🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

[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/Suic...ilgrims-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/Suic...ilgrims-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 serial addiction to terror - a surgical bombing campaign resulting in the end of the Mullahs. By sending their agents of death into 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 to 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 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

 

[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/w...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/internat...a-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/internat...a-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). 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

 

[Pagan]

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

 

[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? 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.

 

[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.