a surgical bombing campaign resulting in the end of the Mullahs. By sending their agents of death into Iraq (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Iraq), these high priests of evil have once again declared war on freedom. But this time their aggression will be met with the fire it deserves. For 25 years, Iran has brutalised its people, exported murder squads across the globe, and funded terror networks from Hezbollah (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Hezbollah) to Al-Qaeda (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Al-Qaeda). Between 1992 and 1994, its bombs killed 120 Jews in Argentina. But this is not surprising from a regime that is hell-bent on Israel's liquidation.
Iran's former President Rafsanjani, has described Israel as "the most hideous historic occurrence in History". He went on to say that "a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world". A mass slaughter of Jews is the primary reason why the Ayatollahs are so determined to develop a nuclear device.
Their promise on Monday to stall Iran's weapons programme shows just how gullible the European dealmakers are. By Wednesday, Tehran (http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Tehran) was already calling for an amendment to the deal that would make it ineffective.
You simply cannot accommodate or contain a bunch of crazed misfits that want to go nuclear. It is thanks to Bill Clinton's pandering to Kim Jong Il, that we now have a nuclear North Korea bribing and terrifying its neighbours.
The only way to stop a rogue regime getting hold of an atom bomb is by smashing it hard and swift. Think of the consequences had Saddam Hussein realised his ultimate fantasy. The global economy would have been at the mercy of a psychopath armed to the teeth with nukes.
As he celebrates Thanksgiving, George Bush will be preparing to blast Iran's nuclear facilities. With Condi Rice at his side, he will take every measure to secure an atomic-free Gulf. And when he does, the people of Iran will rise anddispatch their murderous Mullahs.
In recent street protests, the youth of Tehran did not follow their Western counterparts in chanting silly anti-American slogans. Into the faces of the secret police, Iranian students hummed the American anthem and waved the Stars and Stripes. For them, the United States signifies their only chance of liberty.
You might think that the Irish left would show solidarity with students tormented by tyranny. But in recent debates with the anti-war crowd, I was told that attacking Iran would constitute a war crime.
I'd like to hear them say that to Hussein Khomeini, the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini who founded Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. For him, the republic that his grandfather created "is the world's worst dictatorship".
The only answer to "25 years of a failed Islamic revolution", according to Khomeini junior, is to "bring in the American 82nd Airborne Division". Like all courageous dissidents, he believes that "freedom is more important than bread, and if the Americans will provide it, then let them come". No doubt the anti-war left will respond by branding Hussein Khomeini an "American stooge."
In Ukraine now, we are seeing the last great clash of the Cold War. It comes as the civilized world is confronting tyrants more deadly than those who persecuted Eastern Europe.
If the Mullahs are left in place the world's energy reserves will be threatened, the Jewish people will face a second Holocaust, and the Iranian opposition will fall silent into mass graves. Appeasement has only fuelled their ambition to join Kim Jong Il in the rogues' nuclear guild.
That is why, for the sake of global justice and security, America must end this reign of horror fast. The West has a moral and strategic interest in defending the slaves of Iran against their fanatical terror lords. Should we fail, the blood of thousands will be on our conscience and the Middle East will implode in flames.
- Mark Dooley



Source (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/time-for-bush-to-strike-iran-486481.html)

[Bim]

Dunno if this was posted before here (it's a few days old), if it was, my apologies: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

WASHINGTON — Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies.

At the center of the debate is the murky question of the ultimate ambitions of the leaders in Tehran. There is no dispute among American, Israeli and European intelligence officials that Iran has been enriching nuclear fuel and developing some necessary infrastructure to become a nuclear power. But the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to resume a parallel program to design a nuclear warhead — a program they believe was essentially halted in 2003 and which would be necessary for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.

“They are certainly moving on that path, but we don’t believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Critics of the American assessment in Jerusalem and some European capitals point out that Iran has made great strides in the most difficult step toward building a nuclear weapon, enriching uranium. That has also been the conclusion of a series of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors, who on Friday presented new evidence that the Iranians have begun enriching uranium in an underground facility.

Once Iran takes further steps to actually enrich weapons grade fuel — a feat that the United States does not believe Iran has yet accomplished — the critics believe that it would be relatively easy for Iran to engineer a warhead and then have a bomb in short order. They also criticize the C.I.A. for being overly cautious in its assessments of Iran, suggesting that it is perhaps overcompensating for its faulty intelligence assessments in 2002 about Iraq’s purported weapons programs, which turned out not to exist. In addition, Israeli officials have challenged the very premise of the 2007 intelligence assessment, saying they do not believe that Iran ever fully halted its work on a weapons program.

Yet some intelligence officials and outside analysts believe there is another possible explanation for Iran’s enrichment activity, besides a headlong race to build a bomb as quickly as possible. They say that Iran could be seeking to enhance its influence in the region by creating what some analysts call “strategic ambiguity.” Rather than building a bomb now, Iran may want to increase its power by sowing doubt among other nations about its nuclear ambitions. Some point to the examples of Pakistan and India, both of which had clandestine nuclear weapons programs for decades before they actually decided to build bombs and test their weapons in 1998.

“I think the Iranians want the capability, but not a stockpile,” said Kenneth C. Brill, a former United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who also served as director of the intelligence community’s National Counterproliferation Center from 2005 until 2009. Added a former intelligence official: “The Indians were a screwdriver turn away from having a bomb for many years. The Iranians are not that close.”

To be sure, American analysts acknowledge that understanding the intentions of Iran’s leadership is extremely difficult, and that their assessments are based on limited information. David A. Kay, who was head of the C.I.A.’s team that searched for Iraq’s weapons programs after the United States invasion, was cautious about the quality of the intelligence underlying the current American assessment.

“They don’t have evidence that Iran has made a decision to build a bomb, and that reflects a real gap in the intelligence,” Mr. Kay said. “It’s true the evidence hasn’t changed very much” since 2007, he added. “But that reflects a lack of access and a lack of intelligence as much as anything.”
Divining the intentions of closed societies is one of the most difficult tasks for American intelligence analysts, and the C.I.A. for decades has had little success penetrating regimes like Iran and North Korea to learn how their leaders make decisions.

Amid the ugly aftermath of the botched Iraq intelligence assessments, American spy agencies in 2006 put new analytical procedures in place to avoid repeating the failures. Analysts now have access to raw information about the sources behind intelligence reports, to help better determine the credibility of the sources and prevent another episode like the one in which the C.I.A. based much of its conclusions about Iraq’s purported biological weapons on an Iraqi exile who turned out to be lying.

Analysts are also required to include in their reports more information about the chain of logic that has led them to their conclusions, and differing judgments are featured prominently in classified reports, rather than buried in footnotes.

When an unclassified summary of the 2007 intelligence estimate on Iran’s nuclear program was made public, stating that it had abandoned work on a bomb, it stunned the Bush administration and the world. It represented a sharp reversal from the intelligence community’s 2005 estimate, and drew criticism of the C.I.A. from European and Israeli officials, as well as conservative pundits. They argued that it was part of a larger effort by the C.I.A. to prevent American military action against Iran.

The report was so controversial that many outside analysts expected that the intelligence community would be forced to revise and repudiate the estimate after new evidence emerged about Iran’s program, notably from the United Nations’ inspectors. Yet analysts now say that while there has been mounting evidence of Iranian work on enrichment facilities, there has been far less clear evidence of a weapons program.

Still, Iran’s enrichment activities have raised suspicions, even among skeptics.

“What has been driving the discussion has been the enrichment activity,” said one former intelligence official. “That’s made everybody nervous. So the Iranians continue to contribute to the suspicions about what they are trying to do.”

Iran’s efforts to hide its nuclear facilities and to deceive the West about its activities have also intensified doubts. But some American analysts warn that such behavior is not necessarily proof of a weapons program. They say that one mistake the C.I.A. made before the war in Iraq was to assume that because Saddam Hussein resisted weapons inspections — acting as if he were hiding something — it meant that he had a weapons program.

As Mr. Kay explained, “The amount of evidence that you were willing to go with in 2002 is not the same evidence you are willing to accept today.”

[The Overlord]

The tinder was already lit when the CIA orchestrated the assassination of democratically elected leaders (Mossadegh), installed puppet leaders, allied with Europe to carve up the Middle East into fiefdoms at the expense of the local populations, and allowed Israel to attain nuclear weapons and expropriate Palestinian land. It's not a tinder, it's a volcano. The volcano has been quietly erupting for over 50 years.

Where did I say that nuclear proliferation is a good thing? Regardless, I can't see anywhere in history where nuclear proliferation has led to nuclear war. I only say Iran would be seeking it for one reason only, and that is as a deterrent to regime change. As for other nations in the Middle East already getting them, Israel already has estimates of up to 200 or so nuclear war heads, enough to blow up every major city 10 times over in the region. Also, just because radical governments own them, it doesn't mean they will use them. Pakistan and India are good examples of bitter enemies that have yet to use any of their stockpiles on each other.

I saw your examples, but I can find you links where Shia's and Sunni groups have united to fight common enemies. Afghanistan is the best example. Sunni CIA backed militant leaders had refuge in Iran during the civil war. It might not have been a perfect relationship, but it worked for the common goal. The US has long made the claim that Iran has been arming the Taliban to fight the US in Afghanistan. Afghan security agents have also caught Iranian agents in the western city of Herat.

The Shia religious establishment in Iraq has deep ties with the Shia government in Iran. A war to topple the Islamic republic can create new Shia Al Qaedas and bolden Hezbollah. It will also make Bahrain also less stable. We can kiss American hegemony in the Middle East goodbye.

Even with all the bloodshed and animosity between the two rival sects, I really doubt the Sunni Al Qaeda would make an announcement that Sunnis should be happy with any regime change in Iran. If anything, should Iran's government topple, there will be increased insurgencies in the Southwest (Awaz Arabs), Northwest (Kurds) and Southeast (Baluch). The Kurds might feel the need to break away (which would get Turkey and Iraq involved), as would the Baluch who have been helping Israel terrorize Iran.

These are all legitimate risks.

And if the US doesn't invade and there is no common enemy, what would stop Iran's Sunni neighbors from engaging in an arms race with them? Alliances based on common alliances end when the common enemy goes away, then the two sides remember why they hated each other in the first palce. If there is no Us invasion, there is no common enemy, so why wouldn't the Sunni nations decide to start an arms race with Iran, who they would see as trying to create a Shia dominant society in the Middle East. There is no real love loss between Iran and the Sunni nations in that area. Heck Iraq used Iran's Shia revolution to justify a war against Iran in the 1980s, governments in the Middle East have trying to engage in regime change in Iran. This is more complex then a simple US vs. Iran issue.

Except those links do put some doubt as too how much Sunnis and Shia would actually cooperate, it doesn't make an alliance between even remotely a sure thing. In Iraq the public had a common enemy in the form of of the invading Coalition, yet there is a lot sectarian violence in Iraq. If Sunnis and Shia are so willing to ally against a common enemy, why is there still major violence between those groups in Iraq?

It still unlikely that some of the claims you made would come true, Al-Qaeda is a mainly Sunni organization, they would never ally themselves with the Shia, which they see as ideological enemies. The Taliban helps promote the murder of the Shia in Pakistan, why they ally with the Shia? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Really just because nuclear proliferation hasn't led to a nuclear war in the past, doesn't mean its a good thing for more countries to get nukes. The more countries who get nukes, the greater the likelihood of their use. Efforts to promote curbing nuclear proliferation become difficult the more players who have these weapons. If Iran gets a nuke, some hawks in the US will use that to justify building more US nukes, which will encourage other countries to build more nukes. Saudi Arabia is threatening to get nukes if Iran does:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/saudi-arabia-promises-to-go-nuclear-if-iran-does/252733/

Is this what we want, a nuclear arms in the Middle East, a new cold war that takes place in the Middle East? If The Sunnis are so interested working with the Shia, why are Sunni regimes trying to get nukes to counter Iran's nuclear program?

Why this a question of extremes, with some on the right saying war is the only option and some on the left saying Iran getting a nuke is not a big deal. It seems foolish to suggest these are the only two options on the table. There is no middle ground between those two extremes? I hope there is no war in Middle East, but that doesn't mean I think nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would be a non issue.

Just because Iran is the underdog here, doesn't make them heroic. Anyone who is progressive shouldn't be naive as to the reactionary nature of the Iranian regime. Is it really a good thing for more ultra right wing reactionaries to get nuclear weapons?

[Midnyte_Sun]

And if the US doesn't invade and there is no common enemy, what would stop Iran's Sunni neighbors from engaging in an arms race with them? Alliances based on common alliances end when the common enemy goes away, then the two sides remember why they hated each other in the first palce. If there is no Us invasion, there is no common enemy, so why wouldn't the Sunni nations decide to start an arms race with Iran, who they would see as trying to create a Shia dominant society in the Middle East. There is no real love loss between Iran and the Sunni nations in that area. Heck Iraq used Iran's Shia revolution to justify a war against Iran in the 1980s, governments in the Middle East have trying to engage in regime change in Iran. This is more complex then a simple US vs. Iran issue.

Except those links do put some doubt as too how much Sunnis and Shia would actually cooperate, it doesn't make an alliance between even remotely a sure thing. In Iraq the public had a common enemy in the form of of the invading Coalition, yet there is a lot sectarian violence in Iraq. If Sunnis and Shia are so willing to ally against a common enemy, why is there still major violence between those groups in Iraq?

It still unlikely that some of the claims you made would come true, Al-Qaeda is a mainly Sunni organization, they would never ally themselves with the Shia, which they see as ideological enemies. The Taliban helps promote the murder of the Shia in Pakistan, why they ally with the Shia? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Really just because nuclear proliferation hasn't led to a nuclear war in the past, doesn't mean its a good thing for more countries to get nukes. The more countries who get nukes, the greater the likelihood of their use. Efforts to promote curbing nuclear proliferation become difficult the more players who have these weapons. If Iran gets a nuke, some hawks in the US will use that to justify building more US nukes, which will encourage other countries to build more nukes. Saudi Arabia is threatening to get nukes if Iran does:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/saudi-arabia-promises-to-go-nuclear-if-iran-does/252733/

Is this what we want, a nuclear arms in the Middle East, a new cold war that takes place in the Middle East? If The Sunnis are so interested working with the Shia, why are Sunni regimes trying to get nukes to counter Iran's nuclear program?

Why this a question of extremes, with some on the right saying war is the only option and some on the left saying Iran getting a nuke is not a big deal. It seems foolish to suggest these are the only two options on the table. There is no middle ground between those two extremes? I hope there is no war in Middle East, but that doesn't mean I think nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would be a non issue.

Just because Iran is the underdog here, doesn't make them heroic. Anyone who is progressive shouldn't be naive as to the reactionary nature of the Iranian regime. Is it really a good thing for more ultra right wing reactionaries to get nuclear weapons?

Overlord, you make valid points, I agree with your proliferation assessment IF Iran builds a nuclear weapon, but there are risks also if we intervene. Some destabilization factors have been slowly brewing and are just waiting for release. My personal assessment is to get countries like Brazil and Turkey involved again and build a bridge that can lead the Iranians in getting the nuclear energy they need without starting a war, or an arms race. This is in fact, not about arms proliferation, or a possible break up of Iran. You and I are purely speaking hypothetically about an existential threat based on words by Ahmadinejad. The same Ahmadinejad that has shamefully lost not one, but two major election battles. To put it bluntly, he's losing his grip on the people.

The victor, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini said,

"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

This is something you won't hear on war-hungry, rating-starved Cable TV networks.

Why don't we ever hear the opposition to war before it's too late like in Iraq? Here's the major problem, American interests are being dictated by Tel Aviv, not by Americans. Therefore, "BOMB IRAN" has become the new slogan and has sent gas prices up and tickled the intimate parts of the war profiteers.

Because of them, the whole world is held hostage. The image that many people want this to happen is a myth. 120-plus member nations of the NAM support Iran's right to enrich uranium and BRICS members Russia, China and India including Turkey, dismiss the US and the EU's oil embargo, (Source) (http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC06Ak03.html). India just signed a huge investment deal with Iran estimated at worth of $30 Billion to boost their own exports to the Chabahar port in Iran. Also deals are being made between India, Iran, and Afghanistan to transport iron ore, copper, and other minerals. So who profits with a war with Iran?

The country that will profit the most from a war with Iran is Israel. The same nuclear-armed colonial state that is wiping Palestinians off the map and was eager to invade Iraq for the same exact reason. I also don't think destroying a few uranium enrichment facilities will topple the Iranian regime, if anything, it will strengthen it and now give it a public interest to support it even more. For America, it will be like Iraq, either shock and awe, or bust. We need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq, and make sure we are not being bullied into war by those who don't at all have our best interests at heart.

[8wid]

^Thank you Midnyte Sun, I'm glad to agree with someone on these points.

The threat being made by Iran is nothing but sensationalism for corporate media cycles that have to gain ratings to make a profit for their shareholders. I just confirmed a few days ago the consistent rise in gas prices since February and the heigtening in war rhetoric over Iran is a corrleated event, likely staged to justify another hike in prices and higher profits for the oil companies and more viewers for the news they sponsor. Let them do this all they want, for when the hyperinflation that causes the United States to essentially go bankrupt comes within a few years, they will hurting too and another war won't be able to save the economy this time like in World War II. Americans are only now seeing because they are more educated and there is truly free media in the form of the Internet to see the wool that has been pulled over their eyes for decades by the big media companies in the United States since before World War II and how they frame and sensationalize their stories to suit their agenda for profit. The newspapers of William Randolph Heart predated them in doing this during the Spanish American War. It was called yellow journalism and the war in Iraq was the latest example of it in the modern era.

Israel would love to have any states the support a free and independent Palestine from forming and one that does support terrorism in their country. They aren't strong enough to do it themselves, so they lobby for their big brother America to do it for them. Obama seems to only boast the war rhetoric for Iran when he needs to appeal to conservative voters and the GOP in Congress who want an aggressive stance there. Otherwise, I don't think he truly cares for the Israeli lobby.

[8wid]

Some more war mongering on the part of CBS. Interesting how they think it would be better to strike Iran now instead of waiting for them to be a nuclear power. Sad how they don't realize that probably just as many will be killed in the aftermath of a regional war on that scale, not to mention the economic aftereffects when the flow of oil disrupted.

Israel Preparing For War With Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-34DhTd-3nI)

[Pagan]

Robert Gates: Attacking Iran Would Be A ‘Catastrophe’ (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/03/22/449740/robert-gates-attacking-iran-would-be-a-catastrophe/)

[IronFist]

Military intervention on Iran, in some way or form, is inevitable. Last year they survived an attempt of the government change (pushed from Western countries). I believe there will be another attempt for the same before MI is approved. It will not be this year because it is an election year in the US but in following years definitely. It doesn't matter who's the president. The only difference may be is, in what way would a different president engage.

As far as the news, don't worry about what they say now, they'll all jump on the battle tanks, embed their reporters and entertain the masses when attack eventually is approved. Then after few years, depending on the result of the military action, they'll take their usual positions, pro-war or anti-war.

Panem et circenses.

[TacomaTruck90]

I don't know much about politics lets alone the Iran Situation but not for nonthing, who are we tell any other country they can't have nuclear weapons?..so what if they have them, it doesnt mean they will use them.. I don't think in the countries interest to tell people what they can and cant do..all it seems to be doing is causing more prolems and highering gas prices doesnt seem worth it

[8wid]

War Games: Israeli Strike on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYlZ9lrS2s)

[DACrowe]

I don't know much about politics lets alone the Iran Situation but not for nonthing, who are we tell any other country they can't have nuclear weapons?..so what if they have them, it doesnt mean they will use them.. I don't think in the countries interest to tell people what they can and cant do..all it seems to be doing is causing more prolems and highering gas prices doesnt seem worth it

I am not a proponent of war with Iran, but the logic goes something like this:

Iran is a country ruled by a theocratic government with a very conservative view of Islam. They view secular countries, especially ones that are superpowers, with suspicion and derision. Our relationship with Islamic Republic of Iran has been bad since they attacked (and closed) our embassy in 1979 and took US citizens as hostages.

Iran has done much to justifiably upset the West and its allies. Examples include supplying weapons to Hezbollah to attack Israel with in 2006, funding terrorist attacks in Iraq to try and increase sectarian strife (they are a Shia government) and to kill US soldiers, and generally saying that Israel is not a real country, is full of vile monsters and threatening to one day wipe it off the map. Between that and their general denial of the Holocaust, Israel being weary of a nuclear Iran--meaning it'd have the power to actually wipe Israel off the map--is understandable. As Israel is our super BFF, their concern is our concern. Add in that Israel is ruled currently by a hawkish coalition led by Netanyahu, their hawkish concerns become the hawkish concerns of American politicians who all want to be pro-Israel.

But even if Iran's government understands M.A.D. and chooses neither to nuke Israel (which would be met with retaliatory nuclear strikes from Israel) nor give a nuclear weapon to an Israel/Western hating group, the fact that one of the leading Islamic powers in the Middle East has nuclear weapons could start an arms race. Think the US and USSR, except it's Iran, Saudi Arabia (which could call on nuclear Pakistan to ship them some weapons), Egypt and Turkey. Now countries with decades (if not centuries) of animosity all have nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Then when you consider how "secure" some of these countries are (coughEgyptcough) you see how weak governments could collapse and the weapons could be lost. Nuclear weapons on the black market or in an extremist group's hands is a scary thought.

Basically, the concept of a nuclear Middle East terrifies the US. There is the moral argument that the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in war should not be telling other countries they cannot have them. However, the US is the only superpower in the world and the interest of its government is US interests (i.e. not being dragged into a nuclear war in the Middle East or being nuked by a weapon that vanished from a weak government) and not esoteric arguments about what is fair.

I am not a proponent of going to war with Iran, but that is the logic.

[Thundercrack85]

Not to mention that the US invented the weapon. Should have patented that ****.

[8wid]

Remember there is a lot of financial incentive to be made by churches, TV stations, video game developers, newspapers, publishers, and magazines to sell a scary scenario such as this for their own gain. The corporate energy firms like GE and Exon Mobil and arms manufacturers like Halliburton who own and donate to much of this media have a lot to gain to from a war in terms of money. A war creates the biggest profit they will ever see when Uncle Sam pays them big bucks in defense. They also get a great deal of control in building military bases, rebuilding bombed out buildings, getting the exclusive contract for the rights to oil and metal mining in Iran to provide it to the world, and to set up consumerism in their societies too.

[Thundercrack85]

Now how do the reptilians and mole people figure into that theory?

[8wid]

^You actually think that's a conspiracy theory? :huh: They do things like that everyday to drum up ratings and prices and products, it's a standard business practice. You must have been sleeping through the Iraq War if you didn't see the rhetoric and scare tactics of chaos in the Mid East of this kind skyrocket in all of these mediums during the last decade. Every country around the world has something like that happen in their country during war and a lot of readers to be scared of the world and willing to hear more about it.

It could be about North Korea, terror attacks in US cities, Iran, economic collapse, etc. the infotainment industry thrives from sensationalized news and fear.

[Thundercrack85]

Just the notion that video game companies and churches are conspiring to start another war for profit, seems rather out there.

Though I'll give you the news media.

[Pagan]

I am not a proponent of war with Iran, but the logic goes something like this:

Iran is a country ruled by a theocratic government with a very conservative view of Islam. They view secular countries, especially ones that are superpowers, with suspicion and derision. Our relationship with Islamic Republic of Iran has been bad since they attacked (and closed) our embassy in 1979 and took US citizens as hostages.

Iran has done much to justifiably upset the West and its allies. Examples include supplying weapons to Hezbollah to attack Israel with in 2006, funding terrorist attacks in Iraq to try and increase sectarian strife (they are a Shia government) and to kill US soldiers, and generally saying that Israel is not a real country, is full of vile monsters and threatening to one day wipe it off the map. Between that and their general denial of the Holocaust, Israel being weary of a nuclear Iran--meaning it'd have the power to actually wipe Israel off the map--is understandable. As Israel is our super BFF, their concern is our concern. Add in that Israel is ruled currently by a hawkish coalition led by Netanyahu, their hawkish concerns become the hawkish concerns of American politicians who all want to be pro-Israel.

But even if Iran's government understands M.A.D. and chooses neither to nuke Israel (which would be met with retaliatory nuclear strikes from Israel) nor give a nuclear weapon to an Israel/Western hating group, the fact that one of the leading Islamic powers in the Middle East has nuclear weapons could start an arms race. Think the US and USSR, except it's Iran, Saudi Arabia (which could call on nuclear Pakistan to ship them some weapons), Egypt and Turkey. Now countries with decades (if not centuries) of animosity all have nuclear weapons pointed at each other. Then when you consider how "secure" some of these countries are (coughEgyptcough) you see how weak governments could collapse and the weapons could be lost. Nuclear weapons on the black market or in an extremist group's hands is a scary thought.

Basically, the concept of a nuclear Middle East terrifies the US. There is the moral argument that the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in war should not be telling other countries they cannot have them. However, the US is the only superpower in the world and the interest of its government is US interests (i.e. not being dragged into a nuclear war in the Middle East or being nuked by a weapon that vanished from a weak government) and not esoteric arguments about what is fair.

I am not a proponent of going to war with Iran, but that is the logic.

We've supplied bad guys with weapons to attack sovereign states that we don't like through proxy. So has Israel. Israel has nukes. For them to act like Iran getting them would be the first in the middle east is preposterous. At least Iran has signed the NPT. They've had IAEA inspectors check them out. Israel has done neither of these things. Iran for the most part has been a non aggressor in the region (at least directly) Israel has made several attacks upon their neighbors.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb33/hobodeluxe/429827_409093645774696_259184544098.jpg

[DACrowe]

We've supplied bad guys with weapons to attack sovereign states that we don't like through proxy. So has Israel. Israel has nukes. For them to act like Iran getting them would be the first in the middle east is preposterous. At least Iran has signed the NPT. They've had IAEA inspectors check them out. Israel has done neither of these things. Iran for the most part has been a non aggressor in the region (at least directly) Israel has made several attacks upon their neighbors.

You're right we have supplied countries to fight as proxy against countries we don't like, including supporting Saddam against Iran in the 1980s....but this isn't about what is fair or just in an absolutist world.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a major threat to Israel who they have threatened numerous times and supplied weapons to warring enemies of. I don't think they'd actually give nuclear weapons to terrorists to be used on the US, but one cannot deny their policy towards America from kidnapping US citizens at our embassy during their revolution to funding the murder of US soldiers in Iraq leaves them not as a country we can particularly trust. Yes, Israel may be nuclear (we can't actually say that) and Pakistan truly is. But look how we have to prop up a corrupt government like Pakistan simply because if it fell their nuclear weapons would be insecure in a country that has clear contingencies with anti-American terrorism. Also, look at how Pakistan is always on a razor's edge with India because they're both nuclear. Now imagine every major power in the ME having nuclear weapons. Including countries whose governments seem to collapse every few decades.

You're arguing about whether the US is being hypocritical. The US government is not interested in that. It's interested in ensuring there are fewer nuclear weapons in teh world that can be used against this country.

[Pagan]

You're right we have supplied countries to fight as proxy against countries we don't like, including supporting Saddam against Iran in the 1980s....but this isn't about what is fair or just in an absolutist world.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a major threat to Israel who they have threatened numerous times and supplied weapons to warring enemies of. I don't think they'd actually give nuclear weapons to terrorists to be used on the US, but one cannot deny their policy towards America from kidnapping US citizens at our embassy during their revolution to funding the murder of US soldiers in Iraq leaves them not as a country we can particularly trust. Yes, Israel may be nuclear (we can't actually say that) and Pakistan truly is. But look how we have to prop up a corrupt government like Pakistan simply because if it fell their nuclear weapons would be insecure in a country that has clear contingencies with anti-American terrorism. Also, look at how Pakistan is always on a razor's edge with India because they're both nuclear. Now imagine every major power in the ME having nuclear weapons. Including countries whose governments seem to collapse every few decades.

You're arguing about whether the US is being hypocritical. The US government is not interested in that. It's interested in ensuring there are fewer nuclear weapons in teh world that can be used against this country.

meh Iran knows the rules. they use the nukes they get smoked. just like N Korea or Pakistan. What Israel doesn't want is a guaranteed deterrent to them having their way with Iran if they so choose. It elevates Iran's bargaining position on the world stage and is a last resort failsafe against overthrow and invasion.

[Hobgoblin]

The victor, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini said,

"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."

This is something you won't hear on war-hungry, rating-starved Cable TV networks.


So the American government is always lying and the Iranian government's word is good? Dont we need to look critically at everything that a government says?


Why don't we ever hear the opposition to war before it's too late like in Iraq? Here's the major problem, American interests are being dictated by Tel Aviv, not by Americans. Therefore, "BOMB IRAN" has become the new slogan and has sent gas prices up and tickled the intimate parts of the war profiteers.

So Jews run the media, hm? You realize that that is a worn out conspiracy theory, right?



The country that will profit the most from a war with Iran is Israel. The same nuclear-armed colonial state that is wiping Palestinians off the map and was eager to invade Iraq for the same exact reason. I also don't think destroying a few uranium enrichment facilities will topple the Iranian regime, if anything, it will strengthen it and now give it a public interest to support it even more. For America, it will be like Iraq, either shock and awe, or bust. We need to learn from our mistakes in Iraq, and make sure we are not being bullied into war by those who don't at all have our best interests at heart.

Israel was not eager for the U.S. to invade Iraq. They didnt like the idea because Iraq was a counter balance to Iran. Saddam kept the mullahs in check.

[Arc-Light]

People Iran wont nuke Israel....why because they would end up killing a lot of the Palestine people and any other neighboring middle eastern country BECAUSE OF THE FALLOUT...they would end up with more enemies than allies..

[DACrowe]

Israel has fail-safes to destroy whoever would destroy them. But there is more in US interests than the fear that the erratic Iranian government may hit Tel Aviv or someplace else.

[8wid]

Scrutinizing the Threat from Iran (http://billmoyers.com/2012/03/23/the-drumbeat-of-war/?ref=nf)

Full Show: Moving Beyond War (http://billmoyers.com/video/)

I'm still wondering if the US media is so objective, why are they so concerned with a nonexistant nuclear threat from Iran and not with reporting on the Afghanistan War or how the economy can be fixed etc.

[Asteroid-Man]

That was a great read!

[Midnyte_Sun]

So the American government is always lying and the Iranian government's word is good? Dont we need to look critically at everything that a government says?

American government always lying? Nothing is that absolute. They definitely are not lying about the economy, it's in bad shape. I don't think the FDA is lying when they put out a new regulations to protect consumers.

As for foreign intervention? War Crimes? Yeah, they do that a lot. The Afghan war is not on the news daily. We don't hear about the civilian deaths (unless it's severe in magnitude), military deaths aren't shown on TV everyday. It covered up war crimes committed by the Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan.

The one we should be worried about the most is justifying wars with other countries. It was the US government that intentionally lied to us about Saddam Hussein enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.


So Jews run the media, hm? You realize that that is a worn out conspiracy theory, right?

Who said Jews run the media? I said Cable TV shows are starved for ratings and will do anything for viewers. After witnessing the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the propaganda spewing forth, I knew that the US Media has lost almost all credibility. Cable TV and also network TV, are complacent to every invasion. I even believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons after seeing Colin Powell with yellow cake.

Israel was not eager for the U.S. to invade Iraq. They didnt like the idea because Iraq was a counter balance to Iran. Saddam kept the mullahs in check.

No, not really. Actually, the only country that was eager for Saddam's regime being removed before and after the war, was Iran. The Ayatollah at the time actually made big step towards peace by trying to engage the US into peace talks. These were all dismissed and ignored by Bush & Co. because they thought their "New American Century" neo-con objective was more important and they had full intentions of toppling the Iranian regime. Had they engaged the Iranians then, we would not be in this situation now.

Maybe back in 1989 Iraq, what you said was true..but Saddam started getting cozy with radical Islamists a year prior to the US invasion. He even donated money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel said Saddam's regime was a threat to Israel and other nations. AIPAC also shared that sentiment (surprise, surprise), that a nuclear armed Iraq was a threat to security (sound familiar?). AIPAC later denied they supported an armed invasion of Iraq.

[Pagan]

yeah I'll say it. most major media outlets are owned/ran by Jews.

Most of them owned by 7 conglomerates. Google it. Check it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

it's not anti-Semitic. Just a fact.

[Hobgoblin]

American government always lying? Nothing is that absolute. They definitely are not lying about the economy, it's in bad shape. I don't think the FDA is lying when they put out a new regulations to protect consumers.

As for foreign intervention? War Crimes? Yeah, they do that a lot. The Afghan war is not on the news daily. We don't hear about the civilian deaths (unless it's severe in magnitude), military deaths aren't shown on TV everyday. It covered up war crimes committed by the Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan.

The one we should be worried about the most is justifying wars with other countries. It was the US government that intentionally lied to us about Saddam Hussein enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.




Who said Jews run the media? I said Cable TV shows are starved for ratings and will do anything for viewers. After witnessing the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the propaganda spewing forth, I knew that the US Media has lost almost all credibility. Cable TV and also network TV, are complacent to every invasion. I even believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons after seeing Colin Powell with yellow cake.



No, not really. Actually, the only country that was eager for Saddam's regime being removed before and after the war, was Iran. The Ayatollah at the time actually made big step towards peace by trying to engage the US into peace talks. These were all dismissed and ignored by Bush & Co. because they thought their "New American Century" neo-con objective was more important and they had full intentions of toppling the Iranian regime. Had they engaged the Iranians then, we would not be in this situation now.

Maybe back in 1989 Iraq, what you said was true..but Saddam started getting cozy with radical Islamists a year prior to the US invasion. He even donated money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel said Saddam's regime was a threat to Israel and other nations. AIPAC also shared that sentiment (surprise, surprise), that a nuclear armed Iraq was a threat to security (sound familiar?). AIPAC later denied they supported an armed invasion of Iraq.

Let me get back to you.

EDIT:
I just got done watching Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN. He had Bruce de Mesquita, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Richard Kaas on the show, talking about Iran. While Kaas was definitely taking an anti-Iran position, de Mesquita and Slaughter were undermining the so called media war mongering. De Mesquita suggested finding out a way to determine if Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or not by the US and Europe supplying Iran with civilian energy at the same cost as what they are spending on the nuclear program. If the Iranians continue to work on the nuke program, its suspicious. Slaughter said that a war with Iran would be very unpopular with the American people as they are tired of war.

As for Jews controlling the media, perhaps I read too much into what you said but when you say Tel Aviv control American policy, the media is a corporate organization that wants war and Israel profits from an Iran War, you can see how I would be suspicious.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Hobgoblin,

I can see where you'd get confused because for some reason, I kept using the word 'profit' when I meant 'benefit,' (In regards to Israel benefiting from a US/NATO war with Iran), apologies.

As for Tel Aviv controlling American policy, I meant specifically foreign policy in the Middle East. Not regarding any other policies, such as energy, humanitarian, etc.

The war mongering those CNN pundits were talking about is still in full swing. On American news we heard about how the US and Europe have enacted an oil embargo, and how Swift (http://www.swift.com/solutions/banks) cut off Iranian banks from doing business. What they haven't told is that many European countries dependent on Iranian oil are now requested to have the restrictions lifted so that their gas prices don't spike. The three countries in particular that are in trouble are Greece, Italy, and Spain.

On top of that, Iran is planning to do more business with Turkey, India, China, and Russia. The sanctions seem like they will fail. The US and IAEA needs to get back to the negotiating table and find ways , like the CNN pundit said, to allow Iran to get the civilian nuclear energy it needs. They need to get creative. "BOMB IRAN" as Bibi Netanyahu said and calling Iran a 'nuclear duck' is not productive.

[8wid]

How long is the crap against Iran going to last? There is no nuclear threat whatsoever, this has been going on for a decade of growing sanctions of tension with nothing new actually happening. The processing of plutonium is for peaceful power plants, but there does exist a potential for it to be if Iran gets scared enough, but so is the case in many countries. It all started when the US invaded Iraq and probably won't end until they leave Afghanistan for good in 2015.

[8wid]

Fewer countries use capital punishment, but executions increased: Amnesty International (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fewer-countries-use-capital-punishment-but-executions-increased-amnesty-international/article2382569/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=World&utm_content=2382569)

[ronny]

The problem I see is that war with Iran carries the very real risk of radicalising an intelligent, educated population. It may well breath new life into the theocratic regime of the Ayatollah and his thugs.

Without war and with subtle encouragement, I genuinely believe that Iran will one day emerge out of the darkness it was plunged into after the Revolution. But attacking them gives the leadership everything they want, a chance to rant, a chance to play the victim, a chance to hide their own atrocities and fascistic policies behind the excesses of Israel.

A big, loud distraction, to divert the attention of an oppressed, brutalised people. That is all war will bring.

[8wid]

Will Israel Bomb Iran? Probable Outcomes Of a Possible War (http://video.pbs.org/video/2216560909/)

[8wid]

Iran undecided on nuclear bomb - Israel military chief (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17837768)

[Hawkingbird]

Surely by going to war with Iran, they're provoking an attack?

[Asteroid-Man]

Have you guys been following the Abu Musa land dispute? England occupied the Persian island in 1908, and when it said it would be leaving (1968), they said they would give a majority of "their" land to the UAE; the issue here is that Abu Musa was never British land to give. Two days before the Brits left (November 30th, 1971), Iran and UAE made an agreement; Dubai could govern the municipal government of the island, but Iran would have Federal control. On the day that this came into effect, the Sheik welcomed the Iranian military with open arms.

After Ahmadinejad made a visit to the island just recently, UAE came out and said it's their land.

[8wid]

Israel ex-security chief says leadership 'misleading public' on Iran
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879744)

I'm starting to think that when Netanyahu leaves office that the need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities will start to die down a bit. The people of Israel are not on board with this idea or his own cabinet it seems like. Although you wouldn't really know that by the way American media discusses the story.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Have you guys been following the Abu Musa land dispute? England occupied the Persian island in 1908, and when it said it would be leaving (1968), they said they would give a majority of "their" land to the UAE; the issue here is that Abu Musa was never British land to give. Two days before the Brits left (November 30th, 1971), Iran and UAE made an agreement; Dubai could govern the municipal government of the island, but Iran would have Federal control. On the day that this came into effect, the Sheik welcomed the Iranian military with open arms.

After Ahmadinejad made a visit to the island just recently, UAE came out and said it's their land.

Thats kind of a dickish move.

[8wid]

East Coast Missile Defense For Nonexistent Iran Weapons
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxoKlxfQUz4&feature=plcp)

[8wid]

US hikers jailed for spying by Iran get married (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17974706)

[8wid]

Are American Jews fed up of Israel? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9719381.stm)

[8wid]

Iran hangs 'Israel spy' over nuclear scientist killing
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18068820)

[8wid]

US ready to attack Iran, says envoy to Israel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18110191)

[Marvolo]

And where are they going to get the money?

Doesn't Iran realize if they nuke us and don't take out our military we will launch a nuke back and tturn them into a crater? Even if they just nuke Isreal they will still be nuked or at thw vvery least carpet bombed to dust. I know America hasn't fought wars that well in the past 60 years but if you push us against the wall we still know how to throw down the gauntlet. I just can't believe Iran is that stupid.

[8wid]

They're actually not building a nuclear weapons program. Israel is paranoid about the Tehran regime plotting against them because they cannot win a win without their own nuclear weapons so they lobby the US to bully them for them. US oil companies who donate much money to conservative politicians or who are owned by them and given huge advertising dollars to media companies to help scare people into helping them scare up oil prices and their positive public image, are scared of the idea of nuclear energy expanding in a place as petrol rich as the Middle East. They're types have already stopped the building of nuclear power plants and production of green energy in the United States for decades for convincing Americans they're very dangerous and will meltdown, especially now after the earthquake in Japan. If Iran is able to develop a peaceful nuclear power plant to provide their energy needs than any nation in that region will soon follow suit and their willingness to sell oil to the West and give into their demand for economic dependence will diminish over time. Imagine if Iran can build a nuclear power plant that works and does not blow up, why can't Americans? They're scared to death of this possibility.

That would mean greater interest in created green technology for cleaner energy like wind farms, solar paneling, atomic power plants, which leads to vehicles running on naturally grown bio-fuel, hydrogen, electricity in greater numbers and more efficiency as time goes by and less need to depend on coal and gas powered power plants and then millions of cars around the world and homes that burn coal won't use the resources they provide as much as they used to because electricity is made more.

[Hobgoblin]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/meast/iran-pirates/index.html


(CNN) -- Iranian sailors helped scare off armed pirates who attacked an American cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, Iranian state media reported Thursday.

Iran detains 13 alleged pirates after clash

It's the latest example of U.S.-Iranian cooperation on pirate-infested high seas despite a wave of tensions between Washington and Tehran over the decades.

EU forces attack pirate targets on Somali shore
Surviving a pirate attack

The incident occurred northeast of Fujairah, a port for refueling oil tankers, the Fars News Agency said. The port, in the United Arab Emirates, is close to the Strait of Hormuz, an important oil shipping lane.

Iranian navy vessels received a distress signal from the U.S. cargo ship Maersk Texas during patrols.

The forces announced their willingness to help. As they closed in on the American cargo ship, the pirates scattered. The U.S. ship crew thanked the Iranian naval force and continued on its way, state media reported.

"We were aware of the incident yesterday," a State Department official said. "The situation was successfully deescalated by the ship's crew and the Iranian crew."

The United States, Iran and other nations have been intent on repelling pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden and other bodies of water.

Pirate attacks down off Somalia, up off Nigeria

American forces assisted or rescued Iranians at sea several times in January.

U.S. sailors aboard a guided-missile destroyer aided the crew of a sinking Iranian fishing vessel in the Arabian Sea. The U.S. Coast Guard rescued six Iranian mariners at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon said. And the destroyer USS Kidd rescued 13 Iranian sailors from a hijacked fishing boat near the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran has threatened to close the the strait if sanctions are imposed on its exports of crude oil. The West has been using sanctions and diplomacy to try to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

[8wid]

I think it's clear to say that because there are no permanent US bases in Iraq and the NATO withdrawal has no plans for any in Afghanistan. A select number of troops will remain there to advise that's all. It's also interesting to explore how different the relationship between the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq was before the build up to war in 2003. The timeline is quite a bit different than what is going on with Iran.

Iraq was found to be building nuclear weapons during the Gulf War to which weapons inspectors started going in in 1991. The UN set up a safe-zone in northern Iraq to protect Kurds fleeing genocide. Then a no-fly zone was going up in south Iraq so no Iraqi military jets could enter at a certain latitude. Clinton launched a cruise missile to destroy Iraqi intelligence after finding evidence for a state sponsored assassination attempt against George H.W. Bush in 1993. UN sanctions blocked the flow of Iraqi oil until 1995 when it was agreed to sell it for food. Iraqi violated the no-fly zone and then in 1998 the US launched Operation Desert Fox to destroy Iraqi biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs. The UN then resumed weapons inspections in 1998 which Iraq rejected. In 2001 the US and Britain launched airstrikes to destroy Iraqi's air defense network with no international support. The UN then went back to weapons inspecting in 2002. The US-led invasion then came the following year.

Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14546763)

There is actually some key differences in the relationship between Iraq and the US compared to today in Iran. The US and Iraqi had already fought a war in which they deemed Hussein to be the aggressor. There had been a heavy UN presence since the end of the Gulf War to stop Iraq's development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from being used on civilians, the no-fly zone was put in to prevent future possible Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. Iraq violated both the no-fly zone and ousted the weapons inspectors in the late 90s which started US air strikes in 2001. They tried again with weapons inspectors who found nothing and then decided to start an invasion the next year because Hussein was still in defiance.

This I think goes to show the Neocons and Bush had their paranoid minds stuck in the 1990s instead of trying to focus on Al-Qaeda and they feared more than the fact that Iraq would have gotten ahold of WMDs. It's likely they still though Iraq was rearming itself and preparing to invade another nation again like Kuwait or arm terrorists to attack the US in the wake of their shock from the 9/11 attacks. It also goes to show the Iraq relationship was based on conditions that ended the Gulf War that Saddam violated and were dealt with through US and British air strikes to prevent them from rearming. The difference with Iran is that America has never fought them, the inspections are not conditions of peace terms from a war actionable through force via signed agreements, the US had never backed up their agreements through any force such as cruise missile strikes or air strikes in Iran, nor has anything such as a no-fly zone been enforced into Iran. Iran can not also be pushed around by threats from the US like Iraq was after Saddam was bankrupt after the Gulf War because they are stronger now. All of this makes me think the US is not willing to go to war so easily as it did in Iraq with Iran because much more so this time there would not be a leg to stand on to make the case and the American people in huge majority would not support it.

[Hobgoblin]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-mum-reported-iran-nukes-warning-203039311.html



The White House refused to comment Thursday on a bombshell Israeli media report that President Barack Obama recently received an updated intelligence assessment that Iran has made surprising strides towards being able to build a nuclear weapon.

The Haaretz newspaper reported that Obama had received a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—the consensus assessment of the American intelligence community—that "Iran has made surprising, notable progress in the research and development of key components of its military nuclear program." The daily cited unnamed "Western diplomats and Israeli officials."

Asked about the report, White House press secretary Jay Carney replied: "I don't comment on intelligence matters or intelligence reports the president may or may not have received."

"I can tell you that the president remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said aboard Air Force One as Obama campaigned in the swing state of Colorado.

"We are leading an international effort to impose upon Iran what even the Iranian president has identified as the most stringent sanctions ever imposed on any country," Carney said. "And that effort is designed of what we believe remains to be a window of opportunity to persuade Iran through these sanctions and through diplomatic efforts to forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions and live to its international obligations." He added that "hardly a week goes by" without the economic vise tightening further.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Radio that there was "apparently a report by American intelligence agencies" that was "making the rounds of high offices" and has heightened American worries about Iran's nuclear program.

"As far as we know, it comes very close to our own estimate, I would say, as opposed to earlier American estimates. It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one, and it is even less likely that we will know every development in time on the Iranian nuclear program," Barak said, according to a CBS report on the interview.

Israel, widely thought to be an undeclared nuclear power, has warned it cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and reserves the right to use military force to prevent that outcome. Obama has repeatedly said America shares Israel's concerns but has pleaded for time to let the sanctions and diplomatic efforts work. Iran has steadfastly denied that it seeks the bomb, but reports from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency have cast doubt on those claims.

If the Haaretz report is correct, the new NIE would be yet another shift in American intelligence agencies' assessment of just what Tehran is doing. A 2007 NIE said Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003 and that there was no clear evidence that those efforts had resumed. Some American officials speculate that Iran wants the ability to build a nuclear weapon, not necessarily to actually acquire an atomic arsenal.

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has accused Obama of being soft on Israel, but has not suggested any major break with his policies if elected. And Republicans have loudly complained about national security disclosures regarding an unprecedented cyberwar effort by the Obama administration to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

[SV Fan]

Iran poses a real threat to all those US military bases, just look how it's positioning itself in between all of them ready to attack

http://www.qwmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/us-bases.jpg

[8wid]

^But those bases have been there since the Cold War when the US feared the Soviet Union either might invade the oil rich Middle East, try to prevent communism from spreading into the newly formed governments like Syria and Iraq that were getting their independence from the British Empire, it's close to put nuclear bombers and missiles in to strike Russia itself and its former Soviet satellite states etc. It protects the flow of supplies between Europe, Africa, and Asia in case of a full scale war with the USSR.

Many of those bases have been added after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to prevent the revolution in Iran from becoming a communist one, or Russian aggression from spreading. They are also there to keep Iraq at bay after the Gulf War and Iran too now in case it wants to move out. They also been put in for the current Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, war in Yemen, war in Pakistan, war in Oman, war in Sudan and Somalia. It also protects the flow of oil and cargo from pirates and hostile regimes from any third world nation in the region.

The good thing is that this map is out of date because the US has no more bases in Iraq, American and NATO withdrawal plans not to have any remaining in Afghanistan after 2014. Iran is not really building a nuclear weapon despite the hype about it. The US can't afford to attack Iran which can block the Straits of Hormuz where the flow of oil goes, have them start a regional war with Israel, attack Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or other oil producing nations directly etc. It would be economic suicide that would likely cause a second Great Depression if it lasted more than a few weeks.

These bases are essentially left over from decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union, fighting the Gulf War and revolutions in the Middle East, plus the modern war on Terror. It really reflects a past century of war tension and political turmoil. After the US leaves Afghanistan and has to really come to terms with its Federal deficit or risk default the will agree to cut defense and some of these bases will go with it. I wish I had an updated map to show you.

[8wid]

U.S. still believes Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-israel-iran-usa-idUSBRE8781GS20120809)

Israel's nuclear capabilities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpoAwHp-C1Q)

[8wid]

Iran earthquakes leave scores dead in Tabriz region (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19226500)

[8wid]

Israeli 'document' on Iran attack leaked (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19271083)

[Hobgoblin]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-23/news/sns-rt-us-nuclear-iran-enrichmentbre87m0te-20120823_1_fordow-parchin-site-nuclear-enrichment-program


VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has installed many more uranium enrichment machines in an underground bunker, diplomatic sources said on Thursday, potentially paving the way for a significant expansion of work the West fears is ultimately aimed at making nuclear bombs.

Iran denies allegations it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability. But its refusal to curb its nuclear enrichment program has prompted tough Western sanctions and has heightened speculation that Israel may attack its atomic sites.


In a possible sign of further Iranian defiance in the face of such pressure, several sources said Iran had put in place additional enrichment centrifuges in its Fordow facility, buried deep inside a mountain to protect it against enemy strikes.

One source suggested hundreds of machines had been installed.

In another development likely to worry the West, they said satellite imagery indicated Iran had covered a building at a military site which U.N. inspectors want to visit with a brightly-colored, tent-like structure.

Western diplomats have said they believe Iran is cleansing the Parchin site to remove any evidence of illicit nuclear activity at a place where the U.N. nuclear watchdog suspects it has conducted tests that had a military dimension.

Covering the building in question - which is believed to house a steel chamber for explosives experiments - may allow Iran to carry out sanitization or other work there which would not be seen via satellite pictures.

One Western envoy said that the suspected clean-up at Parchin was "intensifying" and that this made it doubtful that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would uncover any hard evidence there, even if they were allowed to go.

"Given the extent of the clean-up, it is indeed unlikely the agency, if it ever gets access, would find anything at Parchin," the diplomat said.

There was no immediate comment from Iran's mission to the Vienna-based U.N. atomic agency. It has previously dismissed the allegations about Parchin, which it says is a conventional military facility, as "ridiculous".

NEW NUCLEAR TALKS

The IAEA will press Iran again in talks on Friday for access to Parchin as part of its long-stalled probe into suspected nuclear weapons research in the Islamic state, even though it concedes that the alleged sanitization would hamper its probe.

The meeting, the first since previous discussions ended in failure in June, takes place after an upsurge in rhetoric from Israeli politicians this month suggesting Israel might attack Iran ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November.

The talks are separate from Tehran's negotiations with world powers that have made little headway since they resumed in April after a 15-month hiatus, but the focus on suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions mean they are closely linked.

[8wid]

Iran is not building nuclear weapons. They have the capability to enrich a lot more uranium than they are now, but it takes many many than they what they have currently going. That capability exists because Iran once feared invasion and nuclear attack from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, potentially Israel, and an irrational fear of aggression from the US after it labeled Iran as part of the Axis of Evil in 2001 and invaded its neighbors of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Kelly]

Well, I'm really glad that you have the inside track to Iran and their true motives.....I feel much better.... ; )

[8wid]

^Once NATO withdrawals from Afghanistan I guarantee that the rhetoric of this kind is going to drop down enormously. We may eventually see the US lift sanctions on Iran.

More warmongering from the BBC which assumes Iran is already in the process of weaponizing despite tons of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't even mention how close specifically Iran is to nuclear weapons and only cites that fact it has the potential to. So does Japan, South Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, Myramar, etc if they ever felt threatened enough.

David Sanger on Iran's nuclear programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19376500)

[Hobgoblin]

^Once NATO withdrawals from Afghanistan I guarantee that the rhetoric of this kind is going to drop down enormously. We may eventually see the US lift sanctions on Iran.

More warmongering from the BBC which assumes Iran is already in the process of weaponizing despite tons of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't even mention how close specifically Iran is to nuclear weapons and only cites that fact it has the potential to. So does Japan, South Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, Myramar, etc if they ever felt threatened enough.

David Sanger on Iran's nuclear programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19376500)

After 30+ years? What is your reasoning behind thinking that?

[8wid]

^Never mind in that case. The fact that Iran has been getting sanctions on itself that long proves there is no urgency in needing worry about rumors of nuclear weapons program being developed by Tehran because it's all just rhetoric.

[Hobgoblin]

So a country determined to gain nuclear technology wont find black market ways to make necessary purchases? And thre is a major difference between Ian and the other nations you mentioned: the Iranians support terrorism and have said repeatedly that Israel should not exist.

I know that apologists like to conveniently forget those facts. Not that I am positive that Iran will build nukes but it is at least a possibility that needs to be taken seriously.

[8wid]

^Fine, but if South Korea and Japan feel threatened enough by the North which has nuclear weapons they will build them to self-defense. Iran does support terrorism and buys some things on the black market already for its nuclear energy program. If they were accelerating through this their uranium enrichment would be detectable and at a higher concentration than it is now. If Iran was interested in attacking Israel why not just do it with a dirty bomb, biological agent, or something else? They can get a suitcase nuke from North Korea I'm sure.

[SV Fan]

^Fine, but if South Korea and Japan feel threatened enough by the North which has nuclear weapons they will build them to self-defense. Iran does support terrorism and buys some things on the black market already for its nuclear energy program. If they were accelerating through this their uranium enrichment would be detectable and at a higher concentration than it is now. If Iran was interested in attacking Israel why not just do it with a dirty bomb, biological agent, or something else? They can get a suitcase nuke from North Korea I'm sure.

Thing I don't get is how the hell does Iran threaten the US. Does anybody in the US believe Iran has the capability to launch a missile in Iran all the way to New York.

The sad thing about Iran is compared to some of countries in the middle east the people there are actually "more secular" then alot of radicals in other countries in that area that America has ties with. Going there and carpet bombing the area will only turn those people who have a chance to become great Pro-Americian Middle Easters into people who view America negatively. It sort of reminds me of Iraq, why go and bomb a country that for the most part hated Osama Bin Laden just as much as us, that's counter productive(expect for the military industrial complex)

[Kelly]

Thing I don't get is how the hell does Iran threaten the US. Does anybody in the US believe Iran has the capability to launch a missile in Iran all the way to New York.

The sad thing about Iran is compared to some of countries in the middle east the people there are actually "more secular" then alot of radicals in other countries in that area that America has ties with. Going there and carpet bombing the area will only turn those people who have a chance to become great Pro-Americian Middle Easters into people who view America negatively.

Iran threatens Israel (the only true American friend in that region), they control the Strait or Hormuz, and they are now showing major influence in Iraq....

So, as much as I am against military action against Iran, I understand the level of interest.

[SV Fan]

So, as much as I am against military action against Iran, I understand the level of interest.

I am of the belief you win more people(at least the hearts and minds) with diplomacy then war. Added bonus diplomacy is much cheaper

[Hobgoblin]

Thing I don't get is how the hell does Iran threaten the US. Does anybody in the US believe Iran has the capability to launch a missile in Iran all the way to New York.

The sad thing about Iran is compared to some of countries in the middle east the people there are actually "more secular" then alot of radicals in other countries in that area that America has ties with. Going there and carpet bombing the area will only turn those people who have a chance to become great Pro-Americian Middle Easters into people who view America negatively.
Iran doesnt threaten the U.S. Not with nukes anyway. They would most likely try to hurt us by sponsoring terrorist attacks or by cutting off the Straits of Hormuz, crippling our oil supply.

No Iranian missile could reach North America, true. Some could hit southern Europe but Iran has no reason to attack those countries. The missile fears are really Israel's.

The rallying around the Iranian regime in the event of an American or Israeli attack on the Iranian facilities is one of the big negatives against attacking. Let's face it, there is no good solution to this situation. The best we can hope for is that the Iranian nuke program is peaceful, but we can never know that for sure.

[SV Fan]

The rallying around the Iranian regime in the event of an American or Israeli attack on the Iranian facilities is one of the big negatives against attacking. Let's face it, there is no good solution to this situation. The best we can hope for is that the Iranian nuke program is peaceful, but we can never know that for sure.

Here is an idea take 50B of the 70B the government gave Israel and buy oil from Iran under the condition they do certain things. Money talks and it's a better bang for our bucks.

It's sort of sad that Obama giving 70B to Israel is not even commented on by the Republicans as wasteful spending, yet I can't go a day without hearing the name Solyndra(which is pennies on the dollar compared to that 70B)

[Kelly]

I think we should pull all aid being sent to the Middle East....let's try that....

[thegreyghost]

Thing I don't get is how the hell does Iran threaten the US. Does anybody in the US believe Iran has the capability to launch a missile in Iran all the way to New York.

The sad thing about Iran is compared to some of countries in the middle east the people there are actually "more secular" then alot of radicals in other countries in that area that America has ties with. Going there and carpet bombing the area will only turn those people who have a chance to become great Pro-Americian Middle Easters into people who view America negatively. It sort of reminds me of Iraq, why go and bomb a country that for the most part hated Osama Bin Laden just as much as us, that's counter productive(expect for the military industrial complex)

That's sort of what happened when the US invaded Iraq and why they didn't greet NATO and the Americans as liberators. The US had killed untold scores of combatants with families during the Gulf War, not to mention civilians. During several raids under the Clinton and Bush administration to remove the capability of Saddam from rearming his military. America's foreign policy has helped prop up the government in Saudi Arabia which has angered many including the 19 hijackers that crashed planes on 9/11.

As for being a threat to the US, Iran only has a missile capacity of maybe hitting a few hundred miles west of Israel itself unless it targeted American bases and interests in the area such as the Saudi oil fields, Straitz of Hormuz, or the NATO bases in Afghanistan the only threat it could pose to the mainland US is through sleeper cells and terrorist attacks which no nation has ever been able to pull off before successfully.

[SV Fan]

I think we should pull all aid being sent to the Middle East....let's try that....

Finally an issue we can agree on :)

Sadly this issue is the less of 2 evils when it comes to the 2 major parties.

[thegreyghost]

I think that all aid should be pulled. The US needs to stop worrying about if Israel is divided into two different states too. Americans for the most part probably don't even know why there are two Sudans now let alone care what happens to Israel.

[Hobgoblin]

Here is an idea take 50B of the 70B the government gave Israel and buy oil from Iran under the condition they do certain things. Money talks and it's a better bang for our bucks.

It's sort of sad that Obama giving 70B to Israel is not even commented on by the Republicans as wasteful spending, yet I can't go a day without hearing the name Solyndra(which is pennies on the dollar compared to that 70B)

Because there would be an uproar from Jewish and Evangelical groups about money being taken from Israel and given to Iran. Besides, how do we know that the Iranians will follow through on the conditions? What if we give them the money and they give us the finger?

[Marvolo]

Could Iran be trying to draw us into war to weaken our economy further and get at us that way?

[SV Fan]

Because there would be an uproar from Jewish and Evangelical groups about money being taken from Israel and given to Iran. Besides, how do we know that the Iranians will follow through on the conditions? What if we give them the money and they give us the finger?

I am not saying outright give them money. Offer them money for services(in this case Oil) under conditions certain issues are resolved. If you open up a trading partnership all of a sudden both countries will go out of their way to try keep eachother happy(or at least that is the goal you want).

To often it seems like the US uses it's economic power to bully smaller countries(see Cuba) like it's my way or the highway instead of using it's economic power to try create some diplomacy and a mutually beneficial relationship which could intern make them more open for other suggestions the US makes.

Maybe I am part hippy but I don't think going around and telling other countries that they are evil and acting like they are a plague on society, while trying to cripple them economically is the best way to make friends. As I said previously I do think the people who live in Iran are probably some of the most Pro-American Muslims in that area of the world that shouldn't be be treated like an afterthought just because you don't like the guy at the top and some of his policies.

Also I should add no money is being taken from Israel. The US is giving them a check for 70B, no strings attached.

[Marvolo]

Hasnt Iran's leader openly expressed his qish for the distruction of America? Not exactly the kind of person that trades with you.

[SV Fan]

Hasnt Iran's leader openly expressed his qish for the distruction of America? Not exactly the kind of person that trades with you.

It's not like some of our so called leaders are any better when it comes to foreign policy with Iran and name calling. I am fairly sure if I had somebody constantly telling me I was evil I wouldn't take so kindly to it and probably lash back a bit

[Belvedere]

The sabre-rattling is happen from both sides.

Israel urges the international community to invade Iran, Iran threatens Israel and condemns the Western world, goes round in circles a few hundred times more...

[Marvolo]

Iran's navy to place warships off US coast 'in the next few years'

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0904/Iran-s-navy-to-place-warships-off-US-coast-in-the-next-few-years

Its so cute when they try to be intimidating.

[Kelly]

Iran's navy to place warships off US coast 'in the next few years'

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0904/Iran-s-navy-to-place-warships-off-US-coast-in-the-next-few-years

Its so cute when they try to be intimidating.


Oh, I can't wait to see this.....which coast? Please bring them to the Gulf Coast, right off of Galveston Island, TEXAS... :woot: