Iran
 

Would any anti-war folk like to talk a little bit about what they feel should or should not be done, from both a US and then a UN perspective, in regards to Iran amidst its apparant nuclear ambitions coupled with its call for the elimination of another state? If you aren't caught up, here are some links:


Iran Moves Closer to Enriched Uranium

Iran Missile Deal

Iran considered "very dangerous"

World Losing Patience

Holocaust denial

"Israel Must Be Wiped Off the Map"

Re: Iran
 

Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

Re: Iran
 

It is really a tough issue, after this election. The Iranian politics seems to have shifted from pragmatic (meaning tough rhetoric but will to negotiate) to ideologic (anti-Israel etc.). I think a real threat of use of force is necessary. Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

For starters, how about telling them if they don't cut the crap, they will lose ALL of their nuclear R&D facilities (and any suspected sites as well).

If we have to follow through on this, and if we are met with military resistance, they should lose their largest military bases as well.

In other words--we should tell them cut the crap--or ELSE. Plain and simple.

Negotiations haven't worked, and have done nothing but buy them time. They are clearly and completely intransigent and fully intend to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's hardline government is telling it like it is--the way they see it--to the world. It's high time we speak as plainly to the Iranian government.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
For starters, how about telling them if they don't cut the crap, they will lose ALL of their nuclear R&D facilities (and any suspected sites as well).

[/ QUOTE ]


Didn't Israel send them a "message" a few years back? I wouldn't be surprised to see them adding a "p.s." to it.

With our problems in Iraq, I don't expect us to do anything except arm-twisting in the UN. Probably a lot of background haggling/dealing in our "allies" capitols. But anything more, not agreed on in the UN, I think won't happen.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Plain and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

M6, the common refute of that line of thinking goes something like:

[ QUOTE ]
The scene is complex. No complex thing can be cast in terms of black and white. That's what the right does so well -- sees everything as good and evil, black and white. That's why the airwaves are filled with conservative commentators. They can pound their fists and act like the world is unambiguous. The trap the left is falling into is seeing things in black and white. Don't buy it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am unfortunately stuck in the trap of believing that the Iranian government and its intentions are "evil" and that "evil" needs to be met with "good". Ambiguous at first, yes, but then that at least serves as the platform for the construction of a strategy. Because clearly if the Iranian government was "good" then the strategy from its conception would have to be entirely different.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it have any ability to strike that can not easily be countered?

Re: Iran
 

If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone. For that matter i dont think nuclear weapons would ever be used by a government unless they had already lost. With this in mind Israel's real threat is a conventional war in which they could easily kick the crap out of Iran.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Israel has that much faith that Iran wouldn't do it, nor can they take the risk. Iran does not need nuclear weapons except to pose such a threat to Israel, and if they insist on developing them they should realize that, along with their president's statements, is provocation enough for Israel to act.

Iran is probably going to find out the truth in the line, "if you build it they will come".

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we were speaking across eachother. I meant pre-nuclear.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Israel has that much faith that Iran wouldn't do it, nor can they take the risk. Iran does not need nuclear weapons except to pose such a threat to Israel, and if they insist on developing them they should realize that, along with their president's statements, is provocation enough for Israel to act.

Iran is probably going to find out the truth in the line, "if you build it they will come".

[/ QUOTE ]

Every leader of every nuclear nation on the planet realizes that nuclear war is a losing proposition. If I was Iran I'd be trying to get nukes asap in order to make sure Israel didnt try any sneaky business. Certainly Israel has been far more expansionist and agressive in the past 50 years than Iran.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Iran I'd be

[/ QUOTE ]

You attempt to think rationally here. But would a rational government be making statements calling for the elimination of another state, while defying international pressure to cease its nuclear ambitions?

Re: Iran
 

Hi Riddick,

I just don't see a compelling reason to allow our sworn mortal enemies (the Iranian government) to arm in such a manner that they could cause us or our allies the gravest of harm. If that means kicking their heads in, militarily speaking, well that's just a damn shame.

Re: Iran
 

This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Iran I'd be trying to get nukes asap in order to make sure Israel didnt try any sneaky business. Certainly Israel has been far more expansionist and agressive in the past 50 years than Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though Israel has possessed nukes for some time, and now apparently also has a submarine launch option as well, Iran never has had to fear such a nuclear attack unless they provoked it. So they truly don't need nukes themselves, and trying to get them will only likely bring about the attack you are assuming they would deter.

If your actual point is that any nation *should* have the right to develop nuclear weapons, then that is fine. But they should realize that doing so can likely be a self-fullfilling trigger for their own doom.

Re: Iran
 

MMMMMM,

I don't come in this forum much, but I'm trying to interpret your use of "we" in this thread. I can't figure out if you are US or Israeli.

thanks.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you get the ball rolling...what do you think the US should do to Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, not that much. containment, economic/diplomatic sanctions, covertly fermenting/encouraging democratic insurgency, etc.

Also any bunker-busting missile type technology that might be helpful in destroying buried nuclear weapon technology should be on sale or given to our closest and most trusted allies. this one seems pretty obvious though.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was Iran I'd be

[/ QUOTE ]

You attempt to think rationally here. But would a rational government be making statements calling for the elimination of another state, while defying international pressure to cease its nuclear ambitions?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
, Iran never has had to fear such a nuclear attack unless they provoked it. So they truly don't need nukes themselves,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure thats fine reasoning from an Israeli point of view, but from the Iranian its crazy. Relying on the whim of people you see as mortal enimies to decide your fate is ridiculous

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I am certain that the US government's intentions to eliminate a legitimate government did not include wiping out all of its citizens, I can't say the same for the intentions of the Iranian president, and therein lies quite a stark difference.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hmm, the US repeatedly called for the end of the legitimate Iraqi government while at the sam etime defying international pressure by continuing anti-ballistic missle technology. Funny how the US can do one thing, then comdem another nation for doing the same stuff.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I am certain that the US government's intentions to eliminate a legitimate government did not include wiping out all of its citizens, I can't say the same for the intentions of the Iranian president, and therein lies quite a stark difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why Israel cannot allow Iran to develop nukes. But the key point you are missing is that Israel is not committed to the destruction of Iran and only will attack them if threatened by Iran developing those weapons or in response to Iranian funded/supported terrorist action against Israel. THAT is why Iran does not need nukes, because it has not TRUE fear of an Israeli attack if it does not provoke same. Only their wish to keep supporting terrorists against Israel which might provoke such a response could cause them to legitimately fear Israeli military action. So all Iran has to do is not support anti-Israeli terrorism and it need never fear an Israeli attack.

Re: Iran
 

Why doesn't Iran just want nukes for the same reason all other countries* who have them wanted them. Namely leverage.

* I grant that the USA and USSR are special cases.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iran seeks the destruction of the Israeli state, not the destruction of all the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why Israel cannot allow Iran to develop nukes. But the key point you are missing is that Israel is not committed to the destruction of Iran and only will attack them if threatened by Iran developing those weapons or in response to Iranian funded/supported terrorist action against Israel. THAT is why Iran does not need nukes, because it has not TRUE fear of an Israeli attack if it does not provoke same. Only their wish to keep supporting terrorists against Israel which might provoke such a response could cause them to legitimately fear Israeli military action. So all Iran has to do is not support anti-Israeli terrorism and it need never fear an Israeli attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very strange view on hte matter. Every nation has the rightto develop their technology in any way they see fit. It is not the job of the Israelis to decide if Iran should or should not have a certain technology. The very idea that people think they should is part of the reason people hate Israel.

Iran should be able to keep their own nuclear arsenal for the same reason every other nation has one, self defense. Not a single nuclear nation would admit that they will ever pull a first strike policy. If the Israelis commit to a first strike policy then they must reap the consequences of their agression. This may be more terroist funding or an outright attack.

By not letting other nations have the ability to defend themselves you get super powers which could roll over everything. America could never invade Iraq if Iraq had nukes, likewise Iraq could of never invaded Kuwait if Kuwait had nukes. Nuclear proliferation would be the single greatest step towards world peace.

Note: Obviously this is a faux peace because it is extorted through MAD. However peace is peace.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid concerns, and I suspect we should be moving much faster in Iraq (faster Saddam trial; more anti-insurgent strikes; faster Iraqi security training; elections, at least, will be soon) so that in a few months it might be more stable, and we might strike Iran if needed. Issuing Iran an absolute ultimatum during a window of time (after substantial Iraqi progress is seen, yet before Iran reaches the full enrichment cycle) may be the best bet.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,

I don't come in this forum much, but I'm trying to interpret your use of "we" in this thread. I can't figure out if you are US or Israeli.

thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S.A.

Iran's hardliners in parliament, in passing a bill requiring the state to enrich uranium, broke out into shouts of "Death To America!" as the bill was passed. Iran also has long backed Hezbollah, whose slogan is "Death To America!". Additionally, Iran is indirectly acting against us in Iraq, supporting the training or supplying of foreign fighters there, and contributing to the deaths of Americans with, among other things, "shaped explosives."

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is a very strange view on hte matter. Every nation has the rightto develop their technology in any way they see fit. It is not the job of the Israelis to decide if Iran should or should not have a certain technology. The very idea that people think they should is part of the reason people hate Israel.


Iran should be able to keep their own nuclear arsenal for the same reason every other nation has one, self defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree: I don't think totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have that right. Nor do I trust them to not employ first-strike. However, I do think that democratic-style constitutional republics have that right, and I think they are far more worthy of trust not to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike attack.

All forms of government are not created equal. Totalitarian governments, or radical, unstable regimes should have no rights to possess doomsday weapons--and the world would be foolish to trust them with such devices.

Re: Iran
 

M,

thanks, just curious because of the sworn mortal enemies bit.

No doubt it is an issue of paramount importance, but I believe it to be a much more dire situation for Israel's national interests than it is ours. The existence of Israel in many ways depends on iran not developing nuclear weapons, but I dont think they can threaten the existence of the US in any meaningful way. That fact and the current weakness of our government wrt foreign policy especially in the mideast, leads me to believe that it's gonna be isreal that carries the burden of actually doing something on this one. but who knows.

anybody who doesn't realize how terrible it is for Iran to have these weapons, given the tension in the region, their ambitions re: israel/palestine, and the instability of the iranian government is seriously misguided. It isn't necessarily the ayatollahs acting on behest of Iran that is the biggest concern.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree: I don't think totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have that right

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough. It ain't rocket science anymore.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
No doubt it is an issue of paramount importance, but I believe it to be a much more dire situation for Israel's national interests than it is ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely.

[ QUOTE ]
That fact and the current weakness of our government wrt foreign policy especially in the mideast, leads me to believe that it's gonna be isreal that carries the burden of actually doing something on this one. but who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Israel might well have to do something, but Israeli capabilities for airstikes in Iran are somewhat limited, due to their planes, bases/fueling matters, and the long distances involved.



[ QUOTE ]
anybody who doesn't realize how terrible it is for Iran to have these weapons, given the tension in the region, their ambitions re: israel/palestine, and the instability of the iranian government is seriously misguided. It isn't necessarily the ayatollahs acting on behest of Iran that is the biggest concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Every nation has the rightto develop their technology in any way they see fit. It is not the job of the Israelis to decide if Iran should or should not have a certain technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and you have the right to step into traffic too, but it's not very wise. Same thing for Iran developing nuclear weapons, because there will be consequences the opposite of what those weapons are supposed to provide.

Plus the whole key here is that they are the ones making statements about wiping out Israel, not the other way around. So that forfeits any moral rights they might have to develop such weapons.

And all you type of lib apologizers for the politically correct view that "all nations have the right to do this and that and not just the superpowers", would be the same ones crying about the threat of nuclear weapons if we were still in cold war mode vis a vis Russia, and how we need to reduce our weapons stockpiles like we have. But now it's perfectly correct for every piss-ant small nation to have nukes cause "it's their right!".

Re: Iran
 

Work to establish bilateral trade between Iran and the US. Drop idiotic rhetoric like "axis of evil". Establish normal relations with Iran --- I would love to go visit Iran for a month or two.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree: I don't think totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have that right

[/ QUOTE ].



Tough. It ain't rocket science anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Superleeds: do YOU think that totalitarian, tyrannical governments should have the right to possess doomsday weapons? Weatherman seemed to think that such regimes have as much right as any other country to have them. Do you agree with him?

Re: Iran
 

The country that "controls" the right for another to do anything (including producing nukes) is the totalitarian regime.

There is no "right" to own these weapons. There is a right to self defense. Iran rightly fears for its survival (from Israel for the wrong reasons from US because of our rhetoric). We must remove the reaoson to fear for it to fear for its survival.

A MAD policy between Iran and Israel suits us (and me) just fine. A one sided balance of power in the middle east is detrimental to the US.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
The country that "controls" the right for another to do anything (including producing nukes) is the totalitarian regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Totalitarianism is a style and measure of internal governance, not the specifics of international matters. Iran is a totalitarian regime and the US is not, REGARDLESS of which may dictate to the other side which weapons can be held.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "right" to own these weapons. There is a right to self defense. Iran rightly fears for its survival (from Israel for the wrong reasons from US because of our rhetoric). We must remove the reaoson to fear for it to fear for its survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACPlayer, you are now deliberately trolling, as you positively KNOW Iran has nothing to fear from Israel (provided Iran is not aggressive or overly threatening towards Israel). The converse, however, is dubious at best, especially in light of Iran's recent highly threatening rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
A MAD policy between Iran and Israel suits us (and me) just fine. A one sided balance of power in the middle east is detrimental to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

One-sided power is by far the best way if the democratic, constitutionally protected side holds the trump cards and the despotic regimes hold the 7-2 offsuit. The good guys "should" have the power, and the totalitarian despots little or none. OBVIOUSLY.

Also, the more power the U.S. and Israel have in the Middle East, and the less power the totalitarian and religio-fascist regimes hold, the better. Moreover, the more power we hold, and the less power our enemies hold, the better.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
ACPlayer, you are now deliberately trolling, as you positively KNOW Iran has nothing to fear from Israel (provided Iran is not aggressive or overly threatening towards Israel).

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think this is trolling. Iran has a very definite fear of Israel, specially when viewing the recent activities in Iraq. The Israel puppet -- America -- invades Iraq in support of the Israeli position (this is the one interpretation of how Iran sees Israel and America -- not an unreasonable one from their point of view). It further notes that America continues to make noises for the past five years about regime change in Iran -- of course the Mullahs see the hand of Israel in these policies.

If you look at this as the head of state for Iran (whether that head of state is totalitarian or not is irrelevant) you see Israel as a definte threat. Remember in poker you have to consider what the other guy thinks of your hand and not what you know about your hand.

The muslim world in the middle east (specially) views America as a puppet mindlessly supporting the expansionist Israel policy and willing to use its military power to support that expansion.

This is as it is -- not trolling.

[ QUOTE ]
One-sided power is by far the best way if the democratic, constitutionally protected side holds the trump cards and the despotic regimes hold the 7-2 offsuit. The good guys "should" have the power, and the totalitarian despots little or none. OBVIOUSLY.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. We should not care what Israel holds and what Iran holds. We should care how Israel and Iran view us and manipulate our image so that both parties have a vested interest in solid relations with us. As you know, I give a rats ass, whether the government is totalitarian or not. I believe we should establish relations and work within the context of bilateral trade to "liberate" the people.

As you pointed out ina previous threat Hezbollah can be a threat to us IF WE THREATEN THEM. Iran can be a threat to us if WE CONTINUE TO THREATEN THEM. There is no need to do either.

Nixon went to China, a blatantly totalitarian regime and now we enjoy fine (and some useless trinkets) products made in china at low cost -- while the chinese government continue to oppress some of their people. This is the type of relationship that works.